The Stogie Guys

As the 2008 Presidential election gears up, some candidates are weighing in on an issue that could affect cigar smokers in a big way: a national smoking ban.

Leading Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, along with a majority of their Democratic peers, have already pledged to sign a national smoking ban for “public places” (by which they mean any space where the public is welcome, even if it is actually owned by a private citizen). Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, known for increasing tobacco taxes as governor of Arkansas, has also pledged to sign and push for a national ban.

But other than Huckabee, we haven’t seen much from the Republican candidates about smoking bans. It isn’t hard to imagine that Congressman Ron Paul – known as “Dr. No” for his votes against any federal law not explicitly authorized by the Constitution – is a strong opponent of smoking bans.

Talk on this important issue has been lacking so far in the campaign, but we’re hoping that changes tomorrow night at the CNN/YouTube debate where questions are submitted by anyone with a webcam.

Ultimately, while I’d like to see more in-depth talk about these senseless bans, the following question, submitted by a YouTuber from Minnesota, would be a good start:

–Patrick S

StogieGuys.com will be taking tomorrow off to enjoy that most American of holidays: Thanksgiving. (We will return Friday for your regularly scheduled Friday Sampler.) Known for an abundance of great food, Thanksgiving is a perfect time to enjoy great cigars with gathered friends and family.

To help you decide what cigar to enjoy on Thanksgiving, each member of the Stogie Guys staff has selected one cigar we’ve reviewed in the last year that would go great after your Thanksgiving meal:

Patrick A: This may come as a bit of a surprise, but I’m picking the criollo-wrapped Don Kiki Brown Label Toro as my Thanksgiving cigar of choice. With spicy notes of clove and graham, and I think this Cuban Crafters boutique blend will pair well with a cup of coffee and a slice of pumpkin pie after a huge meal. Best of all, its amazing sub-$2 price won’t put a dent in your holiday budget.

Patrick S: On this particular day, a Cuban cigar just wouldn’t be appropriate. So, for my post-Turkey smoke, I’ll be turning to a great made-in-America cigar, the Tatuaje Reserva SW. It is just strong enough not to be overwhelmed by the preceding dinner and, at the same time, smooth enough to help digest what was likely way too much food. Its complex, balanced flavors will pair perfectly with a nice vintage port, and its seven inch size forces you to sit back, relax, and reflect on all the things to be thankful for.

George E: For a Thanksgiving Day smoke, I think you need one powerful enough to cut through the tryptophan, blast past the pumpkin pie, and complement that extra cup of coffee. And, for good measure, it probably should get you through at least the first half of the first game. My recommendation is the Camacho Corojo Churchill. The 7 inch by 48 ring gauge cigar is a satisfying combination of power and complexity. Grab a couple because when that fine aroma wafts through the air, I guarantee someone will ask if you have another.

–The Stogie Guys

photo credit: flickr

Like you, I find my inbox constantly hit with offers from online cigar shops. The inflated claims and hyped-up pitches are often laughable. Sometimes, though, one stands out. So, if you hit the delete key automatically a few weeks ago, you may have missed an extraordinary offer from Holt’s for a bundle of “Bottom Shelf” cigars.

At $8 for 25 — that’s $6 off the MSRP — the ad notes right off that Bottom Shelf cigars “aren’t very good.” But they proclaim proudly that they’re perfect for times when you want a cigar but won’t be able to fully appreciate it. According to the ad, “they truly offer nothing that takes time to appreciate.”

Should we try a group buy before they’re all gone?

–George E

photo credit: Holts

Awhile back I was going through my cigars and began to notice that I had a few I’m unlikely ever to smoke. Some are brands I’ve tried and didn’t enjoy, others are flavored sticks I’ve collected at various giveaways, and there are a few that for one reason or another just don’t have any appeal.

Why am I keeping them? Mostly it’s just because they’re there. Wouldn’t it be better to give them to someone who might enjoy them? I remembered reading the other day that the two most requested items from U.S troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are Starbucks coffee and cigars.

And I thought of references I’ve run across about programs that send cigars to service men and women overseas. You can find quite a few on the web and many local shops have them as well. After a little checking, I decided to go through Cigarista, a B&M in Redington Shores, Florida, about 25 miles from my home.

I drove them down to owner Mike Smith the other day, the first time I’ve been there since he opened a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to stay and have a smoke. But that’s a great reason to go back. It’s a friendly-looking shop and looked to have a fine selection.

My guess is that lots of you also have cigars you could donate. Heck, you could toss in a couple of gems, too. I cannot imagine that every cigar won’t be met with appreciation.

This has nothing to do with support or opposition to the Iraq war or any government policy or anything else. It’s simply a way to provide a small bit of pleasure for men and women doing a tough job who are not able to stroll into a nice shop and spend time in the humidor picking out their smokes.

With yesterday being Veterans day (and many people having today off work in recognition of Veterans Day), what better time to show our appreciation of the troops?

–George E

Tags: cigars

A few weeks ago I was reading a story in the New York Times about the difficulty smokers face trying to light up at airports, not unlike what Patrick A experienced this summer in Charlotte. Near the end I came across this quote from Matthew McKenna, director of the Center for Disease Control’s office on smoking and health: “There’s no level of secondhand smoke exposure that can be declared to be safe.”

Now, like you, I had seen similar statements before. This time, though, I started wondering exactly what it meant. I seem to recall from covering the anthrax attack on Capitol Hill, dirty bomb scares, and other terrorism-related reporting that the government had established acceptable levels of exposure for all sorts of deadly substances. Could secondhand smoke be any worse?

I thought, of course, about the seemingly ubiquitous presence of lead paint on children’s toys. The government permits 600 parts per million. According to the New York Times’ David Leonhardt, studies have shown that at that level it can lower a child’s IQ by five points; the American Academy of Pediatrics wants a standard of 40 parts per million. And Leonhardt quoted a university psychologist that “no one has ever found any evidence of a threshold below which lead has no effect.”

Sounds pretty similar, doesn’t it? I’m glad the government took immediate action at the first instance of thousands of lead-tainted toys coming to U.S. store shelves from China. At least we never have to worry about that again. Oh, wait, I guess maybe that didn’t happen…

I found the good doctor’s email address on the CDC’s site and wrote to him. I asked whether there were any other elements or substances that “the government has declared to have no safe level of exposure?”

I was pleased to receive a reply, but disappointed to see that Dr. McKenna had passed my inquiry off to a flack. He repeated information from a 2006 report on the dangers of secondhand smoke but completely dodged my question. I tried again.

This time he said it wasn’t possible to compare secondhand smoke to other substances or elements. OK, I don’t really buy that, but I kept my mule plowing ahead. I refined my question, now asking whether secondhand smoke was “the only smoke for which the government position is that there is no level of exposure that can be declared safe?” I pointed out that I had read EPA estimates that a fireplace burning ten pounds of wood in an hour would generate 4,300 times more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons than 30 cigarettes.

Maybe you’re old enough to remember when people used to burn logs in their fireplaces at home. I’m glad the government finally moved to eliminate that widespread cancer-causing activity. Oh, wait, I guess…

The CDC reply this time more or less blew me off and referred me to the EPA.

Getting Closer to an Answer

That’s where I went. I asked again whether secondhand smoke was the only smoke for which the government position is that there is no level of safe exposure.

Guess what? I got a very reasoned, thorough reply from someone in the EPA’s Health and Environmental Impacts Division. He pointed out a couple of things, including the fact that the EPA doesn’t really have anything to do with tobacco smoke, since it doesn’t have an industrial source.

He also noted that he wasn’t sure what Dr. McKenna meant, though it was true that “no level of secondhand smoke exposure could be considered ‘risk-free,’ or correspond to ‘zero risk’…because it is considered to be a ‘linear carcinogen,’ meaning that each incremental breath of exposure adds to one’s lifetime risk of contracting cancer…”

But he added that if a non-smoker who lives in a virtually smoke-free environment were “to increase their exposure to secondhand smoke by, say, spending an hour or a day or even a week in the home of a smoker breathing their secondhand smoke, this would not likely result in any significant increase in their lifetime probability of contracting cancer. It would definitely increase their risk (above zero), but it would probably not increase it enough that the EPA would consider it ‘unsafe’ by our usual interpretation.”

He also patiently explained that the EPA regulates 187 different hazardous air pollutants, “many of which are considered to be ‘linear carcinogens’” like secondhand smoke. To do that, he explained, the agency assesses the increased cancer risk for those who breathe the emissions.

When they “are exposed to increased cancer risks less than 1 in a million, EPA considers those to be negligible and will not pursue any further regulation…” He also pointed out that “‘negligible risk’ does not equal ‘zero risk’…”

The Bottom Line

So, while I still don’t have an answer to my original question, I do have a little more insight into the statement that started all this and the context in which it is presented: The fact that the risk is not zero means there is risk. If there is risk, then it is accurate to say that there is no safe level of exposure.

We just won’t mention the fact that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of other elements, substances, smokes, etc., about which the same can be said. In fact, for many of them, we’ll even set a government standard for exposure, despite the likelihood that it will mislead at least some people into believing exposure at that level is “safe” or “zero risk” when that isn’t at all true.

Sounds a little like a smokescreen, doesn’t it?

–George E

Tags: cigars

When I tell people that I’m both a runner and a cigar enthusiast, I get some strange looks. Perhaps that isn’t too surprising, especially given the general public’s flawed perception that stogies are horribly dangerous and debilitating.

Activities people usually associate with cigars include drinking, golf, womanizing, pool, and other leisurely endeavors – certainly not running. But on Sunday, five years of novice running and four months of serious training paid off when I achieved my ultimate goal: completing Washington’s Marine Corps Marathon.

As you could imagine, I’m still really pumped (and still really sore). I wanted to share the following photos with you not in a prideful display of boasting, but rather as proof that cigar enthusiasts are completely capable of tackling one of the greatest challenges in athletics.

Just a few minutes before the starting gun, I’ve got my game face on at Runner’s Village by the Pentagon. It’s Eye of the Tiger time.

A terrific cheering section, composed of my parents and my girlfriend, helps me crack a smile circa mile 13. Only another 13.2 miles to go.

Exhausted and exhilarated, I look forward to lighting up a celebratory Punch Champion.

I would be remiss if I didn’t use this opportunity to thank everyone who helped make this accomplishment possible. That list includes my parents, who flew in from Chicago; my girlfriend, who helped me take everything in stride; and several friends and family members, who sent along sports drinks, power bars, and their best wishes.

–Patrick A

Tags: cigars

The cigar industry, from field to shop, turns out a great product. But, I’m sorry, that’s about it. As Congress began Thursday to debate a new version of the SCHIP bill that appears to contain the same tax proposals for cigars as did the earlier legislation, I was distraught. But after the industry’s display earlier, I wasn’t surprised.

I wrote an earlier piece suggesting where mistakes had been made and how the industry could do better. The drumbeat of blundering continued, though.

Let me just highlight a few examples: Attacking a program that polls show again and again is supported by a majority of Americans; and denouncing SCHIP as a Democratic socialized medicine ploy when its biggest supporters include such GOP conservatives as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch.

Then, today, I read about how online poker players are lobbying hard on Capitol Hill to get the restrictions on their game repealed. I don’t know if they’ll succeed. But from what I read they’re approaching the issue logically, sanely, and have enlisted strong congressional support.

I hope they’ll be able to afford a cigar to enjoy while they’re sitting in front of the computer trying to make that inside straight.

As for me, I’m crying “Uncle.” Though I firmly believe that the large tax increase proposed for cigars is unfair and counterproductive, I also fear it is now inevitable. Lousy performance has a price, and in this case I’m afraid smokers will be paying the bill for the industry’s ineptitude.

–George E

Tags: cigars