Not exactly:

> If approved, the restrictions would only apply to cigarettes—not e-cigarettes, cigars or chewing tobacco.

Just cigarettes. Oddly, cigars are excepted. Probably just get a lot of oddly thin and long cigar sales.

When clove cigarettes were banned, clove cigarillos became quite popular. Ironically, they're probably even less healthy than the cigarettes were.

I'm curious if the ban may have to do more with littering and pollution as opposed to simply the health issues.

I think if that were the case they'd be pushing for bio-degradable butts and also coming up with some solution to throw-away vape cartridges like Juul pods which I see on the ground outside every gas station.

It's already there, because of taxes, but yeah, it would just get bigger.

Probably? But then what's the alternative (assuming you agree with the decision to start with).

People are always going to murder, evade taxes, do illegal drugs. The fact that some people won't follow laws isn't a reason not to implement them.

I'm guessing that due to geography, Hawaii has the most chance in the US of making this work though.

Assuming you agree with the decision to start with, aren't you de facto say all those other things don't matter relative to your decision? I think you may of meant something a bit different: perhaps, that if you believe that government has a role in dictating certain health related choices, then what options do you have to achieve that other than something like this?

If so, then you're just debating implementation details which I think is less important and less interesting than the real discussion about what personal autonomy, and personal responsibility, you should have to live your life as you see fit.

Yes that what I meant.

I was intending it as an rhetorical question.

Agreed personal autonomy, and personal responsibility are the interesting questions, not really where the comment I was responding was leading though.

The proposed bill doesn't ban tobacco, just cigarettes in particular. Oddly, cigars are not banned.

I don't know if it's the reason, but USPS at https://www.usps.com/ship/shipping-restrictions.htm (expand 'Cigarettes & Tobacco') says "Most cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products may not be mailed domestically" while "Cigars may be mailed domestically."

Ban cigar sales and many people will get deliveries by domestic mail. That doesn't hold for cigarettes.

That's an interesting point, thanks for raising it.

> Ban cigar sales and many people will get deliveries by domestic mail. That doesn't hold for cigarettes.

I bet you're right for people who currently seek out cigars (more or less). But I suspect there will be some substitution effect of cigars for cigarettes, if a bill like this is passed, and cigars can still be sold locally. I expect the effect would be smaller in magnitude if cigars could only be purchased from mainland sellers and shipped via USPS. But I am just speculating.

I’m guessing the percentage of people smoking cigars, and those who get started smoking via cigars, is pretty small.

I agree, but unless it's some protected classification, what prevents Philip Morris from slapping some cigar branding on the packaging for cigarettes in Hawaii?