Cigar bands - on or off?

[Costi]

Gentlemen,

I wrote that alcohol is similar to drugs in the personal and social consequences of its consumption (which NJS perfectly explained in his latest post), yet alcohol is legal because it is not addictive or harmful if consumed with moderation and it can even be beneficial to health in small quantities. The same cannot be said about tobacco.
Tobacco, much like drugs, can never be beneficial to health and is always harmful and addictive. It is nicotine that creates the addiction, not the filter. Smoking affects the brain quite directly by depriving it of oxygen as red blood cells bond irreversibly with carbon monoxide and are unable to carry oxygen to the brain. Besides, chemical compounds present in tobacco also affect the brain in other ways, which is a medically proven fact whose arguments can be found in hundreds of volumes if anyone is interested.
Regardless, I think that smoking should not be prohibited (but I agree with the smoking in public ban), because we must remain free to choose.

[storeynicholas]

Gentlemen,

I wrote that alcohol is similar to drugs in the personal and social consequences of its consumption (which NJS perfectly explained in his latest post), yet alcohol is legal because it is not addictive or harmful if consumed with moderation and it can even be beneficial to health in small quantities. The same cannot be said about tobacco.
Tobacco, much like drugs, can never be beneficial to health and is always harmful and addictive. It is nicotine that creates the addiction, not the filter. Smoking affects the brain quite directly by depriving it of oxygen as red blood cells bond irreversibly with carbon monoxide and are unable to carry oxygen to the brain. Besides, chemical compounds present in tobacco also affect the brain in other ways, which is a medically proven fact whose arguments can be found in hundreds of volumes if anyone is interested.
Regardless, I think that smoking should not be prohibited (but I agree with the smoking in public ban), because we must remain free to choose.

But alcohol is not always consumed with moderation. I have direct experience of several alcoholics. The first died at 36 of the pneumonia to which alcoholics are susceptible. On one occasion he had had to be disarmed of a shotgun with which he was threatening to blow away his perceived enemies. The second drank so much vodka in one go that she stopped breathing and died at 43 and the other two suffered from alcohol-induced dementia and the first spent and the second is spending most of their lives in the nut house. It might well be that all of these people suffered from mental illness which predisposed them to alcoholism. A fifth is (so far as I know) still alive - if you call it living - but his habit was to drink gin at work when other people were drinking coffee but he mixed it with grapefruit juice - as this, he felt, made it an acceptable elevensies' drink and included health-promoting vitamin C. Later, to sober up, he would drink vast quantities of black coffee. The last time that I saw him (and he is about 10 years younger than I am, his hair had turned grey, his teeth were black and rotten and he was hobbling around on a walking stick. These are real people known to me whose lives were wrecked or ended early because of the grip that alcohol took on them. Two of these people had university degrees and one of them had a First in Greats from Oxford. Consider their families too. Now, please match that with some examples of the horrors of smoking. The pictures of smokers' lungs to which we are subjected in health warnings are the lungs of people who appear to devote their lives to smoking - why should the rest of us be warned by the conduct of such a mug?. You say, also, that tobacco is only harmful and can have no beneficial effects. It is actually widely accepted that a happy, unstressed existence promotes health. If relaxing with tobacco (preferably a good pipe) assists in the promotion of relaxation then it directly promotes health. Moreover, my wife is susceptible to catching cold and, at the first sneeze, she takes a couple of pinches of snuff (Fribourg & Treyer's macouba) and has a glass of hot toddy - and it's gone. Maybe it isn't a real cold; maybe it's a trick of the mind - but it works and no, we will never agree on this as we are entrenched.
NJS

[Costi]

Dear NJS,

I have a few friends who could tell you similar grim stories on the effects (and especially chain effects) of smoking on their health and, consequently, on their life and conclusion thereof – if only they could speak from the grave. Alcohol abuse certainly has more devastating (and impressive) effects than tobacco abuse – I never challenged that – but that simply doesn’t make smoking any better in itself.
You need not convince me of the pleasures and relaxation tobacco brings – I have been a heavy smoker for more than 10 years. Oh, how great to light up a cigarette with a cup of hot coffee in front of you first thing in the morning. Oh, how I couldn’t wait for any meal to finish so I could light up my cigarette. If there was enough time between courses at a restaurant, I would squeeze half a cigarette between them, too. Then I remember the cold sweat, chills and ultimately nervous trembling I got when I had to refrain from smoking during long flights. Yet even while I was a smoker, I had no doubts that tobacco, even in small quantities, was detrimental to my health. The best proof that it was true was the incredible relief and change after I quit. And I was also kind of aware that smoke was annoying to some of those around me, but I would think and say “take me as I am”.
As for parents smoking in the presence of their young children, please allow me to call them irresponsible. Just as irresponsible as a friend of mine I visited a few days ago, 6 months pregnant, who smokes “only” 5 cigarettes a day as a concession to her future son (she is 38 or so, intelligent, of excellent social extraction and with top education and social standing). I agree with you that, if a law is necessary to prevent parents from smoking in the presence of their young children, then the situation really is crytical.
I hate being taken for a moralist and I would not presume to preach abstinence to anyone or advocate quitting. I strongly believe everyone should do with their lives as they please. But ONLY with THEIR OWN lives!
Nobody can convince me of any benefits of smoking. I only think it is reasonble that the smoker:
(1) does not try to advocate the harmlesness of tobacco as an “argument” in favour of smoking. One doesn’t smoke because it’s good, not even because it doesn’t do harm - one smokes because ONE WANTS TO;
(2) avoid imposing one’s smoke on others; they mustn’t bear the consequences of the fact that YOU WANT TO SMOKE.
Since smoking is mostly a social activity (most smoke more when in company), no. (2) is a bit more difficult. What do you do at a private party at home? Do you politely permit smokers to light their cigarettes, cigars and pipes, with the risk that some guests will probably leave after half an hour, unable to bear the smoke? Or do you politely suggest that they refrain from smoking because it is fastidious to other guests? Or do you (im)politely confine smoking to the balcony, kitchen or patio therefore creating separate groups? How do you reconcile good manners, the smoker’s right to smoke and and non smoker’s right to breathe clean air while they are both your guests?
To give this thread a chance to return to its original quest, I thought I’d start a new one, entitled Smoking manners”“. I look forward to everyone’s contributions there – especially smokers!

[storeynicholas]

Dear Costi,
Good idea for a new thread. I shall be along shortly! From your description of smoking in the morning, the shakes etc. you obviously were seriously addicted and a heavy smoker. Maybe, part of our difference of perspective derives from a difference in approach to smoking. I guess that you had a stark choice between continuing to smoke at a hazardous pace or stopping altogether and sensibly chose to give it up. I don't mean to sound smug, but I smoke cigarettes, cigars and pipe when I choose but I never smoke in the morning and seldom in the afternoon (as I have explained elsewhere) and can 'take it or leave it' and my ife is the same. Often one of us ill say 'shall we have some time off smoking?' Moreover, there are 31 stairs in this house, which I run up and down probably 12 times a day - plus there is all the fresh air, so our circumstances explain our difference of view on this, which is just about the only difference that I notice between us in this place. My real concern is not smoking in public it is the presumptuousness of our lawmakers (who aren't always quite so bright and beautiful in their lives) sticking their noses into matters which should be regulated by custom and courtesy. If that is lacking in society then that failure should be addressed through education, not through the criminal law.
best,
Nicholas.

[Costi]

My real concern is not smoking in public it is the presumptuousness of our lawmakers (who aren't always quite so bright and beautiful in their lives) sticking their noses into matters which should be regulated by custom and courtesy. If that is lacking in society then that failure should be addressed through education, not through the criminal law.
best,
Nicholas.

Dear Nicholas,

If our lawmakers had to be bright and beautiful in their ownn lives to make laws, we would have no parliaments. And no church, either, I fear...
You may well be right that, but what do you do when you see that society does not recover? We shouldn't steal, either, and yet some continue to... Can we let education deal with that, too?...

[storeynicholas]

My real concern is not smoking in public it is the presumptuousness of our lawmakers (who aren't always quite so bright and beautiful in their lives) sticking their noses into matters which should be regulated by custom and courtesy. If that is lacking in society then that failure should be addressed through education, not through the criminal law.
best,
Nicholas.

Dear Nicholas,

If our lawmakers had to be bright and beautiful in their ownn lives to make laws, we would have no parliaments. And no church, either, I fear...
You may well be right that, but what do you do when you see that society does not recover? We shouldn't steal, either, and yet some continue to... Can we let education deal with that, too?...

Dear Costi,
Maybe it is the realization that society isn't going to recover that makes me maddest of all - it was let slip and now it's all down to regulation. However, most societies regard stealing as profoundly immoral and illegal and therefore subject to sanctions of the criminal law - but smoking is not in itself at all immoral and making it illegal is disproportionate. Anyway, I think that we each understand and respect the other's view and the gap beteen us has lessened. I certainly look forward to other members' reactions to your new thread.
best,
Nicholas.

[Atlantic Sailor]

Do smoking members keep their cigar bands on or take them off? Which practice do members believe is smarter - or does it really matter at all?

I believe you'll find that, very much like Marcelo speculated, the bands were designed to keep the smoker's hand from being stained by nicotine. Specifically, the smoker's white gloves.

Of course, if you smoking after dinner or in the privacy of your own billiards room then you are not wearing gloves. So, the band is extraneous. Hence your cabinet selection cigars and others that you would not likely be smoking in public come unbanded.

My preference, for all occasions where white gloves are not concerned, is smoke my cigars without the band. There are far too many pretentious types out there smoking with the band on (especially common among the Opus X set), with whom I do not wish to be associated

[shredder]

Do smoking members keep their cigar bands on or take them off? Which practice do members believe is smarter - or does it really matter at all?

I believe you'll find that, very much like Marcelo speculated, the bands were designed to keep the smoker's hand from being stained by nicotine. Specifically, the smoker's white gloves.

Of course, if you smoking after dinner or in the privacy of your own billiards room then you are not wearing gloves. So, the band is extraneous. Hence your cabinet selection cigars and others that you would not likely be smoking in public come unbanded.

My preference, for all occasions where white gloves are not concerned, is smoke my cigars without the band. There are far too many pretentious types out there smoking with the band on (especially common among the Opus X set), with whom I do not wish to be associated

Interesting point about the gloves, AC. I agree with the rest of your post and do take mine off. I actually find the band a bit distracting for some reason.

I also share NJS's views on the Nanny State. Dreadful. Self righteousness and earnestness used to be sins in England but it appears that influence from abroad have transformed them to virtues. It is unfortunate that it appears to be creeping eastwards across the Channel to our shores...

[shredder]

I believe you'll find that, very much like Marcelo speculated, the bands were designed to keep the smoker's hand from being stained by nicotine. Specifically, the smoker's white gloves.

Here is one view expressed in 1954 by one chap on the band:

The significance of this has often caused controversy. Early cigar manufacturers burnt their names and that of the brand on to the lids of their boxes; this practice, however, allowed the unscrupulous to make use of such boxes for the sale of inferior cigars. Individual cigars were therefore marked with a small label or star of coloured paper that was pasted on to each, but it was found that if these were burnt in smoking the taste of the cigar was spoilt, or if the label was torn off, the 'wrapper' was often torn as well. This therefore led to the paper ring or 'band' which, with care, can be removed easily without spoiling the cigar. -- Alfred H Dunhill

[storeynicholas]

According to Simon Chase of Hunters & Frankau, the first fancy paper dressings for the boxes (habilitaciones) were probably introduced by Ramon Allones in about 1845 and the cigar bands (anillas) were introduced in 1860, as further branding and (I suppose) security. These days, especially with legitimate duplication of brands such as Romeo y Julieta (in Havana and the Dominican Republic), there are security seals on the boxes that provide assurance of origin and provenance.

I have to say that I find that bands on good cigars are never very easy to remove and that there is a real risk of damaging the cigar.
NJS

[dopey]

. . .
I have to say that I find that bands on good cigars are never very easy to remove and that there is a real risk of damaging the cigar.
NJS

NJS: I generally wait until I have smoked the cigar a bit before trying to remove the band. The heat generated by the smoke seems to loosen the glue (I may have written this before, maybe even in the beginning of this thread, but neither of us should have to start over reading at the beginning). As an aside, while I still enjoy a cigar, I find myself preferring a pipe.

[shredder]

I have tried AHD's tip, which is to give the banded area a roll between one's thumb and index finger. It loosens up the band without affecting the wrapper and makes it much easier to peel off, even the more robust bands like that of Bolivar's. One of those simple tips that makes one think, why didn't I think of that?
s

[storeynicholas]

Shredder - a bit like rolling an orange before peeling it?
I'll have to try this.
NJS

[shredder]

NJS, yes, exactly. Too obvious in hindsight...
s

[storeynicholas]

NJS, yes, exactly. Too obvious in hindsight...
s

Well, it is as a good a time as any to test this out!
NJS -ooo000OOO