Cigars, Cigar Information and where to find Premium Cigars, Discounted Cigars and even Cheap Cigars

FIRED UP OVER THE NEW ZIPPO BLU

Plus: a parrott serves in the Pennsylvania Senate

Los Angeles, June 28 – When you think of Zippo, you think of the endlessly dependable, liquid-fueled lighter – and its lifetime guarantee – introduced in 1932.

Because of the liquid fuel and the odors that accompany it, Zippos have not been the lighter of choice for cigar lovers, who prefer the odorless flame produced by butane gas. But that is about to change.

The Zippo Blu, a new lighter which uses butane and produces a single, torch-style flame, has been introduced in Europe and will debut in the U.S. in late August or early September, depending on where you are in the country.

We got our hands on one ahead of time and had a chance to put it through its paces. It’s an exciting new product:

• The Zippo Blu is a bit bigger than the standard Zippo: just short of 2 3/4 inches high compared to 2 1/8 inches for the standard model. The width is about the same although the standard style is a simple rectangle while the Blu is more rounded. Both fit easily in the hand and the heft of the Blu lets you know this is a serious product as soon as you handle it.

• Once you pop open the top – the Blu gives you the same familiar click as the standard model – the operation of the lighter is about the same. Zippo created an entirely new ignition mechanism for its butane torch, disregarding the piezo electronic system used in almost all torches.

Like the classic model, it uses a textured wheel that runs against a flint to create a spark. Unlike the fluid model, however, with the same motion of the thumb that turns the wheel, the depression of the feeder valve sends butane into the lighting chamber and brings the torch to life. The torch will stay lit for as long as you keep the fuel feeder depressed. The light blue, pinpointed flame is what gives the lighter its name.

• The Zippo Blu can easily be used with one hand and it’s easy to maneuver to deliver the flame where you need it to light even quite large cigars without much difficulty.

• The refill nozzle is on the bottom as with most lighters and there’s an easy-to-use fuel level window on the right side of the lighter.

And, best of all for those who have experienced torches which flunk out after a tank or two, the Zippo Blu – like the original – comes with a lifetime guarantee!

The Blu is reportedly expected to start at about $39.95 at retail upon introduction in the U.S. The model we used had an elegant, brushed silver case, but European web sites are showing a dozen designs in black, chrome, silver and gold finishes! Prices ranged from €65 (about $87.50) to €295 in 24-karat gold (about $397.00).

The only disadvantage we can report is that the user will eventually have to replace the flint, in addition to refueling. But this is easy to do on the standard Zippo and should not be much harder on the Blu. The same flint used on the standard model will work on the Blu. Zippo sold a butane lighter in the 1980s called Contempo, which was made for it in Japan. With the torch-flame Blu model, the company has fully updated its line to satisfy cigar smokers and the Blu will undoubtedly be a popular addition to the company’s roster as soon as smokers can get their hands on them. Overall grade: A: Exceptional.

A parrott in Pennsylvania:
The Pennsylvania State Senate passed a smoking ban bill by a 33-17 margin after a long debate about a series of exemptions which eventually included – among others – bars where 20 percent or less of the revenue comes from food, cigar bars, private clubs and portions of casinos.

The House may consider a separate bill and Governor Ed Rendell said he would veto the Senate bill because of an exemption for smoking in small, home-based child-care facilities. However, the state bill would also eliminate all local smoking measures, including a fairly strict ordinance in Philadelphia.

The State Senator who introduced the bill, Stewart Greenleaf (R-Montgomery), was angry about the list of exemptions which passes by a 29-21 count on Monday evening.

“I am torn because of all these exceptions, which will expose thousands of people to secondhand smoke," he said. "No one challenged the medical or scientific evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke is dangerous. There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.”

Senator Greenleaf is parroting the comments of former Surgeon General Richard Carmona, who last year stated flatly that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke.

Assuming that both Carmona and Greenleaf can indeed read, they undoubtedly have not read the opinion of U.S. District Court Judge William Osteen in Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. vs. EPA, 4 F. Supp 2d 435 (M.D.N.C., 1999) in which he considered the plaintiff’s argument that the EPA did not prove in its famous 1993 treatise that secondhand smoke met its own standards for declaration as a Class A carcinogen:

“The court is faced with the ugly possibility that EPA adopted a methodology for each chapter, without explanation, based on the outcome sought in that chapter. This possibility is most potent where EPA rejected [mainstream smoke-environmental tobacco smoke] similarities to avoid a ‘cigarette-equivalents’ analysis in determining carcinogenicity of [environmental tobacco smoke] exposure. Use of cigarette-equivalents analysis may have lead to a conclusion that [environmental tobacco smoke] is not a Class A carcinogen. It is striking that [mainstream smoke] and [environmental tobacco smoke] were similar only where such a conclusion promoted finding [environmental tobacco smoke] a carcinogen.”

Osteen’s judgement in the case was vacated later by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on a jurisdictional basis only and the Circuit Court was careful not to discuss Osteen’s analysis of the merits of the case. Osteen’s opinion stands as the only comprehensive judicial review of the EPA’s declaration of secondhand smoke as a carcinogen, and the EPA’s finding is literally the base on which nearly all of the nation’s smoking bans are founded.

Did Greenleaf and Carmona fail to inform themselves of Osteen’s written opinion in this critical case? Or more likely, did they – and especially Carmona – simply ignore it to continue to promote their own public health agenda?
~ Rich Perelman

Bookmark

Email This

Comments (0) add comment