Discount cigarettes online blog

LONDON -- Starting July 1, the Netherlands will banish tobacco smoke from restaurants and all other public places. But in a bizarre twist, patrons of certain coffee shops where marijuana is sold over the counter can still light up their cannabis joints.

Possessing the weed is illegal in the Netherlands, but smoking it is tolerated.

Owners say the tobacco ban -- an increasingly widespread trend in Europe -- could be a threat to the specially licensed coffee houses, because patrons traditionally prefer their cannabis joints mixed with tobacco.

"As this is a ban on tobacco smoke, most coffee shops will allow customers to smoke pure weed, but not tobacco, and this will be potentially really difficult to regulate," said Lorna Clay, manager of the Cannabis College in Amsterdam, a nonprofit organization that distributes information about cannabis usage.

"Will the staff have to watch people make their joints to be sure no tobacco has been used?" Clay said some of Amsterdam's 226 coffee shops have invested in new kinds of pipes and vaporizers to encourage pure cannabis use.

But she said other coffee house owners have no intention of stopping customers from smoking mixed joints.

These owners argue that the city's renowned coffee shops are one of the main reasons many tourists visit.

The new law comes on the heels of another change in what's thought to be a major Dutch tourist draw -- legalized prostitution.

The sex trade is regulated and is mostly confined to red-light districts.

City officials announced last year that they would tighten rules in an effort to stop money laundering and trafficking in women.

Officials began shutting the famous brothels that display lingerie-clad women in shopfront windows, and there are 400 window brothels now, down from 478 in '07.

The Office of Fair Trading says there are four different methods which tobacco manufacturers and retailers have used to fix the price of cigarettes.

In the case of a retailer selling two competing brands of cigarette, for example, Brand X (produced by manufacturer A) and Brand Y (produced by a different manufacturer B), the provision was that:

The retailer should sell Brand X at the same price as Brand Y (parity requirement)

This does not fix the actual price at which either brand is sold but, for example, (1) it prevents the retailer from selling Brand X at a more competitive price than Brand Y; and (2) if the retailer wishes to change the retail price of Brand Y it must also change the retail price of Brand X by the same amount.

The retailer should sell Brand X at 3p above Brand Y (differential requirement)

This does not fix the actual price at which either brand is sold but, for example, (1) it prevents the retailer from selling Brand X at a more competitive price than Brand Y; and (2) if the retailer wishes to change the retail price of Brand Y it must also change the retail price of Brand X such that Brand X is 3p more expensive than Brand Y.

The retailer should price Brand X at ?3.59 (fixed price requirement)

In this example the price at which Brand X is sold is expressly fixed to a specific amount.

The retailer should price Brand Y no cheaper than ?3.59 (minimum price requirement)

In this example a minimum retail price is imposed on Brand Y.

Some of the firms accused - Gallaher, Imperial Tobacco, Asda, Sainsbury, Shell, Somerfield and Tesco - are also accused of sharing information about proposed future price changes.

The OFT says that none of the accused have yet been found guilty of any breach of the law. Tesco and Imperial Toabcco have already denied acting against the interests of consumers.