I stand to be corrected, but white oil is nothing more than liquid paraffin. Perhaps the FDA confuses it with flammable paraffin (Kerosene) and wishes to avoid an outbreak of apparent spontaneous human combustion. On the other hand the FDA might be more rationally concerned with the fact that if white oil reaches the lungs it can cause lipoid pneumonia.
Wow, thats some list of ingredients. Does anyone know if any of that is added or just naturally occuring stuff in tobacco? I suppose that is why the stuff stays fresh for so long. It reminds me of some Granny Smith apples I bought once from a nasty discount supermarket. They looked like really good apples, a nice shiny deep green skin, just like a good, crunchy, sweet Granny Smith should be. I bit into one and it was horrible, all mushy and sour so I put the rest aside and forgot about them. Several months passed before I realised how long they had been sat there and they looked exactly the same, nice and shiny. Needless to say I didn’t buy any fresh food from that shop again!
Heard about all this, and went down to my local smoke shop…yep…still a bunch of Poschl’s stuff. In any case, if ya dig wax, Poschl’s is the way to go…its why the stuff seems okay to snuff even after months of sitting in a bloody tap box, but keep some SG in the same box and its dust in a day or two…
@ saucy jack: Notice I used the word “relative.” Yes, Toque is the baby on the block, but Pöschl is still a youngster. Compare to: Fribourg & Treyer (1720); Bernard (1733); Wilsons of Sharrow (1737); Lotzbeck (1774); Samuel Gawith (1792); Gawith Hoggarth (1854). Also the US companies owe their orgins to their brands, inlcuding Garrett which dates to 1782. No American has been stripped of any right to consume any tobacco product. You have more representative taxation than any other time in history. This also has nothing to do with taxation. Pöschl is refusing to comply with a law and voluntarily leaving the market (if the rumors are even true). Its the additives to the tobacco that are being regulated. The law is there to protect you from being poisoned by companies that are more concerned with profit than the health of their customers. In effect we are “catching up” to Germany and Sweden and other places that have been regulating what nasty things can be added to your tobacco, and what can not for years.
@saucy_jack: “taxation without representation” – I heard that leads to tea parties and the like. 
I do not see any reason Pöschl would discontinue their snuff line, as far as I know they are pretty much following german laws. Pöschl snuff might not reach US any longer but never discontinued totally. My opinion
guessing they probably don’t sell enough to bother. Almost like they may have been thinking why bother before and the extra bit about registering just soured continuing bussiness here. That’s a possible guess.
@Xander: You amuse me to no end, Xander. I have representative taxation, more than ever, you say? Or just come plutocrat in an office with his feet on a desk, smoking a cigar and coming up with ways to inconvenience my freedoms, i.e. Pact Act and the various and sundry local taxes of my state that have raised tobacco prices through the roof. I understand the safety issues, it’s all fine and dandy - Not like everything isn’t already poisoned anyways. lol I personally think Poschl discontinuing sales to the US a tad fishy, like Bernard’s closing its doors. If they, Poschl, are already following strict German purity laws, than whats the big deal?
@ xander … " No American has been stripped of any right to consume any tobacco product " what about the ban on flavored cigarettes . cloves … some of the good nat sherman ones etc ?
@jpsks Well, you´re still allowed to consume them, you just can´t buy them. 
I will say I enjoy Poschl Bayern-Prise and hope they always carry it.
Well, I’m glad I amuse you, jack. I’m pretty sure you do not live in the District of Columbia, which are really the only Americans who can legitimately claim that phrase, since they have no representation in the Senate and no votes in the House. I don’t know how it is exactly where you live, but its probably similar to where I live. I am represented in government by a district City Councilman and 3 at-large city councilmen as well as a city council president. I am also represented by a County Councilman, a Representative to the State Assembly, a State Senator, a member of the US House of Representatives, and two US Senators. I can vote for any of those people or against them periodically. I can be a woman and still vote, I can be black and still vote, I can even have my grandfather been born a slave and still be able to vote. I don’t even have to own land to vote! I can contact any of them whenever I have a concern. Their contact information is a matter of public record. I can even run for any of those offices if I choose. I don’t believe you think that its someone’s job to sit around all day and come up with new ways to “inconvenience your freedoms.” That would be paranoia. Also being inconvenienced and being stripped of rights are two very different things. Tobacco was vilified long ago, not by any government action, but by grass roots efforts and scientific studies. If anything, the government has been very slow to act on such information. Softening the public’s perception towards such things will take a lot more doing, and will likely take many more years. Our elected representatives at least do represent a good cross section of the general public, that is to say: clueless. They can’t help but have a natural bias against tobacco. You won’t gain much sympathy from the GP by claiming inconvenience. I agree with you this whole Pöschl business is rather fishy. Possibly there is some discrepancy between our law and the German one. Dangerous things like “Anthrax Ripple” and “Spring Surprise” chocolates were banned for good reason. @ jpsks: I think it was a mistake to ban clove cigarettes. The logic for doing so does not hold up. The clove issue was unfortunately conflated with the ridiculous things Camel et al. were coming up with. I’m saying the bad guys brought attention to something and ruined it for everybody. Other than Nat Sherman, the others are all still made but call themselves “cigars”. Also I’d refer you to Red Star’s answer; its not your right to use it that was removed, it was their ability to sell it. No one can say you are not within your rights to make your own clove cigarettes!
More importantly you’re allowed the possession of flavored cigarettes. Just can’t sell them. That is really where most civil liberties are lost about consumables. It’s usaly not illegal to use them just to have them.
I concur Xander here: anti-tobacco politics are democratic politics from the people and that’s the way democracy works; it’s always wrong and it’s always right. Some people still can’t gasp the fact that democratic policies are compromises and thus imperfect and keep changing all the time. It’s confusing and sometimes unfair but that’s the best we got.
The U.S. is not to be a democracy, but a constitutional republic.
Its both a representative democracy and a federal republic. So is Germany. The UK is also a representative democracy while at the same time being a constitutional monarchy, so is the Netherlands, Sweden etc. Confusing to be two things at once, sure, but you hear a lot of this nonsense going around about not being a democracy but a republic. Greek and Latin words for the same thing anyway. I beleive Churchill said to FDR, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
But U.S. is certainly not a ‘simple’ representative democracy because majority rule is tempered. ‘True’ democracy is not. Jefferson said: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
I see what you’re saying though, Xander: that the other democracies are tempered too. So, you’re right. I concede. “my bad” I had to put on my thinking cap.
@ etten-eller: Firstly, lets not drift into debate here. However, I would like to point out, that there is no evidence Jefferson ever said such a thing. It sounds very un-Jeffersonian on the face of it. Here is some info from Monticello Which claims there is no such evidence. Secondly, you know as well as I do that that is a gross oversimplification to equate such as “mob-rule.” Any form of democracy requires liberty as a fundamental principal. You can’t legally/etically take away rights. Rights are universal and fundamental. “True” democracy requires a perfectly informed voter. Its hard to find a few perfectly informed individuals, let alone all of them or even a majority. So we get by with represetatives for now. Edit: just saw your second post. We must have been typing at the same time. No problem.
Africa democracy is totally different from what you have in your countries. Zimbabwe, for instance, also have a democratic government. His name is Robert Mugabe.