Update: Timing of Removal of Tobacco Blends Introduced After February 2007

[lawdawg]

National Law Review - Updates on Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids et al. v. FDA et al.
To sum it up, the FDA stated last summer (2017) that they are extending the compliance date for tobacco products introduced to the market after the deeming date (February 2007) until August of 2022. If that continues to be the case, then blenders will be able to sell new blends until at least August 2022 without FDA interference. However, a bunch of non-profit health organizations have sued the FDA, arguing that the FDA does not have the authority to delay its enforcement of the 2009 anti-tobacco legislation. Depending how the court rules, in the worst-case scenario, the court could immediately stop all sales of tobacco blends introduced after the 2007 deeming date.
I know I am stirring the pot on the whole Tobaccolypse issue, but this is an important legal update, and the progress of this case is worth following.

 

[techie]

First I'm hearing about this, but why is it under the name (guise) "Tobacco-Free Kids"?

 

[mso489]

Is this because pipe tobacco blends introduced after 2007 are entangled in vaping and flavored cigarettes sold to children? Or is it because of the big rush on new pipe tobacco blend by school kids, which I haven't noticed, because most children have never seen a pipe smoked?

 

[woodsroad]

Techie, they are the group suing the FDA. Probably using taxpayer dollars.

 

[aldecaker]

Any time you hear the cry "But what about the children???", start looking for the perverts and swindlers. Those types of organizations are their natural habitat.

 

[craiginthecorn]

The grandfather date of 2007 should be of no particular concern to the not-for-profit heath organizations, which if you follow the money almost certainly leads to someone looking to get richer. The 2007 date is about roll you own cigarette tobaccos that rebranded themselves as pipe tobacco to avoid the greatly increased taxes on cigarette tobacco. Ironically, those cigarette tobaccos are among the very few which sell in sufficient volume to warrant paying for astronomically expensive FDA analysis, so these rules primarily damage the brands they didn’t ever really care about.

 

[jacks6]

Oh wow. Thanks for the update. It will be interesting to see how that one will shake out.

 

[wolflarsen]

The 2007 date is about roll you own cigarette tobaccos that rebranded themselves as pipe tobacco to avoid the greatly increased taxes on cigarette tobacco. Ironically, those cigarette tobaccos are among the very few which sell in sufficient volume to warrant paying for astronomically expensive FDA analysis, so these rules primarily damage the brands they didn’t ever really care about.

If the high sales volume cigarette tobaccos just go through the FDA process and are still available on the shelf when this whole thing is over then what goal of those that support this is being accomplished?
This whole deeming thing reeks of oppression through tyranny of the majority ... an unfortunate and pervading evil of democracy.

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

The Socialist scumbags who are trying to save us from ourselves aren't stupid. They will take ground an inch at a time if it is given to them. Why do you think the NRA fights so hard against banning so called assault weapons? Because they wouldn't stop there, that's why.
Everybody looks at this and we all know it is so stupid that it shouldn't even be considered. Unfortunately, don't be surprised if they get this done because the people ruling on this are not just that stupid, they are far stupider. And they don't care about your right or desire to smoke the pipe tobacco you want.
There's one safe defense against this oppression. Suck it up, pull out your credit card and buy up as much of your favorite brands that have been introduced since 2007 ASAP. Instead of assuming this won't happen, the safe bet is to assume it will happen and soon. If the assumption is wrong, you have tobacco stored away aging. If the assumption is correct and you ignore it, you'll be at FleaBay paying huge dollars for it if you want it.

 

[woodsroad]

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), signed into law on June 22, 2009 was a bi-partisan effort.

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

There are plenty of Pub Socialist Scumbags. Most all of them want total power and to control us. I'd vote to put them all in jail, eliminate both parties forever and start from scratch.

 

[woodsroad]

hoosierpipeguy, what you are doing here will get this thread closed.

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

I guess you didn't mention bipartisan? Or was that someone else? I'm just telling it like it is, at least IMHO. The thread itself boils down to a political issue anyway.

 

[snagstangl]

So is it your opinion or like it is?

 

[lawdawg]

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), signed into law on June 22, 2009 was a bi-partisan effort.

Yes, the whole anti-smoking movement is well-beyond the political spectrum. It's a social phenomenon. It's a "moral panic" and we are at the "disproportionality" stage (as described in the Wikipedia article on moral panics):
- Concern – There must be the belief that the behaviour of the group or activity deemed deviant is likely to have a negative effect on society.
- Hostility – Hostility toward the group in question increases, and they become "folk devils". A clear division forms between "them" and "us".
- Consensus – Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the "moral entrepreneurs" are vocal and the "folk devils" appear weak and disorganized.
- Disproportionality – The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.
- Volatility – Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared because public interest wanes or news reports change to another narrative.
My view is that this moral panic stems largely from big tobacco's efforts, going back to the 1950's and possibly further, to limit public knowledge and perception of the harmful effects of tobacco. That eventually caused a big backlash.
Of course the modern world is facing a whole host of other pressing health issues, obesity being a the biggest one, yet instead of regulation, we have the "body acceptance movement." The disparity in the reaction to the obesity issue and the smoking issue is clear evidence that the anti-smoking crowd is driven at least in part by some level of irrational animus.

There's one safe defense against this oppression. Suck it up, pull out your credit card and buy up as much of your favorite brands that have been introduced since 2007 ASAP. Instead of assuming this won't happen, the safe bet is to assume it will happen and soon. If the assumption is wrong, you have tobacco stored away aging. If the assumption is correct and you ignore it, you'll be at FleaBay paying huge dollars for it if you want it.

It is absolutely time to stock up. I would not be surprised at all if the fleabay sales are subject to crackdown at some point. Of course we all need to keep our financial ducks in a row, but if you cut corners where practical, such as driving that older vehicle for another year or two, or skipping out on that expensive new pair of shoes you don't really need, then it absolutely makes sense to make some sacrifices to stock up now since the future is looking doubtful as to the post-2007 blends. The regulatory environment won't be getting any better in the foreseeable future, and that goes for the pre-2007 blends as well.
Hopefully the "moral panic" against tobacco will eventually run its course, and future pipe smokers won't have to deal with this disproportional irrationality.

 

[irishearl]

lawdawg, interesting info re "moral panic." However right your advice might be re stocking up, for those like me whose 2 cars are both over 18 years old, there isn't much budgetary wiggle room to do major purchasing and can only hope for the best. :?

 

[aldecaker]

"The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), signed into law on June 22, 2009 was a bi-partisan effort."
Woods, sadly this is true; look at the vote in the Senate record, and it is almost 50/50. This is a key insight to have, and a reason why I don't understand this site's squeamishness about "politics" coming up in conversation. Politics isn't a team sport anymore; it's all politicians vs. all citizens at this point.

 

[lawdawg]

"The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), signed into law on June 22, 2009 was a bi-partisan effort."

Woods, sadly this is true; look at the vote in the Senate record, and it is almost 50/50. This is a key insight to have, and a reason why I don't understand this site's squeamishness about "politics" coming up in conversation. Politics isn't a team sport anymore; it's all politicians vs. all citizens at this point.

Edit: I tend to agree with you, but the forum rule don't permit political posts. There is a fine line between discussing legislation and regulation from a practical and academic standpoint, as compared to (potentially) adversarial political posting.
Forum Rules

 

[aldecaker]

Oh, I get the rule, and do my best to respect it. Without it, the forum would be a smoking heap of rubble in about four hours. But sometimes, things "political" occur organically in a thread, and in a way that is actually germane to the discussion. We have a hobby that is, unfortunately, rather entwined with legislation, which is created by, you guessed it, politicians.

 

[sablebrush52]

This is a key insight to have, and a reason why I don't understand this site's squeamishness about "politics" coming up in conversation. Politics isn't a team sport anymore; it's all politicians vs. all citizens at this point.

Really? Outside of the bloody explosions that rocked this forum several years ago and the generally low to non existent intellectual content of the political comments that pop up here we get nonsense like this:

The Socialist scumbags who are trying to save us from ourselves aren't stupid.

About a legislation that was crafted by Big Tobacco (socialists, right) to give itself a virtual monopoly on the then nascent vaping trade. All very well documented and available for anyone who actually thinks for him or her self to discover. The financial bar gets set so high that only the big boys with deep pockets can play and the competition goes away. Pipe tobacco is collateral damage.
Political discussion doesn't happen here because it always devolves to a steaming pile of ideological bullshit.