FDA Regulations Killing the Small Man?

We're looking at the tail end of things. The world in general frowns on all tobacco use and the WHO is looking for the end of tobacco consumption by the 2030s. Buy what you can and prepare for the worst.

Even crazy people set goals for themselves.

It was a projection made in the 2000s that at that point 8 million people would die annually from smoking and time to place cessation plans into place.

wiooi: Man that's a long, hard to read first sentence.
Tobacco sales are still booming in 3rd world countries. Could there be a move in your future? Pipes, cigars, cigarettes, snuff, etc. will always be around I think. Now whether you can afford it will depend entirely on your wallet. So, think more moneys! Kinda like water in southern California. If you can afford it, you'll have plenty.

Word on the street is the UN is miffed about being treated so rudely by the U.S. here lately. Some authoritative observers feel they are primed to kick us out, and if that happens, we won't have to worry about the WHO any more.

Some authoritative observers feel they are primed to kick us out

Click to expand...

That ain't gonna happen, we are their cash cow...

I know. That was actually a complete fabrication on my part.

That ain't gonna happen, we are their cash cow...

Click to expand...

Judging by what's legal in Canada now, I seriously think that's coming to an end.

Welcome to the Social States of America. It's okay to kill millions of people with abortion and obesity but because some dogooders find smoke offensive, it is slowly but surely being obliterated. Perhaps someone can explain why a female has "pro choice" to kill a baby, which is 100% certainty, but smokers don't have the choice to allegedly eventually kill themselves? Obese people have the right to march into McDonalds and stuff their gut with processed poison but smokers are ostracized. Common sense isn't that common.

Roe v Wade answers part of your question. Smoking is still legal and not negatively impacted except by taxes and some restrictions on age and on where one may smoke. So we can still enjoy our pipes, cigars and cigarettes just not where others don't want us. Seems reasonable to me as we still have the right, guaranteed, to chose who we associate with. I am not personally offended by those who do not wish to associate with me when I smoke. And, I readily understand the position of companies who do not wish to employ smokers. That decision, from the stockholders position, is a no brainer. I fully grasp the idea that smokers cost hotels more expense than non-smokers. Tavern owners aren't fans of stale smoke and sick help.
hoosierpipeguy: I'm confused. Government intrusion, citing health concerns, is all right when it comes to food but, not tobacco?

Warren, the Government dictated to "tavern" owners whether they could, or not, allow smoking. Why should the government be able to dictate to the business owner whether or not they can allow consumption of a legal product? The people who are offended by smoke then have the choice to patronize establishments that choose not to allow smoking. How is that different if the government decided to dictate you couldn't smoke in your own home? Or in your car?
You understand position of companies who not wish to employ smokers? Kewl. Do you also then support companies who don't wish to employ obese people? Hotels, same deal. If they wish to make their establishment non smoking, that should be their choice and their choice alone.
My sympathy to those who think smoking is the where the government will draw the line at dictating citizen's rights.
Roe vs Wade is only representative of a morally bankrupt Supreme Court and the beginning of generations that don't wish to be accountable for their actions.

Packs a plum pudding bowl and waits.....

Looks at stacks of tins and jars filling a closet and smiles.

Here in Australia, there is clear directive to get rid of all tobacco. A lot of you understand that there are huge taxes in other countries... But I think few truly understand how huge they really are. The Tex on a 50gram tin is now over $70 here....and set into law to rise a minimum of 12.5% annually.
The interesting thing here is that taxes have reduced tobacco consumption, however mainly among the rich and middle income earners. Lower income earners still smoke at approximately the same rate as they did 20 years ago.
I spoke to some in government and policy teams who set all this into legislation, especially the comparison to junk food and sugared drinks and foods.... their argument is that there is no safe level of tobacco consumption. Any use whatsoever is considered harmful.
Chasing Embers gave good advice... if you plan to smoke in future, start putting it away now.

"Roe v Wade" was the result of Congress and the people not wanting to touch such a "hot-button" issue and by abdicating and refusing to offer up either law or enter into the amending process forced, or, at least put the Court into the position of having to "make" law. Which, to the embarrassment of many, accepted the terms and "made" law. After all, no where in the Constitution is "abortion" mentioned and it was certainly around when the Constitution was written and enacted but, no mention at all.
Taverns are licensed businesses. Tavern owners agree to regulation when they purchase a license. I've not spoken to a restaurant or bar owner who is unhappy with "no-smoking" as such saves them money and they didn't have to PO some customers by making the rule themselves. The tobacco industry spent moneys fighting such in some areas. The liquor industry? Not near as much. And, the voters spoke by either electing those who would enact such legislation or, by their direct vote enacting a referendum.
If one gets into a government regulated and licensed business, one must expect regulation. And when those regulations save owners money and make for more profit at a time when "drunk-driving" enforcement was adversely impacting profits ... well, no-smoking in bars makes good sense to owners, excepting those running "dives." The voters have the power and have decided they wanted public space smoking regulated. It doesn't get any more democratic than that!
Sorry! I'm a firm believer business owners should be allowed, within the law, to hire whom they wish. Decisions are made as to the costs of hiring smokers, obese people, anti-social persons, those with exposed tattoos, illiterates, under/over-educated, ill-dressed, criminal record, too young/too old, etc. all the time, not that such decisions are necessarily the published reasons for not hiring.

Getting more back to the original topic, I think these regulations were more of the cigarette industry's attack on vaping which has gotten really big and seems to potentially be headed to take over the cigarette industry. Pipes and cigars seem to have been collateral damage. At the same time, pipes and cigars are in the same place now where vaping is in that boutique blends are all the rage. Right now it's huge to get some really high quality leaf and do a limited run of cigars/tins of it. When you put an outrageous registration fee for SKUs it basically makes it impractical to do those small batch runs. You'd have to set the price for it so high you probably wouldn't sell all of the stock.
There are many blends though that have been around long enough that they won't need to pay the registration fee and should continue along as usual.
I'm supportive of sensible regulation, but this seems to me to be very unreasonable regulation of cigars, pipes, and vaping. It seems more of a ploy from wealthier corporations to wipe out the competition.

The only answer to your question for "rings" is to elect people to the Congress who are intolerant of government agencies, they oversee, promulgating "unnecessary" (a subjective term) regulations. And, that can only be accomplished by knowing how your elected representative and candidates stand with regard to your position. Then voting only for those who meet your criteria. Of course that only works if you are a "one issue" voter. The members here can't even present a united stand on the issue.
I'm pragmatic and see no changes coming in the future. We get the government we elect and smokers, not being "single issue" voters, will simply have to deal with the reality of the situation. No point in losing sleep or expending emotion on a social issue we are on the wrong side of.