This is Really Dumb: The FDA Defines Tobacco

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

Watch for Updates Twice a Week

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Status
Not open for further replies.

darwin

Part of the Furniture Now
Apr 9, 2014
820
5
The victim must be precisely identified before it can be targeted for destruction.

 

clickklick

Lifer
May 5, 2014
1,700
212
That, or there may be an underlying meaning. My first thought is that tobacco as it is in raw form can't be trademarked etc . . . if a company is trying to derive a "patented" formula to use as a drug, the definitions are required for future use.

 
Actually, defining what a tobacco product is makes a lot of sense with whole leaf hitting the markets from internet to local farmer's markets. The big question comes up for all local authorities is, "is selling whole leaf straight from the farmer at a local farmer's market bypassing state and local laws regarding taxes and allotments?" Meaning, if I grow this tobacco in my backyard, at what point does it become illegal for me to sell or trade it? It takes a few years for a farmer to make a product that is feasible for a human to consume. And, even so, some would argue that it is not capable of being consumed until a tobacconist (of some sort) has gotten hold of it.
I can buy fifty pounds of whole leaf from an online vendor, but it is nearly impossible to just crumble up a leaf and smoke. So, it bypasses taxes. It is not a tobacco product; it is whole leaf.
Thus the new definition keeps the free trade of whole leaf open and it keeps small home and hobbyist farmers capable of trading a non-consumable product.
But, the article was funny, even if it does miss the reason for the definition.

 
And, if the FDA had of stomped out the free trade of whole leaf, that would have seriously smothered out any creativity that might have been bolstering in the hobby side of blending. Then we would be stuck with the tobacconists and blenders that we have, with it becoming nearly impossible for someone new to break into the industry.

 

deathmetal

Lifer
Jul 21, 2015
7,714
32
One of the many reasons I think law is stupid: trying to use rules to define a world of infinite complexity.
Better to have goals instead, but our society hasn't had those for quite a long time.

 
Honestly, I don't want them setting goals, because I think that if so, their goal would be complete eradication of tobacco. I'd prefer them to stick to keeping my food and drug companies from killing me, and leave the goals open-ended for the players. They are the referee, not the coach. Make sure that everyone plays by the rules and can understand the rules. Leave the coaching to the peoples.

 

leonardw

Starting to Get Obsessed
Dec 30, 2011
153
6
"...The FDA has decided that it needs to define a tobacco product as any product that is 'derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption.'"
This is mostly likely about ensuring they have jurisdiction over e-liquids.

 

mayfair70

Lifer
Sep 14, 2015
1,968
2
I've noticed there are many bargain varieties of smoking products, derived from tobacco, which contain some kind of fillers and other stuff not identifiable to myself and never listed as ingredients. There are also the medically acceptable patches delivering nicotine in sometimes precise quantities. Finally the Vaporizers (my girlfriend has one and it looks like a Sonic Screwdriver from Dr. Who) and the interesting looking liquids they contain. Evidently many insecticides are derived from tobacco as well. I have no idea the variety and breadth of products, not intended for human consumption, which may permeate the non smoking market and driven the need for clarification on the part of the FDA. I would rather they and the EPA were better funded since chemicals and compounds are still pouring into the air, water and earth which are not regulated. Pick your poison, folks, there are plenty out there.

 

aggravatedfarmer

Part of the Furniture Now
Sep 9, 2015
865
3
Be glad the EPA hasn't sank its teeth in tobacco agriculture. EPA and the IRS are the only two government agencies that do not answer to no one besides the white house and supreme court. As a dairy farmer, it is a fear the EPA comes onto the farm and says we are polluting the water table from manure and fertilizer. It's just a matter of time though.

 

yaddy306

Lifer
Aug 7, 2013
1,371
502
Regina, Canada
What a ridiculous article.

With all the ambiguities surrounding bioengineering, gene splicing technology, synthesis of organic compounds etc. would the writer prefer the FDA not define its terms?
Maybe these things are crystal clear for Fred and Aunt Maude, but is nicotine produced by a bacterium with a transgenic tobacco gene a "tobacco product"? Is Homer Simpson's "tomacco" a "tobacco product"? Is e-cigarette juice made from glycerine and perique flavoring a "tobacco product"? Is an hypothetical new drug derived from tobacco stems that cures cancer a "tobacco product"? What if it cures mad cow disease?
The author is trying to be humorous but doesn't understand that the scope of legislation is often dependent on definitions.

 

kanaia

Part of the Furniture Now
Feb 3, 2013
658
543
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it...Saul Alinsky

 

deathmetal

Lifer
Jul 21, 2015
7,714
32
Our government and society are one.
I can't agree there. Civilization existed before government, as did culture.
I'm not big on group goals either.
For me, depends on what the group goals are.
Eradicating smoking is typical stupidity. They've driven everyone to smoking cigarettes in private, instead of smoking delicious pipes in the open.

 

deathmetal

Lifer
Jul 21, 2015
7,714
32
Are you polarizing me, Deathmetal?
I hope not. You don't strike me as particularly polar. But I think it is an important issue, to realize that a society is separate from its government.
Some would even say that "that which governs best, governs least." I can see the wisdom in that.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.