Article: FL Senators Rubio (R) and Nelson (D) propose FDA ruling bill for cigars

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

Watch for Updates Twice a Week

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Drucquers Banner

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Status
Not open for further replies.

beastinview

Part of the Furniture Now
Jan 5, 2016
504
1
Hopefully since this bill receives bipartisan support this would not be politically controversial. I just saw this article today.
Anyone know if this applies to pipe tobacco, or just cigars?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/marco-rubio-highlights-problems-with-new-fda-cigar-rules/article/2605137

 

deathmetal

Lifer
Jul 21, 2015
7,715
27
Unfortunately, the cigar lobby keeps the pipe products at arms length
Agreed. Another casualty of keeping the message as simple as possible.
Does anyone still believe in democracy? I do not -- people in groups make stupid decisions, and the FDA is just the latest outrage.
How can we change it? That is the question. If your answer is a caliber, I'm with you! haha

 

skraps

Part of the Furniture Now
Sep 9, 2015
790
3
"Stick together" they all said... "Support the cigar industry and the RYO who are just trying to make a living" they all said.
Has anyone woke up and smelled the roses? The cigar industry doesn't give two shites about pipe tobacco and anyone that thinks otherwise is smoking from the wrong pipe.
Sorry, but in a lot of ways we did this to ourselves by being complacent and thinking the cigar industry and the IPCPR would fight for our pipe tobacco rights as strongly as they would for premium cigars.

 

jackswilling

Lifer
Feb 15, 2015
1,777
23
The House Bill is far better and will pass. Since we can't discuss the reality of the situation, I will merely state that the house bill, after conference with Senate, will get to the POTUS and there it could die.

 

andrew

Lifer
Feb 13, 2013
2,876
15
"Stick together" they all said... "Support the cigar industry and the RYO who are just trying to make a living" they all said.
Has anyone woke up and smelled the roses? The cigar industry doesn't give two shites about pipe tobacco and anyone that thinks otherwise is smoking from the wrong pipe.
Sorry, but in a lot of ways we did this to ourselves by being complacent and thinking the cigar industry and the IPCPR would fight for our pipe tobacco rights as strongly as they would for premium cigars.
Yes, I pointed out many times this we're all in this together attitude wasn't doing any favors, especially towards cigarettes, to be told "we're all in this together". Cigar groups have major lobbying power, you don't see many pipe smokers. Business men and senators don't break out pipes after a successful deal. But the cigar industry has broken into the pipe market with cohiba blends, punch, la gloria cubana, macanudo just recently. But I believe this is for their own profit and to fill a void when there won't be so many choices left.

 

daveinlax

Charter Member
May 5, 2009
1,718
1,786
WISCONSIN
Yes, I pointed out many times this we're all in this together attitude wasn't doing any favors, especially towards cigarettes

Me too but unfortunately now that the majority of "pipe tobacco" is relabeled RYO cigarette tobacco I fear we will be SOL on any regulatory love and in the cross hairs for tax parity to regular cigarettes
But the cigar industry has broken into the pipe market with cohiba blends, punch, la gloria cubana, macanudo just recently. But I believe this is for their own profit and to fill a void when there won't be so many choices left.
LoL! If by the "cigar industry" being STG's once iconic but now wounded General Cigar, (a company that hasn't had a good idea in years) I'll give this a couple of P&C catalogs at best. 8O

 

jackswilling

Lifer
Feb 15, 2015
1,777
23
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Efforts to change the grandfather date for affected products under the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) proposed deeming rule, particularly electronic cigarettes, are winding their way through Congress.
On Tuesday, the House Appropriations Committee voted in favor of an amendment to the FY 2017 Agriculture Appropriations Bill that would change the predicate date — also known as the grandfather date — for e-cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products covered under the deeming rule from Feb. 15, 2007, as it is now proposed, to whatever date the FDA's final deeming rule goes into effect.
The bipartisan amendment, introduced by Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), passed the committee by a 31-19 vote.
In its draft deeming rule, the FDA proposed that e-cigarettes be held to the same grandfather date as traditional cigarettes, which is Feb. 15, 2007. That date was spelled out in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009. However, since e-cigarette and vaping products are relatively new compared to other tobacco products, many in the industry have argued that the February 2007 date would effectively remove most products from the market.
"This is fantastic news for public health and small businesses," George Conley, president of the American Vaping Association (AVA), said of the House committee's passage of the amendment. "The vapor industry and its consumers do not oppose sensible regulation, but the FDA's proposal is anything but sensible."
Conley added that modernizing the predicate date will not interfere with the FDA's ability to regulate vapor products.
"All this change does is force the agency to regulate the vapor products rather than just ban 99 percent-plus of products on the market today," he said.
House Panel OKs New FDA Deeming Rule Grandfather Date
Full Congress still needs to approve bill.
April 20, 2016, 02:58 pm
The Cole-Bishop amendment, aside from changing the predicate date, also directs the FDA to set product standards, dictate labeling requirements, require retailer registration to effectuate youth access compliance checks, and ban self-service displays and vending machines in stores that permit minors. The amendment restricts the advertising of vapor products, too.
Still, the House committee's vote is just one step in the process of moving back the grandfather date in the deeming rule. The 2017 spending and budget bills may not be voted on by the full House and Senate until the end of the year, so uncertainty in the market will continue to linger, said the AVA.
"This is only the start of a long fight to keep this provision in the overall budget bill. The industry and its consumers need to put forth a massive effort to ensure that both Democrats and Republicans do not lose sight of the importance of this policy change," Conley urged.
Here is the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2058
114th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2058
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for a certain effective date with respect to deemed tobacco products, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 28, 2015

Mr. Cole introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
A BILL

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for a certain effective date with respect to deemed tobacco products, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2015”.
SEC. 2. DATE FOR APPLICATION OF FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT TO DEEMED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
Section 901(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 387a(b)) is amended—
(1) by striking “This chapter shall apply” and inserting the following:
“(1) IN GENERAL.—This chapter shall apply”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“(2) DEEMED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.—For each tobacco product deemed subject to the requirements of the Act pursuant to paragraph (1), each reference in sections 905(j) and 910(a)—
“(A) to ‘February 15, 2007’, shall be considered to be a reference to ‘the effective date of the regulation under which a tobacco product is deemed subject to the requirements of this Act pursuant to section 901(b)(1)’; and
“(B) to ‘21 months after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act’, shall be considered to be a reference to ‘21 months after such effective date’.”.
Congress.gov

 

skraps

Part of the Furniture Now
Sep 9, 2015
790
3
Me too but unfortunately now that the majority of "pipe tobacco" is relabeled RYO cigarette tobacco I fear we will be SOL on any regulatory love and in the cross hairs for tax parity to regular cigarettes
Exactly, Dave. I remember when that all started happening. I said it over and over... the RYO industry is going to sink pipe tobacco. I used to get shite for saying it... but looks like the chickens are coming home to roost now.

 

daveinlax

Charter Member
May 5, 2009
1,718
1,786
WISCONSIN
And not to take this to far off topic but a few years ago NATO, the trade association that IMO represents the RYO segment were advocating a ban on mail order tobacco sales to protect there retailers.

I'm pretty confident that when this settles down the CRA (if your not a member you should be) will lead in getting some kind of premium cigar exemption. I hope it will be based on size and construction and not price but I have a feeling price will be a big part of it. 8O

 
Status
Not open for further replies.