Deeming Day?

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

3 Fresh Ser Jacopo Pipes
New Accessories
119 Fresh Peterson Pipes
6 Fresh Ashton Pipes
2 Fresh Ken Dederichs Pipes

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ethan

Can't Leave
Feb 15, 2021
423
2,406
Massachusetts, USA
Warhorse bar had belladonna in it to give it that extra kick that would send you spinning. Regulation is a necessity because not everyone is remotely trustworthy.
The prohibition laws on alcohol certainly unleashed a bunch of bootleg rot-gut poison that was never meant to be consumed, but made it to market unchecked. Over regulation in a form that makes it impossible to sell a legal product is just as good at creating these same circumstances.
 

PipesRock

Part of the Furniture Now
Jan 21, 2020
644
4,304
Florida
The big difference is that the FDA was given authority regarding the ingredients where there had been little oversight before. There was also quite a bit of concern about ingredients in vaping products and their appeal to younger smokers. From what I've read, those concerns about vaping ingredients are justified. If you read some of FDA pages, it's clear that they don't consider either pipes smoking or cigars as a temptation to kids or young adults because of the "cumbersome" method of smoking. But that somehow doesn't translate to giving pipe tobacco a different status. So, yes, the hypocrisy is galling, if hypocrisy it is, given their goal to end smoking.
True. I'm guessing that the masses can easily get behind banning or regulation to make harmful products appealing to kids completely go away. So the "deeming" is passed and is a legal quagmire where collateral damage is inevitable because courts and attorneys can more easily defend Vape substances if the regs are too tightly targeted at their products. If a few judges see the substances being regulated as the same basic elements then it's back to a rewrite and unfortunately pipe tobaccos and cigars wind up fully included because the broad based regs encompassing ALL are, 'more legal', to enforce.
<<portion snipped>>
...
But ever since I started smoking a Pipe in a serious way circa 1979, blends have disappeared quite suddenly with no internet warning system. Recipes similarly changed without notice. Old made in the U.K. Escudo in tins with weight given only in ounces with no gram equivalent was a totally different tobacco than the last made in the U.K. with weight given in ounces and grams and the € symbol. Taxes and inflation have gone up relentlessly over those years.

I have bought more tobacco than current smoking requires since these trends became obvious to me sometime in the early 1980’s. i continue to do so. To me, what the FDA might or might not do is a pimple on an elephants butt compared to the three other always present trends I just identified.
Question along these lines: Anyone have an idea how deeming affects a blender's future decision to change a blend such as those having been heavily discussed here like Escudo, Director's Cut, and several others 'changed' (not rehashing if they were or were not changed) previously? Thanks.
 
Oct 7, 2016
2,451
5,213
True. I'm guessing that the masses can easily get behind banning or regulation to make harmful products appealing to kids completely go away. So the "deeming" is passed and is a legal quagmire where collateral damage is inevitable because courts and attorneys can more easily defend Vape substances if the regs are too tightly targeted at their products. If a few judges see the substances being regulated as the same basic elements then it's back to a rewrite and unfortunately pipe tobaccos and cigars wind up fully included because the broad based regs encompassing ALL are, 'more legal', to enforce.

Question along these lines: Anyone have an idea how deeming affects a blender's future decision to change a blend such as those having been heavily discussed here like Escudo, Director's Cut, and several others 'changed' (not rehashing if they were or were not changed) previously? Thanks.
I think in practice, right now, “substantially equivalent“ gives lots of room for ongoing changes.
 

sablebrush52

The Bard Of Barlings
Jun 15, 2013
20,709
49,014
Southern Oregon
jrs457.wixsite.com
True. I'm guessing that the masses can easily get behind banning or regulation to make harmful products appealing to kids completely go away. So the "deeming" is passed and is a legal quagmire where collateral damage is inevitable because courts and attorneys can more easily defend Vape substances if the regs are too tightly targeted at their products. If a few judges see the substances being regulated as the same basic elements then it's back to a rewrite and unfortunately pipe tobaccos and cigars wind up fully included because the broad based regs encompassing ALL are, 'more legal', to enforce.

Question along these lines: Anyone have an idea how deeming affects a blender's future decision to change a blend such as those having been heavily discussed here like Escudo, Director's Cut, and several others 'changed' (not rehashing if they were or were not changed) previously? Thanks.
Probably not much. If oldgeezersmoker's contention that the actions by anti smoking groups to force the FDA to enact the cut offs sooner actually resulted in the opposite effect, then blenders will do what they need to do and not likely care about it. Most likely they will use some form of SE to get approval for a few thousand bucks. Swapping out the Virginia, for example, because there's a cheaper source, isn't going to result in a six figure full monte Deeming. They can argue that Virginia tobacco is Virginia tobacco.

Of course, a few thousand dollars of extra cost is significant when dealing niche products, like pipe tobacco. So it's also possible that a manufacturer may decide to discontinue making a blend that needs a change to continue to be made, because they can't justify the extra cost. Or they increase the price by a couple of bucks to cover their increased costs. Tobacco is cheap in the US.

And last but unlikely (for now) a manufacturer simply drops a troublesome market and focuses on a friendly market.
 

sablebrush52

The Bard Of Barlings
Jun 15, 2013
20,709
49,014
Southern Oregon
jrs457.wixsite.com
The prohibition laws on alcohol certainly unleashed a bunch of bootleg rot-gut poison that was never meant to be consumed, but made it to market unchecked. Over regulation in a form that makes it impossible to sell a legal product is just as good at creating these same circumstances.
Overregulation isn't useful any more than no regulation is useful. We are what we are, a decidedly mixed lot, and thus give reason for the need to regulate our dealings with others at large.

Prohibition was largely the result of Bible thumping religious fanaticism that drove the Temperance Movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And that Great social experiment was a thudding dud. Forbidden fruit is attractive to many.

The war on tobacco consumption isn't a religious war and it's not likely to ever result in an outright prohibition, not with the failed example of Prohibition as a lesson. The current approach is much more effective and will essentially do what it's intended to do, make smoking less and less popular, glamorous, etc, until it no longer matters. Death by a thousand cuts works.

While most of the country would like to see smoking go away, they're not yet at the drum beating, tambourine shaking, Bible thumping, marching down the street, level of action.
 
Oct 7, 2016
2,451
5,213
Most likely they will use some form of SE to get approval for a few thousand bucks. Swapping out the Virginia, for example, because there's a cheaper source, isn't going to result in a six figure full monte Deeming. They can argue that Virginia tobacco is Virginia tobacco.
Precisely. And the same blend in ready rubbed, flake, twist or plug is substantially equivalent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PipesRock

warren

Lifer
Sep 13, 2013
12,302
18,330
Foothills of the Chugach Range, AK
The prohibition laws on alcohol certainly unleashed a bunch of bootleg rot-gut poison that was never meant to be consumed

Prohibition indirectly gave us JFK. And, let us not forget the economic boost for the Canadian liquor dealers. The exporting of various, delicious and well made beverages from Europe, imported into the US by various astute "Families" put a lot of money into the pockets of bar owners, truck drivers, crooked cops, made Elliot Ness a household name, and etc. "Prohibition" created a ton of millionaires. So, there were positives, at least for those wise enough to understand there were millions to be made. A reasonably sized boat on the Great Lakes or based in Florida could haul a bunch of Irish or Scots made booze.

A lot of speakeasy's catered to money and carried decent beverages catering to upscale customers. The people drinking "bath tube" gin are analogous to the folks drinking anti-freeze, aftershave, and vanilla extract today. The "disadvantaged" still aren't drinking quality booze regularly.

Prohibitive tobacco taxes are already making a lot of moneys for those who form relationships with certain "Reservations". So, there was an upside to Prohibition same as the upside to highly taxed tobacco.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sablebrush52

tzinc

Can't Leave
Mar 24, 2021
346
1,395
Toronto
I don't think anyone is against regulation I don't want poisonous substances being put into my tobacco. The problem is making companies pay for testing which then makes it too expensive for companies to make the product. Maybe look at how much profit the company makes and make the testing fee a reasonable percentage of that so companies don't shut down.

The problem is I think some in the government are using the high fees and testing as a way to force these companies to shut down in a backdoor way - which is ridiculous.

It is ironic that pot is being made legal in many states and countries and tobacco is a target for being made illegal. Smoking pot which you inhale I would argue is more dangerous than pipe smoking where you don't inhale. .

I think the biggest health problem are the dangerous chemicals being put in cigarettes people have known about this for decades - the simplest solution (which the cigarette lobby fights against) is remove those chemicals from cigarettes. I am sure the nicotine is enough to get people addicted.

I am not an expert these thoughts are just based on my understanding of what is going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sablebrush52

warren

Lifer
Sep 13, 2013
12,302
18,330
Foothills of the Chugach Range, AK
I don't want poisonous substances being put into my tobacco

The poisons (carcinogens) are naturally in the tobacco and are unleashed when the leaf is torched. If you are gonna smoke please understand where the threat is. Smoking isn't for risk averse people. Understand the risk and then, decide if you are willing to put the poisons into your system. Risk v reward! Understand and make a decision based on the facts. That is what most of us here have done.
 

tzinc

Can't Leave
Mar 24, 2021
346
1,395
Toronto
I realize that burning is carcinogenic I mean it applies to things like meat as well. The difference is cigarettes have approximately 70 chemicals added in that are carcinogenic on top of burning tobacco that is inhaled.
 

Chasing Embers

Captain of the Black Frigate
Nov 12, 2014
44,929
117,219
I realize that burning is carcinogenic I mean it applies to things like meat as well. The difference is cigarettes have approximately 70 chemicals added in that are carcinogenic on top of burning tobacco that is inhaled.
According to the state of California everything has been shown to cause cancer. I use all forms of tobacco available to me knowing the risks because I enjoy tobacco. I've known friends that tried to live as healthy as medical regulations required and died of cancer or heart attack several years younger than myself. If health concerns are causing you pause about pipe smoking, walk away from it as it really isn't a healthy practice.
 

skydog

Part of the Furniture Now
Jun 27, 2017
583
1,544
Sorry to bring back up the McClelland closing topic in this thread but I noticed nobody has really focused on 5100 disappearing. If I heard any rumors of McClelland closing they were on this forum and started around the time 5100 became unavailable. I chose to believe them and kicked myself for putting off stocking up on more 5100. Then they released both 2016 and 2017 Christmas Cheer which I was able to stock up on and also seemed like a further red flag that they were released at the same time. The grand and unexpected finale of 40th Anniversary allowed me to stock up even more, all the while I was grabbing No. 27 and Blackwoods and St. James any chance I could get and picking up plenty of tins of McCranie's.

I wish I had bought more but I've got enough to occasionally crack a tin of McClelland for years to come. You didn't have to have some insider information to be able to stock up on McClelland, you really just had to know you liked McClelland and be paying attention to the tobacco market and forums like this one. I figured all along if I was wrong and the people online saying "McClelland wouldn't close" were right then regardless I would end up with a lot of my favorite tobacco's that I would have bought and smoked either way.

The McClelland ketchup aroma was a polarizing topic before they closed anyways, to some folks like myself it meant you were about to enjoy the finest Virginia tobacco around but to others it was as offensive as the Lakeland sauce is to some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmybriar
Status
Not open for further replies.