FDA Deeming Date

[jackswilling]

"Who you barking at Jackswilling?"
For sure not you. I see no disagreement between our posts. Not my intention to bark. Would change the tone for sure, but I have spent a fair amount of time studying this, mentioning the House bill over and over, mentioning the myth of the E-Cig link, and two members I respect and have no personal issues with asked for proof. At the time my only thought was why me, and not you two (you not being one of the two, Warren and Sable). You all prove me wrong. But, none the less, I took the time to put up and not shut up.

 

[ashdigger]

The logic is simple.....We the Sheeple allow it.

 

[warren]

jack: I appreciate your time and effort most sincerely. Was not jerking your chain.

 

[jmatt]

For sure not you. I see no disagreement between our posts.

Just trying to stay square with everyone. Thanks. Don't know your occupation, but your passion is admirable. For me, Federal Regulatory law IS my day job.

 

[peckinpahhombre]

Well, I get (sort of) where the date came from, but my question was more of a policy question - what is the logic in having any cutoff? I mean, if you believe you should regulate tobacco, then regulate all tobacco.
This is a little like saying: "we are worried that people are being killed at heavy metal concerts, so we are going to regulate all concerts held by heavy metal bands that were formed after February 15, 2007." Where is the logic in that from a policy perpsective?

 

[cossackjack]

Logic?

FUBAR

Dumb

Asses

 

[sablebrush52]

jack: I appreciate your time and effort most sincerely. Was not jerking your chain.

+1! Thank you for posting all of this.
Having read through 250+ pages of the deeming rule as well as having read through a number of FDA docs, the vagueness of all of it is astonishing. It's hard to pin anything down. The FDA "interpreted" the Bill. BTW, one of the sections in the 2009 bill allows small producers to have a 4 year horizon for compliance. I'm curious how that jibes with the FDA schedule, which is based on a 2 year calendar. Of course, the term "small" tobacco manufacturer is not defined in the bill. But the effect of the deeming rules are clear. It benefits deep pocket players.

 

[igloo]

You are barking up the wrong tree . You should be looking at the CDC ,Naccho . These guys have been going after tobacco since the sixties . Check out some of the links at the bottom of this report . https://www.naccho.org/uploads/downloadable-resources/Best-Practices-Tobacco-Programs-Local-Level-2015.pdf

 

[sablebrush52]

A bit more food for thought, and, perhaps, a smoking, or smokeless, gun.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01tobacco.html?_r=0
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2007/08/6351/untold-story-how-why-philip-morris-pushing-fda-regulation
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/227703/philip-morris-gets-its-tobacco-bill-jonathan-h-adler

 

[igloo]

Follow the money , one example . https://www.genome.gov/26022424/2007-release-genes-environment-and-health-initiative-invests-in-genetic-studies-environmental-monitoring-technologies/

 

[jvnshr]

Can one of my American brothers explain to me the logic behind the February 15, 2007 deeming date?

I was asking the same question to myself, but was too lazy to ask it. Thanks for the thread.

 

[jmatt]

Well, I get (sort of) where the date came from, but my question was more of a policy question - what is the logic in having any cutoff? I mean, if you believe you should regulate tobacco, then regulate all tobacco.

We have a long history of "grandfathering" products that existed before pertinent regulation. For example, gun restrictions (always a hot topic in the U.S.) have come and gone. But each time, weapons that pre-dated a ban have remained legal. Cuban cigars became illegal to import here, but if you had them you could keep and smoke them.
The issue here is how they picked the grandfathered date. What they've functionally done is said "we were authorized to regulate all of this as of February 2007." And August 8th is the day the new rule declared "oh, by the way 'all of this' was supposed to include E-cigs, pipes, and cigars."

 

[blendtobac]

One other aspect of this is that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act came into play along with a reclassification of roll-your-own cigarette tobacco at a significantly higher tax rate. Shortly thereafter, a number of companies relabeled their products as pipe tobacco to reduce the taxes. Certainly, pipe tobacco sales boomed after the change because of this. By instituting this date, most, if not all, of the relabeled product would wind up not being grandfathered and would probably disappear from the market, so people making their own cigarettes would be forced to buy tobacco that is labeled as cigarette tobacco, and the government would recoup a lot of the lost tax dollars.
Russ

 

[ashdigger]

I agree with Russ, I believe this is the RYO issue and taxes more than anything. In my travels throughout the Southwest I have encounter many, many varieties of RYO "diguised" as PIPE TOBACCO. I'm talking dirt cheap baccy sold in large bags. Out of curiosity I bought a 4 ounce bag and stuffed it in my pipe.....4 puffs later I pulled over....dumped the pipe and tossed the baccy. Several hundred miles later I pulled into another gas station for a Redbull and piss break and asked the guy behind the counter about the RYO baccy.....he pulled out papers and rolling machines and explained how cheap he could make cigarettes for. Then he told me that he made them and sold them in bundles of 100. I was stunned. Btw, he also told me that if I wanted cheaper, buy RYO on the reservation. Maybe PipesandCigars, SmokingPipes and others can relocate to the Res.
But back to the point......this is an effort to get more revenue.

 

[sablebrush52]

I don't disagree that this is a chance to get more revenue. But as is well known and well reported, the details were crafted to give Phillip Morris and other BT companies a fiefdom over all of the US tobacco market, roll your own, smokeless - which implicitly includes e-cigs, vaping, anal suppositories, and Martian rim job catheters - cigarettes, pipe tobacco, and cigars, as well as anything else tobacco made, by virtue of imposing fees that will put small operations out of business, but paid for many times over by the profits BT makes, especially with no competition. The Feds have no difficulty with making money when they can, the screwing college students are getting - especially by New Jersey - being another example, but in that regard, they're no different than any other government on the face of the earth.

 

[Chasing Embers]

that will put small operations out of business

Very true. My local B&M closed its doors on the 5th to avoid this crap. Another small piece of America died because of greed.

 

[bobpnm]

Interesting conversation. Thanks to everyone. Powerful interests, big money at stake, small business and consumers get screwed. Shit happens. Trying to figure out why results in a glass (or 4) scotch and a few more pipes that will need cleaning. Weekend anyone?