In case you haven't listened to this week's Pipes Magazine Radio Show yet, you may have missed that the FDA has taken a 90-day breather, but ....The Pipe Pundit has his take on things here.
FDA Pauses Actions, but The Anti-Zealots Remain
- Thread starter admin
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I hope that in that 90 days, the deeming rule gets destroyed. It is cronyism and government selection of "winners and losers" in the marketplace, of what is supposed to be a free market; based on which companies will best be able to fund the bureaucrats. Mostly decided by people with agendas based on bad science, lack of understanding/knowledge of the subject and a desire to control human behavior and freedom of choice through economic warfare.
Bills have been introduced in the House to amend the predicate date, and all have gone into committee where they die. Congress hasn't shown any serious interest in overturning the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. I have no expectations of any change.
Committees are like group emails: an attempt to evade responsibility.
https://www.fda.gov/tobaccoproducts/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/ucm246129.htm
What a good bill to remove.
They should also junk local taxes because it is killing B&Ms at a time when online sales are destroying American retail.
Local spending should be encouraged, and the best way to do this is to drop taxes. That might require junking some of the bad policies that local and state governments have adopted anyway.
When you buy a tin of Dunhill and it is $16 at your B&M, and you realize that over half of that is taxes, it becomes clear why these stores are dying out.
https://www.fda.gov/tobaccoproducts/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/ucm246129.htm
What a good bill to remove.
They should also junk local taxes because it is killing B&Ms at a time when online sales are destroying American retail.
Local spending should be encouraged, and the best way to do this is to drop taxes. That might require junking some of the bad policies that local and state governments have adopted anyway.
When you buy a tin of Dunhill and it is $16 at your B&M, and you realize that over half of that is taxes, it becomes clear why these stores are dying out.
@deathmetal I never even thought about taxes. I thought my $19 tin of Nightcap was just the shop's profit.. The oligarchy will never lower the taxes for B&M stores. Instead they will find a way to tax online purchases to the same extremes.
Well, good point. But the more we make people know that taxes are killing American retail, the more likely it is that change will occur. We still live in what is technically a democracy. Right now, the anti-tobacco zealots and industry monopolists have better lobbyists, but that can change.
We might, but it seems to me that this distinction exists in humanity itself. Some are leaders, the rest follow. The question is whether you get quality leaders or not.
If I were concerned about the safety of my people, I would want them switching to pipes and cigars instead of other modes of consuming tobacco. I might also want them using tobacco widely instead of more dangerous drugs. Toward that end, I would drop taxes and regulation as much as possible.
2020 isn't far off. Maybe it's time to run on the "beer, tobacco and firearms" platform.
Crossing fingers that the pause gets continued indefinitely. they couldn't legitimately regulate and enforce the rules they suggested, and now with belts tightening on superfluous agencies ... they have the food and drug part of their name to deal with.
"The enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property and pursuing and obtaining happiness".
I was under the impression the above was carved in stone...t'would seem not :roll:
Regards,
Jay.
I was under the impression the above was carved in stone...t'would seem not :roll:
Regards,
Jay.
Jay, no matter how great your situation is, unless you are constantly vigilant and jealously guard it, some asshole will take it away from you. Sadly, in the US, jealously guarding your rights and freedoms makes you a "nut" or "extremist", fit only to be scoffed at by the "cool crowd". We are outnumbered about four to one by those dumbfucks.
@deathmetal You would have my vote, sir.
I can see part of the reasoning behind cigarette taxation. Not to insult anyone, but cigarettes and 'dip' have had a history of predominately lower-income users. Not all, mind you, but increasingly so in recent times as cigarettes become less of a cultural symbol of 'cool.' I myself am only just now trying to quit them for good and in my 34th year(always told myself I would before 30).
My point being: Our government is tired of paying the medical bills for smokers who have purchased their cigarettes with welfare checks to begin with. That sounds phlegmatic, but I am sure that is why cigarettes cost literally four times what they cost fifteen years ago. The tax is raised in equal proportion to the price of tobacco/manufacturing/retail etc, thus giving welfare back the money the welfare recipient just spent on the smokes. haha And in the process making an effort to deter the plebs from being able to acquire 'ye old coffin nails.'
I'm cool with that. What affronts me is as you said, cigars and pipes are in a completely different vein and should be treated hence.
I can see part of the reasoning behind cigarette taxation. Not to insult anyone, but cigarettes and 'dip' have had a history of predominately lower-income users. Not all, mind you, but increasingly so in recent times as cigarettes become less of a cultural symbol of 'cool.' I myself am only just now trying to quit them for good and in my 34th year(always told myself I would before 30).
My point being: Our government is tired of paying the medical bills for smokers who have purchased their cigarettes with welfare checks to begin with. That sounds phlegmatic, but I am sure that is why cigarettes cost literally four times what they cost fifteen years ago. The tax is raised in equal proportion to the price of tobacco/manufacturing/retail etc, thus giving welfare back the money the welfare recipient just spent on the smokes. haha And in the process making an effort to deter the plebs from being able to acquire 'ye old coffin nails.'
I'm cool with that. What affronts me is as you said, cigars and pipes are in a completely different vein and should be treated hence.
Our government doesn't pay any medical bills for anyone. To begin with, our government doesn't "have" any money; they collect it from citizens and distribute it to citizens. (Not really; an astonishing amount of it disappears overseas or is distributed to non-citizens here, but that's another story for another time.) So our government doesn't have any ability to "get sick of" anything.
As far as disbursing other people's money to pay for smokers' illnesses, I assume you are talking about the VA, Medicaid, and Medicare. Nobody made any deals about non-smoking when the deal was made between military personnel and the VA, and in fact, the military used to distribute tobacco products. So fuck them. As far as Medicaid and Medicare, unless they start having a hard-on with "paying for" the obese, drug users, alcoholics, etc., they can cram it up their ass as well.
They're "tired of it"? What the hell else were they planning on doing with the money they might save treating smokers? Nothing good, I can assure you.
As far as disbursing other people's money to pay for smokers' illnesses, I assume you are talking about the VA, Medicaid, and Medicare. Nobody made any deals about non-smoking when the deal was made between military personnel and the VA, and in fact, the military used to distribute tobacco products. So fuck them. As far as Medicaid and Medicare, unless they start having a hard-on with "paying for" the obese, drug users, alcoholics, etc., they can cram it up their ass as well.
They're "tired of it"? What the hell else were they planning on doing with the money they might save treating smokers? Nothing good, I can assure you.
It certainly paid my mother's, my sister's, and my own while growing up. I assumed that was still a thing.
Also, tobacco was provided in rations in the military back when it wasn't quite known how unhealthy it was. They try to discourage it's use now. Or at least they did while I was in. (2002-2006)
And do not mistake me for a proponent of taxation or regulation, sir. I was only speaking to a point in an attempt to grasp the logic of it all. haha I'm no fan of the nanny-state.
My only point, really, is that the government doesn't pay for anything. The taxpayers pay for everything. Ergo, the government can shut it's trap on what they like or dislike paying for; they should be completely, absolutely, 100% neutral in all of this. The government is not a sentient enough being to be miffed over whether someone has bad lungs from smoking or bad lungs from loading coal.
As long as the World Health Organization exists, smokers are an endangered species regardless of FDA regulations.
- Status