Maybe We Can Be Cautiously Optimistic About FDA Regs?

[admin]

After a 4-month hiatus to deal with some family issues, we are pleased to welcome Fred Brown back to the PipesMagazine.com fold. I usually scan The New York Times most days, and then pick a few stories to read. I'm glad that Fred caught this intriguing one that I missed, which might be a glimmer of hope for pipe smokers when it comes to the legislative area.
Check it out -

Swedish Match Lights Up FDA With Proposal

 

[lestrout]

Good catch there! Maybe after the Massachusetts town meeting, where we smokers got real help from even non-smokers (paraphrasing - "I personally think smoking is disgusting, but this township proposal banning all tobacco sales is even more disgusting") we might be getting some welcome backlash against the antis.
hp

les

 

[mso489]

I'm glad Fred Brown is back on the beat. It's encouraging to think that perhaps various forms of tobacco use

can be evaluated separately. Pipes aren't cigarettes for health purposes for a number of reasons. It would be

reassuring to see regulations reflect that.
It's also interesting to remember how tobacco regulation has transformed farm culture in tobacco growing

regions. Many tobacco towns have withered to rows of empty store fronts, and the tobacco auction has

become a re-enactment rather than a fall ritual. Possibly, the changes have included emerging new agriculture

such as sustainably raised livestock, a resurgence in cotton growing, some agri-tourism, development of more

diverse food crops, and other new industries such as microbreweries and wineries. Still, the actual participation

of labor in full-time farming I understand runs about one precent.

 

[puffdoggie]

Paint me cynical but I don't believe in the phrase "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
Dave :crazy:

 

[sablebrush52]

I don't see any cause for optimism in this article. Even the writer doesn't express any optimism. Too many "if"s.

 

[condorlover1]

The trouble is there aren't enough votes in the smoking lobby so the old anti's can just carry on with their agenda. Their end dream is a total prohibition of tobacco and we saw how well their noble experiment worked with booze in the 1920's! I was visiting my home town in the UK last year and visited one of my favorite drinking establishments for a few beers. This place is a little on the rough side with many coloful characters as patrons but the owner allows smoking in the bar after 10.30 at night as all the local authority 'Smoke and Tobacco Compliance Inspectors' clock off at 5.30. One of these idiots walked in and was foolish enough to open his mouth which resulted in him being beaten within an inch of his life and dumped on the forecourt of the local hospital which I thought was priceless. Surprisingly none of these officious little idiots have ever pitched up there again! I too have read the article Kevin references and like sablebrush52 I don't see much cause for optimism at this present time. Politicians only respond to events when they are in danger of losing their livelihood and having to confront the realities of getting a real job. Prohibitionists are the antithesis of liberal thought as they wish to ban everything and it should be remembered Hitler wanted to ban cigarettes so that gives you some idea of the mindset you are dealing with in these organizations. Yesterday was the anniversary of the repeal of the Volstead Act by Roosevelt in 1933 who smoked as well as drank so I guess old Franklin couldn't have been all bad!

 

[boilermakerandy]

Politicians only respond to events when they are in danger of losing their livelihood and having to confront the realities of getting a real job.

Truer words have never been said. I despise politicians.