Post- 2007 Tobacco List

[erhardt85]

You're talking health care costs? In that case I'm sure that's true. They probably have no clue what the real numbers are though.

 

[mso489]

sable', that's quite a list. Do you think the tobaccos left would make a shorter or longer list? Just kidding. It doesn't sound like it's clear yet what would and wouldn't be left, aromatics and such. One presumption may be that loss of a significant number of blends would cool the market and not be replaced by purchases of remaining blends, making the pipe smoking demographic even smaller than it already is, though I doubt anyone is strategizing. This is just riding on efforts to limit vape products and maybe to some degrees cigars.

 

[blackadderlxx]

One presumption may be that loss of a significant number of blends would cool the market and not be replaced by purchases of remaining blends, making the pipe smoking demographic even smaller than it already is, though I doubt anyone is strategizing. This is just riding on efforts to limit vape products and maybe to some degrees cigars.

They're just trying to be a buzzkill

 

[wolflarsen]

FDA is the spokesperson for anti-tobacco. But given they are an arm of government, they are probably too big, disorganized, inefficient and corrupt. As such I wonder if they have FDA hasn't the will to identify post-2007 tobaccos let alone inspect every tobacco outlet's shelves.

No, I think the axe will fall on anyone seeking to bring a new tobacco out. This would be far easier to accomplish. Then they could flex their regulatory muscles and be proud for keeping America tobacco free.

This makes a lot of sense to me.
However, in the spirit of preventing adolescents from vaping jelly bean flavored tobacco juices I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a revised version of the "deeming regulations" include a ban on all flavored tobacco products similar to the ban recently passed in San Francisco.

 

[64alex]

Seriously, how can FDA make determination for sure when a blend was started? Do the blenders had any requirement to keep records of when a blend was introduced?. To me it looks like all ridiculous even to start the implementation. Yes, FDA can and will probably try to destroy all the business making impossible any viable commercial activity in multiple ways but if they are thinking using a deeming date pathway I see a winning lawsuit coming up or simply no practical implementation.

 

[sablebrush52]

You're talking health care costs? In that case I'm sure that's true.

Healthcare costs are a part of the equation, but not all of of the equation. It also includes estimated costs to the economy due to the loss of worker productivity caused by smoking illnesses, loss of worker time, etc. Like I said, there is a lot of business friendly support for efforts to eradicate smoking. Everyone loves to complain about the "nanny state" but it's misdirected as the source for the push to restrict and eradicate smoking originates from the private sector. Businesses see smoking as getting in the way of making money.

 

[64alex]

[Healthcare costs are a part of the equation, but not all of of the equation. It also includes estimated costs to the economy due to the loss of worker productivity caused by smoking illnesses, loss of worker time, etc.]
Not completely sure this is the main player, otherwise how to explain the trend to legalize marijuana and more interestingly from the same "nanny state" minds who are trying to destroy the tobacco?

 

[lawdawg]

Healthcare costs are a part of the equation, but not all of of the equation. It also includes estimated costs to the economy due to the loss of worker productivity caused by smoking illnesses, loss of worker time, etc. Like I said, there is a lot of business friendly support for efforts to eradicate smoking. Everyone loves to complain about the "nanny state" but it's misdirected as the source for the push to restrict and eradicate smoking originates from the private sector. Businesses see smoking as getting in the way of making money.

Disagree. Obesity is as much a health issue in the developed world as smoking is, and possibly an even greater issue, yet the private sector is mostly pushing the "body acceptance" and "healthy at any size" movement. Sure, we see some token efforts at employer-sponsored gym memberships and whatnot, but there is no crackdown or even additional taxation on processed sugar and corn syrup. If the anti-smoking craze truly originated in the "loss of money" issues described above, then we would see a similar response to the obesity epidemic. The anti-smoking craze is an irrational moral panic.

 

[erhardt85]

I think I'm done with this one. I think you're all partially correct. Rationality doesn't factor in much, though. Money and power. That's about it. And partisan hackery.

 

[erhardt85]

Applying to things in general that is.

 

[sablebrush52]

Disagree. Obesity is as much a health issue in the developed world as smoking is, and possibly an even greater issue, yet the private sector is mostly pushing the "body acceptance" and "healthy at any size" movement. Sure, we see some token efforts at employer-sponsored gym memberships and whatnot, but there is no crackdown or even additional taxation on processed sugar and corn syrup. If the anti-smoking craze truly originated in the "loss of money" issues described above, then we would see a similar response to the obesity epidemic. The anti-smoking craze is an irrational moral panic.

You're free to disagree, but the numbers were being run about this years and years ago, and even 20+ years ago when I read some of those figures, costs were into the many tens of billions of dollars. Irrational it isn't.
You want to control the food chain? Good luck. People need to eat, they don't need to smoke. You really think there's no tax on obesity? Try to find affordable insurance. And if I follow your reasoning, fat people should be demonized, because that's been SO effective. I don't think smokers should be demonized, because that's been SO effective.
There are all sorts of addictions, and every junkie gets upset when his personal favorite is attacked.
Still doesn't change the huge economic costs.

 

[lawdawg]

You're free to disagree, but the numbers were being run about this years and years ago, and even 20+ years ago when I read some of those figures, costs were into the many tens of billions of dollars. Irrational it isn't.

You want to control the food chain? Good luck. People need to eat, they don't need to smoke. You really think there's no tax on obesity? Try to find affordable insurance. And if I follow your reasoning, fat people should be demonized, because that's been SO effective. I don't think smokers should be demonized, because that's been SO effective.

There are all sorts of addictions, and every junkie gets upset when his personal favorite is attacked.

Still doesn't change the huge economic costs.

Each of your points about tobacco use could also be applied to alcohol, yet nobody is campaigning to overregulate alcohol out of existence. Alcohol use, and drunk driving, is an even greater danger to the public good than tobacco. The restrictions on tobacco are disproportional compared to the public harm caused, especially when compared to the relative lack of regulation of similar harmful / addictive substances like alcohol.

 

[woodsroad]

lawdowg, nobody said that any of this is rational. The fact is that smoking is now a social pariah. Alcohol isn't. Pot isn't. The tobacco industry failed miserably in the war for social acceptability, and is now paying the price.

 

[cigrmaster]

I was just at another site when I read this take on the deeming regs. It is the first thing I have read that goes against what most people are saying about them.
"As for the deeming regs, they suck but they’re being overblown. Some of the estimates floating around are if you made a new blend from all new leaf, new casings, new flavors, etc. Once the “database” of components/ingredients has been established, your filing will just need to mention VA from USA, Perique from USA, sugar water, etc. Unless you’re using a brand new strain or a brand new flavoring, you won’t have to pay for all that testing. Also, the way I read it is that once something has been listed in the database, you can file your new product citing that already accepted blend, even if that blend is from a competitor."

 

[lawdawg]

lawdowg, nobody said that any of this is rational. The fact is that smoking is now a social pariah. Alcohol isn't. Pot isn't. The tobacco industry failed miserably in the war for social acceptability, and is now paying the price.

That's basically what I was getting at, woodsroad. I was disagreeing with sable's point that the treatment of tobacco by our government is rational and at least in some part justified by economics.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I think that we are overthinking all of this. Let us not forget that this was NOT a bunch of anti-smoking Nazis. This WAS an issue led and controlled by the cigarette industry from the very beginning. Their goal was to squash RYO, vapes, and anything that was competing with cigarette purchases. Pipes and cigars were said to have not been on the radar at all. The cigarette CEOS are all still setting on the FDA Board.
I am not a legal expert, but reading through what other non-legal experts have come up with baffles me. Maybe it's an exact interpretation, or it was a working evolving document.
Other things that I have noticed... Pipes and cigars were said to not be their target at all. But, the cigar industry pulled together some great sponsors that handled their arguments with class. Marco Rubio made a grweat appeal... got things done with class.
Pipes had a bunch of spazzes ...until Paul Creasy, Sutliff CEO, stepped up a few years ago and was making a great argument for... whoops, Sutliff hatched off Paul's head and put one of the guys from the cigarette industry, buddies with the FDA hacks, in charge. But, let's not talk about Sutliff. Don't mind the gorilla in the corner.
I have seen this whole scenario get played out as an Anti-smoking Nazi thing, spin spin...
However you want to look at it, cigars had the money, the class, and got things done. The FDA seemed to accommodate a lot of things to make life easier for those companies. Pipes... what's goin' on? Aren't pipe smokers supposed to be the quiet reflective smart bunch?

 

[sablebrush52]

Each of your points about tobacco use could also be applied to alcohol, yet nobody is campaigning to overregulate alcohol out of existence. Alcohol use, and drunk driving, is an even greater danger to the public good than tobacco. The restrictions on tobacco are disproportional compared to the public harm caused, especially when compared to the relative lack of regulation of similar harmful / addictive substances like alcohol.

Each of my points could be applied to just about any form of addiction. Ever heard of the Volstead Act? Guess how that worked out.
The perception is that smokers are spreading their carcinogenic precipitate into the air others breathe, with each exhalation. An alcoholic or compulsive overeater isn't doing that, unless they're also a smoking alcoholic or compulsive overeater. So there is a rationality to the restrictions, just not one that we like.
If we were remotely rational, we'd find an alternative to automobiles and make a decided push to get rid of them. The amount of waste, pollution, injury and death caused by their use dwarfs just about anything else. But, we're not rational.

 

[wolflarsen]

This is what I started to put together shortly after the FDA Deeming Rules were announced. Please note that due to some language in the FDA wording I included for the possibility of all foreign made blends going off of the US market.

How possible is this possibility? I didn't realize that all foreign made blends could be on the chopping block as well.

 

[lawdawg]

I think that we are overthinking all of this. Let us not forget that this was NOT a bunch of anti-smoking Nazis. This WAS an issue led and controlled by the cigarette industry from the very beginning. Their goal was to squash RYO, vapes, and anything that was competing with cigarette purchases. Pipes and cigars were said to have not been on the radar at all. The cigarette CEOS are all still setting on the FDA Board.
I am not a legal expert, but reading through what other non-legal experts have come up with baffles me. Maybe it's an exact interpretation, or it was a working evolving document.
Other things that I have noticed... Pipes and cigars were said to not be their target at all. But, the cigar industry pulled together some great sponsors that handled their arguments with class. Marco Rubio made a grweat appeal... got things done with class.
Pipes had a bunch of spazzes ...until Paul Creasy, Sutliff CEO, stepped up a few years ago and was making a great argument for... whoops, Sutliff hatched off Paul's head and put one of the guys from the cigarette industry, buddies with the FDA hacks, in charge. But, let's not talk about Sutliff. Don't mind the gorilla in the corner.

I have seen this whole scenario get played out as an Anti-smoking Nazi thing, spin spin…
However you want to look at it, cigars had the money, the class, and got things done. The FDA seemed to accommodate a lot of things to make life easier for those companies. Pipes... what's goin' on? Aren't pipe smokers supposed to be the quiet reflective smart bunch?

Fair point about the tobacco industry itself quite likely being behind a lot of this, with the goal of quashing roll-your-own sales and the emerging vape market. I suppose it's good for us to remember that what really dragged pipe tobacco into this mess was the "roll your own" tobaccos intentionally mislabeled as pipe tobacco to avoid cigarette taxes. Cheapo smoke shops trying to avoid taxes have burned us all now. It's unfortunate that we haven't found a way out of this mess like the cigar industry has, for the most part. I understand plenty of cigar smokers take issue with the "premium cigar" price definition in the exception rules. It would be perfectly reasonable for us to have some sort of exception for bona fide pipe tobacco, though distinguishing it from roll-your-own might have to be done on a case-by-case basis.
I would venture to say that the main reason we pipe smokers don't have our own "exceptions" in the new FDA regulations is because not enough politicians are pipe smokers these days. They certainly will go to bat for their cigars though.

Each of my points could be applied to just about any form of addiction. Ever heard of the Volstead Act? Guess how that worked out.
The perception is that smokers are spreading their carcinogenic precipitate into the air others breathe, with each exhalation. An alcoholic or compulsive overeater isn't doing that, unless they're also a smoking alcoholic or compulsive overeater. So there is a rationality to the restrictions, just not one that we like

It seems we might agree on the "demonization of smokers" issue more than we disagree, but I still think tobacco is irrationally singled out among other vices for disproportional treatment. I made my point earlier about alcohol and drunk driving deaths, hence the effect on public health. There are also studies out there showing that being around overweight people tends to cause a person to become overweight themselves, which makes obesity also a public health issue affecting more than those who overeat.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

quite likely being behind a lot of this

It is very easy to show how the FDA board for this if a cigarette industry board room. It's not much of a speculation. I started off pissed at RYO also, but then it was explained to me that it "is" pipe tobacco, that is being taken advantage of by these thugs with rolling machines. RYO is actually very good pipe tobacco. But, all in all. Some guys found a loophole, and the huge powers of Big Cig set forth the Kraken. So, if I am going to pissed at anyone, it's Big Cig and their evil board members taking over everything by setting up puppets everywhere. They did this to chewing tobacco, all chewing tobaccos are owned by one of the two Big Cig companies now. They used the FDA back then... and now...

I would venture to say that the main reason we pipe smokers don't have our own "exceptions" in the new FDA regulations is because not enough politicians are pipe smokers these days.

Check out what Marco Rubio did for the cigar industry. The elected officials have no direct control over the FDA. He had to appeal to the general public and then take it directly to the FDA, which IS the cigarette industry.