Tell Our New President About Those FDA Deeming Rules
- Thread starter deathmetal
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I'd also suggest a couple of other things that people may have mentioned but perhaps bear repeating:
First, besides looking for an executive branch/White House angle, also contact your members of Congress, both your US House rep and US Senator, and make them aware of this issue and, really, educate them on the silliness and overreaching of these regulations. You will likely find a better atmosphere for challenging bureaucracy-overreaching in the first 100 days of the new Administration when members of Congress are looking for ways to make an impact and show activity. This is true, regardless of political party, but certainly more likely if your rep and senator(s) are Republicans. But now is the time member of Congress are preparing their agendas for the first 100 days, so the sooner the better.
As mentioned above, I'd make three points: 1) that this is FDA/Executive Branch over-reaching as a health matter; 2) this is, as a matter of government philosophy, an excessive delegation to executive branch agency (i.e, one thing many Republicans are particularly upset about is how past Congresses have permitted executive branch agencies to take over what are essentially legislative roles, or at least fill the vacuum of Congressional silence to undertake politically-motivated activity (in this case, putting tobacco blenders out of business), but it has happened in many agencies; and 3) these regulations are a job/business killer. This last argument will be more persuasive to your House rep who has fewer constituents than your senator (unless you live in a really small state). I emphasize this: to the extent you can provide an example of how ludicrous these regs are, eg, the cost small dealers will face or the burden of needing to get pipe tested or whatever. Most of these members are NOT pipe smokers, or smokers at all, probably, so they may not get the "tobacco" part of this; but they'll get the "stupid, costly, regulation" point or the "job killer" part.
Second, if you have favorite tobaconnists, esp those with blends/pipes/etc falling under the regulation, check with them and see if they are active in a trade association that will actively pursue something with Congress in the coming months. If not, you may want to suggest that they look into it, or in the alternative, have them directly contact (as above) their rep and senators.
Also, it may well be that a friendly House member will be a member of a committee member with FDA oversight responsibility. That's a home run, if they are friendly to the cause on one of the three bases I mentioned above. This kind of thing may well be an adjustment added to an FDA oversight/spending bill.
I can't emphasize how important the first 100 days will be. I know these things will take longer than that, but it is really better to be first in line, than last in line.
The suggestions re contacting people in the Administration are good, and I wouldn't say it would never happen, but, in my experience, this is the kind of thing is more likely to happen through one or several friendly representatives, than through a cabinet member pushing it.
Personally, I'm not a big smoker (although I am fine with it and like to have it around), but just the idea of this type of government social engineering and overreaching drives me nuts.
PS: I say that these arguments will be more persuasive to Republicans, which is generally true, but if you come from a tobacco state, say Kentucky, the Democrat congressmen will also likely be quite receptive, too (as you see with Fla. bi partisan proposal re cigars).
First, besides looking for an executive branch/White House angle, also contact your members of Congress, both your US House rep and US Senator, and make them aware of this issue and, really, educate them on the silliness and overreaching of these regulations. You will likely find a better atmosphere for challenging bureaucracy-overreaching in the first 100 days of the new Administration when members of Congress are looking for ways to make an impact and show activity. This is true, regardless of political party, but certainly more likely if your rep and senator(s) are Republicans. But now is the time member of Congress are preparing their agendas for the first 100 days, so the sooner the better.
As mentioned above, I'd make three points: 1) that this is FDA/Executive Branch over-reaching as a health matter; 2) this is, as a matter of government philosophy, an excessive delegation to executive branch agency (i.e, one thing many Republicans are particularly upset about is how past Congresses have permitted executive branch agencies to take over what are essentially legislative roles, or at least fill the vacuum of Congressional silence to undertake politically-motivated activity (in this case, putting tobacco blenders out of business), but it has happened in many agencies; and 3) these regulations are a job/business killer. This last argument will be more persuasive to your House rep who has fewer constituents than your senator (unless you live in a really small state). I emphasize this: to the extent you can provide an example of how ludicrous these regs are, eg, the cost small dealers will face or the burden of needing to get pipe tested or whatever. Most of these members are NOT pipe smokers, or smokers at all, probably, so they may not get the "tobacco" part of this; but they'll get the "stupid, costly, regulation" point or the "job killer" part.
Second, if you have favorite tobaconnists, esp those with blends/pipes/etc falling under the regulation, check with them and see if they are active in a trade association that will actively pursue something with Congress in the coming months. If not, you may want to suggest that they look into it, or in the alternative, have them directly contact (as above) their rep and senators.
Also, it may well be that a friendly House member will be a member of a committee member with FDA oversight responsibility. That's a home run, if they are friendly to the cause on one of the three bases I mentioned above. This kind of thing may well be an adjustment added to an FDA oversight/spending bill.
I can't emphasize how important the first 100 days will be. I know these things will take longer than that, but it is really better to be first in line, than last in line.
The suggestions re contacting people in the Administration are good, and I wouldn't say it would never happen, but, in my experience, this is the kind of thing is more likely to happen through one or several friendly representatives, than through a cabinet member pushing it.
Personally, I'm not a big smoker (although I am fine with it and like to have it around), but just the idea of this type of government social engineering and overreaching drives me nuts.
PS: I say that these arguments will be more persuasive to Republicans, which is generally true, but if you come from a tobacco state, say Kentucky, the Democrat congressmen will also likely be quite receptive, too (as you see with Fla. bi partisan proposal re cigars).
Lots of emotion around this subject that comes from emotion around the election, that is rightly not part of a Forums discussion. I've tried to angle my posts to the machinery of how to prompt this issue. Until appointees are in place in the FDA, and a Secretary to oversee them, I don't think something this particular is going to excite an administration taking on domestic and foreign policy in total.
While I think expecting any change on such a microscopic issue (in the grand scheme), edpalinurus is right in that some representatives seeking to curry favor with the new administration might wish to rethink their stance on some freedom/social issues. It doesn't hurt to remind them that a new boss is in town. Maryland, my state, went anti-Trump in a big way and we have all Democratic representation (even our Republican governor gave no support), so I'm guessing my folks are hiding in a corner right now. I'll drop them a line anyway.
For all those who are sad because Trump himself isn't a smoker, you may remember on the bright side that he sued over the smoking ban in Atlantic City that prevented people from smoking in his casinos:
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2008/04/trump_atlantic_city_casinos_sh.html
As has been mentioned above, Pence is similarly opposed to anti-smoking laws. Whatever your views on the election, even if you are overall saddened by the results as a citizen, as smokers, we can at least take heart in the fact that these candidates are against smoking regulations and bans.
Thanks for the link, deathmetal!
EDIT- Full disclosure: the above is not meant to be a politically charged addition to the thread; I did not vote for Trump or Clinton, so hopefully I am appropriately objective regarding the above. I was just trying to be encouraging.
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2008/04/trump_atlantic_city_casinos_sh.html
As has been mentioned above, Pence is similarly opposed to anti-smoking laws. Whatever your views on the election, even if you are overall saddened by the results as a citizen, as smokers, we can at least take heart in the fact that these candidates are against smoking regulations and bans.
Thanks for the link, deathmetal!
EDIT- Full disclosure: the above is not meant to be a politically charged addition to the thread; I did not vote for Trump or Clinton, so hopefully I am appropriately objective regarding the above. I was just trying to be encouraging.
Just one other thought to complement the many good, insightful comments posted here:
The number of tobacco shops in the US is not insignificant. Per this Bloomberg article in 2014 -- it has increased to 9000 as of 2012 ( Bloomberg Says Tobacco Shop Number Has Increased ). Those 9000 business are in congressional districts somewhere and most members of congress, of both parties, are willing to at least hear out reasonable criticisms of legislation and bureaucratic activity when it involves voters, esp. if the voters are tax-paying employers. I think one can make some very good, measured arguments that the regulations are unduly burdensome and meant to drive these shops out of business.
The number of tobacco shops in the US is not insignificant. Per this Bloomberg article in 2014 -- it has increased to 9000 as of 2012 ( Bloomberg Says Tobacco Shop Number Has Increased ). Those 9000 business are in congressional districts somewhere and most members of congress, of both parties, are willing to at least hear out reasonable criticisms of legislation and bureaucratic activity when it involves voters, esp. if the voters are tax-paying employers. I think one can make some very good, measured arguments that the regulations are unduly burdensome and meant to drive these shops out of business.
Some smart lobbyist needs to march the employees of C&D and Mcclelland in front of Trump/Pence and explain how these unique jobs will be gone if the FDA isn't abolished or regulations severely cut. Then we may have a prayer, other than that it'll be hidden in the bottom of the stack.....way way down in the basement. Great advice here as to what to do...just doesn't meet the populist requirements. Need to throw some kids in there some where, that's how D.C. Works. You can do anything as long kids are thrown in. :crazy:
Good luck, fellas. I understand the incoming president has never smoked and I therefore think one had better draft some really compelling reasons. Perhaps something along the lines that the FDA has a backlog of over 4000 medications awaiting approval and messing with tobacco is a waste of resources would be a start.
I do remember the Prez-Elect making a statement last summer about reducing the power of both the EPA and FDA. So there is hope.
I clicked on the link and sent my letter in.
I clicked on the link and sent my letter in.
- Status