Important Information Regarding FDA Regulations

[Ocelot55]

Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to take some time to familiarize yourself with the different options the FDA is considering for the regulation of "other tobacco products" (which would include pipe tobacco) and cigars.

Here is a link to the FDA's proposals: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/04/25/2014-09491/deeming-tobacco-products-to-be-subject-to-the-federal-food-drug-and-cosmetic-act-as-amended-by-the#h-17

This is a very long read, but as citizens that these regulations concern I believe it is our responsibility to educate ourselves and make our voices heard.

You can submit formal feedback via this link: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FDA-2014-N-0189-0001

If any of you know of any academic sources to support your points please include them.

 

[puros_bran]

FWIW: that's aimed at us Vapors, not you guys...... But this is the state we are discussing.

If you gents really want to help I URGE,beg,plead with you to go to Cassa.org and join. It's a free membership but your support lends numbers when they argue before legislators, councilmen, mayors, governors, judges, etc.

As it stands the rules will force about 99% of current ejuice makers out of business by not being able to meet the clinical studies etc. (because nicotine, pg,vg,h2o, and flavorents need to be repeatedly tested for each 'blend') This will leave the industry in the hands of Lorrilard, RJ REYNOLDS, etc .... Who intentionally market overpriced ineffective ecigs.

 

[Smokey-smokey]

- sigh -
More nanny gov't crap

If they didn't spend so much money on policing we wouldn't have so many problems to police

While I AM a smoker and enjoy my pipe, as well as cigarettes now and then, there are things to consider.

What exactly would this FDA regulation entail? I'm OK with the "ingredients" in tobacco being regulated. Think about it, we do not know what really constitutes the casings in tobaccos we smoke. If history serves me right, some tobacco companies in the 80's got in trouble for putting chemicals in pipe tobacco that were known as specific lung carcinogens. I think maybe regulating what goes in tobacco isn't such a bad idea. We think we are smoking tobacco, but what about the rest of the stuff? Now, with that said: kinda dangerous to allow the FDA to get their filthy paws on tobacco because we all know that Uncle Sam doesn't always know when to stop. The law might sound fine, but next thing we know we are taking an anal probe every time we buy tobacco because the law says so.

The thing with smoking laws is that no one seems to care enough to do anything about it, even those who depend on it for income. Some retailers will tell you that they are aware of the problems and are working on "solutions" and that, to quote an e-tailer, "we have one of the strongest voices in the industry." When it comes to actually doing something, what happens? their efforts fall short.

Whhaaattt? you mean pamphleteering with Cigar Rights of America didn't fix it?  :fpalm: 

Yeah, yeah, strong voice and all. How come I can't buy RYO tobacco online anymore then? Can't even buy a dang cigarette case...

The problem is that instead of DOING something, something that could, potentially, bring both sides to a compromise, nothing significant is actually done.

- Research: Why is the government the ONLY side doing research? Why aren't tobacco companies funding research to show the difference between Cigarettes, e-cigs, Cigars, Pipe Tobacco, etc. and then tax and regulate accordingly?

- Why aren't E-tailers and retailers organizing, somehow, and contributing to research? Why aren't they becoming actively involved? Instead, all I hear them do is whine about how Governor Such or President Such is screwing them.

- I came across a petition some time ago, it asked the Federal Gov't not to raise cigar taxes because the product is non-addicting. So, while I may not entirely disagree with that claim, what is a government type likely to answer? "son, all nicotine is addictive or has the potential for addiction."

- Claims: when a claim is made to change a policy, it is generally a good idea to back it up. Listen, I'm more concerned with the health effects of an idiot driving a two ton truck at a high rated speed every morning than on what a couple of bowls a day will do to me. However, I do have to admit that tobacco is tobacco. No, I don't think you are going to die a horrible death at the hands of a torturer because tobacco smoke gives you cancer, aids, gonorrhea, and hairy palms, but it's not really a source of vitamins and minerals either... My point here? I have seen people make the claims that pipe smokers live longer, but they preface the claim by saying "I don't have the research handy right now but..." Don't have it? As a government type I would read as "I don't know what I'm talking about but..." Why? because there is Google to get that so-called research at your finger tips.

Claiming that e-cigs are better than traditional cigarettes? well, let's back that up. Just because the "juice" is clear it doesn't mean it's only water and nicotine.

 

[Smokey-smokey]

Oh yeah I forgot to add. Any time I say something to this effect I get a reply with an old cigarette ad showing how Doctors recommend Lucky Strikes.

Any time now... :lol!: 

 

[puros_bran]

Take GL Pease...    Under the proposed rules He will have to spend literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, per blend getting EACH blend tested, certified, FDA approved.  

It's the same with the ecig guys this is actually aimed at.  Notice the sudden end of 'ecigs will kill you' nonsense the antis were propagating since the proposed rule???  That's because Big Tobacco got exactly what they want, complete control of the market.   The GL Peases of the ecig world will be done.  

It's not simply 'apply this new sticker and we are good'.   It's the end of GL Pease, the Gawiths, Hearth & Home, McClellands, etc etc etc etc ..

What will be left is basically Captain Black..
Gents as I've stated this IS in response to ecigs but they will take y'all down with the ship.

 

[Smokey-smokey]

Take GL Pease...    Under the proposed rules He will have to spend literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, per blend getting EACH blend tested, certified, FDA approved.  

It's the same with the ecig guys this is actually aimed at.  Notice the sudden end of 'ecigs will kill you' nonsense the antis were propagating since the proposed rule???  That's because Big Tobacco got exactly what they want, complete control of the market.   The GL Peases of the ecig world will be done.  

It's not simply 'apply this new sticker and we are good'.   It's the end of GL Pease, the Gawiths, Hearth & Home, McClellands, etc etc etc etc ..

What will be left is basically Captain Black..
Gents as I've stated this IS in response to ecigs but they will take y'all down with the ship.

I think you are making a very long leap.

OK, I'll bite, the GLP's of the e-cig world will be gone. (gap) We will only be left with Captain Black pipe tobacco.

Let's see what's in the gap:

- Many of the "smaller" brands of pipe tobacco are either owned by the "giants" already cornering most of the market (but we still get the small-blender-cares-about-you-because-he-loves-what-he-does feeling) If the "giants" don't own a brand, they are certainly profiting by distribution (with some exceptions here and there)... Have you noticed how a lot of pipe tobacco brands are the same pipe tobacco but labeled under a different name?
- The bill proposes the exception of certain cigars. The "giants" either own or distribute both premium and gas station grade cigars
- Then we also have to consider all the other smokeless products, owned by the giants..

Now, my questions:
- Where did the "hundreds of thousands" figure come from?
- What, if anything, is being done by the "little guys" ?(Sorry, GLP is not so little anymore)... Are there attorneys involved? lobbying?  OK, I'll make a further concession: GLP and others are still small: haven't you noticed how much they depend on each other? Anything a poor chap like Greg and another not famous at all Russ can do together?
- Wouldn't it make more sense, from a business perspective, and with long term plans in mind, for the giants to acquire the "small" brands, much like they have done with so many other product? Considering the alternative, which seems to be the idea that the giants are in a conspiracy to run the small out of business and, in the process, make it even more difficult for themselves to conduct future business (due to new laws and all), I would choose the former, and not the latter.

I don't think anyone is asking the right questions.
- WHAT can be done
- WHO is behind all the unsubstantiated claims that e-cigs are not bad and pipe smoking leads to long life? and most important: WHY?
- WHY are the above mentioned claims not questioned?
- WHERE is all that research that is often never at my fingertips when I make a claim?

Insanity: doing the exact same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

 

[MisterE]

http://casaa.org/Home_Page.php

Here's the link.

 

[puros_bran]

FWIW: there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of ecig related studies that have been done by advocacy groups and neutral groups.  The media won't let it out.  As Eric just posted go to CASAA website and check it out.

As to what's being done?    Casaa is sending lawyers, doctors, lobbyist, and plain old common folk to every hearing, proposed rule making, questions session, etc that they can.    


And to the rest of it?  Don't care to argue, we were asked not to in this sub forum.

  Edited In: if that last part seems a cop out it is because it is.

Post edited in, edited in. Lol.
There are also three ( ? ) ecig industry lobbyist groups funding research, pushing very hard for self regulation, etc. They are trying to stick together.

Anyway, it's late.. I'm going to vape some cream brûlée and go to bed (and No FDA , just because it's flavored doesn't mean it's aimed at children.. Adults have taste buds too)

 

[MisterE]

I also think it bears mentioning that, as pipe enthusiasts, we have to consider cigarette, cigar, and e-cigarette folk as one and the same, even if we ourselves tend to make distinctions. We're all in the the same fight. If we let one of them go down, we'll end up being next. Unfortunately, tobacco is tobacco is tobacco (even e-juice) so far as the antis are concerned.

Some of you will remember few years ago, when cigarettes were beginning to be punitively taxed. The whole community stood by and let them take the hit. Most clung to the notion that pipes are different so therefore we're not in danger. The cigarette guys quickly started labeling RYO as "pipe tobacco" as a loophole to avoid taxation and stay afloat. It worked for a while because pipe tobacco was still considered different. Unfortunately, the feds caught on to all that potential revenue and are now reclassifying pipe tobacco as cigarettes.

We did that to ourselves, gentlemen.

We can't consider any tobacco group as different. It always, always, always comes back to bite.

 

[puros_bran]

The beloved Commonwealth of Kentucky has a nifty little motto that applies... United We Stand Divided We Fall.



The thought that "it needs to be regulated and taxed accordingly" is insanity to me. It is regulated, by existing business law.. It is taxed, by state sales tax, federal income tax, county property tax, and on and on. Why is it We The People have bought into the idea that everything needs special regulation and a special (above and beyond) tax scheme??

 

[Thomas Tkach]

So basically, this says that pipe tobacco will be taxed like cigarette tobacco, right?

 

[puros_bran]

More than that, the next time Greg wants to release a whimsically named can of blended tobacco he will have to have the product analyzed by independent laboratory, file processing fees, hire attorneys, jump through hoops, and perform magical theatrical performance while dressed as a leotard wearing goat. (In other words add all that into the baseline wholesale pricing)

"hey just for ***** and giggles let's sit on this application"....................(Don't think it happens?? Remember the big IRS stink last year?............................
4 months later "Oh you put 05/14/2014 for the date and the instructions clearly state on page 16,407 ,paragraph 13 , subsection 3 that dates must be listed day/month/year. You need to refile"...............
3 months later " sir, we received your resubmission but laboratory testing must be within 180 days of form submission, as it has been 7 months since testing occurred we regret to inform you that your application is denied".

 

[puros_bran]

And your tobacco tins are going to be all mucked up like the Europeans with those hideous half can pictures of still born children and withered dicks and what not. Lol.

 

[fsu92john]

I also think it bears mentioning that, as pipe enthusiasts, we have to consider cigarette, cigar, and e-cigarette folk as one and the same, even if we ourselves tend to make distinctions. We're all in the the same fight. If we let one of them go down, we'll end up being next. Unfortunately, tobacco is tobacco is tobacco (even e-juice) so far as the antis are concerned.

Some of you will remember few years ago, when cigarettes were beginning to be punitively taxed. The whole community stood by and let them take the hit. Most clung to the notion that pipes are different so therefore we're not in danger. The cigarette guys quickly started labeling RYO as "pipe tobacco" as a loophole to avoid taxation and stay afloat. It worked for a while because pipe tobacco was still considered different. Unfortunately, the feds caught on to all that potential revenue and are now reclassifying pipe tobacco as cigarettes.

We did that to ourselves, gentlemen.

We can't consider any tobacco group as different. It always, always, always comes back to bite.

I completely agree. It saddens me when I read a pipe board and the posters express indifference or even approval toward anti-cigarette legislation on the grounds that cigs are yucky, pipe tobacco is different/better, etc. What is needed in the present climate is solidarity among tobacco users (though I fear it may be too late even for such solidarity to do much good).

 

[Thomas Tkach]

But old blends (2007) are grandfathered in, right? But then they would be taxed a ton. Maybe it's finally time to buy that life-time supply before the taxes hit. What sort of deadlines are we talking about with this?

 

[Thomas Tkach]

I also think it bears mentioning that, as pipe enthusiasts, we have to consider cigarette, cigar, and e-cigarette folk as one and the same, even if we ourselves tend to make distinctions. We're all in the the same fight. If we let one of them go down, we'll end up being next. Unfortunately, tobacco is tobacco is tobacco (even e-juice) so far as the antis are concerned.

Some of you will remember few years ago, when cigarettes were beginning to be punitively taxed. The whole community stood by and let them take the hit. Most clung to the notion that pipes are different so therefore we're not in danger. The cigarette guys quickly started labeling RYO as "pipe tobacco" as a loophole to avoid taxation and stay afloat. It worked for a while because pipe tobacco was still considered different. Unfortunately, the feds caught on to all that potential revenue and are now reclassifying pipe tobacco as cigarettes.

We did that to ourselves, gentlemen.

We can't consider any tobacco group as different. It always, always, always comes back to bite.

I completely agree. It saddens me when I read a pipe board and the posters express indifference or even approval toward anti-cigarette legislation on the grounds that cigs are yucky, pipe tobacco is different/better, etc. What is needed in the present climate is solidarity among tobacco users (though I fear it may be too late even for such solidarity to do much good).

AMEN

 

[MartinH]

Hey Everyone,
So, I just read the paper cited by the FDA. You can find it here:
http://centralwitobaccofree.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Health-consequences-of-pipe-versus-cigarette-smoking.pdf

Being a doctoral student and having gone through almost three years of studies for my PhD., here are the things I see that make this study somewhat interesting, but still not conclusive.

1. They adjusted the mortality rates for age, height, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, physical activity during leisure, sick leave, and a few other things not totally relevant to my point. (Yes, you read that correctly. Height!)
2. They focused their research on diseases which they are pretty sure are "only" caused by smoking.

Here is my two cents worth. It is very difficult to generalize a finding such as this, due to factors such as:
1. Environmental hazards (which they may have accounted for but were not specific about)
2. Diet
3. Disease causing/carcinogens in extant diet
4. The difficult of finding true causality and relationship between factors A and B, because there may also be Factors C,D,F, etc that you do not know about or haven't measured.

At best, this is a study requiring further testing and must be repeated. The obvious problem is that this is a longitudinal study and so has taken a few decades to complete. This, by the way, is also why they put such credence in its findings.

While I am sure that smoking tobacco, even pipe tobacco, isn't the healthiest thing you can do, I also know it has some medical benefits.

Yes, the carcinogens are bad, but as someone else posted on another site, there are so many products on the market (aspertame) which cause cancer, that I question the validity of any one research study. Personally, nicotine has a major health benefit, akin what THC would do for me. And where I live, pot is illegal. Also, as someone who works for the state government, I couldn't smoke pot for medical reasons, even if it were "legal."

One other thing to know about this kind of research, or really all research is that you have to look at the meta-data. In other words, it takes years, if not decades of similar studies to see if the overwhelming data points in one direction or another.

An example in my field of study is that currently there exist 8 relevant studies, with the earliest being in 1984 and the newest being 2013. 4 say one thing, 4 contradict those findings. Who do you believe?

As for the citation the FDA uses, I'd be much more interested in a meta-analysis of 100+ studies and see where the overwhelming data leads us. For an institution like the freaking FDA to cite one, single study is a bit disingenuous and I think shows their intellectual (political?) bias.

I'd be more apt to give credence to their argument if a meta-analysis had been cited as "evidence."

-I'll stop boring you now!