FDA Altria urges FDA to impose Deeming Regulation

[Bill Godshall]

Altria endorses FDA’s proposed Deeming Regulation to protect cigarette markets, ban >99.9% of e-cigs marketed by Altria competitors, give e-cig industry to Altria and other Big tobacco companies. Altria also urges FDA to impose Deeming Regulation on premium cigars to destroy small competitors and increase Altria’s Middleton cigar sales.
http://www.altria.com/About-Altria/...ulatory-Filing/Pages/default.aspx?src=leftnav
http://www.altria.com/About-Altria/...ings/ALCS-NuMark-Comments-FDA-2014-N-0189.pdf
http://www.altria.com/About-Altria/...Filings/ALCS-JMC-Comments-FDA-2014-N-0189.pdf

 

[Kent C]

OMG! They're acting in their own self-interest. Luckily, they have the gov't to help them or they'd actually have to compete.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Interestingly, Reynolds American hasn't posted (on its website) the comments it sent to FDA on the Deeming Regulation.

If anyone finds Reynolds' comments, please post.

I strongly suspect that Reynolds' comments also endorsed the Deeming Regulation, although they (like Lorillard) may also have urged the agency to move the 2/15/07 grandfather date up to allow SE reports for e-cigs on the market prior to issuance of the Final Rule (or 30 months prior, as occurred for cigarettes RYO and smokeless tobacco when the FSPTCA became law).

 

[ClippinWings]

THIS was what I expected from Lorilard. Still surprised by their comments.

This is actually what I'd expect from any tobacco company.

 

[Kent C]

Interestingly, Reynolds American hasn't posted (on its website) the comments it sent to FDA on the Deeming Regulation.

If anyone finds Reynolds' comments, please post.

I strongly suspect that Reynolds' comments also endorsed the Deeming Regulation, although they (like Lorillard) may also have urged the agency to move the 2/15/07 grandfather date up to allow SE reports for e-cigs on the market prior to issuance of the Final Rule (or 30 months prior, as occurred for cigarettes RYO and smokeless tobacco when the FSPTCA became law).

I see nothing from RJR, RJ Vapers and I looked a lot of places....including FDA docket. Unless they're listed under another name - they either didn't submit or it isn't posted yet. Or.... they let the Lorillard comment speak for them.

 

[Jman8]

I don't know if I'll ever understand this spin other than to realize these are the types of things an anti-smoking activist may express.

 

[bill1960]

Altira owns Green smoke. Hum I wonder what they're thinking..

 

[AttyPops]

Google "Oligarchy'.

Even better, let me google that for you
America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds


Besides: since when hasn't any drug dealer, legal or otherwise, not sought to monopolize the market? I suppose that's true for other things too...any retail...but the nicotine thing is so vilified.

Let's hope the FDA actually works for the people.

 

[Kent C]

Google "Oligarchy'.

Even better, let me google that for you
America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds

And the 'universities' (esp. Princeton) are also part of the oligarchy. I'd edit this line

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,” the study found.

with the bold:

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and progressive special-interest groups have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while organized groups representing small business interests and average citizens have little or no independent influence,”.

It's why the EPA dominates all businesses, large and small. Just to name one example out of thousands. There are certain 'connected businesses' that survive or are allowed some easing for regulations, - GE eg., and as such, 'oligarchy' is only a nice way to say 'fascism' (as an economic, not anti-Semitic system), where gov't controls business and those businesses that go along with the ruse are afforded some leeway.

Even naming the system as a 'oligarchy' tends to put focus on the big business and the economic elites (ie. 'the rich') as having more cause with the gov't as the effect, when it's the other way around. Without gov't expanding control, taking bribes and adjusting regulations to fit, then no such system would exist. Gov't starts it and some business go along with it. All other businesses unless they pay up, will be at effect of the gov't's policies.

I actually think that it was no intention of the FDA 'helping' the tobacco companies who have invested in ecigs. It just so happened that the only product that could possibly have existed at the time of the grandfather date, happens to be cigalikes. Had the FDA and Congress as it existed at the time - Dem majorities in both Houses - (not a poke at the Dems, just the truth) - known there would have been a possibility of allowing ANY ecigs escape the regulation, they would have changed the date to eliminate that possibility.

That said, now.... they likely realize that is one possibility of the deeming and while for them, an 'unintended consequence', it is one they can live with as long as truly effective ecigarettes are effectively banned.

 

[DC2]

Even naming the system as a 'oligarchy' tends to put focus on the big business and the economic elites (ie. 'the rich') as having more cause with the gov't as the effect, when it's the other way around. Without gov't expanding control, taking bribes and adjusting regulations to fit, then no such system would exist. Gov't starts it and some business go along with it. All other businesses unless they pay up, will be at effect of the gov't's policies.

What are your thoughts on the idea that big business are the ones that determine who makes up the government?
And that who makes up the government determines how the government works?

Rather than saying "big business" perhaps I should just say those with power.
Which generally (but not always) means those with all the money.

 

[Kent C]

What are your thoughts on the idea that big business are the ones that determine who makes up the government?
And that who makes up the government determines how the government works?

Rather than saying "big business" perhaps I should just say those with power.
Which generally (but not always) means those with all the money.

As far as where the money comes from for candidates, this will give you an idea, but you may have to dig and google some of the groups.

https://www.opensecrets.org/

As far as who of those candidates actually get the votes - public school education, mainstream media and Hollywood have the biggest effects. Education for setting up what should be valued, mainstream media reporting on those values and Hollywood (ie TV and movies - some no longer done in Hollywood because of union contracts, regulations and taxes ) displaying those values in a way that communicates them well. Each, imo, promote the wrong values or skew them beyond recognition as a value, or dismisses certain values as values at all.

Again, "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg shows better than most, how fascism, as an economic system, was established in certain countries in Europe and how some of the same policies have been enacted in the US.

Just answering your question as directly as I can but further discussion should go to PM....

 

[DC2]

As far as where the money comes from for candidates, this will give you an idea, but you may have to dig and google some of the groups.

https://www.opensecrets.org/

As far as who of those candidates actually get the votes - public school education, mainstream media and Hollywood have the biggest effects. Education for setting up what should be valued, mainstream media reporting on those values and Hollywood (ie TV and movies - some no longer done in Hollywood because of union contracts, regulations and taxes ) displaying those values in a way that communicates them well. Each, imo, promote the wrong values or skew them beyond recognition as a value, or dismisses certain values as values at all.

Again, "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg shows better than most, how fascism, as an economic system, was established in certain countries in Europe and how some of the same policies have been enacted in the US.

Just answering your question as directly as I can but further discussion should go to PM....

I couldn't possibly disagree with any of that, even if I tried.
The education system has long been corrupted, Hollywood is a horribly bad joke that isn't even remotely funny, and mainstream media is a pox on society.

I know you are very well read on these topics, whereas I am not.
I only come by my conclusions by using my observation skills and applying common sense and logic to what I see happening around me.

But I still wonder the extent that "money" is behind it all when all is said and done.

I am saying it may be money first, then government.
But I thought you were saying government first, then money.

 

[Kent C]

I couldn't possibly disagree with any of that, even if I tried.
The education system has long been corrupted, Hollywood is a horribly bad joke that isn't even remotely funny, and mainstream media is a pox on society.

I know you are very well read on these topics, whereas I am not.
I only come by my conclusions by using my observation skills and applying common sense and logic to what I see happening around me.

But I still wonder the extent that "money" is behind it all when all is said and done.

I am saying it may be money first, then government.
But I thought you were saying government first, then money.

Like this: some businesses, organizations, individuals may offer money and it has strings - either spoken or unspoken. If Dem X gets money from AFSCUME union or Rep. X receives money from Marriott (Mormon, conservative values) - not much needs to be said. If 'staff' or associates get spoken to, leaving the representative with plausible deniability, then it happens that way.

IMO, though, it begins, not with the offer, but accepting it. It's the representative that can either accept or decline the offer - which puts 'cause' on his/her shoulders.

It's been called the politics of pull where 'rule of men' dominates 'rule of law' - a concept for which this gov't was created, to get away from true oligarchy of the church and state at the time.

 

[AttyPops]

Ooops. Guess I made it too political. Alas, it's hard to separate politics from the e-cig issues.

So far, all the nay-saying and dire predictions have not come to pass. I simply note, regardless of political affiliations, the process has been less traumatic than many have predicted for years. I'm still wary, but hopeful.

That's not to say that we shouldn't worry about big-business influence. But rather, it doesn't matter from what "side" it comes from. The PEOPLE want an alternative like e-cigs and frankly they'd like some least-obtrusive quality control (maybe from the source) while keeping their options open.

The news today said something about the AHA releasing "guidelines" or "recommendations"...mostly good ideas about restricting sales to minors and eliminating advertising that targets minors (as if that was common...it isn't IMO) but showed a lack of understanding on second-hand-vape and dared to suggest how the legal system should treat e-cig similar to other smoking bans. I'm not 100% on this but I'll bet that Bill and others will be commenting soon.

 

[Kent C]

Ooops. Guess I made it too political. Alas, it's hard to separate politics from the e-cig issues.
So far, all the nay-saying and dire predictions have not come to pass. I simply note, regardless of political affiliations, the process has been less traumatic than many have predicted for years. I'm still wary, but hopeful.

That's not to say that we shouldn't worry about big-business influence. But rather, it doesn't matter from what "side" it comes from. The PEOPLE want an alternative like e-cigs and frankly they'd like some least-obtrusive quality control (maybe from the source) while keeping their options open.

As far as ecig regulation it is not only hard to separate, but impossible - it IS a political issue and wouldn't have to be a partisan issue but it appears it is at the federal level, where the bulk of the heavy regulation will come. That said, I think you're right in that it is a PEOPLE issue - not just vapers but friends and family of vapers and people who simply don't like cigarettes for whatever reason. And I think those politicians who ignore that may see some effects of that. Whether it will be enough, I doubt it, but who knows. Common practice (I don't necessarily agree) says that the 'middle 20%' can affect and election and maybe the people will be in that 20% this time

 

[Nate760]

I picked up a Vuse a few weeks ago when they became available in my area (disclaimer: it was a one-time curiosity purchase, so there's no need to jump down my throat about it), and I found it more than a bit disconcerting that it said on the package "This is a tobacco product containing nicotine." So it's pretty obvious that RJR is trying to preemptively cozy up to the FDA in hopes that they (and Altria, and Lorillard) will be gifted a de facto monopoly on the vaping industry.

 

[Kent C]

I picked up a Vuse a few weeks ago when they became available in my area (disclaimer: it was a one-time curiosity purchase, so there's no need to jump down my throat about it), and I found it more than a bit disconcerting that it said on the package "This is a tobacco product containing nicotine." So it's pretty obvious that RJR is trying to preemptively cozy up to the FDA in hopes that they (and Altria, and Lorillard) will be gifted a de facto monopoly on the vaping industry.

No problem here Nate, I've considered the same and if I see one I'll pick one up as well. Wondering if refills are possible but haven't looked into it enough to know yet

My first ecig was a 'curiosity purchase' No intent to quit - that was over five years ago now.....

 

[pamdis]

R.J.Reynolds comment was posted two days ago

Regulations.gov

Just started reading, but top of page three of the introductory letter is a doozy:

FDA should, in its final rule, ban the sale of open-system
e-cigarettes, including all component parts.

ETA: Interestingly, the index to the actual comments says the section regarding open systems starts on page 53, and pages 52 and 53 are missing from the scanned file.

ETA: Duplicate comment posted by RJR Representative - it has the missing pages

 

[AttyPops]

And yet...no details as to the connector or the "digital technology"??????????? Anyone?

 

[Kent C]

Good find pam!!