Business and health groups jockey to shape e-cigarette rule

[oplholik]

"Industry and health groups are flocking to the White House in hopes of winning last-minute changes to sweeping new regulations for electronic cigarettes and conventional cigars.

A hotly contested rule that would for the first time put both types of products under the Food and Drug Administration’s supervision is undergoing final review at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB)."


Business and health groups jockey to shape e-cigarette rule

 

[roxynoodle]

Thanks for posting, although it aggravates me to no end every time I hear a quote from the opposition that they are protecting the children

 

[oplholik]

Me too Roxy.

 

[EBates]

Uncle Sam Wants Your MONEY! So shut up and Hand It Over.
Health, Children = BS and MONEY
Just Sayin'

 

[nicnik]

"Industry and health groups are flocking to the White House in hopes of winning last-minute changes to sweeping new regulations for electronic cigarettes and conventional cigars.

A hotly contested rule that would for the first time put both types of products under the Food and Drug Administration’s supervision is undergoing final review at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB)."


Business and health groups jockey to shape e-cigarette rule

Interesting foreign policy considerations:

If the date is not changed, Loope said, every cigar coming into U.S. market would have to apply as a new product under the deeming regulations. Not only would it be astronomically expensive, the process would fast become a political nightmare for the administration.

For instance, he said, the rule would hinder the president’s efforts to normalize trade relations with Cuba, a country known for its high-quality cigars.

Classic ANTZ nonsense:

The potential for additional action on Capitol Hill has the American Lung Association concerned.

“The public health community is weighing in with OMB on the long-run need for a strong deeming regulation, but the immediate issue is whether or not the cigar and e-cigarette lobbies are going to make a back room deal in a smoke-filled room,” said Erika Sward, assistant vice president of national advocacy for the group, which met with the administration on Nov. 20.

Thanks for posting.

 

[AndriaD]

Interesting foreign policy considerations:


Classic ANTZ nonsense:


Thanks for posting.

Smoke-filled room? I thought those had been outlawed quite some time ago.

Andria

 

[EBates]

Smoke-filled room? I thought those had been outlawed quite some time ago.

Andria

Naw, you are thinking of places frequented by normal citizens. It's how most all political transactions with 'contributors' are conducted. Money Talks.

 

[sofarsogood]

Curious how the business interests are somehow of more importance than the consumer. I'm reading about efforts to ban the vape business in Malaysia. The focus there is the hardship for ecig "traders" as though the welfare of people trying to avoid cigarettes is irrelevant, which, apparently it is. The only rational response is to stock up, which is, fortunately, absurdly cheap. Then I won't need to pay any of them any of my money for years to come.

 

[Kent C]

quite some time ago. *****************

hehe......

 

[Kent C]

Curious how the business interests are somehow of more importance than the consumer.

A few things - if gov't wants to stifle business as in the deeming, the customers are collateral damage. Even though they say it's for 'public health', the results are 'most businesses will exit the market'.

Another factor, not necessarily The Hill publication, but business/financial news outlets will frame it in that manner. The sometime unmentioned "given" is that businesses exist for customers :- )

 

[oplholik]

Smoke-filled room? I thought those had been outlawed quite some time ago.

Andria

Maybe not for some, I believe Bohner smoked in his office.

 

[AndriaD]

Maybe not for some, I believe Bohner smoked in his office.

OMG... smoking in a gov't bldg???? SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!

Andria

 

[Kent C]

Maybe not for some, I believe Bohner smoked in his office.

True... in fact, I think Ryan mentioned having to clean it out the office. But there is a place outside near Congressional rooms, where at one point in time - there was a picture of Boehner and Duncan Hunter vaping. It's been scrubbed or I just can't find it anymore - I've tried - believe me.... lol.....

 

[oplholik]

Yeh, I remember reading that what's his face that took his place, commented on how the office smelled.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/u...st-to-detoxify-boehners-smoky-suite.html?_r=0

 

[bobwho77]

I'm thinking that all the "Jockeying for position" and the hysteria in the vaping community will be moot points.
How (or even if) the new regulations are implemented will ultimately come down to the courts.
Quite frankly, I'm fairly optimistic about that. Federal judges have always shown a willingness to smack down overzealous regulations, and most of them take a rather skeptical view of effectively banning otherwise legal activities.
SFATA, and CASAA need to be getting their ducks in a row NOW, (if they haven't already) but, if the case is (honestly) heard on it's merits, we have the advantage.

 

[AndriaD]

I'm thinking that all the "Jockeying for position" and the hysteria in the vaping community will be moot points.
How (or even if) the new regulations are implemented will ultimately come down to the courts.
Quite frankly, I'm fairly optimistic about that. Federal judges have always shown a willingness to smack down overzealous regulations, and most of them take a rather skeptical view of effectively banning otherwise legal activities.
SFATA, and CASAA need to be getting their ducks in a row NOW, (if they haven't already) but, if the case is (honestly) heard on it's merits, we have the advantage.

That's my feeling, too, about judges. I'm sure there probably are some corrupt judges -- they're still human, after all -- but it seems to me that they may be less prone to corruption, since their legal actions are always viewable, and they are held to account for them -- they may even be overturned by a higher court and I think that actually counts *against* them -- and those legal actions may even serve as a basis of law, via precedent. I've always thought that the judicial branch held the most power in our gov't checks and balances, up to and including declaring some law to be unconstitutional; it would seem that the legal actions of judges are the most transparent to public view.

Andria

 

[skoony]

I'm thinking that all the "Jockeying for position" and the hysteria in the vaping community will be moot points.
How (or even if) the new regulations are implemented will ultimately come down to the courts.
Quite frankly, I'm fairly optimistic about that. Federal judges have always shown a willingness to smack down overzealous regulations, and most of them take a rather skeptical view of effectively banning otherwise legal activities.
SFATA, and CASAA need to be getting their ducks in a row NOW, (if they haven't already) but, if the case is (honestly) heard on it's merits, we have the advantage.

There are no grounds for a court case. The FDA was given the authority by Congress to protect
the health safety and welfare of those who use the products under their jurisdiction.
They need but utter two words," the chillin'". Case over.
The only legal angle that will work is breaking the link between the supposed highly addictive
and apparently deadly nicotine and the aforementioned "chillin'". Current clinical studies have
proven nicotine does not cause dependency in those that have never used tobacco products.
Specifically cigarettes as the are by far magnitudes of order more harmful than all other tobacco
products combined. If one is underage and had never smoked its impossible to get addicted to
nicotine by vaping. Ergo, no new generation of nicotine addicts. It will be just a harmless consumer
activity in no need of extra ordinary regulation by the FDA or anyone else. The nicotine "chillin'"
thing is all they have. As of yet there are no sick vapers. Damn the long term studies. They won't
be done until there is reason enough to do them. As of this time there's no good reason. Our
opposition doesn't really want them anyway as they are just as likely to show vaping to be
relatively benign in terms of causing harm if in fact it did cause any harm.
This is unlikely to happen has no one has the guts to bust the nicotine fairy tale and throw
the chillin' under the bus.

Regards
Mike

 

[DC2]

Federal judges have always shown a willingness to smack down overzealous regulations, and most of them take a rather skeptical view of effectively banning otherwise legal activities.

The courts may be our best hope, but I don't want to be forced to leave it in their hands.
The more we can do before that, the better.

It's like Dana White says...
"don't leave your fight in the hands of the judges"

SFATA, and CASAA need to be getting their ducks in a row NOW, (if they haven't already)

They have been, and I hope they'll be strong in this effort.
Supporting them is an utmost priority.