If they didn't before, they do now. That article is plastered all over FB. I was just reading it there myself. I was wondering the same as I read it.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
If they didn't before, they do now. That article is plastered all over FB. I was just reading it there myself. I was wondering the same as I read it.
I don't know if any of those groups knew the authorship, but, Cole-Bishop has always been a "not great, but might help save some of the industry" measure. At least that's how I've always seen it.
I think that anyone in Washington, working in government in any capacity, is well aware of how bills are born and don't think twice about it. I believe this is standard operating procedure. You don't think senators are actually writing this stuff, do you? Maybe some group like ALEC helped. lol
No but unless I am totally lost here, the question was this
None of these are in Washington or working in any type of government capacity.
None of these are in Washington or working in any type of government capacity.
Salem, I should have quoted, it's late, sorry. I was referring to the post quoting the NY Times article and how it looks when it is reported about how a bill, or in this case an amendment, was written. Time for me to hit the sack!
I'm not sure if it was Altria or RJ Reynolds that had the opportunity to "word" the deeming document.
RJ Reynolds reacts to proposed e-cigarette regulations
Like this. Comes off sounding like RJ Reynolds states that tobacco is the number one killer in this country so they'd like to help write regulations for e-cig , so people don't die from dangerous inhaled products. What a bunch of horse &^%^U(I!!!
Like this. Comes off sounding like RJ Reynolds states that tobacco is the number one killer in this country so they'd like to help write regulations for e-cig , so people don't die from dangerous inhaled products. What a bunch of horse &^%^U(I!!!
Hot Air: Democrats Work With Big Tobacco and Big Pharma to Choke the Vaping Industry
Here's another. Gosh why weren't we asked to that party? No one asked for our input. That's another law breaker to me.
Here's another. Gosh why weren't we asked to that party? No one asked for our input. That's another law breaker to me.
One other thing. Alcohol can have all the candy fun flavors they want. Is that to attract kids? Did anyone make antifreeze taste nasty or does it still taste good enough to poison husbands and dogs with?
I heard a smoking cessation device with nicotine defeats the purpose of quitting. Does that include patches, lozenges, and gum? Seems like whatever they say about vaping is hypocritical. Idiots.
I heard a smoking cessation device with nicotine defeats the purpose of quitting. Does that include patches, lozenges, and gum? Seems like whatever they say about vaping is hypocritical. Idiots.
And I would never go out in public wearing socks that had pics of pigs with cop hats.
All I know is if you Didn't want something like HR2058 or Cole -Bishop to pass, putting BT's Name on it would be a Good Step in that Direction.
Representative Nita M. Lowey of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said it was embarrassing that more than 70 lawmakers had signed on as co-sponsors of legislation that lobbyists from Altria and other industry groups originally wrote.
“For Congress to consider going backward in how we regulate the public health hazard is simply mind-boggling,” she said. “It wasn’t that long ago that tobacco companies were telling the public that cigarettes were not addictive and denying clear evidence that they caused cancer.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/u...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
And I'm more Aligned with Bonnie's and Greg's views on how BT fairs if the Predicate Date is Not moved.
Abboud’s warning follows a note from Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog released Wednesday, which concluded that any stifling of e-cigarette innovation would be a bonus to established tobacco companies. (RELATED: Wells Fargo: FDA’s Anti-Ecig Regulation Will Be A Bonus For Big Tobacco)
“As a reminder, regulation of the ecig/vapor industry is broadly positive for the big tobacco manufacturers since it will increase the barriers to entry and likely entrench them even further,” said Herzog
One Imminent FDA Regulation Could Wipe Out 10 Years Of E-Cigarette Innovation
---
“Wells Fargo is absolutely correct to state that the proposed FDA regulations will benefit tobacco companies,” says Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association. “Without a change in the February 2007 predicate date, the FDA’s proposal will destroy thousands of small businesses and hand over the vapor industry to Big Tobacco.”
Wells Fargo: FDA’s Anti-Ecig Regulation Will Be A Bonus For Big Tobacco
Did you read the article ?
It doesn't show that BT wrote the deeming regulations. Quite the opposite in fact, it shows that HR 2058 and the Cole/Bishop amendment were authored by BT. These are the bill/amendment designed to change/water down the deeming regulations, what the vapor industry and advocates have been supporting.
Cole/Bishop is a stop-gap measure, agreed. But that's irrelevant in this context. The pr damage this revelation might cause will hurt the chance of it passing imo.
Well, that's your ( and Greg and Bonnie's ) interpretation. The question is did Greg know BT was actively lobbying Congress against the deeming regulations, when he made his analysis ?
In your opinion, is BT unwittingly acting against their own interests, or did Altria know the deeming regulations benefit them, and all this lobbying effort is a ruse, pretending to support legislation against the deeming to ensure it doesn't pass ?
I listened to a half hour interview with Rep. Tom Cole. He repeatedly talks about the effect of the deeming regs on small business, and how he is doing this for his constituents etc ... at no point in the interview does he mention the word Altria. No mention that he was even approached by them, let alone that the text of HR 2058 was written verbatim by Altria.
Episode 8: Congressman Tom Cole on Legislation Impacting the Vaping Industry - SFATA | Smoke Free Alternatives Trade Association
Last edited:
Siegel on Altria/RJR:
If there were any remaining doubt about the sincerity of the two major domestic cigarette companies in marketing vaping products, it should disappear after reviewing Altria's comments to the FDA. (First of all, recognize that these comments are not a publicity ploy because the company is not publicizing them -- I was unable to even find them online.) In these comments, Altria supports policy changes that are not in its best financial interests in the sense that the current burdensome regulations are in Altria's favor and without changes to make them less burdensome, these regulations would essentially hand the entire vaping market to Altria and Reynolds American. Virtually no other companies have the financial resources to develop the required PMTAs. So Altria could easily just sit by quietly and then enjoy an oligopoly in the vaping market.
But this is not what Altria is doing. The company is actually trying to save at least some vitality in the e-cigarette and vaping market by urging the FDA to weaken the burdensome requirements so that many more manufacturers have an opportunity to stay on the market. And these two tobacco companies are also strongly behind the Bishop-Cole amendment which would grandfather existing vaping products, thus preventing the decimation of the e-cigarette market and the creation of a Big Tobacco oligopoly.
Anti-tobacco advocates are going to have to come to terms with the apparently threatening reality that our long-term mantra is no longer valid. Their entry into the vaping market is not merely a ploy to get youth hooked on nicotine so that they can get new smoking customers. They are legitimately interested in creating a new and robust market for harm reduction products.
Now I am not arguing that financial incentives do not play a role. Of course they do. The companies see an eventual decline in the use of combustible tobacco products in the United States, and they want to be able to derive some economic benefit even as smokers move away from these combustibles. By entering the vaping product market, the companies have an alternative source of revenues to help sustain them. And they can use price increases with their traditional cigarettes to help lessen the financial blow, by protecting revenue even as sales decline. And while their market share will not be nearly as high in a robust, thriving vaping market, the overall market will likely be much greater if there are a large variety of alternative choices for smokers who want to quit but do not feel able to do so without the aid of a vaping device.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
Altria urges FDA to ease on regulations
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Altria Urges Changes in FDA E-Cigarette Regulations that Would Decrease Its Share of Vaping Market and Help Save Many Smaller Manufacturers
If there were any remaining doubt about the sincerity of the two major domestic cigarette companies in marketing vaping products, it should disappear after reviewing Altria's comments to the FDA. (First of all, recognize that these comments are not a publicity ploy because the company is not publicizing them -- I was unable to even find them online.) In these comments, Altria supports policy changes that are not in its best financial interests in the sense that the current burdensome regulations are in Altria's favor and without changes to make them less burdensome, these regulations would essentially hand the entire vaping market to Altria and Reynolds American. Virtually no other companies have the financial resources to develop the required PMTAs. So Altria could easily just sit by quietly and then enjoy an oligopoly in the vaping market.
But this is not what Altria is doing. The company is actually trying to save at least some vitality in the e-cigarette and vaping market by urging the FDA to weaken the burdensome requirements so that many more manufacturers have an opportunity to stay on the market. And these two tobacco companies are also strongly behind the Bishop-Cole amendment which would grandfather existing vaping products, thus preventing the decimation of the e-cigarette market and the creation of a Big Tobacco oligopoly.
Anti-tobacco advocates are going to have to come to terms with the apparently threatening reality that our long-term mantra is no longer valid. Their entry into the vaping market is not merely a ploy to get youth hooked on nicotine so that they can get new smoking customers. They are legitimately interested in creating a new and robust market for harm reduction products.
Now I am not arguing that financial incentives do not play a role. Of course they do. The companies see an eventual decline in the use of combustible tobacco products in the United States, and they want to be able to derive some economic benefit even as smokers move away from these combustibles. By entering the vaping product market, the companies have an alternative source of revenues to help sustain them. And they can use price increases with their traditional cigarettes to help lessen the financial blow, by protecting revenue even as sales decline. And while their market share will not be nearly as high in a robust, thriving vaping market, the overall market will likely be much greater if there are a large variety of alternative choices for smokers who want to quit but do not feel able to do so without the aid of a vaping device.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
Altria urges FDA to ease on regulations
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Altria Urges Changes in FDA E-Cigarette Regulations that Would Decrease Its Share of Vaping Market and Help Save Many Smaller Manufacturers
Thanks for posting that, Ken. I have no doubt that many of the anti vaping group say one thing publicly and mean another privately. But like anything, I'll follow the money. These companies have not gotten where they are today by being "the good guys". They are a bunch of snakes in neck ties. Altria can play the boy scout but it could also be the sacrificial lamb. Altria is not a vaping product. It's a tobacco product. They are probably done with all the testing they have recommended and will not suffer the deeming requirements.
I think in all fairness (what's that) that if Big Pharma and BT were part of the "dream team" in constructing the regulations, it is not right that our vaping community was not given an invite to be a part of that. And no matter what RJR and Altria say, follow the money and find that there's nothing they do without an alterior motive that will lead to $$$ to be made or not lost.
I remember at the time (2007?) that FDA had just astronomically increased the tax on cigarettes and vaping products were introduced around the same time. I'll bet BT did not see them as ever coming the competition it is today. Now they're worried. Not only the US but cigarettes are sold world wide, and so are vaping products. Other countries do not have the battle we do with BT. They're countries don't make the money our Gov does on the sale of tobacco.
I think in all fairness (what's that) that if Big Pharma and BT were part of the "dream team" in constructing the regulations, it is not right that our vaping community was not given an invite to be a part of that. And no matter what RJR and Altria say, follow the money and find that there's nothing they do without an alterior motive that will lead to $$$ to be made or not lost.
I remember at the time (2007?) that FDA had just astronomically increased the tax on cigarettes and vaping products were introduced around the same time. I'll bet BT did not see them as ever coming the competition it is today. Now they're worried. Not only the US but cigarettes are sold world wide, and so are vaping products. Other countries do not have the battle we do with BT. They're countries don't make the money our Gov does on the sale of tobacco.
Last night I was reading about that some vaping product manufacturers use tobacco for attaining their nicotine, but some do not. What do they get their nicotine from?
I just got vaping liquid from Halo. As usual they have child proof caps just like all the other juices I've gotten for the past years. It has anti-tampering plastic wrap. It has a sealed box. There are warnings written clearly, and lengthy. The ingredients are listed. They charged me sales tax.
All except sales tax , was voluntary just as with every almost every company the sells e-liquid. We get no credit for it. We have taken utter responsibility for our product's safe packaging and warnings.
In Tobacco cigarettes, where is the child proof packaging? Where is the anti tampering packaging? Where is the list of anything that was related to being added to the Tobacco in it's growing and manufacturing?
Why did the FDA not ever warrant the BT companies of these ? I think disposable lighters come with more written warnings.
Where is the source for under age kids to get Tobacco? If you need to be over 18 or 21, why was the source never investigated? Someone is breaking the law for kids to have a never ending supply. Where is this to make the under age "safer"? If under age kids are caught with cigarettes, why are their parents not fined? Why does the FDA not think this is a much bigger safety issue than vaping? Or were safety issues such as the source for underage kids possession and child proof packaging "grandfathered" in after at least 50 years of any move towards lessening opportunity?
All except sales tax , was voluntary just as with every almost every company the sells e-liquid. We get no credit for it. We have taken utter responsibility for our product's safe packaging and warnings.
In Tobacco cigarettes, where is the child proof packaging? Where is the anti tampering packaging? Where is the list of anything that was related to being added to the Tobacco in it's growing and manufacturing?
Why did the FDA not ever warrant the BT companies of these ? I think disposable lighters come with more written warnings.
Where is the source for under age kids to get Tobacco? If you need to be over 18 or 21, why was the source never investigated? Someone is breaking the law for kids to have a never ending supply. Where is this to make the under age "safer"? If under age kids are caught with cigarettes, why are their parents not fined? Why does the FDA not think this is a much bigger safety issue than vaping? Or were safety issues such as the source for underage kids possession and child proof packaging "grandfathered" in after at least 50 years of any move towards lessening opportunity?
There's another possible explanation:
The way the Deeming was proposed in 2014, if someone filed a PMTA, they could keep selling the product in question indefinitely unless/until the FDA rejected it. This would indeed have given BT an oligopoly in the vaping market, because the FDA would have had to show at least some credible reason to reject the PMTAs that were submitted by BT.
But in the final version of the Deeming, that's not how things work. In the final version that's now codified as administrative law, if the FDA doesn't approve a PMTA within one year of the filing deadline, a manufacturer must cease selling the product in question. This allows the FDA to "pocket veto" any and all PMTAs without ever showing cause why.
Some here (including one of the site's administrators) believe that the FDA does not intend to approve any PMTAs for vapor products at all. I'm not sure I buy this, but if that's what BT also believes, then it certainly would be in their financial interest to get behind a change in the grandfather date, no? After all, they've invested hundreds of millions into the development, marketing, and merchandising of their vapor products.
Similar threads
- Locked
