I got that, but the links went right to the deeming doc without discussion of the alternatives. That's all I'm focused on at this point. But yeah, you're right, most of the options are much better for cigars than ecigs.
FDA Economic Impact Analysis
- Thread starter pamdis
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I got that, but the links went right to the deeming doc without discussion of the alternatives. That's all I'm focused on at this point. But yeah, you're right, most of the options are much better for cigars than ecigs.
Taking a quick look at S.772, it looks like you can get yourself out from under FDA regulation altogether if you have enough money and influence....
And with 155 co-sponsors on an identical bill in the House. This looks like a sure thing
How do they circumvent the problem of passing retroactive laws? I'm not very familiar with American jurisprudence, but in other (civilized) parts of the world it's a non-starter.
How do they circumvent the problem of passing retroactive laws? I'm not very familiar with American jurisprudence, but in other (civilized) parts of the world it's a non-starter.
We've gotten it down to an art.
Came up with an 18th amendment to our constitution and later decided that was entirely unwarranted, so did away with that in our 21st amendment.
tobacco and nicotine laws are clearly a work in process
The legal history of vaping already shows we aren't sure what the law really is. Clearly is in the "TBD" category.
How do they circumvent the problem of passing retroactive laws? I'm not very familiar with American jurisprudence, but in other (civilized) parts of the world it's a non-starter.
In the case that they ultimately use the Feb 15, 2007 date, it really won't be 'retroactive'. That's the date of the bill regarding tobacco. But the FDA had to recoup, after the Sottera decision, to put the law in force via regulation. They're a bit late but the regulation is only an extension of the original bill/law. Picking the grandfather date, is guided by a few things that are laid out in the impact doc as well as other docs mentioned by fitzie - the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
But ....- Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Hehehe--we cross-posted. Yes, I couldn't believe that ex post facto would be allowed here.
I see. I think.
But they are stretching it a bit, aren't they?
Anyway, how can anyone claim that they are acting in good faith but will only allow the very first, crude, and, for all practical purposes, no longer existing 1st gen products while banning all the subsequent, 2nd, 3rd etc. generation improved gear?????
There's almost always a lag between the bill becoming law and the agencies figuring out the implementation of it. What won't happen is, that if certain products are banned (or not approved), no one will go to jail or be fined, for having sold them prior to the final rule - the real reason why ex post facto laws aren't allowed.
What about all those businesses that started after the Feb 15, 2007, date and introduced new and successful products? Is it OK to shut them down and ruin them? Isn't that, de facto, ex post facto? Everything we are using today (really, 100%) is post-2007. We can't even remember what was on the market in 2006, and even if we could, it's all obsolete and/or non-existent. Three-piece? Carts?
ETA: I'm not arguing--I'm really trying to understand how they interpret that, legally.
Everything we are using today (really, 100%) is post-2007. We can't even remember what was on the market in 2006, and even if we could, it's all obsolete and/or non-existent. Three-piece? Carts?ETA: I'm not arguing--I'm really trying to understand how they interpret that, legally.
Last edited:
Just FYI ...
Bill of attainder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ex post facto law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doesn't look as if either definition fits.
Of course if it did, BT would've raised that point earlier.
Bill of attainder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ex post facto law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doesn't look as if either definition fits.
Of course if it did, BT would've raised that point earlier.
It might actually help our cause if these cigar folks get what they want.
Although if they get it passed soon, everyone will have forgotten about it when vapers get screwed.
What about all those businesses that started after the Feb 15, 2007, date and introduced new and successful products? Is it OK to shut them down and ruin them? Isn't that, de facto, ex post facto?
ETA: I'm not arguing--I'm really trying to understand how they interpret that, legally.
Again, the restriction of ex post facto laws stops the gov't from fining or imprisoning people for actions that were not crimes prior to legislation. That doesn't cover laws that 'disrupt business'. Look at any EPA regulations that affect businesses. In some cases it puts them out of business. Also true of every other regulatory agency in existence. Taxi cab laws put jitney drivers out of business. Cosmetology laws put cornrow stylists out of business. From Stossel, flower arrangement laws put flower arrangers out of business (lobbied by 'Big Flowers'
It may seem 'new or unusual' to you and others because we're focused on ecigs, but this stuff happens all the time and moreso as gov't grows. It will likely hit the snack foods (to prevent/stop) obesity more than it is already. They use the same junk science to justify that as well. Saturated fats are actually good for you:The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease - WSJ.com
"Critics have pointed out that Dr. Keys violated several basic scientific norms in his study. For one, he didn't choose countries randomly but instead selected only those likely to prove his beliefs, including Yugoslavia, Finland and Italy. Excluded were France, land of the famously healthy omelet eater, as well as other countries where people consumed a lot of fat yet didn't suffer from high rates of heart disease, such as Switzerland, Sweden and West Germany. The study's star subjects—upon whom much of our current understanding of the Mediterranean diet is based—were peasants from Crete, islanders who tilled their fields well into old age and who appeared to eat very little meat or cheese.
As it turns out, Dr. Keys visited Crete during an unrepresentative period of extreme hardship after World War II. Furthermore, he made the mistake of measuring the islanders' diet partly during Lent, when they were forgoing meat and cheese."
iow, Dr. Atkins was right
Last edited:
See post #
I'm guessing people will find it
Last edited:
No it won't. Cigars are for fat cats And they wouldn't care. Look at NC on the tax.
"This is a place to start, and I think its good enough. I think weve kicked the tobacco industry around enough, and maybe we owe them a little deference[ humble submission and respect]," said Rep. Larry Pittman, R-Cabarrus.
Rep. Becky Carney, D-Mecklenburg "noted that cigarettes are taxed at 45 cents per pack, so the state would lose money as smokers switch to e cigs. "
They only care about making revenue and appeasing the poor tobacco company. Who do they think actually pays this tax? BT? These politicians are playing games with peoples lives disgusting
Thanks Kent.
It would seem that if that Date could be Moved Up, that many of the Problems we are Facing are Greatly Minimized.
I know, I know. I do watch Stossel every week.
iow, Dr. Atkins was right
As of this week.
I'd agree. I sent this to Bill G - no reply and SJ - he likes it. eta: (and now CASAA). If the options are still in play as Zeller said, then the 'final rule' date would include at least everything in existence up to that date and substantial equivalence for new products would be MUCH easier.
Last edited:
My point is that if the FDA screws vapers and Congress is kissing a certain part of the anatomy of rich folks who smoke premium cigars, then we can perhaps argue to the public and Congress that we are getting a particularly raw deal. Whereas if vapers get nailed along with the premium cigar smokers, then we don't have that basis for claiming that we deserve different treatment.
It's a small point, and YMMV on it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
