Need to confirm some facts . . .

[Wally]

I need to *authoritatively* confirm or establish the current legislative situation for some written and telephone communication that I am conducting today and tomorrow:

1. The tobacco bill is in consideration in the Senate now.
2. The Waxman version of the bill has passed the House.
3. The Senate is considering the Kennedy version of the bill.
4. What has happened to the Waxman version in the Senate?
5. Both the Waxman and Kennedy versions of the bill prohibit any new "lower risk" smoking alternatives? (Or is it just the Waxman version that does this?)
6. We can attach amendments in the Senate that would allow the development and marketing of lower-risk alternatives to tobacco cigarettes.
7. What else am I missing about the upcoming Senate consideration?

With thanks,
Wally

 

[breakfastchef]

7. What else am I missing about the upcoming Senate consideration?

You are missing a complete understanding of the facts (Don;t use me as the de facto source, though). The Kennedy tobacco bill (S. 982) is essentially the same bill passed by the House of Representatives (H.R. 1256). There are several proposed amendments that would re-define and/or remove some restrictions on the sale of e-cigs.

The Kennedy bill is full of error, but contains language that would give the FDA a wide-berth of power to classify smoking alternatives and shut them down with a wave of the magic wand. This is a very complex situation that seems very simple to all of us that vape. Maybe you should contact the Exec. Director of the ECA for more accurate revalations.

 

[Wally]

Breakfastchef- Thank you. I made the same post in the ECA section of the forum in hopes of an answer. Wally

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

One suggestion for a revision in the Kennedy bill would be the effective date.....the way it is written would post-date FDA control of all smokeless/harm reduction products back to Feb of 2007......This would allow the FDA to pull all products put into the marketplace since that time and demand pharmacological testing take place before re-introduction into the marketplace.....this would effectively remove snus, the disolvable tablets, the strips, orbs, and our beloved PV's. All that would be left on the marketplace for recreational nicotine use would be combustable tobacco, chew, and snuff (I think...)

If the simple modification of the bill would change the date to be when the bill is signed into law, all these products would be grandfathered in.

This is how I see things.....if I'm wrong, please......someone correct me...

 

[Wally]

Vicks (if I may call you that)--thanks. And could I get some confirmation on this, and on the other issues? I know there are those who have been following the legislation through the Congress. If I could have three or four specifics that could be pursued in the Senate that would be very helpful. TBob? Lacey? Others?

 

[breakfastchef]

There are six or seven House and Senate members openly esmoking on the House floor; one is on the Board of the ECF. This is a good thing as we have advocates where it counts most. Before a bill is voted on, there is generally a flurry of amendments that can come to a vote beforehand. While this often adds 'pork' to most legislation on Capitol Hill, amendments shielding e-cigs from the 'FDA 'hammer' are set to be presented. If accepted, we may all be in the clear for a period of time. On a more negative note, if Smoking Everywhere loses in todays' court battle, as T. Bob has said, the FDA will have de facto reign over e-cigs immediately. Only Congress can over rule their domain claims.

 

[Wally]

So we know that there are senators who have amendments are are planning to introduce them? And what about the effective date of the bill? Also in an amendment or is that redundant if the e-cig is specifically excluded from jurisdiction by another amendment?

 

[yvilla]

Wally, this might be helpful to you:

Oppose The Tobacco Bill

(Note that it says the Senate HELP committee was to consider the bill this past Tuesday, but it has since been postponed until next Tuesday, I understand).

 

[Wally]

Yvilla- Thanks--I've just had time to look at this. The links are all very useful. The U.K. site seems to be doing a better job on these matters of U.S. legislation than any of our U.S. sites. Also, AAPHP actually has a list of recommended amendments for the Senate bill. So I'm going to try to get to work on all this. Wally