Moving the grandfather date would be hugely significant, but agree that it is not ideal. If we are looking for the ideal with so much ANTZ rhetoric ingrained in the public (not to mention many vapers), then I think we will be coming up with heavy restrictions instead.
I would like to see Boehner et. al move the date to something that is 2014 or later, plus address cost of submitting market applications, plus just consider eCigs as exempt from what Congress intended with FSPTCA. All that would be very welcomed, even while it is compromising and thus could be criticized.
Market applications coming down in cost ought to be doable. Either have BV/BT support that cost if they aren't willing to fight against it, or make it so all grant money that these universities keep begging for goes toward studying the umpteen dozen questions that FDA deems necessary for every single application. I'd love if Pubs were able to turn that around on liberal universities and make them have to do the studying while the product is on the market in a trial period. I dunno, but if we are going to do some dreaming, I'd go with this which I don't think is entirely farfetched. Having small business front application costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars would strike me as insane for anyone that claims to be pro-small business.
Sometimes gov't actions have a reverse effect. Like prohibition, but it took a while. More recently the 'Kelo case' where the town of New London wanted to take some old neighborhood homes, and have a developer construct high end condos and they skirted the 5th amendment 'takings clause' by saying it would generate more revenue for the city. (takings has to be for 'public
use' (not just 'public interest') and be justly compensated). This was gov't taking property for
private use - the only 'public interest' was the additional revenue projected. The Supreme Court upheld the 'taking' 5-4 with Justice Souter being the 'deciding vote'. The property sits today, undeveloped, but the neighborhood was bulldozed.
The backlash aftermath was stark and may have been better than a defeat.
The Institute for Justice
"Kelo educated the public about eminent domain abuse, and polls consistently show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to Kelo and support efforts to change the law to better protect property rights.
Citizen activists defeated at least 44 projects that sought to abuse eminent domain for private gain in the five-year period since Kelo.
Forty-
three states improved their laws in response to Kelo, more than half of those providing strong protection against eminent domain abuse.
Nine state high courts restricted the use of eminent domain for private development since Kelo while only one (New York) has so far refused to do so.
The New London project for which the property was taken in Kelo has been a complete failure and is now Exhibit A in what happens when governments engage in massive corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain. Although the project failed, Susette Kelos iconic little pink house has been moved to downtown New London and preserved. It still stands as a monument in honor of the families who fought for their rights and who inspired the nation to change its laws to better protect other property owners."
There's a good chance there would be a similar reaction if the 2007 grandfather date is upheld and deeming goes as the FDA has planned.
One comic note on Kelo, which if it was pulled off would have been the perfect ironic result of the stupidity of one Justice... (and could be applied to the others as well, who voted to apply the takings clause in this case. )
Lost Liberty Hotel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Lost Liberty Hotel or Lost Liberty Inn was a proposed hotel to be built on the site of United States Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter's properties in Weare, New Hampshire. The proposal was a reaction to the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London (2005) decision in which Souter joined the majority ruling that the U.S. Constitution allows the use of eminent domain to condemn privately owned real property for use in private economic development projects."
I would view the deeming to also be a 'taking' because of the vendors who, as the deeming doc states, would have to 'exit the market'.
