Why would HR 2058 pass?

[Robino1]

Ya know, after reading thru the bill and reading the provisions, I'm getting the feeling we may not be in as big of trouble as we think. It's mostly aimed at sale and advertising. I'd think there'd be a pretty easy end-around for the most part with getting our stuff. Hell, the flavored cigarettes/flavored tobacco part was easy for companies to get around. It's merely sold as bagged "pipe tobacco" for the roll-your-own crowd. And the bill does say that application for FDA approval for new products is possible too. I also found this.

Stakeholder Letter: Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products

Unfortunately, the FDA will probably do more regulation AFTER they have gotten ecigs under their control. Until then, they are talking only about common sense regulation. Things that Most vendors are already doing (childproof caps and checking age of purchasers)

 

[crxess]

Unfortunately, the FDA will probably do more regulation AFTER they have gotten ecigs under their control. Until then, they are talking only about common sense regulation. Things that Most vendors are already doing (childproof caps and checking age of purchasers)

Interstate Sales of Tobacco Products it prohibited.(?) Online Sales of Tobacco is illegal.

What method of control will the FDA Target first?

No soup kitchens - House blends
No Advertising - Internet Sales

Sorry, but I believe this game ended April 2014 and we are just waiting on the ever slow wheels of Government to finish turning.

Would love to see a leaked copy of the Documents in the hands of OMB
These are the basis for finalized DEEMING and would give a much clearer picture of what is ahead.
My bet, it is a Book - not a few pages.

 

[DC2]

The best case would be that we were under the Modified Risk Tobacco Products. The bad news, it's currently almost impossible to get.

Out of the 8 applications that were started for that classification ( 7 of the companies we don't have the names for), FDA refused to accept 2 of the applications, refused to file 4 of them, and 1 was withdrawn.

The only application to get accepted is from Swedish Match, one of (if not the) largest makers of swedish snus.

Many of us are watching and waiting to find out how theirs turns out, as that would be the best option for vapor products as would allow then allow our vendors to say the truth of them being safer than smoking.

FDA Panel Nixes Swedish Match Modified-Risk Request

 

[NancyR]

FDA Panel Nixes Swedish Match Modified-Risk Request

Guess they either reapplied after that or that was for one product of theirs only, as the public comment period just ended in Aug 2015 that story is dated before that.

Modified Risk Tobacco Products

Edited, they amended their application it was the 2nd public comment to end in Aug

 

[Stubby]

Ya know, after reading thru the bill and reading the provisions, I'm getting the feeling we may not be in as big of trouble as we think. It's mostly aimed at sale and advertising. I'd think there'd be a pretty easy end-around for the most part with getting our stuff. Hell, the flavored cigarettes/flavored tobacco part was easy for companies to get around. It's merely sold as bagged "pipe tobacco" for the roll-your-own crowd. And the bill does say that application for FDA approval for new products is possible too. I also found this.

Stakeholder Letter: Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products

I have to assume you have read the TCA (tobacco control act of 2009), and then read the preposed deeming regulation, and perhaps even the leaked deeming. If you had and really understood what you where reading you would know that the deeming bans essentially all electronic cigarettes. This is not a mere petty regulation aimed and advertising and sales. It is prohibition. I can't see how you could possibly say this is not big trouble.

Guess they either reapplied after that or that was for one product of theirs only, as the public comment period just ended in Aug 2015 that story is dated before that.

Modified Risk Tobacco Products

Edited, they amended their application it was the 2nd public comment to end in Aug

The Swedish Match application is still under consideration from the FDA. It has not been rejected and never was rejected. What you read is an advisory board. They do not have the finale say in this. The finale decision was supposed to come this September, but it is now November with no decision. We are still waiting.

 

[DC2]

The Swedish Match application is still under consideration from the FDA. It has not been rejected and never was rejected. What you read is an advisory board. They do not have the finale say in this. The finale decision was supposed to come this September, but it is now November with no decision. We are still waiting.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[DC2]

And the bill does say that application for FDA approval for new products is possible too.

Possible, but extremely unlikely.
And that is if you have millions of dollars to even try.

Let's see, who could even afford to try?
Oh, yeah, Big Tobacco.

 

[DC2]

For all those wondering where the Grandfather Date came from, stop wondering...
Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 62 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)

Questions may be raised as to why the so-called predicate/grandfather
date of February 15, 2007 was picked in the Act. If you look at the
legislative history, February 15, 2007 was the date the Act was
introduced in the 110th Congress. There was no other specific reason
for the date chosen in the Act.

 

[Drummel]

I just want to spit ball for a moment.

Why can't there be a competing market to tobacco? Are we not allowed to have competition? If opposing something the government runs or makes money from, we can't have opposition on the market?

Mac Vs PC
Console Brand Vs Console Brand

Generally speaking you can't compete against yourself it's a direct conflict.

This is not a tobacco device, this is an alternative to tobacco. it is an alternative market, Tobacco fears loss to a device that has no actual tobacco in it - so it is not allowed to compete against them?

I understand having some regulations in place to ensure businesses follow safe practices, but to force the market to be absorbed by the tobacco company, which is stands AGAINST just seems disgusting in a business practice sense.

Like I said I am just spit balling. I would need someone with a better head on their shoulders to mold this into something more sensible.

 

[NancyR]

I just want to spit ball for a moment.

Why can't there be a competing market to tobacco? Are we not allowed to have competition? If opposing something the government runs or makes money from, we can't have opposition on the market?

Mac Vs PC
Console Brand Vs Console Brand

Generally speaking you can't compete against yourself it's a direct conflict.

This is not a tobacco device, this is an alternative to tobacco. it is an alternative market, Tobacco fears loss to a device that has no actual tobacco in it - so it is not allowed to compete against them?

I understand having some regulations in place to ensure businesses follow safe practices, but to force the market to be absorbed by the tobacco company, which is stands AGAINST just seems disgusting in a business practice sense.

Like I said I am just spit balling. I would need someone with a better head on their shoulders to mold this into something more sensible.

The problem is we are not just competing against tobacco. While we do compete against them, we also then are threat to BP and their loss of income from NRT's, and we are a threat to state governments due to the loss of income not just from tobacco sin taxes, but from the MSA income.

What many people don't realize is that MSA money isn't just a set amount every year no matter what, it is based each year off the yearly tobacco sales, and any year the sales drops below the rate of sales from the year the MSA was agreed to, not just does the amount go down due to the lesser amount of sales, but also the % of money the tobacco companies have to pay off those sales goes down.

It winds up being a circle jerk so to speak. People buy tobacco, they then buy NRT to try to quit, it fails so they go back to tobacco. All the while paying insane sin taxes to their government.

 

[Drummel]

The problem is we are not just competing against tobacco. While we do compete against them, we also then are threat to BP and their loss of income from NRT's, and we are a threat to state governments due to the loss of income not just from tobacco sin taxes, but from the MSA income.

What many people don't realize is that MSA money isn't just a set amount every year no matter what, it is based each year off the yearly tobacco sales, and any year the sales drops below the rate of sales from the year the MSA was agreed to, not just does the amount go down due to the lesser amount of sales, but also the % of money the tobacco companies have to pay off those sales goes down.

It winds up being a circle jerk so to speak. People buy tobacco, they then buy NRT to try to quit, it fails so they go back to tobacco. All the while paying insane sin taxes to their government.

Right, all that I do understand. I was just, as I said, spit balling. The market is just so unbelievably shady when it comes to the revolving door from Tobacco to Pharmacy and back again. I know it wont matter what we say in terms of what is safer, but it truly is a disgusting circle of evil and vaping belongs no where near the Tobacco Pharmacy circle. Having it 'entrusted' to our Government to make a wise choice, they wont. It's always and predictably is, "Go where the money is". Or in this case, ruin a new blooming industry, destroy new jobs, and make sure they hug someone else's ideas tightly to their own chest. -shakes head in disgust and shame-

 

[puffon]

we also then are threat to BP and their loss of income from NRT's

Not just NRTs.
BP is also losing $ from medical expenses, of people dying from tobacco related illness.