Samuel Gawith tough to find

Have they gone rougue with their actions acting outside of the scope of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 that gave them regulatory powers over tobacco products?

What specifically are they doing that constitutes overstepping their authority?

I ask not as a smartass, but out of curiosity...I haven't been following the implementation closely.

I know you're not, Charlie. I'm not trying to be either. I'm certainly not an expert, just expressing my opinion as I see things.

The FDA has jurisdiction to regulate tobacco and is tasked with reducing underage smoking. An example of their over reach, IMHO, is the retroactive regulation that there can be no new pipe tobacco blends. I think it is a stretch to say that this keeps tobacco out of the hands of children. It keeps new tobaccos out of the hands of adults.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 did not give them the power to outlaw tobacco, but that is what they are effectively doing, one step at a time.  They are enacting anti-tobacco regulations beyond the direction contained in the act.

Their charge, specifically, is to make sure that the public health risk does not grow over time, in general. That's what they are tasked with.





They were expressly forbidden to ban any of the traditional tobacco products enumerated in the statute. An incomplete list is chewing tobacco, cigars, and pipe tobacco.

If anti-tobacco regulations effectively constitute a ban, that violates the statute, and the courts will settle it.

--

At the risk of getting "political," I am not real happy with the new "deeming" rules, particularly as they may be applied to pipes, which were re-classified as "smoking devices" instead of "smoking accessories."

I'm also not ready to panic. The FDA moves very slowly, and there has been a lot of public and industry feedback. Things might not go sideways.

It is all a mess.
Prior to 2009, there was no issue.

This was all brought about by the 111th congress, signed into law by the executive branch... pure and simple. not to be partisan, but it is what it is.

You cannot change the past, but it should inform you going forward.

That's not necessarily true. It all hinges on the user fees for "deeming," and the specific definitions of "substantially similar."

Looking at the way things have gone so far, from early 2019, I am a little bit worried about how individual tobacconists will persist. But I ain't ready to write them off.

Small manufacturers will probably be OK. The user fees are defined by the cost to the FDA, split across the "users" (manufacturers), in proportion to market share. So far, that looks like a number in the single digit thousands, not the millions, like it is for cigarettes.

What gives me a sliver of hope for individual tobacconists is that their market share is measured in thousands of a percent. That thousand dollars for a small blender might be literally fifty bucks for a local B&M.



That's a cynical reading.

It's not a prohibition, in any case. The "lookback" to 2007 is just a date for things that will be subject to deeming rules.

As it looks right now, in early 2019, that is gonna be a very modest impact on most blenders. I could be wrong. I hope I'm not.




It will only be settled in the courts if the rulemaking process is a fiasco.

The intended purpose of rulemaking is to solicit input from folks like the premium cigar and retail tobacco lobbies. That's the point of the thing.

Congress passes a law that defines a statute. In turn, statutecharges an agency (like the FDA) with a specific task. Then, the agency spends a lot of time and effort developing rules, with input from industry, lobbyists, ordinary Americans, and experts.

That's how this process works. It always takes a long time, by design. That's the point of the thing.

It would be much worse if rules were arrived at casually, based on somebody's gut feel.

I feel the 2009 bill was indeed targeting the immoral behavior of the cigarette industry, that is why I felt good about it being passed.

We are collateral damage.

After quite literally one hundred years of inaction, Congress moved to regulate tobacco products for the first time. I kid you not. The first bill in one hundred and one years.

They charged the FDA with regulating tobacco products for the first time. No other Federal agency had jurisdiction before. This is all new.

Congress passed a bill that charged the FDA with certain tasks. They could not have reasonably foreseen all consequences. So far, it looks like the deeming rules may have unpleasant consequences for the pipe tobacco producers and retailers. That would be bad, and Congress may very well agree with us that it is bad.

It was certainly not foreseeable from the text of the 2009 bill.

It is certainly not a done deal. Many things are still up in the air.

Be calm. Wait and see. If the results are unsatisfactory, write your congressman and senators. I know I will!

You are signing from the same songbook as me...sadly I think that it falls on deaf ears.

The very purpose of the people's House is to listen to us.

If you feel you are not heard, either write again, or work to find a new representative. It can be done.

I can't live in a world where my House rep doesn't at least go through the motions to pretend to listen to me. God forbid.

I agree, Charlie. My congressman voted nay. I can at least be happy in that.

My box of BBF arrived yesterday covered in mold 😢😢

Yeah man...such a bummer. I’m returning it. They’re taking good care of me about it. It’s nobodys fault. Good people at Iwan Reis. I have never dealt with them before.

...they have been around for a long time... one of the few places from the old days that still exist... excellent service...

I too have been trying too find some samuel genath squadron leader no luck,

On this point, where are the calls coming from? Is in in the FDA regs?

The above is perhaps more disturbing than other measures. The pipe club and B+M purchases are always a good thing, but too many have already been run out of business.