Blazer Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 This is probably one of the most well written synopsis of the wide ranging impact the pending legislation could have from an economic standpoint. By Mary L. Landrieu - - Wednesday, March 23, 2016 President Obama’s just-completed trip to Cuba made him the first American president to visit since Calvin Coolidge in 1928. While both sides of the political aisle can debate the virtue of such a trip, it is important to highlight some underlying issues that lurk behind the scenes in the wake of the historic visit. First, there should be a commitment to advance political reform and civil liberties for the Cuban people before we pursue economic and trade relations. Congress should thoroughly review issues of human rights and personal freedom in Cuba before advancing any of more than a dozen pieces of filed legislation intended to normalize relations. Of course, the administration should also take such matters into account, as it develops policy recommendations that seek to improve the historic tension between our two nations. Simultaneous with the president’s effort to improve this relationship, another wing of the administration is working on regulations that could complicate and potentially thwart any progress made to date, or desired in the future. Since Dec. 17, 2014 when the president surprised the nation with his initiative to improve relations with Cuba, the one consistent image of the island nation has been the cigar. References to Cuban cigars, as a staple of their economy and international symbol of the country, began to surface throughout our national media. The immediate discussion turned to “Will we be able to get Cuban cigars into the United States?” Rules on this were being addressed by the Treasury Department recently, and Americans traveling to Cuba in recent months have been permitted to return with up to $100 worth of cigars for personal consumption. During a February speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Cuban Trade Minister Rodrigo Malmierca called upon the administration to allow for exports of various Cuban products, specifically noting cigars. On the other side of Washington, however, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is plotting the regulation of premium handmade cigars, threatening the very industry that supports, by some estimates, more than 250,000 jobs within 50 factories in Cuba. It is the implications this regulatory program has for the rest of Latin America that is even more troubling. The nations of Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic have over 300,000 jobs associated with the premium cigar industry, and from seed to shore, these jobs serve as a foundation for each nation’s economy. Twice, in a joint letter to six federal agencies, including Commerce, Agriculture, State, Homeland Security and the National Security Council, each respective ambassador to the United States from these three nations has voiced their concern over the FDA effort to regulate premium handmade cigars. The ambassadors noted, “No regulatory measure should threaten such jobs, and hence raise the specter of political and economic consequences within our region.” The FDA’s own notice in the Unified Regulatory Agenda states, “This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and investment effects.” Jorge Alberto Milla Reyes, ambassador to the United States from Honduras, has also raised the implications of cigar regulation on the question of immigration. He stated, “There are, indeed, international trade and economic implications with regulating premium cigars from Honduras and throughout Latin America. The government of Honduras values the investment and source of employment provided by the premium cigar industry, and knows well how it provides for over 35,000 families in Honduras and 300,000 in the region. We cannot underestimate how this contributes to stability, especially at this time of concern over such issues as immigration and security.” Regulating and threatening the stability of the premium cigar industry, which is more of an art form than public health issue, would also seem to run counter to the efforts by Vice President Joe Biden to advance economic and trade opportunities in the region. While Central American aid packages are introduced in Congress, the FDA is jeopardizing one of the stable sources of employment within this politically and economically sensitive region. Under this regulatory proposal, new cigar blends would have to submit to the FDA for “premarket approval,” through a costly and cumbersome application process, that could take years for processing. One estimate is that it could take 5,000 hours, just for the application. And because of a “predicate date” of 2007, all cigars since then coming into the U.S. market, whether Cuban or from the rest of the Latin America and Caribbean Basin, would be subject to a “new product” set of standards to enter, which few could afford. It would destroy the boutique sector of the industry, and halt any limited release commemorative cigars. The Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, in a comment letter to the regulatory docket, found FDA’s Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis “deficient — because it does not adequately describe the impacts on all types of newly covered small entities.” I could not agree more. Small businesses in America, Cuba and throughout Latin America would be devastated. The premium cigar industry also represents thousands of American jobs, through more than 2,000 retail businesses, and a supplier and logistics network that spans from the Port of Miami to the distribution houses of Pennsylvania. It is hundreds of family farms from Lancaster County in the heart of Amish country, to the Connecticut River Valley. Small businesses from The Cigar Factory on Decatur Street in New Orleans, to El Titan De Bronze in the Little Havana community of Miami. These artisan businesses could never sustain federal regulation. It’s more than just a cigar. The point is that the administration is opening itself up to numerous unintended consequences if it tries to treat Havana any differently than Esteli, Danli or Santiago. The notion of an American bureaucracy intruding into an industry that poses no threat to the American general public, is purely for discerning adults, and serves as a source of invaluable jobs from the Pinar del Rio region of Cuba to the Jamastran Valley of Honduras should not be acceptable. We have higher priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post PigFish Posted March 25, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted March 25, 2016 Well we do have a growing similarity to Cuba! A growing, unchecked oligarchy called the administrative state where laws (called regulations) come without congressional approval, debate or due process. -Piggy 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemerry Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 Interesting how the TPP tobacco carve out isn't brought up. It's another noteworthy issue pending a real decision which could very much change the industry's landscape. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazer Posted March 27, 2016 Author Share Posted March 27, 2016 Cigar Authority posted yesterday that the current negotiations with Cuba have put all pending legislation on hold. Not sure if true,as congress is not supposed to have any influence in FDA decision making, but I hope Cuba coming online reshapes current proposals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElPuro Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 Don't know much about the Cigar Authority, but not inclined to rely on stories that are anonymously sourced. The only thing that will stop the FDA move is legislation by Congress specifically blocking it. That's been proposed and is pending I believe. Fortunately there are quite a few cigar smokers in Congress... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmartbull Posted March 27, 2016 Share Posted March 27, 2016 According to friends in the Foreign Services and State Dept , it is unlikely that we will see any changes for decades. Since we halted trade with Cuba, MANY trade agreements have been entered with neighboring counties that will not be infringed. " With your shield, or on it"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatskipper Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 It is really sad that at this point 7+ years in, I am truly exhausted from complaining about the constant, unilateral march of this administration towards regulating every God forsaken piece of anything happening in the US. It is unreal that these bureaucratic pinheads think they know best for every damned person in the country and do their best to make life a miserable daily slog through red tape and pointless rules for everyday Joes like myself.... all the while flaunting the rules themselves. If you are of a certain stature in the Federal Government, then you don't have to live under the laws you make. Case and point: Obamacare... well it doesn't affect or apply to anyone in Congress of course. Hillary and her emails...apparently she can do what she damned well pleases with MY national secrets, no real repercussions. Oh, you want some nice cigars to enjoy during your few hours of relaxation after working your ass off to pay the taxes that pay for their lavish lifestyles? Well, we certainly can't have that without some government leech meddling in the process for no apparent reason. How much worse does it need to get before we exercise our right to put an end to this consistent daily overreach? I am pretty sure the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence gives us some guidance. Edit: Another great and related quote from the DOI, given as cause for starting this government in the first place. He=King George III... or in my case King Obama I. "HE has erected a multitude of new offices by a self assumed power and sent hither swarms of new officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." /rant 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PigFish Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Don't know much about the Cigar Authority, but not inclined to rely on stories that are anonymously sourced. The only thing that will stop the FDA move is legislation by Congress specifically blocking it. That's been proposed and is pending I believe. Fortunately there are quite a few cigar smokers in Congress... ... it is funny how upside-down my country is. This statement, at least in part tells the story. Who gave the "administrative state," the apparent 4th branch of government, the authority to write laws about (Congresses' job) anything? The depths to which my country has fallen in my lifetime... This is a place I no longer recognize, and it is called Progress! -Piggy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusguy Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 It is really sad that at this point 7+ years in, I am truly exhausted from complaining about the constant, unilateral march of this administration towards regulating every God forsaken piece of anything happening in the US. It is unreal that these bureaucratic pinheads think they know best for every damned person in the country and do their best to make life a miserable daily slog through red tape and pointless rules for everyday Joes like myself.... all the while flaunting the rules themselves. If you are of a certain stature in the Federal Government, then you don't have to live under the laws you make. Case and point: Obamacare... well it doesn't affect or apply to anyone in Congress of course. Hillary and her emails...apparently she can do what she damned well pleases with MY national secrets, no real repercussions. Oh, you want some nice cigars to enjoy during your few hours of relaxation after working your ass off to pay the taxes that pay for their lavish lifestyles? Well, we certainly can't have that without some government leech meddling in the process for no apparent reason. How much worse does it need to get before we exercise our right to put an end to this consistent daily overreach? I am pretty sure the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence gives us some guidance. Edit: Another great and related quote from the DOI, given as cause for starting this government in the first place. He=King George III... or in my case King Obama I. "HE has erected a multitude of new offices by a self assumed power and sent hither swarms of new officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." /rant You have five posts on this forum and the fifth one is an anti-democrats rant? Nice. This overreach has been going on a lot longer than 7 years and is not isolated to one party - or even one country. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planetary Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 You have five posts on this forum and the fifth one is an anti-democrats rant? Nice. This overreach has been going on a lot longer than 7 years and is not isolated to one party - or even one country. Exactly so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElPuro Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 ... it is funny how upside-down my country is. This statement, at least in part tells the story. Who gave the "administrative state," the apparent 4th branch of government, the authority to write laws about (Congresses' job) anything? The depths to which my country has fallen in my lifetime... This is a place I no longer recognize, and it is called Progress! -Piggy The issue is in the role of the two branches and the broad authority granted to the executive branch departments. In establishing these agencies, the statutes are generally "flexible" and thus the agencies have a broad array of authority and discretion (which is, all things being equal, not a terrible premise. Imagine if an agency was required to have specific approval from Congress on everything it did. Things would move at an even more glacial pace). Thus, if there is no legislation to the contrary, an agency can take action it deems within its scope. Only way to stop it is a civil suit or act of Congress. That's not to say I agree with the direction here, but I cannot imagine a functioning democracy without some discretion given to an agency to carry out its mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PigFish Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Granted by whom, under who's authority? I don't live in a democracy. I live in a representative, or constitutional republic. I live in a nation of laws where federal law is to come from a specific source, not an convenient 'pool' directed by the executive or as a matter of convenience to him/her or congress (them). These people have a job to do! And it is about time that they pass specific laws and stop taking months plowing garbage that does nothing but grow government via what is considered an 'omnibus' better termed "ominous" bill...! Federal law was originally intended to be restrained and purposeful. Gridlock therefore was built into our constitutional system. Please show me in the Constitution, where this 'broad array and authority' stems from. I understand that I am likely in the minority. That is because I understand the role of the restrained, defined, federal government. It is not about defining the size of my toilet tank. It is not necessary nor advantageous for any pool to have broad sweeping authority to write laws. It is tyrannical. From The Hill Newspaper: 2015 was a record-setting year for the Federal Register, according to numbers the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., released Wednesday. This year’s daily publication of the federal government’s rules, proposed rules and notices amounted to 81,611 pages as of Wednesday, higher than last year's 77,687 pages and higher than the all-time high of 81,405 pages in 2010 — with one day to go in 2015. Does this profligate law making fit the definition of a constitutional republic, or even a democracy for that matter? How many of these laws did you have a say in? How many did you vote on? You said that this is a "functioning democracy?" How so? Who defines functioning democracy? You? I don't mean to be offensive here my friend, this is an academic conversation, but where the hell did you come up with this loophole you call the "functioning democracy." So if the "functioning democracy" decrees that it must seize my bank account to pay for the deficit it is just okay, under this 'broad authority???' How many of these laws do you understand, have reviewed, or are even aware of??? This is tyranny mate, sold to you as a 'functioning democracy,' whatever the hell that is! You and I have likely broken several of these laws in some 80K pages today alone!! If that represents a 'functioning democracy' you can have it... Bring back gridlock.... Please! -Piggy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElPuro Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 As noted, I am not personally supportive of these regulations, but simply explaining the reality of how the system works. Still, I would fundamentally disagree this represents tyranny. Our representatives in Congress, or aggrieved parties through the courts, have the ability to shut down this type of regulation. Also, for each of us that opposes this incursion into our private lives, there are others who argue our use of tobacco product use incurs upon theirs through higher health care premiums, etc. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PigFish Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 As noted, I am not personally supportive of these regulations, but simply explaining the reality of how the system works. Still, I would fundamentally disagree this represents tyranny. Our representatives in Congress, or aggrieved parties through the courts, have the ability to shut down this type of regulation. Also, for each of us that opposes this incursion into our private lives, there are others who argue our use of tobacco product use incurs upon theirs through higher health care premiums, etc. We can mark the line on a different plane and still be friends!!! Like you, just stating my position. Cheers mate! -Piggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazer Posted April 11, 2016 Author Share Posted April 11, 2016 Update, maybe? Week ahead: Groups await FDA tobacco rule By Lydia Wheeler and Tim Devaney - 04/11/16 06:00 AM EDT Industry and advocacy groups are expecting the Food and Drug Administration to release its long-awaited final rule to regulate cigars and electronic cigarettes this month. The FDA, though, is keeping their cards close to the vest. FDA spokesman Michael Felberbaum said he did not have any update to share on the timing of the rule's release. The anticipation may be wishful thinking, but health groups believe a final rule is imminent. "I do believe they will come out this month," said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "They are facing a serious deadline given the end of the presidential year. Having said that, the proposed rule came out in April 2014 and last spring they said they would be done by summer. Then last June they said they'd be done by the end of the summer. I guess they never said which year." Myers said the delays in releasing the final rule have damaged the agency's credibility. "The need for its release is urgent," he said. The delay has sparked speculation among industry leaders on what could be holding up the rule. Ray Story, CEO of the Tobacco Vapor Electronic Cigarette Association (TVECA), believes the agency is hung up on one provision -- a mandate that requires any nicotine delivery devices that hit stores after Feb. 15, 2007, to apply retroactively for approval. Story argues that provision alone will wipe out the e-cigarette industry, which didn't take off until after 2007. "Even though FDA sees it as a serious issue, it cannot change it," Story said. "It requires a change of the law." The agency has said it does not believe it has the authority to alter or amend the date, because it was set by statute in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act that was signed into law by President Obama in 2009. Story said Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) is working on legislation to change the date. In an email to The Hill, Duncan's chief of staff Joe Kasper said the legislation is intended to ensure e-cigarettes are not regulated like traditional tobacco products. "Vaping is not the same as smoking traditional tobacco and it shouldn't be treated that way," he said. "Vaping is really a proxy war for anti-tobacco forces and there's nothing they want more than to continue associating vaping with regular tobacco." Kasper dismissed the FDA's claims that the agency's hands are tied by statute, calling the argument "bunk." "If they signaled support, this would be done by now and so many small businesses nationwide wouldn't have the anxiety that they do." If the FDA releases the rule before Congress acts, Story predicted a legal challenge. "If they push a rule forward, litigation will follow and stop FDA dead in their tracks and at that time they will have egg in their face," he said. Lawmakers from both chambers will be on Capitol Hill in the coming week, as the House returns from its spring recess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion21 Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 THE FDA and the DOL can all go to H.E. double hockey sticks. The DOL just announced new expanded regulations that put the financial services industry on it's head. They ignored hundreds if, if not thousands, of letters from the industry imploring them to not implement the new rules they just announced as it would destroy freedom of choice for consumers and leads to massive layoffs. They ignored every one of those letters in favor of expanding regulation. The FDA will do the same and we all will be worse off for it. We talk a lot about how soft some of us are because we don't care about regulations until the government shows up on our doorstep and knocks . . . well that just happened to me and thousands of people in the financial services industry last week. Thank God I own my firm and will be able to adjust, but I feel very sorry for a lot of employees out there who will be downsized in the coming months and years as the regs take hold. Pinhead bureaucrats is too kind of a description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatskipper Posted April 15, 2016 Share Posted April 15, 2016 I figure I should just put this bit of scuttlebutt on this post since it doesn't really warrant a new one... I don't think. Last night, I was chatting with the Rocky Patel rep who was helping out with the Hamlet Paredes event. He mentioned that the hot rumor in the industry is that the news on this possible regulation should be coming forth on May 20th. He implied this was more solid than just a rumor but that the date had changed in the past; he seemed to believe it and his job may depend on what they come out with, so I had no real reason to not believe him. Overall, the effect this could have one the NC industry is pretty wild and scary stuff. He also mentioned that Rocky himself was meeting with the FDA Commissioner in the next few days. So I am not really sure how to take that. Possibly a good sign?? I would like to hope this means the people with the most at stake are not shutout of the process as has happened on countless other federal regulatory overreach. Anyways, just figured I would pass that on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now