The Twist of the FDA ruling

[El Presidente]

In the back of my mind I thought tha the FDA ruling was as much about catching up with the rest of the world in regards to tobacco regulation. It was only when I have a good read over the weekend that I saw it actually goes much further.

Nowhere else on the planet am I aware that a cigar that was intrduced post 2007 will have to go through regulatory approval and that the approval could take 12 months to 3 years per application.

Actually that is not quite true. In mainland China, each cigar destined for the retail market needs to be approved before release but that is all to do with protecting the Chinese tobbacco monopoly as opposed to health grounds.

For those in the US, is that requiremement likely the traditional new legislation "red herring" that they (FDA) will cave in on in order to get the rest through? The sacrificial lamb of the ruling? or are they actually serious?

http://reason.com/archives/2016/05/06/the-fdas-new-tobacco-rules-will-be-terri

[stogieluver]

Unfortunately, more left wing liberal nannie state "we know what's best for you, you bunch of dumbasses". Yes, they are serious.

[SCgarman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_jH-G3e-bI

[MooseAMuffin]

Agree with stogie, unfortunately the US has a huge hate campaign towards tobacco in general. They "know best" what we should do with our own lives and so they regulate us.

I think what is going to be really interesting is the future war on chewing tobacco in Major League Baseball. Chewing has been a big part of baseball since it started, but now owners are being pressured to force their players to stop chewing. Apparently, it's bad for kids because they end up chewing just like their MLB idols. I believe the commissioner of the MLB has even stated that their is a chewing "problem" in baseball.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15064469/violators-new-tobacco-laws-face-baseball-penalties

http://thehill.com/regulation/healthcare/275077-dem-calls-on-baseball-to-ban-chewing-tobacco

Pretty pathetic imo.

[SCgarman]

I heard a few snippets of an interview with Glynn Loope the head of the Cigar Rights of America and he basically has stated the FDA intends on banishing ALL tobacco products if they are successful at achieving what they are trying to do. There is no way the Cuban government will shell out 250K-500K per Cuban cigar for FDA testing should the embargo be lifted, so there is good chance Cuban cigars may never be sold in the US (legally). Many thousands of jobs in the cigar industry are being threatened as of this FDA ruling!

[ChanceSchmerr]

So when the embargo falls - the only cuban cigars in the USA would be purchased online from overseas and legally imported for personal use, correct? Could the FDA regulate sales from overseass coming in to the final customer in the US?

[SCgarman]

So when the embargo falls - the only cuban cigars in the USA would be purchased online from overseas and legally imported for personal use, correct? Could the FDA regulate sales from overseass coming in to the final customer in the US?

Absolutely. The FDA INTENDS on regulating ALL tobacco products if they get their way. They intend on abolishing all forms of tobacco in the US.

[El Presidente]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_jH-G3e-bI

Good on Dave for railing.

The US cigar lobby is far stronger than anywere else in the world and all cards have no doubt not yet been played.

However, Daves arguments are the same as those that have been put up around the globe. They didn't help.

The US has free trade agreements with Mexico, Nicaragua, Dominican republic who combined would prvide the vast majority of imported cigars to the US.

A case to the WTO (World Trade Organisation) may slow this process down and provide some time to develop a cohesive anti FDA ruling strategy.

[SCgarman]

Good on Dave for railing.

The US cigar lobby is far stronger than anywere else in the world and all cards have no doubt not yet been played.

However, Daves arguments are the same as those that have been put up around the globe. They didn't help.

The US has free trade agreements with Mexico, Nicaragua, Dominican republic who combined would prvide the vast majority of imported cigars to the US.

A case to the WTO (World Trade Organisation) may slow this process down and provide some time to develop a cohesive anti FDA ruling strategy.

It is hard to fight a beaurocratic organization that is hell bent on eliminating all tobacco products. This could darn near wipe out the whole premium cigar industry as we currently know it. If the embargo ends, do you think HSA will spend 250-500K PER cigar to the FDA to get their blends approved for sale in the US market? A resounding Hell NO.

[Stogieninja]

...but that is all to do with protecting the Chinese tobbacco monopoly as opposed to health grounds.

This is the same thing. Why do you think the limit is 2007 and not 2016? Follow the money, this is as much about big tobacco eliminating the competition as it is stopping tobacco use.

Anti-tobacco gets a victory shutting down the booming market, big tobacco eliminates the competition.

[BigRay023]

This is classic left. They did this in Cali with guns. Alot of companies just stopped selling to Cali because of its draconian laws. FDA sees premium cigars as a cash cow to milk. Unfortunately this could kill the industry. Cuba will survive untouched, they have the world market outside of the States cinched up, nothing really changing. I feel for the little people in DR, Nicaragua, Honduras etc. This could have devastating effects.

[SCgarman]

This is classic left. They did this in Cali with guns. Alot of companies just stopped selling to Cali because of its draconian laws. FDA sees premium cigars as a cash cow to milk. Unfortunately this could kill the industry. Cuba will survive untouched, they have the world market outside of the States cinched up, nothing really changing. I feel for the little people in DR, Nicaragua, Honduras etc. This could have devastating effects.

Exactly. 90% of the cigars made in Nicaragua, Honduras and Dominican are sold in the USA. Not just thousands of jobs eliminated here in the CONUS, but also the tobacco farms and factories in South America and the Dominican. And you can forget Cuba selling their cigars here in the US if embargo ends. HSA would never pay millions to the FDA for testing and approval.

[Benzopyrene]

I suspect that if the premium cigar part of this ruling doesnt get amended in some way, shape, or form, that you will see shops popping up that sell non Cuban cigars to he US market....same techniques as cc vendors. Guaranteed shipping the whole shebang. Who knows maybe I'm wrong...... I suspect like most things they included everything in the ruling, so they have the upper hand in bargaining.

[planetary]

Absolutely. The FDA INTENDS on regulating ALL tobacco products if they get their way. They intend on abolishing all forms of tobacco in the US.

Of course they do. In fact, it follows directly from their mission to protect the public health, and the default perception of the electorate that people are hopelessly manipulable by vast evil corporations.

[planetary]

Unfortunately, more left wing liberal nannie state "we know what's best for you, you bunch of dumbasses". Yes, they are serious.

I understand the point, but this isn't a purely liberal v. conservative issue. To wit, conservatives in the US have a storied history of telling women what is and isn't ok to do with their bodies, what two consenting adults can or can't do in their bedroom, or which restroom transgender people can use. What's disgusting about all that -- and this -- is that humans seem to have boundless energy for abridging the liberty of their fellows; they believe they have special access to what is "right" or "best" -- for not just themselves, or their families, but for everyone.

[Stogieninja]

To wit, conservatives in the US have a storied history of telling women what is and isn't ok to do with their bodies...

I assume you're referring not to their bodies, but to the bodies of their children.

[NSXCIGAR]

This is the same thing. Why do you think the limit is 2007 and not 2016? Follow the money, this is as much about big tobacco eliminating the competition as it is stopping tobacco use.

Anti-tobacco gets a victory shutting down the booming market, big tobacco eliminates the competition.

Absolutely correct here.

People have no idea how regulation almost always leads to cartelization. Just the other day I was reading about the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 and what a disaster that's been--one example of hundreds.

The only chance we have is the FDA's actions are absolutely unconstitutional. The chances of congress acting on that are slim in the case of tobacco, however. Hopefully, a lawsuit may bring about a supreme court review, but short of that, this may have extremely wide-ranging implications for the future of premium cigars in the US.

[Blazer]

TBH, I'm not really sure what to think. This legislation has been held off for so long by so many different factors that its hard for me to believe that some back room hand shakes have not been made in order to make this a lame duck announcement for the premium cigar industry? Think about this FDA says we've implemented this legislation, which placates all the anti-tobacco zealots, but then says "but we don't have the funding to implement the program". This takes the heat off FDA and puts it on the big evil, but untouchable, congress.

So why do I think the above could happen? The POTUS has done everything possible to normalize relations with Cuba, whose main export into the US would be cigars. The ruling was held up, with yet another round of public (read lobbyist) comments on the legislation after POTUS' return from Cuba.

The final ruling created a 2-year grace period for all cigars launched after 2007, which creates a lot of time for other things to happen, including a new administration in the white house.

The CBO has approved the budget, but stipulated that no funding may be used by FDA to implement this legislation. Obviously this is not an insurmountable issue as FDA could do to the tobacco industry what they did to the pharma industry by making them fund this new arm of the agency through user fees.

The most interesting thing to me is that there has been little public outcry from the tobacco industry and its trade groups. Yes, they all sent out the cursory press release with their standard talking points. However, if this was indeed the end one would expect Rocky Patel, Pete Johnson, General Cigar, etc. to be jumping out of their skin and instead............crickets.

Jobs are a hot topic in our country and any elimination of jobs due to govt regulation (can you say COAL?) will not be viewed positively.

Of course I could be totally off base here and I could lose the right as an adult to purchase a Drew Estate infused cigar, or at the very least have to pay $10.01 for what is a $4 cigar.

[wabashcr]

For those in the US, is that requiremement likely the traditional new legislation "red herring" that they (FDA) will cave in on in order to get the rest through? The sacrificial lamb of the ruling? or are they actually serious?

No red herring here. The FDA doesn't need to convince anyone to enact their regulations. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act passed by congress, and signed by Obama in 2009 gave the FDA the authority to regulate all tobacco products as they see fit. Congress would have to pass a new law exempting premium cigars from FDA regulation, otherwise the FDA will do as they please. There's currently language in a bill being bandied about that would do just this. But that's not expected to come to fruition until at least 2017. The possibility of a lawsuit exists, but the chances of success are slim. The Supreme Court has generally upheld the FDA's authority as long as congress has given the ok. The above referenced law was specifically enacted in response to a Supreme Court decision against the FDA, where the court said FDA couldn't regulate tobacco, because congress had not explicitly granted them that authority.

I work in an FDA regulated industry, and it's bureaucracy at its finest. The new product testing and approval process is incredibly costly and cumbersome. They can (and do) show up unannounced for audits that can last weeks at a time. If they find something they don't like, they can shut you down, until they're satisfied you've fixed the problem (which they will evaluate on their own timetable). A competitor of mine recently had a facility shut down by the FDA for two years, primarily because they didn't care for the way this company had documented their design process. They supposedly fixed the issue in a matter of weeks, but it's taken this long for them to convince the FDA that everything is ok.

The FDA doesn't care about jobs or crippling an industry, here, or especially in foreign countries. It's not their job to be concerned with these things. Their job is to ensure that products under their control meet a standard of consistency when released to market. Despite the fact they're not very good at what they do (look at all the drugs that end up being pulled after they turn out to be harmful), it's still preferable to the alternative, not having any regulation. Anyone who has ever had a medical procedure or taken medication has benefited from the standards the FDA has in place.

When congress passed that act in 2009, this was the only logical conclusion. It passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support in both houses. Unless congress acts to revoke some of that control, there's very little chance any of this will be stopped.

[helix]

The most interesting thing to me is that there has been little public outcry from the tobacco industry and its trade groups. Yes, they all sent out the cursory press release with their standard talking points. However, if this was indeed the end one would expect Rocky Patel, Pete Johnson, General Cigar, etc. to be jumping out of their skin and instead............crickets.

Jobs are a hot topic in our country and any elimination of jobs due to govt regulation (can you say COAL?) will not be viewed positively.

"Cigars that were on the market in 2007 will be allowed to remain for sale, but any cigars introduced since then will have to endure the same sort of regulatory hassles as Hestia tobacco. If they can’t prove they’re substantially equivalent to existing products—not just in their composition or their effects on smokers, but in their essentially unknowable potential health impacts on the population as a whole—then they will be ordered off the market."

So no new brands of cigar thus no Cuban cigars. Crickets you say...................

[TCContender]

I understand the point, but this isn't a purely liberal v. conservative issue. To wit, conservatives in the US have a storied history of telling women what is and isn't ok to do with their bodies, what two consenting adults can or can't do in their bedroom, or which restroom transgender people can use. What's disgusting about all that -- and this -- is that humans seem to have boundless energy for abridging the liberty of their fellows; they believe they have special access to what is "right" or "best" -- for not just themselves, or their families, but for everyone.

Actually, you are correct in part. Case in point, it seems in the left wing bastion of NYC, there is a new law that alcohol must be served to pregnant women if ordered. Establishments cannot elect not to serve mothers-to-be despite the known, documented health effects. I guess that is because in their warped minds, an unborn child does not deserve protection. If ever an opportunity existed for the nanny-state overlords to get it right, and of course they flopped.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/00f36eefd6d74852b7165cdea0334068/agency-bars-cant-ban-pregnant-women-or-refuse-them-drinks

[Blazer]

I work in an FDA regulated industry, and it's bureaucracy at its finest.

Lilly??

[Phatskipper]

Let us not overlook the fact that the FDA is not elected by the people. In this case, unfortunately, they were given jurisdiction to regulate premium cigars by the 2009 law mentioned above.

I think we should be just as furious-- if not more-- at our elected representatives for giving this type of authority to unaccountable bureaucrats. In my opinion, they should not have given carte blanche to these obviously misguided power-hungry "statists".

I fear that without a sustained effort to contact your elected representatives via PHONE (they tend to ignore email) to urge them to pass a law with exemptions for cigars and pipe tobacco, then we really have no recourse and we will be stuck with this overreach.

I also find it troubling that people who support these leftists and their current push into every aspect of our life are using the old "the other side does it too" excuse. This, in my opinion, is total crap and a major factor in how we arrived here. If we cannot look at each untoward action taken by our government and hold accountable those who attempt to take our freedoms because someone at some point in the past also did something distasteful, then we should just go ahead and find ourselves a dictator because all hope of stopping the slide is lost.

In this case it is liberal bureaucrats enabled by a (at the time) liberal Senate and a liberal House of Representatives. If and likely when the Conservatives overreach, we should deal with that instance with equal fervor when it comes. We cannot let past poor actions excuse current and future attacks on our dwindling inalienable rights.

Unfortunately, for all of us, undoing a law like this is often more difficult than getting it done in the first place. I suspect that if the legislative branch, narrowly controlled by Republicans, can somehow manage to pass this legislation through both the Senate and House, the President will quickly veto. If you have not found this out, Obama is always in favor of more legislation, regulations and government power, he is a statist through and through.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

[NSXCIGAR]

...Despite the fact they're not very good at what they do (look at all the drugs that end up being pulled after they turn out to be harmful), it's still preferable to the alternative, not having any regulation. Anyone who has ever had a medical procedure or taken medication has benefited from the standards the FDA has in place...

I would actually take issue with that view. Almost all available analysis and empirical evidence points to the FDA killing many more people than it could possibly have saved during its existence, on net. The FDA has been nothing short of a killing machine under the guise of consumer safety. A simple google search of "FDA kills" results in mountains of documentation supporting this conclusion.

The FDA has only been around a relatively short time, and was only established in response to the canard of Thalidomide, a very small, localized and short-lived German & UK problem that the US already had the power at the time to prevent from becoming an issue--and it never did become an issue in the US. In fact, Thalidomide is currently FDA-approved.

As long as you have proper and fair liability and tort laws holding manufacturers responsible civilly for harm or fraud in the courts you don't need regulatory bodies or agencies. Product safety and quality continually improved from the mid-19th and early 20th centuries without any regulatory agencies mandating they do so. Companies regularly spend millions of dollars voluntarily to have third party testing companies like Underwriters Laboratories test and insure their products--none of which is required by law. And UL's testing standards frequently exceed those of the regulatory agencies.

Today the FDA and all other US government regulatory agencies are used frequently to sidestep the constitution and bamboozle the public as to that fact. Congress cannot ban anything themselves, but by creating an agency that has the authority to tax something or regulate it out of existence, it creates a layer of smokescreen that is difficult to see through so as to stop the action.

[Orion21]

A user in another thread made a good point.

The law that gave the FDA these new powers isn't about taxation or fees to approve new products. It's about not letting any new products come to market, period. Just because a large tobacco company can pay a $500,000 fee to submit their product for testing does not mean the FDA will actually approve the product. They have literally created an insurmountable wall to prevent new tobacco products in the USA.

The equivalent comparison in the car industry would be to create a new law that allows the FDA to put gasoline powered cars through a process of testing that based on them being gasoline powered means they have no chance to pass . . . EVER.