The Twist of the FDA ruling

[NSXCIGAR]

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.

Yes, I believe this is an accurate assessment, and is also consistent with Rob's opening post here. It's very clear that the FDA has the power to prevent any new tobacco or e-cig (not even tobacco) product from becoming available, just as they did with cigarettes long ago. So absolutely no innovation in terms of delivery or safety of e-cigs will ever appear in the US...or even safer forms of cigarettes/cigars/filters/tobacco.

Understood this way, there is the distinct possibility Cuban cigars may never be allowed to be sold retail in the US. There may be a way around it from a branding perspective as many Cuban brands are currently sold here as NCs, but seeing as how the tobacco itself would be from an entirely different country I think it would be a very likely FDA rejection and/or a very long uphill battle to reverse.

Perhaps there will be a realization among the masses that despite the lifting of the embargo they can't even get Cuban cigars due to this act, and the massively bad publicity will shed light on the onerous nature of this FDA act and possibly garner enough steam to alter it.

[ChanceSchmerr]

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.

I'll Take issue with this one...not to side-step the issue, but Thalidomide was a problem in Canada as well - with a lasting legacy to this day - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/for-canadian-thalidomide-victims-compensation-is-fair-but-long-overdue/article24585168/

[NSXCIGAR]

I'll Take issue with this one...not to side-step the issue, but Thalidomide was a problem in Canada as well - with a lasting legacy to this day - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/for-canadian-thalidomide-victims-compensation-is-fair-but-long-overdue/article24585168/

A couple things here. First, and most importantly, the Canadian Thalidomide victims were essentially railroaded by an incompetent and unfair court system. As I said, only with proper and fair civil liability can one dispense with regulatory agencies.

Second, there was already a regulatory system in place in Canada, and it failed miserably. The Canadians couldn't even get the stuff off the shelves for 6 months after the UK had pulled it. The US never had an issue with Thalidomide without any formal regulatory agency in place. The UK and German casualties were far less than in Canada, both of which also had less regulation than Canada. Clearly, this had nothing to do with a lack of there being a regulatory agency in place.

In the end, the whole Thalidomide incident should only really have lasted six months, with 10,000-20,000 casualties--many more than should have been--and this was by far the worst drug incident of all time. That's not a bad batting average for the market over 150 years, considering bad drugs still get through all the time and kill thousands.

[planetary]

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

So we believe differently about that non-viable animate matter which utterly depends on the mother's body to become a person with legal standing. You treat the issue the way you wish, and I will do the same. Ditto for cigars: if you don't wish to enjoy a premium cigar, no problem. But let me enjoy one, if I so choose.

My point is: if we're going to object to the FDA ruling because we don't like other people telling us what to do on matters which don't conform to their ideals, we should pause a moment. We may be doing exactly the same kind of thing to others on those issues as the FDA is doing to us on this.

If pluralism is going to work, in America, in Australia, in the world government which I believe to be an historical inevitability, it must allow for different people with wildly different beliefs to act in ways which others will not agree with, in all respects. We must build around a core civic basis of freedom and evidence-based policy, where policy is required. IMO.

[basjoe613]

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.

Well said. Well said.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

[Mattygukas]

Well said. Well said.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

I think the lost point on what true conservatives look out for is the liberties for all people...including my beliefs which may not allow me to take part in a *** wedding, or my beliefs which may not allow me to have my company offer birth control, or my beliefs that may not allow me to conduct an abortion... Although all of these may not be my actual beliefs, as a libertarian I don't think the government should force things onto those who's long standing religion prohibits.

Between these rights of all people and common sense (men go in the men's room and women go in the women's room) doesn't stop those others from doing what they want in their bedroom. It also doesn't say they can't believe they are another sex, another animal, or a magical rainbow, it just means you can't affect the rights of others.

We don't all have to agree but we should all have our rights protected. Me smoking a cigar only affects my right to choose which unhealthy activity I want to take part in. Nobody will ban or limit ice cream which contributes to obesity which drives to much more deadlier health issues.

Off my soap box and love to all

[Stogieninja]

So we believe differently about that non-viable animate matter which utterly depends on the mother's body to become a person with legal standing. You treat the issue the way you wish, and I will do the same. Ditto for cigars: if you don't wish to enjoy a premium cigar, no problem. But let me enjoy one, if I so choose.

Those aren't the same thing at all. Saying another person shouldn't kill a child isn't the same thing as saying another person shouldn't smoke a cigar.

There are some rules which are good and right. Don't kill others is an example of a good and right rule. There are some rules which are bad. FDA's rule is a bad rule. Let's not conflate the two.

[CanuckSARTech]

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

I could almost see / believe that.

I mean, come ON!!!!

The FDA - the freakin' F.D.A. - is getting into the business of APPROVING cigars?!?!?!?!

[Zigatoh]

Those aren't the same thing at all. Saying another person shouldn't kill a child isn't the same thing as saying another person shouldn't smoke a cigar.

There are some rules which are good and right. Don't kill others is an example of a good and right rule. There are some rules which are bad. FDA's rule is a bad rule. Let's not conflate the two.

But that's a perfect example of different people's beliefs, to you it's murder, to others, before a certain time has elapsed, it's 'non viable animate matter' simply being removed.

You're total belief in that being good and right is the same as that of those people trying to protect everybody from themselves and each other. I'm sure the fda as a group believe their anti tobacco stance is good and right.

Now this doesn't need to devolve into an argument about abortion but it does illustrate two polar opposite views where both sides believe they are truly in the right.

[El Presidente]

Now this doesn't need to devolve into an argument about abortion but it does illustrate two polar opposite views where both sides believe they are truly in the right.

And it won't develp into a discussion on abortion. Can't believe it is here at all.

Cigars. Keep it to cigars.

[suggs]

And it won't develp into a discussion on abortion. Can't believe it is here at all.

Cigars. Keep it to cigars.

This is the problem when it becomes a standard left v. right pissing contest. Nobody's realistically going to change anyone's mind about deeply-held convictions on an Internet forum. Prez has the right of it.

[LGC]

A lot of folks fail to take accountability for their own children, health, lives, etc. The attitude of entitlement (or whatever you want to call it) expects a "nanny" to hold their hand and guard them along all the steps of life. They have no issues with laws that impede upon the constitutional rights of others... as long as it supports their own views and agenda. It will be too late too back pedal when the rights and freedoms of everyone is choked off... regardless of political stance, extremist views, etc.

[Stogieninja]

But that's a perfect example of different people's beliefs, to you it's murder, to others, before a certain time has elapsed, it's 'non viable animate matter' simply being removed.

You're total belief in that being good and right is the same as that of those people trying to protect everybody from themselves and each other. I'm sure the fda as a group believe their anti tobacco stance is good and right.

Now this doesn't need to devolve into an argument about abortion but it does illustrate two polar opposite views where both sides believe they are truly in the right.

The only similarity though is that people disagree. But they're fundamentally different questions

With respect to El Pres's request that we keep it on topic:

Whether you agree on the answer or not, we can all agree that the question in the first case is whether or not the government has an obligation to protect an innocent third party (the existence of the third party being the part disagreed upon.(

In the case of cigars, the question is whether the government has an obligation to protect people from themselves.

That's the big difference between the two, and that's why they're not comparable issues, and why this is so obviously overreach.

[Phatskipper]

I truly believe it is a very slippery slope for us all to ever use the "well, there are other instances where the 'other side' does xyz, so we should ignore what 'my side' is doing now and not hold them accountable" line of reasoning. I think both sides are guilty of misplaced regulation of things that should be chalked up to "liberty".

We will slowly erode all of our freedoms using this faulty logic to excuse the excesses of "our side" because there will always be a prior grievence one can point to going back to original sin. We cannot allow this. This is specifically what our founding fathers warned us about in adopting a two party system:

John Adams:

• "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

George Washington (in his farewell speech) :

• "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty"

This isn't to say that it is impossible for us to have a functioning and free society with a two-party system in place; rather, it should serve as a reminder that we risk spiraling into a ***-for-tat where everyone ends up less free and that we should err on the side of circumspection when entertaining ideas that limit liberty... regardless of your disdain for said liberties.

[sactochris]

I can't believe it took this long for someone to use the phrase slippery slope.

[ElLoboLoco]

So, you do not think Habanos would invest a few million dollars to open a us market line of cigars? It is an awfully big market.