Guest Nekhyludov Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 From the FDA Commissioner, testifying before the Senate on regulation of premium cigars: "Whatever we do in this regard is going to need to be science-based of course. But, we’re cognizant of the challenges faced by small business. I also understand there are a number of legislative measures to exempt premium cigars. If Congress were to act, we’d be happy to work with legislators to mitigate any unintended consequences of these measures." Maybe we in the US won't end up with warning labels that cover the entire box, prohibitions on free samples, and cigars locked up behind the counter after all. Just maybe. http://halfwheel.com/fda-commissioner-testifies-senate-premium-cigars/156555 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmpotocek Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Now we just have to wait for the debate over what constitutes a "Premium Cigar". Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post El Presidente Posted June 22, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted June 22, 2017 to mitigate any unintended consequences of these measures." There are no unintended consequences. They aim to stop tobacco long term. They may speak the language of conciliation, however they have only one goal. Like water over pavement, they seek the crack and then rush through until blocked. They wait again. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polarbear Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 6 hours ago, Nekhyludov said: Maybe we in the US won't end up with warning labels that cover the entire box, prohibitions on free samples, and cigars locked up behind the counter after all. Just maybe. Of all the proposed restrictions on the cards, those are the ones I would worry least about 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SignalJoe Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 6 hours ago, El Presidente said: to mitigate any unintended consequences of these measures." There are no unintended consequences. They aim to stop tobacco long term. They may speak the language of conciliation, however they have only one goal. Like water over pavement, they seek the crack and then rush through until blocked. They wait again. True statement. As the commissioner of the agency responsible for these "unintended consequences" he could easily correct them. He has deliberately chosen not to do so for the very reasons Rob mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseAMuffin Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Another case of say one thing, do another. In the end they just want to regulate anything and everything. Don't forget though, they are doing this to stop all those kids that smoke premium cigars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester21 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 The FDA visited my favorite cigar shop recently. They asked questions repeatedly about underage purchases and any connection to any vaping shop under the same ownerships. Bunch of really illinformed dirtbag bureaucrats. They remained for hours poking around asking questions and looking all bad ass. Typical govt scumbags. They are not here to serve and protect anyone. More like to harass and imprison. One of the worst branches of the govt from all accounts. Prez is spot on with his analysis. Don't get your hopes up 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OZCUBAN Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Rob is a 100% right your membership to the current worldwide trend of tobacco consumption club is in the mail One cannot turn back the tide if they don't heavily restrict it they will tax the shit out of it..... we know ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazer Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Well if indeed Dr. Gotleib intends to employ science to make his decision there are two recent studies conducted or partially funded by FDA to use as the basis for exemption. The first showed that premium cigars were not targeted to nor used by minors, which was the primary goal of the previous administration's regulation. The second one showed that while no tobacco product is safe, the occasional indulgence in premium cigars shows a minuscule increased risk in tobacco related diseases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSXCIGAR Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Just happened to come across what's basically a ht piece on the portion of the original bill exempting premium cigars, and I must say appear to have a few decent points in terms of some flaws in the definition of "premium cigars". Here's the whole piece: https://smokingcessationleadership.ucsf.edu/sites/smokingcessationleadership.ucsf.edu/files/webinar_28_fda_factsheet_cigars_6072012.pdf Here's the paragraph in question: The bills could exempt more than premium cigars. The definition of traditional large and premium cigar used in H.R. 1639 and S. 1461 could invite manufacturers of non-premium cigars, such as some cigarillos and blunts, to assert that their products are covered by the exemption from regulation. Neither bill, for example, specifies that an exempt cigar must be rolled by hand even though hand rolled is a defining characteristic of a premium cigar. Neither bill defines leaf tobacco. Many of the cheap, kid-friendly cigars are rolled in a brown paper that is not whole leaf but contains some form of reconstituted or homogenized leaf tobacco. This may allow these products to claim they are exempt. Both bills create incentives for manufacturers to modify their products to become exempt, for example by changing how much they weigh or what they are wrapped in. These loopholes can be used by tobacco companies to widen the proposed exemption far beyond premium cigars. I think there's some decent points in here and this original bill may have ultimately been poorly written in an attempt to exempt premium cigars. There must be a clear characteristic that separates premium cigars and non-premium cigars that isn't subject to wide interpretation or easy manipulation by non-premium manufacturers. The anti-smoking goons like those who wrote this piece will scream bloody murder if any door is left open for anything non-premium to escape regulation, and it actually does seem that they are at least willing to be flexible when it comes to true premium cigars. Perhaps simply defining a premium as being wrapped in "whole leaf tobacco" or "hand wrapped" could function to isolate premium cigars from almost all non-premiums. It sounds like the original bill's exemption was written rather hastily and done without the consultation of any industry experts. I think if congress can work with some industry experts and tighten up the wording and their definitions there can be some serious ground gained and perhaps what is an extremely reasonable exemption of premium cigars will go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OZCUBAN Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Like rob said they want to stamp out tobacco that's there long term agenda just like in other parts of the world in other words ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.e2a46b57b5880109ddf171d1b6f9daea.png)
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