FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Open forum for all subject for smokers in general
User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 24961
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Rusty » Mon May 09, 2016 1:11 pm

Joshoowah wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Joshoowah wrote:I can't help but think about all the blends that came out after 2007. Gosh, a lot of good tobaccos would cease to exist, including quite a few of my favorites. Oh well, I guess. I can't buy tons of tobacco to save for a later date. This sucks.
Don't give in to despair. Nothing is gone. And we don't know enough to say in any case. It's simply that all blends introduced to market after Feb 15, 2007 have another hurdle to leap. It might be that many are so similar in content to blends already on the market that the hurdle is not a stopper.

Also nothing is going away because of the FDA anytime soon. The FDA is incredibly slow and usually late. We expected this ruling in 2015 after their draft and request for comments in 2014. They're a year late. And we expected the draft back in 2012 or 2013 so really they're three years late. We may all have lived and died if the FDA continues with their molasses-in-January cruising speed. It's 90 days until the ruling is in force and two years after that, of dealing with the FDA over new blends intro'd after 2007, and then sometime in the third year any that have not been approved would be removed from the market. Provided the FDA doesn't extend the deadline. I'll bet they haven't seen anything like the number of new products that the pipe tobacco market has generated in the last 8 years or so. And it's not just pipe tobacco. The whole OTP class has been quite active introducing new products.

Stay frosty.
Well, I just experimented by adding my favorites to cart and seeing what it cost. If these blends come to end, I'll have to do without most likely. Can't be spending that kind of money.
When I started good tobacco cost about $1/oz., and now it's approx. $25/oz here. It's worse where the Rev Thom is. In the same interval inflation accounts for a factor of about 5. So the other factor of 5 is tax. That's the effct on the price of retail tobacco. When the tax factor is 20 here you guys will prob. have a tax factor of 5. And yes, it is discouraging but I'd like to point out that pipes last a lifetime and deliver a lot of satisfaction.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Joshoowah
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Posts: 4481
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Nairobi, Kenya; formerly Wilmore, KY; Formerly Athens, AL
Contact:

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Joshoowah » Tue May 10, 2016 1:43 am

Rusty wrote:
Joshoowah wrote:
Rusty wrote:
Joshoowah wrote:I can't help but think about all the blends that came out after 2007. Gosh, a lot of good tobaccos would cease to exist, including quite a few of my favorites. Oh well, I guess. I can't buy tons of tobacco to save for a later date. This sucks.
Don't give in to despair. Nothing is gone. And we don't know enough to say in any case. It's simply that all blends introduced to market after Feb 15, 2007 have another hurdle to leap. It might be that many are so similar in content to blends already on the market that the hurdle is not a stopper.

Also nothing is going away because of the FDA anytime soon. The FDA is incredibly slow and usually late. We expected this ruling in 2015 after their draft and request for comments in 2014. They're a year late. And we expected the draft back in 2012 or 2013 so really they're three years late. We may all have lived and died if the FDA continues with their molasses-in-January cruising speed. It's 90 days until the ruling is in force and two years after that, of dealing with the FDA over new blends intro'd after 2007, and then sometime in the third year any that have not been approved would be removed from the market. Provided the FDA doesn't extend the deadline. I'll bet they haven't seen anything like the number of new products that the pipe tobacco market has generated in the last 8 years or so. And it's not just pipe tobacco. The whole OTP class has been quite active introducing new products.

Stay frosty.
Well, I just experimented by adding my favorites to cart and seeing what it cost. If these blends come to end, I'll have to do without most likely. Can't be spending that kind of money.
When I started good tobacco cost about $1/oz., and now it's approx. $25/oz here. It's worse where the Rev Thom is. In the same interval inflation accounts for a factor of about 5. So the other factor of 5 is tax. That's the effct on the price of retail tobacco. When the tax factor is 20 here you guys will prob. have a tax factor of 5. And yes, it is discouraging but I'd like to point out that pipes last a lifetime and deliver a lot of satisfaction.
I agree, but the fact remains: I don't have a normal, paying job like others. :wink: So, I'm just saying I'd have to find new favorites to move onto.
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose?" Philippians 1:21-22

ImageImage

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 24961
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Rusty » Wed May 11, 2016 7:39 pm

Looking around I see the drums of war are starting. But for some reason not here. Curious.

The cigar manufacturers have many irons in the fire... and they say their whole industry is threatened. It's worth reading their article...

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/webfeatu ... stry-18788

The e-cig folks are really in serious trouble.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallysatel/ ... 741c96d140

It seems very likely that every new pipe tobacco blend introduced after Feb 15, 2007 is the same as equivalents on the market before that and that's what the FDA is expecting, apparently. The alternative where a new product really is something different & new really means it's gone because it's too costly to satisfy the FDA. However, even if the existing set all live on, whether we ever see any new products again is a good question.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Fainn
I've attained the highest rank so far
I've attained the highest rank so far
Posts: 3360
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Fainn » Thu May 12, 2016 1:04 pm

What about products introduced before 2007 but have been discontinued? Would there be a chance for them to return without the review process?
2016 Winner, Least Likely to Correctly use a Pipe Sock Image

User avatar
Fainn
I've attained the highest rank so far
I've attained the highest rank so far
Posts: 3360
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Fainn » Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:26 pm

I entered the Moonshine Pipe Giveaway - although I have enough pipes and would rather see someone here win. I did however, learn something in the process by contacting my congressmen and women. This is the email I received.

From the office of Sen. Roger Wicker of MS (R):

"On February 10, 2015, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) introduced the Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2015. This legislation would exempt traditional large and premium cigars from regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It would also exempt user fees assessed on tobacco products by the FDA. Currently, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is considering this legislation."
2016 Winner, Least Likely to Correctly use a Pipe Sock Image

User avatar
Joshoowah
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Posts: 4481
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Nairobi, Kenya; formerly Wilmore, KY; Formerly Athens, AL
Contact:

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Joshoowah » Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:00 pm

Fainn wrote:I entered the Moonshine Pipe Giveaway - although I have enough pipes and would rather see someone here win. I did however, learn something in the process by contacting my congressmen and women. This is the email I received.

From the office of Sen. Roger Wicker of MS (R):

"On February 10, 2015, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) introduced the Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2015. This legislation would exempt traditional large and premium cigars from regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It would also exempt user fees assessed on tobacco products by the FDA. Currently, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is considering this legislation."

Was it introduced just in your State or on a Federal level? If it's just in the state, it will not make a difference, as the FDA has been given clearance to pass federal mandated regulations.
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose?" Philippians 1:21-22

ImageImage

User avatar
Fainn
I've attained the highest rank so far
I've attained the highest rank so far
Posts: 3360
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Fainn » Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:14 pm

Joshoowah wrote:
Fainn wrote:I entered the Moonshine Pipe Giveaway - although I have enough pipes and would rather see someone here win. I did however, learn something in the process by contacting my congressmen and women. This is the email I received.

From the office of Sen. Roger Wicker of MS (R):

"On February 10, 2015, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) introduced the Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2015. This legislation would exempt traditional large and premium cigars from regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It would also exempt user fees assessed on tobacco products by the FDA. Currently, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is considering this legislation."

Was it introduced just in your State or on a Federal level? If it's just in the state, it will not make a difference, as the FDA has been given clearance to pass federal mandated regulations.
It is on the Federal level. Whether or not it will make a difference, I don't know.
2016 Winner, Least Likely to Correctly use a Pipe Sock Image

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 24961
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Rusty » Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:39 pm

Fainn wrote:What about products introduced before 2007 but have been discontinued? Would there be a chance for them to return without the review process?
Offhand I don't know. But I think they have to regulate content, labeling, selling venue etc anyway.

The pipe tobacco market is quite different in having existing, discontinued, returned, and new products. But the products really aren't new they're just variations on existing stuff. There is nothing revolutionary. Most everything has been done. New, returned, old, they're all variations on orthodox pipe tobaccos and toppings. Some toppings and additives may be nixed, for example Deer tongue. But there are synthetic accepted replacements. They may also limit amounts of some ingredients. But I have hard time believing that the FDA is going to ask Does America need yet another variation on English Latakia Mixtures to go with the other 407? But if the manufacture says, for example, that it's a radically new pipe tobacco and a benefit for Americans then you better have a million dollars to jump all the hoops and run all the bases. Whether they will allow more "same as existing" after the first round for post Feb 15, 2007 tobaccos I also don't know. Whoever owns it should reintroduce now because the rule will not be in effect until August. So I would guess that there will be an Xmas Cheer 2016, for example. If not then we've learned something right away. They usually intro it with the retailers show in late July/early August. The question is what happens after that? There is another two years to process existing blends. What happens if the manufactures just keep on introducing new blends? Or is Aug 2016 the demarc. fo0r no new product introduction unless approved. There are lots of questions.

Have you read their 499 pg deeming rule? It's mind numbing. I left a link in this thread.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
Fainn
I've attained the highest rank so far
I've attained the highest rank so far
Posts: 3360
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Fainn » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:49 pm

I thought it was just tobacco. Apparently pipes are included and we are stuck between PAD and TAD http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labe ... 482580.htm
2016 Winner, Least Likely to Correctly use a Pipe Sock Image

User avatar
Joshoowah
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Hermeneutic of suspicion
Posts: 4481
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Nairobi, Kenya; formerly Wilmore, KY; Formerly Athens, AL
Contact:

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Joshoowah » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:41 pm

Fainn wrote:I thought it was just tobacco. Apparently pipes are included and we are stuck between PAD and TAD http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labe ... 482580.htm
Well, that's interesting.
"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose?" Philippians 1:21-22

ImageImage

User avatar
Sir Moose
President Jar-Jar Binks fan club: "Meesa tink he da best!" - Perpetually in Trouble
President Jar-Jar Binks fan club: "Meesa tink he da best!" - Perpetually in Trouble
Posts: 2468
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:17 am
Location: NW Washington
Contact:

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Sir Moose » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:12 pm

I realize that it's just spitting in the wind, but I sent an email to FDA (with CC to my senators and rep) that said:
FDA,

On your website, you say that "in 2016, FDA finalized a rule extending our regulatory authority to cover all tobacco products, including pipe tobacco." How does it make sense that you get to extend your own authority? You aren't the Marine Corps that gets to storm beaches and conquer territory. Your authority gets assigned to you - you not get to define it yourself. How about I just give myself authority over you and then assign your employees to more useful tasks, like making paper swans to decorate the waters of the Potomac? It makes as much sense as your power grab.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.

User avatar
Fainn
I've attained the highest rank so far
I've attained the highest rank so far
Posts: 3360
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:48 pm

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Fainn » Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:11 pm

Sir Moose wrote:I realize that it's just spitting in the wind, but I sent an email to FDA (with CC to my senators and rep) that said:
FDA,

On your website, you say that "in 2016, FDA finalized a rule extending our regulatory authority to cover all tobacco products, including pipe tobacco." How does it make sense that you get to extend your own authority? You aren't the Marine Corps that gets to storm beaches and conquer territory. Your authority gets assigned to you - you not get to define it yourself. How about I just give myself authority over you and then assign your employees to more useful tasks, like making paper swans to decorate the waters of the Potomac? It makes as much sense as your power grab.
I salute your brassiness. Never thought of emailing the FDA. I have signed the petitions though and contacted my congress people.
2016 Winner, Least Likely to Correctly use a Pipe Sock Image

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 24961
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Rusty » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:55 am

Sir Moose wrote:I realize that it's just spitting in the wind, but I sent an email to FDA (with CC to my senators and rep) that said:
FDA,

On your website, you say that "in 2016, FDA finalized a rule extending our regulatory authority to cover all tobacco products, including pipe tobacco." How does it make sense that you get to extend your own authority? You aren't the Marine Corps that gets to storm beaches and conquer territory. Your authority gets assigned to you - you not get to define it yourself. How about I just give myself authority over you and then assign your employees to more useful tasks, like making paper swans to decorate the waters of the Potomac? It makes as much sense as your power grab.
They were authorized by legislation (The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act) to regulate all tobacco products. And that is the answer that you may receive. They didn't extend their authority beyond that specified in legislation. Back in 1995 the FDA asserted regulatory control over tobacco and was finally told by SCOTUS in 2000 that Congress had to authorize this in legislation before they could regulate. Well, Congress has now done so.

As for regulating pipes, they will regulate e-pipes, but I think our pipes do not meet their definition of tobacco product, but rather they are an accessory. I can't even imagine the anger if the pipe makers have to apply to make a new pipe. From their deeming regulation pg 10/11...

After thorough review of the comments and the scientific evidence, FDA has concluded that Option 1 (including all cigars, rather than a subset) more effectively protects the public health and, therefore, has made that the scope of the final rule. Accordingly, this final rule deems all products meeting the statutory definition of "tobacco product," except accessories of the newly deemed tobacco products, to be subject to FDA's tobacco product authorities under chapter IX of the FD&C Act. Section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)), as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, defines the term "tobacco product," to mean "any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product)" and does not mean "an article that is a drug under subsection (g)(1), a device under subsection (b), or a combination product described in section 353(g) of this title."

Products that meet the statutory definition of "tobacco products" include currently marketed products such as dissolvables not already regulated by FDA, gels, waterpipe tobacco, ENDS (including e-cigarettes, e-hookah, e-cigars, vape pens, advanced refillable personal vaporizers, and electronic pipes), cigars, and pipe tobacco.


Back on classifications eg "substantial equivalence", it looks like the FDA is supposed rule on those applications within 90 days. However, a recent article claims they've taken years! So here is your next depressing article from the folks at reason.com. It is very informative.

Reason: The FDA's New Tobacco Rules Will Be Terrible for Cigar Smokers Too
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
JudgeRusty
Didn't even get to wear his hat
Didn't even get to wear his hat
Posts: 5552
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: VA

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by JudgeRusty » Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:19 pm

Should we start a CPS fund to send Hugo to this conference?

http://www.fdli.org/conferences/tobacco-conference-2016
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14600
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by hugodrax » Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:33 pm

JudgeRusty wrote:Should we start a CPS fund to send Hugo to this conference?

http://www.fdli.org/conferences/tobacco-conference-2016
I'm game. To be honest, I'm every bit as interested in what's going to happen to pipes. My tobacconist seems to think it will be the death of hand carved pipes. We might see a real resurgence in factory pipes, if she's right.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 24961
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Rusty » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:12 pm

hugodrax wrote:
JudgeRusty wrote:Should we start a CPS fund to send Hugo to this conference?

http://www.fdli.org/conferences/tobacco-conference-2016
I'm game. To be honest, I'm every bit as interested in what's going to happen to pipes. My tobacconist seems to think it will be the death of hand carved pipes. We might see a real resurgence in factory pipes, if she's right.
I'm back to the position that regulation doesn't include smoking pipes or waterpipes. It does include e-pipes.
I've been digging through their deeming reg and there is a lot that is vague, for example at some points they say "cigars and pipes", when they should be saying cigars and pipe tobaccos. In all of their summaries they do not include smoking pipes and waterpipes.

So what do you have that says otherwise?
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14600
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by hugodrax » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:23 pm

Rusty wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
JudgeRusty wrote:Should we start a CPS fund to send Hugo to this conference?

http://www.fdli.org/conferences/tobacco-conference-2016
I'm game. To be honest, I'm every bit as interested in what's going to happen to pipes. My tobacconist seems to think it will be the death of hand carved pipes. We might see a real resurgence in factory pipes, if she's right.
I'm back to the position that regulation doesn't include smoking pipes or waterpipes. It does include e-pipes.
I've been digging through their deeming reg and there is a lot that is vague, for example at some points they says cigars and pipes, when they should be saying cigars and pipe tobaccos. In all of their summaries they do not include smoking pipes and waterpipes.

So what do you have that says otherwise?
Absolutely nothing but the scuttlebutt at the tobacconists. She seems to think from her "sources" that tobacco pipes are going to be standardized, i.e., a sample sent for measurement and "testing." Two billiards from the same maker would, under her theory, be as close as possible mirror images.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 24961
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Rusty » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:36 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Rusty wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
JudgeRusty wrote:Should we start a CPS fund to send Hugo to this conference?

http://www.fdli.org/conferences/tobacco-conference-2016
I'm game. To be honest, I'm every bit as interested in what's going to happen to pipes. My tobacconist seems to think it will be the death of hand carved pipes. We might see a real resurgence in factory pipes, if she's right.
I'm back to the position that regulation doesn't include smoking pipes or waterpipes. It does include e-pipes.
I've been digging through their deeming reg and there is a lot that is vague, for example at some points they says cigars and pipes, when they should be saying cigars and pipe tobaccos. In all of their summaries they do not include smoking pipes and waterpipes.

So what do you have that says otherwise?
Absolutely nothing but the scuttlebutt at the tobacconists. She seems to think from her "sources" that tobacco pipes are going to be standardized, i.e., a sample sent for measurement and "testing." Two billiards from the same maker would, under her theory, be as close as possible mirror images.
LOL! That constitutes rumour and, forgive me, but I assumed that a lawyer would be as demanding as me and sit down to read the deeming regulation with a bowl of tobacco.

Pipes are not going to be standardized and there is nothing like that in the deeming regulation. If there is any testing being done the manufacturers are going to have it done. But as I say part o0f the problem is that the deeming regs say nothing about attributes of pipes being regulated except for the e-pipes. You can replace smoking pipes with water pipes and come to the same conclusion.

So... get off your duff; I need an opponent to argue this out complete with doc. references. We should be able to get to the bottom of this. The game is afoot.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14600
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by hugodrax » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:56 pm

Rusty wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
Rusty wrote:
hugodrax wrote:
JudgeRusty wrote:Should we start a CPS fund to send Hugo to this conference?

http://www.fdli.org/conferences/tobacco-conference-2016
I'm game. To be honest, I'm every bit as interested in what's going to happen to pipes. My tobacconist seems to think it will be the death of hand carved pipes. We might see a real resurgence in factory pipes, if she's right.
I'm back to the position that regulation doesn't include smoking pipes or waterpipes. It does include e-pipes.
I've been digging through their deeming reg and there is a lot that is vague, for example at some points they says cigars and pipes, when they should be saying cigars and pipe tobaccos. In all of their summaries they do not include smoking pipes and waterpipes.

So what do you have that says otherwise?
Absolutely nothing but the scuttlebutt at the tobacconists. She seems to think from her "sources" that tobacco pipes are going to be standardized, i.e., a sample sent for measurement and "testing." Two billiards from the same maker would, under her theory, be as close as possible mirror images.
LOL! That constitutes rumour and, forgive me, but I assumed that a lawyer would be as demanding as me and sit down to read the deeming regulation with a bowl of tobacco.

Pipes are not going to be standardized and there is nothing like that in the deeming regulation. If there is any testing being done the manufacturers are going to have it done. But as I say part o0f the problem is that the deeming regs say nothing about attributes of pipes being regulated except for the e-pipes. You can replace smoking pipes with water pipes and come to the same conclusion.

So... get off your duff; I need an opponent to argue this out complete with doc. references. We should be able to get to the bottom of this. The game is afoot.
Rusty,

You have taken as read two things without any seeming reason to do so: first, that I believe her; and second, that I haven't read the regs. I don't believe her. I dont see freehands or hand carvwd pipes being banned. But I am at the stage where I don't necessarily reject what she's saying out of hand. I've read the regs and am not terribly impressed that they say much of anything at all. But it does strike me as odd that the FDA gave itself power to regulate pipes without really defining what a "pipe" is.

It seems like the first thing they're going to have to do is define what exactly a "pipe" is and do so in great detail. Not being smokers themselves, that's probably not the easiest thing in the world to do. In order to regulate that which is standard vs that requiring additional testing, they're going to have to define what constitutes a traditional pipe. It's going to be interesting to watch them do that. I don't see dimensions being the issue so much as materials and manufacturer registration. It may be unlikely we'll ever see a Venturi pipe again.

If the ultimate goal is stamping out smoking, then there are two ways of doing it. The first is to make pipe tobacco incredibly hard to produce. Looks like they are well on their way for that one. The second is to make pipes unobtainable in themselves. I'm curious how they're going to go about that one.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
Rusty
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Posts: 24961
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Beelzebub's Rare Tobacco Emporium

Re: FDA's case for regulating pipe tobacco - trouble coming

Post by Rusty » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:58 pm

For example here is a useful ref. that addresses Effective and Compliance Dates Applicable to Retailers, Manufacturers, Importers, and Distributors of Newly Deemed Tobacco Products.

http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Guid ... 500778.htm

It's a to-do and don't-do list with dates for all the happy commercial entities subject to this regulation.

There is nothing in there about smoking pipes or water pipes.

I say that our client Type-A Wayne has no exposure here.
You're out of the woods
You're out of the dark
You're out of the night
Step into the sun
Step into the light

Post Reply