Home User CP Browse Members Calendar Register Today!  
Get New posts Faq / Help? Community Menu
   

Go Back   Hookah Pro - Hookah Forum > Hookah Stuff > Hookah Discussion

Hookah Discussion General discussion related to hookah ...

Obama Signed it

Hookah Discussion

Reply Share
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old August 25th, 2009, 11:52 PM
Coldgr33ntea's Avatar
Coldgr33ntea
Status: Offline
Hookah Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 1,412
Default Re: Obama Signed it

I still want to see proof that minors enjoy the flavor of fruits and flavorings more than the tobacco flavor.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old August 26th, 2009, 12:05 AM
hookahman1988's Avatar
hookahman1988
Status: Offline
Hookah Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,440
Send a message via AIM to hookahman1988
Default Re: Obama Signed it

I pulled this from an article I found:



"Statistically, however, the flavor kids consider tastiest is straight-up tobacco, in the form of Marlboro brand cigarettes (produced by Philip Morris). Some 81 percent of established teen smokers consider Marlboro to be their ticket to flavor country, according to a February 12 article.
The next most popular flavor is mint, in the form of menthol cigarettes (Philip Morris produces a wide variety of menthol cigarettes, as well). A recent survey by the American Legacy Foundation turned up the following stats: Menthol cigarettes are preferred by 81 percent of black teens, 32 percent of white teens and 45 percent of Hispanic teens.
In 2007, high school students were surveyed about their smoking habits. Twenty percent of teens surveyed said they had smoked in the last month, according to the American Lung Association website.
A relatively small number of these had smoked clove cigarettes (6.8 percent of the 20 percent who had smoked) and candy-flavored bidi cigarettes (1.7 percent)."

http://www.examiner.com/x-10873-LA-H...o-keep-selling
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old August 26th, 2009, 01:33 AM
chain's Avatar
chain
Status: Offline
Hookah Pro
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington
Posts: 860
Default Re: Obama Signed it

so much for the land of the free
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old August 26th, 2009, 11:33 AM
jimmmmaaaa's Avatar
jimmmmaaaa
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 111
Default Re: Obama Signed it

Time to stock up i guess. Any idea when this will start affecting things for us?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old August 26th, 2009, 11:43 AM
HookahWaffle
Status: Offline
Deleted Per User Request
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,079
Default Re: Obama Signed it

When the FDA thinks they can crush hookah tobacco without political fallout.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old August 26th, 2009, 11:45 AM
kingboyb
Status: Offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 1,259
Default Re: Obama Signed it

This only applies to cigarettes and not other types of tobacco (smarter hookah tobacco manufacturers have already cleared thier flavorings in the FDA GRAS pipe-tobacco category). It sucks regardless. Hopefully shisha will stay small and under the radar and not be subject to new or amended legislature.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old August 26th, 2009, 11:48 AM
HookahWaffle
Status: Offline
Deleted Per User Request
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,079
Default Re: Obama Signed it

Incorrect, the bill doesnt apply only to cigarettes, it gives the FDA total regulatory control over the entire US tobacco industry, its just AIMED at cigarettes
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old August 26th, 2009, 11:54 AM
Coyotero's Avatar
Coyotero
Status: Offline
Hookah Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mesa, Az.
Posts: 2,391
Default Re: Obama Signed it

All of this being said, the only people I've ever known who smoked fruit flavored cigs were girls in highschool and college.

As far as I understand, pipe tobaccos (waterpipe tobaccos included) do not fall under the umbrella of this law. The focus is on cigarettes and cigars.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old August 26th, 2009, 12:07 PM
HookahWaffle
Status: Offline
Deleted Per User Request
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,079
Default Re: Obama Signed it

Ok, heres my general take on the entire bill :

As it stands the bill allows the FDA to regulate the production, sale, and informational release of tobacco products.

This bill extends beyond "Cigarettes" and encompases the entire tobacco manufacture, distribution, and sale process in the United States.

One of the main concerns is that for decades, Tobacco companies that market cigarettes have gone to extreme means to hide additives, health risks, and unfavorable research into the cigarette industry.

The bills main focus is the provide full disclosure of all natural and artificial additives to tobacco products, as well as regulate and remove those found to be extreme health risks (such as ammonia in "light" cigarettes) as well as remove the branding labels of Light and Mild cigarettes in such a fashion that downplays the negative health impact of smoking.

Overall it seems to be more of a public awareness of ingredients in products, as well as a chance to reduce the impact of underage smoking.

For the Narghile community, with the exception of herbal shisha manufacturers, every company willingly displays what goes into their products, be it tobacco, molasses, glycerin, tar content, nicotine levels, and flavoring additives.

Companies like Hookah Hookah, Starbuzz, Nakhla, JM, ect. dont hide their product information from the general public or the government. This gives them a favorable position in the implementation of this bill.

The tax revenue generated from tobacco products is highly beneficial and valuable to government funding as well, so I dont see a total ban of tobacco products coming to terms any time soon.

I think the hookah community will need to sit on this and see the actual outcome before making assumptions as to what will happen, especially as the 18-25 demographic is of high interest to the government for voting and policy acceptance, and also lies as the fastest growing demographic in the narghile community.

We shall have to wait and see, my fellow HPers.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old August 26th, 2009, 12:49 PM
glostersa's Avatar
glostersa
Status: Offline
Hookah Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Africa Kempton Park
Posts: 5,499
Default Re: Obama Signed it

ĎĎ(b) APPLICABILITY.óThis chapter shall apply to all
18 cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and
19 smokeless tobacco and to any other tobacco products that
20 the Secretary by regulation deems to be subject to this chapter.

Yep that would include the hookah Tobacco Cigars and Pipe Tobacco in there and snuff dip and snusso Obama did the country a dirty like in the early prohibition years so you Guys better start making friends with the Hill Billy tobacco growers like they did with the Moonshine brewers to survive.

Same thing happened here with Gun Control in SA now more criminals have guns and better and bigger guns that the Cops who is supposed to protect us.
__________________
***Live your life in such a way that when your feet hit the floor in the morning Satan shudders and says Oh shit he is awake***
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old August 26th, 2009, 01:06 PM
pdxsti
Status: Offline
Hookah Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
Default Re: Obama Signed it

wow this is bad and you have to understand that shiesha is flavored tobacco and it does seem appealing to kids! because of that... all i have to say is that were is some serious trouble now... you better enjoy our smoking while it lasts! otherwise were going to have to get it off the streets... wow whats this world comming too...

Last edited by photolinger; August 27th, 2009 at 07:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old August 26th, 2009, 01:49 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: Obama Signed it

Plenty of people had some very sound comments on this thread which is great. However, I notice that a lot naivety is popping up as well that Iíll address briefly. In quasi-technical terms the legislation passed grants implementation authority to the FDA which means that legally the legislation has now become administrative law. Translated into layman speak the FDA will interpret the law and implement it anyway they see fit with no oversight. Until they are successfully sued in federal court the FDA has a free hand to do what ever it wants with any tobacco additives including banning them unless the legislation itself expressly exempts an ingredient. The legislation covers all forms of tobacco and from now on all tobacco products made, distributed, imported and sold to the U.S. will be regulated by the FDA.

To say that the FDA makes doing business difficult is a bit like saying rape can be unpleasant. FDA regulations are often byzantine, mutually contradictory and complying with what ever edicts they issue is an endless sinkhole for money and time. Truth be known that a major reason why the U.S. spends so much on medical services and goods is because getting even basic surgical instruments approved by the FDA is shockingly hard and expensive. Getting a drug to market can take over a decade and cost hundreds of millions of bucks. If want to know why the U.S. is behind in a great many medical sciences and why it cost so much get care look into how the FDA works.

If you think dealing with the Motor Vehicles Department is a hassle try imagining dealing a bureaucracy that is literally a hundred times more contemptuous of mere citizens, far more poorly managed then the pentagon and every bit as expensive but much slower and you know what the FDA is like. What all this means is that a small or medium sized firm mostly like wonít bother trying to import stuff to the U.S. so expect to see a big decline in the variety of stuff you can buy. Also, you can expect more of the flavours on the market to taste the same no matter what firm makes them since the various ingredients that go into flavouring moassel will all have to be approved companies will end up using a lot less flavouring compounds and just stick with what has already been permitted. Expect the prices to go up significantly since the companies that make moassel will need to recover the costs of being hassled by the FDA.

People who think that all of this wonít effect narghile tobacco are fooling themselves because the anti-tobacco lobby is going after the hobby since itís popular with young adults and that means ďshisha tobacco companies must be targeting children with evil addictive chemicals!Ē. Also, the FDA is like all bureaucracies in that it wants to expend itís authority and budget so hoping it will ignore us is like hoping a bill collector will ignore you because heís already got lots of other people to hassle.

Someone raised the matter of an outright ban but personally I doubt that will happen simply because it would cost too much in terms of law enforcement at a time when money is needed for bailing out banks/insurance firms, various wars and health care nationalization boondoggles. The regulatory/legal liability costs plus ever greater tax burdens will make tobacco a very rare luxury item in the near future but itís a mistake to think that tobacco taxes are about raising money. If the state wanted more money they would cut tobacco taxes since the prices have so decreased consumption at this point that they have been losing money for some time. Also, the government has been pretty open about itís intention to force people to stop smoking by making it too expensive. Itís all about controlling what you do rather then about economics.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old August 26th, 2009, 02:01 PM
HookahWaffle
Status: Offline
Deleted Per User Request
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,079
Default Re: Obama Signed it

The FDA does very little to "regulate and control what you do" actually. Most of whats come out of the FDA has been incredibly positive.

The reason it takes decades and hundreds of millions of dollars to approve drugs is because it takes decades and hundreds of millions of dollars to actually understand the long term effects of new medicines. The reason your drugs cost so much is because of medical advertising on TV, in Magazines, and on the Radio. There are plenty of generic non-branded drugs that have the EXACT same benefits of name brand products that you can get for less than $5 for a month, or longer, prescription wise, people spend insane amounts of money on medicine because they choose name brands over generics, and they choose name brands because thats what the television tells them to take. Don't fool yourself about medical costs, most of it comes from advertising and people doing what the television tells them, rather than taking the initiative to do research. Many medical practitioners recommend generic brand drugs to patients, and they're willingly declined because "The TV Told me I need Zyrtec"

pharmaceuticals spend 10x the amount of money on Advertising that they do on R&D. Not only that, the FDA is responsible for continuing to monitor products on the market past their initial release so that companies dont alter their medical treatments in anyway after approval.

However, digressing from the topic at hand, lets move away from what encompasses the vast majority of medical costs, since thats another issue.

The reason that surgical implements take long periods of time is to make sure they're medically safe.

The reason they've been given blanket rule over tobacco is because major tobacco industry companies have made it far more unsafe than the natural plant.

You'll notice if you lurk around the chatbox Im extremely anti-big government and value my personal rights extremely and am quite vocal about said rights, however I dont see this being a bad thing until it actually becomes an issue for the hookah community.

Pardon me for not breaking out my tinfoil hat and worrying about the government conspiracy to remove the pleasures from my life, but until the FDA actually takes this too far, Im not going to be concerned about it.

The administration has an excellent track record compared to most government agencies, lets find out if they use it the wrong way before we start pointing fingers.

Last edited by HookahWaffle; August 26th, 2009 at 02:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old August 26th, 2009, 02:31 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: Obama Signed it

You obviously have never had to deal with the FDA professionally or else you wouldn't have said that. I could give you a million horror stories about companies that went bankrupt trying to get stuff approved by the FDA that had been approved in Europa for a decade or more with no ill effect. Obviously the FDA is needed and a lot of the regulations are sound. Still, America has far more problems with food safety on a per capita basis then most industrial nations. If you are interested I could see if I still have the studies to that effect but it will take a lot of rummaging to find out out since I haven't used those texts in years.

By the way, the tinfoil comment is insulting given that I have more experience dealing with the FDA (and organizations like it in other countries) then likely anyone here. That is what I do for living and i've been doing it for about 15 years now. When you get the level of experience I have i'd love to hear you defend the FDA. I also have a lot of first hand experiences with getting surgical tools and drugs approved since I used to get paid to consult on those matters and i'd guess you can't say the same.

I don't buy the the claim "The reason they've been given blanket rule over tobacco is because major tobacco industry companies have made it far more unsafe than the natural plant." The reason being is that tobacco research is highly politicized and of poor quality not to mention that like any politically charged topic who did what and what it's impact was public health is hardly a simple matter to decide.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old August 26th, 2009, 02:35 PM
HookahWaffle
Status: Offline
Deleted Per User Request
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,079
Default Re: Obama Signed it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hajo Flettner View Post
You obviously have never had to deal with the FDA professionally or else you wouldn't have said that. I could give you a million horror stories about companies that went bankrupt trying to get stuff approved by the FDA that had been approved in Europa for a decade or more with no ill effect. Obviously the FDA is needed and a lot of the regulations are sound. Still, America has far more problems with food safety on a per capita basis then most industrial nations. If you are interested I could see if I still have the studies to that effect but it will take a lot of rummaging to find out out since I haven't used those texts in years.

By the way, the tinfoil comment is insulting given that I have more experience dealing with the FDA (and organizations like it in other countries) then likely anyone here. That is what I do for living and i've been doing it for about 15 years now. When you get the level of experience I have i'd love to hear you defend the FDA. I also have a lot of first hand experiences with getting surgical tools and drugs approved since I used to get paid to consult on those matters and i'd guess you can't say the same.

I don't buy the the claim "The reason they've been given blanket rule over tobacco is because major tobacco industry companies have made it far more unsafe than the natural plant." The reason being is that tobacco research is highly politicized and of poor quality not to mention that like any politically charged topic who did what and what it's impact was public health is hardly a simple matter to decide.
Im not here to start a forum war, so I'll just make this final comment and bow out of the thread.

I don't know you, what you do, who you are, ect. I wasn't pointing at you directly with the tin foil hat, though if you took it that way, it wasnt meant to be.

There are plenty of people on the internet who argue one stance or another claiming "personal perspective", "this is what I do", "Im in this situation all the time and get paid for it" ect.

Im not asking for proof of your job, or proof that you deal with the FDA "professionally", and aside from pointing out that your "nobody here probably deals with the FDA like I do" comment looks incredibly narrow minded and self-inflating, I'll just kindly leave my stance as "this is my opinion" based on my own personal research, experiences, and involvement.

When this bill becomes an issue for hookah tobacco, then we have a new fight to stand up against.

Cheers.

Last edited by HookahWaffle; August 26th, 2009 at 02:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old August 26th, 2009, 02:43 PM
MAD_HATTER's Avatar
MAD_HATTER
Status: Offline
Hookah Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SoCal- Long Beach
Posts: 5,342
Default Re: Obama Signed it

wait so no more djarum blacks?
__________________
With those happy thoughts, in my head, I'm feeling like I'm peter pan... Minus the tights and the fairies....
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old August 26th, 2009, 02:49 PM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: Obama Signed it

Hookah Waffle,
I certainly hope you don't bow out of this or any thread since you are a good guy from what i've seen and I personally like what you have to say most of the time.

When you quoted my post and use the tinfoil bit in response I assumed that it was directed at me. If am I wrong then you have a retraction from me on that point.

I was wrong for saying that "nobody here probably deals with the FDA like I do" since I don't know that for a fact. As a result you point is well taken and I apologize to anyone here who has/had a long career dealing with the regulatory issues relating to the food & drug industries.

As to your opinion on the matter at hand I am of course open to seeing any evidence you have to support it.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old August 26th, 2009, 03:29 PM
hookahman1988's Avatar
hookahman1988
Status: Offline
Hookah Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,440
Send a message via AIM to hookahman1988
Default Re: Obama Signed it

I don't know if this is off topic with the thread but in a way it does relate in the way its a higher power trying to force people to think and act a certain way. This week is freshman orientation at Pitt, on the desk of every incoming freshman, the school put a pamphlet warning about the dangers of smoking hookah specifically, citing that a session of smoking hookah is like chain smoking 15 cigarettes in a row. You try doing both of these and see what the outcome of each is. Now everyone knows smoking isn't healthy but by the school doing this and singling out hookah makes me feel like they think I'm a bad person for doing something I enjoy.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old August 26th, 2009, 03:31 PM
HookahWaffle
Status: Offline
Deleted Per User Request
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,079
Default Re: Obama Signed it

Alright, in that case, lets have a look at the actual bill, rather than squabbling about the competency of the FDA, since to every rule, positive or negative, there is an exception, and personal ideology will take preference in almost all cases. (Plus Im lazy and don't feel like spending 4 hours googling FDA related court cases, approval procedures, reasons for denial on corporate products, ect. ect.) We'll leave it at the FDA is generally good, but a complete bureaucratic nightmare for compliancy issues. (Which I wont dispute, its a government agency with thousands of pages of documents for every manufacturer to read, despite their good intentions for public safety).

The Bill in its complete form can be found here : http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-1256

The Highlights :

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The use of tobacco products by the Nation’s children is a pediatric disease of considerable proportions that results in new generations of tobacco-dependent children and adults.

The definition as a pediatric disease is shakey at best, but the general will of the statement is understood for the most part, however, I dont believe parents being smokers affects a childs desire to start smoking on a chemical level, possibly on a psychological level as defined by a "Role Model"

(2) A consensus exists within the scientific and medical communities that tobacco products are inherently dangerous and cause cancer, heart disease, and other serious adverse health effects.

True

(4) Virtually all new users of tobacco products are under the minimum legal age to purchase such products.

True in a logical sense. I don't think anyone turns 18 and says "Gee, time to start smoking"

(5) Tobacco advertising and marketing contribute significantly to the use of nicotine-containing tobacco products by adolescents.

True, this was evident in the decline of overall underaged smoking when the ban of Animal Mascotts with Human Characteristics was implemented in the 90's.

(6) Because past efforts to restrict advertising and marketing of tobacco products have failed adequately to curb tobacco use by adolescents, comprehensive restrictions on the sale, promotion, and distribution of such products are needed.

True, I don't think anyone can dispute this. The purpose of the act is to eliminate smoking in minors before being at a legally responsible age to make their own choice free from peer pressure and wrong parenting.

(7) Federal and State governments have lacked the legal and regulatory authority and resources they need to address comprehensively the public health and societal problems caused by the use of tobacco products.

Federal Yes, State No. The states have been largely ignoring the issue due to state income from tobacco sales taxes. The Federal Government let the decision rest upon the States, and on this specific issue, States failed.

(8) Federal and State public health officials, the public health community, and the public at large recognize that the tobacco industry should be subject to ongoing oversight.

What industry shouldn't ?

(11) The sale, distribution, marketing, advertising, and use of such products substantially affect interstate commerce through the health care and other costs attributable to the use of tobacco products.

Well they certainly will after Obamas new healthcare system comes into place.

(12) It is in the public interest for Congress to enact legislation that provides the Food and Drug Administration with the authority to regulate tobacco products and the advertising and promotion of such products. The benefits to the American people from enacting such legislation would be significant in human and economic terms.

Depends on whos terms you're talking about. Regulation in Advertising is a suitable thing, people are gullible, the government looks to protect the people (In theory), some regulation of corporate advertising is reasonable. Economic terms, possibly, how much money are we going to lose in tax revenue from tobacco, will it justify the healthcare savings ? Most certainly after this round of healthcare reform, but what about current medical expense reform for advertising. Note advertising is the key problem popping up here again and again.

(13) Tobacco use is the foremost preventable cause of premature death in America. It causes over 400,000 deaths in the United States each year, and approximately 8,600,000 Americans have ******* illnesses related to smoking.

Possibly, but was it from smoking cigarettes ? Camp Fires ? Cigars ? Pipes ? NHT ? Shisha ? Rubber Factory Fumes ? Shady call at best, and not all smokers get diseases, and many non-smokers get "smoking related illnesses" as well.

(15) Advertising, marketing, and promotion of tobacco products have been especially directed to attract young persons to use tobacco products, and these efforts have resulted in increased use of such products by youth. Past efforts to oversee these activities have not been successful in adequately preventing such increased use.

Duh, young people live longer than old people. Its called brand awareness. Coca-Cola does it too. However, the TYPE of marketing is whats in question here, not the actual act of advertisement

(16) In 2005, the cigarette manufacturers spent more than $13,000,000,000 to attract new users, retain current users, increase current consumption, and generate favorable long-term attitudes toward smoking and tobacco use.

How much money did the US government spend in 2005 to sway public opinion in polls ? How much money did the US government spend in 2005 on pork politics and paperwork ? The US Congress shouldn't chastise anyone for spending money.


and the list goes on and on, go read the full findings of the committee if you're interested.

Moving on to the actual ramifications of the bill :


The purposes of this division are--

(1) to provide authority to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), by recognizing it as the primary Federal regulatory authority with respect to the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products as provided for in this division;

Good. The federal government needed an overseer for the Tobacco Industry, the states wern't doing their job, Im sure many can agree.

(2) to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to address issues of particular concern to public health officials, especially the use of tobacco by young people and dependence on tobacco;

(3) to authorize the Food and Drug Administration to set national standards controlling the manufacture of tobacco products and the identity, public disclosure, and amount of ingredients used in such products;

National Standards are good. We all want to be told up front and honestly whats being used in the products we consume, be it smoking, eating, drinking, ect.

(4) to provide new and flexible enforcement authority to ensure that there is effective oversight of the tobacco industry’s efforts to develop, introduce, and promote less harmful tobacco products;

flexible enforcement is a phrase you never want to hear from the post 9-11 government. Though the intention to produce less harmful cigarettes is a good one.

(5) to vest the Food and Drug Administration with the authority to regulate the levels of tar, nicotine, and other harmful components of tobacco products;

Correct. Correct. Correct. We don't want people adding more chemicals to our precious tobacco. Its a natural leaf! Let us smoke it how we want it! Now, the question becomes, are molasses and glycerin harmful ? As of right now, the FDA says no, since its sitting on our grocery store shelves. Tar is a natural by-product of burning any form of carbon based material, good luck regulating that.

(6) in order to ensure that consumers are better informed, to require tobacco product manufacturers to disclose research which has not previously been made available, as well as research generated in the future, relating to the health and dependency effects or safety of tobacco products;

non-biased consumer information is good. No arguements here.

(7) to continue to permit the sale of tobacco products to adults in conjunction with measures to ensure that they are not sold or accessible to underage purchasers;

Bam : Right There : The Big One : NO BAN ON TOBACCO SALES

(8) to impose appropriate regulatory controls on the tobacco industry;

Again, not a bad thing

(9) to promote cessation to reduce disease risk and the social costs associated with tobacco-related diseases; and

Again, realistic, Unbiased information disclosure.

(10) to strengthen legislation against illicit trade in tobacco products.

Fighting the war on illegal tobacco imports / growth. Ok... no problems with that either.

SEC. 4. SCOPE AND EFFECT.

(b) Agricultural Activities- The provisions of this division (or an amendment made by this division) which authorize the Secretary to take certain actions with regard to tobacco and tobacco products shall not be construed to affect any authority of the Secretary of Agriculture under existing law regarding the growing, cultivation, or curing of raw tobacco.

The FDA isnt allowed to get into people shit about growing it either, thats entirely up to the secretary of agriculture. They're restricted only to regulating the production, sale, and marketing of retail tobacco.

TITLE I--AUTHORITY OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT.


(a) Definition of Tobacco Products- Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(rr)(1) The term ‘tobacco product’ means 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).

‘(2) The term ‘tobacco product’ does not mean an article that is a drug under subsection (g)(1), a device under subsection (h), or a combination product described in section 503(g).

‘(3) The products described in paragraph (2) shall be subject to chapter V of this Act.

‘(4) A tobacco product shall not be marketed in combination with any other article or product regulated under this Act (including a drug, biologic, food, cosmetic, medical device, or a dietary supplement).’.

SEC. 901. FDA AUTHORITY OVER TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

‘(2) LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY-

‘(A) IN GENERAL- The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to tobacco leaf that is not in the possession of a manufacturer of tobacco products, or to the producers of tobacco leaf, including tobacco growers, tobacco warehouses, and tobacco grower cooperatives, nor shall any employee of the Food and Drug Administration have any authority to enter onto a farm owned by a producer of tobacco leaf without the written consent of such producer.

‘(B) EXCEPTION- Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if a producer of tobacco leaf is also a tobacco product manufacturer or controlled by a tobacco product manufacturer, the producer shall be subject to this chapter in the producer’s capacity as a manufacturer. The exception in this subparagraph shall not apply to a producer of tobacco leaf who grows tobacco under a contract with a tobacco product manufacturer and who is not otherwise engaged in the manufacturing process.

‘(C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to grant the Secretary authority to promulgate regulations on any matter that involves the production of tobacco leaf or a producer thereof, other than activities by a manufacturer affecting production.

You can grow your own and tell the FDA to stuff it.

The bill is targeting the sales of tobacco to minors, the advertisement of tobacco to minors, the coverup that smoking is less dangerous than it actually is, the lack of disclosure to additives in smoking products.

As long as Mu'Assel manufacturers continue to lawfully and willingly disclose a full list of ingredients in their products (Which they do) and those additives are FDA approved for human consumption (Which Molasses, Glycerin, and Natural Flavorings ARE) then they won't be restricted in the manufacture, processing, and sales of their product.

Now, thats not to say in the end we might end up having to PAY MORE, but we're not in danger of being banned from smoking our favorite hobby.

Note that this is also not the government trying to control your life, its the government trying to reduce the sale of a substance to UNDERAGE MINORS who are not LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE or considered LEGALLY CAPABLE of making the choice for themselves. This is no different than restricting the sales of alcohol to underage minors. They arnt telling you that you cant have it, they're telling you that they dont want KIDS to have it. I don't think anyone is against that, besides, from birth to 18 years old the body makes rapid and significant changes to its physical structure, the effects of smoke on any given number of adolescents could be devastating.

Besides, Mu'Assel manufacturers don't have a "target market" in underaged kids. They rely on the college / adult crowd to keep them in business. Kids don't have the money to afford 200+ dollars of hookah equipment, coals, shisha, ect.
Most of them dont have the patience to sit down and enjoy a good smoke.

It only takes $5 and a few minutes to smoke a cigarette and look cool when you're 15... most kids don't bring their hookahs to school either, but plenty of em take their cigs.

Last edited by HookahWaffle; August 26th, 2009 at 03:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old August 26th, 2009, 03:49 PM
HookahWaffle
Status: Offline
Deleted Per User Request
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,079
Default Re: Obama Signed it

Quote:
Originally Posted by hookahman1988 View Post
I don't know if this is off topic with the thread but in a way it does relate in the way its a higher power trying to force people to think and act a certain way. This week is freshman orientation at Pitt, on the desk of every incoming freshman, the school put a pamphlet warning about the dangers of smoking hookah specifically, citing that a session of smoking hookah is like chain smoking 15 cigarettes in a row. You try doing both of these and see what the outcome of each is. Now everyone knows smoking isn't healthy but by the school doing this and singling out hookah makes me feel like they think I'm a bad person for doing something I enjoy.
Most likely you'll find that the school agreed to distribute those as part of the local "Anti Tobacco Club" on campus. If you really want to do your part to help the hookah community, write or in person contact your school officials, explain the lack of serious scientific studies regarding hookah, and even invite a few of them down to the local bar.

In no way shape or form should the student body allow the administration to circulate falsified documentation that gives out misinformation.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old August 26th, 2009, 04:18 PM
saintrok's Avatar
saintrok
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London
Posts: 224
Send a message via Skype™ to saintrok
Default Re: Obama Signed it

they will prob stick in big bold letters SMOKING KILLS..wow.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old August 26th, 2009, 04:43 PM
FURsAKeN's Avatar
FURsAKeN
Status: Offline
Hookah Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 1,087
Default Re: Obama Signed it

Hopefully my blackberry will let me post... Anyway, if it hits shisha why freak out? There are ways around it. For example, you will have to buy unflavored tobacco, but what is stopping companies from selling flavorings separately? Nothing. Might be a pain in the ass, but its good ol smoke.
__________________

/root
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old August 26th, 2009, 05:16 PM
kingboyb
Status: Offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 1,259
Default Re: Obama Signed it

Quote:
Originally Posted by FURsAKeN View Post
Hopefully my blackberry will let me post... Anyway, if it hits shisha why freak out? There are ways around it. For example, you will have to buy unflavored tobacco, but what is stopping companies from selling flavorings separately? Nothing. Might be a pain in the ass, but its good ol smoke.
This is already happening in certain parts of europe. Manufacturers here could easily sell a gylcerined base tobacco with the flavorings sold separately.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old August 26th, 2009, 05:20 PM
HuMMuS's Avatar
HuMMuS
Status: Offline
Hookah Nut
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chi-City, IL
Posts: 368
Send a message via AIM to HuMMuS
Default Re: Obama Signed it

communism is better... they dont care what you smoke, or how you smoke. as long as you smoke and do what your told!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old August 26th, 2009, 05:43 PM
albatROSS
Status: Offline
Hookah Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Posts: 25
Default Re: Obama Signed it

Panic is not what we want/need here, but I do believe that this could be an issue for hookah tobacco products in the long run. While there may be requirements in this bill that state that tobacco cannot have anise, honey or glycerin, I think that it will lead to another problem with hookah tobacco. Currently, there is not a truly large market for hookah products in the good 'ol USofA in comparison to big tobacco. Seeing as the majority of hookah tobacco is produced offshore, can we expect foreign producers to perform all of the necessary work to meet FDA standards? That is if they do not ban shisha tobacco in general. This is an interesting bill. It does not truly want to ban all products, but merely show what ingredients go in so that people can make a decision if they want it any more or less. "Light" and "mild" names may disappear, but the same style of cigarretes will still be around. If hookah manufacturers see fit to make an ingredients list, then we may still be able to purchase our beloved tobacco. Until then, I do see myself purchasing a few kilos to be safe.
Reply With Quote
Reply Share
Share with your friends on facebook

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just Signed up and ordered my first Hookah (Pics) TDSS02 Introductions - Forum Members 5 May 1st, 2009 04:33 PM
Obama cussing lol... bradedup General Yada-Yada 7 February 16th, 2009 04:58 PM
Obama Obama Obama Sykotik General Yada-Yada 7 November 16th, 2008 11:21 PM
Just a few questions Sen. Obama Dunkel Serious Discussion 11 November 2nd, 2008 07:14 AM
Pro War? Vote Obama! Hajo Flettner Serious Discussion 8 October 28th, 2008 11:31 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:07 PM.

Skin Design By vBSkinworks



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 - 2012, Hookah Pro Inc.