FDA Extends Deadline—Will Reconsider Premium Cigars

[jhedrick83]

Cigar Coop had a good write up on this.

https://cigar-coop.com/2017/07/featu...y-the-fda.html

It would be great if the science and reality of Cigars were given a change to prevail. It seems that science is becoming a dirty word in government but there may be home. The chemical make up of/production process/target audience for cigars is totally different than cigarette and e-cigs/vaping. It would be great if people would stop being scared of everything tobacco and just listen. I've never met someone who is truly addicted to cigars.

Not to mention it's one thing to regulate a product, it's another to set out to destroy it.

[Emperor Zurg]

It would be great if the science and reality of Cigars were given a change to prevail. It seems that science is becoming a dirty word in government but there may be home...

Not to mention it's one thing to regulate a product, it's another to set out to destroy it.

These days 'science' is driven by a predetermined political agenda and you know it. If Uncle Sam wants to ban (or regulate to death) cigars, then it will be demonstrated that cigars are just as bad, if not worse, than cigarettes in every conceivable way; truth be damned.

Don't talk about regulate/destroy either. As you know, the second amendment has the language 'shall not be infringed' in reference to a person's right to keep and bear arms, yet look how many states and localities regulate the hell out of or even all out prohibit gun ownership of certain types. And where is big Uncle Sam to say that they can't do this?? The silence is deafening.

[jhedrick83]

These days 'science' is driven by a predetermined political agenda and you know it. If Uncle Sam wants to ban (or regulate to death) cigars, then it will be demonstrated that cigars are just as bad, if not worse, than cigarettes in every conceivable way; truth be damned.

Don't talk about regulate/destroy either. As you know, the second amendment has the language 'shall not be infringed' in reference to a person's right to keep and bear arms, yet look how many states and localities regulate the hell out of or even all out prohibit gun ownership of certain types. And where is big Uncle Sam to say that they can't do this?? The silence is deafening.

In an effort to not derail the thread I'll abridge my thoughts. Both are cases where the people need to remind the government who they work for. Both are also cases where it is the responsibility of the people to educate themselves so they can effectively communicate their concerns to the representatives. As in truly educate themselves not just read facebook or live in their echo chamber. There's benefit to disagreement and discourse, it's the only way to effectively changes someone's mind. Sure research can be bought and paid for but that's why transparency matters. Some issues are more black and white than others and there are cases when experts are ignored for political reasons as well.

Proper and rational regulation can be beneficial. Example, ask old Clevelanders about how the Cuyahoga river managed to catch fire. A completely unregulated world is a bad idea. Regulations have to have a specific and beneficial reason. I agree wholeheartedly with you about the right to bear arms when it comes to the type of firearm. At the same time, I feel there should be some basic guidelines with firearms. For example, if you are under a guardianship (deemed not able to care for yourself due to psychological problems) you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Specifically for the FDA regulations, regulations were put into place with extremely vague reasoning and guidelines. It was as if they had done no research at all and just decided that all tobacco is bad so let's wreck it all. Regulation of Cigars is a non-sequitur, who does it harm, who gets addicted, how does it ruin the lives of the youth. It's just moronic. Just my 2 cents, here's hoping this is more than just false hope.