
Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them - minikites
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/05/feds-expected-announce-final-e-cigarette-rule-could-nearly-ban-them/83951786/
======
throwaway_yy2Di
The article neglects to mention that the Congressional Act which forces (?)
the FDA's hand, was one that Phillip Morris sponsored and lobbied for. I think
this is key to understanding why the FDA is acting like this, seemingly
against public health, while benefiting incumbent cigarette makers.

    
    
        Passage, if it comes, may be politically impossible without
        the negotiated support of Philip Morris, whose Marlboro
        brand helps make it the American tobacco industry’s biggest
        player.
        
        The company’s central role, in fact, is a reason that some
        antismoking activists worry that the bill is a deal with the
        devil. Philip Morris’s support is also why other major
        tobacco companies — none of which back the legislation — see
        a cunning ploy by Marlboro’s maker to seal the company’s
        dominant position.
    

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01tobacco.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01tobacco.html)

~~~
rayiner
This is a great example of what lobbying is and isn't. There are objectively
good reasons to regulate e-cigarettes. And it's undeniable that tobacco
companies are much more heavily regulated than e-cigarette companies. But it's
also true that what hurts e-cigarette companies helps tobacco companies.

~~~
Amezarak
> But it's also true that what hurts e-cigarette companies helps tobacco
> companies.

Not really. The major tobacco manufacturers dominate e-cig marketshare in the
US.

The way it benefits them is that smaller players can afford the regulation
less, ensuring the tobacco manufacturers can get a total lock on the market.

~~~
aab0
Bootleggers and Baptists... I wonder how all the hysterical anti-tobacco
organizations, who see anything with nicotine in it as the second coming of
tobacco smoking, feel about that? It should feel awkward.

~~~
Amezarak
Well, I favor it. Just because it favors Big Tobacco doesn't mean it doesn't
simultaneously do some good. Big Tobacco's self interest is, in this case,
what I consider to be the general interest.

It was actually incredible to me that e-cigs got away with so little
regulation for so long in the first place. The only thing I'm worried about is
it's too little, too late: there are a lot of people now who are hooked on
nicotine who weren't before, and the constant barrage of marketing claiming
they are perfectly safe is only making matters worse.

And yes, I recognize that it possibly has some use in helping smokers quit or
move to a nicotine delivery system that is most probably less harmful. If
that's the justification for e-cigs, then limit sales to smokers.

~~~
tptacek
There are a lot more people hooked on nicotine than before? Is there evidence
you can cite for that? That's a surprising statement.

E-cigarettes are 100x dorkier than cigarettes and much more annoying to use.
Virtually none of my smoker friends stick with them for very long.

~~~
Amezarak
> There are a lot more people hooked on nicotine than before? Is there
> evidence you can cite for that?

I said "who weren't before", i.e., there are new nicotine addicts who became
addicted through e-cig usage (and probably would not have become addicted
otherwise.) I did not say, and I doubt, that there are more nicotine addicts
than before given the general downward trend in smoking.

I generally see two types of people vaping or using e-cigs: middle schoolers
and smokers who want an additional fix, often in places they aren't allowed to
smoke - for some reason a huge number of vapers, etc. think that no-smoking
rules don't apply to them. I've seen people get violent over being asked to
stop vaping in a no-smoking area twice.

~~~
tptacek
Can you present data to back this up? I would be surprised to learn that it
was true. Middle schoolers, for instance, can get cigarettes even more easily
than they can e-cigs†, and while vaping indoors was pretty common a couple
years ago, it's been more than a year since I saw anyone do it in Chicago.

I guess I'm saying: I'm really skeptical of your claim that e-cigarettes are
introducing more people to smoking. Cigarettes already do a pretty amazing job
of introducing people to smoking.

† _As the parent of someone who was a middle schooler just last year, let me
add that I would be flabbergasted to see one of them vaping, but not entirely
surprised to see them with a cigarette. If I saw a teenager vaping, "tobacco"
would not be my first guess as to the intoxicant involved._

~~~
Amezarak
> Can you present data to back this up?

I framed it the way I did because all I have is anecdotes. When I say "a lot
of people are addicted to nicotine that weren't before" this is substantiated
by my personal knowledge of around three dozen individuals.

> I'm really skeptical of your claim that e-cigarettes are introducing more
> people to smoking.

There are more than three hundred million people in the US. E-cigs are a
multibillion dollar industry. It would be astonishing if there was no one
introduced to nicotine by e-cigs.

> vaping indoors was pretty common a couple years ago, it's been more than a
> year since I saw anyone do it in Chicago.

> As the parent of someone who was a middle schooler just last year, let me
> add that I would be flabbergasted to see one of them vaping,

Some of this is probably cultural. I've never been to Chicago, but Chicago
friends tell me that people are generally much health-focused in Chicago. I
live in a southern rural area, and from what a teacher friend tells me and
from my own observation, about a third of local middle schoolers vape. I can
definitely believe this is an outlier, but even that's too much, in my
opinion, considering it didn't have to be that way. There are much fewer
smokers, and that's been about constant.

~~~
tptacek
"Chicago friends tell me that people are generally much health-focused in
Chicago".

This city is practically made of sausage. Its official vegetable is bacon.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has gotten hooked on nicotine by way of
e-cigarettes, but it's nowhere close to cigarettes. A 12 year old can get a
pack of cigarettes and hand them out to their friends. Try that with one of
those dorky e-cig pens.

~~~
Amezarak
If we assume that childhood obesity is a reasonable proxy for health, then
Chicago is healthier than my state: 25% vs 31%. [1] [2] (I use state because
nobody is publishing statistics on the local level.)

> Try that with one of those dorky e-cig pens.

They just pass them around if someone doesn't have one.

[1]
[http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/cdph/CDP...](http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/cdph/CDPH/OverweightObesityReportFeb272013.pdf)

[2]
[http://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/3593.pdf](http://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/3593.pdf)

~~~
tptacek
They really don't.

~~~
Amezarak
I'm not speculating. I'm telling you what I see daily in front of the school.

~~~
tptacek
I remain skeptical. I did some research, and the reports I found suggest that
e-cig usage among teenagers is rare relative to cigarettes, and that most
teenage e-cig users are former cigarette smokers. And again, as a parent of
two children in roughly this age group, what you're saying you see every day
conflicts with my own experience.

I think you're wrong about the general argument you're trying to make about
e-cigarettes.

~~~
Retric
_About 5 of every 100 middle school students (5.3%) reported in 2015 that they
used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days—an increase from 0.6% in 2011._

 _About 2 of every 100 middle school students (2.3%) reported in 2015 that
they smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days._
[http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth...](http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/)

 _Findings from the 2014 National Youth Tobacco Survey show that current
e-cigarette use (use on at least 1 day in the past 30 days) among high school
students increased from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent in 2014, rising
from approximately 660,000 to 2 million students_
[http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p0416-e-cigarette-
use...](http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p0416-e-cigarette-use.html)

PS: Why do you constantly say stuff like this when fact's are clearly not on
your side?

~~~
WillPostForFood
But note that on the page you cite it says that overall tobacco use in middle
school has not changed since 2011. So kids are substituting a more dangerous
product (cigarettes) for a less dangerous product (vaping).

~~~
Retric
That's reversing a long term trend of decreasing tobacco use among middle
school students. Current usage patterns mean e-sig users tend to go back to
tobacco at some point. Thus e-sig's may in fact act like the mythical
'gateway' drug among middle school students.

 _During 2000--2009, the prevalence of current tobacco use among middle school
students declined (15.1% to 8.2%), as did current cigarette use (11.0% to
5.2%) and cigarette smoking experimentation (29.8% to 15.0%)_

[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5933a2.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5933a2.htm)

------
esoteric_nonces
E-liquid can be made at home using pharmaceutical grade glycerine. In fact,
you can vape glycerine on its' own (possibly adding some distilled water to
aid in wicking). It has a vaguely sweet flavour. Commercial e-liquid is made
using vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol, or some mixture of the two.

In the UK glycerine is available in pharmacists for ~$2 per 200ml.
[https://www.boots.com/en/Value-Health-Glycerin-
B-P-200ml_852...](https://www.boots.com/en/Value-Health-Glycerin-
B-P-200ml_852418/)

The devices themselves can be bought from overseas - AliExpress has many
variants, some for <$10.

At that stage, the 'safety of e-cigarettes' is equivalent to the safety of
inhaling atomized glycerine. Stage smoke.

Flavourings - you can look for things which are used in aromatherapy (e.g.
menthol crystals), but you'll probably want to study whether any chemical
changes can occur under heating.

Pre-mixed nicotine is a difficult one. I don't use it so I'm not sure if you
can acquire it from trustworthy sources.

I would not want to fall into the habit of using e-cigarettes produced by
tobacco companies such as the 'vype' disposable (British American Tobacco).
They have a history of producing methods to increase the addictive potential
of cigarettes, ramping up nicotine levels, to cheating on tests, using ammonia
to produce 'freebase' nicotine, etcetera. I wouldn't be surprised if the same
bag of tricks comes out in the e-cigarette market.

~~~
theophrastus
"atomized glycerine" drawn over a hot metal element. It's that heated element
that biochemists find worrisome. We regularly use hot metal elements
("catalysts") in the lab to "activate" (typically to generate free radicals)
small molecules along a synthetic pathway. If you draw glycerine, or any
glycol, over a heated element you will generate products like formaldehyde.
Inhaled formaldehyde is a health hazard; often associated with cancer. The
flavorings are often aldehydes and ketones and are even more likely to
generate free radicals, which are implicated to an even greater degree with
triggering cancers. The real social health concern with vaping vs smoking is
while we have a hundred years worth of statistical data on smoking - we only
are just now guessing at the "well, it's better than smoking" conclusion with
vaping.

~~~
Aelinsaar
It's a red hot element too, I've never seen a vaping device with anything like
good control over more than some basic resistance parameters. Basically you
can vape over a cherry red wire, or a dull red wire. IIRC that's well over 800
degrees, which is past "vaping" in any real sense.

~~~
Domenic_S
Temperature-control mode has been available for a couple years now.
[http://vaping360.com/temperature-control-a-vaping-
revolution...](http://vaping360.com/temperature-control-a-vaping-revolution/)

~~~
daveguy
But it is not a requirement, which maybe it should be for safety. It is pretty
obvious that cooked and inhaled chemicals should be under FDA regulation. What
current regulations are proposed? A warning sticker? Restricting vape sellers
from calling their products "perfectly safe" until more evidence is available.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

~~~
snuxoll
Marketing and labeling restrictions are something most of the vaping community
could support, as well as requirements to list ingredients used in liquids.
The burdensome fees to get a product through regulatory approval is another
matter entirely and could effectively destroy the harm reduction (not
elimination) these products can provide over cigarettes.

~~~
Aelinsaar
Yeah, this isn't the way to go, especially when the other option for people
will be cigarettes. We have to be honest though, about the popularity of
vaping beyond the community of ex-smokers, and the concern for that growing
group. If you're coming at this as a non-smoker, the "less harmful than
ciggies" doesn't work so well.

~~~
snuxoll
> and the concern for that growing group

Human beings are wired to do drugs, all throughout history we have sought ways
to get high. On the face of it, nicotine itself isn't any worse than caffeine
(aside from the vasoconstriction) - both are highly addictive, but alone
without any other substances aiding in the addiction it is relatively easy to
quit.

It really amuses me that as a society we are finally starting to end the war
on drugs (slowly, but surely) yet because of the public opinion on cigarettes
_ANY_ alternative delivery system for nicotine is stigmatized. I don't smell
after I've been around people that vape, and many people I've been around that
quit smoking through e-cigs are substantially healthier than before - I think
that alone is enough reason to _incentivize_ these products.

You aren't going to stop people from seeking pleasure, trying to "save the
children" is almost universally nothing more than FUD to try to pass a
political agenda. Are people going to pick up vaping without ever smoking a
cigarette in the first place? Sure. But there was nothing stopping them from
picking the worse alternative either, and I would much rather they don't. For
all the talk the FDA makes about this being in the interest of protecting
public health, I think it's going to do a lot more damage than good.

Lastly, this is only going to hurt small businesses who have started a multi-
billion dollar industry. Modern vaping hardware evolved from hand-made devices
built from flashlights, a frightening time in the history of the community
where ohms law was something anyone who wanted a satisfying experience was
familiar with. Modern devices have substantially better safety features, and
all of that is going to go away to satisfy the public perception. I hope the
FDA is proud of themselves, they have condemned tens of thousands of people to
death.

~~~
Aelinsaar
You accuse me of trotting out "Save the children"... which I didn't do... then
you end on "It's going to hurt small businesses".

I mean... lol

~~~
snuxoll
I had no intention to accuse you in particular, however if you read the news
following this article that is precisely the message that is being parroted.

This isn't a single-faceted issue we are discussing here.

------
pdq
This is a prime example of Regulatory Capture [1].

"That means nearly all every e-cigarette on the market — and every different
flavor and nicotine level — would require a separate application for federal
approval. Each application could cost $1 million or more."

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture)

~~~
passivepinetree
Does anyone know why each application would be so costly? That amount seems
ridiculously large to me.

~~~
snuxoll
The FDA's position on tobacco products is such that they realize they will
continue to exist, but they certainly don't want to incentivize their
continued use and development. Of course, the high cost of the application
results in regulatory capture, so this is more of a handout to the existing
tobacco industry more than anything. Imperial Brands and Reynolds American
both own products that are grandfathered in (Blu and Vuse respectively), and
can afford the cost of the applications (especially when you consider they
sell cartridges fro these products at $5 a piece for under 1ml of liquid,
which is why the majority of "vapers" buy higher grade equipment and liquid in
bottles - these devices are less cost effective than traditional cigarettes).

------
halosghost
I am confused. Most things in this article talk about tobacco products, but
many e-juice and e-cig products actually do not contain tobacco, though they
do contain nicotine. Is this just failure on the author's part, or is this
bill not really going to affect e-cigs afterall?

~~~
pessimizer
It's representative of the equivocation being used by the anti-tobacco lobby
to expand to a device that doesn't involve tobacco. The ultimate inversion of
the tobacco industry helping them would be surprising to me if I weren't
familiar with their efforts to keep Swedish snus out of the EU (where it is
illegal.)

edit: "The widespread use of snus by Swedish men (estimated at 30% of Swedish
male ex-smokers), displacing tobacco smoking and other varieties of snuff, is
thought to be responsible for the incidence of tobacco-related mortality in
men being significantly lower in Sweden than any other European country. In
contrast, since women traditionally are less likely to use snus, their rate of
tobacco-related deaths in Sweden can be compared to that of other European
countries."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus#Health_consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus#Health_consequences)

------
nutmeg
A perfect example of regulating your competitors out of business.

------
dageshi
They haven't just done this for e-cigarettes, they've done it for cigars as
well. My understanding is that any new cigar released in the US will need
approval from the FDA at a fairly exhorbitant cost.

This will of course massively favour the big producers who can afford to deal
with it and destroy the boutique brands.

------
leephillips
This report from the CDC:

[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6514a1.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6514a1.htm)

shows that a good part of the middle- and high-school student population
replaced their cigarette consumption by electronic cigarettes. But this is
another nicotine-delivery system, and, as the report says, "Nicotine exposure
during adolescence, a critical period for brain development, can cause
addiction, might harm brain development, and could lead to sustained tobacco
product use".

~~~
AlexandrB
But AFAIK selling both cigarettes and e-cigarettes to minors was _already_
illegal, so how does this law change anything?

~~~
voxic11
It's not illegal federally and most states are only just now getting around to
banning ecig sales to minors.

~~~
MBCook
Sorry for the accidental downvote.

------
blakes
Here's the actual rule: [https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-
inspection.federalregister.g...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-
inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-10685.pdf)

From what I can tell it would regulate all nicotine containing juice and all
hardware that is intended to be used with that. So a lot of small business
that build these mod-boxes and things will not be in compliance.

It's too bad, this really hurts small business.

~~~
unprepare
i suspect some will rebrand as marijuana focused vape companies, that will
also happen to work as ecigs, especially as marijuana becomes more legalised
across the nation.

Though i further suspect someone will try to get the FDA to pass similar rules
for marijuana products, something i dont believe it can do until marijuana is
legalized at the federal level (it would be hard to get federal approval for a
device thats designed to break federal law)

~~~
snuxoll
The dispensaries in WA already sell the same devices as well as pre-filled
cartridges containing oil extracted from cannabis. I don't think the FDA would
buy it though.

~~~
blakes
Which are awesome by the way.

~~~
snuxoll
Agreed, combustion of any kind produces things you really shouldn't be
inhaling. Inhalation of anything that isn't clean air (not much of that
anymore these days, though) is potentially hazardous, but the cannabis vape
cartridges are certainly a better way to go about it (and less smelly too). It
will be unfortunate if these FDA regulations hurt these too, not that the FDA
is particularly fond of cannabis either (and I can easily foresee similar
regulations being passed when it is eventually legalized at a federal level).

------
6stringmerc
Can anyone fill me in as to whether or not this will apply to any 'e-juice'
products that do not contain nicotine?

I think the 'competitive vape' scene use nicotine-free substances, so I'm
aware they exist. But that whole 'different formulations' thing sounds very
troublesome, even on the basic level?

Many thanks in advance to any who might have closer tabs on this subject.

~~~
tmacro
The general presumption is no it wouldn't effect ejuice containing no
nicotine. The general formula for ejuice is vegetable glycerin, propylene
glycol, flavor extracts, and liquid nicotine based in PG. Sine all these
ingredients are generally available without regulation ( minus nicotine ) I
feel that I would be hard to claim that these constitute a tobacco product.

~~~
6stringmerc
Thank you very much for the distinctions. This bodes well for a non-
consumption idea I had somewhat based on the existing technology, though with
no intention of including nicotine in the platform. I'll have to see what the
local shops plan on doing to get a first-hand feel for potential supplier
issues. Again, very much appreciate the shared perspective.

------
sandworm101
My only opinion on this: Nicotine vapour can be absorbed through skin. That,
and the lack of any possible filtration, means it is a totally different beast
in terms of bystanders. I don't want to be around nicotine vapour. Any and all
legislation/regulation that keeps me from having to share a
bus/plane/bar/ship/hallway with that cloud is a good thing.

Whether it's better or worse for current smokers is beside the point. That's
their problem and they can solve it themselves. I care about my health and me
remaining not influenced or even addicted to nicotine.

~~~
adrusi
You're being entirely dogmatic; nicotine is hardly bad for you at all on its
own. The consensus is that it probably doesn't have any role in causing
cancer, although it might accelerate an existing metastasized cancer. There
are some adverse effects on developing fetuses, but those are relatively minor
even when the mother is smoking a pack a day.

Consuming nicotine yourself is somewhat bad for your health, and its
irresponsible for a pregnant woman to smoke it because it _will_ hurt their
child. But in the doses that can be achieved through secondhand consumption
are so terribly low as to be totally negligible. It's absolutely ridiculous to
worry about being around someone who's vaping.

Second hand smoke is a problem not because of nicotine, its a problem because
of other chemicals in smoke, and its only actually harmful if you _live_ or
_work_ with a smoker. You have to be exposed to it constantly and live in an
environment where the smoke has penetrated every porous object and seeps into
your clothes and your food and your water.

And your comment about nicotine vapor being absorbed through skin is
misleading, because you suggest that cigarette smoke isn't absorbed through
the skin and that there's a significant amount absorbed through the skin
relative to the amount inhaled. Perhaps the root of your confusion is that the
nicotine/glycol liquid solution can be absorbed through the skin and spilling
it on yourself is enough to get quite a high dose of nicotine if you don't
quickly wash it off. Before ecigarette fluids standardized on glycol, they
used other solvents which allowed faster absorption through skin, which made
it realistic to give yourself lethal nicotine poisoning by spilling it on
yourself.

If you want to avoid the ecig cloud for the sake of avoiding the smell, I
can't disagree with you, and I'd support legislation prohibiting vaping in
public indoor spaces.

Just please stop making up stupid shit. It is inconceivable that your health
would be influenced by spending time in a public space with someone vaping. It
would be even more absurd to conceive of developing an addiction that way.

~~~
snuxoll
It is certainly not absurd to not like being bombarded with a cloud of smoke
or vapor, at the very least. The vast majority of people who use e-cigs follow
the same etiquette as smokers, but there's always asshats in society who care
about nobody but themselves.

~~~
pessimizer
I don't drive; do you?

~~~
snuxoll
Not sure how driving is relevant, but yes, I do on occasion drive (though
usually it's the wife behind the wheel). Unfortunately I do not live in a
public transit friendly or walkable city.

------
saticmotion
This seems pretty draconic. To compare with a recent law passed here, in
Belgium:

\- A fee of 4.000 Euro to bring a product to market.

\- Juice bottles of maximum 10ml

\- No remote selling of e-cigarettes (but liquids are for some reason allowed)

\- No advertising (with some exceptions)

~~~
mratzloff
(Just a small note: "draconic" means "dragon-like". You mean "draconian".)

~~~
saticmotion
Thanks. It's "draconisch" in dutch. And words with -isch are typically
translated to -ic in english, hence the confusion.

------
Zigurd
There are a lot of posts on this threat that assume nicotine is bad. "Bad"
badly needs to be defined. Worse than other stimulants? If not, why not accept
a choice people make to vape?

Being a bluenose _is_ bad. It's bad for everyone's freedom of choice. It's bad
because it introduces social costs for no supportable reason. Don't be a
bluenose.

Lastly, this is transparently a rearguard action by cigarette makers, who have
been shown to be selling a deadly product. That's really bad.

~~~
donatj
Nicotine in and of itself is a wonderful drug, far better and less harmful
than caffeine. The problem is not nicotine, it's tobacco and the other things
that come with it.

------
tmacro
Well this has, more or less, killed my ejuice business.

~~~
choko
That may have been the intent. The million dollar a flavor fee isn't too large
a hurdle for the likes of Phillip Morris, but will be ruinous for most of
their competition.

------
ikeboy
What's up with the numbers in the title?

~~~
yebyen
I believe those are supposed to represent votes for Yea, Nay, Abstain...

~~~
throwanem
No, they're the "social sharing" scores from the strip along the left hand
side of the article page. If you're not very careful about how you highlight
the title of the article, you'll get them too when you copy and paste. They
aren't part of the title and will presumably be removed when a moderator
notices.

~~~
minikites
Yep, my mistake, didn't notice until after I submitted.

------
washadjeffmad
Gwern compiled an excellent assessment of nicotine as a supplement.

[https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine](https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine)

This regulation is disingenuous and misinformed, if only because vaping
solutions don't contain nicotine as a necessary component any more than bubble
gum or throat lozenges do. The regulation seems to try to cover for this by
including new rules for only other optional ingredients: its flavorings.

Conflating it with tobacco smoking is their basis for passing as a protection
measure for children, but it bears little in common, chemically or medically,
with it. When ultrasonic models appear, they'll piggyback off of existing
regulation to include them, but it'll be a bankrupt argument.

------
GrinningFool
Link to the announcement from FDA which contains more info:

[http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/uc...](http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm499234.htm)

------
mccoolman
They are regulating the hardware as well? What is to differentiate between an
ecig battery and a flashlight battery? Are Tesla vehicles now going to be
considered nicotine devices? That's absolutely ridiculous.

------
spriggan3
So as usually kill the little guy and make big corporations even richer. The
same big corporations who then complain that there is "too much regulation" on
CNBC.

------
northisup
Nearly bans them...for children.

------
Exuma
VΛ

------
jeffdavis
It seems like more and more of the legal system is based on "rules" issued by
unelected officials, and less based on actual laws passed by Congress.

~~~
dragonwriter
These rules were issued by the FDA under the provisions adopted in "actual
laws passed by Congress", principally the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act of 2009.

~~~
jeffdavis
I'm not entirely comfortable with Congress delegating its authority to
unelected people for unlimited periods of time.

The fact is, what was perfectly legal yesterday will be illegal shortly,
despite no new laws being passed, and no members of Congress taking
responsibility.

That's called rule of man, not rule of law.

------
apercu
It's kind of sad that the only answer to this type of thing we have seen in
(relatively) recent times is Reagans disastrous deregulation, nothing like
Northern Securities Co. v. United States or the Sherman Anti-trust act in over
100 years (unless you count NIRA or the Robinson-Patman Act), which I don't.
The FTC just approves mergers, that's the only change, one more step.

