FDA Regulation, Big Tobacco, and Pending Bond Defaults

[DaveP]

For the chiiiildren is just a red herring used to get the "public" in on their schemes. It's all about keeping the money flowing from tobacco excise taxes, percentage of cigarette profits to the MSA, ineffective NRT's, and treatment for illnesses directly/indirectly caused by smoking.

If they cared about the children, you'd have to produce ID to buy junk food, sweet snacks, candy, and sugary drinks. The ID line at McD's would be out the door as they verified youngsters. But then, their parents would be buying it and carrying it over the the table anyway.

It's already against the law for underage people to buy nicotine based products.

 

[toddkuen]

The default news just keeps getting better.

Note this link indicates that bond ratings of states are also in play as these default.

 

[Jman8]

The above link also says:

Pope said attorneys representing states with tobacco bond obligations "will argue that all tobacco or tobacco substitute products should be included" in the MSA.

"That will be countered by the Big Tobacco firms, who will mount a robust argument to claim that legislation cannot be rewritten.

 

[AgentAnia]

The above link also says:

Pope said attorneys representing states with tobacco bond obligations "will argue that all tobacco or tobacco substitute products should be included" in the MSA.

"That will be countered by the Big Tobacco firms, who will mount a robust argument to claim that legislation cannot be rewritten.

If my understanding is correct (and I believe it is) that the MSA is a contract, not a piece of legislation, the thinking of those quoted in this article are wrong on two counts:

On a general level, legislation, while it can't be "rewritten," can be amended by majority vote.

A contract, on the other hand, stands as agreed to by all contracting parties. A new contract can be entered into, and may contain the same or similar terms as the old one, but all contracting parties must agree to the new one. One party to an existing contract cannot unilaterally change the terms.

 

[Jman8]

Do smaller tobacco companies (like the one, or two, that just had 44 products approved) have to participate in MSA, or are they exempt somehow and it is only the top players that are subject to that deal?

Asking because I'm wondering if say big vaper agreed to MSA somehow, would that mean that little vaper would be obligated to that sort of contract to stay in the market?

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

If my understanding is correct (and I believe it is) that the MSA is a contract, not a piece of legislation, the thinking of those quoted in this article are wrong on two counts:

On a general level, legislation, while it can't be "rewritten," can be amended by majority vote.

A contract, on the other hand, stands as agreed to by all contracting parties. A new contract can be entered into, and may contain the same or similar terms as the old one, but all contracting parties must agree to the new one. One party to an existing contract cannot unilaterally change the terms.

With the present governments general disregard for laws why should this bother them?

 

[Kent C]

If my understanding is correct (and I believe it is) that the MSA is a contract, not a piece of legislation,

MSA is a settlement agreement from lawsuits brought by states against tobacco companies. "All settling states have enacted qualifying statutes." wiki ...hence it has been changed on several occasions, mainly to determine what companies can be included and what happens when some companies don't participate.

Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It should be noted - because this is what I've stated about how gov't agencies work - that what the tobacco companies got in 'return' is a shielding from private tort liability. Well what about the individuals who want to sue the companies? hmmm? So they've taken away a 'right' to anyone who may have a claim against a company. Robert Levy from the Cato Institute put it like this:

"For 40 years, tobacco companies had not been held liable for cigarette-related illnesses. Then, beginning in 1994, led by Florida, states across the country sued big tobacco to recover public outlays for medical expenses due to smoking. By changing the law to guarantee they would win in court, the states extorted a quarter-trillion-dollar settlement, which was passed along in higher cigarette prices. Basically, the tobacco companies had money; the states and their hired-gun attorneys wanted money; so the companies paid and the states collected. Then sick smokers got stuck with the bill."

This same 'buffer' from lawsuits exists for Waste Management companies who rather than paying for harm to individuals, they pay gov't fines via the EPA.

 

[Kent C]

Do smaller tobacco companies (like the one, or two, that just had 44 products approved) have to participate in MSA, or are they exempt somehow and it is only the top players that are subject to that deal?

Asking because I'm wondering if say big vaper agreed to MSA somehow, would that mean that little vaper would be obligated to that sort of contract to stay in the market?

See: Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specifically focusing on OPMs (Original Participating Manufacturers), SPMs (Subsequent Participating Manufacturers), and non-participating manufacturers ("NPM").

 

[Jman8]

See: Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specifically focusing on OPMs (Original Participating Manufacturers), SPMs (Subsequent Participating Manufacturers), and non-participating manufacturers ("NPM").

I think that answers my question with a "yes, all manufacturers of combustibles are obligated to MSA." And also answers the other question that if Big V agreed to MSA, then little V would be obligated" or face a shakedown of sorts from BG.

Reading the Wikipedia link made me think, 'this is how the Mafia is set up and organized.'

 

[Kent C]

I think that answers my question with a "yes, all manufacturers of combustibles are obligated to MSA." And also answers the other question that if Big V agreed to MSA, then little V would be obligated" or face a shakedown of sorts from BG.

Reading the Wikipedia link made me think, 'this is how the Mafia is set up and organized.'

Just wrote that in an email two days ago:

"I just hate it when companies/corporations have to create a
lobbying presence, just in order to not get attacked by gov't on trumped
up/non-existent 'harms'. It's what the Feds did with Microsoft (and many
others), where MS had no presence in Washington and were virtually forced to do
just to stay in the game.

It's really like the old Mafia but instead of pitching a brick through your
store window, then asking for 'protection money', it's threatening BS
regulations and asking for protection money. Lol. "

 

[toddkuen]

Here's a bond update (end of article) from the Wall Street Journal: Who's The Real Cigarette Monopolist? (May require a subscription to read but usually you can read a few articles without one...)

 

[EleanorR]

"Nice harm reduction product you got there. Be ashamed if something happened to it."

 

[DC2]

"Nice harm reduction product you got there. Be ashamed if something happened to it."

That's kinda funny, in a not so funny way.

 

[LaraC]

If you are not a Wall Street Journal subscriber and you are not able to read the story when you go there, try this:

Go to Google.

Type (or copy/paste) the title of the article in the Google search box:

Who's the Real Cigarette Monopolist?

One of the first links Google came up with took me to the entire article.