<story><title>Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them</title><url>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/05/feds-expected-announce-final-e-cigarette-rule-could-nearly-ban-them/83951786/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>throwaway_yy2Di</author><text>The article neglects to mention that the Congressional Act which forces (?) the FDA&amp;#x27;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.&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    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.
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2009&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;01&amp;#x2F;business&amp;#x2F;01tobacco.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2009&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;01&amp;#x2F;business&amp;#x2F;01tobacco.html&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rayiner</author><text>This is a great example of what lobbying is and isn&amp;#x27;t. There are objectively good reasons to regulate e-cigarettes. And it&amp;#x27;s undeniable that tobacco companies are much more heavily regulated than e-cigarette companies. But it&amp;#x27;s also true that what hurts e-cigarette companies helps tobacco companies.</text></comment>
<story><title>Feds announce final e-cigarette rule that nearly bans them</title><url>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/05/feds-expected-announce-final-e-cigarette-rule-could-nearly-ban-them/83951786/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>throwaway_yy2Di</author><text>The article neglects to mention that the Congressional Act which forces (?) the FDA&amp;#x27;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.&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    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.
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2009&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;01&amp;#x2F;business&amp;#x2F;01tobacco.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2009&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;01&amp;#x2F;business&amp;#x2F;01tobacco.html&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>MBCook</author><text>How is it against public health to require all these inhaler devices to undergo some sort of real approval process?&lt;p&gt;Yeah the date chosen serves PM&amp;#x27;s needs, but I don&amp;#x27;t think it hurts public health.</text></comment>