From: ????????????????????????
Subject: Smoking in San Diego; FDA and Kessler

     Steve--Time to thank you once again for the Digest and 
     congratulate you on your nuptials.  I've been subscribed for a 
     little over half a year and always enjoyed seeing the mailing 
     from your address in the mailbox.
     
     I am writing to mention some smoking I enjoyed on ny vacation to 
     San Diego at the end of August.  I went to law school and met my 
     wife there, back in the 80's, so I was already familiar with most 
     of the area's smoke shops.  One of my favorites was Captain 
     Hunt's in Seaport Village (a little tourist shopping center on 
     the water near downtown).  As I mentioned in my introductory post 
     several months ago, my favorite pipe tobacco of all time is an 
     English called "Churchill" which I have found nowhere else (so I 
     believe it's proprietary, although I could be wrong).  I was able 
     to get a pouch and although it is still a great smoke, somehow it 
     had a different character.  Churchill was my first English, and 
     as Richard Hacker wrote, an English can be a bit like smoking 
     meat (which still makes me laugh).  I was wondering if by now 
     (several years of smoking Englishes, later), I have become 
     accustomed to the Latakia and am more appreciative of the other 
     blend constituents?  Or is it possible for a commercial blend to 
     be changed without notice?  Anybody have any thoughts?
     
     On the FDA, Kessler, and some of the commentary from recent 
     Digests, I thought I would add a thought or two.  First, make no 
     mistakes, I am fully aware of the fear that the FDA's attention 
     to tobacco will inevitably lead to total prohibition.  I am 
     somewhat sympathetic to that point of view because there are 
     analogous precedents in other areas (like government promoted 
     censorship).
     
     I think a few mistakes of perception must be mentioned, though.  
     First, in response to Steve J.:  The FDA's regulatory authority 
     is justified under the "police power" of the state.  That 
     authority legally imbues a government with the ability to pass 
     regulations which affect the "health, safety, and welfare" of the 
     populace.  Such regulations are deemed important to the extent 
     that a reviewing court need only find a "rational relationship" 
     (a low legal threshold) between the regulation and the health, 
     safety, or welfare issue that is at stake for a police power 
     regulation to be upheld on challenge.  So Steve is a bit 
     overwrought in suggesting that FDA Commissioner Kessler is 
     seeking police power for the FDA.
     
     Second, while regulation of tobacco might be a "de facto" result 
     of any action by this administration, the regulation at issue 
     concerns the issue of whether a)nicotine is a drug, and b)whether 
     cigarette makers manipulate nicotine content of cigarettes.  The 
     regulation, then, would address the cigarette as a *delivery 
     device* for nicotine, and enable the government to intervene in 
     the selling of the device to (in this case) minors.
     
     The reason I though it important to risk a flame war and bring 
     these points up is that I support the use of public comment to 
     communicate with both legislators and agencies.  Before anyone 
     runs off halfcocked and starts filling my box with expletive 
     mail, let me say one last thing.  I have been smoking pipes and 
     cigars regularly for 17 years or so.  I relish this pleasure and 
     will never relinquish it to someone for their satisfaction at the 
     expense of my own.  However, if you want to effectively take part 
     in the public process, you have to assert yourself credibly or 
     risk being marginalized.  I hope everyone reads my comments in 
     the right spirit.
     
     Sincerely, Dave Hirsh, Seattle, WA. USA

[ A most thoughtful and reasoned commentary, Dave; you seem to know
your subject.  However, under a similar argument, the FDA could
intervene in the sale of cans of Coca-Cola or cups of 7-11 coffee as
"delivery devices" for caffeine.  Even if it is supported by law, the
FDA's assertion of jurisdiction over tobacco is not comforting; they
might, having finished with cigarettes, make the same "delivery
device" assertion about cigars or pipes.

And see the "Quote of the Week" below. -S. ]


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U