ownworstenemy

The evidence suggests that these federal Tobacco to 21 bills are intended to be ineffective and, in some cases, have language that would relax FDA restrictions on Altria's e-cigarettes, making it easier for them to market them to kids.

​

What is the evidence of this?

I skimmed through the article and there just seemed to be a lot of assumptions. Some people believe that the bill is a Trojan Horse, meant to appear good, but actually lessening regulations. Which is strange, because the article admits that the bill is pretty simple and really only raises the legal purchase age to 21, but that it doesn't introduce tougher rules to crack down on flavor pods or ads targeting teens.

One federal Tobacco to 21 bill, proposed by Rep. Robert Aderholt, snuck in a legal definition of "vapor product" that would have kept Altria's newest e-cigarette, iQOS, from being classified as a cigarette.'

​

Vapes aren't cigarettes, so I don't see an issue here.

​

Essentially, the strategy outlined in that memo is to support and help put through what they call "moderate" tobacco control campaigns and legislation. They specifically say, in the memo, that they should focus on laws and campaigns that focus on "youth access to tobacco" to keep the conversation away from "bans on advertising"

​

If the issue is that kids are accessing tobacco (it's not really since there isn't tobacco in vape juice) then focusing on limiting their access would be the correct thing to do. Not that raising the purchase age will do that.

​

It's tough -- it bans e-cigarette flavors, limits marketing practices, and does a lot of other stuff Altria doesn't want to see happen.

​

Sounds like this does stuff I don't want to see happen either. Advertising I couldn't really care less about, but I'm an adult and I do like flavored vape juice, and as an adult I should be able to purchase them if I want.