Thousands of people who were convicted of use and simple possession of marijuana on federal lands and in the District of Columbia have been pardoned, the White House said Friday.
President Joe Biden announced that the clemencies are meant to rectify racial disparities in the justice system.
The categorical pardon builds on a similar round issued just before the 2022 midterm elections that pardoned thousands convicted of simple possession on federal lands.
Friday’s action broadens the criminal offenses covered by the pardon.
Biden is also granting clemency to 11 people serving what the White House called “disproportionately long” sentences for nonviolent drug offenses, according to the AP.
Biden, in a statement, said his actions would help make the “promise of equal justice a reality.”
No one was freed from prison under last year’s action, but the pardons were meant to help thousands overcome obstacles to renting a home or finding a job. Similarly, no federal prisoners are eligible for release as a result of Friday’s pardon.
But the order expands the grounds on which pardons are issued. In the last round, people were pardoned for simple possession under only one criminal statute.
Friday’s pardons also apply to several other criminal statutes, including attempted simple possession.
The Biden administration has published a Statement of Administration Policy outlining its opposition to parts of a proposed funding bill that would limit the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s ability to ban flavored cigars and menthol cigarettes, reports Halfwheel.
The proposed bill would prevent the FDA from receiving funding if it introduced bans on flavored cigars and menthol cigarettes or introduced rules limiting the amount of nicotine a product can have.
The policy statement does not mention nicotine limits, although the FDA has proposed limiting nicotine.
The Statement of Administration Policy is not binding.
A new study has found that smokers who get help picking flavored e-cigarettes and receive supportive text messages are more likely to quit smoking.
President Joe Biden on Tuesday signed a bill that gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration powers over over any nicotine, not just tobacco-derived nicotine. Part of a $1.5 trillion government spending measure, the rider was slipped into the bill with no debate or notification to the vaping industry.
The language of the Tobacco Control Act will now change to define a tobacco product as “any product made or derived from tobacco, or containing nicotine from any source, that is intended for human consumption.”
“You know, in a moment, I’m going to sign this bipartisan government funding bill,” Biden said. “But with this bill, we’re going to send a message to the American people – a strong message – that Democrats and Republicans can actually come together and get something done.”
Bryan Haynes, a partner with Troutman Pepper, said that the amendment has an effective date 30 days after the bill is enacted (April 14) and gives a manufacturer of a tobacco product with synthetic nicotine (or nicotine derived from a source other than tobacco) 30 days after the effective date to file a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) with FDA.
“If FDA has not authorized the product within 90 days after the effective date, the product must be removed from the market. This is likely to amount to an effective ban on synthetic nicotine products,” he wrote in the firm’s Tobacco Law Blog. “FDA is highly unlikely to authorize a PMTA in 90 days when other PMTAs for electronic nicotine delivery systems have been pending for more than two years.”
April Meyers, board president for the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA), told Vapor Voice that the bill will have little effect on youth vaping, which is already down significantly since highs in 2015. “Although the sponsors of the bill claim the intent was to close the loophole on synthetic nicotine-derived products from large companies now popular among youth, the reality is that this bill – and others like it – aren’t likely to have the intended effect,” she said. “Instead, consumers using these products as a harm reduction option will suffer, as will licensed small businesses in full compliance with federal, state, and local laws.
“The FDA created a problem by overregulating a product used by millions of adults who find vaping a safer alternative to smoking. When a market in high demand is overregulated, grey and black markets emerge where there are no regulations requiring safe products or ID checks.”
Synthetic nicotine will now require U.S. Food and Drug Administration marketing approval. The U.S. Senate approved a $1.5 trillion legislation by a 68-31 bipartisan margin that includes language that changes the definition of a tobacco product to include synthetic nicotine. The Senate sent Biden the omnibus appropriations bill, and a separate bill financing agencies through Tuesday in case it takes time to complete the required reprinting and proofreading of the lengthy omnibus measure. Biden has said he will sign the bill into law.
Credit: f11photo
“We thank leaders in the House and Senate for their partnership in getting this bill done, and the President looks forward to signing it into law,” wrote White House spokesperson Jen Psaki in an email. “The bipartisan funding bill proves once more that members of both parties can come together to deliver results for the American people.”
The rule will become law 30 days after the bill’s passage date. Manufacturers of currently marketed synthetic products would have an additional 60 days to file a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) without being subject to FDA enforcement—unless the FDA has already denied a non-synthetic version of the same product (meaning those manufacturers would be subject to enforcement 30 days after the passage of the bill).
The language of the Tobacco Control Act would change to define a tobacco product as “any product made or derived from tobacco, or containing nicotine from any source, that is intended for human consumption,” when Biden signs the bill into law.
Synthetic nicotine—nicotine that is made in a lab rather than derived from tobacco—has long existed in a legal grey area, and many companies started using it after their natural nicotine products were denied market access by the FDA. Public health groups have been warning that synthetic nicotine e-cigarettes, such as Puff Bar, have grown in popularity among teens while skirting FDA oversight.
The House passed the bill late last night. Leaders in both parties have declared the legislation a win. Democrats boast of the almost 7 percent increase they secured for non-defense agencies, increasing that funding to $730 billion. Top Republicans tout the $782 billion they locked in for national defense, a 6 percent hike from current spending, according to Politico.
Proponents of the policy change refer to it as closing a loophole. Meanwhile critics of the rider contend that, given the well documented flaws and deficiencies in the FDA approval process, the budget rider will likely result in the prohibition of products that former smokers have used to quit smoking and stay off cigarettes. Vaping advocates have been working on overdrive the last three days trying to get the nicotine rule removed form the bill.
Amanda Wheeler, president of American Vapor Manufacturers association, said the of banning synthetic products is going to drive millions back to combustible cigarettes.
“At a time when FDA is under scrutiny from multiple federal courts for unlawful regulatory overreach on nicotine, handing the agency even more powers to prevent Americans from switching to vaping is like handing car keys and a bottle opener to your drunk uncle,” she said. “It’s already lunatic that FDA is prohibiting adult American smokers from switching to vaping but this legislation is so absurd that it will extend FDA’s reach to products that have no actual, physical connection to tobacco whatsoever.
“This bill ought to be called the Cigarette Protection Act, because the indisputable outcome will be countless more Americans pushed away from nicotine vaping and back into combustible smoking.”
U.S. President Joe Biden today announced that he would nominate Robert M. Califf, a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, to lead the agency again, reports The New York Times.
A cardiologist and long-time consultant to drug companies, Califf ran the FDA during the last year of the Obama administration
“Dr. Califf is one of the most experienced clinical trialists in the country, and has the experience and expertise to lead the Food and Drug Administration during a critical time in our nation’s fight to put an end to the coronavirus pandemic,” Biden said in a statement.
Califf has been a forceful advocate for tobacco control; before he was the FDA commissioner, he was the agency’s deputy commissioner for medical products and tobacco. In an appearance with other former commissioners this year, he said, “I have never seen more capable or nastier lawyers than what I experienced in trying to deal with the tobacco industry. It was awesome and quite frightening for public health.”
After stepping down as the vice chancellor for clinical and translational health at Duke University, Califf has worked as a senior adviser to Verily Life Sciences, a health technology firm, and its sister company Google Health. Califf, who remains an adjunct professor of medicine at both Duke and Stanford University, is on the corporate board of Cytokinetics, a biopharmaceutical company, according to its website.
Califf said he was honored to be nominated for the position “at a critical time for our country,” adding, “There’s a lot of work to do, and if confirmed I look forward to rejoining the great team at the FDA to help in their inspiring mission to serve the public.”
The FDA has had seven different commissioners, including Califf, since 2012, when Margaret Hamburg left the post.
The Biden administration has announced a regulatory freeze on all new and pending rules introduced in the last part of the Trump administration. Included in the freeze are the new finalized rules for premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA) and substantial equivalence (SE) that were announced on Jan. 19, the last full day of the Trump administration.
The FDA’s CBD enforcement policy draft guidance, which had been under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) since July, was also withdrawn.
Stakeholders and lawmakers have been anticipating the guidance for two years, since the 2018 Farm Bill gave FDA authority over hemp-derived CBD. Representatives from the U.S. Hemp Roundtable and the National Industrial Hemp Council, both of which met with OMB to discuss the draft guide in late July, say the lack of regulatory clarity from the FDA has led to uncertainty in the hemp and CBD industry.
The memo, issued by White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain, calls on the heads of executive departments and agencies to “propose or issue no rule in any manner – including by sending a rule to the Office of the Federal Register [OFR] – until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the president after noon on January 20, 2021, reviews and approves the rule.” Previous administrations, including those of Trump and Barack Obama, issued similar memos to stop last-minute actions by the outgoing administration.
What this means for the vapor industry is unclear. It does not change the rules concerning the Sept. 9 deadline to submit a PMTA to be eligible to stay on the market for year. Because the rule was not formally published in the Federal Register by the U.S. FDA before the end of Trump’s presidency, the Biden administration could move forward with the rule as is, make changes to the rule or scrap the rules entirely.
An editor’s note on the Federal Register website reads, ” The Food and Drug Administration withdrew this document while it was on public inspection. It will remain on public inspection until the close of business on January 27, 2021. A copy of the withdrawal request is available at the Office of the Federal Register.”
The White House memo also explains that it does not strictly apply to “rules” but also to “any substantive action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and any agency statement of general applicability and future effect that sets for a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue.”
Vapor Voice has reached out to the FDA for a response concerning the status of PMTAs for electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products.
What might the new U.S. President’s administration have in store for the vapor industry?
By Patricia Kovacevic
At the time of writing, the results of the U.S. elections are still contested by the presidential incumbent, a Republican, via various vote recount requests and litigation; however, it is a virtual certainty that the U.S. will have a new president, representing the Democratic Party, as of Jan. 20, 2021.
The heads of departments, including the head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are appointed by the president, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and typically change with the administration. In turn, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is the agency within the HHS with primary jurisdiction over tobacco products (including electronic nicotine-delivery systems, or ENDS) as well as drugs, foods and other products, will be led in the new administration by a new commissioner.
Given the Covid-19 crisis, the new president will be under immense pressure to appoint a new FDA commissioner immediately. Interestingly and somewhat surprisingly, a former FDA commissioner, David Kessler, was recently named co-chair of the new administration’s Covid-19 task force, although Kessler resigned his commissioner role in November 1996 amid controversy for overbilling his travel expenses during his tenure.
Also during Kessler’s tenure, the FDA attempted to regulate tobacco products as “delivery devices for the drug nicotine” to bring tobacco products under FDA jurisdiction. Tobacco companies challenged the rules all the way to the Supreme Court and won (FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp.). The Supreme Court ruled that “Congress has clearly precluded the FDA from asserting jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. Such authority is inconsistent with the intent that Congress has expressed in the FDCA’s [Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] overall regulatory scheme and in the tobacco-specific legislation that it has enacted subsequent to the FDCA. In light of this clear intent, the FDA’s assertion of jurisdiction is impermissible.”
Kessler’s wish to see tobacco regulated by the FDA was eventually granted by Congress in June 2009 through the bipartisan passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. While some speculate that Kessler may be on the short list for HHS commissioner, it is likely that the administration will bring forward new faces. Still, Kessler’s life-long anti-tobacco stance and past working relationship with the current head of the Center for Tobacco Products might give an indication of the increased scrutiny of the tobacco sector in the years to come.
Patricia Kovacevic
The ENDS industry status quo, from a legislation point of view, while far from ideal, is by now familiar to the ENDS industry. The recent premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) filing deadline has come and gone, and, as expected, we have not seen a flurry of warning letters post-September 2020 ordering certain vapor manufacturers to stop selling their products because they did not submit a PMTA.
The FDA is, however, expected to start enforcing this legislation sooner or later. For any dramatic change to occur, the governing legislation, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, would have to be amended, which is not likely to be top of the list for the upcoming Congress given the priorities the new administration announced during the election campaign. Still, the House of Representatives, one of the chambers of the U.S. legislature, remains dominated by the Democrats, the same party whose representatives initiated several tobacco-related bills and called for confrontational hearings on vapor products. The most recent one, in February 2020, was relatively tame compared with the tone of the July 2019 Juul hearing and even with the June 2014 Senate hearing.
Senate races in Georgia will require runoff elections on Jan. 5, 2021. If Democrats gain both Senate seats in Georgia in January, there would be a 50-50 tie in the Senate, and the vice president would have the tie-breaking vote in case the Senate is deadlocked on a piece of legislation. When the House, Senate and White House are controlled by the same party, the chances of the current administration to pass laws in support of its agenda are greatly increased, though divisions exist within each party, and surprises always happen. Furthermore, 34 out of the 100 Senate seats are up for regular election in two years as well as all 435 House seats; these will be a trying two years for Americans in an economic crisis, and the public sentiment can swing in the other direction. Thus, the new president may have only two years, if even that long, to pass a flurry of laws, and there may be more urgent matters than revisiting the Tobacco Control Act, which, for better or for worse, has worked so far.
The FDA already has broad powers to expand requirements and restrictions involving ENDS products, including the authority to impose product standards through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Ingredient caps and bans are among the standards the FDA has the authority to promulgate via regulation.
The latest unified agenda of regulatory and deregulatory actions
As of spring 2020, active regulatory actions include four potential future regulatory actions by the FDA, rolled over from previous agendas, with no clear deadline for publication of a proposed rule:
Requirements for Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practice (colloquially referred to as “Good Manufacturing Practices”)
Tobacco Product Standard for Characterizing Flavors in Cigars (follow-up to the 2018 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking); this is unlikely to move into the final rule stage on account of recent courtroom successes by the cigar industry.
Modified-risk tobacco product applications; this future proposed rule would establish content and format requirements to ensure that modified-risk tobacco product applications contain sufficient information for the FDA to determine whether it should permit the marketing of a modified-risk tobacco product. Additionally, the proposed rule would set forth the basic procedures for modified-risk tobacco product application review and require applicants receiving authorization to market a modified-risk tobacco product to establish and maintain records, conduct post-market surveillance and studies, and submit annual reports to the FDA.
Premarket tobacco product applications and recordkeeping requirements, a 2019 proposed rule, which would have as a next step at some point in the future, likely in 2020, a final rule.
Notably, ingredient bans and nicotine caps are not on the regulatory agenda. A first step toward an ingredient ban would likely be an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), although the FDA can in theory skip this step and move directly to a proposed rule, open a docket for comment, collect comments and consider whether it has sufficient information to finalize the rule. Given the complexity of the issue and the current research focusing on flavor ingredients in ENDS, if the FDA determines that an exploration of a flavor ban is desirable, the FDA will probably go through the ANPRM step.
One would have to wonder, though, why engage in rulemaking when the FDA already reviews all relevant information about every ENDS product on the U.S. market, present and future, through the PMTA process—thus allowing the agency to make a case-by-case determination—and the FDA will no doubt pay considerable attention to certain flavored products. In the author’s personal opinion, the PMTA process is the FDA’s preferred avenue to make decisions on individual products rather than issuing rules on product categories, which can also be challenged—and the current Supreme Court might entertain challenges to the FDA’s behavior if it came to it down the road.
Meanwhile, the majority of states by number still lean conservative, which likely means fewer developments in taxation, some scrutiny of ENDS but not necessary priority placed on shrinking the lawful ENDS market as there is no immediately quantifiable health benefit from doing so, and many potential harms. Of note are the California litigation and the potential referendum in California to overturn SB 793 (the flavor ban legislation). By the time this you read this article, we should know whether the bill opponents succeeded at collecting the necessary signatures to place the referendum on the November 2022 California elections ballot and suspend the application of the California flavor ban until then and pending the referendum’s outcome.
The question we must also ask, given the political, public health and economic crisis context is whether ENDS are a threat to anyone and why any administration would, at this juncture, prioritize overregulating a harm reduction asset over the important, systemic changes Americans expect from the administration and drastically mitigating the Covid impact. The industry is likely to consolidate and survive.
A global legal and compliance nicotine industry expert, Patricia I. Kovacevic has experience that includes general counsel and chief compliance officer roles at Nicopure Labs as well as leading senior legal and regulatory positions at Philip Morris International and Lorillard. Kovacevic served on the board of directors of the Vapor Technology Association and on the advisory board of the Global Tobacco & Nicotine Forum. She is the founder of RegulationStrategy, a global legal and compliance FDA-regulated industry consultancy.
