There may be an easy answer to the FDA ban

[TropicalBob]

Let's not lose another thread to "hysterical" political rants. Stay on point.

[waskel]

Mine wasn't the hysterical one, but you're right.
History shows us that anytime a regulatory agency is imposed on a population or industry, corruption of some kind is pretty much inevitable. And yep... follow the money.

[tromboneking]

Had a discussion with my Sociology prof (a non smoker) a few semesters ago. She agreed that a lot of the changes could be considered discriminatory and where the "power" is. For example, NJ passed a law a few years ago about a smoking ban indoors. This applied for restaurants, bars, etc (basically non residential housing)...however, this did NOT apply for the casinos in Atlantic City. Why? Because the casino lobby has such a hold due to the amount of tax dollars that are coming from the casinos overwhelms the requirement of no smoking inside and having them lose business over this. So you basically have a double standard. The same applies for the FDA and PM. The menthol cigs (as an example) are regarded the same as the nicotine liquids (GRAS) and there is nothing known when menthol and tobacco is mixed and burned but because (I think) there is so much tax dollars (sin tax) coming in on a regular basis from regular cigs that they will not "rock the boat".

I actually had a point but I can't seem to see where I got off or where I was going originally...sorry.

[seminolewind]

What if all PV's carried a warning : Not for use with nicotine, or "for use with legal herbal extracts only"

[DoubleTrouble]

The reason menthol was exempted from the new FDA bill is that the majority of black smokers smoke menthol cigarettes. As a voting bloc, they would be a political problem, so the congressional black caucus (I think) had that one clause modified.

But the larger picture is frightening. Consider that it takes only 1 congressman or congresswoman to propose a bill that, should it pass through the process, would then fundamentally affect every citizen in the United States. Many of these environmental or child-friendly laws are initiated by politicians in very liberal states. But when they pass, they affect everyone regardless of their ideology.

In theory, my local congressman should stand up and vote for the sense of his district. That's a local area, very small population compared to the US. But in reality, votes for or against bills are bought and paid for with money or favors or power.

Much of that comes from the lobby organizations. So if Philip-Morris wants to exempt something, they usually can do it. But is it constitutional? No. And nobody seems to care.

[seminolewind]

Where is Al Sharpton when you need him?

[JRS42082]

Originally Posted by DoubleTrouble

But is it constitutional? No. And nobody seems to care.

The only way to get anything to change in the U.S. is to put it on a bandwagon and make it "uncool" to not be on said bandwagon.

If we really want things to go well for our beloved e-smokes, we need to spread the word, convert as many of our analog counterparts as we can, and shoot for the sky with as many ad campaigns and positive news reports as we can.

It worked for making smokers the only legally discriminated group in the country, why not flip that around and use it to make people love our new habit?

[DoubleTrouble]

Here's another interesting problem starting to arise with congressional over-regulation:

WASHINGTON –The National Congress of American Indians has asked the Senate to honor longstanding trade treaties and tribal sovereignty by amending a proposed cigarette bill to protect the nations’ legal tobacco industry in Indian country.

....snip....

The PACT Act would prohibit the U.S. Postal Service from delivering cigarettes and certain other tobacco products, putting Indian-owned mail order tobacco businesses out of operation and effectively destroying a mail order industry that was developed, nurtured and grown by the country’s indigenous peoples.

....snip....
Around 95 percent of the mail order tobacco industry is dominated by Indian businesses, which has led some Indian business people to believe the PACT Act is racially targeting them.

Entire Article

What's interesting is that it's another example of how a sovereign nation is affected and the argument of a trade embargo. What's even more interesting is that the Indian nations are playing the race card.

That's going to put the liberal coalition of special interest groups between a rock and a hard place.

[chad]

Originally Posted by DoubleTrouble

In theory, my local congressman should stand up and vote for the sense of his district.

These days we'd actually be "lucky" if our local congressmen even read the bills they voted on.

[chad]

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

Let's not lose another thread to "hysterical" political rants. Stay on point.

Sorry TB, I got off point there for a moment. So, what about people donating to the ECA to have them fund a US based, independent study. That could defuse the FDA's current "main" argument against vaping, no?