Well if anyone wants to take action there is an input site for Trump administration to take suggestions. If you want them to know what vape means, suggest they repeal the reg here:
Tell Us Your Story
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FDA Sen Johnson (R-Wis) demands answers from FDA RE deeming
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Well if anyone wants to take action there is an input site for Trump administration to take suggestions. If you want them to know what vape means, suggest they repeal the reg here:
Tell Us Your Story
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Done, wrote a nice short paragraph describing the FDA over-reach and explained how they are actually enacting a de-facto ban by placing extreme burdens on an entire industry.
To bring us all back to earth, here is the sad story of Richard Nixon and the Tea-Tasters:
What Trump Can Learn from Nixon
The recalcitrance of the federal bureaucracy, and the tools available to it to dig in their heels, is awesome to contemplate.
What Trump Can Learn from Nixon
The recalcitrance of the federal bureaucracy, and the tools available to it to dig in their heels, is awesome to contemplate.
Last edited:
Did you know that Trump was on the Merv Griffin show years ago, and President and Mrs. Nixon happened to be watching, and President Nixon wrote a letter to Mr. Trump that he will make a fine president. President Nixon and Mr. Trump had no relationship at this time and I am unaware of any political talk on this program. Mr. Trump still has the letter.
Aside from Watergate (which was unnecessary in the first place) Nixon was a very good President. He did bring our troops back from Vietnam . He had opened the door to better relations with the Chinese (which we needed at the time). And when Kennedy won the run for President, President Kennedy won by a sliver to Former President Nixon. At age 9-13, I was intrigued by Nixon and I didn't know why. I mean, come on, I was really too young to care. I was upset when Nixon was impeached.
I was far too young to be political, and still don't understand it, being 57 now. No one ever made an impact on my political interests since then, except Trump (and this post is not about him). Go figure. (Remember Rich Little's impression of Nixon?)
Aside from being frivolous , the FDA is wasting a lot of time on a matter that is far less important than what they should be doing. If anything, they should have done some non biased research , and instead have guidelines on what goes on the label, and perhaps a limit on the mg. of nicotine that the liquid can have. I have to ask, if they are not un biased, why are they not helping vapers with safer rules? And do they have the right to put thousands of small businesses out of business based on blatant heresay and no true research? And passing regulations that actually protect smokers that quit with vaping? We all know why. And it's always non-smokers/vapers that get to push for rules and never the vapers that would be our peers . Next thing you know it will be the color of socks that will be deemed a tobacco derivative and get regulated.
Last edited:
Actually, the RNC specifically mentions vaping in it's 2016 platform prior to the RNC convention last summer. Page 38, left hand colum, under "Putting Patients First: Reforming the FDA" it says, "The FDA needs to return to its traditional emphasis on hard science and approving new breakthrough medicines, rather than divert its attention and consume its resources trying to overregulate electronic health records or vaping."
So, I think the new administration is well aware of the FDA over regulating vaping along with slowing progress in medicine in general to a crawl. Here is the full link to RNC platform document.
https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/static/home/data/platform.pdf
Good find (what took us so long to find that?)... My pro-Republican friend has been bugging me to read the actual platform vs. the more visible stuff which I don't like much of. And I like how they put that, it's just a waste of time and resources.
I believe that there is no doubt that the new administration is (or will be) aware of the legislation and regulatory issues surrounding vaping, and I'm pretty sure that Grover Norquist and ATR will make sure of that. However, I tend to have serious doubts as to whether or not the new administration will find it politically beneficial to actually do the right thing. And let's face it, neither major party has a good track record with backing up their campaign rhetoric in recent history.
I have a theory that it's often better for a major party to leave the issues intact in order to continue to point and blame the other side, campaign after campaign. If they actually fixed any of these issues, it could be good for the people, but the people would likely forget about any benefits within one or two election cycles and the party would lose their ability to use the same talking point in the next election cycle. It's a pattern I've noticed recently but I haven't had the time to analyze historical precedent, so I might be completely off base on this.
That theory might be applicable in normal circumstances.
But the tables have been turned upside down.
We'll all see what happens next.
Exactly. It's helps to look at Trump as a 'third party' without the "history" of either major party. So what 'history' has told us, has little to do with Trump. How the parties handle Trump's ideas is another thing, but he has ways around them - taking it directly to the people rather than using executive actions.
I guess we will see. Personally, after all the different positions he took during the campaign (many that contradicted other positions he stated), I just can't see him as anything other than an extraordinary con man. Don't get me wrong, it was brilliant. I just don't see any real substance, but maybe I'm wrong.
Part of my point was that Trump was different - whether different 'good' or different 'bad' is beside the point. Your point was that the history of both parties tells us they won't get anything done and I was pointing out that Trump is really not part of the history of either party. So 'looking at history' isn't the best view of what may happen.
That it will be, my friend. That it will be. In a weird way, I am kind of looking forward to these next 4 years.But.... which gives others pause :- )
Either way, it should be interesting.
It was a different campaign, that much is sure. Whether or not that will actually translate into a different administration is unclear, but color me sceptical (or jaded if you prefer).
Interesting. I don't think Trump is doing anything for the money here. He loves attention. And being the center of it. Ego. Which makes me feel that things will happen. I think just liking someone does not mean that you like everything they say and do. The important thing, IMO, is like for years we were hearing the same old story over and over and we were going to head into more of the same. I think it's taken America decades to finally stand up and not take it anymore. Yes, it's a revolution and no one really knows where it leads (except Hannity), but no one wants yesterday's empty promises and no action and a 20 trillion dollar debt.
I'll bet he would not be on the Twitter so much now , however, it is a good way of depriving the press about being first to publicize whatever he says. Well they earned that one.
May be the following is a sign of the times. I have a YouTube channel (which I won't disclose here) that has videos taken by me of people acting contrary to the law, shall we say. The purpose of posting the videos is to protect myself and discourage the behavior. Before the election the overwhelming majority of comments were in support of the bad actors. Since the election there is a noticeable shift of comments to people inclined to condemn the bad behavior for what it is.
I hope this is a broader trend that continues. Trump?
I hope this is a broader trend that continues. Trump?
- Status
