Funny how everybody else gets ignored unless they cost big brother their tax moneyROFL "marketing to children":
Does this seem right to you?
- Thread starter khalidmna
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Really. Back at xmas, there was a car commercial, two not-quite-preteens asking Santa... for CARS! How do you think that would have flown, if they'd asked Santa for... KAYFUNS?
Andria
Lol how about DIY supplies? "Santa can I get a couple 10ml syringes for my DIY liquid?" Can you say riots?Really. Back at xmas, there was a car commercial, two not-quite-preteens asking Santa... for CARS! How do you think that would have flown, if they'd asked Santa for... KAYFUNS?
Andria
Mother of God.
I'll bet my Hobo v2, Marquis AND Vapor Flask that you are 100% correct.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
I've said it before and will say it again. The FDA is not really focused on marketing to children as a fundamental reason to limit vaping or eliminate it as much as possible. It is a strategy that is very easy to get the unwashed masses (folks that know nothing about vaping and don't know anyone that does), to buy into as a very "reasonable" way to convince the majority of folks that vaping is evil and must be dealt with.
Couple this with the FDA's comments about needing to deal with labels that are infringing copyrights and other protected IP of businesses, like cereal or candy manufacturers, and you have a very reasonable sounding separate attack on vaping. But the reality is that the FDA cannot address copyright or trademark infringement, and should not be getting involved in this argument at all. There are laws and legal recourse for those who feel they have been infringed to deal with this and it most certainly not with the FDA. The FDA has no authority over this and once again, is using a strategy that can sound legitimate and reasonable to the unwashed masses. But the FDA cannot address these issues themselves. This is just a PR strategy, and apparently an effective one.
And don't doubt for a moment that these strategies aren't effective, because they are. And they are most effective because vapers spend so much time addressing these ancillary issues that they don't have the time, money, or energy to address the real issues. The less time vapers and vaper's advocacy groups spend on the real issue of deeming ecig products as tobacco, the easier it will be for the FDA to strike the real blow of the deeming regs.
Couple this with the FDA's comments about needing to deal with labels that are infringing copyrights and other protected IP of businesses, like cereal or candy manufacturers, and you have a very reasonable sounding separate attack on vaping. But the reality is that the FDA cannot address copyright or trademark infringement, and should not be getting involved in this argument at all. There are laws and legal recourse for those who feel they have been infringed to deal with this and it most certainly not with the FDA. The FDA has no authority over this and once again, is using a strategy that can sound legitimate and reasonable to the unwashed masses. But the FDA cannot address these issues themselves. This is just a PR strategy, and apparently an effective one.
And don't doubt for a moment that these strategies aren't effective, because they are. And they are most effective because vapers spend so much time addressing these ancillary issues that they don't have the time, money, or energy to address the real issues. The less time vapers and vaper's advocacy groups spend on the real issue of deeming ecig products as tobacco, the easier it will be for the FDA to strike the real blow of the deeming regs.
You're right, which is why it's important to spend time spreading correct information. I'd argue it's more important to spread good information than it is to discuss what bad information is being spread. We need to know what lies they're using, so that we know what to expect, but the good thing is that the truth is the truth.
Lol [emoji23]
Of course, but if they're trying to demonize vaping for the sake of demonizing vaping, I don't think they'll care much about reality - especially if they're completely or partially ignorant on the subject.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Your thinking rationally...you need to stop that if you want to understand the FDA and predict their next move...its all scare tactics and straight up BS...start thinking like them and you'll wonder how they survived to the age they are now lol
Start thinking like them? I'm sorry, I don't know how to remove half my IQ.
(I quit drinking almost 23 yrs ago!)And besides that, I refuse to lower myself to their level. I'll just continue being a hermit DIYer vaping my rebuildables and not worry too much about whatever their latest irrationality may be.
Andria
They're not dumb. They got the job to enforcing the "Marlboro Protection Act" and that's exactly what they're doing. Snus and vapes be damned.
I never said they were dumb...just lacked rational thought...then again getting kick backs and being a politician can do that to a person
They are very rational. If you had to protect sales of legacy american brand cigarettes, what would you do in their place?
I wouldn't do it in the first place...I would get fired before I become like them...the reason I say they lack rational thought is the "this is like poison I'm not supposed to open it" stunt and more...maybe rational thought wasn't the right term...rational arguments was probably the better option
But they don't have any rational arguments, and the job they got at hand is what it is. And they're avid to stay employed in a govt job with good benefits. What would they do?
That was what I was saying with them lacking rational thought before changing thought to arguments...either way though I still wouldn't be in the FDA...if I were to be a fed it would be something like DHS
i'd take NHTSA, interesting stuff and the public doesn't bear you a grudge.
Don't give a damn of they hold a grudge...I'd go for either the EOD division or the SWAT/SRT division
Last edited:
You mean the agency that keeps numerous interesting car models out of the US market due to the absurd expense of certifying a particular model? Basically, you need pre-market approval to sell any kind of car in the US and it costs millions per model to get it. The agency that mandates all sorts of heavy, expensive "safety" equipment in cars whether a consumer wants it or not? The agency that mandated all cars in the US use 1940-tech headlights until well into the 1980s?
Thank you for those regulations, sir; may I have some more?
- Status
Similar threads
