Indiana Call to Action - Stop the Monopoly

[pennysmalls]

It cannot be true that Pence is Trumps VP pick. I refuse to believe it. I'm tuning out now.

 

[Lessifer]

Not in Arkansas. Anything that is hardware with eliquid attached is banned from online ordering.

Any hardware that does not have eliquid in it or attached to it is totally legal to order from wherever you want.

I can't order anything from njoy, like NJOY Daily, here.

Right, but this thread is discussing the Indiana law. You may not be able to order an Njoy daily online, but you can probably buy one at Walgreens, or the gas station.

For this law, it's about open system e-liquid, only the approved manufacturers. If it's a closed system, the law doesn't apply.

 

[mcol]

Apparently Pence's career has been bought and paid for by BT.
Just was researching a little.

 

[BuGlen]

Apparently Pence's career has been bought and paid for by BT.
Just was researching a little.

They're all bought and in somebody's pocket. The only difference is who signs the check.

 

[Racehorse]

Apparently Pence's career has been bought and paid for by BT.
Just was researching a little.

SPECIFICALLY BT?

Do tell. You can always go post it down in OUTSIDE! if not appropriate here. I am looking forward to knowing his connections to BT......

 

[pennysmalls]

Apparently Pence's career has been bought and paid for by BT.
Just was researching a little.

Apparently Pence is truly pro tobacco and isn't afraid of saying so. He may be more dangerous for vaping than the ANTZ because why would anyone need to switch from smoking to vaping when smoking isn't bad for you in the first place? He probably sees vaping as an annoyance.

 

[mcol]

SPECIFICALLY BT?

Do tell. You can always go post it down in OUTSIDE! if not appropriate here. I am looking forward to knowing his connections to BT......

Well my time is limited right now and a quick search didn't lead me to an
absolutely undisputed CREDIBLE search, although I did see copies of the
checks, which totaled over the years $100,000. He has been known
to speak publicly that tobacco doesn't cause cancer and refused this past
year to raise the tobacco tax (not like that's a bad thing in my eyes).
I did find this for $39,000 of the money from RJ Reynolds on Open Secrets:
Rep. Mike Pence: Campaign Finance/Money - Top Donors - Representative Career | OpenSecrets

 

[mcol]

Apparently Pence is truly pro tobacco and isn't afraid of saying so. He may be more dangerous for vaping than the ANTZ because why would anyone need to switch from smoking to vaping when smoking isn't bad for you in the first place? He probably sees vaping as an annoyance.

And Indiana has one of the highest percentages of smokers (supposedly) in the U.S.

 

[zoiDman]

And Indiana has one of the highest percentages of smokers (supposedly) in the U.S.

And I'm sure with what the Legislation has recently Passed, and seeing that the Governor signed it, that they are well on their way to Maintaining that Coveted Title.

 

[squee]

SPECIFICALLY BT?

Well, when he was in congress, he wrote an op-ed saying that "smoking doesn't kill".

So, I guess from that standpoint, smoking and vaping would be equivalent

 

[mcol]

Stumbled across one of the articles I read earlier. I'm doing 12 things at once
and I wasn't even looking at the time for this, ha.
Mike Pence, Cigarette Truther

 

[Rossum]

In 2009, Pence was one of just 97 people in the U.S. House of Representatives to vote against the bipartisan Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which gave the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate cigarettes

I would consider that a positive. Remember, that's the same Act that empowered the FDA to "deem" themselves regulatory authority over our vapes.

 

[VNeil]

I would consider that a positive. Remember, that's the same Act that empowered the FDA to "deem" themselves regulatory authority over our vapes.

The fact that he signed into law legislation creating a cartel of eLiquid makers would sort of nullify that? And come to think of it, that's exactly what the FDA is doing with deeming, clearing the deck to make a cartel of BT companies with their cigalikes.

 

[pennysmalls]

I would consider that a positive. Remember, that's the same Act that empowered the FDA to "deem" themselves regulatory authority over our vapes.

You would think so right? Him signing these laws doesn't make much sense in light of that though. Really leaves me scratching my head.

 

[zoiDman]

I would consider that a positive. Remember, that's the same Act that empowered the FDA to "deem" themselves regulatory authority over our vapes.

Just Talking. And I don't want to Derail this Thread.

But if there were No e-Cigarettes invented, was the FSPTCA a Bad Piece of Legislation?

As applied to Tobacco, the FSPTCA doesn't seem like a complete abomination. It seems like where the Abuse came was in the FDA's inplamentation of the FSPTCA.

 

[VNeil]

Just Talking. And I don't want to Derail this Thread.

But if there were No e-Cigarettes invented, was the FSPTCA a Bad Piece of Legislation?

As applied to Tobacco, the FSPTCA doesn't seem like a complete abomination. It seems like where the Abuse came was in the FDA's inplamentation of the FSPTCA.

It is very bad law because it effectively prevents any safer alternative to cigarette smoking. There is nothing worse than cigarettes, yet in the interest of public health, that law allows for no new alternatives. Could it be any worse law?

ETA: the law even highly discourages the development of safer cigarettes. Tobacco companies were long demonized for not doing that, the gov't has now made sure they never do.

 

[Lessifer]

Just Talking. And I don't want to Derail this Thread.

But if there were No e-Cigarettes invented, was the FSPTCA a Bad Piece of Legislation?

As applied to Tobacco, the FSPTCA doesn't seem like a complete abomination. It seems like where the Abuse came was in the FDA's inplamentation of the FSPTCA.

I'd say yes, it was still a bad piece of legislation, since it did nothing to improve the safety of existing cigarettes and prevents the development(through the same onerous application process we are facing) of safer tobacco products. Now, was that the actual FSPTCA or the FDA's interpretation... kind of moot point as congress allowed the FDA's interpretation to stand unquestioned.

As for Pence, being pro-tobacco does not equate to pro-vaping.

 

[VNeil]

You would think so right? Him signing these laws doesn't make much sense in light of that though. Really leaves me scratching my head.

Follow the money and it makes perfect sense. He has no soul, just a bank account.

 

[zoiDman]

It is very bad law because it effectively prevents any safer alternative to cigarette smoking. There is nothing worse than cigarettes, yet in the interest of public health, that law allows for no new alternatives. Could it be any worse law?

ETA: the law even highly discourages the development of safer cigarettes. Tobacco companies were long demonized for not doing that, the gov't has now made sure they never do.

Like I said, I'm not going to Purposely Derail this Thread.

But I don't think the FSPTCA discourages safer Tobacco Products. In fact, some may argue that it calls for the Direct Opposite.

To me, it was the last two FDA's that Twisted the Intent of the FSPTCA to fit into the Agenda that they wanted to Push.

And e-Cigarettes got Dragged into the Thick of things. Because the FSPTCA Never considered e-Cigarettes.

 

[DC2]

As applied to Tobacco, the FSPTCA doesn't seem like a complete abomination. It seems like where the Abuse came was in the FDA's inplamentation of the FSPTCA.

Congress specifically tasked the FDA to work towards harm reduction though the FSPTCA.
That is why they said the FDA needs to create a modified risk category.

The FDA has apparently decided it doesn't like that idea very much.
Now the question is will Congress do anything about that.