FDA New Idea For Thought & Comment

[MyMagicMist]

Not a lawyer here and only public educated through high school. That aside like some I have good ideas and bad ones in respective times. Something that got me thinking comes from a video.



She says what got me thinking toward the end. Her comment I paraphrase; "The FDA approves product that's been proven to kill people but won't approve one that saves people."

What I got to thinking about is what I have heard called class action cases. Could we the consumers not file one against the FDA? I mean honestly, would a civil suit at the least not be in order? How much is Uncle Joe's life ruined and cut short by big tobacco products worth? There could be all kinds of compensations, I would think.

Yes, I know allegedly the States themselves made a peachy keen deal and all that hub bub. Fine. Did those representing us actually consider our best interests? Are they now by not approving vaping? Doesn't the FDA allegedly work for us? Are they that incompetent, or that negligent in what they're doing as to approve products proven to kill but not those proven to save?

Heck, it may even prove to be a criminal case as well as civil. I'm not sure of this idea. I post here to get some guidance, differing views. It's an Idea I thought of off hand to help. Hopefully it does, maybe a new angle to consider. Can we not take them task using the legal system already in place? It would serve to remain a peaceful evolution if so. If not, well ...

 

[retired1]

You could sue, provided you have deep enough pockets to hire a decent law firm that's willing to take on the case.

And even then, it's not a guarantee that you'd win.

 

[sofarsogood]

There is governmental immunity that protects public officials from personal liability except in extreme cases.

Government wants to ban vaping for reasons they don't want to discuss (money) so they created a law that allows them to do that without abiding by any common sense definition of due process of law. May be the courts won't let them get away with that but my confidence in the integrity of the courts is even less than in the rest of the government.

 

[inspects]

Class lawsuit against the FDA is necessary. It will happen, it's just a matter of time.

Thanks for the post.

 

[Rossum]

Unfortunately, she's totally wrong about the eggplant thing. Figure a low-intensity vaper might use 10 mg of nicotine per day. You'd need over 200 lbs of eggplant to get an equivalent amount of nicotine..

 

[MyMagicMist]

You could sue,
provided you have deep enough pockets to hire a decent law firm that's
willing to take on the case.

And even then, it's not a guarantee that you'd win.

Understand this well. This and the next keep the tune refraining on
money. Once the U.S. dollar becomes worthless, and it soon will be with
OPEC drowning us all in oil, then what serves as motive?

Apologies, thinking a bit outside the scope here. Will the government
honor the contract?

[Constitution for the United States of America][1] We the People
of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.

Constitution for the United States of America

I emphasis specifically to what I refer. I swore an oath once to defend
her. She doesn't honor her contracts? I would have, and still likely
would honor mine. Boy don't that blow that legal term, consideration all
to h e double hockey sticks?

There is
governmental immunity that protects public officials from personal
liability except in extreme cases.

Government wants to ban vaping for reasons they don't want to discuss
(money) so they created a law that allows them to do that without
abiding by any common sense definition of due process of law. May
be the courts won't let them get away with that but my confidence
in the integrity of the courts is even less than in the rest of the
government.

Don't let them use the Federal District courts then. Take it before a
common law jury, we are all allegedly guaranteed that right since the
twelfth century onward. And yes, an international Court of Common Law
does exist and hears out cases.

Suspect we The People could claim fraud as the contract is not being filled.
They can try double, triple talking but come rock bottom they can not weasel
free, least in my limited understanding of things. Like I say, no lawyer here
only attempting to offer a a form of remedy, or a shot at it from a different
view.

Sharing a simple bit of wisdom passed down from an uncle who was Army
infantry cited as a fair grade marksman. "Take more than three shots to
sight in, you may as well walk away from the gun", he would tell me.

You fire starboard, port, high. That lets you bring your sight to dead
reckoning. The order is askew above, it's left, up, right. Go slow, slow
is smooth, smooth is fast, fast is lethal. No, he was no ranger, only a
grunt infantry dough boy. Still he taught me to look where the sparkles
are not, good enough.

I see the money as what they playing for an upper hand. Hands get
broken. What else do they have? A contract we and they are supposed to
honor. They're not honoring it and that contract also mentions something
about redress of grievances. Interesting that. Don't see them honoring
that either. In fact they're nearly jack booting folks saying boo about
bah.

Well, I'll keep abreast of comments here yet try remaining more aloof.
Don't need the fools riling me so as my blood pressure hits the ceiling.
Not a one of them seems worth it at this point and that might seem
wrong to say, when you walk here, tell me what you say.

Thank you both for your candor and not pulling punches. At times,
I regress to being the Pan. It helps in living as best able. I dislike
a lot of serious talk, especially the three things you don't talk to
a barber about, religion, politics, sex. And in some places you
don't talk sports either. But we all need to face these discussions.
Just as soon have it open and with candor.

 

[MyMagicMist]

Unfortunately, she's totally wrong about the eggplant thing. Figure a low-intensity vaper might use 10 mg of nicotine per day. You'd need over 200 lbs of eggplant to get an equivalent amount of nicotine..

Wonder how much in beans that would be? I make up some mean Trinity style beans. Terrance Hill has the recipe on his site under downloads I believe. They're the same beans they ate on set during filming. We can attest, they're yummy beans for the eating. They're also potent saddle blazers. Hehehe.

 

[aikanae1]

Unfortunately, she's totally wrong about the eggplant thing. Figure a low-intensity vaper might use 10 mg of nicotine per day. You'd need over 200 lbs of eggplant to get an equivalent amount of nicotine..

There is at least one company using tomatoes for at least part of the nicotine. Dunno more than that.

Not a lawyer here and only public educated through high school. That aside like some I have good ideas and bad ones in respective times. Something that got me thinking comes from a video.



She says what got me thinking toward the end. Her comment I paraphrase; "The FDA approves product that's been proven to kill people but won't approve one that saves people."

What I got to thinking about is what I have heard called class action cases. Could we the consumers not file one against the FDA? I mean honestly, would a civil suit at the least not be in order? How much is Uncle Joe's life ruined and cut short by big tobacco products worth? There could be all kinds of compensations, I would think.

Yes, I know allegedly the States themselves made a peachy keen deal and all that hub bub. Fine. Did those representing us actually consider our best interests? Are they now by not approving vaping? Doesn't the FDA allegedly work for us? Are they that incompetent, or that negligent in what they're doing as to approve products proven to kill but not those proven to save?

Heck, it may even prove to be a criminal case as well as civil. I'm not sure of this idea. I post here to get some guidance, differing views. It's an Idea I thought of off hand to help. Hopefully it does, maybe a new angle to consider. Can we not take them task using the legal system already in place? It would serve to remain a peaceful evolution if so. If not, well ...

I've been traveling down this path as well and so far I've come up with it wouldn't be quick, cheap or maybe not even effective and very expensive. I know that class actions have to be certified first before anything happens. That alone can take 1O years min. This could be a case that would out live the lawyers that started it. I AM NOT A LAWYER, but for various reasons, I have watched them evolve. Find me one that didn't take many, many years to get certified.

The first time TW took them to court and since then, the FDA got deeming over ecigs, which is the authority they needed the first time. Outside of an act from congress, literally, that ship has sailed.

I thought the SBA raised some good questions about various technical and regulatory violations in their letter to the FDA in 2O14. They seem to have more information on technical processes than I could guess at. There were questions of fairness raised by them as well. What the enforcement or penalties are? But if there's none, then they can ignore those. I don't know for sure, but a court doesn't enforce those. Congress again? Ethics board? There are laws against lying to the public already and well, ....

The previous poster was correct in that there are laws protecting individuals from lawsuits as long as they adhere to the professional standard at their level. It might be hard to establish what that standard is, since they tend to set it for others just as the AG and DOJ define legal concepts for everyone else even when there's a conflict of interest and they are making it up from imagination, i.e. house rules. IMO, the FDA is charged with speaking for the gov't. I'm curious if DOJ will show for state challenges. The DOJ does when taking a drug manufacturer to court since it was "FDA approved". Sue pharma and a person is also sueing the US gov't. It's cozy on top.

I thought about suing for murder in a civil court, and what started me down that pathway was the fact I kept hearing "the vaping industry is doing the same as the tobacco companies" when the first tobacco company didn't buy a cigalike corp until AFTER 2O12. What were they talking about?

A guilty conscious. I think it'd be possible to take both acts and turn them around to sue the FDA, CDC, TFK, public health agencies and pharma the exact same things, line item by line item. EXACTLY. They are following the same things that they claim were done to them, and without much imagination because it's the same book as the "protect marlboro act".

Maybe that's what we do need to invest in even knowing it could be a publicity stunt, that's how messages win the media war and that's where vaping wins or looses. That's the real court. There's also a shot that more can turn up through discovery and FOIA requests. I have little doubt there's been back door deals made, we just don't know enough and if so, they'll become contortionists to obscure it which will make them appear even more guilty in the eyes of the public. That could cast doubt on everything the agencies and buddies do, in headlines. Even if we are wrong, corrections aren't remembered and the damage is done. Example is that CDC youth study, formaldehyde and now diacetyl hogwash that they know was intentionally misrepresented. Misleading the public intentionally is also fraud and enters criminal charges.

I also know it is not legal to use federal funds/grants for lobbying other areas of gov't, like state gov't, or to convince the public to take a position since that is called propoganda. That brings into question funding against vaping campaigns by clean air, tfk, state health agencies, since it's doubtful they keep funds seperate, esp with mandates to spend it on anti smoking campaigns. Even so, what are the penalties? If it's a slap on the wrist it won't stop anything except through the headlines of a media war.

I AM NOT A LAWYER. This is all mental gymnastics. I am not sure how possible or not it would be to enter into civil court and I was thinking of the charge of murder. Count the dead souls and needless sufferring for everyone after the FDA squashed information of smokeless tobacco. I could have stopped smoking using thr > 1O years ago and that makes me angry. I'm sure there's a lot that feel the same. The fact that no one can figure out that a decline in smoking means that nicotine isn't a gateway is below the standard for head of a regulatory agency, so is ignoring studies, so is playing golf with a competiting industry heads, just as giving them a 2 year heads up on gmp's.

I question the wording of components that could include flashlight, screw, wire, cotton balls, that could be added up to stiffer charges with multiple devices falling under a criminal code for modders, the crazy theory, or is this part of the trend to prevent tinkering with all electonic devices? I don't know, I think it's odd and I doubt it's an acciedent. I'm not aware of any other technology that's been rolled backwards before, sort of like entering a dark age where only non distruptive innovations are allowed.

That's my rambling .O2.

 

[Verb]

There is at least one company using tomatoes for at least part of the nicotine. Dunno more than that.

View attachment 517963

AFAIK, they are not using nicotine extracted from tomatoes. They are extracting another chemical from tomatoes, tomatine, and adding it to eliquid. According to their claim, tomatine has a similar stimulating effect to nicotine.

 

[bigdancehawk]

What I got to thinking about is what I have heard called class action cases. Could we the consumers not file one against the FDA? I mean honestly, would a civil suit at the least not be in order? How much is Uncle Joe's life ruined and cut short by big tobacco products worth? There could be all kinds of compensations, I would think.
.

It's ridiculously easy to file a lawsuit. No lawyer required. Surviving a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is the hard part.

A lawsuit against the FDA would have to be filed in a federal district court, most likely in Washington, D.C. Its decisions are reviewed on appeal by the District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Those particular courts deal with a majority of the litigation filed under the federal Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") to challenge federal regulations. The APA lays out the procedure for judicial challenges to administrative actions, such as the FDA regulation of e-cigarettes.

Such a lawsuit would face enormous obstacles within the first couple of months after filing. First, there's a standing to sue problem. That hurdle has been particularly difficult to overcome unless the agency directly regulates the plaintiff. Third parties, although often directly injured by agency action, have found it difficult to litigate otherwise straightforward questions. Your Uncle Joe, even if injured, would not be a person who would be considered directly regulated.

Moreover, to successfully challenge FDA's regulation of e-cigarettes, you would have to convince the court that the regulations are either outside the scope of the powers granted by Congress, or are "arbitrary and capricious." The former is essentially impossible, and the latter is such a tough legal standard that it borders on impossible.

Additionally, as you are talking about a consumer class action, this is not a good candidate for certification. The class would be almost impossible to define--i.e., how do you determine who's in it and who isn't?

Finally, there is essentially zero chance of recovering money damages. The proposed FDA deeming regulations haven't even been adopted yet and it will probably be at least two years before they're implemented. So nobody has suffered any actual harm yet and quantifying the likelihood of future harm would be an exercise in opinion bordering on speculation. As for Uncle Joe, once the regulations are in place, it would be impossible to prove or quantify how much Uncle Joe's life was "ruined" or "cut short" because there will still be vaping products, however few in number, and also because the courts will not award damages for the mere possibility of future injury.

There are a number of other reasons why this would never fly, but this post is already too long.

 

[MyMagicMist]

... A lawsuit against the FDA would have to be filed in a federal district court, most likely in Washington, D.C. Its decisions are reviewed on appeal by the District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
...
As for Uncle Joe, once the regulations are in place, it would be impossible to prove or quantify how much Uncle Joe's life was "ruined" or "cut short" because there will still be vaping products, however few in number, and also because the courts will not award damages for the mere possibility of future injury.

There are a number of other reasons why this would never fly, but this post is already too long.

Thank you for what seems a fair enough assessment.

You state the case would have to be filed in a federal court. There is no room to file it as a criminal case of fraud leading to murder? For example if proved the government knew tobacco caused severe harm, death, would it not be fraud allow them to still be on the market? Would the government, specifically the FDA be culpable of all those who died from tobacco?

Well, my point with Uncle Joe, he's dead. He smoked tobacco many years. Yes, the government put warnings on the packs. Oddly that same government has something called the controlled substance listings. They keep bad stuff locked up from the general public on that list. There are also other bad things the government pulls from markets categorically to avoid risking people getting killed. Too sane to reason the government could not remove tobacco from the markets? Well, you cannot argue with fact, not speculation. Uncle Joe? He's laid out in the front parlor, go see for yourself, dead as plug nickle.

How does it square the government did its best to avoid people dying from tobacco? How do they plan to compensate all of us with an Uncle Joe, or Aunt Sally? You say the States got settlement funds. I tell you they didn't do what for to help settle anything. They done gambled that money on stocks and now have none left. So, again the federals did what?

So why not a criminal case? Why not even suggest there was a conspiracy at play? Seems obvious tobacco kept wanting more and more addicts to continue profiting. They in turn paid the government to look the other way for years. The government did until some of our poor Uncle Joe's started seeing what is what, hollered at them. Then, the government pretended to do something. Now, we're the Uncle Joe's, or those left carrying his load. We see the government can is hollow and that never feeds our general welfare. They keep it hollow so the crooks can toss in the bribes, in fact.

Guess the axiom is true, "takes a crook to know a crook". Thought our government set the standard. Maybe I was looking too high up. So, I do think a criminal case would suit. It seems you fairly point out the difficulties to breach if a civil case were to be filed. You keep using this word impossible. It is an adjective. That means others have done it. It does not mean it cannot be done, whatever it happens to be.

Looking at this as best can from a peaceful, desire to be peaceful, lawful way of creating a solution. The more times I look, more times I see Plato's trade route puzzle tying up hands trying to be peaceful. Excuse me, rambling to help others hopefully, myself for sure.

 

[bigdancehawk]

You state the case would have to be filed in a federal court. Of course. State courts have no jurisdiction over federal agencies.

There is no room to file it as a criminal case of fraud leading to murder? For example if proved the government knew tobacco caused severe harm, death, would it not be fraud allow them to still be on the market?
No, that does not fall within the definition of fraud in any criminal statute. And who would you prosecute? The FDA? Congress has prohibited the FDA from banning cigarettes. Good luck getting the US Attorney's office to file criminal charges against Congress! And no, there is no basis for criminal prosecution of a governmental agency for failing to prohibit something. In any event, that would not be criminal "fraud." Criminal fraud requires an affirmative misrepresentation of a fact--a deliberate lie.

Would the government, specifically the FDA be culpable of all those who died from tobacco?
Not criminally culpable. Criminal prosecution requires the violation of a specific statute.

So why not a criminal case?
See above. And who would file it? Where would it be filed? Who would go to prison if the prosecution was successful?

Please tell me you're not serious about this, Don Quixote. If you are, you're clinging to an idea which has no practical utility.

 

[AndriaD]

I just can't figure out why it's the fed gov't problem that people choose to smoke. They never held a gun to my head to force me to start, I did that all by myself.

That was my opinion when the MSA crap was in the news, and it still is. I don't see how the HELL the feds are at fault for anybody's personal choices, whether it's nicotine, alcohol, or any number of illicit substances.

Andria

 

[aikanae1]

It's ridiculously easy to file a lawsuit. No lawyer required. Surviving a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is the hard part.

A lawsuit against the FDA would have to be filed in a federal district court, most likely in Washington, D.C. Its decisions are reviewed on appeal by the District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Those particular courts deal with a majority of the litigation filed under the federal Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") to challenge federal regulations. The APA lays out the procedure for judicial challenges to administrative actions, such as the FDA regulation of e-cigarettes.

Such a lawsuit would face enormous obstacles within the first couple of months after filing. First, there's a standing to sue problem. That hurdle has been particularly difficult to overcome unless the agency directly regulates the plaintiff. Third parties, although often directly injured by agency action, have found it difficult to litigate otherwise straightforward questions. Your Uncle Joe, even if injured, would not be a person who would be considered directly regulated.

Moreover, to successfully challenge FDA's regulation of e-cigarettes, you would have to convince the court that the regulations are either outside the scope of the powers granted by Congress, or are "arbitrary and capricious." The former is essentially impossible, and the latter is such a tough legal standard that it borders on impossible.

Additionally, as you are talking about a consumer class action, this is not a good candidate for certification. The class would be almost impossible to define--i.e., how do you determine who's in it and who isn't?

Finally, there is essentially zero chance of recovering money damages. The proposed FDA deeming regulations haven't even been adopted yet and it will probably be at least two years before they're implemented. So nobody has suffered any actual harm yet and quantifying the likelihood of future harm would be an exercise in opinion bordering on speculation. As for Uncle Joe, once the regulations are in place, it would be impossible to prove or quantify how much Uncle Joe's life was "ruined" or "cut short" because there will still be vaping products, however few in number, and also because the courts will not award damages for the mere possibility of future injury.

There are a number of other reasons why this would never fly, but this post is already too long.

But what about "Fraud"?
There have been numerous lies, statements where they have contridicted themselves in various public statements. It might be hard to narrow down which statements are most likely to stick, but even squashing smokeless tobacco being less harmful 1O years ago. There are laws on the books against lying, lying to congress, lying to the public.

How in the heck did the msa pass in the first place? The reason I ask is it'd be nice to turn it around and charge the various public health agencies of doing the same thing tobacco companies were doing.

Fighting this in court will not be easy or even possible.

 

[AndriaD]

But what about "Fraud"?
There have been numerous lies, statements where they have contridicted themselves in various public statements. It might be hard to narrow down which statements are most likely to stick, but even squashing smokeless tobacco being less harmful 1O years ago. There are laws on the books against lying, lying to congress, lying to the public.

How in the heck did the msa pass in the first place? The reason I ask is it'd be nice to turn it around and charge the various public health agencies of doing the same thing tobacco companies were doing.

Fighting this in court will not be easy or even possible.

I've wondered this myself, why it is that all these gov't idjits can lie with total impunity -- to the disservice of those to whom they owe good faith, good stewardship, and TRUTH. Why is this fraud not actionable? This gov't is supposed to be FOR THE PEOPLE, not FOR THE CORPORATIONS, who BTW, are NOT people. How do they continue getting away with being totally nefarious scheming evil lizards?

Andria

 

[aikanae1]

I've wondered this myself, why it is that all these gov't idjits can lie with total impunity -- to the disservice of those to whom they owe good faith, good stewardship, and TRUTH. Why is this fraud not actionable? This gov't is supposed to be FOR THE PEOPLE, not FOR THE CORPORATIONS, who BTW, are NOT people. How do they continue getting away with being totally nefarious scheming evil lizards?

Andria

Can't take morality to court, which overall is a good thing.

 

[AndriaD]

Can't take morality to court, which overall is a good thing.

Yes, but this goes far beyond morality; this is criminal malfeasance and dereliction of their mandated duty. Not only are they failing in their duty to the American people, they're doing it *deliberately*, with malice aforethought.


Andria

 

[MyMagicMist]

Please tell me you're not serious about this, Don Quixote. If you are, you're clinging to an idea which has no practical utility.

Agreed, the States do not have jurisdiction. There is an agency which does though.
Can a lie not be a lie through omission? If the government knew tobacco
caused illness and death, yet kept quiet, that to me seems omitting the
information from public discourse.

Not saying government put a gun to anyone's head forcing them to choose
whatever. Am saying, government knowingly allowed people to use/do
something leading to deaths. It was in the government's power and
capacity to do more, to inform the public sooner maybe, the government
did not. The government omitted an effort in good faith to protect the
general welfare of its people, the same people who it is allegedly for
and by.

If proved government knew sooner and omitted action, culpability
seems to exist. It would especially exist if proven government took
bribes from tobacco companies to omit a good faith, and full measure
of action in the best welfare of its people. The Constitution for the
United States of America lists the general welfare of the people as a
consideration. That document is a contract. Ergo, I would think fraud or
at least breach of contract happened.

Fraud could be taken to court as a civil case. Since people died, became
ill victims exits and so crime occurred. I mean real crime, not property
crime, or money crime. Property or money crimes are civil. With victims
involved physically, you have criminals. That means Law was broken and
not only that it was illegal.

Yes, all of us tobacco smokers took up smoking of our own choice. Our
government if it knew earlier than is suggested, could have pulled
tobacco off the market categorically. Since it did not a reason, motive
for not doing its job needs presented. The government allegedly is
accountable to us, its people. So, why did it not pull tobacco? It pulls
other products it deems not suitable in the general welfare of us. Did
our government take money from tobacco companies, maybe? Can that be
proved out?

I am kind of serious about this issue. Yes, I see a lot of futility
involved. Also see a lot of needless death. Quite possibly at the hand
of my government, worse my government killed its own people needlessly.
This to me seems highly evil. Sorry for not just rolling over and taking
the lumps when that same government wants to destroy a healthier means.
Sorry, I am having trouble letting. evil keep on keeping on. This is
something I think merits being a Don Quixote about, even if it all
serves is being a fly in the ointment.

“If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping
with a mosquito.” -- Dalai Lama XIV

 

[MyMagicMist]

Yes, but this goes far beyond morality; this is criminal malfeasance and dereliction of their mandated duty. Not only are they failing in their duty to the American people, they're doing it *deliberately*, with malice aforethought.


Andria

YES! Thank you. I am glad someone can see what I am pointing out.

Sure, I am a nutter. That does not infer I'm always incorrect, or always misinterpret things.
No, it does not infer conversely the inverse either. Yes, I can be in error and will admit to
that when it is proved out. I am a human being, errors are how we get experience, which
lead to knowledge and we all know "knowledge is power", or ought to.

 

[bigdancehawk]

Agreed, the States do not have jurisdiction. There is an agency which does though.
Can a lie not be a lie through omission? If the government knew tobacco
caused illness and death, yet kept quiet, that to me seems omitting the
information from public discourse.

Not saying government put a gun to anyone's head forcing them to choose
whatever. Am saying, government knowingly allowed people to use/do
something leading to deaths. It was in the government's power and
capacity to do more, to inform the public sooner maybe, the government
did not. The government omitted an effort in good faith to protect the
general welfare of its people, the same people who it is allegedly for
and by.

If proved government knew sooner and omitted action, culpability
seems to exist. It would especially exist if proven government took
bribes from tobacco companies to omit a good faith, and full measure
of action in the best welfare of its people. The Constitution for the
United States of America lists the general welfare of the people as a
consideration. That document is a contract. Ergo, I would think fraud or
at least breach of contract happened.

Fraud could be taken to court as a civil case. Since people died, became
ill victims exits and so crime occurred. I mean real crime, not property
crime, or money crime. Property or money crimes are civil. With victims
involved physically, you have criminals. That means Law was broken and
not only that it was illegal.

Yes, all of us tobacco smokers took up smoking of our own choice. Our
government if it knew earlier than is suggested, could have pulled
tobacco off the market categorically. Since it did not a reason, motive
for not doing its job needs presented. The government allegedly is
accountable to us, its people. So, why did it not pull tobacco? It pulls
other products it deems not suitable in the general welfare of us. Did
our government take money from tobacco companies, maybe? Can that be
proved out?

I am kind of serious about this issue. Yes, I see a lot of futility
involved. Also see a lot of needless death. Quite possibly at the hand
of my government, worse my government killed its own people needlessly.
This to me seems highly evil. Sorry for not just rolling over and taking
the lumps when that same government wants to destroy a healthier means.
Sorry, I am having trouble letting. evil keep on keeping on. This is
something I think merits being a Don Quixote about, even if it all
serves is being a fly in the ointment.

“If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping
with a mosquito.” -- Dalai Lama XIV

What??? The federal government has been warning the public about the dangers of smoking for over 50 years.