You guys are all over the place and I don't have the time or the patience to write any more TL/DR explanations of why none of this is legally actionable.
FDA New Idea For Thought & Comment
- Thread starter MyMagicMist
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
True and a fair point.
My point is this though, it could pull the product fully off the market.
For example the government does not allow the general public to buy and consume say, Yersinia pestis. No, it locks that up and does not market it at all. Why? Well, obviously the government knows Black Death kills people and it wants to promote the general welfare of the people. Gee, does/did it not know tobacco kills people? When did it know it? What kept it from pulling it outright off the market?
It is one thing to warn or caution. The government had capacity to full on stop dangerous products inflicting harm, though. And no, I am not exactly suggesting we give the government full on nanny state right. What I am suggesting is if the government is established to do something, it ought to do it. When it does not, we ought to hold it to account.
Last edited:
*Ahem* I did read in full your explanation/s. I did fully comprehend your points. I do disagree though. I am all over the place because I choose to think, and to think differently. They called my kind of person a heretic at one point in history. I think differently. I think critically, I see congruence where others do / can not. This means I tie everything together. Not apologizing for that. It is who I am and how I was made. I do not ask you to apologize for who you are, or how you are made. But I do ask you apologize for presuming I did not read your posting. I did. I understand your fear. I accept the futility you see. Does not mean I need to like it, or to accept it myself.
Excuse me, time to rack out. Realized I'm getting a bit smarmy, too much so as well.
Federal and state governments criminalized possession and sale of a certain mildly psychotropic plant and have spent over one trillion dollars on the war on drugs. That worked out well, so let's do the same thing with cigs.
The first 3O statements are about "the children" in the fsptc, like it or not. It makes sense that subsequent regulation would follow that theme. Below is a link to the actual act that's already law and the one following discusses first admentment speech.
I think we might be stuck with technicalities, which tend to be fixed, changing little but creates a delay.
I question the ability to outlaw everything in a spefic category. If they make a distinction between little cigars and cigars, there's a difference between cigalikes and what most of us use. They also make allowences for small manufacturers. Even the grandfather date was claimed to be immoveable. Fairness isn't a protected right.
You need to come up with the law they violate. Murder? Yeah, we could put Bush & Co. on trial, but that didn't happen.
It takes about 5 yrs for data to reach the gov't. In that time the smoking rates will increase and we might see a change, maybe. So far they are not linking the decrease in smoking with ecigs.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ31/pdf/PLAW-111publ31.pdf
(34) Because the only known safe alternative to smoking is cessation, interventions should target all smokers to help them quit completely.
(36) It is essential that the Food and Drug Administration review products sold or distributed for use to reduce risks or exposures associated with tobacco products and that it be empowered to review any advertising and labeling for such products. It is also essential that manufacturers, prior to marketing such products, be required to demonstrate that such products will meet a series of rigorous criteria, and will benefit the health of the population as a whole, taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products.
(37) Unless tobacco products that purport to reduce the risks to the public of tobacco use actually reduce such risks, those products can cause substantial harm to the public health to the extent that the individuals, who would otherwise not consume tobacco products or would consume such products less, use tobacco products purporting to reduce risk. Those who use products sold or distributed as modified risk products that do not in fact reduce risk, rather than quitting or reducing their use of tobacco products, have a substantially increased likelihood of suffering disability and premature death.
(38) As the National Cancer Institute has also found, mistaken beliefs about the health consequences of smoking ‘‘low tar’’ and ‘‘light’’ cigarettes can reduce the motivation to quit smoking entirely and thereby lead to disease and death.
"The finding as to whether such regulation would be appropriate for the protection of the public health shall be determined with respect to the risks and benefits to the population as a whole, including users and nonusers of the tobacco product, and taking into account—
(A) the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products will stop using such products; and (B) the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products will start using such products.
No such regulation may require that the sale or distribution of a tobacco product be limited to the written or oral authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to prescribe medical products."
‘‘(3) LIMITATIONS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—No restrictions under paragraph (1) may—
‘‘(i) prohibit the sale of any tobacco product in face-to-face transactions by a specific category of retail outlets; or
‘‘(ii) establish a minimum age of sale of tobacco products to any person older than 18 years of age.
‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON POWER GRANTED TO THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.—Because of the importance of a decision of the Secretary to issue a regulation—
‘‘(A) banning all cigarettes, all smokeless tobacco products, all little cigars, all cigars other than little cigars, all pipe tobacco, or all roll-your-own tobacco products; or
‘‘(B) requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero, the Secretary is prohibited from taking such actions under this Act.
‘‘SEC. 918. DRUG PRODUCTS USED TO TREAT TOBACCO DEPENDENCE. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— ‘‘(1) at the request of the applicant, consider designating products for smoking cessation, including nicotine replacement products as fast track research and approval products within the meaning of section 506; ...
‘‘(B) PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF OTHER FUNDS.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (ii), fees collected under subsection (a) are the only funds authorized to be made available for tobacco regulation activities.
http://www.nacsonline.com/Issues/Tobacco/Documents/CRSReport.pdf
"The FSPTCA amended the FFDCA by granting FDA authority over the regulation of tobacco products based on a public health standard rather than the safety and effectiveness standard by which the FDA regulates pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices.
"In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court established a four-part test for deciding the constitutionality of commercial speech regulation.47 First, in order to be protected by the First Amendment, the commercial speech must concern lawful activity and not be false or misleading. Second, the government must demonstrate that by restricting such speech, it is seeking to further a substantial government interest. Third, the restrictions must directly advance that interest. Fourth, there has to be a reasonable fit between the type of restrictions imposed and the government’s objectives; in other words, the regulation cannot be “more extensive than is necessary to service that interest.”
"One of the invalidated restrictions was an outdoor advertising provision with nearly identical language to the 1996 FDA tobacco rule’s prohibition on outdoor tobacco advertisements within 1,000 feet of a school or playground.51 Such a restriction, in conjunction with other zoning restrictions, reasoned the Court, “would constitute a nearly complete ban on the communication of truthful information about smokeless tobacco and cigars to adult consumers.”
"Although the Court determined that Massachusetts had presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the first three prongs of the Central Hudson test, the outdoor advertising regulations were found to be too broad to meet the fourth requirement—that is, that the regulation not be “more extensive than is necessary.”
"In the FDA’s 1996 final rule, the agency took note of comments that focused on the impact of the rule in major metropolitan areas, including a survey that “showed that outdoor tobacco advertising would be prohibited in 94 percent and 78 percent of the respective land mass of Manhattan and Boston under the [1,000-foot] proposal.”64 However, the FDA attributed “the possibility that its restrictions effectively outlaw outdoor advertising in most urban areas” to population density in cities.65 The agency then stated that its intent in establishing the 1,000-foot restriction was “to restrict the accessible and intrusive communications of information about cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to children and adolescents at school and at play.”66 The rule explained that the FDA “considered the cost of its [1,000-foot] restriction but conclude[d] that a narrower restriction would not adequately advance its purpose of protecting young people from unavoidable advertising.”
I think we might be stuck with technicalities, which tend to be fixed, changing little but creates a delay.
I question the ability to outlaw everything in a spefic category. If they make a distinction between little cigars and cigars, there's a difference between cigalikes and what most of us use. They also make allowences for small manufacturers. Even the grandfather date was claimed to be immoveable. Fairness isn't a protected right.
You need to come up with the law they violate. Murder? Yeah, we could put Bush & Co. on trial, but that didn't happen.
It takes about 5 yrs for data to reach the gov't. In that time the smoking rates will increase and we might see a change, maybe. So far they are not linking the decrease in smoking with ecigs.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ31/pdf/PLAW-111publ31.pdf
(34) Because the only known safe alternative to smoking is cessation, interventions should target all smokers to help them quit completely.
(36) It is essential that the Food and Drug Administration review products sold or distributed for use to reduce risks or exposures associated with tobacco products and that it be empowered to review any advertising and labeling for such products. It is also essential that manufacturers, prior to marketing such products, be required to demonstrate that such products will meet a series of rigorous criteria, and will benefit the health of the population as a whole, taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products.
(37) Unless tobacco products that purport to reduce the risks to the public of tobacco use actually reduce such risks, those products can cause substantial harm to the public health to the extent that the individuals, who would otherwise not consume tobacco products or would consume such products less, use tobacco products purporting to reduce risk. Those who use products sold or distributed as modified risk products that do not in fact reduce risk, rather than quitting or reducing their use of tobacco products, have a substantially increased likelihood of suffering disability and premature death.
(38) As the National Cancer Institute has also found, mistaken beliefs about the health consequences of smoking ‘‘low tar’’ and ‘‘light’’ cigarettes can reduce the motivation to quit smoking entirely and thereby lead to disease and death.
"The finding as to whether such regulation would be appropriate for the protection of the public health shall be determined with respect to the risks and benefits to the population as a whole, including users and nonusers of the tobacco product, and taking into account—
(A) the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products will stop using such products; and (B) the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products will start using such products.
No such regulation may require that the sale or distribution of a tobacco product be limited to the written or oral authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to prescribe medical products."
‘‘(3) LIMITATIONS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—No restrictions under paragraph (1) may—
‘‘(i) prohibit the sale of any tobacco product in face-to-face transactions by a specific category of retail outlets; or
‘‘(ii) establish a minimum age of sale of tobacco products to any person older than 18 years of age.
‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON POWER GRANTED TO THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.—Because of the importance of a decision of the Secretary to issue a regulation—
‘‘(A) banning all cigarettes, all smokeless tobacco products, all little cigars, all cigars other than little cigars, all pipe tobacco, or all roll-your-own tobacco products; or
‘‘(B) requiring the reduction of nicotine yields of a tobacco product to zero, the Secretary is prohibited from taking such actions under this Act.
‘‘SEC. 918. DRUG PRODUCTS USED TO TREAT TOBACCO DEPENDENCE. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— ‘‘(1) at the request of the applicant, consider designating products for smoking cessation, including nicotine replacement products as fast track research and approval products within the meaning of section 506; ...
‘‘(B) PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF OTHER FUNDS.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (ii), fees collected under subsection (a) are the only funds authorized to be made available for tobacco regulation activities.
http://www.nacsonline.com/Issues/Tobacco/Documents/CRSReport.pdf
"The FSPTCA amended the FFDCA by granting FDA authority over the regulation of tobacco products based on a public health standard rather than the safety and effectiveness standard by which the FDA regulates pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices.
"In Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court established a four-part test for deciding the constitutionality of commercial speech regulation.47 First, in order to be protected by the First Amendment, the commercial speech must concern lawful activity and not be false or misleading. Second, the government must demonstrate that by restricting such speech, it is seeking to further a substantial government interest. Third, the restrictions must directly advance that interest. Fourth, there has to be a reasonable fit between the type of restrictions imposed and the government’s objectives; in other words, the regulation cannot be “more extensive than is necessary to service that interest.”
"One of the invalidated restrictions was an outdoor advertising provision with nearly identical language to the 1996 FDA tobacco rule’s prohibition on outdoor tobacco advertisements within 1,000 feet of a school or playground.51 Such a restriction, in conjunction with other zoning restrictions, reasoned the Court, “would constitute a nearly complete ban on the communication of truthful information about smokeless tobacco and cigars to adult consumers.”
"Although the Court determined that Massachusetts had presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the first three prongs of the Central Hudson test, the outdoor advertising regulations were found to be too broad to meet the fourth requirement—that is, that the regulation not be “more extensive than is necessary.”
"In the FDA’s 1996 final rule, the agency took note of comments that focused on the impact of the rule in major metropolitan areas, including a survey that “showed that outdoor tobacco advertising would be prohibited in 94 percent and 78 percent of the respective land mass of Manhattan and Boston under the [1,000-foot] proposal.”64 However, the FDA attributed “the possibility that its restrictions effectively outlaw outdoor advertising in most urban areas” to population density in cities.65 The agency then stated that its intent in establishing the 1,000-foot restriction was “to restrict the accessible and intrusive communications of information about cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to children and adolescents at school and at play.”66 The rule explained that the FDA “considered the cost of its [1,000-foot] restriction but conclude[d] that a narrower restriction would not adequately advance its purpose of protecting young people from unavoidable advertising.”
For some reason there are serious rumors that flavored eliquids might be banned immediatly.
I presumed no such thing. You moved on to new but equally flawed notions and that's what I lack the time and patience to address. But if it satisfies some deep psychological need to believe I "fear" addressing a shifting stream of off the wall notions about litigation, carry on.
Why the lengthy quote about the billboard case? It's relevant to what exactly?
Maybe you are correct. Maybe you are not correct.
Maybe I am correct. Maybe I am not correct.
Either way, in this time stuff you excuse yourself over, we all will see.
You can blame us up here in Minnesota. Our state was the first to make a settlement with the
tobacco companies. Two other states have their own agreements. The rest of the states excluding Florida
have what is referred to as the MSA.(Master Settlement Agreement)
The MSA's didn't pass anything. It is not law. It's a contractual agreement between the states
Attorney Generals and the tobacco companies approved by the states. If it were law the states
simply could change it to meet the changing market place conditions as necessary.
Regards
Mike
I can hardly wait. Everyone is eager to learn whether you, MarleyMagicMist, have posted ideas on an Internet message board which will revolutionize 800 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence.
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.
Well, what they are doing *now* is certainly criminal malfeasance, but with regards to tobacco... they already learned that prohibition doesn't work; it breeds crime and stops NO ONE from doing whatever it is that's prohibited -- an awareness that was a lot fresher in their minds in mid-20th cent. Taking it "off the market" would have just opened a new market for organized crime. And do you REALLY want a gov't that would prohibit things like that? I don't. I think ALL of the currently "controlled" drugs should be legalized; the only drug that's now available by prescription that should be kept that way, is the entire class of antibiotics, mostly because everyday Joe doesn't know the diff between a virus and bacterial infection, and would take antibiotics when not only are they not needed, they would actually do more harm than good -- as the antibacterial soaps and hand-cleaners are already doing, breeding new resistant strains of bacteria.
I don't want a Big Nanny gov't. I want a gov't like the one described in our Bill of Rights, a gov't that doesn't get involved in citizens' personal choices as long as those choices don't injure others. Inform us of dangers? Sure, that's a valid thing for gov't to do. Become our keeper??? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I just wish our current gov't had the same memory of prohibition that was available to them in mid-20th cent; they wouldn't be acting like such total boobs about e-cigs.
Andria
Well, wait we shall. For now I can admit my posts were thoughts, ideas,
opinions. I comprehend everyone may have opinions, thoughts, ideas. Not
everyone can be correct. Not everyone can be in error.People having
differing ideas, thoughts, opinions can agree to disagree maturely.
That is where the conversation between you and I stands, as I see it.
We are agreeing to disagree. You seem to accept defeat. Fine, you are
free to do that. I am free to not accept it, and to voice that dissent.
That is part of the rationale behind public forums, exchanging ideas,
communication. So, we did.
You make valid points regarding prohibition. It does not work. That
noted it seems education does not work either. There is how much data
showing vaping to be safer than tobacco? Is our government not run by
educated people who can read?
My point being, we as a group of individual consumers, especially CASAA
have attempted educating. It seems to not work. What seems to work to me
is using their own system against them, and reducing what money goes to
them. I saw two different ways to use their system, or thought I did.
One is civil, the other criminal.
I am already not giving them money, instead it goes to vaping or other
use. So I voiced what I saw, thought. I agree about not wanting a nanny
state. At the same time I am aware of products pulled off the market for
children. For example car seats get taken off the market if they are
found defective, cause injury, deaths.
"Hey, tobacco causes injury and deaths. Why is it not pulled off the
market?" Well, I saw palms being greased. Saw it all the more with the
propaganda being slung by tobacco and government. Come to realize too,
the government can in fact legally lie to anyone, for any reason. The
lies were about vaping. It does not seem matter how we try educating,
they lie and continue oppressing. We have a nanny state either way it
seems.
Pardon but it seems d___ed if you do, d___ed if you don't.
And yet our gov't is apparently peopled with those like my mom, who would ask me if I'd taken him to the doctor, when I told her that her grandson had a cold. When I would respond that the doctor couldn't do a single thing for a cold that I wasn't doing, she'd say "well he could give him some antibiotics."
Or even worse, those who would give antibiotics to "prevent infection." Thus are resistant bacteria bred. But all those "feel-good" drugs that our gov't has been "waging war" on for decades now... LEGALIZE THEM ALL!!! The stupid people would OD in short order, and stop bothering the rest of us! We could solve the whole over-population problem!
Andria
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
