Wonder if this: Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger ... is considered extreme by some??
FDA "Smokers" support Nanny-State when it comes to e-cigs..?
- Thread starter Cool_Breeze
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It might be, but I'll certainly never stop posting it.
The truth NEEDS to be told.
But since it is in their own words, I don't see how anyone can consider it extreme.
But I imagine that I don't have to tell you that.
EDIT: I'm just trying to figure out what all the "Group Think" people agree on
EDIT: The only posters I pretty much always agree with don't even post much anymore
Last edited:
It might be, but I'll certainly never stop posting it.
The truth NEEDS to be told.
But since it is in their own words, I don't see how anyone can consider it extreme. But I imagine that I don't have to tell you that.
That's almost always what they call extreme because it's their own words that end up showing them for who they are.
If you quote "You can keep your doctor" - you're an extremist. If you quote "Mission accomplished" (although not a quote), you're an extremist.
And.... don't stop posting it
It might be, but I'll certainly never stop posting it.
The truth NEEDS to be told.
But since it is in their own words, I don't see how anyone can consider it extreme.
But I imagine that I don't have to tell you that.
EDIT: I'm just trying to figure out what all the "Group Think" people agree on
EDIT: The only posters I pretty much always agree with don't even most anymore for the most part
The only 'group think' that I see here is with the people we mostly discuss - the TC crowd, their "scientists", their politicians and their media. I agree with you a lot, but progg - who hasn't posted much lately - is closest. Many just short of that. I find myself 'liking' more and more of BuGlen's posts. That won't be accepted well by some ;- ) And like you, I like almost every post by Elaine.
The country has been successfully divided into splintered self interest groups. It has gone on so long now that taxation is unopposed by a majority since only individual minorities are affected by the tax. I am male. I don't care if they tax tampons. I am female. I don't care if they tax athletic supporters.Toss into the mix that the justification is doing a "good thing". Ending or curtailing a less than acceptable products or services as defined by the government. Taxes are for needed revenue not a method to control behavior. Until the majority of voters hold politicians accountable to that premise we will be sin taxed to oblivion.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Steve wrote:
Had Steve actually read the study, he would know that the surveyors biased their questionnaire against e-cigs and in favor of the FDA and government regulation, and made several false statements to survey participants (including the false claim that FDA doesn't already regulate e-cigs) in order to confuse participants and to trick them into claiming they support FDA regulation of e-cigs.
We will see a lot of this in the future as FDA/NCI/NIDA/CDC and Big Pharma funded shills step up their lobbying campaign to encourage FDA to impose the deeming regulation.
From 2003-2009 when Big Pharma funded CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, AMA, AAP, and NCI funded activists (who they called researchers) aggressively lobbied Congress to enact the FSPTCA, they conducted many biased push-polls (that demonized tobacco products and companies, while extolling the virtues of FDA and FDA tobacco regulation), then asked participants if they supported FDA tobacco regulation, then issued studies and press releases claiming that Americans (and smokers) strongly supported FDA regulation of tobacco.
Government agencies and wealthy special interest groups know that if you deceive the public over and over again, the public will not only begin to believe the deception, but will cluelessly begin to repeat it as factual.
Had Steve actually read the study, he would know that the surveyors biased their questionnaire against e-cigs and in favor of the FDA and government regulation, and made several false statements to survey participants (including the false claim that FDA doesn't already regulate e-cigs) in order to confuse participants and to trick them into claiming they support FDA regulation of e-cigs.
We will see a lot of this in the future as FDA/NCI/NIDA/CDC and Big Pharma funded shills step up their lobbying campaign to encourage FDA to impose the deeming regulation.
From 2003-2009 when Big Pharma funded CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, AMA, AAP, and NCI funded activists (who they called researchers) aggressively lobbied Congress to enact the FSPTCA, they conducted many biased push-polls (that demonized tobacco products and companies, while extolling the virtues of FDA and FDA tobacco regulation), then asked participants if they supported FDA tobacco regulation, then issued studies and press releases claiming that Americans (and smokers) strongly supported FDA regulation of tobacco.
Government agencies and wealthy special interest groups know that if you deceive the public over and over again, the public will not only begin to believe the deception, but will cluelessly begin to repeat it as factual.
Last edited:
Other than not marketing e-cigs as smoking cessation devices, what FDA regulations have passed concerning e-cigs?
Of course, push polling is the culprit. Which conspiracy group is behind the poll? BT, BP?
I read the story. I'm not going to pay to read the text of the study. Some of us don't make a living off of the fears of smokers and vapers...
Last edited:
May I remind everyone that trying to sell regulations and taxes to vapers is a very hard endeavour since, as current or ex smokers, they've already been over-regulated and over-taxed to death. They know very well where it leads and they don't want to go there again.
One needs a strong agenda, thick skin and good compensation in order to be able to persevere with such task.
Of course, takers there were, as we can witness here on ECF.
One needs a strong agenda, thick skin and good compensation in order to be able to persevere with such task.
Of course, takers there were, as we can witness here on ECF.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Steve wrote:
None, but that one regulation bans e-cig manufacturers from truthfully revealing the key function of e-cigs, and from making the most effective e-cig marketing claims for their products.
Steve asked;
No, the answer is BG, as the Rutgers researchers/activists reported funding from FDA, NCI and NIH.
None, but that one regulation bans e-cig manufacturers from truthfully revealing the key function of e-cigs, and from making the most effective e-cig marketing claims for their products.
Steve asked;
No, the answer is BG, as the Rutgers researchers/activists reported funding from FDA, NCI and NIH.
Always confused when people say things like this. Who funds the researchers who say vaping is ok? Vapers? Are COI's only allowed to be one sided now?
Doesn't BT want to diversify into ecigs? They're hurting on two fronts.
Taxes on one side and competition from the vapor industry on the other.
A little pro vapor research won't hurt them a bit.
your lucky. i have rented all my life.
each year a fire inspector and health inspector come
through checking for violations. every place i have
worked has been inspected by health,safety,building code
enforcement,occupational safety and on and on.
if you can name it,we have an inspector for it.
we have over 100 stores open in the twin cities area
in the last 2 years. they are in for a surprise.
first a building inspector,then perhaps a fire marshal.
after that along comes a health inspector because another
inspector informed him you were making your own juice.
have to make sure its safe.then a state inspector comes
along informing you that a manufacturers license is
needed as you are making a product. then,well you get the
picture. its pretty much like this in all the northern industrial
states and the west(left) coast. this is why i don't worry at all
about juice made state side. there are enough checks in place
already to keep things as safe as any other industry. if you get
the percentage of nicotine right the worst that can happen is
you get bad tasting juice.(if you have an allergy that's a different story.)
so as you see there is no need for intrusion at the national level
also i believe Johnson Creeks new facility has health and safety
and manufacturing certifications. i am not certain if the state or
federal certifications.other makers are following suite. eventually
all makers will be certified to some extent,soon after that first
inspector visits your on the radar screen.
mike
BT is watering the grass on both sides of the fence.
their most recent study found that there prefilled
cartridges contained contained .17 of residual
substances when exhaled as opposed to .16
in uncontaminated air when PG/VG and water vapor
were discounted.
this pretty much means its virtually harmless as
being able to contaminate non-users.
of course the vapers on another forum completely
buried it as being from BT therefore unworthy of
any consideration what so ever.
mike
Oh good, you are engaging Bill Godshall now...
That could be a very eye-opening experience for anyone...
Might want to ask him about Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids while you're at it.
But Bill is very busy and often does not respond so I'll get you started here...
FORCES International - News Portal
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
