FDA US House Appropriations Cmte bill would prevent FDA from banning e-cigs now on the market
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You forgot Al Sharptons" office in the White House--for his speakers business.He represents speakers and often Universities use his clients for speaking engagements.I don't think there aren't some - rather anecdotal incidents - that go against the general flow of news in the major media - for example, the liberal media will pump up Republican candidates a year before an election that they think can be beaten - McCain is an example, but Bob Dole (over Steve Forbes), GHW Bush (over Reagan in the primaries), and currently Jeb (over R.Paul, T. Cruz, S. Walker). But then as soon as they become the candidate, the attack begins. Similarly on the Left but propping up their favorite and downplaying their opponents. And in cases where a Dem has acted so badly, that no rational or even partisan can get passed their actions - there will be a 'downgrading' usually pointing out all the "good" things they have done. And then in some cases - Bill Clinton - after enough time has gone by, they're resurrected as the party's leaderAnd Sharpton gets a TV show.
That said, the effort of bringing forth the quantity of examples on 'my' side, is not nearly as great as would be getting you to accept them. Along the lines of getting the Pope to consider atheism, or George Carlin to believe in God.
Back on topic....
House Bill Would Limit Proposed Deeming Regs | CSPnet
I'd like to propose an amendment to the Constitution: that no bill considered by Congress, nor rule, act, or regulation considered by the Executive branch, or its subsidiaries, shall be be passed if it exceeds 50 words in length. The titles of such bills, rules, acts, or regulations shall not be longer than 10 words. Nor shall these considerations be dependent on any other piece of legislation.
I know I'll get hell for suggesting this, but if you have a better idea to help mitigate the corruption and bu$!$h@t, then speak up.
I'd suggest an effective date for this amendment to be February 15, 2007.
I know I'll get hell for suggesting this, but if you have a better idea to help mitigate the corruption and bu$!$h@t, then speak up.
I'd suggest an effective date for this amendment to be February 15, 2007.
Lol...
As long as you're dreaming... go to the original Constitution with the amendments, minus the state immunity as part of the 11th, minus the 16th (taxes), 17th Senate elections, keep Sec. of State, Treasury, Defense, Attorney General and lose all Cabinet/Departments and regulatory agencies, erase all laws, regulation and other taxes other than that and start over.
Lol...
As long as you're dreaming... go to the original Constitution with the amendments, minus the state immunity as part of the 11th, minus the 16th (taxes), 17th Senate elections, keep Sec. of State, Treasury, Defense, Attorney General and lose all Cabinet/Departments and regulatory agencies, erase all laws, regulation and other taxes other than that and start over.
A non-violent revolution resulting in a more liberated society [HASHTAG]#TheNewAmericanDream[/HASHTAG]
I haven't dissected your whole post yet, but I'd like to put in place of the 16th amendment: The federal taxation rate cannot be higher for any individual citizen than the state's current taxation rate of that citizen's state of residence.
Edit: Added "New" to [HASHTAG]#TheAmericanDream[/HASHTAG]
I didn't say I'd sign it, but that effective date might make it tempting.That wasn't the point I was trying to make, but I appreciate your enthusiasm
Would you sign this?
Amendment 28: Tax monies incurred by the federal government must be paid back to the paying parties the proportion of their tax monies equal to the proportion of federally borrowed money from foreign bodies to the national GDP of that fiscal year.
Edit: Changed "the amount" to "the proportion of their tax monies". Reread as a result of Nicnik's comment; found logical error in convoluted sentence.
Last edited:
Maybe, if I ever finish absorbing that sentence.
Lol, I know. This is how a lot of legal writing is written, as I'm sure you know. And this is how crafty a lawmaker would need to be in order to make a self-defending bill, limited to 50 words, that is not defended or dependent on any other bill. And that would make things very transparent. Look at all the political ads alienating other opponents by showing the rider an opponent voted/didn't vote for and neglecting to state what their opposition really supported or opposed in the bill. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Edit: I've only tried to draw pertinence to this issue because who knows what the republicans or Obama really believe when they're not just voting on e-cigs regulation reform.
Last edited:
S. Rept. 114-82 - AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2016 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
It appears that the Senate Appropriations Committee isn’t going to be much help to us. This is all I could find in their Senate Report 114-82:
“Deeming Regulations.—The Committee notes that the Family
Smoking and Prevention and tobacco Control Act, which became
law in 2009, gave FDA immediate authority over certain tobacco
products, and gave authority to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to deem other products subject to FDA regulation.
On April 25, 2014, nearly 5 years after it had been granted the authority
to do so, FDA issued those proposed deeming regulations,
but has not yet finalized them. FDA is therefore directed to issue
a final regulation addressing the deeming of other tobacco products
under FDA’s jurisdiction within 30 days and to act expediently to
implement that regulation once finalized.”
It appears that the Senate Appropriations Committee isn’t going to be much help to us. This is all I could find in their Senate Report 114-82:
“Deeming Regulations.—The Committee notes that the Family
Smoking and Prevention and tobacco Control Act, which became
law in 2009, gave FDA immediate authority over certain tobacco
products, and gave authority to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to deem other products subject to FDA regulation.
On April 25, 2014, nearly 5 years after it had been granted the authority
to do so, FDA issued those proposed deeming regulations,
but has not yet finalized them. FDA is therefore directed to issue
a final regulation addressing the deeming of other tobacco products
under FDA’s jurisdiction within 30 days and to act expediently to
implement that regulation once finalized.”
Well that doesn't sound good. If anything it seems it will be speeding up the process.
Last edited:
lets get crazy, right of revolution as specified in the Declaration of Independence
"experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"
Perhaps Congress is just Tired of Waiting?
And Knows that the Longer the FDA Takes, the More Acceptance e-Cigarettes are Gaining with the General Public as a Viable Alternative to Smoking.
It smells backazwards to me. Like it's just another swing of the bat from the anti's, another attempt to squash vaping. Just more of the same.
I just think that with Every Month that goes by, another Study comes out showing that e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids are not as Evil as some Law Makers would like them to be Perceived as. And the "Fear" of e-Cigarette by the Uninformed Public lessens.
People like Boxer and Diane F and Harkin and some of the Other Hard Core e-Cigarette Haters know this. And would rather see the Show Down over e-Cigarettes done Now. Verses Later.
I’m not sure what happened in the Senate. You would think the Democrats were still in charge. Things could change once the full House and Senate pass their own bills and then it goes to a conference committee.
As for the 30 day thing, the clock wouldn’t start until the President signs the bill into law, and even then the FDA doesn’t move as fast as some in congress would like.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
