Are Anti Vaping Groups Breaking The Law?

[Mossy]

I hope they are...............go get em
Seems like one Rep in North Dakota thinks they are

Are Anti-Vaping Zealots Breaking The Law?

 

[Woofer]

I'm sure interested to see where this leads!
Thanks for posting!

 

[KentA]

Yea! We may have a winner here.
I support WatchDog.org

 

[sofarsogood]

A state legislator is arguing that taxpayer money was appropriated to a group for one purpose and they are violating the grant by using the money for another purpose. This kind of issue comes up all the time with tax money. If the grant was to discourage nicotine use then they would have to also campaign against gum and patcches. I think public money should not be used to campaign against ecigs unless the grant terms specifically provide for that, which opens a can of worms for the legislature and I bet they don't want to go there. I'm surprised this issue hasn't been raised years earlier.

 

[bobwho77]

I find it interesting how these organizations have transformed their mission statements from eliminating smoking, to "tobacco Control" and now to fighting "Nicotine Addiction"...
Strange that since they've started declaring nicotine to be "Public enemy #1" they haven't been railing against nicotine patches, gum, lozenges, or any of the other more "Accepted" forms of NRT

 

[edyle]

Representative Schatz may have uncovered something here. We have seen millions of taxpayer dollars spent on discouraging vaping. If those organizations spending that money are supposed to be spending it on the effort against smoking, then are they misappropriating funds?

 

[3mg Meniere]

They might be advised to enact a law which requires all products containing nicotine to be sold only on prescription from a medical professional. Can you imagine asking a doctor for a prescription for eggplant?

"I need to make some eggplant lasagna for a family dinner on Labor Day. It is a family tradition started before prohibition, and my children will never speak to me again if I don't make it. Doctor, could you write a prescription for that?"

Let alone putting people in prison for growing their own tobacco? Then we get into Native tribes which use tobacco for sacred rites. North Dakota could get involved in a Native uprising.

 

[Marina2]

As someone points out in the comments section this misappropriation will become legal when e cigarettes and liquid are classified as tobacco products.

 

[EBates]

Say It Ain't So Joe!!
Our Precious elected representatives caught with their Hand In The Till Again. Quick, Write A New Law That Makes That Legal!

 

[nicnik]

I hope they are...............go get em
Seems like one Rep in North Dakota thinks they are

Are Anti-Vaping Zealots Breaking The Law?

This is old, and was discussed last year. Then, it turned out that a judge ruled in favor of the ANTZ.

 

[Mossy]

Yep.....should have seen the date..............do you have a link to what the judge said?

 

[nicnik]

Yep.....should have seen the date..............do you have a link to what the judge said?

I might be wrong about there having been a court ruling. I think it was the North Dakota Attorney General's ruling that I was thinking of.

Here's the original thread:
Is Spending MSA Money Fighting Vaping Legal?

I hope it does get ruled illegal. I should be.

 

[Mossy]

Thanks
I can't find anything where it seems to have been dealt with but 'll keep looking

 

[Lessifer]

If they argue that vaping is a gateway to smoking, then fighting vaping IS fighting smoking. Unfortunately, the FDA and CDC are all too happy to spew those lies.

 

[bigdancehawk]

If they argue that vaping is a gateway to smoking, then fighting vaping IS fighting smoking. Unfortunately, the FDA and CDC are all too happy to spew those lies.

As there is no way to show that the relatively small number of people who first vape and then later smoke wouldn't have taken up smoking anyway, the gateway effect is an unprovable hypothesis. It's hard to imagine a judge with half a brain falling for it.

 

[Lessifer]

As there is no way to show that the relatively small number of people who first vape and then later smoke wouldn't have taken up smoking anyway, the gateway effect is an unprovable hypothesis. It's hard to imagine a judge with half a brain falling for it.

I agree, but it hasn't stopped them so far. The TC group can walk in with a CDC report that shows that the teen vaping population is growing. Then all they have to say is, these kids will become addicted to nicotine, which will then lead to actual tobacco use. They don't have to PROVE anything, especially when you consider that someone would have to fund the other side of the case.

Sorry to be so cynical, I do actually believe that the courts are an area where we CAN win. Just remember that court cases are not always decided by the truth, often they are decided by who can afford the better lawyers.

 

[bigdancehawk]

I agree, but it hasn't stopped them so far. The TC group can walk in with a CDC report that shows that the teen vaping population is growing. Then all they have to say is, these kids will become addicted to nicotine, which will then lead to actual tobacco use. They don't have to PROVE anything, especially when you consider that someone would have to fund the other side of the case.

Sorry to be so cynical, I do actually believe that the courts are an area where we CAN win. Just remember that court cases are not always decided by the truth, often they are decided by who can afford the better lawyers.

Well, but they do have to prove something. Opinions in CDC reports are not self proving and are inadmissible without proper evidentiary foundation. You can't just waltz into the courtroom, hand a report to the judge, and say, "Here, read this!"
Edit: strictly speaking you could do that but the judge would laugh at you.

 

[Lessifer]

Well, but they do have to prove something. Opinions in CDC reports are not self proving and are inadmissible without proper evidentiary foundation. You can't just waltz into the courtroom, hand a report to the judge, and say, "Here, read this!"
Edit: strictly speaking you could do that but the judge would laugh at you.

I want to believe you are right. I can just see it though. A CDC report showing a rise in teen vaping, perhaps a certain professor of tobacco control called as a witness to testify that vaping is a gateway and renormalizes smoking, and probably by the time it actually went in front of a judge a deeming by the FDA as a tobacco product.

 

[Woofer]

a certain professor of tobacco control

Now that would be an interesting cross!

There is only one santa and only one professor of tobacco control.

 

[Bill Godshall]

I was anticipating an update, but this is the same article that was already posted and discussed last year.