I hope they are...............go get em
Seems like one Rep in North Dakota thinks they are
Are Anti-Vaping Zealots Breaking The Law?
Seems like one Rep in North Dakota thinks they are
Are Anti-Vaping Zealots Breaking The Law?
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?
This is old, and was discussed last year. Then, it turned out that a judge ruled in favor of the ANTZ.I hope they are...............go get em
Seems like one Rep in North Dakota thinks they are
Are Anti-Vaping Zealots Breaking The Law?
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.Yep.....should have seen the date..............do you have a link to what the judge said?
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.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.
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.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.
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!"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.
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.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.
a certain professor of tobacco control