With respect, this statement seems politically motivated and I seriously doubt it will make one bit of difference who is in the white house with regards to how the FDA ends up handling electronic cigarettes.
I wouldn't presume to speak for Bill, but I respectfully disagree there
was
any such apparent motivation .
Reposting my comment from another thread:
The president appoints the leadership of the FDA.
From the top down, the current FDA leadership
are militant anti-nicotine prohibitionists who
make public comments contradicting research
that they have already been made aware of.
There's no guaruntee that a different president would
appoint leadership with a different bias, but it's certainly
obvious, to anyone who's watching, what the current
leadership will do if left in place.
Just saying
To add a little more to that notion, after the President makes
the appointments to the FDA, they have to be confirmed by
the Senate.
So not only does it make
every bit of difference who you
elect for President, it is also just as important who you elect to
represent you in the Senate.
If we don't care about instigating change, we can narrow the discussion
to just complaining to each other, to our family, and to our friends, about
stuff we don't like. Then we can leave politics aside.
If, however, we're going to discuss practical ways to have our views
reflected in public policy, expressing a political point of view is, I'm
afriad, unavoidable.
I strongly believe, however, that we owe it to ourselves and to our
own particular issues, to do it forthrightly and respectfully. To do
otherwise is to invite the same kind of polarization that has paralyzed
our government.
Again, not trying to tell you how to vote. Just saying . . .
