I'm not holding my breath until either Obama or Romney makes a policy statement on e-cigarettes. If you want to know how the Republicans and Democrats vote on regulating tobacco products, see the link in post #58.
- Status
Right- so many more democrats but only 20 Repubs opposed and only 5 Dems opposed, so virtually it was about the same % who voted for it- I read this as bipartisan support, even when seeing the numbers who obstained.
Please don't hold your breath. We need every one here to survive
There just aren't nearly the numbers interested in this issue, or that
even know about it, to make it into the national limelight yet; let
alone the priority of a comment from either of the main contenders.
Thanks for the link, yzer. Very informative.
It does, however, need to be viewed in perspective. In my
view it provides no insights into the legislature's support
either for or against e-cigs.
1) That vote was taken when the Democrats controlled the
House, the Senate, and the Executive branches. That was
before the upset in the 2010 mid-term elections, which
was when the Republicans gained 63 more seats than they
had when the PACT vote was taken.
The membership of the House now is very different than
it was then.
Personally, I think that if the Republicans hadn't taken so
many seats in 2010, our e-cigs would already be toast. But
that's just pure speculation on my part.
2) E-cigs weren't then, and as yet even now, included in
that act.
If they were included, you wouldn't have been able to
purchase any e-cig or any e-juice over the internet
since the act passed in 2009.
Now that the act is law, it is this Administration's
FDA who is trying to shoe-horn e-cigs (as well as other
reduced-risk products) in under the purview of that law.
This is the only reason the PACT act now threatens
any effects, profound or otherwise, on e-cigs.
That's not speculation on my part. I'm just taking the
FDA's own public statements at face value.
Any suggestion that the House back then (or now) would
have voted the same way, if e-cigs had been included,
might make for a fun debate, but is, in the end, pure
speculation.
Last edited:
A huge part of the problem is that the most qualified can't afford to run. Seriously, you have to be crazy rich to be able to run for office these days. Been that way for way too long. This country could be fixed real good if we could get someone in the White House who knew what life was like down here in the lower and middle classes.
Would the FDA be able to regulate anything without nicotine in it? As I recall, nicotine was purposely left out of EPA and other regulations due to it's use as an insecticide. I know that "research" chemicals "unfit for human consumption" are sold(bath salts/ incense). How hard would it be to sell a bottle of "insecticide" labeled as "POISON" but containing 100mg/ml of nicotine, USP? I also know that I can go buy a "water pipe" that's supposed to be for tobacco use. A flashlight with a 510 bulb would probably be just as easy to find as that and EZ wider's. But your right, it sucks many more smokers will die. As for the politics If any body thinks that one party isn't just as bought and sold by the same money that's behind the ANTZ as the other is racist, naive, or special.
Before we all toss the Democrats under the bus I think everyone outta at least consider one aspect of the "nanny State" actually benefiting ALL of us health wise.
If it wasn't for ALL the pollution regulations passed by mostly Democrats we would now have a lot more to worry about than cigarette smoke when it comes to our lungs and our health.
I would also remind you that the Republicans may not want to tax us as much as the Democrats but they SURE do a good job at spending money and running up our federal deficits. You don't have to be a CPA to understand what has happened to our federal deficits under Republican rule since the Reagan years.
Thanks for posting that yzer. That pretty much dispels the naive belief many on the forum hold that the republicans will somehow be hands off and leave the e-cig industry alone. My only point was that it might not be a good idea to make false assumptions and cause people to vote against there own interests.
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
zona wrote:
Except that I've spent about 30 hours per week since 2009 exposing and opposing Obama's policies and programs (and hundreds of false and misleading claims by Obama appointees at FDA, CDC, US SG, DHHS, DOT, branches of military) opposing tobacco harm reduction products and policies. During that time, I've corresponded with hundreds of federal appointees and their bureaucrats on a weekly basis encouraging them to reconsider.
They've responded by trying to ban e-cigarettes, lying about e-cigarettes, lying about dissolvables, and falsely claiming that all tobacco products are as hazardous as cigarettes. Even after losing every step of the way in federal court, the FDA still refuses to correct or clarify any of their many false allegations about e-cigarettes, and instead stated its intent to regulate the products under Chapter IX of the FSPTCA, which could effectively destroy or decimate the e-cigarette industry.
And please remember that Obama's CDC has funded many/most state and local attempts to ban the sale and use of e-cigarettes.
In sum, nobody in America has done more to attempt to ban e-cigarettes and demonize tobacco harm reduction than President Obama's appointees.
Anyone who claims otherwise is either a highly partisan Democrat and/or a naive fool.
For disclosure, I campaigned for Obama in 2008 because I actually believed his folksy good government rhetoric. But his subsequent actions on tobacco policy speak far louder than his speeches.
Except that I've spent about 30 hours per week since 2009 exposing and opposing Obama's policies and programs (and hundreds of false and misleading claims by Obama appointees at FDA, CDC, US SG, DHHS, DOT, branches of military) opposing tobacco harm reduction products and policies. During that time, I've corresponded with hundreds of federal appointees and their bureaucrats on a weekly basis encouraging them to reconsider.
They've responded by trying to ban e-cigarettes, lying about e-cigarettes, lying about dissolvables, and falsely claiming that all tobacco products are as hazardous as cigarettes. Even after losing every step of the way in federal court, the FDA still refuses to correct or clarify any of their many false allegations about e-cigarettes, and instead stated its intent to regulate the products under Chapter IX of the FSPTCA, which could effectively destroy or decimate the e-cigarette industry.
And please remember that Obama's CDC has funded many/most state and local attempts to ban the sale and use of e-cigarettes.
In sum, nobody in America has done more to attempt to ban e-cigarettes and demonize tobacco harm reduction than President Obama's appointees.
Anyone who claims otherwise is either a highly partisan Democrat and/or a naive fool.
For disclosure, I campaigned for Obama in 2008 because I actually believed his folksy good government rhetoric. But his subsequent actions on tobacco policy speak far louder than his speeches.
Last edited:
It has been disheartening that a lot of appointments have been "industry-friendly". But I can't vote based on a single issue, not even this one.
I think this concept is just TOO HARD for most people to get. I was talking to a good friend who is supporting my vaping all the way, and when I told her I was not quitting nicotine she exclaimed "Then what is that thing in your hand FOR?????"
Unfortunately, I know from taking journalism classes in college that journalists typically don't handle science or math well (or logic!) and don't believe they need to understand an issue (that is actually TAUGHT in the classes!!!!) as long as they talk to both sides.
Overall, this is quite depressing, but my take is that the press is still more-accessible than politicians because tobacco is no longer allowed to advertise, so there is not a funding issue there. Also, if we can make CUTER mods and get them into the hands of more celebrities. My observation is that Democrats follow the press. So, we need to also look for more story hooks.
I'm disheartened that the investigation of the FDA approval of dangerous drugs didn't stay in the press any longer. That might leave the Grammys or Oscars or something as the next chance to interest the press unless we start doing something VISIBLE (for cameras) and interesting. Vaping naked in the Bay To Breakers race, for instance.
The GOP's new VP candidate is touted as being an anti-regulation hardliner. Paul Ryan voted "Yea" on the Pact Act.
S. 1147 (111th): PACT Act (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass) -- GovTrack.us
S. 1147 (111th): PACT Act (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass) -- GovTrack.us
This is not a democrat or conservative issue. Neither will protect you from their own greed. We will pay taxes and be under the influence of regulation. Period. There is no stopping the machine. It exists to make the decisions for you and needs your wealth to enforce them. We have already by the choices of our fathers given to them the authority to strip us of our freedoms in the name of commerce, safety, and fairness. If you wanted to be able to enjoy the leisure of making your own decisions about your mind, body, and joyfilled activities you should not have been born.
Sorry had to get it off my chest... Now let me go back to my PV while I can still open carry this device... lol
Sorry had to get it off my chest... Now let me go back to my PV while I can still open carry this device... lol
Rather than dispel anything, it 'pretty much' indicates that you
are making a 'false assumption' that the PACT Act says anything
about e-cigs at all.
Have you read it?
It doesn't.
If you're not proposing we should believe that, I guess I'm a little
confused why you think this act offers any insight whatsoever into
how anybody might vote; either for or against e-cigs.
Perhaps you meant to post a different link that actually supports
your point? If so, please post it. I'd like to see it.
Personally, I think it's 'naive' of you to suggest that 'hands
off' is the only rational alternative to the 'total ban' Obama
wants.
There's plenty of ground between those two extremes that
I'd be quite happy with. But that's just me. I wouldn't dare
pretend to know what 'many on the forum' believe; and I
certainly wouldn't pretend to speak for all of them.
I do agree with parts of your point, though: we shouldn't
make false assumptions, and we shouldn't vote against
our own self interests like we did in the 2008 presidential
election.
Last edited:
Ok. Let us calm down. First things first. Discussions happen here over "topics". Another poster should not be attacked. Using language such as naive of you, pretending to know, and false assumption directed at another is an attack on the poster not the ideas written. Please be careful with your language. The bill does not include any portion that addresses ecig or eliquid (PACT act.) the definitions included in the bill specifically exclude it, however that does not mean this bill could not be used as framework in the future.
The State of California is one example where existing regulations have been forced upon eliquid suppliers. Requiring them to have labeling previously used for tobacco products such as analogs because their "language" specifically says use of tobacco products causes ... etc. Nicotine is a product/produced of/from tobacco... This is where ejuice is vulnerable. The PV however I believe will be exempt until it is proven unsafe.
I apologize to Drew_ and to the forum for getting a bit out
of line on that one.
It was not called for, and I will restrain myself from now on.
of line on that one.
It was not called for, and I will restrain myself from now on.
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The PACT Act has nothing to do with e-cigarettes.
Although the inclusion of smokeless tobacco products was unwarranted, I urged Congress to enact the PACT Act (because it shut down lots of internet cigarette retailers who evaded taxes).
But I've also filed an amicus brief with the DC Court of Appeals opposing the FDA's attempted ban on e-cigarettes (which was driven by Obama appointee and former Henry Waxman (D-CA) staffer Josh Sharfstein, successfully campaigned against bills in 7 states (6 of which were championed by Democrats, with Utah the exeption) to ban e-cigarette sales, and campaigned against dozens of state and local bills to ban e-cigarette use in workplaces (virtually all of which were sponsored by Democrats).
Also, please note that all cosponsors of the two Senate bills in Congress to tax e-cigarettes at the same rate as cigarettes are Democrats.
Nobody on ECF made e-cigarettes a political issue, but rather left wing Democrats made e-cigarettes a political issue by lying about their health risks, by trying to ban their sale and use, and by trying to excessively tax them.
Although the inclusion of smokeless tobacco products was unwarranted, I urged Congress to enact the PACT Act (because it shut down lots of internet cigarette retailers who evaded taxes).
But I've also filed an amicus brief with the DC Court of Appeals opposing the FDA's attempted ban on e-cigarettes (which was driven by Obama appointee and former Henry Waxman (D-CA) staffer Josh Sharfstein, successfully campaigned against bills in 7 states (6 of which were championed by Democrats, with Utah the exeption) to ban e-cigarette sales, and campaigned against dozens of state and local bills to ban e-cigarette use in workplaces (virtually all of which were sponsored by Democrats).
Also, please note that all cosponsors of the two Senate bills in Congress to tax e-cigarettes at the same rate as cigarettes are Democrats.
Nobody on ECF made e-cigarettes a political issue, but rather left wing Democrats made e-cigarettes a political issue by lying about their health risks, by trying to ban their sale and use, and by trying to excessively tax them.
It's also interesting to ponder the fact that, at the Federal level, the Dems are taking the heat for opposing e-cigs. But, take a look at who is running the legislatures and state-houses of the states that have imposed the most restrictive laws to date on e-cigs. Are we to believe that the "small government" philosophy only applies once a politician assumes a seat in D.C.? I think not. Last I checked, Utah, Indiana, Wisconsin and the handful of other states that have lumped e-cigs and analogs together, are decidedly not Blue. The Dems make a lot of noise and gnash a lot of teeth, but never seem to get anything done. The Republicans are out to kill e-cigs, state by state, and they're actually successful at it.
While the Dems exhibit their nannyism in response to the bleatings of the health-nazis, the Republicans are every bit, if not more, inclined to do just as much damage at the behest of BP. The Dems will oppose e-cigs mostly on the basis of health related lobbying by ANTZ. The Repubs will do it out of financial pressure by their benefactors in BP. One of these motivations can be overcome by science and education. The other can only be overcome by superior monetary firepower.
So let's not forget who is, and has for over 40 years, been most firmly in bed with both BT and BP. Hint: Their mascot is not a donkey.
Will all due respect, in the hyper-partisan Congress of the last 2 years, that really doesn't mean much. It has become a matter of principle among Republicans not to cosponsor any bill put forward by a Democrat, regardless of its merit or lack thereof, either in the House or the Senate. Don't mistake failure to cosponsor a bill with opposition to the contents of the bill. Nowadays, it means nothing of the sort. It's merely partisan gamesmanship. If that bill was sponsored by a Republican, it would likely have plenty of Republican cosponsors.
Where can we look this up? I'm a liberal Dem but I hear my state's two nannies are in need of letters on this.
I still think the no-advertizing-tobacco rule means the press will be more-reachable.
I think it is funny that our form of corruption is more honest than that of my colleagues from other countries. In their country, one bribes city councilmen. In my country, we bribe cities! Now it's at the state level at least: the state needs the tobacco money.
Also, bear in mind there are two components to "sin taxes." 1. Sinfulness -- it's bad and 2. MUCH MORE IMPORTANT! People desire it enough to pay for it ahead of other spending.
So, for anybody here who is not inherently against "sin taxes" -- promoting things like a 1-cent tax on sugary drinks (because the body only counts calories that are chewed in the homeostasis part of the brain) would probably bring in orders of magnitude more money than taxing ecigs: I wonder if there is info on the relative benefits of quitting smoking vs losing weight? And I'd rather pay an extra 1c on a cola than an extra $50 on an e-kit.
Look what up? In general, all you have to do is look at the Congressional record to see the all-time record numbers of filibusters and overall mass gridlock in the last do-nothing congress. An agreement was made early on between Republican leaders that nothing, no bill, would be passed. Remember Mitch McConnel's public pronouncement that the overriding goal of congress would be to ensure that Obama would be a one term president?
......
Bribery is obsolete. The definition of bribery is an inducement made to a politician, regulator or law enforcer to disregard the law. There is no need for that anymore. Since the Citizen United case, those who formerly would have bribed politicians to ignore laws simply buy them outright in order to write the laws the way they want them.
I heard recently that "The Economist", hardly a liberal publication, publishes a yearly ranking of democracies. In its latest ranking, the U.S. ranks 18th. The good news is that this would indicate there are 17 options.
You forgot the 3rd component to "sin taxes". The "sin" being taxed must be a universal and inseperable part of human nature. You can't target a "sin" that can be universally eschewed, lest you risk eliminating the sin and therefore the tax revenue.
I blew my quotes. I wanted to look up the Senate cosponsors that Bill Godshall was talking about.
Sugar* is more-inherent in human nature than alcohol, in fact a lot of acoholics have some genes for hypoglycemia and may be partly going after the carbs. But if 1c would cause soft drinks to be universally eschewed, how come machines can sell them for more than stores charge?
(And, yes, I know it never stops there but the LEVEL of taxation some folks seem to be contemplating for e-cig stuff right off the bat is a whole different ball game.)
*Those of us living in urban or suburban society tend to be shocked if we read survival-oriented information and find out how HARD it is to acquire enough calories to keep one person alive for a year. Sugar and fat are GOOD, if you chase your food, or live under snow for 1/2 of each year, etc.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
