California vote on e-cigs coming--Gov. vetos--defers to SE v. FDA case

Status
Not open for further replies.

Timekey

Moved On
Jun 3, 2009
41
0
Re: SJR 8 -- this bill itself may be moot, but the confusion over the language sampled from the bill's text serves as a good lesson in proofreading/editing/writing voice. ;)

Here's how it's written in the link at info sen ca gov:

"This measure would request that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until [ begin strikethrough ] they have been found by FDA to be safe [ end strikethrough ] [ begin italic ] the FDA has found them to be safe [ end italic ]"

Without the strikethrough/italic notations, it's a confusing paragraph! But, what the notations mean is simply this:

- In an earlier version, the sentence read:
"This measure would request that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until they have been found by FDA to be safe"

The sentence was rewritten slightly, changing the passive voice to an active voice, such that the revised sentence reads:

"This measure would request that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until the FDA has found them to be safe."

Grammar and voice; that's all. It still comes down to Corbett wanting to ban non-FDA-approved e-cigs. The language in the bill in no way expresses an FDA opinion of e-cig safety.

Corbett simply blew it when she changed gears from banning slaes to minors to everyone in the state especially adults. It was because of that Arnold veto'd it. If she would have kept the bill targeted towards minors it would have passed and she could now be claiming victory and another notch in her resume .........whcih is what this is all about to her anyways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread