Did they can all that special session stuff?
If they did that would be great.
Regards
Mike
Counterpoint: This sin tax is not about protecting kids(Opinion)
- Thread starter oplholik
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If they did that would be great.
Regards
Mike
My first thought, based on first sentence of this quote, is that everything on the planet that is ingested would be a vice. Or tell me about this this mythological thing that humans can ingest that causes zero harm to them, regardless of dose.
My second thought is that people who think of things as vices (i.e. smoking and vaping) are likely saying the crime is that it can be distributed to others and therefore is causing harm to another. Otherwise, there is in essence nothing that of itself is a vice (i.e. no hardcore drugs sold on the street would be inherently vices). That is position I have maintained throughout many years, but not very easy to defend when people have own stories of, "but my relative was hurt/killed using that substance."
My third thought which I do think is most practical response to this issue is that anyone who feels need to inflate tax on anything or highlight certain substances as inherently bad for you (and then promote that through advertising campaign) are people that are responsible for co-creating an underground market where the tax cannot be applied. In some ways that market is inherently better as it usually takes face to face contact and can include more personable service. But in other, fairly obvious ways, it is way worse. That we have an underground market for combustibles right now and that it is making millions of dollars provides wonderful example of how the taxing thing is counter productive. Moreover, it is the market that kids are most likely to access by definition of the (insane) law that automatically forbids minor use/purchases. It makes the item that much more cool to obtain, and positions everything by the anti crowd as "yes, please tell me another one of your false authority lies that I discovered to be blatant propaganda against people like me in society." With such propaganda visibly at work, it does make the cynic mind wonder who's all in on the take in the underground market and how intentional was it from the higher ups to have it go that route?
Just ask any bright and motivated high school student how they feel about being forced to sit through 6th grade level classes all day.
I don't think you are addressing @pennysmalls main point. Deeming non-nic liquid a tobacco product is easily grounds for a court case. I've had the debates with you all on the nic liquid, where I can see how that is possible to be deemed a tobacco product. But deeming non-nic liquid a tobacco product would arguably mean that orange juice and coffee and milk are all tobacco products.
It would be rather mind blowing to say that non-nic liquid is a tobacco product and that there's no way to fight this via courts in our society. IMO, you need zero scientific evidence for this to be argued against, and I stand by logic that says orange juice is equally a tobacco product as non-nic juice. Heck, if non-nic is deemed a tobacco product, I might just fight for orange juice being deemed tobacco product to take it to inevitable level of absurdity that it is already at if that goes unchallenged.
Or anyone carrying a book in certain neighborhoods. (not a 'black thing' either).
You'd put a man in office who blatantly treats our elections like another episode in his reality show? That's a level of unpredictability that we don't need in our politics right now.[/QUOTE]
I Do Not Vote For Anything, and Haven't For Years. And further with the latest group of Political Hacks assembled by both parties makes a reality show look like a better answer.
I Do Not Vote For Anything, and Haven't For Years. And further with the latest group of Political Hacks assembled by both parties makes a reality show look like a better answer.
Rahm Emanuel can't balance a budget to save his life. They spend like a bunch or drunk sailors.
I refuse to go into the city any more (except for Bears games) because I refuse to continue to fund corruption and poor fiscal policy.
If you or I managed our money the same way we would all be living in a refrigerator box. They really have no connection or responsibility to the people of Chicago any more, they see us as walking cash registers.
He has absolutely no knowledge of the reduced health risks nor could he care less. Use the children as a disguise to generate more spending money. If he cared about the children he would be working with schools to balance the budget and allocate proper funds to our kids education. He didn't he fought with them and took money away. The people got what they deserve, they just reelected him and as soon as they did he raised their property taxes to some of the highest in the nation.
I refuse to go into the city any more (except for Bears games) because I refuse to continue to fund corruption and poor fiscal policy.
If you or I managed our money the same way we would all be living in a refrigerator box. They really have no connection or responsibility to the people of Chicago any more, they see us as walking cash registers.
He has absolutely no knowledge of the reduced health risks nor could he care less. Use the children as a disguise to generate more spending money. If he cared about the children he would be working with schools to balance the budget and allocate proper funds to our kids education. He didn't he fought with them and took money away. The people got what they deserve, they just reelected him and as soon as they did he raised their property taxes to some of the highest in the nation.
You might respond by saying - ok, but he killed or hurt himself, not you or not others.
CALIFORNIA VAPERS: Things are getting ugly...
"B) An electronic device that delivers nicotine or other vaporized liquids to the person inhaling from the device"
Doesn't look like this will go through but that won't stop them. So if you're not actually vaping orange juice, coffee or milk, you should be ok.
I have not heard anything about this. If you don't post your sources, this is just internet noise. I can't just take the word of some random commenter on the Internet. Even if these states attempt to include Nic free e-liquid as a tobacco product, they could not do so to the individual components. I don't think that there is even enough DIY'ers for them to justify wasting their time by even trying. There is no way that they could say that vegetable glycerine is a tobacco product. That would harm many other industries, while only serving to stop a very small minority of bootleggers and DIYers.
And I find it lacking. The piece assumes that crimes are essentially known to us while vices are up to the individual to be settled. I think it easy to blur the lines and to realize that crimes (that are somehow not vices) are also up to the individual(s) to be settled by own judgment.
For most part I think the piece is written well and no 1 sentence or 1 paragraph summary is going to do it the justice it deserves.
@pennysmalls point, I think, is that these things may be worded into law, but that it will be challenged in court.
My previous point was that orange juice is a tobacco product, just like non-nic liquid, regardless of whether or not it is being vaped. For surely, when it is being sold, it is not being vaped during the transaction. But really, this other point is clearly just addressing vaping, not the tobacco product aspect.
I see this as matter of simple principle, not something that is worthy of explanation via scientific evidence, anymore than one ought to be required to prove that orange juice is not a tobacco product.
I am addressing the main point. The majority of vapers are smokers or x-smokers.
The majority of vapers use nicotine in their juice. The FDA and any one that is serious
about regulating the e-cig industry is not going to let the zero-nic mouse get in under
the door. They will treat it as if it were zero-nicotine cigarette tobacco. There may not
be any low or zero -nic cigarettes as of now (there may be, I am not aware of any) but,
I know this is being looked into and it is a possibility. Look at they way the legislation was
written in Indiana and Arkansas. We are not electronic cigarette users. We are tobacco
users. A new generation of tobacco products users but, tobacco users. WE look like a duck.
We walk like a duck. WE squawk like a duck so, to them we are ducks. They do not need
the nicotine. They have the formaldehyde,the trace amounts of various toxins, the chillin'
and the we don't know argument. I would agree with you if it were not for this. Take a look
at my banner. In a little over two years I have outed them out of some serious cash. My own
conservative estimate is roughly about $12,000.00. There even has been discussion in political
circles more or less accusing us of being tax evaders and to be treated as such.
If and unless the FDA does the unthinkable (their job), I can not see any legal hurdles to
any of the regulations being proposed. Its been done already in one form or the other
concerning other things.
Regards
Mike
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Centers...bouttheCenterforTobaccoProducts/ucm378205.htm
5. What types of tobacco products are regulated by the Center for Tobacco Products?
FDA currently regulates cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. By law, FDA has the authority to regulate “tobacco products,” which is defined in part as any product “made or derived from tobacco” that is not a “drug,” “device,” or "combination product" under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
FDA does not currently regulate products such as cigars, hookah tobacco, or electronic cigarettes, unless their manufacturers make therapeutic claims. However, FDA recently published a proposed rule for public comment to bring more types of tobacco products under FDA’s regulatory authority. The proposed rule would include electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), cigars, pipe tobacco, waterpipe (hookah) tobacco, novel products like nicotine gels and dissolvables not already under FDA’s authority, as well as future products that meet the definition of a tobacco product. FDA’s proposed rule also would include tobacco product components or parts that are used in the consumption of a tobacco product, like e-cigarette cartridges. It would not include tobacco product accessories, like cigar cases.
5. What types of tobacco products are regulated by the Center for Tobacco Products?
FDA currently regulates cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. By law, FDA has the authority to regulate “tobacco products,” which is defined in part as any product “made or derived from tobacco” that is not a “drug,” “device,” or "combination product" under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
FDA does not currently regulate products such as cigars, hookah tobacco, or electronic cigarettes, unless their manufacturers make therapeutic claims. However, FDA recently published a proposed rule for public comment to bring more types of tobacco products under FDA’s regulatory authority. The proposed rule would include electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), cigars, pipe tobacco, waterpipe (hookah) tobacco, novel products like nicotine gels and dissolvables not already under FDA’s authority, as well as future products that meet the definition of a tobacco product. FDA’s proposed rule also would include tobacco product components or parts that are used in the consumption of a tobacco product, like e-cigarette cartridges. It would not include tobacco product accessories, like cigar cases.
I don't think it's 'blurry' whether one potentially harms oneself or whether one harms another person.
It can 'blurry' whether what one does to themselves is harmful or not, which may be an interesting debate, but that isn't the focus of that particular piece.
I am addressing the main point. The majority of vapers are smokers or x-smokers.
The majority of vapers use nicotine in their juice. The FDA and any one that is serious
about regulating the e-cig industry is not going to let the zero-nic mouse get in under
the door. They will treat it as if it were zero-nicotine cigarette tobacco. There may not
be any low or zero -nic cigarettes as of now (there may be, I am not aware of any) but,
I know this is being looked into and it is a possibility. Look at they way the legislation was
written in Indiana and Arkansas. We are not electronic cigarette users. We are tobacco
users. A new generation of tobacco products users but, tobacco users. WE look like a duck.
We walk like a duck. WE squawk like a duck so, to them we are ducks. They do not need
the nicotine. They have the formaldehyde,the trace amounts of various toxins, the chillin'
and the we don't know argument. I would agree with you if it were not for this. Take a look
at my banner. In a little over two years I have outed them out of some serious cash. My own
conservative estimate is roughly about $12,000.00. There even has been discussion in political
circles more or less accusing us of being tax evaders and to be treated as such.
If and unless the FDA does the unthinkable (their job), I can not see any legal hurdles to
any of the regulations being proposed. Its been done already in one form or the other
concerning other things.
Regards
Mike
I get all that, but you are not addressing that it can and will be challenged. You're just saying they've made their minds up and will not allow a challenge. That isn't how courts work.
You could say all that you said about the 2009-10 case and it would've appeared accurate. Clearly nicotine is a drug and if there is an administration in the U.S. that governs the distribution of any (legal) drug, then it would make sense that they have oversight of that drug. But that got challenged and they lost. IMO, that case seems far bigger than anything else that could come up going forward. That our side won that one makes it seem like all others will be a cakewalk. I realize they won't be and we may lose some ground along the way, but putting forth non-nic liquid as a tobacco product will surely make never smokers and never vapers sit up and take notice. Not a lot of them, but I imagine if any of them hear the points of the case, they'll scratch their heads and wonder how soon orange juice might be considered a tobacco product given the logic at work.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked