Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[The Ocelot]

I certainly agree in spades. I'm going to drop this thought and dovetail what you both said. It's going to be controversial for some and I hope and pray it's OK with the mods.

If we agree that the goal is to obtain significant traction with the "mainstream" media and that includes all the TV channels and mainstream print then I respectfully suggest that we consider non-violent civil disobedience. When I was much much younger, I actually engaged in this which must be highly organized with "leaders" who are respected and attorneys who are standing by among other details. Yes, I went to jail and a few hours later I was free. It was very effective and those of us who are old enough to remember these actions are encouraged to chime in. Google it to learn more. In my case it was not only effective but an action in my life that I will never forget. I put it all on the table and I'm glad I did. I'm not inferring that it's for everyone, just asking folks to consider it.

Non violent civil disobedience can be different actions. Chain me to the front door of the FDA HQ. Lock arms and sit in the street. A "sit in". Given the right structure, I'm all in!

I apologize for my cynicism, but times have changed. I don't think acts of civil disobedience would hold media attention for more than a second or two at best. There is too much competing information coming at the public from every direction. When you were much, much younger, there was ABC, CBS and NBC nightly news and newspapers (the number and quality depended on where you lived). Civil disobedience was novel at the time, no one knew what to think about it, but now...now, well, Occupy anything is so 2011.

Goodnight Chet, Goodnight David.

 

[Endor]

Yeah, I didn't mean it in a bad way, as in they made the complaints disappear. The industry actually worked to fix the problem, without regulations. Harder to open packages, opaque containers, even a bitter coating on the pods themselves.

You are right, I find that most industries will self-manage these issues.

Even in the e-liquid business, every single e-liquid vendor I use regularly has child-resistant caps, voluntarily. In fact, I can't remember even seeing a single bottle over the last 1+ years that did NOT use child-resistant caps.

Look, no legitimate company wants to kill kids with their product; it's bad business (not to mention that companies are run by people who don't want to kill kids themselves!). To say that they do, or they don't care if they do, just doesn't make sense.... unless your a politician and you're grandstanding.

 

[retired1]

Non violent civil disobedience can be different actions. Chain me to the front door of the FDA HQ. Lock arms and sit in the street. A "sit in". Given the right structure, I'm all in!

The only media attention you'll get for that is a short report on the arrest of some people that refused to disperse.

In today's climate, the protection of Federal property will result in some rather nasty repercussions if you attempt anything like the "sit-in's" of old.

 

[Bronze]

If you look here: Donor Lookup: Find Individual and Soft Money Contributors | OpenSecrets

You begin to see the individual amounts from those in the healthcare industry (including pharmacy's) start adding up.

No way in hell she's going to upset that apple cart.

Bought and paid for. Lock, stock, and barrel!

Open Secrets is an excellent source.

 

[rosesense]

I did not know that CASAA has a youtube channel, podcasts. In case I am not the only one who didn't know, here is the link:

CasaaMedia

 

[The Ocelot]

We have one daily paper and one weekly alternative paper here. I'm going to have to search their back issues to see what, if anything, has been covered.

 

[SeniorBoy]

I apologize for my cynicism, but times have changed. I don't think acts of civil disobedience would hold media attention for more than a second or two at best. There is too much competing information coming at the public from every direction. When you were much, much younger, there was ABC, CBS and NBC nightly news and newspapers (the number and quality depended on where you lived). Civil disobedience was novel at the time, no one knew what to think about it, but now...now, well, Occupy anything is so 2011.

Goodnight Chet, Goodnight David.

No need to apologize. Civil discourse on either side of the issue is encouraged. My response is three words:

Black Lives Matter

Although parts of this movement didn't fit into the non violent civil disobedience mold, no one on planet earth or mars can deny the extensive and wide spread media coverage they obtained. Not to mention injecting themselves into the "political discourse".

 

[Lessifer]

I don't think the media is complicit, I'm sure they don't care one way or the other. They publish what people want to read - headlines and short articles. Most of what I've read has just been paraphrased press releases from ANTZ and quotes stolen from each other. How do you think we all ended up in the Wild West?

If we can come up with something concise and exciting they'd jump on it. Media wants advertising revenue.

I know I sound cynical, but my first job was at a newspaper and the editorial staff was always at odds with the advertising department over space. We said that without our writing no one would pick up the paper, they said that without their ads we wouldn't have a paper to write in.

ETA: I should have said what people like to watch as well.

That was true at one time, now news is mostly owned by corporate overlords.

 

[Bronze]

No need to apologize. Civil discourse on either side of the issue is encouraged. My response is three words:

Black Lives Matter

Although parts of this movement didn't fit into the non violent civil disobedience mold, no one on planet earth or mars can deny the extensive and wide spread media coverage they obtained. Not to mention injecting themselves into the "political discourse".

The question then becomes...do they help or hurt their cause?

 

[budynbuick]

There was some discussion of whether injunctions could be given. This blog has interesting thoughts relating to the lawsuit already filed.

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: First Lawsuit Filed Challenging FDA Deeming Regulations

One thing that might come out of the lawsuits against the FDA is a mis-step by the FDA during discovery and trial. A good portion of the FDA's defense of the regulations isn't exactly bullet proof. Some parts of it appear (at least to me) to be on a bit of shaky ground.

I sometimes wonder if the massive scope of the regs was partly designed to allow for concessions. I'm sure the FDA fully expected lawsuits when they released the regs. They covered every single dark corner with the language. That's for sure. It's going to be attacked in little pieces like we are already starting to see.

I would think that there's at least a slim chance at a potential injunction if enough lawsuits (with merit) get filed.

Typical tactic. 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Incrementalism. Takes longer but very effective.

 

[The Ocelot]

No need to apologize. Civil discourse on either side of the issue is encouraged. My response is three words:

Black Lives Matter

Although parts of this movement didn't fit into the non violent civil disobedience mold, no one on planet earth or mars can deny the extensive and wide spread media coverage they obtained. Not to mention injecting themselves into the "political discourse".

Yes and no. If I called my extended family in various states it's likely that they've heard the term Black Lives Matter, but I guarantee they would either say they weren't sure what it is exactly or that it is a radical subversive group. Bless their hearts.

 

[Endor]

This is from CNN, if you haven't seen it. Erica Sward (?) says 70% of all ecig users are still smoking among other stupid stuff she says. Greg Conley does respond so it isn't totally one sided.

Thanks for sharing. It looked pretty one-sided to me, but I expect nothing less from the CNN (aka the Communist News Network).

If they really wanted to make this fair and balanced, how about Greg Conley up with this bimbo from the ALA so they can verbally duke it out and give Greg a chance to dispute her ridiculous claims. Specifically:

- This is not "common-sense regulation". It is far from it. I'm tired of hearing that in the mainstream media, as it is a lie (or a minimum, glosses over the real truth).

- Nobody has yet died from vaping, with the exception of that one child on the East Coast (and even that is suspect). Quit saying "these products kill 400,000 people every year" because e-cigarettes do NOT kill people. I'd challenge her to name ONE case of a person dying from vaping.

- "The FDA has no evidence that this is effective as an anti-smoking aid." That is a lie. There are several scientific studies that show it is at least as effective as traditional gums/patches. "The FDA has IGNORED evidence..." is a better way to say that if the desire is to be truthful (and we know there is no such desire among these folks).

 

[danieljm]

Something the lung association has me laughing since last week. The media seems to state their quote in every article they have.

They said this move is a huge leap forward in protecting our youth from harm.

So, what if (if being a strong statement) every product on the market was approved for sale. What changes in that case besides the FDA getting more money than the US will produce in the next decade.

Does the lung cancer association think they would see 1% of it from the FDA, nope. They may get a thank you card from them as well as big tobacco and big pharma. The lung cancer association won't exist if there is a dramatic decrease in lung cancer due to vaping would it.

This whole thing is one hell of a socialistic move. These so called "for the people" associations are just eating it up. Last I checked, I didn't need the FDA to tell my daughter addiction is a bad thing and to protect here from the chemicals in our house. I'm as capable as any parent should be. However, if when she's older she chooses to do something, I'd rather here have the option to vape than have a stinky in her hand any day.

I wonder if the FDA wants wipe her poo as well since they wanna take care of her so bad... I'd pay for that. XD.

The other thing about these media outlets that just baffles me. They all ignore what was available before 2007. Stinkies... lots of them. Those will be unaffected, such as Marlboro Reds, kids will still pay uncaring adults to pick them up a pack or just steal them. Like they always have. This ruling destroys our last 9 years of advancement and puts the old stinkies from prior to 2007 back in the top spot.

How is this not clear as day to these associations. I'm sure it is but money stacked high even can distort anyone's view.

 

[budynbuick]

.

 

[crxess]

And on the subject of advocacy, am I the only person who thinks that the repeated calls to "Support Cole-Bishop" are at least a bit silly?

The Cole-Bishop amendment has already passed, and is attached to the FY2017 Agricultural Appropriations Bill. Isn't THAT is what we should be requesting (a) a vote on, and (b) support of?

My brain is telling me that asking a rep to support Cole-Bishop is like asking someone to go put ethanol in your car.

I'm done.

At any point, Before being signed by the President, the Agricultural Bill may be Modified.
No it is not Silly in any way.
Every Representative in Both the House and Senate needs to be Painfully aware we are for inclusion of the Cole-Bishop Amendment without modification in the Final Release of the Agricultural Budget Appropriation.
It was placed in:
Agricultural Sub-committee

Must still survive
House Committee
House Vote
Senate Committee
Senate Vote
Presidential Signature

 

[zoiDman]

We have one daily paper and one weekly alternative paper here. I'm going to have to search their back issues to see what, if anything, has been covered.

When I contacted My local paper awhile back they were Very Happy to Talk with me. And told me that had e-Cigarettes slated as a Re-Occurring Story.

The person I talked with was perhaps a Tad Disappointed that I didn't have a "Juicey" story to tell about Going Blind or a Body Part falling Off. But they were Receptive and Reasonably Well Informed.

One Point that I mentioned was that I didn't quit Cigarettes "Cold Turkey" by using an e-Cigarette. That I Ramped Down on Cigarettes while Ramping Up on e-Cigarettes. And that I considered Any Cigarette that I Didn't Smoke to be Harm Reduction over Smoking.

And that Even if I didn't completely Quit Cigarettes (which I Did!), and still Smoked a "couple" of Cigarettes a day, that I had Drastically Reduced my Harm over Smoking a PAD+ for 25 Years.

I don't think the Harm Reduction aspect was something this Staffer had really considered. Or if She had, given a Lot of Importance to. And I told her to Ask other people She planed to Interview about it.

When they Ran the a Story a couple of weeks, I was Happy to see a Mention (albeit a very small one in a kinda Slanted over-all piece) to the Concept of Dual Use as Harm Reduction.

So not say'n that contacting a Paper is Guaranteed to get a Glowingly Positive article on e-Cigarettes. But your Comments could have a Impact.

 

[zoiDman]

The question then becomes...do they help or hurt their cause?

I think one should Also Ask who is the Most Important people a Pro e-cigarette Rally should be trying to Reach?

The General Public?
On the Fence House Reps and Senators?


And are the Tactics/Themes used in a Rally the same for the General Public as they are for Members of Congress?

 

[LoriP1702]

Interesting site @retired1
Interesting link...LOTS of work being done against us.
Lobbying Spending Database H.R.2058, 2014 | OpenSecrets

More info when you click on the number to the right of the names.
Busy little bees they are.

 

[Bob Chill]

At any point, Before being signed by the President, the Agricultural Bill may be Modified.
No it is not Silly in any way.
Every Representative in Both the House and Senate needs to be Painfully aware we are for inclusion of the Cole-Bishop Amendment without modification in the Final Release of the Agricultural Budget Appropriation.
It was placed in:
Agricultural Sub-committee

Must still survive
House Committee
House Vote
Senate Committee
Senate Vote
Presidential Signature

Like I said in a previous post, I'm not well versed in the specifics of the process. The way I see it (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that the amendment already passed by a fairly wide margin to be included so it would require specific action to remove it. It's not up for another vote right? Someone would have to propose action to have it stripped? Wouldn't it have to be a republican to do it?

I couldn't imagine a Democrat trying it since they are the minority in both the House and Senate and it's a bi-partisan amendment. Of course only 1 Dem voted for it other than Bishop. I would think Republicans having control of the House and Senate will make it somewhat easy for the amendment to remain. Can the POTUS do a line item veto in an appropriations bill?

 

[Bronze]

Like I said in a previous post, I'm not well versed in the specifics of the process. The way I see it (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that the amendment already passed by a fairly wide margin to be included so it would require specific action to remove it. It's not up for another vote right? Someone would have to propose action to have it stripped? Wouldn't it have to be a republican to do it?

I couldn't imagine a Democrat trying it since they are the minority in both the House and Senate and it's a bi-partisan amendment. Of course only 1 Dem voted for it other than Bishop. I would think Republicans having control of the House and Senate will make it somewhat easy for the amendment to remain. Can the POTUS do a line item veto in an appropriations bill?

There is no line item veto authority.