Agreed!
The only "safe" Final Rule is a DEAD Final Rule.
Good luck.
Just curious, I every Regulation/Standard for Foods or say Beer Brewing was removed, would the Consumer be Better for it?
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Just curious, I every Regulation/Standard for Foods or say Beer Brewing was removed, would the Consumer be Better for it?
None what so Every.
Just trying to find out if Mac believes there should be Any Regulations in the e-Cigarette/e-liquid market?
Implied no such thing was necessarily preferable.
It is in this instance. For a billion reasons already well stated on this forum.
But since you brought up Prohibition which is one of the reasons we have the fine folks over at the BATF…man survived pretty damned well on beer long before their arrival.
Good luck.
Well that's good.
Because I think there is an Awful Lot of people who believe that a Completely free market Can Not/Does Not work for Consumable Products.
So the Debate then becomes What Amount of Regulations are needed?
And the Reference to Beer Brewing was an Analogy to the Question above. And Not about Prohibition.
In my opinion because some are misled to believe that a free market cannot itself establish beneficial collaborative standards. This notion is a fallacy.
A good modern example is Apple computer which took technologies others considered marginally profitable like Firewire to uniform implementation across their platforms. This competitive step facilitated cost availability and in effect forced the interface's broader implementation which contributed to the advancement of this venerable cross-platform standard and spurred the development of competitive others.
It is human ingenuity and self-interest, to be of value as Einstein noted, that yields true innovation and progress. Not a controlling bureaucracy, no matter how well intentioned.
Americans of recent generations have not been told the truth about their most valuable asset; that our form of government protects property. That we are certain of being rewarded and assure our well being thereby for our value. The rest of us, not those government chooses as winners or losers.
Government's role should not be to arbitrarily put up walls to protect us from what may come, this principle always loses; but rather it ought to defend our right of ownership, production and commerce towards our chosen beneficial ends. We create. Government does not. Nor should it own. Especially us.
Good luck.
In my opinion because some are misled to believe that a free market cannot itself establish beneficial collaborative standards. This notion is a fallacy.
A good modern example is Apple computer which took technologies others considered marginally profitable like Firewire to uniform implementation across their platforms. This competitive step facilitated cost availability and in effect forced the interface's broader implementation which contributed to the advancement of this venerable cross-platform standard and spurred the development of competitive others.
It is human ingenuity and self-interest, to be of value as Einstein noted, that yields true innovation and progress. Not a controlling bureaucracy, no matter how well intentioned.
Americans of recent generations have not been told the truth about their most valuable asset; that our form of government protects property. That we are certain of being rewarded and assure our well being thereby for our value. The rest of us, not those government chooses as winners or losers.
Government's role should not be to arbitrarily put up walls to protect us from what may come, this principle always loses; but rather it ought to defend our right of ownership, production and commerce towards our chosen beneficial ends. We create. Government does not. Nor should it own. Especially us.
Good luck.
It's the Qualifier of "Consumable Products" to the Free Market debate that yields the Validity to Many.
Seems a silly position considering nobody yet knows exactly WHAT to regulate.
Sure some might pose that there are potential dangers, but as a rule, none of them have proven to actually cause harm.
And including anything in juice that would immediately cause harm would result in serious felony charges.
Tapatyped
Then why wasn't the Emphasis at the FDA/NIH been to find out What causes Harm and what Doesn't? Isn't that what UK Health is/has been doing for a number of Years?
Waiting for a Problem to occur and then Dumping it into the Court System doesn't seem like a Public Health Policy? Or even a Viable option given our Court System.
And My Lawyers would argue that since I had No Intent to Harm anyone, and was Legally Allowed to sell my Products, how can I be Charged with a Serious Felony?
Aren't there already a lot of regulations for consumable goods? The question in my mind is, why do we need separate regulations for these products? Not to mention all the regulations included in the TCA that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual safety of the products and deal more with the marketing of "sin" products.
Got that. Can't say I'm categorically opposed to standards. Mebe the opposite. But all too often I am for the manner in which and by whom and why for they're implemented. Like I'm peculiar I think at times in my belief that I'm the best judge of how I spend my money. Guess some folks think money's like a consumable standard. Somebody else knows better. Me, I'm a skeptical monkey there z.
Good luck.
There are a Lot of Regulations for Consumable Goods. And Many of them do Exactly what the Intent should be without Overly Restricting the Market or the Consumer.
The Deeming Rule Set, as beckdg noted, has Very Little in common with these Existing Regulations.
e-Cigarettes, unfortunately, came along at a Time when the Mindset was that there was No tobacco Product that didn't cause Significant Harm. So in Many Peoples Minds, they said if we Can't stamp out Existing tobacco products, lets impose a de facto Ban on any New tobacco products.
The Colossal Arrogance at the HHS/FDA/NIH was that something (that could be considered by the Courts to be a Tobacco Product) had come along that DID Significantly Reduce Harm to Smokers but they Ignored it.
And just Pounded the Square Peg e-Cigarettes into the Ban New Tobacco Products round hole and patted themselves on their Self-Absorbed Backs as doing a Good Job for the Public.
Last edited:
Got that. Can't say I'm categorically opposed to standards. Mebe the opposite. But all too often I am for the manner in which and by whom and why for they're implemented. Like I'm peculiar I think at times in my belief that I'm the best judge of how I spend my money. Guess some folks think money's like a consumable standard. Somebody else knows better. Me, I'm a skeptical monkey there z.
Good luck.
I just look at something like the Craft Beer Brewing Industry.
It's got Reasonable Age Limits and Shipping Restrictions so No One can play the "We have to Save the Children Card". It has a Framework of Quality Protections which don't seem Overly Restrictive. And there is the Ability to oversee it at the State and Federal Level.
Shouldn't the e-Cigarette Market be More Aligned with something like that Market? Then the Horrendous Overreach and Heavy Handed approach that was taken with e-Cigarettes.
All correct, I think there's a deeper flaw to the TCA also. As you said, they couldn't ban cigarettes, so they just de facto banned "new" products. This didn't actually allow for cigarettes to be made safer either.
JMO.
But I think the Majority thinking was that if someone could come up with a Safer Cigarette, then they would have it go down the Drug Delivery Route.
It was a Fundamental Flaw to me. And to the 400,000+ people who Die every year from Smoking Related Illnesses.
How so?
If I'm Not Legally Restricted to put something into a Consumable Product, and No Intent to Harm can be Proven, what Laws have been Violated.
Or does the Court(s) now start to Operate like the FDA evaluates a PMTA? And just Make It up as it goes?
Similar threads
- Locked
