The parties are, except at my level a voter, are essentially career politicians - as such they are the curse of the corrupt upon of the republic.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
The parties are, except at my level a voter, are essentially career politicians - as such they are the curse of the corrupt upon of the republic.
There is a universe of difference between setting the standards for justly equitable human exchange and what we call regulation. On the one side is consent; on the other, whatever they say it is.
Good luck.
Last edited:
And from the "Trying to get this thread back to something that resembles the OP Topic" file...
ACS: E-Cigarettes OK for Smoking Cessation ... with Caveats
ACS: E-Cigarettes OK for Smoking Cessation ... with Caveats
Nice find, Zoid. While minor, at least a whiff of sanity.
This part amused me:
"Some smokers, despite firm clinician advice, will not attempt to quit smoking cigarettes and will not use FDA approved cessation medications," according to a position statement posted on the ACS website.
Uh, other than the drugs, I tried ALL the "approved" methods. None worked. I don't think that my experience was much different from a lot of us!
This part amused me:
"Some smokers, despite firm clinician advice, will not attempt to quit smoking cigarettes and will not use FDA approved cessation medications," according to a position statement posted on the ACS website.
Uh, other than the drugs, I tried ALL the "approved" methods. None worked. I don't think that my experience was much different from a lot of us!
I think they're talking about the sane smokers who won't try Chantix. I wouldn't. I did try everything else though, gotta say my "best of the worst" is those nicotine lozenges, but I can't say I enjoyed them OR that they made me quit. I save them for airplane flights and etc.
Anna
Anna
I actually saw it here...
For the ACS to reverse, at least partially, their opinion on "e-Cigarettes" is Huge.
Given that we are Not yet in a Fully Regulated e-Cigarette/e-Liquid Market. And given the Complex Relationship that the ACS has with the Feds, BP, and with BT.
You’re right about that. I tried all of the approved methods including the pharmaceuticals(excepting chantix because after zyban there was no way I’d try another pharmaceutical).
Vaping was the only thing that worked.
Vaping works because of the vapor. The presence of smoke or vapor is more than half of the habit. That harmless vapor replaces harmful smoke, was an "intended consequence" of the creator of ecigarettes.
The "unintended consequence" was that anti-smoking groups didn't embrace them immediately. The reason why, is that those anti-smoking groups had become more interested in their own survival, through contributions and gov't grants, than the survival of the smokers, and potential smokers they originally intended to help.
Unfortunately, that seems to be the natural evolution of "consumer/people/"victim" protection agencies", whether they are privately funded or gov't funded.
The Deeming IS political.
Not much "Damning" news lately, but there is a whole lot of political jockeying that could/will ultimately affect the "Damning"........Indeed it is. However, this thread tends to wander with less Deeming and more political.
Me thinks the Genie is out of the bottle and they cant figure out how to get it back in, so when in doubt, they will just tax it. It's been the American Way since about the time we colonized.
Indeed it is. However, this thread tends to wander with less Deeming and more political.
The Deeming isn't more or less political. It is political.
If by "our" you mean ECF, most likely, because evidently, some here don't think the Deeming is political. They're wrong, of course lol....
To be sure. But so is Washington's farewell address...some 219 years before Deeming regulations were announced.
To be sure. But so is Washington's farewell address...some 219 years before Deeming regulations were announced.
While Washington claimed no faction, he certainly agreed with Hamiton's faction more than Jefferson's. However, neither faction would have fathomed something like the Deeming
There were no socialists then.There will always be like-minded factions. It's unavoidable and not necessarily bad. I kind of laugh when some say Washington was a liberal (using today's definition of a liberal). In my mind, it is impossible to use today's labels on someone who started the country from scratch well more than two centuries ago. The circumstances were entirely different. It's easy to be pro government when you are starting with no government.While Washington claimed no faction, he certainly agreed with Hamiton's faction more than Jefferson's. However, neither faction would have fathomed something like the Deeming
You point out one of the most pernicious aspects of 'history' (read 'revisionist history) where modern values (and definitions) are no part of the values and definitions where they (historians and many people in general) conflate those concepts.
Beyond Natural Law (that our founding documents were based on), there really are not many valid policy comparisons from late 18th century versus today.
History is complicated. The best way to learn about it (IMO) is to go sit in civics and history classes from around the world, and see how other countries view their own (and our) history. With that said, it's almost impossible not to insert politics into deeming. It is political, and very complicated as again, we are going to have a bunch of Federal Laws interacting with State law. It will be a mess for a while, but I have absolutely no willingness to "assume" that deeming will go one way or another.
The FDA is hardly a transparent agency. It wields an enormous amount of power for an "agency" in which staff are appointed and hired, and I actually find it fascinating at the moment, not simply because it affects me, but because it is non-transparent and being managed by folks who don't make their agenda clear. They aren't even voted in. The FDA probably makes more "life and death" decisions than many people realize, both on an individual basis but also on a societal basis. This FDA, (IMOH, as always) is a completely unpredictable animal.
Also, every parent should collect "old" history books, and make their kids read them. When I was in college it was all, "at the start" of "post-modernism." While the way I learned history there had some things going for it, it's very interesting to read how textbooks change depending on who is in power, and who is in activism, and who is in the media.
The only reason our entire population is not indoctrinated is by doing things like that, and the fact that teenagers (the smart ones) prefer to not learn ANYTHING other than to find ways to do sneaky things and don't get as indoctrinated as they might.
But, when a chick announces some "high school teacher" basically wrote her "anti guns" speech, well, I draw a line right there. I don't care if gun rights are DEBATED in a high school, but it should be a debate, not an adult's propaganda. SHE ANNOUNCED these facts like it was a GOOD thing.
Teaching should not involve "facts" such as that, IMO. Okay, if she needed notes to get through a MATH speech, fine. No one should need "teacher notes" to get through a "I hate guns" speech. Because no teacher should be teaching that a "tool" of any sort is "good" or "bad", rather how to use it effectively (like, PA used to teach gun safety in high schools) or to effectively gather facts to support one's belief, not cribbing off a teacher's propaganda.
Similarly with e-cigs. There will be a "debate" in Congress at some point, possibly. But, I guarantee it will not be a true DEBATE. The outcome will be a foregone conclusion, and it will involve restrictions and taxation. Period. What the FDA does in the meantime, well, IDK.
Anna
The FDA is hardly a transparent agency. It wields an enormous amount of power for an "agency" in which staff are appointed and hired, and I actually find it fascinating at the moment, not simply because it affects me, but because it is non-transparent and being managed by folks who don't make their agenda clear. They aren't even voted in. The FDA probably makes more "life and death" decisions than many people realize, both on an individual basis but also on a societal basis. This FDA, (IMOH, as always) is a completely unpredictable animal.
Also, every parent should collect "old" history books, and make their kids read them. When I was in college it was all, "at the start" of "post-modernism." While the way I learned history there had some things going for it, it's very interesting to read how textbooks change depending on who is in power, and who is in activism, and who is in the media.
The only reason our entire population is not indoctrinated is by doing things like that, and the fact that teenagers (the smart ones) prefer to not learn ANYTHING other than to find ways to do sneaky things and don't get as indoctrinated as they might.
But, when a chick announces some "high school teacher" basically wrote her "anti guns" speech, well, I draw a line right there. I don't care if gun rights are DEBATED in a high school, but it should be a debate, not an adult's propaganda. SHE ANNOUNCED these facts like it was a GOOD thing.
Teaching should not involve "facts" such as that, IMO. Okay, if she needed notes to get through a MATH speech, fine. No one should need "teacher notes" to get through a "I hate guns" speech. Because no teacher should be teaching that a "tool" of any sort is "good" or "bad", rather how to use it effectively (like, PA used to teach gun safety in high schools) or to effectively gather facts to support one's belief, not cribbing off a teacher's propaganda.
Similarly with e-cigs. There will be a "debate" in Congress at some point, possibly. But, I guarantee it will not be a true DEBATE. The outcome will be a foregone conclusion, and it will involve restrictions and taxation. Period. What the FDA does in the meantime, well, IDK.
Anna
Similar threads
- Locked
