To target any one group is just plain WRONG. Just when you think they couldn't stoop any lower. It would be just as wrong no matter if it was race or obesity or seniors or whatever. SMH
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Huh.
You weren't aware of the campaign? It's just another way for the Ministry of Public Protection and Happiness to show how much they care about us. Not only do they Protect the Children, they're concerned with the struggles our LGBT sisters and brothers face with acceptance.
TobaccoFreeCA on FB targeted the LGBT community today, claiming
tobacco companies are responsible for 25% of the community smoking.
2 days ago they were targeting Korean American men, who apparently have a 35%
smoking rate. AND on May 16th they posted that big tobacco is responsible
for targeting mentally ill and homeless people.
Who's next?
Those who own french poodles??
tobacco companies are responsible for 25% of the community smoking.
2 days ago they were targeting Korean American men, who apparently have a 35%
smoking rate. AND on May 16th they posted that big tobacco is responsible
for targeting mentally ill and homeless people.
Who's next?
Those who own french poodles??
Sure they have..............Who do you think Funds Glantz?
Harvard? and next year 33(?) universities........
They are already looking into targeting race.
(Repost/Repost)
I posted this on a thread in July 2013.
The F.D.A. also announced that it would conduct a public education campaign focused on young people this year, and said it was commissioning three new pieces of research related to menthol, including one on genetic differences in taste perceptions that might explain why some racial and ethnic populations are more likely to smoke menthol cigarettes.
It's so nice to know my taxes are funding important scientific research.
Then @skyztheLynnit posted:
Ahhhh!! My heads gonna pop off! This is ludicrous!
I could be interpreting it wrong but isn't this borderline racist? Genetic differences in TASTE??
I responded:
It's because a higher proportion of menthol smokers are Black and Latino. The issue was brought up before, when the FDA banned flavored tobacco and some segments of the population felt discriminated against since their preferred flavor was being targeted, even though it has been around much longer than the candy and fruit flavors the FDA said were enticing young people to start smoking.
I can't figure out what the research is supposed to reveal. That some portions of the population are predisposed to preferring menthol cigarettes, so it's really important to ban them to save specific segments of the population from themselves? Nice. What about races who may be genetically predisposed to higher rates of alcoholism?
FDA moves toward restricting menthol in cigarettes
Last edited:
Sure they have..............Who do you think Funds Glantz?
I was thinking in terms of blatant media campaigns.
Oh, no no no , you will Never see that. Like a Mob Boss, they have Cronies for the Dirty work
PMTA / SE
Last edited:
I recently talked to one of my dad's buddies who is one of four initial investors for a popular juice line and is chief of marketing for the company. Its been very successful. He claims that they knew that this was going to happen from the time the company was started that this was a get in and get out investment. From what he told me they plan on scaling way back to just carrying three of there most popular flavors perhaps to maybe submit the applications. Here is what is interesting to me. I'm a person that loves a hot warm vape and as we all know there's clouds that come with that. I normally do not publicly vape this way as I see it as nussicance to some people and thought that it hurt the image of vapeing. He actually told me that the best thing to do is vape very openly because people are not aware of exactly what it is. So my question.Do we vape very openly hoping that people ask questions and we can inform them to what is going on? Or should we continue to stealth vape ?
You will get comments on both sides of the line. I personally am for Vaping anywhere - with respect.
I Vape, not obnoxiously, but for simple enjoyment. If someone was to have a problem, I would stop or move along. I have never had that happen.
I too have never had this happen but I don't really display it. It's not that I'm embarrassed but feel that I don't want to be apart of that scene. I feel as if people think I'm trying to show off and what not. He persuaded me that while I'm still in the parking lot walking into the grocery store that I should vape very openly
Some of whom they fund. Plus pretty sure they've used their own funds for anti-vape propaganda, but I'd have to recheck some of the posts I've seen on that.
Yeah, but he stabs his/FDA's position right in the foot, there. Words that can be made to come back and haunt their position.
CDC:
"In 2014, the prevalence of current cigarette smoking among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals was 23.9%, compared with 16.6% among heterosexual/straight individuals"
I vape 70pg/30vg when I'm out and leave my 90% vg at home. I wouldn't have tried that high of vg, but I won some in a contest and quite liked it. The trouble is that even at 9 watts the clouds are embarrassing to me.
Not to sound ignorant, but I do not put a lot of stock in CDC anything anymore. They had me at More Teens using e-cigarettes...........ignoring the Drop in Teen smoking.
Is it more than one or two BT companies supporting the Bishop/Cole ammendment?
To me it would make sense that they would be hedging their bets, plus not wanting the regs to look like they were written for them.
If I understand correctly, if the grandfather date gets moved, so does the substantial equivalent date. Companies with a ton of money to spend on applying for SE will be greatly advantaged. Also, the moneyed companies will be more in a position to get new technology approved.
As far as I am aware, RJR has voiced support for the regulations, but have other BT companies?
Early in my vaping, I was having trouble trusting smaller companies and Chinese companies, to not use toxic substances in the juice and hardware, and I was looking forward to trying BT products when they would become available. I felt it easier to trust them, partly because they'd have a lot more to lose, if they were poisoning people.
To me it would make sense that they would be hedging their bets, plus not wanting the regs to look like they were written for them.
If I understand correctly, if the grandfather date gets moved, so does the substantial equivalent date. Companies with a ton of money to spend on applying for SE will be greatly advantaged. Also, the moneyed companies will be more in a position to get new technology approved.
As far as I am aware, RJR has voiced support for the regulations, but have other BT companies?
Early in my vaping, I was having trouble trusting smaller companies and Chinese companies, to not use toxic substances in the juice and hardware, and I was looking forward to trying BT products when they would become available. I felt it easier to trust them, partly because they'd have a lot more to lose, if they were poisoning people.
I have the same feeling there's nothing like getting out of your and vapor pouring out. Or sitting at a red light thinking I look like an idiot. Or having a kid ask there mom why it smells like skittles.....
has this been discussed? :
https://d1fardvzz27152.cloudfront.n...aliff__fda__re_e-cigarette_regulation__4_.pdf
apologies if I missed it .
https://d1fardvzz27152.cloudfront.n...aliff__fda__re_e-cigarette_regulation__4_.pdf
apologies if I missed it .
Hopefully, you won't be including the required lie on the label, that says it's derived from tobacco. I'd like to think you're more honest than to market so deceptively.
Similar threads
- Locked
