Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[Kenna]

Speaking of the Constitution, and trying to get back on topic, if a statute is hopelessly vague, such that people can't figure out what it covers and what it doesn't so that they can adjust their behavior accordingly, the statute may be declared "void for vagueness" and thus unconstitutional. The FSPTCA, particularly as interpreted and applied by the FDA, may be void for vagueness and I am surprised that neither of the lawsuits filed to date has made this attack.

Specifically, The FSPTCA defines "tobacco product" to mean "any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product)."

This definition is badly flawed. When writing a definition, you must not include the defined term in the definition. This is particularly important when writing statutory definitions. It makes the definition circle back on itself.

In this case, when a "tobacco product" is initially limited to things which are made or derived from tobacco, and then they try to expand the definition to include other things, but those other things must also be "of a tobacco product" as initially defined, then it would seem to me that these other things could only qualify as tobacco products if they were likewise made or derived from tobacco. That would exclude such things as atomizers and battery powered mods, which conceptually differ very little, if at all, from smoking pipes--just equipment for using tobacco and things derived from tobacco.

I like the way you talk. Marry me!

 

[The Ocelot]

Well, I tried one. It' nasty, expensive and didn't work for me.

For the record, their device doesn't heat anything, so it's not quite like vaping.

But might be good for laughs at a party or cause people to stare at you even more than exhaling vapor.

 

[The Ocelot]

I don't want a Big Foot special edition. I want to know who chose that particular image for the cover. And why?

Newsweek: Vape Nation

Oh gawd! I missed that.

ETA: Negative comment posted.

 

[Woofer]

"They" already do, when they want to try them as adults...

We have the young offenders act in Canada, basicly one gets a free pass until 16 years old. I think it is one of the stupidest bit of legislation in my lifetime.
I have no idea how the USA deals with the young offender issue.

If you click on the link to the actual Vape Nation page you can also buy a Big Foot special edition.

I was tempted but I decided to hold out for the in depth special issue expose of nicotine abuse by Saskwatch.

 

[budynbuick]

I don't want a Big Foot special edition. I want to know who chose that particular image for the cover. And why?

Newsweek: Vape Nation

 

[Woofer]

I don't want a Big Foot special edition. I want to know who chose that particular image for the cover. And why?

Newsweek: Vape Nation

Oh you mean the cover with the fake vapor in the shape of that which shall not be named on ecf?
I posted a comment about that ages ago, don't recall getting much response.

 

[Kenna]

The problem I have with a lot of these letters that I've been reading from us to various reps, etc. is that we are all saying that we could GO BACK TO SMOKING if these regs were to stand. Don't you think that's exactly what they want us to do?? I'm sure they are saying "YES!!!! and "GOOD" - BP, BT, and FDA WANT us to go back. Of course the FDA SAYS they are looking out for us regarding safety and health, etc., but we all know they are not.

I think we should say that we would have to resort to the BM, which is inevitable. They can never control that. It will happen if these regs stand. Where there is a will, there is a way. If there is a demand, there will be a supply.

No. They would just extend their overreach reach to criminalization for diy.

 

[Katya]

My sentiments exactly...

 

[Eskie]

I do like the description of including "never seen before photos". Sounds like some sort of titillating pics about "America's new favorite vice". Maybe it's those photos from that Daytona Beach bikini clad cloud competition.

In a sense, this is a part of the problem with vaping in the media today. The message isn't about how many hundreds of thousands are reducing their harm by vaping by giving up cigs, but some kind of scary new craze that will corrupt our children, rot their brain, and contribute to global warming, because that's what sells a $10.99 "special edition" from Newsweek.

And why does it have to be labelled a vice? Lots of folks use low concentration nicotine, or even no nic. So blowing a cloud of VG is a "vice"? Really? Cigarettes, sure. Alcohol, sure. Drugs, yeah. But vaping? I don't think so.

 

[Katya]

Oh you mean the cover with the fake vapor in the shape of that which shall not be named on ecf?
I posted a comment about that ages ago, don't recall getting much response.

Sorry, I missed your post. It was brought to my attention last night (by my dear friend @FlamingoTutu) in another thread...

 

[Woofer]

Sorry, I missed your post. It was brought to my attention last night (by my dear friend @FlamingoTutu) in another thread...

No worries Katya, so many threads so many posts. I am glad you mentioned it again because it is disgusting urinalism on the part of snoozeweak.

 

[nicnik]

When I mentioned BT essentially wrote the Deeming regs I was accused of posting nonsense.

I sure don't disagree with what you said. Especially, since what you said was that BT/BP wote them.

 

[classwife]

I want to know who chose that particular image for the cover. And why?

It's very...ummmm...leaf like...NOT an appropriate choice and quite offensive and degrading.

 

[nicnik]

That's exactly what I said when I was told that was nonsense.

Not exactly. I like what you actually said even better.

 

[classwife]

and those other crap "stories" at the bottom...OMG !

What the hell is going on in this world.

 

[Katya]

It's very...ummmm...leaf like...NOT an appropriate choice and quite offensive and degrading.

Right.

And what does it have to do with their "description" below?

"Special Editions presents the first full-length investigation of one of the hottest—and most hotly debated—trends in the world: Vaping. What started as a way to quit smoking has become a full-blown movement, and more and more Americans seem to join it every day."

I don't know why it upset me so much, but it just did.

Never mind. I'll get over it.

 

[nicnik]

You might be interested in this if you get bored...
DailyShow story ideas message board

I didn't get logged out clicking on that. Whatever you did, or someone did, seems to have fixed the problem.

 

[zoiDman]

This is what I got, about 20 of the same images, when I googed the edition. I'm not amused. And most of the images are from Newsweek itself. (Hope the image is okay but it's borderline at the most optimistic. I chose the smallest image, guess where it comes from? Ebay.)

 

[Bronze]

Not exactly. I like what you actually said even better.

What did I say?

 

[classwife]

Never mind. I'll get over it.

I won't...

I am so sick of the lies that are being fed to the public about e-cigarettes.