Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[CMD-Ky]

We gave up following the law when we let the Supreme Court disembowel our Constitution, once the supreme law of the land, many decades ago. Since then we simply run an "ad hoc" kind of government. The Constitution has become a "living, breathing document"; it changes with the changing of the judiciary.

In most (or maybe all?) western democracies there's a privacy/secrecy of correspondence which can only be breached under very specific circumstances and only by specially authorized people. Usually only one state agency can do that and others will have to go through them.

I read a bit about how it works in the US and for you it's customs that are allowed to do that at the border, nobody else (maybe your more secretive agencies NSA/FBI/CIA but I couldn't find anything on that).
In Germany only specific postal employees (or the recipient of the item themselves) can do that in the presence of customs officers (who picked the package), so there's 2 agencies involved (for mutual control) but only one allowed to open mail/packages.

I think rangerix is correct, FDA can tell customs to look out for something but FDA employees will never stand at the border and look for vape gear.

Customs are just following orders, if you want to change what they look at you need to go after the agency which gave that order.
If customs don't misbehave and act according to their orders there's no way to go after them.
It's like the police has to enforce the law and if they do so properly/correctly they're always in the right, you can only go after those making the laws.

 

[zoiDman]

FDA got a court order, then Customs enforced said order on their behalf, I believe.

A Key Difference then verses Now is then, there was no Deeming Rule Set that has gone thru the Complete Rule Making process. Which has been Validated in many ways by a Federal Court.

 

[untar]

Ok, so I was partially right and partially wrong

Entries are submitted to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) which then refers entries of FDA regulated products to FDA for review.

Entry Process

So the FDA indeed has an own team for screening packages containing FDA regulated products but they only get what customs supplies them with.
You got an awful lot of people sniffing around your mail

 

[Kent C]

FDA sure was in on seizing shipments in 2009.

Historical Timeline of Electronic Cigarettes - CASAA

March 2009:

FDA adds electronic cigarettes to Import Alert 66-41 and directs the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to reject the entry of electronic cigarettes into the United States on the basis of them being unapproved drug delivery devices. (See pp. 12-13 here.) (At this time FDA had gained authority over tobacco products, but this ruling came not from their nascent Center for Tobacco Products, but from their Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.)

April 2009:

Smoking Everywhere files a federal complaint on April 28, 2009 seeking an injunction against the FDA with respect to the FDA’s attempts to ban the import of electronic cigarettes. Smoking Everywhere contends that the FDA has no authority over electronic cigarettes, as they are a “tobacco product,” and the FDA’s attempt to regulate them infringes on Congress’s intent to withhold FDA jurisdiction over tobacco products. Smoking Everywhere contends that electronic cigarettes are not “drugs,” “drug delivery systems,” or “drug device combinations” under 21 U.S.C 321(g).

January 2010:
On January 14, 2010, Judge Leon grants the injunction sought by Smoking Everywhere/Sottera prohibiting the FDA from seizing e-cigarettes as drug or drug/device combinations. Judge Leon issues a 32-page memorandum opinion explaining the ruling.

July 2010:
FDA files appellant reply brief in Smoking Everywhere v. FDA case (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit).

December 2010: S
Smoking Everywhere v. FDA, U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington rules the FDA can only regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, unless therapeutic claims are made. (The order is here and the 25-page decision is here.)

 

[CMD-Ky]

Ok, so I was partially right and partially wrong

Entry Process

So the FDA indeed has an own team for screening packages containing FDA regulated products but they only get what customs supplies them with.
You got an awful lot of people sniffing around your mail

Our mail, our email, our internet postings, our credit card use and on and on. In the name of safety and security we have foregone the land of the free and the home of the brave to become the land of a risk free society, safe spaces, thought police and craven cowardice seeking the benevolent cover of our sacred mother the federal government

 

[zoiDman]

Historical Timeline of Electronic Cigarettes - CASAA

March 2009:

FDA adds electronic cigarettes to Import Alert 66-41 and directs the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to reject the entry of electronic cigarettes into the United States on the basis of them being unapproved drug delivery devices. (See pp. 12-13 here.) (At this time FDA had gained authority over tobacco products, but this ruling came not from their nascent Center for Tobacco Products, but from their Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.)

April 2009:

Smoking Everywhere files a federal complaint on April 28, 2009 seeking an injunction against the FDA with respect to the FDA’s attempts to ban the import of electronic cigarettes. Smoking Everywhere contends that the FDA has no authority over electronic cigarettes, as they are a “tobacco product,” and the FDA’s attempt to regulate them infringes on Congress’s intent to withhold FDA jurisdiction over tobacco products. Smoking Everywhere contends that electronic cigarettes are not “drugs,” “drug delivery systems,” or “drug device combinations” under 21 U.S.C 321(g).

January 2010:
On January 14, 2010, Judge Leon grants the injunction sought by Smoking Everywhere/Sottera prohibiting the FDA from seizing e-cigarettes as drug or drug/device combinations. Judge Leon issues a 32-page memorandum opinion explaining the ruling.

July 2010:
FDA files appellant reply brief in Smoking Everywhere v. FDA case (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit).

December 2010: S
moking Everywhere v. FDA, U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington rules the FDA can only regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, unless therapeutic claims are made. (The order is here and the 25-page decision is here.)

This would be a Great Thing to be made into a Downloadable PDF. And then stuck on the ECF somewhere as a Sticky.

 

[Bronze]

We gave up following the law when we let the Supreme Court disembowel our Constitution, once the supreme law of the land, many decades ago. Since then we simply run an "ad hoc" kind of government. The Constitution has become a "living, breathing document"; it changes with the changing of the judiciary.

Much of our judicial decisions are based on case law instead of constitutional law these days. This means flim flam judges decide current law instead of our founders.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Much of our judicial decisions are based on case law instead of constitutional law these days. This means flim flam judges decide current law instead of our founders.

…Gone is justice and the law when courts defer to the omnipotent discretion of bureaucratic regulatory authority.

Good luck all.

 

[stols001]

You know, if I hear the term safe space too many more times, something not great is going to happen, and it's not going to be "safe" probably either.

I wonder if the term came originally from traffic signals or something. "You know, most people stop at stop signs, maybe if we emblazon our society with "safe spaces" people will obey."

Also, 100% safety, I find 100% boring. I just need to say it one more time: Life is not safe. Life is a suicide mission, from the moment we are born, until we finally die."

I really wonder. Most kiddos intuitively go through a fear of death like, about age 6 ish. I really, really don't understand these adults needing "safe spaces." And, they should be sent to hospitals, to observe the process of death, and then return, and I guarantee they'd sing a different tune.

A "fact" (lack of safety) doesn't become an "alternate fact" (safe spaces) and remain true.

Also, while there are alternate facts, potentially, these "alternate facts" just can't EXACTLY oppose each other, and still both be "true." Well, at least not until we open the box.

So, either a logic course is called for, or we need to start offering "safety boxes." Hopefully MOST of the time the cat will emerge alive, but you just can't rule out a sudden, deadly heart attack.

I really, really really want every politician to take (and pass) a logic class, a philosophical one.

We also need to be teaching it to kids, as well. Like, does anyone do debate club anymore? Have we as a society, become so pathetic, that we don't know how to spot some of these:

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

Anna

 

[untar]

Like, does anyone do debate club anymore?

Nah that would include the possibility of somebody feeling offended, can't have that.

The "safe spaces" are a tool to enforce modern victimhood mentality, legitimizing all sorts of things done to the "oppressor". You take part in the "oppressed class" and then can strip your chosen enemy of all humanity and rights because, you know, they're the comic book evil guys and don't deserve anything.

something not great is going to happen

It's already happening.
Rap lyric Insta post 'a hate crime'

 

[Lessifer]

You know, if I hear the term safe space too many more times, something not great is going to happen, and it's not going to be "safe" probably either.

I wonder if the term came originally from traffic signals or something. "You know, most people stop at stop signs, maybe if we emblazon our society with "safe spaces" people will obey."

Also, 100% safety, I find 100% boring. I just need to say it one more time: Life is not safe. Life is a suicide mission, from the moment we are born, until we finally die."

I really wonder. Most kiddos intuitively go through a fear of death like, about age 6 ish. I really, really don't understand these adults needing "safe spaces." And, they should be sent to hospitals, to observe the process of death, and then return, and I guarantee they'd sing a different tune.

A "fact" (lack of safety) doesn't become an "alternate fact" (safe spaces) and remain true.

Also, while there are alternate facts, potentially, these "alternate facts" just can't EXACTLY oppose each other, and still both be "true." Well, at least not until we open the box.

So, either a logic course is called for, or we need to start offering "safety boxes." Hopefully MOST of the time the cat will emerge alive, but you just can't rule out a sudden, deadly heart attack.

I really, really really want every politician to take (and pass) a logic class, a philosophical one.

We also need to be teaching it to kids, as well. Like, does anyone do debate club anymore? Have we as a society, become so pathetic, that we don't know how to spot some of these:

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

Anna

Just to hopefully clear the safe space issue up for you, here’s some of the history.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/7/5/11949258/safe-spaces-explained

I’m not sure where the mocking started, maybe when the term became more mainstream. I remember my introduction to safe spaces was in high school. There were no signs or policies in place, but there were clubs that students could join and they knew that the people and faculty in those clubs would not judge them for or reveal their LGBTQ status. I grew up in California but even here there are parents who would disown their child or worse if they found out they were gay, so a safe space was somewhere they could talk about it without fear of retribution. It’s the opposite of people being naive enough to believe that the world is a safe place.

 

[ScottP]

Just to hopefully clear the safe space issue up for you, here’s some of the history.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/7/5/11949258/safe-spaces-explained

I’m not sure where the mocking started, maybe when the term became more mainstream. I remember my introduction to safe spaces was in high school. There were no signs or policies in place, but there were clubs that students could join and they knew that the people and faculty in those clubs would not judge them for or reveal their LGBTQ status. I grew up in California but even here there are parents who would disown their child or worse if they found out they were gay, so a safe space was somewhere they could talk about it without fear of retribution. It’s the opposite of people being naive enough to believe that the world is a safe place.

That is indeed where the term started, on it's path toward the current meaning. If it ended there it wouldn't be mocked as it is today. Unfortunately others saw how those original safe spaces worked and decided to expand them to try and make the whole world a safe space, free of ANYTHING that might, possibly, if taken the wrong way, offend anyone. Unless of course you happen to be a white, straight, male (especially if you are also a Christian) then they don't care if you are offended. This has lead us to what amounts to a "cold war" between those who value the freedom of speech, and those that prefer to never be offended, by even the tiniest insignificant thing (such as sweaters, bumper stickers, yogurt lids, etc.). These two views are both mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed. Also one is a Constitutional right, the other is a pipe dream fantasy that turns everyone it infects into pseudo-victims.

 

[Lessifer]

That is indeed where the term started, on it's path toward the current meaning. If it ended there it wouldn't be mocked as it is today. Unfortunately others saw how those original safe spaces worked and decided to expand them to try and make the whole world a safe space, free of ANYTHING that might, possibly, if taken the wrong way, offend anyone. Unless of course you happen to be a white, straight, male (especially if you are also a Christian) then they don't care if you are offended. This has lead us to what amounts to a "cold war" between those who value the freedom of speech, and those that prefer to never be offended, by even the tiniest insignificant thing (such as sweaters, bumper stickers, yogurt lids, etc.). These two views are both mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed. Also one is a Constitutional right, the other is a pipe dream fantasy that turns everyone it infects into pseudo-victims.

So perhaps, like regulation, the answer isn't All, or Nothing, but a reasonable compromise?

 

[ScottP]

So perhaps, like regulation, the answer isn't All, or Nothing, but a reasonable compromise?

The solution is common decency combined with a collective thickening of the skin. The older I get the less I believe either exists.

 

[Lessifer]

The solution is common decency combined with a collective thickening of the skin. The older I get the less I believe either exists.

"thickening of the skin" would be counter to the idea, and again, I approach from the original meaning because it(sadly) still holds value. It also is sad that there has to be policy in place to tell people not to engage in hate speech. Many people's definition of common decency is "I don't find this offensive" as opposed to "if I were that person I would not find that offensive."

 

[untar]

here’s some of the history

And then it became this

It's the same basic idea for other groups, like women and people of color, who tend to be less well-represented or well-respected by society at large. People whose voices are quite literally heard less than those of white men, since white men still tend to dominate conversations in media, classrooms, boardrooms, politics, and everyday life.

It gets turned into a sort of ideological class warfare instrument against "the white man" monolith. Which doesn't exist, just as "the women" or "the colored people" don't exist.
That view is so detached from actual reality I can barely grasp how someone can look into the world and see it only as that pathetic battlefield.

the answer isn't All, or Nothing, but a reasonable compromise?

What is a reasonable compromise between free speech/freedom of expression and exclusion zones/compelled speech?
Everybody can already make a club or meet with friends or whatever people/groups they like, there's no need for state sponsored "safe spaces" and regulation of what is and what isn't allowed to say. I don't believe there's much middle ground because you either have those spaces or you don't and you're allowed to speak freely or you're not.
Do we want to be tolerant and inclusive or intolerant and divisive?

It also is sad that there has to be policy in place to tell people not to engage in hate speech.

"Hate speech" is anything people don't like. Those laws are regularly applied to restrict comedy or expression, like in the example I gave above. 2 months ASBO for posting rap lyrics? Come on.
The new (Jan 2018) German "anti online hate speech" law has already been used twice to shut down the twitter account of the biggest German satire magazine. Hate speech can't be properly defined and is highly subjective, we'll end up with judges deciding what is and isn't a joke. Nothing good can come from those laws, giving the state power to criminalize speech is a terrible idea for everyone and will destroy the very base of democracy. If you can't risk to offend someone with your speech/expression then free discussion is already over.

As they say in France "je suis Charlie".

 

[Myk]

So perhaps, like regulation, the answer isn't All, or Nothing, but a reasonable compromise?

For some things that could be the answer except some have learned that if they don't get the answer they want go ahead and compromise and go right back to demanding the answer you want so the continual compromise turns into boiling the frog slowly.

 

[Lessifer]

We could have full discussions of what is protected speech, where it is protected, etc. but perhaps we've digressed far enough?

I heard a radio PSA today with a tag line something like: "There's no tobacco product with a safe level of exposure."

 

[Lessifer]

For some things that could be the answer except some have learned that if they don't get the answer they want go ahead and compromise and go right back to demanding the answer you want so the continual compromise turns into boiling the frog slowly.

I think that's become a hallmark of America, push and prod until you get what you want, or you find a loophole. Just about everybody does it.

 

[untar]

I heard a radio PSA today with a tag line something like: "There's no tobacco product with a safe level of exposure."

That resonates nicely with the "there's no level below which carcinogenic substances are acceptable" we got here a few days ago.