But this America. Where we are free to do as we please (Applies only to government sanctioned and fda approved activities).
Does this seem right to you?
- Thread starter khalidmna
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If you want to Fight for No Age Limits, or No CRP, or Cartoon Characters on Bottle of "juice", will John Tester and or Steve Daines take up your Fight?
I would Highly Suggest that EVERY Person contact Both the House and Senate Reps. And tell them what they want.
Unfortunately for Both You and I, we Couldn't have any more Hard Core ANTZ than we do in the Senate.
When I look up ANTZ Policy Maker in the Dictionary, This Photo is to the Left of the Description.
Since 1992.... for the love of everything holy we need serious term limits. Geeesh 83 too... We need age limits. No wonder.
Please don't take this as a jab to you Lessifer.... we here in conservative Ohio call her and her buddy the wicked witches of the west. One in each house.
I would hope so. Our state demolished a bill that would have essentially called ecigarettes tobacco products and opened the door for taxation. We would up with requiring a $5 license and no sales to minors, but the law was run through with them being placed in their own category, rather than with cigarettes. I don't think it was the best outcome, but it could have been substantially worse. Granted we haven't had anyone dumb enough to try and ban cartoons on eliquid bottles here yet. Lmao.
I have watched it and won't do it again. We are still going back and forth about the label posted in th OP. That is an old outdated label. No longer used by the company that designed it to begin with.
I say, even if ALL labels were just text they would just come up with some other way we are marketing to children. Flavors anyone? Say we give in to them on the artwork. We all know that then they would go after the flavors because of the perception of marketing to children.
I know you don't agree and that is fine but I am in the camp that says "don't give and inch". I gave an inch with smoking and they took it all. Granted, we can still buy smokes but are expected to smoke them in the privacy of our own home. Well, unless we are renting and then even that safe place is a no-no.
I can't figure a more effective way to sell anything to a bunch of kids... at least not without a windowless white van to hide it in.
Then it is a battle we must fight. If we must lose, so be it. At least we'll keep focus on that instead of finding out where else their dirty little minds wander and what it costs us.
Tapatyped
A realist would see the recent history of small concessions becoming a repetitive habit leading to huge losses. This is how our gooberment now works in its glory.
But you keep thinking giving in is doing anything but making it easier for them.
Q: What have you won so far with this strategy?
Tapatyped
I agree that the chances of that happening are slim to none.
What I would like to see happen, and the chances of this are also slim to none, is a Senator standing up and saying something along the lines of:
In 2009 the courts ruled that the FDA could not regulate these products as medicinal, in the absence of therapeutic claims, and that makes sense, it's not medicine. So now the FDA wants to gain regulatory authority through Tobacco Control. However, that doesn't really make sense either. Yes, vapor products can contain nicotine, and yes that nicotine is derived from tobacco, but that seems to be where the physical connection ends. The FSPTCA was intended to minimize the public health harms of tobacco products. One of the major results has been that "new" tobacco products have an incredibly difficult time of coming to market. Perhaps we have been going about this all wrong. Here is a product that has the potential to eradicate tobacco use, but if we apply the regulatory framework of Tobacco Control to it, we might be smothering it in its crib. Maybe it is time to see these vapor products for what they are, something new and innovative. Are they without potential for harm, no, but why not take the time to explore what those potential harms are? If the public health gains of vapor products far outweigh their potential harm, do we not have the responsibility to foster this innovation, to promote the health and well being of our constituents?
No my friend.
Only concede to that to gain a guaranteed win on a bigger subject.
It doesn't work as a gesture of faith.
It works as a signed and passed bill.
You're tossing your leverage... what we'd be willing to lose.
Tapatyped
I can tell you they are not a cigarette. There is no reason for them to be under tobacco laws. It is like non-alcoholic beverages being under the limits for alcohol.
Yes I enjoy a good non-alcohol beer every once in awhile. Sam Adams has a good as does Guinness.
Too Many "Fight Everything" Posts to reply to.
But I'll say this. If you Believe in this, Great. Lets ALL Get Up and Keep Spreading the Word. This has to be Taken Outside of the ECF to be Effective.
And consider Not just Joining groups like CASAA, but also Supporting then ($) with whatever you can afford.
But I'll say this. If you Believe in this, Great. Lets ALL Get Up and Keep Spreading the Word. This has to be Taken Outside of the ECF to be Effective.
And consider Not just Joining groups like CASAA, but also Supporting then ($) with whatever you can afford.
I think methodone is used in the treatment of addiction and withdrawal symptoms, but I haven't looked into the specifics.
Nicotine gum is marketed as a treatment for cigarette addiction.
I'd rather find other ways to get them on our side.
Like the truth, or public health, or someone they love that still smokes.
But I'd also like someone to give me an island and a jet plane.
Or at least a winning lottery ticket.
If we're going to get what we really want...
We have to fight for it...
And that doesn't just mean us on this thread.
It means all vapers everywhere.
Sometimes I still think we can do it.
whats in the realm of reality is no Senator will even consider us when
he or she sees how wishy washy we are in the first place.
if we all went your way they wouldn't hesitate to go totally ANTZ.
at least the ANTZ don't back off for any side of the issue. they are 100%
all the way for everything they believe is an issue concerning e-cigs.
we fight the war on all fronts because that's the way you fight a war.
one front may have to take less priority at points in time but,you don't
through it under the bus unless the other side concedes you something
that will win the war.
regards
mike
whats in the realm of reality is no Senator will even consider us when
he or she sees how wishy washy we are in the first place.
if we all went your way they wouldn't hesitate to go totally ANTZ.
at least the ANTZ don't back off for any side of the issue. they are 100%
all the way for everything they believe is an issue concerning e-cigs.
we fight the war on all fronts because that's the way you fight a war.
one front may have to take less priority at points in time but,you don't
through it under the bus unless the other side concedes you something
that will win the war.
regards
mike
Whatever you say Mike.
But I think you should start Considering that telling an Elected Senator to Fight Against Everything is a Fantasy. They are Not Going to Do It. And it is Not what their Money Givers want them to do.
I understand that you Want Everything to stay just like it is Today. And I wish it Could. But the Market is Going to Change.
So it really Comes Down To How Much Support at the Congressional Level can we Gather to Effect those Changes.
- Status
Similar threads
