E-cigarette maker settles lawsuit in California
- Thread starter mpetva
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Left comment:
What do you call it when you falsely accuse a company of wrongdoing and then make them agree to pay $85,000 to be allowed to do business in your state? Some would call that legalized extortion. Soterra was already following every single practice that Jerry Brown implies that he forced Soterra to agree to.
What do you call it when you falsely accuse a company of wrongdoing and then make them agree to pay $85,000 to be allowed to do business in your state? Some would call that legalized extortion. Soterra was already following every single practice that Jerry Brown implies that he forced Soterra to agree to.
This $85,000 'settlement' looks more like a protection racket pay-off every time I interpret the article.
D-i-c-k Turpin would have been proud of such a scam. Force the victim to not do stuff they were not doing anyway, then take a backhander in order to allow them to stay in business. Shocking stuff.
D-i-c-k Turpin would have been proud of such a scam. Force the victim to not do stuff they were not doing anyway, then take a backhander in order to allow them to stay in business. Shocking stuff.
Last edited:
The only thing that people in power seem to find with Ecigs is that they appeal to kids. How about we stop one of the largest contributors to adolescent diabetes and prevent minors from drinking soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup?
My other gripe about this is that the money received for fines never goes to right the wrong. Maybe I should say "seldom" before someone says "never say never"! Fines are arbitrary and seem to say, "Tell us you'll won't do it anymore and give us some money and we'll leave you alone". If I were to do that I'd be charged with extortion.
Big tobacco is complaining, and rightfully so, about states spending money received from the tobacco companies for projects that have nothing to do with discouraging teen smoking, which is what the fines were to be used for in the first place. North Carolina has been sued for this and the finding was that money received for fines doesn't have to be earmarked for their intentional use.
Off topic, tell me healthcare taxes will all be used to provide healthcare. I'd even be happy if they went to pay OFF (not pay the interest) on the national debt.
My other gripe about this is that the money received for fines never goes to right the wrong. Maybe I should say "seldom" before someone says "never say never"! Fines are arbitrary and seem to say, "Tell us you'll won't do it anymore and give us some money and we'll leave you alone". If I were to do that I'd be charged with extortion.
Big tobacco is complaining, and rightfully so, about states spending money received from the tobacco companies for projects that have nothing to do with discouraging teen smoking, which is what the fines were to be used for in the first place. North Carolina has been sued for this and the finding was that money received for fines doesn't have to be earmarked for their intentional use.
Off topic, tell me healthcare taxes will all be used to provide healthcare. I'd even be happy if they went to pay OFF (not pay the interest) on the national debt.
Last edited:
How about we simply ask the accuser to cite one case of the accused selling to minors before they are allowed to get away with the accusation?
I notice the author of the Calaveras news article updates it. So has anyone taken her to task about this?
"However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that electronic cigarettes contain a variety of dangerous chemicals, including nicotine, carcinogens such as nitrosamines and, in at least one case, diethylene glycol, commonly known as antifreeze."
"However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that electronic cigarettes contain a variety of dangerous chemicals, including nicotine, carcinogens such as nitrosamines and, in at least one case, diethylene glycol, commonly known as antifreeze."
Make No mistake about this: In my opinion, this has NOTHING to do with "the children" or Public Health. It is ALL about two things - MONEY/CONTROL and ideology (those zealots and fanatics that see smoking as some kind of 'evil and/or sin'). The money/control people use the zealots as their "grunts", so to speak, to do a good deal of the leg work. Fear is THE main mechanism utilized for manipulation purposes. That is why they use "the children" so much because when it comes to people and their kids, alot of people are vulnerable and many are much easier to "scare" - you don't need facts or science or reality for that matter -just scare the bejeezus out of people and then offer "the solution-that will take away their fear-in this case "ban the evil e-cigs that threaten to "lure" your precious children into addiction. They continue to use the word "anti-freeze" even though that has been clarified a buzillion times - doesn't matter, facts don't matter, right or wrong doesn't matter, WINNING MATTERS and they have demonstrated quite clearly, not only with this issue but throuhgout history, that Big Money and Power will go to any length to win.
Why wouldn't it be used for healthcare. Social security taxes have been used for what they were intended for, haven't they?
CNN.com - CBO: Social Security funds needed to balance books - August 29, 2001
This is just example.
Trouble is that people believe the BS they are told. Just like people will believe that all the gulf spill oil is gone now
Oh yeah, apart from that minor 'six exxon valdezes' that is still left under the surface
Out of sight, out of mind ...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
