And thats just credit cards you already have! With a passport, someone could get new cards, new bank accounts, and the real owner is none the wiser
email I got from the FDA
- Thread starter sturrs
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
And thats just credit cards you already have! With a passport, someone could get new cards, new bank accounts, and the real owner is none the wiser
Superstargoddess: My DH nearly died from alcohol poisoning. He went to the beach with a bunch of his friends. They stayed at one of the friend's house. (It was her and her husband's summer place) They were all drinking, having a good time, and partying and then DH went down and nobody could wake him up. Next thing anyone knew the ambulance had to come get him. He nearly died from drinking too much bourbon not to mention the fact he is a juvenile diabetic; however, like me during those years, both of us were heavy drinkers so it wasn't unusual for him or me (we traveled in different circles at that time) to drink more than many of our friends.
His mother had to come get him from the hospital but they couldn't release him for about 3 days until his alcohol levels came down to normal and his sugar levels returned to normal. His mother is a retired nurse so you can imagine the argument that took place over that 2-hour ride.
Personally, I would rather have had a total outright beating by my birth father than to have to handle his mother after something such as that and my birth father was an angry, physically abusive alcoholic. He didn't care where he hit, what he used to hit, or how long he hit as long as he was hitting someone, which was usually me b/c my mother was usually working opposite of him so my younger sibling and I caught the brunt of his rage although when he started on my brother I would do whatever it took to piss him off enough to forget about going after my brother so he would come after me instead. My baby brother would never have survived the beatings I took... Never. He'd have likely killed himself first. I'm sure of it.
Now my aunt (mother's oldest sister) has got in my face when caught drinking underage, which I did with a fair degree of regularity. For me, it was an escape. It was the only time I could reach the point where I felt nothing; I was numb. It was better than the pain, the hate, and even the disappointment and shame I felt all the other times when I was sober.
What bugs me the most is that it is almost easier for a kid to get hold of alcohol than it is for them to get cigarettes although, depending on the kid (I was one of them) getting hold of either/or or both was never a problem.
During Bush's term when his underage twin daughters were going out drinking illegally used to piss me off. Those two had presidential security guards yet why didn't they yank their little a$$es out of those nightclubs and drag their butts home instead of just standing there like a lump on a log letting them get slobbered down drunk where it was captured on television for all the teen America to see and look up to doing.
It gave the message that if the president's kids could do it then it must be okay so we can do it. That just royally ticked me off.
DH and I have been open with both our girls over alcohol. If they question it or want to taste it we are not above letting them. Usually they make this ugly face because we don't drink many fruity-type drinks - at least not at home or around the holidays when among family. Like for me, I'll throw together a Gibson every now and again or have a glass of red wine and DH usually drinks a Tom Collins or a glass of red wine. (Gibson is like a martini only it has vermouth and gin with onions as garnish vs olives). My girls thinks Gibsons are gross. They think the same of their dad's Tom Collins and only just within the last year has my oldest, whose almost 22 years old, has just got to the point where she can appreciate a fine wine with a meal - not the cheap stuff, which tastes like rot gut but a nice wine served with a meal. It's taken time but now she realizes that wine is not something to get drunk on. Each type of wine can and often does compliment a meal especially if you know how to match a specific wine with a specific dish, which I do.
I hope my youngest does like her oldest sister and hates the taste of alcohol until she's old enough to learn to appreciate it without abusing it. She never went to the beer blasts. To be honest, my oldest hates beer. I hate domestic beer. DH calls me a snob but if it isn't imported, I don't drink it. LOL.
On nights when both the girls are gone and the spa is filled and ready, he will stop by to pick up 2 six-packs of beer. He can't get just one b/c he doesn't like import and I don't like domestic so he buys one of each. Usually we go through 2 to 3 bottles each over a course of a few hours kicked back in the hot tub with the bubbles going, music playing in the background, and just the spa lights on low in the bottom of the tub. (It's inside in a wet room so we don't have to worry about neighbors. There's a window but it has a layer of that material on it that makes it so you can't see through the window even though the window has a nice set of drapes with matching sheers under it and two huge matching art prints (30 x 40 give or take; they are big & they are Cuban art work) to go with the drapes, the linoleum, and one day I'll have a freaking palm tree or coffee tree in that room. I have a small tree in the room now along with a few tables with decorations to make it look nice. There's a huge cabinet that holds the chemicals and stuff but it also has hooks to hold robes and towels.
The spa time is about the only time we get to wind down together without kids so we can feel like a husband and wife not a worn down daddy and mommy. Unfortunately we haven't been able to use it since DH had those 2 heart attacks that caused him to have the quadruple bypass. It will be some time before the docs will release him to use the hot tub and even then I'll have to turn the heat way back. I had to do the same thing when my oldest was doing her physical therapy in the spa after she was t-boned in the driver's side door. She has a heart condition too. If the water is too hot, usually above 100 degrees, it can cause her heart to beat irregularly and cause tachy that can lead to a heart attack. It has to be down around 97 to 98. I keep it at 102 when I'm in the tub alone. It has a cool down seat though. That help keep either of them from getting too hot.
I used the money I got from selling some rental property I owned to buy the hydrotherapy spa to do physical therapy in for myself with the lupus and Sjogren's with the joint disease. It's also a medical tax write off because my doc prescribed it since I can't travel to the health center, I can't run because of the pressure on my joints, I can't job either. Walking is tough here because of high heat and higher humidity. The spa was the one thing I could do and it's great in the winter when your frozen to the core of your being.
You had some very hard early years with the trauma and physical abuses. I, in a very minimal way, can relate. In other ways, I have witnessed family units during my life similar to yours, but only as an outsider's viewpoint. I now have to wonder just what really went on when outsiders were not around.
Weird thing with my early life and present life, is that I absolutely hated alcohol all that early time, said I'd never drink,,,my parents would get really intense in fighting, blood kind of fights many times, even though I only remember once, but it was the late night terrors of listening in bed with my two younger siblings, the screaming and pleading from my mom(yet she furthered the issue by not quitting a fight.) In some way, I blocked much of it out, because when I talk to my older brother these days about it all, he remembers much, much more. Now for the odd part, I drink far more than any normal human ought to today, and has since I was 17. We are creatures of our upbringing it seems.
I sincerely feel empathy with you for your past times, even though I can't attest that it physically affected me as much as your times did. I had the normal(well not today) fly swatter and belt paddlings I got for cussing and stuff. The nights with the fights between mom and dad were the worst I can remember in the personal abuses though, you had it worse. I'm sorry you had to go through that, it must have been horrible. Bob
Let me enlighten you Dope. I trust the products sold by a particular department store in a neighboring city. The reason I don't shop at department stores in my city is because there are none. It is a rather affluent little town with a Mom & Pop Grocer, nice furniture store owned by the same family for some 7 or 8 generations, a flower shop owned by about 5 generations of the same family that recently bought out a second flower shop recently making them a "chain"! But, there are no dept stores, no big box stores, and no fast-food joints. There is a nice home-style restaurant owned by a family that's lived in the area for many generations, a dance studio that's been in the same place for decades, daycare - same scenario, and a public school. So that sort of explains why we need to leave our city to go to a department store.
I trust the department store's goods; however, I do NOT trust all of their employees because said department store as with all department stores have a high turnover of employees and when you pay barely minimum wage, you are not going to get the best employees nor keep many of the good ones if you don't pay them well.
That said, I purchased an external hard drive for my computer to run some backups on one day at this department store. About 3 weeks later, I had a charge on my account for the external hard drive to the department store and then there was another charge to a gaming site for that Warcraft game. I don't know what console it works on because we don't have it, not even my oldest daughter who moved away from home completely a few months ago so she could be closer to college and out of the dorms. Well, as it turned out, when I filed the complaint with the bank and they recommended I file a complaint with the police department, it turned out that one of the employees in the computer section of said department store had been stealing credit card numbers to "buy" his time on the intranet or whatever they use to play this WarCraft game. My credit card was hit as was several others before me and several others after mine!
I trusted the store owners to test their products and even to check their employees backgrounds; however, I don't trust all the employees because some are going to be bad apples and some of those bad apples have gotten through the system without ever being caught. That's what happened with this fellow. He had been taking cards for some time, even with his previous employer but had never been caught. Once he was caught at this one department store, there was enough of a paper trail to lead back to his previous employer, where he had put in his notice claiming he found a better paying job, which he hadn't but he didn't want to press his luck at getting caught stealing.
So yes, you can trust a company's results without trusting the employees. The store didn't do me any harm; this employee did me harm. He stole about a hundred dollars out of my account. I got the money back but what about all those that he stole from that didn't go so far as to find out what happened to their money.
Get the point?
This is why people don't trust companies with their personal identification information. It's not the company itself as much as it is an employee of questionable means that can literally screw up a lifetime's worth of excellent credit with the punch of a few buttons leaving you hanging in the wind with a crap-load of bills you didn't incur yet you are and will forever be responsible for regardless of what happens. And, even on the off-chance the person that stole your identity or your money is caught, you still have to make those payments and worry and fret through the time it takes from the moment the indignity occurs until the time the person is caught and hopefully convicted. If it happens to be a case of identity theft, there is no recourse other than to sue the person who stole your identity and if the idiot had money of his/her own, they wouldn't be stealing yours so you're stuck no matter which way you turn and even worse, there is no way to know how far or how severe the damage is until years later.
I don't wish identity theft on anyone but if you were to ever experience it, you would certainly understand where we are all coming from because it is not somewhere you want to be. Trust me. I have been there twice and it's no picnic. It's sheer hell.
Fair enough and there are other ways than taking copies of passports to verify age that would show the FDA that suppliers are doing more. The bigger issue is whether you can trust the liquid from all suppliers. The FDA have shown that things aren't as transparent as would be ideal and I can't see how tighter restrictions on manufacture/import would be in anything but the best interest of the consumer. The fact that it hasn't been an exact science and that undesirable chemicals do get into the liquids has caused untold damage already.
Well, I mostly do things the same way for any company I'm evaluating....
I know they seem like simple criteria, but you'd be surprised how many won't give up the basics....
1) The web site is professional
2) They proudly display an 800 number, plus the regular line
3) Their address is clearly listed, along with a variety of contact options via email
4) Office hours are clearly stated on the web site
Those few things tell me they are a real business, interested in staying in business, and they want you (as the customer) to know it to.
Thats a big plus in my book, right from the start.
Plus, pillbox is involved in the community. Thats a big plus too.
Theres an "About the Liquid" page, and now there are links to lab reports. When you get the bottle, it has ingredients on it.
That all does alot for gaining my trust.
All excellent criteria. It takes money and time and commitment to set up a business properly, and if someone's clearly taking it seriously, it's easier to trust that they aren't just buying no-name cheapo liquid and shoving it into a mailer at an 800% markup without taking any responsibility for what they're selling. If there's a real business established, there's something at stake, and you're more likely to believe that they'll act responsibly to keep that business afloat.
Fair enough but professional websites are 10 a penny, yes there is a link to lab reports and they claim regular tests are done, checking the link points you to 2 reports done by different labs about 6 months apart, to me that either shows that they aren't doing regular testing or aren't publishing all their reports. I don't know which I'd rather was the case.
Granted from the effort they put into the website I'd trust them to make my liquid but I have very little information to base a trust in their suppliers on, which is the real issue.
Last edited:
But the FDA isn't being transparent about those chemicals. They found traces, they didn't specify how much, and those same undesirable chemicals end up in most foods you buy at Shoprite.
Unfortunately, I tend to trust independant lab reports and companies more than I trust government organizations. Its kind of sad, but its still true.
A good web site was only one of the points, and I don't expect any company to produce every test on everything they've ever done.
If you have a legitimate concern over contents, then thats fine. But I'm hard pressed to find contents I'm not aware of, and I don't feel like I'm buying out of the back of a truck. I trust the suppliers I buy from, and none of them have, as yet, done anything to violate that trust.
So if I know what goes into liquids, and I trust the suppliers to investigate the manufacturers to get quality source materials..... why do I need to be more concerned than that?
I can't think of a single reason.
Here's 1 that I'm trying to get through to you, the FDA seem to be pushing for a cease in the trade of e-liquid and are citing varying levels of nicotine and that a sample contained dangerous chemicals that others didn't as reasons*. If all the suppliers were trading at the standard that we assume TW are, then that wouldn't be a problem.
*It doesn't matter that you see this as a non issue as they do, and the fact that it was absent in some samples means that it is avoidable.
Actually, it does matter that its a non-issue for me.
The main reason is, the FDA's argument, at this point, does not hold merit. Thats why they are doing this as basically a PR campaign, because they are having trouble doing it with real data.
The "dangerous chemicals" are found in our food, and the varying levels of nicotine were pretty minor. The "ingredient in antifreeze" is in your hot dogs, fat free cookies, and sugar-free snacks. If they were to put something out there that was real, I would absolutely be concerned.
I'm not concerned right now.
That's how I feel about the situation. They could just as easily said, "Well, we found water and you know water is used in anti-freeze." Oops, I guess we won't be drinking anymore water ever again because it's an ingredient in anti-freeze.
Oh the ignorance of the FDA. They are doing nothing more than covering their backsides because they know if the e-cigs take off, there goes Big Pharma bucks and there goes the Tobacco bucks. There goes even more tax $$$ the government won't be getting from the smokers for a change.
The government has quite literally taxed itself out of the market, and now they are paying the piper for their mistake, as they say.
I feel that the FDA should hire every vapor-r here on this site as lab experiments, full time with benefits since we have a jump start on the process. Buy our supplies, let each of us puff away, and pay us for their so-called slow death, BUT have a parallel analog group to chart against. That would be truly interesting, and would make respiratory history. SB
Hey Dope,
Everyone else has pretty much already said my concerns with the FDA on this matter. But here's my two cents nonetheless,
1. The FDA's plan for tobacco is to decrease the amount of nicotine levels in traditional cigarettes.
A. This means that more packs will have to be bought for most likely the same price as before the decrease in nicotine levels. Therefore giving the government even more tax dollars spent on even more cigarettes.
B. While that can be considered a worthy cause to lower nicotine levels, why is that the one ingredient they are set on lowering and not the other thousands of ingredients/chemicals in traditional cigarettes.
C. They can't tax e - cigs as tobacco can be, leaves a lot up to be questioned why they are against them at this point.
2. The American Lung Cancer Association is against E - Cigs as well, largely due to FDA Testing.
A. The main reason however that the ALCA is against E - Cigs is due to the fact that many smokers that may have quit now won't (wait, i believe they did quit smoking tobacco with the thousands of chem's in them that cause tobacco)
3. Long term affects, no idea on what may happen.
A. Hate to draw global warming in here but . . . our government isn't exactly the best about worrying about long term affects.
B. Coal mining, the long term affects on the land from that as well.
C. several other things that aren't the FDA's problem but . . . really shows how well our govt. really cares about long term at times.
D. Medications, I personally live in a bad pill area. All the medications out there that have adverse side affects that come with them that are FDA approved yet, you know, give me 10 minutes and 100 dollars and i could have a good list of pills sitting in front of me. So what does FDA standards really do for us.
5. How many products out there aren't FDA approved that are consumed by Americans on a daily bases.
A. I will just leave this one to ponder, but if requested i will grab a list.
6. Does the FDA need to get involved in E - Cigs
A. Considering it is inhalled, it may not be a bad idea for a regulation to happen for these, and some other law's ect. ect.
B. But if those laws in any way cross from quality control and age regulation to where/if/how/taxation of e - cigs, then it is no longer a matter of benefitting myself but to benefitting themselves which personally I would not stand for.
Now, sense i'm tired of this crappy Njoy and waiting on my joye 510 I am going to step outside and smoke me a cig. Thanks for reading.
Everyone else has pretty much already said my concerns with the FDA on this matter. But here's my two cents nonetheless,
1. The FDA's plan for tobacco is to decrease the amount of nicotine levels in traditional cigarettes.
A. This means that more packs will have to be bought for most likely the same price as before the decrease in nicotine levels. Therefore giving the government even more tax dollars spent on even more cigarettes.
B. While that can be considered a worthy cause to lower nicotine levels, why is that the one ingredient they are set on lowering and not the other thousands of ingredients/chemicals in traditional cigarettes.
C. They can't tax e - cigs as tobacco can be, leaves a lot up to be questioned why they are against them at this point.
2. The American Lung Cancer Association is against E - Cigs as well, largely due to FDA Testing.
A. The main reason however that the ALCA is against E - Cigs is due to the fact that many smokers that may have quit now won't (wait, i believe they did quit smoking tobacco with the thousands of chem's in them that cause tobacco)
3. Long term affects, no idea on what may happen.
A. Hate to draw global warming in here but . . . our government isn't exactly the best about worrying about long term affects.
B. Coal mining, the long term affects on the land from that as well.
C. several other things that aren't the FDA's problem but . . . really shows how well our govt. really cares about long term at times.
D. Medications, I personally live in a bad pill area. All the medications out there that have adverse side affects that come with them that are FDA approved yet, you know, give me 10 minutes and 100 dollars and i could have a good list of pills sitting in front of me. So what does FDA standards really do for us.
5. How many products out there aren't FDA approved that are consumed by Americans on a daily bases.
A. I will just leave this one to ponder, but if requested i will grab a list.
6. Does the FDA need to get involved in E - Cigs
A. Considering it is inhalled, it may not be a bad idea for a regulation to happen for these, and some other law's ect. ect.
B. But if those laws in any way cross from quality control and age regulation to where/if/how/taxation of e - cigs, then it is no longer a matter of benefitting myself but to benefitting themselves which personally I would not stand for.
Now, sense i'm tired of this crappy Njoy and waiting on my joye 510 I am going to step outside and smoke me a cig. Thanks for reading.
"Side effects:Nausea, changes in dreaming, constipation, gas, vomiting as well as reports of depressive behavior and possible increased suicide risk"
Well Dayum!
8-o
WHO THE F(*% does the FDA think they are! Next thing they are going to be illegal to take vitamins too.. The More I read this section of Forum the more ...... I get... and its causing me the vape more and more to calm down.
While I am obviously a believer in e-cigs (or I wouldn't be here), the FDA really has no choice in this matter. This isn't a case of a board considering whether e-cigs are better then cigarettes for your health, they have to operate within their mandate and rules, and consider the devices on their own. If congress says that they have oversight over the category, which they have, then the FDA has to evaluate them according to existing procedure. If the recent decision to give them oversight of tobacco products hadn't been made, they may have been able to turn a blind eye, but between that and all the local legislation about their use that is currently underway, they don't even have that option. The only out is really around the devices themselves, if manufacturers market them as herbal atomizers (as Ruyan has already begun to do) then they can "look away" from that, but the juice is really where they have no choice but to directly intervene. Sadly. Unless a major corporation invests a lot of money, which is unlikely as they would just be doing the legwork for everyone else who could then copy the product with out the start up costs, then this is likely to go nowhere for some time. The best hope is that when they do proceed too a ban (which is probably not as imminent as envisioned due to appeals process and the recent "warning" issued by the FDA, which will lessen pressure for the time from politicians and tobacco lobbyists), they also issue guidelines for what would be required for sales to be allowed (acceptable toxin levels, similar to patches, warning labels, etc). But don't fear too much, fake Rolex watches have been illegal forever, there are plenty of people in China happy to ship them to you, this will be no different
Hey don't get riled up guys; the FDA can do and say whatever they want. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, they're just attempting to protect the products and services of their employers and financiers in big pharma. Look at what's legal (alcohol, tobacco) and what's illegal in this country (ya' know) and try and convince yourselves these guys are on the level. Look at the drug schedule, see how they have things placed on there. It reads like a bulletin list of their current top priorities - whatever the FDA and the DEA and all their nepotistic conglomerate of entrenched money and power gone awry are actively trying to eradicate lists as the most dangerous threats.
We have drugs that have never been medically proven to have ANY negative lasting health effects on schedule one along with ...... and pcp and our medical establishment's most common prescription for pain is SYNTHETIC ....... Anything that is effective and cannot be patented by the guys who own the FDA is naturally, of course, going to end up on the long list of things banned, deemed as too dangerous for us to try on our own.
You forget that, as Americans, we are property of the state and so the state has the intrinsic right to protect its machinery (the people) from any degradation due to inferior or non-brand name chemical applications. It says it right in the constitution, check. Right after all that bilge about rights held self evident and all that in the fine print.
We have drugs that have never been medically proven to have ANY negative lasting health effects on schedule one along with ...... and pcp and our medical establishment's most common prescription for pain is SYNTHETIC ....... Anything that is effective and cannot be patented by the guys who own the FDA is naturally, of course, going to end up on the long list of things banned, deemed as too dangerous for us to try on our own.
You forget that, as Americans, we are property of the state and so the state has the intrinsic right to protect its machinery (the people) from any degradation due to inferior or non-brand name chemical applications. It says it right in the constitution, check. Right after all that bilge about rights held self evident and all that in the fine print.
- Status
Similar threads
