FDA funded UNC activist unlawfully instruct minors how to illegally buy e-cigs online, than claim Internet vendors sell e-cigs to youth

[Lessifer]

That's Interesting.

So is Adult Signature upon delivery the way to go?

We went through this with the CA bill a while ago. Signature upon delivery creates an undue inconvenience for many people. There are plenty of age verification avenues that can be used online, the problem is that most(if not all) require fees to be paid, either by the purchaser, or more likely by the seller. Vendors could bite the bullet and just pay to use these services, or in the presence of a mandated verification process, could insist on a federally funded(if a federal age limit is invoked) process.

 

[caramel]

It looks reasonable that the non-willing-to-parent parents should be those footing the bill.

In this particular arrangement, the Postal Service could have an optional service where you enlist your address and all packages sent to said address automagically become "signature required". For a monthly fee to be paid by the concerned parents. (they already have a mail-hold and mail-redirect service, dont' they)

 

[Moonbogg]

Or...we do nothing because this is totally stupid? That's my vote.

 

[zoiDman]

We went through this with the CA bill a while ago. Signature upon delivery creates an undue inconvenience for many people. There are plenty of age verification avenues that can be used online, the problem is that most(if not all) require fees to be paid, either by the purchaser, or more likely by the seller. Vendors could bite the bullet and just pay to use these services, or in the presence of a mandated verification process, could insist on a federally funded(if a federal age limit is invoked) process.

Yeah... I seem to recall Post after Post debating every angle and Possible way.

As I recall, there was No One Way that Everyone would agree on. Or that would Not involve Added Fees.

But Like I said, if the FDA implements Face-2-Face only transactions on e-Cigarettes/e-liquids that contain Nicotine, all this is Moot.

 

[hoogie76]

We went through this with the CA bill a while ago. Signature upon delivery creates an undue inconvenience for many people. There are plenty of age verification avenues that can be used online, the problem is that most(if not all) require fees to be paid, either by the purchaser, or more likely by the seller. Vendors could bite the bullet and just pay to use these services, or in the presence of a mandated verification process, could insist on a federally funded(if a federal age limit is invoked) process.

Signature on delivery is definitely a hassle but doable and typically paid for by the buyer. Some people request it now due to packages being stolen, etc but that isn't age verification, just signature required...

There are a few approved online services for 'automated' age verification and they all have a per transaction fee plus a monthly fee. It gets expensive and you'll see those that have it limit the number of attempts for verification and then post a please call customer service message to keep costs down.

It's only a matter of time before state AG's or state watchdog firms start sending out fines or letters about non-compliance for age verification for their state. Selecting 'I agree to be of legal age' or entering in a birth date are not acceptable means of age verification, if that state allows for online verification of age.

hoog

 

[caramel]

Then the explanation is that they want to ban internet sales without actually saying so. By imposing an impossible to implement in practice condition.

So this was "the trap". First make everyone accept the "no sales to minors" rule. Then say it shall be observed on internet or else.

An explicit ban on internet sales would fly against the "commerce clause" so they took an alternate route.

 

[squee]

I remember way back when I used to order cigarettes online and I had to fax them a copy of my drivers license, which they kept on file. I don't see why they couldn't do something like that, or even the online verification thing, but you'd only have to do it once (per vendor) and only for liquid orders containing nicotine. So if you order and verify with Ahlusion or whoever, then you're "cleared" for all future purchases with them.

 

[Jman8]

What's this "fax" thing of which you speak?

 

[Kent C]

Dated but shows some of the problems....

verifying-ages-online-is-a-daunting-task-even-for-experts

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/t...is-a-daunting-task-even-for-experts.html?_r=0

 

[caramel]

I would suggest at this point that "the industry" (aka vape shops) should not accept any age limits for items not containing nicotine. Including non-nic liquid. If they accept such limits, then it will become impossible for them to even establish an internet presence.

 

[Bill Godshall]

From the NC law:

(d) Sending or assisting a person 18 years to purchase or receive tobacco product.products or cigarette wrapping papers. - If any person shall send a person less than 18 years of age to purchase, acquire, receive, or attempt to purchase, acquire, or receive tobacco products or cigarette wrapping papers, or if any person shall aid or abet a person who is less than 18 years of age in purchasing, acquiring, or receiving or attempting to purchase, acquire, or receive tobacco products or cigarette wrapping papers, the person shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor; provided, however, persons under the age of 18 may be enlisted by police or local sheriffs' departments to test compliance if the testing is under the direct supervision of that law enforcement department and written parental consent is provided; provided further, that the Department of Health and Human Services shall have the authority, pursuant to a written plan prepared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to use persons under 18 years of age in annual, random, unannounced inspections, provided that prior written parental consent is given for the involvement of these persons and that the inspections are conducted for the sole purpose of preparing a scientifically and methodologically valid statistical study of the extent of success the State has achieved in reducing the availability of tobacco products to persons under the age of 18, and preparing any report to the extent required by section 1926 of the federal Public Health Service Act (42 USC § 300x-26).

Since the UNC activists are NOT "police or local sheriffs' departments", and since the UNC activist's actions were NOT "conducted for the sole purpose of preparing a scientifically and methodologically valid statistical study of the extent of success the State has achieved in reducing the availability of tobacco products to persons under the age of 18, and preparing any report to the extent required by section 1926 of the federal Public Health Service Act (42 USC § 300x-26)", it appears pretty clear that the UNC activists blatantly broke the law, and also instructed minors to break the law.

I don't understand how/why the UNC would allow or approve this type of intentional lawbreaking by its employees (especially allowing them to use UNC credit cards for the illegal purchases).

BTW
I campaigned to enact that federal law, called the Synar Amendment (i.e. section 1926 of the federal Public Health Service Act (42 USC § 300x-26) back in 1991 (which required states to sharply reduce illegal cigarette sales to minors or face losing federal block grant funding), and I led the campaign during 1992-96 advocating key provisions in the final regulation issued by SAMHSA in 1996.

 

[zoiDman]

If anyone knows the Specific source of Funding that the UNC received to conduct these activities, please do post it.

 

[caramel]

I have some suspicions...

FDA, NIH award $20M grant to create UNC Center for Regulatory Research on Tobacco Communications || UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health

 

[zoiDman]

I have some suspicions...

FDA, NIH award $20M grant to create UNC Center for Regulatory Research on Tobacco Communications || UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health

Yeah... When I did a Quick-n-Dirty search, I saw that. Not sure if is the source of the Funding regarding this thread or not?

 

[caramel]

Can't tell but this might give you some leads:

https://unclineberger.org/people/rebecca-s-williams

 

[Kent C]

Since the UNC activists are NOT "police or local sheriffs' departments", and since the UNC activist's actions were NOT "conducted for the sole purpose of preparing a scientifically and methodologically valid statistical study of the extent of success the State has achieved in reducing the availability of tobacco products to persons under the age of 18, and preparing any report to the extent required by section 1926 of the federal Public Health Service Act (42 USC § 300x-26)", it appears pretty clear that the UNC activists blatantly broke the law, and also instructed minors to break the law.

I don't understand how/why the UNC would allow or approve this type of intentional lawbreaking by its employees (especially allowing them to use UNC credit cards for the illegal purchases).

Bill, I assumed that the study wasn't conducted by the 'police and local sheriff' since there is no indication of that in your linked study. And if it is true there is no verification that the scientific study that you linked, that the study's authors did not get the needed assent of NC's Heath and Human Services (nor does it say that they got parental consent) - but I assumed that was the case - they are in clear violation of the law.

 

[caramel]

I would also be interested to find out whether those credit cards were either:

- specifically emitted by a bank for such purpose
- personal cards of the staff used in breach of their agreements (TOS) with the respective banks
- stolen
- fake

 

[zoiDman]

Bill, I assumed that the study wasn't conducted by the 'police and local sheriff' since there is no indication of that in your linked study. And if it is true there is no verification that the scientific study that you linked, that the study's authors did not get the needed assent of NC's Heath and Human Services (nor does it say that they got parental consent) - but I assumed that was the case - they are in clear violation of the law.

It has been my Experience that the Board of Trusties of a University tend to frown upon Illegal Activities.

Especially if there is Federal Grant Monies Involved.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Just got the full text of the study article, which contained the following sentence.

The local police chief and district attorney provided
letters of immunity from arrest or prosecution protecting all
staff and participants involved in the study.

So it appears that the local police chief and DA authorized and assisted the UNC activists in violating the law, and authorized and assisted the minors to violate the law (under the guise of encouraging people to comply with the law, and to lobby for more unwarranted laws).



What's next, a federally funded study giving minors a bunch of porn weblinks and urging to teens to download porn (in order to lobby for a federal law banning adult access to porn)?

 

[caramel]

In the end it says that a minor assisted by the local police chief, the district attorney, and a whole bunch of tobacco control experts also providing him with funding, credit cards and directions, will be able to buy an e-cigarette online.

Oh my.