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

[Kent C]

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




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)?

Bill, I really like your take on this. And I don't believe there should be any exceptions at all in this, but from the wording of the Senate bill link that you gave, unless I'm missing something, it appears that the law was complied with as it is written. (still no word on whether Health and Human Services gave the "ok"). Again, I don't think such exceptions should be written into the law for cigs or ecigs, but that's another topic really.

 

[caramel]

My problem with this kind of studies is that they do not necessarily reflect reality.

With the proper "letters of immunity" I could grow all kind of stuff in my yard.

Yet in real life it doesn't happen.

Same with kids. In real life they don't necessarily do it. Because of conviction, fear of consequences, inconveniences, etc.

 

[Jman8]

My problem with this kind of issue is the blatant and seemingly justified civil rights discrimination that occurs among the (so called) adults of our society that seek to prohibit things from all people under 18, who just so happen to not be allowed to vote on such matters.

As long as adults are foolish enough to go along with that sort of political nonsense, I think these sort of sting operations will be justifiable.

I think this strategy does stink, but think the ban to minors stinks way more. And if you agree with that sort of prohibition, well I say you made your bed.....

 

[kkay59]

I use a prepaid card a lot for my vaping stuff. How about not letting minors get a prepaid card instead? If the prepaid card is purchased by the parents, they are responsible for viewing the bill. If these "kids" want to vape, they will. They will just steal it, or pay someone to get it for them. vaping isn't ideal for minors, but it sure beats some other things they COULD be doing. (and often ARE DOING) They want to do grown up things. That will never change. When I was a teen, kids smoked. They didn't need fruit loops tobacco to want to smoke. They wanted to pretend they were adults. Sure, not all adults smoke, or vape. I could name some things that young folks are doing, but since this is ECF, I cannot. vaping is mild compared to that. It boils down to parental responsibility. Having a prepaid card with minor numbers would be something parents should be able to purchase. I'd be behind that idea in a heart beat.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Kent wrote:

Bill, I really like your take on this. And I don't believe there should be any exceptions at all in this, but from the wording of the Senate bill link that you gave, unless I'm missing something, it appears that the law was complied with as it is written.

I disagree with the latter statement.
The NC allows local police to conduct law enforcement stings to enforce the law.
But the local police didn't conduct these stings (which were conducted by UNC activists), the stings conducted by UNC activists were never intended to enforce the law, and the local police and DA conspired to commit these crimes by granting immunity from arrest and prosecution (to the UNC activists and their recruited youth).

What happened here was that the local police chief and local DA conspired to commit lots of the same crimes they were hired to enforce.

 

[Kent C]

Kent wrote:



I disagree with the latter statement.
The NC allows local police to conduct law enforcement stings to enforce the law.
But the local police didn't conduct these stings (which were conducted by UNC activists), the stings conducted by UNC activists were never intended to enforce the law, and the local police and DA conspired to commit these crimes by granting immunity from arrest and prosecution (to the UNC activists and their recruited youth).

What happened here was that the local police chief and local DA conspired to commit lots of the same crimes they were hired to enforce.

Maybe I wasn't totally clear - although I did say it wasn't the police part of the bill that concerned me but the bill offered two ways that this would be legal - if the police did it under certain conditions OR:

"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"

Again, I assumed that since the college activists did this, they did this under this last 'provision'. If they didn't get such approval as noted, then yes, it was illegal, but I saw no indication of whether or not such approval was granted. IOW, more information is needed to be certain. (hence the 'unless I missed something' part which is also possible).

 

[philoshop]

Kent, unless the participating students and faculty could somehow be considered a part of DHHS, and the plan was drawn up and initiated by Silvia Burwell herself, I can't see even your quoted 'provision' of the law protecting them. Further, that protection reads as though it would only extend to the evaluation of regulatory practices currently in place, not to providing allowance/support for an academic thesis.

My guess is that the parties involved simply hoped no one would/will pursue the issue, and because they spoke with local law enforcement authorities beforehand they somehow consider themselves 'covered'.

, as always.

 

[Jman8]

Kent, unless the participating students and faculty could somehow be considered a part of DHHS, and the plan was drawn up and initiated by Silvia Burwell herself, I can't see even your quoted 'provision' of the law protecting them.

Where in the wording of the law are you getting that students and faculty need to be considered part of DHHS?

DHHS needs to just have a written plan - to use children. I'm guessing DHHS will be covered on that front. Even if they were not covered initially, a little back channeling could make it so anyone looking into this would see that DHHS did authorize this. I doubt they are going to have scientific types hung out to dry when they engaged in "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."

If you are on board with "children should be prohibited from use/purchases," then I think it would come across as nitpicking to think some significant line was crossed. The study does show that minors do have access. That is what the takeaway will be for everyone but vaping enthusiasts who want to make sure the authorization (from DHHS) was clearly given.

And then there are a few vaping enthusiasts, myself included, who think the issue of minor prohibition is the travesty to be arguing against. Those who disagree with this and support the prohibition can fight all they desire on the legalities of this particular research. I bet you lose. And even if you win, what will your victory offer that takes away from what the study clearly indicates? As if they won't be able to overcome the teeny tiny legal hurdle that is point of this thread.

 

[Kent C]

Kent, unless the participating students and faculty could somehow be considered a part of DHHS, and the plan was drawn up and initiated by Silvia Burwell herself, I can't see even your quoted 'provision' of the law protecting them. Further, that protection reads as though it would only extend to the evaluation of regulatory practices currently in place, not to providing allowance/support for an academic thesis.

My guess is that the parties involved simply hoped no one would/will pursue the issue, and because they spoke with local law enforcement authorities beforehand they somehow consider themselves 'covered'.

, as always.

I agree with jman. One doesn't have to be part of DHHS - just that the plan is goes through DHHS for the subsequent 'scientific study'. That's a pretty normal requirement. If they failed to do that, they should be charged with a class 2 misdemeanor.

 

[philoshop]

Points taken. The aegis of the DHHS might suffice in this instance. Although I would still question the limits of their allowed scope of 'research'.
If it's somehow entirely legal, the aegis of the US government might be seen to suffice in every other instance of malfeasance as well. We know exactly where that will end.

I'm asking questions and putting out ideas here hoping that someone smarter than I will maybe be able to grab a thread and start unraveling the government-sponsored woolshirt.

 

[Kent C]

Points taken. The aegis of the DHHS might suffice in this instance. Although I would still question the limits of their allowed scope of 'research'.
If it's somehow entirely legal, the aegis of the US government might be seen to suffice in every other instance of malfeasance as well. We know exactly where that will end.

I'm asking questions and putting out ideas here hoping that someone smarter than I will maybe be able to grab a thread and start unraveling the government-sponsored woolshirt.

Oh, I think the idea sucks. Same for cigs btw and some wouldn't have a problem with that, but for me it's the same concept - entrapment and the use of children, and nanny statism - the parents should be the ones watching. Again, I don't know if the group had any DHHS clearance or not. That's not part of the news stories on it.

 

[Sir2fyablyNutz]

If I was Selling e-Liquids that contain Nicotine, I wouldn't offer Prepaid Cards as a form of Payment.

I had my credit card numbers stolen from online purchases. They tried to use it in the middle of the night and the bank stopped it. I tried to use it the next day and found out it was declined. Went to bank, had card replaced. Then I got a cash only card to use for online. All I do is transfer the amount I am using to the cash card and then use it like a bank card (visa) in my case. That way if it gets stolen I don't lose any money. It works just like my bank card.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Kent wrote:

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"

Again, I assumed that since the college activists did this, they did this under this last 'provision'. If they didn't get such approval as noted, then yes, it was illegal, but I saw no indication of whether or not such approval was granted. IOW, more information is needed to be certain. (hence the 'unless I missed something' part which is also possible).

The illegal sting by UNC activists was NOT part of the DHHS Synar Surveys that all states have been required to conduct since 1996 (to measure illegal cigarette sale rates to minors).

I campaigned to get that law (called the Synar Amendment) enacted by Congress in 1991, and I drafted much of the DHHS regulations (for state compliance and for state compliance check survey protocols) that were finally approved by DHHS in 1996 (and have been implemented by SAMHSA ever since).

 

[Kent C]

Kent wrote:




The illegal sting by UNC activists was NOT part of the DHHS Synar Surveys that all states have been required to conduct since 1996 (to measure illegal cigarette sale rates to minors).

I campaigned to get that law (called the Synar Amendment) enacted by Congress in 1991, and I drafted much of the DHHS regulations (for state compliance and for state compliance check survey protocols) that were finally approved by DHHS in 1996 (and have been implemented by SAMHSA ever since).

It was not clear in any media piece that DHHS wasn't involved.

As for the last part - I'll not comment for the respect I have for you in other areas.

 

[caramel]

This is how it's supposed to be done:

Decoys target e-cigs: Cops expand program to deter sales to minors - - San Mateo Daily Journal

Edit: link broken intentionally. Remove blank to reconstruct.

 

[Jman8]

This is how it's supposed to be done:
http://www.smdaily&&&journal.com/articles/lnews/2015-04-07

I'm going to suggest breaking the link on this one. Whole justification for this is based on this (quote from the article by CA Deputy):

they pose the same health hazards as cigarettes