FDA may soon propose regulation that could ban many/most e-cigarette products, eliminate many/most companies
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- innokin nicquid revolution revolver
- Status
What I like is not what the powers that be will do. What I like is the tireless effort and information that you share here Bill Godshall.
Unfortunately the libertarians would take way the feeble control we have now over money in politics. Somehow I don't think handing over more power to pharma inc. is going to help our situation.
That provision which allows the president to "enhanced interrogation" also allows the government to snatch you up in the middle of the night and put you away anywhere they want for as long as they want. Also don't forget that the president is going delegate this power to a bunch CIA flunkeys or lieutenants in the military.
Except BP using the government via the FDA to influence policy and gain favors would also be bye-bye. True Libertarians would take away that perk, as well. No more politicians beholden to BP to manipulate into passing laws against the competition (ie. smokeless alternatives.)
Less government involvement IN business also means less manipulation of government BY business.
I don't believe that most Libertarians believe in going back to the days of child sweatshops and snake oil salesmen, but they certainly don't agree with setups like BP currently has with the FDA - basically paying for approval and exclusivity.
Less government involvement IN business also means less manipulation of government BY business.
I don't believe that most Libertarians believe in going back to the days of child sweatshops and snake oil salesmen, but they certainly don't agree with setups like BP currently has with the FDA - basically paying for approval and exclusivity.
I apologize for flying way off topic, but it is notions like these that you need to question when re-evaluating the way you vote: I'm not suggesting switching or abandoning existing affiliations or political parties, but even the staunchest Libertarians aren't so naive as to think that just because they theoretically favor deregulation in all cases that they would blithely start knocking down the pillars of government and the economy without a REALLY good replacement.
Isn't this exactly the sort of activity the Constitution of United States of America was written to protect against!?? Why is not every Freedom-loving American absolutely outraged about this??? You oppose the government and are the same religion as a suicide bomber? No Bill of Rights for you.
G-d save us.
BP will hand out some money and laws prohibiting vaping in some form other will magically appear. Someone in the government will write regulations on how to implement those laws. The lack of an FDA won't make a significant deference.
As a Libertarian, I don't object to the FDA, I object to the FDA as it is run today.
The FDA considers the industry its "client" when it should be considering the citizens of the US its clients.
The FDA should not have control over the approval of drug, it should have the responsibility of investigating complaints of adverse reactions and calling for removal if they find negligence or scientific evidence of significant harm done - the same way it handles the vitamin industry.
As it is now, it's set up to allow only products from large corporations and inhibits innovation and solutions from small companies and individuals and natural or non-patent drugs. It submits to the will of BP with only an occasional wrist slap to look unbiased, but basically lets BP do what it wants until there are too many reports of adverse reactions to ignore. And then it just issues a black box warning. In the meantime, its heavy-handed with small raw milk and honey producers who advertise accepted and well-known benefits, fights alternative cancer treatments and ignores unpatentable treatments. It's corrupt to its core because its on the BP payroll. But its not because its the FDA, its because of corporate lobbying manipulating government with way too much power. If the government didn't have so much power and control (FDA or not) over regulations, then there would be nothing for BP to lobby.
Look at it this way - the police exist to protect and serve the public and are "government." Obviously, Libertarians wouldn't want to eliminate the police department. However, unlike the FDA, the police departments aren't paid by the criminals and thugs they are supposed to protect us from and they cannot make up their own laws on a whim and force us to obey them.
The FDA considers the industry its "client" when it should be considering the citizens of the US its clients.
The FDA should not have control over the approval of drug, it should have the responsibility of investigating complaints of adverse reactions and calling for removal if they find negligence or scientific evidence of significant harm done - the same way it handles the vitamin industry.
As it is now, it's set up to allow only products from large corporations and inhibits innovation and solutions from small companies and individuals and natural or non-patent drugs. It submits to the will of BP with only an occasional wrist slap to look unbiased, but basically lets BP do what it wants until there are too many reports of adverse reactions to ignore. And then it just issues a black box warning. In the meantime, its heavy-handed with small raw milk and honey producers who advertise accepted and well-known benefits, fights alternative cancer treatments and ignores unpatentable treatments. It's corrupt to its core because its on the BP payroll. But its not because its the FDA, its because of corporate lobbying manipulating government with way too much power. If the government didn't have so much power and control (FDA or not) over regulations, then there would be nothing for BP to lobby.
Look at it this way - the police exist to protect and serve the public and are "government." Obviously, Libertarians wouldn't want to eliminate the police department. However, unlike the FDA, the police departments aren't paid by the criminals and thugs they are supposed to protect us from and they cannot make up their own laws on a whim and force us to obey them.
Last edited:
I dont get it....
Get rid of vaping because it might be unsafe..
If thats their line of thinking why the F$%# is cigarette smoking still allowed? Oh yea, tax dollars, tons of tax dollars. Silly me.
Get rid of vaping because it might be unsafe..
If thats their line of thinking why the F$%# is cigarette smoking still allowed? Oh yea, tax dollars, tons of tax dollars. Silly me.
That was only true until prohibition established organized crime that was able to pay off corrupt police officials for "protection" in a very similar way that gigantic pHarma now pays enormous "regulation fees" to the FDA to be protected from small market competition. Big pHarma/FDA are the new Untouchable Mafia/FBI.
Police serve and protect the public? You dont seriously believe that do you? The police is in essence is an army. They are armed and walking/driving the streets. They are protecting their employer, the city/state/federal government.
They most certainly serve and protect, they just dont serve and protect you (us), not by a long shot.
They most certainly serve and protect, they just dont serve and protect you (us), not by a long shot.
Nobody likes cops until they need one, lol! I guess it depends upon which side of the law you are on. Cops are human, so they make mistakes and have all of the same faults, but most are good and I have nothing but respect for what they do and the dangers they face for us. Having been the victim of an extremely violent crime and watching the process of the cops catching the criminals involved and how they were with me as a victim, I guess I have a different perspective.
You know, there is nothing wrong with them policing, that isn't the issue. And Kristin is right, no one likes police until they need one, but this is an area where there is no policing necessary. Its personal choice. There are thousands killed in auto accidents every year, but they don't legislate alcohol to the point where the industry is basically out of business. No, they make individuals responsible for their decisions, which is the way it should be. Would it be better to legislate alcohol to the point where drinking and driving, liver damage and the rest wasn't a possibility, maybe. Is that what should be done? I think no, and for one simple reason, freedom. You can't force people or you end up with prohibition and then people do whatever they were doing illegally. Again, alcohol (bootlegging) is a perfect example of that.
Can you legislate ecig venders out of existence, surely. But what you will end up with is a bunch of hacks in the woods boiling up (figuratively speaking) rank vats of nicotine juice.
There are things that need policing. In the end its all about $. The tax money they get from cigs and alcohol has all but made it impossible to legislate against. On the flip side, they want people to quit smoking because of rising insurance and medical costs that tax payers are incurring, but they make it incredibly difficult to do so. The way the government works in the states is so disorganized its beyond ridiculous. The FDA should not have authority to introduce legislation at all, but to approve and disapprove what is safe. Beyond that legislation should be strictly reserved to the representatives who have been voted in by the people, and even then, I am starting to believe that the people need to be given the prerogative to vote along with the representatives on any legislation they wish to get involved in. The government has gone from "by the people for the people" to something that was never intended by those who bled and died to protect and serve.
Can you legislate ecig venders out of existence, surely. But what you will end up with is a bunch of hacks in the woods boiling up (figuratively speaking) rank vats of nicotine juice.
There are things that need policing. In the end its all about $. The tax money they get from cigs and alcohol has all but made it impossible to legislate against. On the flip side, they want people to quit smoking because of rising insurance and medical costs that tax payers are incurring, but they make it incredibly difficult to do so. The way the government works in the states is so disorganized its beyond ridiculous. The FDA should not have authority to introduce legislation at all, but to approve and disapprove what is safe. Beyond that legislation should be strictly reserved to the representatives who have been voted in by the people, and even then, I am starting to believe that the people need to be given the prerogative to vote along with the representatives on any legislation they wish to get involved in. The government has gone from "by the people for the people" to something that was never intended by those who bled and died to protect and serve.
"Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2009"
By and by... silliness, just plain silliness considering the man just gave up smoking not long ago (allegedly). What is this "do as I do and no other" mentality that is going on?
By and by... silliness, just plain silliness considering the man just gave up smoking not long ago (allegedly). What is this "do as I do and no other" mentality that is going on?
i think we can all agree it's a 'mob' mentality problem.
that's why i'm pleading with you all to ignore party affiliation. look at the candidate's specific stand. is he/she willing to buck the majority and risk seniority and contributions?
there are some independent thinkers here of all political stripes. this issue of ecigs regulation is wonderful because political philosophy really won't help you. there's a balance of reasonable policy that must be struck here.
that's why i'm pleading with you all to ignore party affiliation. look at the candidate's specific stand. is he/she willing to buck the majority and risk seniority and contributions?
there are some independent thinkers here of all political stripes. this issue of ecigs regulation is wonderful because political philosophy really won't help you. there's a balance of reasonable policy that must be struck here.
I am not trying to be a jerk or be goofy or anything, but they all say they will risk seniority and contributions. For the past 20 years every new guy that comes along has this initial stand like, hey world, watch out, I'm here to do something great. But fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what they say to get them into the door, what matters is what they do when they get inside, which unfortunately has by and large been the exact opposite.
This not to mention the fact that even if you find that rare breed of politician, unless he/she is swinging a big stick that calls people to rally, really is an odd man out swinging feathers trying to hit fast balls. The government is not in need of new politicians, its in need of restructuring, starting first with these semi-privatized organizations like the FDA, FEMA and even the Federal Reserve. Until you get things back in the hands of the government, its every branch for itself, whoever makes the most noise wins.
All of that to say, I agree with you. But at this point, its a bit like pissing in a hurricane.
That's why we need to get rid of the 2 party system (which isn't supposed to be just 2 party but that is what it's turned into.) I say I'm Libertarian, because that is where I lean, but I don't belong to any actual party. I'm seriously moderate, so I have problems with EVERY party. I vote by candidate, so I may vote (R) on one ticket and (D) on another and (I) on another. See - why is it always R, D or I? That basically implies the "real" parties are Rep and Dems and then there are the "also rans." How does a true non-Republican or non-Democrat ever expected to get elected that way? That's why you see people like Ron Paul forced to run as a Republican, a lesser of 2 evils for him. But since he's not really a Republican, he cannot get party support.
The problem is that there are a lot of good candidates who don't want to be in either party but they cannot get elected otherwise. So many conservatives must choose one party and then they are beholden to it.
I guess we should be careful or this thread will end up in the Outside forum, lol!
The problem is that there are a lot of good candidates who don't want to be in either party but they cannot get elected otherwise. So many conservatives must choose one party and then they are beholden to it.
I guess we should be careful or this thread will end up in the Outside forum, lol!
The party's have so much control over the political process that not even Ross Perot with all his money was able to register in every state for his third party run for president.
Another problem is who is going to do what? They make absurd promises, have a habit of just making things up and when elected do something completely different.
Sometimes I think people really don't want change.
Scott Walker, in Wisconsin, is doing exactly as he promised he would do if elected governor. Now they are trying to recall him. The recall process was set up for addressing crimes, fraud and misuse of power in office - but they are recalling him because they don't like that he is doing what he said he would. If that's not a corruption of the democratic process, I don't know what is. If you don't like the incumbent, you don't vote for him next time. You don't get to have a mid-term "do over" because your team lost.
I think there are probably many politicians who get into it trying to do the right thing, but they quickly find that doors are slammed shut and no one co-operates once they get in office (if they can even get there.) Did you ever see the movie "Dave?" That told the story right there. There is a reason why the word "politics" has two very different meanings.
Scott Walker, in Wisconsin, is doing exactly as he promised he would do if elected governor. Now they are trying to recall him. The recall process was set up for addressing crimes, fraud and misuse of power in office - but they are recalling him because they don't like that he is doing what he said he would. If that's not a corruption of the democratic process, I don't know what is. If you don't like the incumbent, you don't vote for him next time. You don't get to have a mid-term "do over" because your team lost.
I think there are probably many politicians who get into it trying to do the right thing, but they quickly find that doors are slammed shut and no one co-operates once they get in office (if they can even get there.) Did you ever see the movie "Dave?" That told the story right there. There is a reason why the word "politics" has two very different meanings.
Last edited:
This.
I've often thought about going into politics.
But I know I wouldn't last more than a few weeks.
Changing one politician at a time won't accomplish much.
A cleen sweep is needed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
