FDA FDA's leaked guidance for PMTAs confirm deeming reg would ban >99.9% of nicotine vapor products

[AndriaD]

Yeah, the ones that rob you of your sexual function...sometimes permanently.

SSRIs are for those who circumcision didn't do a good enough job of ruining their sexuality...as that was the whole idea behind it, and please pay NO attention to the medical "justifications". That's just ....ing bull...., and anyone who can see past it knows damn well it is.

Well... when I was suicidally depressed, SSRIs were a good option -- they kept me alive long enough to benefit from therapy. But that's really the ONLY condition that should be prescribed SSRIs, true suicidal depression -- which isn't very common. Most people, they get a little blue, think that means they're "depressed," oh, better take a pill, rather than doing anything to change whatever it was that made them feel blue.

That's the REAL disservice that BP has done, making people believe that taking a magic pill will cure whatever ails them. They did it so thoroughly with antibiotics that now we have resistant strains of bacteria. They're done it so thoroughly with antidepressants, that now people don't think of exercise, or doing something for someone else, or any number of others ways to feel better, and god forbid they should ever develop actual coping skills with a therapist, that would cut into BP's profit margin!

Andria

 

[MacTechVpr]

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet

CASAA: National Call to Action! Stop the FDA from banning nearly ALL vapor products from the market!

This is a new CTA in addition to last weeks with a new tact.

Yes, we see it. But I still fail to understand, to restrain myself from essay, how refraining the FDA from abolishing some does not by the same token legitimize their proscription of others going forward.

Why have I seen this so many, many times in my life? WTH gave Congress the right to pass its own authority to the FDA to call nicotine tobacco? And why have they not clearly reserved this authority to define and regulate nicotine onto themselves?

I mean, really people, why are we even having this discussion?

For us I fear it's the same long march as undertaken by others to remove the power from the hands of the people. In the meantime, we need to understand we've got to live to fight. And that means not standing in front of the gun like martyrs. Mankind didn't survive this long with such inclinations.

Good luck all.



"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it's not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind" —Frédéric Bastiat

 

[Kent C]

Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.
James Madison, Federalist No. 51, February 8, 1788

 

[MacTechVpr]

People make salt if you have to but by no means let's not by corrupted process give them our consent.

Good luck all.

 

[B2L]

Yes, we see it. But I still fail to understand, to restrain myself from essay, how refraining the FDA from abolishing some does not by the same token legitimize their proscription of others going forward.

Why have I seen this so many, many times in my life? WTH gave Congress the right to pass its own authority to the FDA to call nicotine tobacco? And why have they not clearly reserved this authority to define and regulate nicotine onto themselves?

I mean, really people, why are we even having this discussion?

For us I fear it's the same long march as undertaken by others to remove the power from the hands of the people. In the meantime, we need to understand we've got to live to fight. And that means not standing in front of the gun like martyrs. Mankind didn't survive this long with such inclinations.

Good luck all.



"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it's not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind" —Frédéric Bastiat

I fully understand what you are saying and had not looked at it from that angle. My answer though would be, whether or not we as vapers legitimize their conscription does not change the fact that it has been conscripted.

We have 3 choices, in my estimation, we can work within the system and try to minimize the damage, we can stick our heads in the sand and hope it all just goes away or we can begin a full scale revolution.

As to Bastiats quote at the end, yes I believe with all my heart that a vast majority of our legislators deem themselves on a higher level than the rest of humanity.

 

[Kent C]

As to Bastiats quote at the end, yes I believe with all my heart that a vast majority of our legislators deem themselves on a higher level than the rest of humanity.

Plato's "philosopher kings". It's why Jefferson, Adams and Madison (that I know of) hated Plato - joked about him in their letters. Aristotle - reality. Plato - false utopia and reality for him was shadows on the cave wall. Aristotle moved out of the cave.

 

[MacTechVpr]

There are all kinds of revolution @B2L beyond the romanticized notions. The most important one lies within each of us. It compels us in an individual way to act. And were more of us convinced, willing to share it, we wouldn't be having this problem I believe. We are seen as a disordered amalgam of hobbyists, activists, vape party'ers…easily led by industry cues and merchandizing...and the rest cowed by fear just like stigmatized smokers. While the truth is they fail if we share a common conviction —that quitting smoking has helped us and is worth standing up for. But what they fear the most is the resolve that we assert that we are free to make that choice. That we will not stop. That we will not buy in and buy out, whatever they offer us. That we will simply say no, in significant and representative numbers…they certainly do not believe that will happen. But that's what needs to happen in practical terms to get their attention. To demonstrate that there is no political or financial upside. We place a value on the benefits we've gained.

I don't think, not for one minute, that the most heartfelt earnest concessions by vapers or their providers will dissuade the FDA from their agenda or objectives. If most of us believe as you suspect, I'm afraid we have already failed. But I would concede there are far too few vapers that understand the situation, the cause and ramifications of what's about to happen.

So I repeat, if there's to be compromise why can't it be on our terms?

I do not agree that legitimizing the authority of the FDA to perversely twist our language into irrelevance does any American any good.

Good luck all.

 

[skoony]

We have 3 choices, in my estimation, we can work within the system and try to minimize the damage, we can stick our heads in the sand and hope it all just goes away or we can begin a full scale revolution.

Well the first choice is already off the table. To work within the system we must be "stakeholders".
We're not "stakeholders", we're the steak.

Regards
mike

 

[Kent C]

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.
James Madison, Federalist No. 51, February 8, 1788

I might add that this is the reason for a limited gov't. They knew men were flawed and limiting the power of gov't was a way to acknowledge that.

"Enumerated powers' are just that. In the Constitution, ONLY those things enumerated were allowed. If it was not enumerated, it was left to the people or the states. While it is rather clear what those powers were, individuals who were elected and special interest groups who helped put them there, started putting doubt in certain clauses (where, according to other sources - Federalist papers, notes on the Constitution, earlier laws and the speeches and writings of those who wrote it - eliminated that doubt - what we now call 'strict construction').

The main corrupting inroads that have been exploited are the welfare clause, the Necessary and Proper clause and the commerce clause. Definitions were changed. Punctuation changed (and changed back). Some of the most obvious corrupt changes that took place are shown in the book "The Dirty Dozen" by Robert Levy (Cato) and William Mellor (Institute for Justice - what the ACLU should have been).

It's a must read for those who want to know 'how in the heck, did we get here!!??' The book is a good answer to that question. The changes made by those cases ARE the slippery slope because of Stare decisis - the legal principle by which judges are obligated to respect the precedent established by prior decisions, and which allows further corruptions of the Constitution.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Dirty-Dozen-Radically-Government/dp/1935308270

This is basically why we have the Tobacco act and the deeming.

 

[Robino1]

Slightly getting off topic here. Let's try to reign it back to the topic....

Thanks

 

[MacTechVpr]

I might add that this is the reason for a limited gov't. They knew men were flawed and limiting the power of gov't was a way to acknowledge that.

"Enumerated powers' are just that. In the Constitution, ONLY those things enumerated were allowed. If it was not enumerated, it was left to the people or the states. While it is rather clear what those powers were, individuals who were elected and special interest groups who helped put them there, started putting doubt in certain clauses (where, according to other sources - Federalist papers, notes on the Constitution, earlier laws and the speeches and writings of those who wrote it - eliminated that doubt - what we now call 'strict construction').

The main corrupting inroads that have been exploited are the welfare clause, the Necessary and Proper clause and the commerce clause. Definitions were changed. Punctuation changed (and changed back). Some of the most obvious corrupt changes that took place are shown in the book "The Dirty Dozen" by Robert Levy (Cato) and William Mellor (Institute for Justice - what the ACLU should have been).

It's a must read for those who want to know 'how in the heck, did we get here!!??' The book is a good answer to that question. The changes made by those cases ARE the slippery slope because of Stare decisis - the legal principle by which judges are obligated to respect the precedent established by prior decisions, and which allows further corruptions of the Constitution.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Dirty-Dozen-Radically-Government/dp/1935308270

This is basically why we have the Tobacco act and the deeming.

I would add that if precedent is culprit the trail of bread crumbs leads all the way back to Jefferson's failed contentions with the SCOTUS and notably to me, the fiction of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific which extended the the rights of real persons to corporations. It's well to mention too I believe two decisions in 1912 which presaged and paved the road for the 16th Amendment. I'm no constitutional scholar but I understand how money flows.

Good luck all.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Slightly getting off topic here. Let's try to reign it back to the topic....

Thanks

Respectfully disagree. The issues of precedent and standing pertinent to the laws and regulations being applied have a great bearing to the authors of the legislation being discussed. A lack of understanding by the public of how these criteria bind us is right at the heart of the matter I believe. The average person has no idea how corporations wield such power and influence. It's simple to think our legislators sell out. Not so, in many cases they are effectively bound by prior corrupted rule making, process and legislation. And this is precisely why we must not let this particular precedent of regulatory process by the FDA prevail.

Good luck all.

 

[Kent C]

I would add that if precedent is culprit the trail of bread crumbs leads all the way back to Jefferson's failed contentions with the SCOTUS

If you mean maybury v Madison, I agree - that is - I agree with Jefferson's side of it :- ) Marshall was a relative too!

The railroads were the source of many rerouting of the ideas of the Constitution - that was one of them, the other was eminent domain. But the Dirty Dozen grabs the most significant and the authors note that there were many - just chose the top 12 - but spoke to a few others as well.

It's the corruption of the commerce clause that led to many of the gov't agencies including the FDA which is why it is pertinent as far as those who ask (many have, including Robino, I believe :- ) 'how did we get here!!??' It's the fullest answer to that question. No need to dwell on it though - just state that was the start.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Yes, good synopsis I think and on public welfare.Thank you.

 

[Stubby]

Slightly getting off topic here. Let's try to reign it back to the topic....

Thanks

Completely agree, though I don't know why you expect the ideological fanatics to stop now as they have derailed nearly every thread in this section.

 

[Kent C]

Completely agree, though I don't know why you expect the ideological fanatics to stop now as they have derailed nearly every thread in this section.

At least we didn't call anyone ideological fanatics. Sounds like an insult.... is that what you intended? Every post is pertinent to the deeming and why it's here. If there wasn't a discussion of the whats, hows and whys. Each thread would have one post.

Quoting Bastiat, Jefferson, Madison and Adams - a bunch of fanantics .... to you, evidently. BTW, don't go into that 'nobody knows what your politics are' routine. It's quite evident by your posts esp. the ones about Bernie Sanders but others as well.

 

[vape0351]

noo this is so crazy! I just found vaping, and they're already taking it away?! How can we prepare to keep vaping after this ban (in everything but the name) goes into effect?

 

[Kent C]

noo this is so crazy! I just found vaping, and they're already taking it away?! How can we prepare to keep vaping after this ban (in everything but the name) goes into effect?

Stock up. What you don't get, you can get in the black market that will be created as a result of those who know what's best for you.

 

[Katya]

noo this is so crazy! I just found vaping, and they're already taking it away?! How can we prepare to keep vaping after this ban (in everything but the name) goes into effect?

No need to panic, yet. Flavored juices will be the first casualty, we believe. But hardware will be available for some time, we think at least 21 months or so. And Fasttech is not going anywhere anytime soon. So, stay tuned and join CASAA--it's free, but contributions are always welcome. Submit your story, answer their calls to action. It ain't over yet.

Start here:

CASAA Testimonials | Share Your Story!

and then go here:

National Call to Action! Stop the FDA from banning nearly ALL vapor products from the market!

 

[Kent C]

we think at least 21 months or so

Who's "we"?

There's a time period for new applications for up to 24 months but that doesn't mean anything but that.