FDA Godshall interview exposes how FDA deeming reg bans nearly all e-cig, how vapers can fight back

[DC2]

@DC2 Not tobacco tax but:

Obama Eyes More Tax Hikes---By Executive Action

"The tax gauntlet was tossed down by his White House Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, who said the President was “very interested” in raising taxes through executive action. Some of the blame goes to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who called upon the President to raise over $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action. Sen. Sanders dispatched this letterto Mr. Obama’s Treasury Secretary identifying actions the IRS can take without asking Congress."

That sounds like a horrible abuse of "executive action" if you ask me.
Or if you ask anyone who cares about enforcing the concept of "checks and balances" as it was meant to be.

 

[Kent C]

That sounds like a horrible abuse of "executive action" if you ask me.
Or if you ask anyone who cares about enforcing the concept of "checks and balances" as it was meant to be.

Constitution: Article 1 Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

And of course some people would say that 'well, that doesn't mean that the executive (or judiciary) can't raise taxes but....

Article 1:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Section 1 is a vesting clause, granting all the federal government's legislative authority to Congress. Similar vesting clauses are found in Articles II and III, which grant "the executive power" to the President and "the judicial power" to the federal judiciary. In legal proceedings, the working definition of "herein" connotes specificity and exclusivity. The Vesting Clauses thus establishes the principle of separation of powers by specifically giving to each branch of the federal government only those powers it can exercise and no others.[1] This means that no branch may exercise powers that properly belong to another (e.g., since the legislative power is only vested in Congress, the executive and judiciary may not enact laws).[2]"

wiki....

 

[nicnik]

Constitution: Article 1 Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

And of course some people would say that 'well, that doesn't mean that the executive (or judiciary) can't raise taxes but....

Article 1:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Section 1 is a vesting clause, granting all the federal government's legislative authority to Congress. Similar vesting clauses are found in Articles II and III, which grant "the executive power" to the President and "the judicial power" to the federal judiciary. In legal proceedings, the working definition of "herein" connotes specificity and exclusivity. The Vesting Clauses thus establishes the principle of separation of powers by specifically giving to each branch of the federal government only those powers it can exercise and no others.[1] This means that no branch may exercise powers that properly belong to another (e.g., since the legislative power is only vested in Congress, the executive and judiciary may not enact laws).[2]"

wiki....

I think it would quickly be undone in court. I'm not all that informed on these matters, so maybe I shouldn't be commenting. My understanding is that it would absolutely have to be initiated in Congress. What I'm not sure about is if it has to sart in the House.

I also don't have the background information on why Executive Actions are allowed, in the first place. I just know that's they've been doing them for a long time. But this one it seems would cross a line that hasn't been crossed before, as far as my limited knowledge goes.

 

[Kent C]

I think it would quickly be undone in court.

If you mean an executive order to raise taxes, I'd agree. In the 90's there was a Kansas court that 'raised taxes' for schools - that didn't last long

ThisNation.com--What is an Executive Order?
"Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent." (my emphasis)

Many times congressmen(women) have stated directly, that wasn't our intent in the legislation - and that usually means something goes to court - depending on the severity of the action.

 

[Lessifer]

Sounds a bit like an agency changing/refining their rules by issuing a "guidance" to "clarify" and facilitate compliance. The Rule has to be approved by Congress, the guidance does not.

 

[Kent C]

Sounds a bit like an agency changing/refining their rules by issuing a "guidance" to "clarify" and facilitate compliance. The Rule has to be approved by Congress, the guidance does not.

Exactly - the 'execution' of the rules not the making of them :- )

 

[philoshop]

It takes a lot of money to feed a growing mega-bureaucarcy, and calling ecigs a 'tobacco product' makes it that much easier for the government to get their hands into our pockets. Vapers are a relatively small group that gets filed under the category of 'involuntary donors'.

 

[AndriaD]

I think it would quickly be undone in court. I'm not all that informed on these matters, so maybe I shouldn't be commenting. My understanding is that it would absolutely have to be initiated in Congress. What I'm not sure about is if it has to sart in the House.

I also don't have the background information on why Executive Actions are allowed, in the first place. I just know that's they've been doing them for a long time. But this one it seems would cross a line that hasn't been crossed before, as far as my limited knowledge goes.

The House of Representatives are the only ones who can make taxes laws. Other folks might suggest them, even the Senate or the President or anyone else, but ONLY Congress has the power to make it law.

Andria

 

[nicnik]

The House of Representatives are the only ones who can make taxes laws. Other folks might suggest them, even the Senate or the President or anyone else, but ONLY Congress has the power to make it law.

Andria

I looked it up. The House has to initiate it. Congress has to pass it and the President has to sign it, or veto it and the veto get overturned for it to be law. That, I think says it more clearly. Others I'm sure could explain it better.

 

[AndriaD]

I looked it up. The House has to initiate it. Congress has to pass it and the President has to sign it, or veto it and the veto get overturned for it to be law. That, I think says it more clearly. Others I'm sure could explain it better.

Right... Congress is who holds the purse-strings. Others can blather about taxes all they like, but if it doesn't happen in Congress, it ain't happenin'.

Andria

 

[Luisa]

That sounds like a horrible abuse of "executive action" if you ask me.
Or if you ask anyone who cares about enforcing the concept of "checks and balances" as it was meant to be.

The sad part is that most of the current Presidents" executive actions have crossed the line--many can be reversed by the next President--if that President chooses.

 

[nicnik]

Just because someone thinks an issue 'important' doesn't mean it's right or morally right. I think all TC advocates interfered with my right to smoke and cost me money and freedom (as to where I could smoke) as well as slandering me as part of that group, as a result of their actions. Take any other activity that does no harm to someone directly rather than just offend their senses - which happens all the time - and such intervention would not be justified. Using junk science on second-hand smoke and playing to non-smokers sensibilities, TC demonized over 40% of the population, under the guise of 'we know what's best for your health'. If the same actions would be taken against any other group who engages in what someone thinks is 'dangerous behavior' to oneself, not many would stand for it.

And I'd point out that almost everyone who commented about his past TC actions, have praised him for his work in ecigs multiple times, not just in this thread but almost every other thread that he's started or commented on.

For him to say that ECF is less and less relevant for vaping advocacy, is like saying Standard Oil (who once had a near monopoly in oil) is less relevant in the oil industry. Were it not for ECF and Smokey Joe, CASAA and all of us who have done our own Call To Actions and CASAA's and others, it's a slap in the face. ECF started it and has been a podium for Bill and other THR advocates. And were it not for the support of members here or in his own group, he'd just be another anti-smoking, pro-vaping guy. To belittle those who do what they can, because he thinks they haven't done as much as he has, is a bit too 'proud' and misses the relationship between leaders and groups.

Bill should acknowledge (and understand the fact) that most vapers are ex-smokers - some of who loved smoking and would have continued to smoke were it not for ecigs. And understand that he was on the opposite side at that time and not be surprised that some react to his comments about that. It's akin to saying one is 'proud to be a Yankee' in Mississippi.

As long as he sticks with pro-vaping comments and stays away from anti-smoking comments, most of us, including myself have nothing to say in opposition to what he is doing and has done for vaping advocacy - in fact, I have now and in the past much praise and have attempted to help him in many cases on finding links, recently posting a graph and have done some searches some of which were fruitful, some not. And I am by far, not the only one to do such things and to give praise.

I don't think it's that hard to differentiate between his past actions and his present ones. And I understand that he thinks they are entirely consistent. But when someone asks questions about 'how this all got started' one can't ignore stuff like 'deeming' to what? and a full explanation has to include the anti-smoking aspect that we are sometimes dealing with today.

I agree with nearly all of this, although I had wanted to quit smoking for decades. I feel like you really stuck up for many of us with this post. The beginning of the interview feels like being smoker shamed. I really like what followed it.

That incredible info dump Bill did on the FDA might've tipped the scale in some heads there, to where it finally sunk in that they're not likely to get away with what they've been scheming. He said he did it to help for people to sue the FDA if they deem as announced. They can't deny they didn't have that info if they try to justify that deeming plan, so they could potentially look very foolish and/or corrupt. Maybe that has a lot to do with why June has dragged on to July, to August...

I'm sure I want that guy in the video helping us. I just wish I didn't feel like I get shamed sometimes in the process. I understand it politically and I think it's effective for THR influence on the minds of some people who believe in shaming and severely punishing smokers, even those smokers who wish so badly they could quit. I hope this post doesn't feel like piling on.

 

[AndriaD]

I'm sure I want that guy in the video helping us. I just wish I didn't feel like I get shamed sometimes in the process.

I completely agree. I do want him helping us, and I'm glad he is, he's doing a great job. But it does kinda feel like being helped by someone that hates your guts.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

I'm sure I want that guy in the video helping us. I just wish I didn't feel like I get shamed sometimes in the process. I understand it politically and I think it's effective for THR influence on the minds of some people who believe in shaming and severely punishing smokers, even those smokers who wish so badly they could quit. I hope this post doesn't feel like piling on.

I don't think it is, but I'm not to whom you're saying that :- ) And you bring up a point that I might have included in my post above. It's sometimes advantageous to have an 'insider' on your side - someone who knows the TC people involved, directly or through their writing - who knows something about their own past, connections, etc. You don't get that type of information from someone who has always opposed them.

I once likened Bill to David Horowitz - a radical 60's socialist who became a libertarian/conservative. I was wrong. Horowitz, while knowing the Left inside and out, discarded something in that transition. Bill has not. The thing that links all TC and most THR factions is they think they 'know what's best for us.' They would describe their orientation as 'public health advocates', but I wouldn't ...as I don't think they preserve or advance public health in any way (or that public health and safety trumps other considerations - rights, mainly, in a Republic - see Ben Franklin's quote*.) And I could make a good argument that they tend to destroy public health in the same way that anything done through the prism of gov't (that is not part of why and how our gov't was founded), tends to get 180° opposite of what was intended. Set out to 'solve poverty' and end up institutionalizing it (just for one example). The deeming is a great example of this. It would take away individual choice and result in less 'public health'. To their credit, the THR faction see this, but that doesn't get rid of that 'know what's best' orientation - it's just applied differently.

Unfortunately, if no deeming takes place and things continue in this industry as it has, it will still be those, with that orientation, who will suggest and then organize to institute regulations by the gov't. I see this in posters who are so oriented - mainly 'the usual suspects'. They're the first to suggest banning sales to minors, labeling, child proof caps, etc. etc. that in some people's minds appear as simply 'rational'. I look at it as a 'foot in the door', which later becomes a 16 lane superhighway for regulation. We've seen it in every industry. All 'well intended', of course

*Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[DC2]

It has been relayed to me that Mr. Godshall is very allergic to cigarette smoke.
It's been said that he's mentioned it in some interviews.

I have NOT verified this, and I don't recall hearing it before.

I guess if it is true, it might make a difference to some.
And it might not make any difference to others.
:shrug:

 

[stevegmu]

It has been relayed to me that Mr. Godshall is very allergic to cigarette smoke.
It's been said that he's mentioned it in some interviews.

I have NOT verified this, and I don't recall hearing it before.

I guess if it is true, it might make a difference to some.
And it might not make any difference to others.
:shrug:

If someone is allergic to second hand vape does that mean vaping should be eradicated and vapers demonized? Perhaps he should avoid places which allow smoking, rather than eliminate smoking and smokers...

 

[DC2]

If someone is allergic to second hand vape does that mean vaping should be eradicated?

I do not yet believe that anyone is allergic to second-hand vape.
At least not to any extent that matters.

But to answer your question?
No.

 

[Kent C]

It has been relayed to me that Mr. Godshall is very allergic to cigarette smoke.
It's been said that he's mentioned it in some interviews.

Mr. Godshall from an earlier post:

"While the second sentence contains some accurate information (about nicotine being addictive and causing temporary increases in heart rate and blood pressure), nicotine doesn't cause heart disease and I never heard of nicotine allergy."

[I understand that smoke is not the same as 'nicotine' but then any smoke would be 'allergic'. But the 'second sentence' was: "Nicotine products like other smoking products with nicotine are addictive, can cause heart disease, increase heart rate and blood pressure or nicotine allergy."
Lindsay Lohan | E-Cigarette Forum ]

Sometimes the concept of 'allergy' gets extended past it's scientific bounds. Or junk science expands it beyond the bounds of reality.

 

[stevegmu]

I do not yet believe that anyone is allergic to second-hand vape.
At least not to any extent that matters.

But to answer your question?
No.

You must have missed the video concerning someone allergic to second hand anise flavored e juice...

 

[nicnik]

Mr. Godshall from an earlier post:

"While the second sentence contains some accurate information (about nicotine being addictive and causing temporary increases in heart rate and blood pressure), nicotine doesn't cause heart disease and I never heard of nicotine allergy."

Sometimes the concept of 'allergy' gets extended past it's scientific bounds. Or junk science expands it beyond the bounds of reality.

Allergy to cigarette smoke is very different than allergy to nicotine.