FDA NEW: "...Experimental Studies on Consumer Perceptions of Modified Risk Tobacco Products"
- Thread starter SeniorBoy
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
English is not my native language, but here I was thinking that you could only MISlead or MISinform someone if you made them believe something that is NOT true.
So, it's OK for "health bureucrats" to willingfully MISlead the anti-smoking "average Joe" crowd, by spreading lies and junk science.
And everyday we must put up with those people, all-so-full of their recently acquired "knowledge", who have been MISinformed and MISlead into thinking that "vaping is worse than smoking", because "there are no studies", and "noboby knows what's in there". (How they came to the conclusion that vaping IS worse than smoking, without studies and without knowing what's in there, in baffling to me).
And all that is OK because it is a lie spread for the "greater good". It's like telling children about the monsters in the railway. Just to keep them out of trouble, AWAY from the railway. it's only for their own good, after all... it's a "good lie", told to "protect them".
My conclusion: the average anti-smoking/vaping person is being treated like a child. And that person has no trouble with it.
On the other hand, "anti-ANTZ" people, who would like the TRUTH about their products to be told for a change, cannot even do it.
On the twisted ANTZ's mind, there is this great "risk" of "misleading" absent-minded people into believing some things that had to be PROVEN as FACT in the first place.
Well, I think it's a pretty good hypothetical - the only other scenario that would carry out intent, would be a 'state store' like they have for alcohol in some states. Even then, those are sometimes subbed out to private businesses, but with the type of control where clerks could make such decisions.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
SmokeyJoe wrote
The same Big Pharma funded ANTZ that lobbied Congress to enact the FSTPCA (that banned smokeless tobacco companies from truthfully informing consumers that smokeless is less hazardous than cigarettes, and that mandated even larger false and misleading scare warnings on ads for smokeless) urged the FDA to require smokeless tobacco companies (and anyone else that filed a MRTP application) to conduct "consumer perception" studies (along with dozens of other unwarranted and costly research) in their MRTP applications, which I've called a "$10 million truth tax" since 2011.
The ANTZ goal has always been to prevent smokeless companies from submitting MRTP applications, and to prevent FDA from approving any MRTP applications.
I couldn't stop laughing when reading the UCSF/Glantz comments to FDA in opposition to Swedish Match's MRTP application (and I think the FDA TPSAC members are also going to be laughing at UCSF/Glantz when they read their comments).
http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/summary-ucsf-public-comments-fda-swedish-match-mrtp-application
Yesterday, Smokefree Pennsylvania submitted 19 pages of comments to FDA urging rapid approval of Swedish Match's MRTP application (the vast majority of which were comments I submitted to the FDA back in 2011 and 2012 denouncing FDA's (and their ANTZ allies) attempts to prevent smokeless tobacco companies from submitting MRTP applications, and making it very costly to do so) at
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...chs-mrtp-application-tpsac-consideration.html
The same Big Pharma funded ANTZ that lobbied Congress to enact the FSTPCA (that banned smokeless tobacco companies from truthfully informing consumers that smokeless is less hazardous than cigarettes, and that mandated even larger false and misleading scare warnings on ads for smokeless) urged the FDA to require smokeless tobacco companies (and anyone else that filed a MRTP application) to conduct "consumer perception" studies (along with dozens of other unwarranted and costly research) in their MRTP applications, which I've called a "$10 million truth tax" since 2011.
The ANTZ goal has always been to prevent smokeless companies from submitting MRTP applications, and to prevent FDA from approving any MRTP applications.
I couldn't stop laughing when reading the UCSF/Glantz comments to FDA in opposition to Swedish Match's MRTP application (and I think the FDA TPSAC members are also going to be laughing at UCSF/Glantz when they read their comments).
http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/summary-ucsf-public-comments-fda-swedish-match-mrtp-application
Yesterday, Smokefree Pennsylvania submitted 19 pages of comments to FDA urging rapid approval of Swedish Match's MRTP application (the vast majority of which were comments I submitted to the FDA back in 2011 and 2012 denouncing FDA's (and their ANTZ allies) attempts to prevent smokeless tobacco companies from submitting MRTP applications, and making it very costly to do so) at
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...chs-mrtp-application-tpsac-consideration.html
Last edited:
Along with pamdis' 'hypotheticals', this:
This standard likely means that the MRTP claim obtaining an order should be delivered only through direct communications (e.g., email, regular mail) to pre-verified adult smokers.
... is of course what was intended
'pre-verified' adult smokers - where they would still have to determine between those who would be 'high risk' users or those who would 'be prompted to start using' as well as those who are current users, but who may be prompted to quit. 
I commend you for sneaking into the enemy's layer and enduring the intellectual torture of sifting thru their slurry.
is of course what was intended
This is probably a rhetorical question, but....does anyone hate the Constitution more, and understand it less, than the ANTZ? The idea that you can restrict the ability of law-abiding adult citizens to purchase legal consumer products for their own personal use is a non-starter. Anyone who would contemplate such an idea with a straight face should be condemned to one full semester of Remedial American Civics 101 class.
Like that idiot woman on the board of health in Westminster, MA.
Oh, but she's doing it... say it with me now... FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!! Andria
Thinki of the progression of the government into our lives......seat belts, motor bikes/bicycle, skating helmets, infant/child car seats, high chair seat belts, etc., etc. Don't forget vacinations for children that went from a couple 50 yrs. ago to......um......is 15-18 now?.......and everyone must get their yearly flu shot! BUT we visit the doctors more than we ever did! 
Why aren't they banning sky diving, parasailing, white water rafting,......mountain climbing? Why does the government allow motor vehicles to go above 20 mph?........Looks like we aren't quite to the "Nannie State" yet. 
Why aren't they banning sky diving, parasailing, white water rafting,......mountain climbing? Why does the government allow motor vehicles to go above 20 mph?........Looks like we aren't quite to the "Nannie State" yet. 
I've always felt like the day they passed the freaking ridiculous bicycle helmet laws was the day America died.Thinki of the progression of the government into our lives......seat belts, motor bikes/bicycle, skating helmets, infant/child car seats, high chair seat belts, etc., etc. Don't forget vacinations for children that went from a couple 50 yrs. ago to......um......is 15-18 now?.......and everyone must get their yearly flu shot! BUT we visit the doctors more than we ever did!
It probably died before that, but I was in college at the time and too messed up to notice.
I've felt that way for a l-o-n-g time. Every time I see a motorcyclist riding around, zipping in and out of traffic, open air, no seatbelt, optional helmet, I get angry all over again about the $25 ticket I got for driving my car without a seatbelt. I think of it as the death of common sense....but then we all know it is really much more sinister than that.
Just $25??? Here in Ga, the only thing that finally convinced my husband to wear and insist on passengers wearing seatbelts was when we got pulled over one night, and he got a DOUBLE ticket because neither of us was wearing our seatbelts -- $160. That hurt a lot.
Andria
Mine was in Oklahoma....and it was about 10 years ago. It has probably gone up now. The ad campaign is "Click it or Ticket". Ugh!!!
Yep, click it or ticket here too, and they ain't whistlin dixie.
It was about 12 yrs ago... god only knows what they'd charge for that ticket nowadays.Actually I started buckling up when I was driving, when my son was born, 26 yrs ago; figured no way could I keep him safe, if my own bod was flying hither and yon in a car wreck. But I never could convince my husband to do the same, till he get that gi-normous ticket. Money talks, after all.
Andria
Yesterday my wife and I were contemplating whether anyone would stop wearing their seatbelts if the seatbelt law got rescinded. I tend to think very few people would; it's just a universal reflex action now. Especially for my kids' generation; they have no memory of seatbelt-wearing not being compulsory.
And really, when you think about it, it just makes all kinds of sense to wear them, from a physics point of view -- the vehicle's travelling 60 mph, and suddenly stops -- if anything IN the vehicle is not FASTENED to the vehicle, it's going to just keep on movin'... To share in the "stop" of the vehicle, it's necessary to be ATTACHED to the vehicle.
Now that I know this, I cannot UNknow it...
Andria
if my car didn't been incessantly every time I put the key in the ignition, I'd probably forget to buckle up half the time. Speaking of which, I always thought these modern computerized cars are all missing a very important button, one marked "Shut up!" that cancels all annoying beeping that may be going on - like when you put a large tool box on the passenger seat and the seatbelt thing turns on...
Yeah, our truck does that with the passenger seat, which is annoying as everything as I sometimes go back to the truck before he's done checking out at whatever store, and my "reflex" is to buckle up as soon as the key is turned; I don't buckle up the minute I get into the truck and I'm just sitting there waiting and listening to the radio. It's extremely annoying.
Andria
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Nate asked
I remember many presenters at tobacco control conferences and the authors of many journal articles advocating blatantly unconstitutional tobacco control laws, and then refusing to answer or address my many inquiries and comments about the unconstitutionality of their proposals.
For the past three decades, the attitude and strategy of most tobacco controllers has been "lets first get a law enacted by claiming its will protect the children and is constitutional, and then we'll accuse federal judges of being pro tobacco if/when they strike down the law as unconstitutional."
I remember many presenters at tobacco control conferences and the authors of many journal articles advocating blatantly unconstitutional tobacco control laws, and then refusing to answer or address my many inquiries and comments about the unconstitutionality of their proposals.
For the past three decades, the attitude and strategy of most tobacco controllers has been "lets first get a law enacted by claiming its will protect the children and is constitutional, and then we'll accuse federal judges of being pro tobacco if/when they strike down the law as unconstitutional."
The answer to Nate's question is 'Yes'. Much of what the tobacco controllers do is a result of earlier violations of the Constitution, that allowed or justified further violations.
If you could lay any differences you might have with Robert Levy on second-hand smoke and smoking related deaths, you (and others) might find a book The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom authored by him and William Mellor that picks out specific Supreme Court decisions that violated strict construction and were most responsible for subsequent violations of the Constitution.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Dirty-Dozen-Radically-Government/dp/1935308270
The amazon blurb:
"The Founding Fathers wanted the judicial branch to serve as a check on the power of the legislative and executive, and gave the Supreme Court the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution in a way that would safeguard individual freedoms. Sadly, the Supreme Court has handed down many destructive decisions on cases you probably never learned about in school. In The Dirty Dozen, two distinguished legal scholars shed light on the twelve worst cases, which allowed government to interfere in your private contractual agreements; curtail your rights to criticize or support political candidates; arrest and imprison you indefinitely, without filing charges; seize your private property, without compensation, when someone uses the property for criminal activity--even if you don't know about it!"
IMO, when someone who is intelligent enough to ask, but not informed enough to answer, asks: "What happened to our country?" ... this book is a good answer to that question, with regard to SC decisions that changed major aspects of our lives. There are other reasons for 'why' - political philosophies, propaganda, etc. but these decisions are how some of those philosophies manifested themselves.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
