New LA Times Article -FDA may get new authority over tobacco products

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cellmeister

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 3, 2009
1,012
4
Beantown, USA
well, since Nicotine can be derived from sources other than Tobacco , if you use Eggplant, Tomato or potato as your sources then the FDAs ability to regulate tobacco is a moot point since you aren't selling a tobacco based product.

Long live the Loophole !

Those Items Only Have Trace Amounts....

~Keep Vapin~!
 

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida
Sun, Sorry about that, I have seen stuff, however, it's LA Times it's recent. My bad...


LUX--always good to keep getting the word out--so thanks. The FDA really wants to start strong arming all of us and there is not much we can do about it except get our voices heard by writing out Congressmen---Sun
 

happily

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 25, 2009
1,974
20
anchorage, ak
And it would give the FDA new authority to enlarge warning labels and severely restrict fulcolor advertising for cigarettes and other tobacco products


It does look like these guys have finally pinpointed the problem............smokers can't read the warning lables. I think packs should have warning pictures drawn on them. Maybe some cute little monkey choking. and if they make advertising black and white instead of fulcolor, us jackass smokers would never stand a chance
 
We have been talking about this bill as it has been going though the house and senate for a long time now--did not anyone see all the threads about it??? Sun

Sun is right. There are plenty of threads on this subject. Can a mod close this thread please? Thanks
 

Vee

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2009
73
0
Los Angeles, U.S.A.
Sun is right. There are plenty of threads on this subject. Can a mod close this thread please? Thanks

If the goal is to make people aware of what is going on with tobacco regulation and how it possibly effects e-cigs, there shouldn't be a problem with starting a new thread due to a brand new article coming out about it. I would not have noticed the thread if it wasn't on the the "New Posts" link.

Keep it open and keep talking! :)

The bill sounds ok to me for the most part. But here are the things that make me tilt my head:

1) Only one of the major tobacco companies is for this bill. Why are they for it? Who's pocket are they in?

2) This makes it much harder for tobacco companies to bring out a new product. I'm all for keeping things safe but stifling competitive progress is not a good thing, imo.

3) Anti-smoking pukes are actually COMPLAINING about the bill saying that making it safer will keep people from quitting. OMG these people make me want to buy a shotgun.

4) As someone said in the article, the devil is in the details. Regulation is good, to a point, but putting a pit bull on a leash is one thing... choking the pit bull while doing it is quite another hehehe. Poor analogy but I hope you get the point.


Anti-smokers get me so enraged. In Cali, it's extreme. I was accosted all the time by people telling me "Don't you know what that does to your body?" and people walking by me on the street holding their nose as they walk by me while I'm trying to be respectful and not drag as I pass them and holding my cig away from them. And them holding their nose as a f**king truck drives by spewing diesel exhaust.

Sorry for the rant lol. I think the bill, from what is being told about it at least sounds good for the most part. But, if the suit of Smoking Everywhere vs FDA is decided that e-cigs are a tobacco product, we could be in some serious trouble.
 
Last edited:
If the goal is to make people aware of what is going on with tobacco regulation and how it possibly effects e-cigs, there shouldn't be a problem with starting a new thread due to a brand new article coming out about it. I would not have noticed the thread if it wasn't on the the "New Posts" link.

Keep it open and keep talking! :)

The bill sounds ok to me for the most part. But here are the things that make me tilt my head:

1) Only one of the major tobacco companies is for this bill. Why are they for it? Who's pocket are they in?

2) This makes it much harder for tobacco companies to bring out a new product. I'm all for keeping things safe but stifling competitive progress is not a good thing, imo.

3) Anti-smoking pukes are actually COMPLAINING about the bill saying that making it safer will keep people from quitting. OMG these people make me want to buy a shotgun.

4) As someone said in the article, the devil is in the details. Regulation is good, to a point, but putting a pit bull on a leash is one thing... choking the pit bull while doing it is quite another hehehe. Poor analogy but I hope you get the point.


Anti-smokers get me so enraged. In Cali, it's extreme. I was accosted all the time by people telling me "Don't you know what that does to your body?" and people walking by my on the street holding their nose as they walk by me while I'm trying to be respectful and not drag as I pass them and holding my cig away from them. And them holding their nose as a f**king truck drives by spewing diesel exhaust.

Sorry for the rant lol. I think the bill, from what is being told about it at least sounds good for the most part. But, if the suit of Smoking Everywhere vs FDA is decided that e-cigs are a tobacco product, we could be in some serious trouble.


I agree, however I didn't want to bum out "The Elders". lol

The rant was good.

Game on:thumb:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread