I have easily swatted away all your arguments. You keep bringing up issues that have nothing to do with the 60 legislative day law; which trumps all. The vaping regulations that are in "effect" have not been codified into law. They have not even been in effect for 60 legislative days. Congress hasn't even adjourned 10 times since august 8th. So less than 10 legislative days. How many times must you be proven wrong? The regulations are null and void, you have to accept that.
FDA President Trump just saved vaping
- Thread starter Akrotiri
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Here's a good article explaining it, again. It's from the cigar side but still applicable, and includes the memo text.
Trump Issues Regulatory Freeze, Likely Doesn't Affect FDA Cigar Regulations | halfwheel
Trump Issues Regulatory Freeze, Likely Doesn't Affect FDA Cigar Regulations | halfwheel
Well, no. I mean, we'd LOVE to accept it, but we think you're wrong.
For starters, you have to accept that the FDA regs are NOT PENDING.
Which leaves the 60-day thing. Even when they are in effect, the new president CAN un-do new regs, it if's within that window.
There is a (slim) chance that a court or the new administration will INTERPRET that 60 days differently than it has been done in the past - which would then make if possible to apply to the FDA deeming regs. If so, let's have a party.
But most analysis I've seen, written by attorneys representing the vaping industry, determined that the president's expected freeze of new/pending legislation, even when applied retroactively for 60 days, would NOT impact the FDA rules.
Can you point us to the actual code that defines the 60 day period?
I don't have that handy...
For starters, you have to accept that the FDA regs are NOT PENDING.
Which leaves the 60-day thing. Even when they are in effect, the new president CAN un-do new regs, it if's within that window.
There is a (slim) chance that a court or the new administration will INTERPRET that 60 days differently than it has been done in the past - which would then make if possible to apply to the FDA deeming regs. If so, let's have a party.
But most analysis I've seen, written by attorneys representing the vaping industry, determined that the president's expected freeze of new/pending legislation, even when applied retroactively for 60 days, would NOT impact the FDA rules.
Can you point us to the actual code that defines the 60 day period?
I don't have that handy...
I think I'll just wait until something official is published. I hope that the OP is right, but I don't believe he is.
I really don't want to follow this thread, but I can't help myself. It's like slowing down to look at a car accident.
Why am I having flashbacks of Tom Baker?
Why am I having flashbacks of Tom Baker?
70% of mexicans in Mexico are overweight,, Mexico has applied a 'fat' tax.. its still early in the program to see the affects.. (our Navajo indian tribe as well as India are also trying to taxing to slow down consumption of bad foods).........its still early for the results.......but you have to start somewhere. the Mexican aspect is/should be important to Americans because it represents additional healthcare costs to us as more Mexicans come to America to add to our poor diet habits. (please dont runaway with this and make it 'anti-mexican) its about trying anything to make it harder to consume not good foods. Mexico also dropped the tax on fresh foods. read an article (& lost it) about the age of diabetes,, used to be a problem at 40-50years old,, now its not uncommon at 15!!
Globally, Mexico is the fourth largest per capita consumer of energy dense foods and drinks. Around 9.1 percent of people in the country had type-2 diabetes in 2012.
Globally, Mexico is the fourth largest per capita consumer of energy dense foods and drinks. Around 9.1 percent of people in the country had type-2 diabetes in 2012.
i think 'instinctively' we want everyone healthy,,but i dont think that is exactly true from the govt's point of view,,, we cost money as we age,, they like us when we are working and paying taxes,, dont have much use for us afterwords."Let Them Vape Cake!!!"
a human goal is for everyone to be as healthy as possible for as long as possible....negating the need for so much healthcare need/demand
anyway,, i will stop pushing the topic and let the board return to current presidential/laws impact on vaping.
I was about ready to slam into this until I realized that you were talking about taxing the food, not the overweight people.
lol,, no!........roflmaoI was about ready to slam into this until I realized that you were talking about taxing the food, not the overweight people.
I think it's fuzzy.
According to the Congressional Research Service,
Agency rules and regulations may also be repealed by a new administration; however, the repeal process can be time consuming and must comply with certain mandated procedures. The vast majority of agency “rulemakings” must comply with the APA’s notice and comment process, which requires an agency to provide the public with notice of a proposed rulemaking and a meaningful opportunity to comment on the rule (generally lasting 30 days or more). The APA explicitly defines rulemaking as “the agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” Thus, whether issuing a new rule, or amending or repealing an existing rule, agencies are typically required to engage in the same notice and comment process. The APA provides explicit exceptions to the notice and comment requirements, including when agencies can show “good cause” for why such procedures would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” At times, agencies have relied on this narrow good cause exception as justification for not engaging in notice and comment prior to repealing a rule; however, these arguments have typically been rejected by the courts.
In light of these principles, and in the absence of specific statutory requirements, it would appear that a new President can generally direct executive branch agencies to revoke existing rules. In implementing that direction, however, the agency will likely have to engage in the notice and comment process to effectuate the repeal, and, in the case of a challenge to the repeal, provide a “reasoned analysis” for its decision to repeal the rule.
That doesn't mean Trump can't undo these rules, but he can't undo them on day one. One expert told E&E's Emily Holden that it could take more than two years to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, even though it hasn't yet been implemented.
According to the Congressional Research Service,
Agency rules and regulations may also be repealed by a new administration; however, the repeal process can be time consuming and must comply with certain mandated procedures. The vast majority of agency “rulemakings” must comply with the APA’s notice and comment process, which requires an agency to provide the public with notice of a proposed rulemaking and a meaningful opportunity to comment on the rule (generally lasting 30 days or more). The APA explicitly defines rulemaking as “the agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” Thus, whether issuing a new rule, or amending or repealing an existing rule, agencies are typically required to engage in the same notice and comment process. The APA provides explicit exceptions to the notice and comment requirements, including when agencies can show “good cause” for why such procedures would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” At times, agencies have relied on this narrow good cause exception as justification for not engaging in notice and comment prior to repealing a rule; however, these arguments have typically been rejected by the courts.
In light of these principles, and in the absence of specific statutory requirements, it would appear that a new President can generally direct executive branch agencies to revoke existing rules. In implementing that direction, however, the agency will likely have to engage in the notice and comment process to effectuate the repeal, and, in the case of a challenge to the repeal, provide a “reasoned analysis” for its decision to repeal the rule.
That doesn't mean Trump can't undo these rules, but he can't undo them on day one. One expert told E&E's Emily Holden that it could take more than two years to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, even though it hasn't yet been implemented.
The problem with this is just the huge amount of different foods on the shelves and defining what is healthy and what it not. Not to mention the push-back and lawsuits that would follow. I think it would be a nightmare to implement in the US.
Not to mention that using taxes to "guide" behavior is just wrong... more often than not, certain populations are almost always impacted more than others.
you have to start small,, i think we already have a couple of cities trying it out.......start with soda/chips/candy bars. then every 3 years (or whatever) add to the list.
pick an ailment and target it,,ie,, obesity or diabetes.. thats like a 2 for 1. it cant hurt anyone except the 'dealers' of those products...those who consume those products will then be able to finance some of their healthcare impact the same as the smokers had to do. they are not being denied the op to consume,, they just have to pay for it.
the alternative is to outlaw the items.....i dont want to go there as i do enjoy a chip here and there.
I don't really think it's a workable idea. What ever happened to that restriction on large sodas? That was just really silly and pointless. I don't think many people stopped smoking because of the taxes.
I'm from Mexico and I think your observation regarding the tax on certain high calorie foods is not enough understood. That tax is an absurd pseudo-remedy to a more deep problem which for one side is that most of our people don't have the education to develop healthier habits, BUT the main and most important reason for the over weight problems is that high-calorie, high-carb mass produced food products are much, much cheaper than healthier foods. It is way cheaper for someone here to buy a liter of soda than a liter of milk. So in many ways it is the poverty of our people the main cause of its overweight. Another proven cause is the use of corn fructose instead of sugar which is also a problem you have in US
That high calorie tax only made the corporations to sweet their products with artificial non calorie sweeteners but that kind of food is still being sold.
That tax is a complete failure as it hasn't been able to reduce the amount of soda being drink in this country.
Sin taxes are only another intrusion of the government in any country to impose the particular points of view of it's officials, and even though may have some desired effect they impoverish the citizens
And there has never been a tax drop in fresh food because it has never been taxed. The tax you must be referring is the VAT tax which since its inception in the early 80s established a 0 tax in fresh food
Just wanted to clarify your post and beg the others your pardon as I think it is off topic
Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
You could argue that the sin taxes could be used for education and medical care, but I don't know if that's been the case or not. My guess would be not. Anyone know?
It doesn't have to be either. As vaping demonstrates, if you give people alternatives that work, and are affordable, they will gravitate towards healthier alternatives. I would love to eat more fresh food, unfortunately I have a limited budget and mouths to feed, and I don't have the time to go to the store every day. So I buy vegetables I know I will use in a day or two, or will be shelf stable for a week or more, and that eats up a good portion of the food budget. I can't garden.
Maybe the government can work on subsidizing crops other than corn and the like, so that fresh food doesn't cost four times as much.
But I'll stop here, not the right place.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
