That kind of presumptuous statement really doesn't warrant any serious consideration.
Senate rejects challenge to FDA tobacco bill
- Thread starter v2x
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That kind of presumptuous statement really doesn't warrant any serious consideration.
Agreed. In fact, when I first started smoking as a teen I thought they already were FDA approved, that all ingestible items (including those inhaled) except those that say "has not been evaluated by the FDA" were, in fact, FDA approved. And, that the cancer warning on the package was simply yet another case of mfg disclaimers to dissuade people from suing should anything happen. I later learned that I was incorrect, that they were not FDA approved, but by then it was too late. I would bet that other teens have had that same misconception. And if this bill passes, they will be FDA approved and numerous teens will think smoking is relatively harmless.
That's the central reason why this is bad legislation. The FDA is tasked with only approving products they deem safe or very low risk, yet all the credible evidence strongly suggests that traditional smoking causes a myriad of health problems and is outright lethal for a huge percentage of smokers. If the FDA is to follow their baseline directive, they'd have to ban smoking outright. Obviously they're not going to do that (the legislation forbids them from doing so) and that means that they'll be in contradiction of their mission.
Nicotine probably should be regulated. But if that's going to happen, it should be consistent regulation. That means that risk levels of different delivery methods have to be evaluated and the different devices classified and regulated differently. Additionally, if nicotine is to be regulated, so should caffeine, alcohol and THC. All of these recreational drugs are held to radically different standards right now and the current legislation only makes the situation more ambiguous.
Nicotine probably should be regulated. But if that's going to happen, it should be consistent regulation. That means that risk levels of different delivery methods have to be evaluated and the different devices classified and regulated differently. Additionally, if nicotine is to be regulated, so should caffeine, alcohol and THC. All of these recreational drugs are held to radically different standards right now and the current legislation only makes the situation more ambiguous.
Exactly what I expected. You got "called out" on and can not defend your statement so you try to "spin" it to make my FACTS seem less relevant.
The fact remains... your attempt to say people in positions of power don't have access to banned or restricted items is laughable. Plain and simple.
To expand on it even more with just ONE possible scenario:
Politicians and government officials regularly make trips overseas on "official" or "legitimate" business. When they return, their personal baggage is NOT subject to search or customs. In fact, most completely bypass the customs counter because some documents or equipment they carry are considered "top secret" or "sensitive" and as such above the security clearance levels of the workers who might see them if searched! This is no secret! You don't think they could VERY easily bring e-cigs that are readily available in other countries back for themselves and friends? Of course they can! To believe otherwise is silly. There are also methods of "shipping" that government officials have access to that are NOT subject to customs search or blocking by any other agency. Ever hear of military cargo planes?? Ever seen one go through customs??? NO. They fly directly to their destination military base and everything is unloaded. If a crate on the plane is marked "Sensitive" or "Top Secret" with a high level delivery address, it is NOT searched by ANYONE. It is simply delivered.
So, they WILL still have access to ecigs even if they are banned or restricted for OUR use.
Grow up, dude. I've been posting on boards like this one for years. I've seen the kind of tactics you're using over and over again. Putting words in my mouth, making unwarranted assumptions about my education, background and position on issues, throwing insults, claiming to be in possession of the only objective viewpoint... these are basically boilerplate practices. You're welcome to keep doing them, but don't expect anyone to take you very seriously.
And, you are the only one?
I started "posting" in online discussion networks in 1986 when I started my first "BBS" and have been very active in forums and discussion groups, including on professional and commercial levels, for many years.
Needless to say, I am NOT new to online forums or discussion groups. I am only new HERE. So, while you slam what I call pointing out an error in thinking and you call my tactics, be sure you look in a mirror. You are far more guilty than I am and me being new HERE gives you no grounds to indicate that you are anymore or less experienced than I am. By doing so, you are only doing what you are slamming me for!
You are more than welcome to PM me with specifics of how I did ANY of these, specifically "insult" or "claim to be in possession of the only objective viewpoint" when all I did was state simple facts to point out what to me is an obvious error in your view. What I stated are things I do KNOW to be fact with most having been observed by me in person! My post was nothing more than a DISCUSSION which is how adults interact, share views and hopefully help each other see any errors they may have made. Nothing more.
As for my original attempt to point out the error in your statement I will simply drop it here since you obviously can not defend it, else you would have, so you only resort to attempts at making ME look bad just for having the nerve to call you on it and because I am new HERE. I will not discuss it any farther since I have clearly made my point.
My apologies to everyone else in the thread if this ended up being a "hijack". That was not MY intention.
Have a vape and a Smile
Since the concept seemed to fly over people's heads, maybe it can be reinforced with a musical number:
YouTube - We Did Not Start the Flame War!
NSFW.
Nash
YouTube - We Did Not Start the Flame War!
NSFW.
Nash
It's just a stalling tactic. They'll probably hammer out a deal on FOIA and remove it from the bill before it goes up for a final vote.
Okay, given that . . . how will the fillibuster of the military supplemental impact things? We all honestly know that if it happens, it won't get far (nobody wants to "vote against the troops"), but is there a possibility it could inadvertently deep-six the tobacco bill?
We could only hope...
But, if it even just slows it down, that would be a HUGE benefit because it would give suppliers and users more time to get the word out and increase exposure, right?
I don't think so, Leiberman & Graham sounds pretty serious about adding this to every bill eminating from the senate floor, Dirty Harry is on board too:
Firedoglake Lieberman-Graham Threaten to Shut Down Senate, Add Detainee Photo Suppresion Amendment to FDA Tobacco Regulation Bill
Last edited:
This is getting off topic and turning into a "who has the bigger e-peen" debate.
Back on topic and stop with the shenanigans or I'm locking the doors, capice?
Back on topic and stop with the shenanigans or I'm locking the doors, capice?
I hope it keeps them stalled out till the Senate and Congress end for the summer. the FDA can't keep my peanut butter safe or my peanuts. I am afraid to think about the orther food and medications. Talk about living on faith.
Topic title: Senate rejects challenge to FDA tobacco bill...
Kinda thought we were just starting to zero in there Terraphon? IDK..
Topic title: Senate rejects challenge to FDA tobacco bill...
Kinda thought we were just starting to zero in there Terraphon? IDK..
No.
Debating about who is the better debater, challenging each others' political views, voicing death-wishes, etc...is not on topic.
As long as we're talking about the bill, the FDA, the Senate, etc...all is well. Let's just stick to those topics, though.
so maybe im an idiot..but the fda, if or when it gets control of tobacco will probably be so busy that they wont even have time to mess with our e-smokes....at least for a while...maybe they will go on the back burner.
Any thoughts? I'm new to this and love it..trying to gather as much info as possible.
Any thoughts? I'm new to this and love it..trying to gather as much info as possible.
Slightly off-topic, but something interesting for you folks who like comics:
Image just released a new book called "Chew," about a detective who gets psychic impressions from anything he eats. The relevant part is, it's set in a world where chicken has been outlawed by the FDA due to the scare of "Bird Flu," when there seems to be a hidden, more sinister reason . . .
Replace "chicken" with "e-cigs" and it really becomes a very funny, very telling satire.
Image just released a new book called "Chew," about a detective who gets psychic impressions from anything he eats. The relevant part is, it's set in a world where chicken has been outlawed by the FDA due to the scare of "Bird Flu," when there seems to be a hidden, more sinister reason . . .
Replace "chicken" with "e-cigs" and it really becomes a very funny, very telling satire.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
