Smokers deserve lower-risk alternatives to the deadly cigarette

[oplholik]

Congress Blog feed

November 30, 2015, 01:00 pm
Smokers deserve lower-risk alternatives to the deadly cigarette
By Michael Siegel and Scott D. Ballin

Smokers deserve lower-risk alternatives to the deadly cigarette

Excerpt:
"In terms of science and technological advancement, today's products are light years ahead of what was on the market in 2007. As one major tobacco control organization has stated, we should be seeking to 'maximize e-cigarette benefits and minimizing their potential harms.’ Why should the most toxic consumer products on the market—combustible cigarettes—have to do absolutely nothing to stay on the market, while much safer, tobacco-free electronic cigarettes have to file burdensome and prohibitively expensive applications?"

 

[AndriaD]

Great article! I commented:

"The entire FDA needs to be booted out and brought up on charges of Crimes Against Humanity, if they manage this farce, allowing deadly cigarettes to stay just as they are, while effectively banning the only thing that's EVER come along that ACTUALLY helps smokers to quit -- without side effects like suicide and homicide!

This "deeming" business is just plain CRIMINAL, and it needs to be KNOWN that criminals are now setting policy. They need to be PROSECUTED for this "deeming" lunacy, for what it will mean to all those who still smoke who might otherwise have benefitted from switching to e-cigarettes -- THEIR EARLY AND NEEDLESS DEATH. The FDA is guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Murder!"

Andria

 

[DC2]

Great article! I commented:

"The entire FDA needs to be booted out and brought up on charges of Crimes Against Humanity, if they manage this farce, allowing deadly cigarettes to stay just as they are, while effectively banning the only thing that's EVER come along that ACTUALLY helps smokers to quit -- without side effects like suicide and homicide!

This "deeming" business is just plain CRIMINAL, and it needs to be KNOWN that criminals are now setting policy. They need to be PROSECUTED for this "deeming" lunacy, for what it will mean to all those who still smoke who might otherwise have benefitted from switching to e-cigarettes -- THEIR EARLY AND NEEDLESS DEATH. The FDA is guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Murder!"

Andria

I have seen some folks post in these parts claim that "rhetoric" like yours is over the top.
But I have engaged in such "rhetoric" over the years myself, in comments and letters to politicians.

I do not think it is over the top.
I think it is spot on.

I don't respond in such ways all the time though.
Only when I don't see enough of such responses aimed directly at their heads.

I try to fill in what I perceive as gaps in the response panorama.


But the complaint is that a normal person would think such rants to be something from a fanatic.
Well, I tend to agree with that to some degree.

It probably does SEEM that way to many.

But the extreme position has to be put out there, and the criminals involved have to hear it.
And if nobody else is doing it, someone has to.

So keep on keeping on is what I say about that.

 

[Kent C]

I have seen some folks post in these parts that "rhetoric" like yours is over the top.
But I have engaged in such "rhetoric" over the years myself, in comments and letters to politicians.

If you see the anti-first amendment stuff coming out of DOJ today, we all may be in trouble if they apply it to all gov't agencies as well.

"When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American." said Lynch. "They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly is speech that "edges toward violence"? What exactly are "actions predicated on violent talk"? In the end, it is whatever she decides it to mean.

Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use 'Anti-Muslim' Speech That 'Edges Toward Violence'

 

[AndriaD]

If you see the anti-first amendment stuff coming out of DOJ today, we all may be in trouble if they apply it to all gov't agencies as well.

"When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American." said Lynch. "They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly is speech that "edges toward violence"? What exactly are "actions predicated on violent talk"? In the end, it is whatever she decides it to mean.

Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use 'Anti-Muslim' Speech That 'Edges Toward Violence'

I guess she would have a field day with "give me liberty or give me death!"

Andria

 

[Katya]

Great article! I commented:

"The entire FDA needs to be booted out and brought up on charges of Crimes Against Humanity, if they manage this farce, allowing deadly cigarettes to stay just as they are, while effectively banning the only thing that's EVER come along that ACTUALLY helps smokers to quit -- without side effects like suicide and homicide!

This "deeming" business is just plain CRIMINAL, and it needs to be KNOWN that criminals are now setting policy. They need to be PROSECUTED for this "deeming" lunacy, for what it will mean to all those who still smoke who might otherwise have benefitted from switching to e-cigarettes -- THEIR EARLY AND NEEDLESS DEATH. The FDA is guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Murder!"

Andria

So tell us how you really feel, Andria!

 

[Katya]

If you see the anti-first amendment stuff coming out of DOJ today, we all may be in trouble if they apply it to all gov't agencies as well.

"When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American." said Lynch. "They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly is speech that "edges toward violence"? What exactly are "actions predicated on violent talk"? In the end, it is whatever she decides it to mean.

Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use 'Anti-Muslim' Speech That 'Edges Toward Violence'

From the FBI statistics--this is 2013, but not much has changed.

Victims

"Religious bias
Of the 1,223 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:

• 60.3 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.
• 13.7 percent were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias."

 

[choochoogranny]

If you see the anti-first amendment stuff coming out of DOJ today, we all may be in trouble if they apply it to all gov't agencies as well.

"When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American." said Lynch. "They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

It is painfully clear that, like her predecessor Eric Holder, Lynch is far more concerned with promoting the social justice agenda than protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. What exactly is speech that "edges toward violence"? What exactly are "actions predicated on violent talk"? In the end, it is whatever she decides it to mean.

Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use 'Anti-Muslim' Speech That 'Edges Toward Violence'

Seems to me they get to pick who the "victims" are. The Constitution has been steadily eroded for some time now; and, unfortunately, most people don't know or don't care.

 

[DC2]

Seems to me they get to pick who the "victims" are. The Constitution has been steadily eroded for some time now; and, unfortunately, most people don't know or don't care.

As long as we never get to the point where most people are voting in favor of it.

Oh wait...

 

[Kent C]

Seems to me they get to pick who the "victims" are. The Constitution has been steadily eroded for some time now; and, unfortunately, most people don't know or don't care.

And some want to make sure no one else finds out about it. More to come, I'm sure.

 

[EBates]

OMG! I am so sick of our 'Fearless Leadership' that I could have a screaming fit.
Letting a mass migration of Potential ISIS followers into our country is a move only Ovomit could sell the american people.
Well we will run security checks on them. That worked well in the CA terrorist attack, didn't it.
We'll send troops, weapons, bomb them to stop the terrorist threat. That has worked well in Iraq and Afganistan, hasn't it.
So now lets bring all the folks in so we can fight them in the streets. Great plan! Our 'Fearless Leaders' at work for Us.
Lets just say I ain't a fan.

 

[Lemwise]

Great article! I commented:

"The entire FDA needs to be booted out and brought up on charges of Crimes Against Humanity, if they manage this farce, allowing deadly cigarettes to stay just as they are, while effectively banning the only thing that's EVER come along that ACTUALLY helps smokers to quit -- without side effects like suicide and homicide!

This "deeming" business is just plain CRIMINAL, and it needs to be KNOWN that criminals are now setting policy. They need to be PROSECUTED for this "deeming" lunacy, for what it will mean to all those who still smoke who might otherwise have benefitted from switching to e-cigarettes -- THEIR EARLY AND NEEDLESS DEATH. The FDA is guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Murder!"

Andria

Like I have said many times before, what the FDA and the EU with the TPD are doing is institutionalised manslaughter. Every politician, doctor and health official that knowingly lies about vaping should be publicly prosecuted for this with a minimum sentence of 10 years.