He has been sent no less then 3 already. The last to send him one was wendy williams. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to be of assistance. He has a bottom line to think of after all.
The Battle For eCigs Has Been Officialy WON! The Facts On Your Screen
- Thread starter davidzx
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I'm a mostly quite liberal type--anti-war, anti death-penalty, pro-choice, pro-union, pro-immigrant. That said, I am embarrassed that the anti-e-cig crusade--child of the anti-smoking crusade and the anti-SMOKER crusade it evolved (Yes, conservatives, I said "evolved!") into is the curious bauble of liberalism today.
"Curious," because I don't buy the shibboleth that liberalism is reliably pro big-government and pro nanny stateism, or that conservatism is its opposite. Look at how the right gets about regulating people's sexual practices, or how libertarian (with a small l) the left is about currently illegal smokeables. I can see a day where the one becomes legal as tobacco products become illegal. I'm not sure why most Democrats took the stand they have on what should be an ACLU issue (and I consider the anti-smoker crusade, and the new anti-vaper crusade one and the same), but I have a couple theories:
1.) Revenge against tobacco state Dixiecrats (now known as core Republicans) for being on the wrong side of the civil rights struggle.
2.) Harbored 1968-style rebellion against their cigarette smoking generation parents.
Whatever. Whether kneeling on the grave of our chain-smoking best-ever President of the United States (FDR), or on the coffee table of my personal favorite President, the current one (also a smoker), I apologize on behalf of all that is liberal for this unfortunate turn.
"Curious," because I don't buy the shibboleth that liberalism is reliably pro big-government and pro nanny stateism, or that conservatism is its opposite. Look at how the right gets about regulating people's sexual practices, or how libertarian (with a small l) the left is about currently illegal smokeables. I can see a day where the one becomes legal as tobacco products become illegal. I'm not sure why most Democrats took the stand they have on what should be an ACLU issue (and I consider the anti-smoker crusade, and the new anti-vaper crusade one and the same), but I have a couple theories:
1.) Revenge against tobacco state Dixiecrats (now known as core Republicans) for being on the wrong side of the civil rights struggle.
2.) Harbored 1968-style rebellion against their cigarette smoking generation parents.
Whatever. Whether kneeling on the grave of our chain-smoking best-ever President of the United States (FDR), or on the coffee table of my personal favorite President, the current one (also a smoker), I apologize on behalf of all that is liberal for this unfortunate turn.
Last edited:
It was the Republicans who voted for and supported the civil rights bill.And,of course, we all know Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Democrats such as Al Gores" Father,and Fulbright from Arkansas,and of course the now deceased Democratic Senator from West Virginia Robert Byrd,member of the Ku Klux ...., from West Virginia, opposed the civil rights bill. The bill would never have passed without strong Republican support. I really don"t understand how you can say revenge is being enacted against "core Republicans" for being on the wrong side of the civil rights struggle. Tennesse,Arkansas,West Virginia, and Illinois are not tobacco growing states.
Paul, I believe you over complicate the issue. The anti-smoking campaign started as the research started identifying diseases attributable to smoking. The lawyers recognized there was money to be made. Most powerful politicians are lawyers.
The junk science that produced second hand smoke as an issue started the money machine in full force. Anti-smoking became anti-tobacco/nicotine. All the money people needed was an army of tobacco temperance minded soldiers and a propaganda for the masses.
The junk science that produced second hand smoke as an issue started the money machine in full force. Anti-smoking became anti-tobacco/nicotine. All the money people needed was an army of tobacco temperance minded soldiers and a propaganda for the masses.
I'm not american, but if I was, I would be a republican. Obviously, even not being american, if your freedom as an american goes up in smoke, its only a matter of time, before the same legislation gets passed in EU countries.
One can't really discuss today's Democrat/Republican alignment in that historical vacuum. (Rush makes the same mistake, btw.) Today's southern Republicans were yesterday's southern Democrats. The change started with Strom Thurmond's party switch, continued with Nixon's "Southern Strategy." And Ronald Reagan took it to the bank in 1980. Today's Republicans would not recognize the 1960s Republicans you speak of.
I agree that we need to know who is doing what with eCigs. It seems to me that once the research is done on what exactly is exhaled in the way of nicotine, it seems logical that it won't be any more than cooking tomatoes (esp. green fried tomatoes), potatoes, cauliflower , and especially tea - even green tea.
Can you get dates/ rulings/ legislation dates and/or links for these? For scientific & legislative purposes whoever is fighting this could use them I'm sure. Not a bad idea to know who these arguments are against & where they are getting their information.
I saw one reference on a resent case that said the research contracted by the company was "faulty", thus the "FDA dismissed it - Who at the FDA in unclear. It would be great to know who, if anyone, did any research on the FDA's end, what the research entailed &/or who dismissed the research that was done as being faulty.
There seems to be much research done in other countries where PVs (eCigs included) are sold OTC and even include co-enzymes & vitamins apparently at therapeutic levels. I wonder if that research has been taken into account?
We need legislation to take place that protects our rights... eCigs & PVs are used therapeutically in some countries who understand the value of eCigs and nicotine!
I've YET to see a single study that definitively shows that nicotine is "harmful" - addictive, yes (although I don't see people fighting over tomatoes, potatoes or tea at the grocery stores, so I have to question that research as well (chemical-laden cigarettes yes - nicotine, no), OR a single study that shows that nicotine is the "problem"... nicotine use is down, cancer rates are up... When the anti-smoking campaign began, quite a few people were on their soap-box stating that cancer rates would drop & that nicotine was responsible. They seem to be trying to save face now, as cancer rates are up, smoking is WAY down.
I strongly suspect altered food & food additives, nicotine NOT being one of them, as being the problem - heck it could be a lot of things, but altered foods & chemicals in our environments and even homes is way up. AND as far as those old nicotine studies, some were done by injecting rats with VERY large doses of nicotine! Who injects large doses of nicotine? The sheer volumes in one study I recall years ago would have killed rats if it were water!, so I've seen is some seriously flawed studies that court rulings may have been based on - even with cigarettes. I'm not saying at all that traditional cigs are healthy. Smoke is bad for your lungs no matter what the source! Ask anyone who was at the 9-11 crash site, or any firefighter that did things the old way - yes! they wear those tanks & masks for a reason!
I've seen the flip side re: republican/democrat rulings, yet look at this from a scientific view. Why no one has called out the scientists on this is FAR beyond me... Someone needs to ask the RIGHT questions! (no, not "republican or political "right"), but yes, this IS an election year for governor in many states, mine included & BOTH rep. & dem reps in CA are against eCigs, yet this will be settled very likely at the federal level and is a civil rights & health issue that few, if ANY politicians, even those that are MDs understand! They regurgitate what's in the medical literature (much of which is based on faulty studies, thus so many recalled medications & lawsuits) & what people who are non-smokers/vapors want to hear.
Here are a few examples of what NEEDS to be heard...
Depression cured by smoking...
Nonsmokers' Depression Lifted by Nicotine
Although the "rank & file comment is at the bottom, you can CLEARLY see that nicotine can cure depression.
Nicotine improves memory...
Researchers Say Nicotine May Slow Dementia
(again you see the rank & file BS statement at the top, yet this research shows that nicotine improves memory, concentration & performance...
"Although nicotine has therapeutic qualities, when it is absorbed through smoking the health risks outweigh the benefits," ...
from, " Investigators explore nicotine for Tourette's, ADHD | Clinical Psychiatry News | Find Articles at BNET "
"The future is in related drugs," said Dr. Paul A. Newhouse, director of the clinical neuroscience research unit at the University of Vermont in Burlington. "Nicotine is not a dangerous drug, but it's a pretty difficult drug to use. It has a lot of bad effects that we'd rather not have." Treatment-limiting adverse effects include nausea, dizziness, and cardiovascular effects. Nicotine patches also can cause local skin irritation. But addiction is one downside to nicotine that is not much of a concern in a treatment setting."
This is typical... nicotine is a naturally occurring substance, thus no patents can be acquired, thus the future in "medicine" being something related (translation: patentable= lab-created= mucho money, thus the war against natural medicines)...
In this "study", these people are just now discovering that nicotine also occurs naturally in vegetables, thus they want to ban these too... just wait 'til they see the therapeutics for animals they are eating & how much of that winds up on the dinner table! Do your kids eat eggplant? tomatoes? ketchup? does that person harping on you drink tea? Might want to show them this! These people want to outlaw the vegetables they tested... just wait until they discover how much nicotine isn't on their list! And they want to BAN these vegetables? This is ridiculous! This "study" has SO many contradictions, it's laughable, but then scary at the same time!
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/P278_Nicotine_FAR_Final.pdf
Ever wonder why you get a "flash" from taking large amounts of vitamin B3?
It's nicotinic acid, that's why! The "no-flash niacin doesn't metabolize like the real thing does, nor does it work for a deficiency... one's from a lab, the other isn't.
Ever hear of pellagra?
Nicotinic acid
"This chemical was given the name "Nicotinic Acid" but some people might think that it was not good for you (nicotine from cigarette smoke is not good for you) so we decided to call it "Niacin".
(They had to add the "rank & file, "smoking isn't goof for you" AGAIN with not a single reference, as usual.)
From Voluntary Erythropoiesis? Smoking!
"NIACIN = Nicotinic acid- Biochem. A colorless, water soluble compound, C6 H5 NO2, prepared by the oxidation of nicotine and forming part of the vitamin B complex, used to prevent pellagra."
It is clear we need legislators the are pro-natural medicine and if they look at the studies, thus they will be pro e-cig/vapor too!
Just think how many of us light a scented candle at the end of the day to relax. I don't see the FDA going after candle makers, although if they want to "protect the people from themselves" & be THAT controlling, they should be looking into & regulating artificial scents in our products, additives in our foods, etc.
I don't recall EVER hearing the FDA going after those making artificial scents, perfumes, etc. that many frankly make people sick. Many doctor's offices & hospitals have a "no perfume" policy, as they should, yet DO allow PEOs (Pure essential oils that are extracted from plants) in reasonable amounts. Starting to sound familiar?
Perhaps the drug companies think they'll make more money selling their "smoking cessation devices" I think most of us here have tried, and they failed.
Some of us simply enjoy PEOs and smoking or vaping, and even some candles or eating nightshade plant parts!
This just shows how ridiculous this is!
-Altmed
You are overlooking the fact Gore,Fullbright,Byrd,and other Democrats opposing civil rights legislation remained Democrats until their death. George H.W.Bush,Texas Republican, fought for civil rights his whole political career--civil rights bill,fair housing,ect.
And what, the republicans are paragons of social health and fairness? It is good for EVERYONE if you smoke, hell even the cancer association does better business the more people get cancer and die.
Fair is fair, they both want to screw you.
The 2 statements made by the OP that disturb me most about this thread:
"We clearly see that Republicans are in favor of electronic cigarettes."
leading into....
"WE WANT REPUBLICANS!"
Where is there any real evidence for the first statement? You make it sound like the Repubs are being cheerleaders for the e-cig movement! This is just a classic tactic of using single-issue statistics to bolster a larger-picuture political agenda. Pure Rovianism at its best. I've seen it much too often.
I can agree with the statements made about the numerous Dems who support these bans. These are stupid or conniving politicians who should be run out of office. But somehow, for me, that does not instantly translate into support of a party that I have never, and will never, vote for. With regard to the 2 senseless and ongoing wars (and the fleecing of the American middle class so that Wealthy Republicans can have Corporate Welfare), I can say that my conscience is clean.
It's about the bigger picture, just sayin'.
I don't easily sway back and forth between party loyalties (which I don't really have anyway) over emotional single-issue causes. This divide-and-conquer strategy is the hallmark of modern Republicanism. It has worked like a charm. It is (whether done knowingly or unknowingly) at the core of the OP's plea.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll fight the e-cig battle locally and in ways that actually make a difference.
"We clearly see that Republicans are in favor of electronic cigarettes."
leading into....
"WE WANT REPUBLICANS!"
Where is there any real evidence for the first statement? You make it sound like the Repubs are being cheerleaders for the e-cig movement! This is just a classic tactic of using single-issue statistics to bolster a larger-picuture political agenda. Pure Rovianism at its best. I've seen it much too often.
I can agree with the statements made about the numerous Dems who support these bans. These are stupid or conniving politicians who should be run out of office. But somehow, for me, that does not instantly translate into support of a party that I have never, and will never, vote for. With regard to the 2 senseless and ongoing wars (and the fleecing of the American middle class so that Wealthy Republicans can have Corporate Welfare), I can say that my conscience is clean.
It's about the bigger picture, just sayin'.
I don't easily sway back and forth between party loyalties (which I don't really have anyway) over emotional single-issue causes. This divide-and-conquer strategy is the hallmark of modern Republicanism. It has worked like a charm. It is (whether done knowingly or unknowingly) at the core of the OP's plea.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll fight the e-cig battle locally and in ways that actually make a difference.
Good luck!
Too bad its the Higher District Courts that have the final word, not local initiatives.
Last edited:
BACK TO POLITICS 101:
REPUBLICANS WANT: SMALL GOVERNMENT, LOWER TAXES, FREE ENTERPRISE
DEMOCRATS WANT: BIG GOVERNMENT, HIGHER TAXES, MORE REGULATION
If you are a democrat or socialist, you oppose my narrative
If you are a republican, chances are you favor my narrative
But the bottom line is:
Many more millions of people have fallen hard as victims to the envy of socialism or extremist liberalism, than the greed of capitalism.
When I wrote my argument in the original post, I had anticipated a large proportion of viewers to strongly disagree with my political justification in defense of electronic cigarettes.
So be it.
In the wake of all views and opinions, only a few of them are (or will be) deemed correct.
No matter how strong your belief or opinion - its either in harmony with the truth, or a false doctrine.
The person who knows what their actually talking about, is the one that can discern the foregoing maxim.
Last edited:
Funny, from my perspective it's been:
Republicans want State Controlled Sex, Unwinnable Wars to Send Economically-Terrorized Former Middle Class Citizens Off To Their Death (to "clean house" population-wise, as it were), and Unfunded, Deficit-Be-Damned Tax Cuts For Additional Yachts.
Democrats want Any Crumbs Left Over from the Above Activity While Pretending To Stand Up For "The People".
And we are all here to presume that THIS MEANS YOU. So you are the lone purveyor of truth on this forum, and the rest of us just spout 'opinions'.
Nice try Nostradamus. Maybe you and your ilk just should sit this one out.
Sheesh!!
Are you referring gay marriage?
That's why we're called "conservatives" - we retract every policy to the legacy of our founding fathers.
A government sponsoring and endorsing two men with their genitals inside one another - is not a government that has lost total humanity, but a blind entity that has beyond crossed the lies of human dignity into inhumane vanity and disgrace.
If you endorse and applaud same-sex intercourse and marriage, good for you.
I have yet to loose my dignity.
I would rather have the war overseas, than here in our homeland.
Sure, lets raise taxes on the JOB CREATORS, and then lets go complain about unemployment - because we're scratching our heads wondering why the employers (hence, upper-class/wealthy) are not hiring.
Rather than going to the source of the issue, and incentivize the rich and wealthy small-mid size business owners (hence, job creators) ---
Forget the source of the unemployment plight, lets waste stimulus money and send out checks to people who aren't working. We could incentivize the job creators to start hiring, in lieu - as the nation lies broken, lets break it further by not addressing the source of the issue.
When I see people attacking the electronic cigarette and condemning the republicans for supporting it - it may anger me.
Just because the Republicans support electronic cigarettes, may not necessarily signal and underlying illicit intent.
Sabatoging life-changing innovation by virtue of MORE REGULATION and Gov't intervention is not the maxim of republican leadership.
Like I said - I don't expect people to listen to what I have to say. I expect controversy and derogatory attacks.
What I do expect is for people to watch the news on the electronic cigarette and compare & contrast my suppositions.
That will be the indicator as to the credibility of my statements.
EDIT:
And again, I just have a powerful knack for debate. Don't take any of this personally.
Last edited:
Wow, what a debate! To insert some positivity to this, IMHO, I've seen that dems have in general liked regulating whats good or bad for people, or whats fair to all involved, and repubs don't mind letting u decide whats good or bad and like an unrestricted playing field.
Republicans support e-cig AND big tobacco analogs alike. Big tobacco has always been a huge contributor because of it. I don't believe this argument that democrats are against it because republicans support e-cigs. Dems outlawed flavored cigs because they were thinking it would attract kids. Possibly the same reasons apply here.
Republicans support e-cig AND big tobacco analogs alike. Big tobacco has always been a huge contributor because of it. I don't believe this argument that democrats are against it because republicans support e-cigs. Dems outlawed flavored cigs because they were thinking it would attract kids. Possibly the same reasons apply here.
Prove it.
Case 1.
Average annual budget change as a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product during these administrations:
Roosevelt 14.8%
Truman -8.6%
Eisenhower -1.3%
Kennedy 0.2%
Johnson 1%
Nixon 1.6%
Ford -1.4%
Carter 1.8%
Reagan -0.6%
G. Bush 0.2%
Clinton -1.8%
G.W. Bush 2.4%
(Courtesy of USA Today 2006)
FactCheck.org: FactCheck.org: Defending Spending? Bush's Blooper
President Bush slipped up in his hour-long interview with NBC's Tim Russert over the weekend, claiming that the growth of discretionary federal spending has slowed markedly since he took office. But in fact, annual growth has been in double digits for the past three years, far higher than in any year of the Clinton administration.
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Oh look Heritage foundation, well at theast even they agree that the republican deficit was an all time historical high under Bush and yes still growing under obama.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently estimated the DHS contractor workforce at 200,000, which exceeds the department’s civilian workforce of 188,000, which does not include Coast Guard uniformed employees, the senators said. This is across 22 departments....
Now im not sure but thats some HUGE government growth, and its still just ROLLING along.
Maybe the 2 party's are more similar than people would like to admit. Possibly because they're too busy arguing over imaginary differences in policy and opinion then they just keep on rolling THE SAME .... DOWN THE HILL.
edit: I almost forgot the millitary in this country is one of the LARGEST wellfare institutions in the world, employing more contractors, 2nd party's and foreign industry's than any other aspect of the government, the vast majority of which nobody gets a return on their investment for.
I would also like some clarification on your lines about People falling prey to socialism, more so than capitalism. I DO hope you know the political and ideological differences between generic socialism and Communism however, as well as their historical evolutions, and the implied and secondary damages of all three governments (Capitalism, Communism, Socialism).
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
