I actually wouldnt mind if E cigarettes were made avaialble to kids. I would buy my teenager an E Cigarette any day of the week if they smoked.
Its better than smoking
Its better than smoking
The Elephant in the Room
- Thread starter Plastic Shaman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I wrote another thread about this earlier this week. I know, that's what the proposed rules are going to do. The D.C. Circuit already said that e-cigs are tobacco and that the FDA can regulate them. Now, I think that there is some room for challenges once these rules are passed. Who knows, maybe the Supreme Court will one day hear the issue and decide differently.
However, if you read the case, proposed rules, and the definition of a tobacco product under title 21, I think that it's pretty clear that e-cigs are going to be considered tobacco products.
Thanks for the support! I like these types of discussions, even if some people discount my arguments without really giving them any thought.
Vaping is NOT the most important thing in life and no one is saying it is. Preventing government intrusion into day to day life IS VERY important. I don't want government banning sodas, banning toys in Happy Meals, banning candy bars, or banning anything else that in their minds is "for my own good".
I agree that sales of nicotine and mods to minors needs to be addressed. The one point I have to disagree on is that it might create more smokers. Having been there myself, I just can't imagine anyone who would trad or add to, a good vape hobby, the awful taste and smell of cigarettes, I know myself and no one I have ever talked to started smoking because they loved the taste and smell. I think if anything vaping as minors will reduce the number of underage or even young adults who smoke. Just my opinion on that part. 
Congratulations. You made a hat trick of posts that do not in any way contribute to the discussion. Thankfully posts like that are relatively rare here on ECF.
How can you think that and still think that "sales of nicotine and mods to minors needs to be addressed"?
No one is forcing you to read. If you don't like or agree with my posts you can move along.
Plastic, the discussion has been spirited. I'll give you that. I think that part of the problem stems from the fact that you are arguing from the government's side based on existing law and the FDA's attempt to extend that law into the e-cigarette realm. You've never actually said you agree with that point of view, just used it to counter the arguments made here.
When I was in my early 20's, I thought politicians had to be smart/intelligent in order to rise to that level of governance. When I was in my 30's, I started paying attention to politics and was absolutely dumbfounded at the level of intelligence, or lack thereof, in Congress. I had thought them wise, legal minds. I've listened to them give speeches. I've listened to them campaign. I know I'm more intelligent than 99% of those illustrious 535 persons that represent this nation. Don't believe me, check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q
This is a video of Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) who actually asked, in a congressional hearing, if putting too many troops on the island of Guam would cause the island to tip over.
Nowadays it seems they are there to further their political careers and make a buck while they are at it.
I don't think half of Congress could read the bill and understand it, they will simply parrot whatever attitude they are being influenced to espouse (political allies, special interests, big business, take your pick). They sure as hell couldn't write it.
Part of the disagreement you'll get here is that you are couching the argument in terms that I don't agree with. The argument is that e-cigs are tobacco products because they contain, and only because they contain, nicotine. And therefore, they are subject to governmental oversight. Not to mention it looks like smoking, so it must be as evil as smoking (they won't say that, but they will believe it in their core when arguing against you). The former smokers in this forum fully understand the benefits that e-cigs provide and the also understand that this is a lifeline out of the smoking trap unlike any before it. Its "wild west" nature has governmental officials worried because they don't have oversight. So they are just looking for ways to get influence over the industry. It doesn't help that BT is egging them on because they can't compete in this marketplace. their attempts so far are really sad and weak. but if they can get the government to step in and put them out of business, it won't matter how bad their products are since they will be the only game in town.
At this point I have to wonder... If you are an activist trying to wake this community up to the fact that government wants to regulate us, or shut us down/out if they can't, you're doing a good job. But you could also be a plant (government/BT/BP) trying to gauge the level of commitment and capability of the community to see how easy it would be to shut us down. Or you could be Liz Thomson trying to figure out how to get even with the ECF forum for helping defeat her.
Although, I don't think she, or anyone on her campaign, could possibly frame her arguments as eloquently as you have.
When I was in my early 20's, I thought politicians had to be smart/intelligent in order to rise to that level of governance. When I was in my 30's, I started paying attention to politics and was absolutely dumbfounded at the level of intelligence, or lack thereof, in Congress. I had thought them wise, legal minds. I've listened to them give speeches. I've listened to them campaign. I know I'm more intelligent than 99% of those illustrious 535 persons that represent this nation. Don't believe me, check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q
This is a video of Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) who actually asked, in a congressional hearing, if putting too many troops on the island of Guam would cause the island to tip over.
Nowadays it seems they are there to further their political careers and make a buck while they are at it.
I don't think half of Congress could read the bill and understand it, they will simply parrot whatever attitude they are being influenced to espouse (political allies, special interests, big business, take your pick). They sure as hell couldn't write it.
Part of the disagreement you'll get here is that you are couching the argument in terms that I don't agree with. The argument is that e-cigs are tobacco products because they contain, and only because they contain, nicotine. And therefore, they are subject to governmental oversight. Not to mention it looks like smoking, so it must be as evil as smoking (they won't say that, but they will believe it in their core when arguing against you). The former smokers in this forum fully understand the benefits that e-cigs provide and the also understand that this is a lifeline out of the smoking trap unlike any before it. Its "wild west" nature has governmental officials worried because they don't have oversight. So they are just looking for ways to get influence over the industry. It doesn't help that BT is egging them on because they can't compete in this marketplace. their attempts so far are really sad and weak. but if they can get the government to step in and put them out of business, it won't matter how bad their products are since they will be the only game in town.
At this point I have to wonder... If you are an activist trying to wake this community up to the fact that government wants to regulate us, or shut us down/out if they can't, you're doing a good job. But you could also be a plant (government/BT/BP) trying to gauge the level of commitment and capability of the community to see how easy it would be to shut us down. Or you could be Liz Thomson trying to figure out how to get even with the ECF forum for helping defeat her.
Although, I don't think she, or anyone on her campaign, could possibly frame her arguments as eloquently as you have.
Or you could be Liz Thomson trying to figure out how to get even with the ECF forum for helping defeat her.
Plastic, the discussion has been spirited. I'll give you that. I think that part of the problem stems from the fact that you are arguing from the government's side based on existing law and the FDA's attempt to extend that law into the e-cigarette realm. You've never actually said you agree with that point of view, just used it to counter the arguments made here.
When I was in my early 20's, I thought politicians had to be smart/intelligent in order to rise to that level of governance. When I was in my 30's, I started paying attention to politics and was absolutely dumbfounded at the level of intelligence, or lack thereof, in Congress. I had thought them wise, legal minds. I've listened to them give speeches. I've listened to them campaign. I know I'm more intelligent than 99% of those illustrious 535 persons that represent this nation. Don't believe me, check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q
This is a video of Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) who actually asked, in a congressional hearing, if putting too many troops on the island of Guam would cause the island to tip over.
Nowadays it seems they are there to further their political careers and make a buck while they are at it.
I don't think half of Congress could read the bill and understand it, they will simply parrot whatever attitude they are being influenced to espouse (political allies, special interests, big business, take your pick). They sure as hell couldn't write it.
Part of the disagreement you'll get here is that you are couching the argument in terms that I don't agree with. The argument is that e-cigs are tobacco products because they contain, and only because they contain, nicotine. And therefore, they are subject to governmental oversight. Not to mention it looks like smoking, so it must be as evil as smoking (they won't say that, but they will believe it in their core when arguing against you). The former smokers in this forum fully understand the benefits that e-cigs provide and the also understand that this is a lifeline out of the smoking trap unlike any before it. Its "wild west" nature has governmental officials worried because they don't have oversight. So they are just looking for ways to get influence over the industry. It doesn't help that BT is egging them on because they can't compete in this marketplace. their attempts so far are really sad and weak. but if they can get the government to step in and put them out of business, it won't matter how bad their products are since they will be the only game in town.
At this point I have to wonder... If you are an activist trying to wake this community up to the fact that government wants to regulate us, or shut us down/out if they can't, you're doing a good job. But you could also be a plant (government/BT/BP) trying to gauge the level of commitment and capability of the community to see how easy it would be to shut us down. Or you could be Liz Thomson trying to figure out how to get even with the ECF forum for helping defeat her.
Well, we've all knowing about the problems with the infrastructure of Guam for a while now.
As a point of clarification, I am not personally arguing for anything the government is doing. I'm doing what I've been trained to do, look at the law, the arguments, and the evidence before me and try to figure out what the government will decide and how courts will interpret these decisions. In no way am I claiming to be an expert at this. I'm not trying to inject my own opinions into this as I've learned to dissociate myself from these things.
As for your final point, I'm honored that you think I'm doing such a good job! Maybe I should have chosen a career in politics. Incidentally, I commented on another post about Thomson the other day. I am within a mile or so of her district.
I assure you that I am not here with an agenda. I'm not working for anyone. I wondered if anyone would ask me this! It's kinda cool to be asked, honestly. It means I am riling up some feathers a little. I don't believe that there is much of a point to a serious discussion without dissent!
Wait, are you saying that you agree with Congressman Johnson's concern that if we sent too many troops to Guam that it might capsize and tip over?
Man, I made a nasty typo there. You wouldn't be concerned if an island tipped over? I think that it could be a major issue.
Uhm, that's not how island works. Generally,. They're not thin pieces of land floating on water...
- Status
Similar threads
