The shot of her going to bed.
Imagine how happy cattle will be if island tipping becomes the new fad.
ETA
No, unless one of the elephants is is a real porker.
Last edited:
The Elephant in the Room
- Thread starter Plastic Shaman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The shot of her going to bed.
Imagine how happy cattle will be if island tipping becomes the new fad.
ETA
No, unless one of the elephants is is a real porker.
To the bolded: cat's out of the bag, meow.
As to the passion about finance, why not go several octaves higher and focus on monetary policy reform in general? It seems this is the source of the fire and something like campaign finance reform is merely one of a zillion floating embers of this fire.
I'm unaware of any statutes that cover the sale of nicotine. If this was the case, no one in any state could have sold e-cigs to children. However, the area was gray until a lot of states passed laws.
As far as I know, and I could be wrong, federal law only covers things that have already been put in the jurisdiction under the tobacco control parts of Title 21, such as cigarettes. Other things, like NRTs are probably covered under the FDCA since they are being marketed as a medical treatment. Other laws that ban the sale of things not currently covered by either of these, like cigars, are probably state law. Again, I could be wrong on all of this, but that's my understanding.
That's what I meant, the several state statutes. Is there a state that allows the sale of nicotine to anyone under 18?
Cat's out of the bag in which way? That Republicans are attempting to do this?
Monetary policy? As in how we distribute money and deal with interest rates? I don't know how that would affect what I'm talking about, but tell me if there is something that I'm not seeing.
Well, some states might have had laws that forbid the sale of nicotine itself, but I have no idea. The sale of nicotine outside of tobacco products is novel so this may never have been addressed. My guess is that they mostly addressed other forms of tobacco, like cigars. If anyone knows any more and I'm wrong, please tell me.
LOL this could be a looooong thread if we get into this but start higher than distribution of "money". Begin with creation.
You're talking campaign finance reform right? Basically what I gather from your statement is this is a form of corruption, please correct me if I am wrong. How corrupt would congress be without a printing press?
Look at it this way dude, the "law" as it reads right now at this moment is that the "money" we use is for making advances to "banks" through "agents" and "for no other purpose".
12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption | LII / Legal Information Institute
Would you disagree?
idk either I guess I am just failing to see a need for a non-existent problem. I personally have never entered an establishment (that sells vapes) that did not clearly state or hold to the "no sale to underage persons" rule...that goes for online sales as well. Do you know of anywhere in the US that has ever not adhered to this, ever?
No. I don't think that there's ever been a question about the ability of government to make money. How does this affect campaign finance? Are you suggesting that we not allow the government to make money?
I started smoking because I was a stupid, naive 13 yr old. I grew up absolutely HATING my parents' smoking. It stunk, it was terrible, and I rode them incessantly to quit. They did. I became a teenager, who suddenly was in an identity crisis and wanted to be accepted by my peers. One suggested we smoke, so I did. I turned green and was sick for about 8 hours afterward. I also caught a huge buzz......and I think was addicted the first time I tried it, because I did it again at the first opportunity.
I smoked for another 28 yrs. It had me so addicted that just being down to the last two smokes in my pack made me anxious ...and I would usually run to a convenience store for another pack before I ran out.
What's my point? That yes, some laws must be made to protect children and naive teenagers. Not that it stops them from doing stupid things but as a society we have a moral obligation to at least try.
I vape now, instead of smoking. I have a 2 yr old and 4 yr old daughter. I really hope that they choose not to smoke OR vape. I think vaping is far less harmful, but I don't kid myself into believing that it's totally hamLESS. I'm fairly certain I've done considerable damage to my health already. I know I shortened my time with my daughters.
I like to reflect on how intrusive government has become too. It's important to keep in mind that prior to the Progressive era in our history, government didn't intrude into our lives very much. I for one am happy to live in the United States where the FDA exists. Laissez faire isn't all it's cracked up to be, in my opinion.
I'm not necessarily advocating turning the industry over to big government or big tobacco. Maybe I consider myself the voice of reason, but I don't think they sky is falling just because the FDA and other governmental agencies want to have a say in this emerging industry.
Today, I currently have no way of knowing exactly what's in the e liquids I am inhaling. Makes me a little nervous. I know this opinion won't be popular...but I'm not thin skinned, and I'm accustomed to being in the minority.
I smoked for another 28 yrs. It had me so addicted that just being down to the last two smokes in my pack made me anxious ...and I would usually run to a convenience store for another pack before I ran out.
What's my point? That yes, some laws must be made to protect children and naive teenagers. Not that it stops them from doing stupid things but as a society we have a moral obligation to at least try.
I vape now, instead of smoking. I have a 2 yr old and 4 yr old daughter. I really hope that they choose not to smoke OR vape. I think vaping is far less harmful, but I don't kid myself into believing that it's totally hamLESS. I'm fairly certain I've done considerable damage to my health already. I know I shortened my time with my daughters.
I like to reflect on how intrusive government has become too. It's important to keep in mind that prior to the Progressive era in our history, government didn't intrude into our lives very much. I for one am happy to live in the United States where the FDA exists. Laissez faire isn't all it's cracked up to be, in my opinion.
I'm not necessarily advocating turning the industry over to big government or big tobacco. Maybe I consider myself the voice of reason, but I don't think they sky is falling just because the FDA and other governmental agencies want to have a say in this emerging industry.
Today, I currently have no way of knowing exactly what's in the e liquids I am inhaling. Makes me a little nervous. I know this opinion won't be popular...but I'm not thin skinned, and I'm accustomed to being in the minority.
If you don't disagree with 12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption | LII / Legal Information Institute which simply states in one short paragraph:
"Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
Now you must agree that you are either a Federal Reserve bank or a Federal Reserve agent and the currency is not lawful money. So we are surprised then when we are all willfully operating outside the scope of the framework and corruption like campaign finance occurs?
Is the Federal Reserve the federal government?
Agreed it is a governments supreme prerogative to issue Money. So the example from 12USC411 I gave you is Money then? What about the stated purpose? I assume the campaign finance corruption is paid in Fed Notes, no?
So if I am RJR and contribute to a campaign how is that not collusion between government, bank and corporation? Who controls what competition with RJR there is? Why is Congress able to interfere with Major League Baseball?
Sorry, main point is how is unlimited funding not the source of corruption on any level? Of course lets not touch on "unlimited" but when a million here and a billion there literally goes unnoticed every single day it is the same difference.
Last edited:
Bored2Tears, I would like to suggest you start reading in the "FDA Regulations" thread as well as read what's in the CASAA.org web site. Perhaps you will get more of a "feel" about what's going on. 
I think what you've said is completely reasonable. In fact, two years ago I would have said the exact same thing, and I wish I could say the same thing now. I don't believe the industry needs to have absolutely no regulation. Unfortunately, since I've started looking into things on my own and paying attention, I no longer trust the FDA to be fair and unbiased. From the start the FDA has used bad science to demonize vaping, and the proposed deeming regulations are written in a way to hand the vaping industry over to BT.
I don't trust the FDA entirely. I don't trust the e liquid and e cigarette industry 100% either. I'm patient.... and I believe that it's good to have strong advocates on both sides. I just don't think that no government intervention is a good thing. Nor do I believe that we can just allow the governmental agencies to entirely determine the fate of this industry.
All this ranting and raving about no government involvement is wasted energy. They will be involved. Best to embrace and work with them now...and put all this energy toward unbiased research and self-regulation now....because some form of regulation is coming...and is necessary IMHO.
Yep I reckon cowboy lol, and I understand your point. I was speaking more of the single minded who think vaping is everything crowd and mentality. Sure I like to vape and this board has a lot to offer but there's a deep rooted bunch who act as if it's the most important thing in life, they have no concern how it may effect others and don't care. If you say anything negative about vaping they become hostile, question the ingredients they get mad, say it's not polite to vape around others in public they get upset cause they must vape in Walmart. Its the I must vape or I'm forced to smoke mindset, which is nonsense. I need to be allowed to vape at work or my boss is discriminating. I think you get where I'm coming from.
I respect your opinion and I won't argue whether the FDA is being biased in what research it looks at because I don't have the background to weigh the validity of the research presented. I also don't disagree that there may be undue influence from a lot of sources in government. However, I don't know why you think the FDA has handed the industry over to BT. All the proposed rules do is bring e-cigs within their jurisdiction, ask for more research, and apply the existing applications statutes to the industry. This is something that I would expect to see happen since it is required by statute.
Even though it may not be something great for us, I don't really see anything they are doing that is abnormal or particularly hostile.
Shaman, I know you are a law student. My father taught law and we've had a few lawyers in the family, think it's a recessive gene thing. You need to look at this with a little wider scope than just as a lawyer. If person A kills person B and Person A's lawyer does a lot of backroom wheeling and dealing to get A found not guilty, that doesn't mean A is not a murderer even if in the eyes of the law he is not. There is a lot more going on than just the FDA mulling deeming regulations.
- Status
Similar threads
