Trump/Pence are against Gov overreach ... might be a ray of hope
Hope So.
But I also Recall something about a Wall being built and a Southern Neighbor paying for it. So Don't believe everything you Hear.
Trump Picks Indiana Gov. Pence for VP
- Thread starter ckquatt
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Hope So.
But I also Recall something about a Wall being built and a Southern Neighbor paying for it. So Don't believe everything you Hear.
Trump/Pence are against Gov overreach ... might be a ray of hope
BTW - I wonder how Pence defines Government Overreach?
Indiana Call to Action - Stop the Monopoly
Government overreach is when politicians pass laws you disagree with (not you personally by the way). A bit like Activist Judges.
If vaping presents a threat to your favorite corporation, or your State's revenue stream, then Deeming presumably seems like appropriate and necessary regulation. Otherwise you probably see it as overreach.
Just Me.
But I consider Overreach to do More with whether an Agency has the Authority to do someone. Or when they have the authority, what they Do is Overly Oppressive to one segment for the Benefit of another Segment.
But what's the framework against which we can make those judgements? Common sense? Science? Logic? The Constitution?
The law as written gives the Gov and its agencies the technical legal right to do what they are doing to vaping. Science isn't doing too well in America right now. Like Clive Bates said in his commentary on the PHE vaping document, America is the land of the anti-vaxxers. Constitution is in the same boat as Science. Common sense is what I rely on, but we each have our own version of that. I "know" vaping is safe and a good thing. I wish everyone shared my opinion but they don't. And their goofy opinions have as much weight in the world as mine.
Who knows what Pence thinks. Maybe he believes in all the stuff he says, or maybe he knows the truth about vaping and acts as he does because it conflicts with his financial interests.
My cynical take these days is that (with a few noble exceptions like you and me) we are just apes with big brains fighting for control of our favorite fruit tree. Maybe we just have to hang on until we evolve a bit as a species. Oh wait, evolution is another of those sciencey things in America, like vaping.
Those items in your 1st Paragraph would All be Nice Things to consider. But as to 2nd Paragraphs opening statement, consider Deeming.
Whereas I might not like it, I can see where the FDA has the Authority to Regulate e-Liquids that contain Nicotine which was derived from Tobacco Plants. Don't see it as Overreach.
But is that authority Extended to Include an RTA if no Nicotine derived from Tobacco is sold together with the RTA?
Or how about an Solution of PG, VG and Food Flavorings? Clearly this has No Nicotine in it. And None of the Constituents were Derived from Tobacco. Why would the FDA have Authority to Regulate such a Solution as a Tobacco Product?
Or how about the PMTA Process? Few would Argue the FDA does not have the Authority to require an Approval Process of a Tobacco Product. But is an approval process where No Standards or Goals are Clearly defined, and where the Monetary Costs prohibited All but a select few not an Overreach of a Granted Authority?
The FDA isn't Overreaching when they Exercise the Authority granted to them by Congress to Regulate Tobacco Products. The Overreach comes in the Way and to the Extent that the FDA Feels it can Regulate Tobacco Products.
The Same can be said for Indiana did.
The State of Indiana has the Authority to ensure that e-Liquids sold in Indiana meet Quality Standards. But what Indiana did was Light Years from the Intent of that Authority.
And Once Again, the Overreach was not in Indiana's Authority, it was in How and to what Extent the Indiana Legislation abused this Authority in what they Did.
And Pence had the Responsibility as the current Governor to Veto this Legislative. But he Didn't.
I've never made it a secret that I am a bleeding heart liberal. Vaping is way way down on my list of voting issues. I believe that vaping is not a partisan issue. Both red states and blue states have passed draconian laws. The goal should still be to educate the public on the benefits of vaping. Once it becomes partisan, you harden the other side and nothing gets thru congress.
Now all that being said, I find this discussion curious. Pence is bad for vaping. We know this. We have been railing against the IN laws for some time. You can vote for Trump/Pence for any number of reasons, but saying they are good for vaping is certainly a stretch.
Now all that being said, I find this discussion curious. Pence is bad for vaping. We know this. We have been railing against the IN laws for some time. You can vote for Trump/Pence for any number of reasons, but saying they are good for vaping is certainly a stretch.
I would add that the selection of Pence gives us a real opportunity. I you frequent political sites, make comments. If you are a Republican say that you like Pence but disagree with his stance on vaping. If you are a Democrat say, well you know what to say. Make vaping a voting issue and use this time to educate, not denigrate.
I don't believe we know this.
I do not believe the signing of the Indiana law shows that Pence is anti-vaping.
It might show that, or it might show something else.
Whatever it shows, it's probably not good no matter how you slice it, I'll give you that.
But I'm not sure that whether or not Pence is anti-vaping is necessarily proven yet.
That's all I'm trying to say.
Anti-vaping comes from, mainly, people "who know what's best for us. That attitude comes in various forms. One form is from a political view - a socialist/fascist type - central planning, where gov't controls every aspect of their citizens life (again, for their own "good"). Another view is a religious view - your body is a 'temple', you shouldn't be addicted to anything.
Mike Pence said in his speech he was a Christian, Conservative and Republican in that order. There are many type of Republicans - Evangelicals, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians/libertarian-leaning, left-leaning, populists but, including those religious types who want to force their religious views through legislation; and those who don't want any religious views forced on anyone, where the 1st Amendment as written by Madison and supported by mainly Jefferson (but many others), that a person has freedom of conscience whether it is religious or otherwise, where the exercise of that freedom does not harm or interfere with anyone else, and where that freedom isn't impaired by anyone else as long as no harm is involved.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Exactly where Pence stands isn't entirely known as DC2 suggests - and other factors - state revenue, health care (real or imagined) and other factors go into decisions.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia, 1782
Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom
Mike Pence said in his speech he was a Christian, Conservative and Republican in that order. There are many type of Republicans - Evangelicals, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, libertarians/libertarian-leaning, left-leaning, populists but, including those religious types who want to force their religious views through legislation; and those who don't want any religious views forced on anyone, where the 1st Amendment as written by Madison and supported by mainly Jefferson (but many others), that a person has freedom of conscience whether it is religious or otherwise, where the exercise of that freedom does not harm or interfere with anyone else, and where that freedom isn't impaired by anyone else as long as no harm is involved.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Exactly where Pence stands isn't entirely known as DC2 suggests - and other factors - state revenue, health care (real or imagined) and other factors go into decisions.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia, 1782
Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom
You should talk more.
Its great to see some non-vindictive, objective, logical thinking that aims to benefit people of both sides.....
Actually, back when I was growing up there were a lot more people like this. People could actually hang out together based on finding commonality and not on ideological stances. Saying what they didn't like in but in a way that would actually do some good. People seemed to genuinely enjoy each other.
There have been some interesting studies on the new demographic.....Now people even want to LIVE inside ideological conclaves...with people who think, look, act, and vote exactly like they do.
Seems like a sure-fire way to GET STUPID over time
Can't imagine how anyone can learn anything this way, but certainly, they won't learn "how to get along" this way for sure.Vaping is a pretty normal part of the landscape even in the tiny town I live in, nobody seems to blink an eye either way.
Okay, well let's see if you say this when a Democrat governor signs the same type of bill in their state.
I'm sure there will be many.
Our Governor would Never sign a bunch of Anti-Vaping Bills.
Oh wait.... Yeah... That's Right. He already did.
But at Least he Vetoed the Big Cigarette Tax increase which would have effect Tobacco Products and e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids. That why we have CA Prop. 56 in November.
Actually, it is a partisan issue for those who have an agenda (want people to vote a certain way.).
You are right about the goal.
It's too bad more time, energy, and lip service wasn't paid toward that end ----starting years ago. I feel it it had perhaps we wouldn't be where we are today.
Turning it into a partisan issue does indeed constipate things. And it certainly does nothing for *community*
I do not believe the signing of the Indiana law shows that Pence is anti-vaping.
Well, that could very well be because he is pro smoking, or Pro BT. That he wrote an editorial some years back saying smoking doesn't kill, and the fact that he was against the FSCTCA, and that he has contributions coming in from BT to his campaign......
I can't imagine not thinking that he is anti vaping given all this background info. Seems like if he didn't have a problem with smoking he wouldn't have a problem with vaping.........
But we have seen that is not what has happened. He signed a bill that will decimate the vaping industry in Indiana.
No, he signed a bill that handed the vaping industry to certain Indiana businesses.
It seems much more of a protectionist and/or cronyism bill than an anti-vaping bill to me.
But that is assuming he even understood the ramifications of what he was signing.
Which as I already noted, wouldn't be a whole lot better.
I'll say what I think is the truth, and ignore comments like this one.
So I guess that was what the Gov of AR was doing when he made it illegal to order eliquid online. Protectionism. I knew there was a word for it.
He wanted to make sure everybody buys their eliquids from businesses inside Arkansas, in person, as well as be able to collect taxes on it when people buy it retail (which he said would be voted on 2 years after his legislation passed) ------ as well as get the extra $$ fees from requiring a manufacturer's license (same as Indiana) from every eliquid vendor in the state.
So, we really need to give a pass to a LOT of governors who have passed similar laws around vaping, right, on a case-by-case basis to understand why they have passed vaping laws which ban vapers access to the free market?
Seems like a lot of vapers have been on the warpath against their legislators for no reason.....when they are just being protectionist and doing their best for the people and businesses of their state (sure, right.)
Governors don't make laws. The legislature does. A governor may sign or veto. The power to veto is generally used sparingly because it's often perceived as going against the will of the people as expressed by their representatives in the legislature.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
