US Deeming Date Change - Denied

[Jman8]

Sorry, my point was lost in the ensuing rhetoric.

There are politicos like Mikulski that on occasion do things that the public actually approves of, in spite of the resistance inside government to make it happen. The last HST Servicing Mission was one she spearheaded through, one that I lobbied my reps in Congress to get behind, and one that Congress and NASA were against. I'm an amateur astronomer. Hubble has been a boon to both the professional and amateur astronomy communities, as well as a huge point of advocacy for science. Yes, Mikulski had prejudicial motives for getting the mission done, as the STSI is in her state. The JWST is still years from flying and without that last servicing mission, Hubble would be dead now, unusable space junk. But I digress..

Someone recently pointed out that voting politicians in or out of office based solely on one issue is not necessarily entirely in our best interests if their beliefs on other issues are so at odds with our stances on them that it becomes an untenable choice to make. I wouldn't suggest or want people to vote for someone that would go against their beliefs that are more valuable to them than vaping rights are.

I like(d) this post, based mostly on what the last sentence is saying (to me).

The first paragraph is very personal (though not unique) and starts off with a generalization that is debatable and/or the debate we are currently having, in society, about vaping. We are led to believe that the public actually approves of FDA regulations on vaping despite resistance from vaping associations and within government (namely Pubs). But, like many vapers, and a great many people on ECF, this notion of FDA is not really understood by the masses. I honestly did think of FDA, prior to vaping, as 'looking out for the people' foremost. I had some doubts on this, but after immersing myself in vaping politics and knowing all that I know about it, not only has FDA taken a substantial hit in my mind, but science, as it is practiced today, has gone way down. It is far more like a cult than some endeavor engaging in reason / philosophy. Enabled by a media that is massively manipulating the hearts and minds of the public, to an end that isn't precisely known, but that looks nefarious at first, second and third glance.

Likewise, I can see why there would be resistance to HST Servicing, which you neglect to mention (specifics) AND which I won't because it is OT. But I bring up because what I see as very significant aspect of the problem we are up against is that we (all of us seemingly, but politicians especially) don't seem to be able to effectively argue against our detractors. To me, an effective argument shows up as here is precisely what opposition believes, and here's why it can't work. When that is done, it is often today spun from the getgo. As in opposition wants children to suffer and die, and here's why that won't work. I know that has a single word term to understanding it, but I think because it is at or near the crux of the problem, it deserves more than a single word label before we move on. And while education for young ones on this concept is all fine and dandy, that don't mean much if adults are doing the opposite in their politics / media. Instead, it is like we are telling kids / those learning, "do as I say, not as I do."

I find myself highly tempted to vote people in / out of office based solely on the vaping issue. Though, I find that relatively easy cause the party I'm inclined to vote for anyway is that which is 85% of the time, in American politics, agreeing with what I identify as pro-vaping position. If there were the odd situation where a Pub was showing up as anti-vaping while her Dem counterpart was showing up as pro-vaping, then I'd feel it is tough decision. But if it were so lopsided in how pro-anti they are, and the pro side matched up with my views strongly (i.e. willing to consider allowing kids to vape), it really wouldn't be that tough of a decision, for me. Yet, I bring up kids issue, cause knowing that most politicians/people favor that (idiocy, by forbidding), tells me I'm probably better off not participating in the the voting charade we have set up in an effort to appease the masses, as if they are (legitimate) part of the process.

I continue to find that we are moving past, if not way past, the need for voting to have our public voice heard (when it comes to national politics). Trump, for me, demonstrates the complete political ability to promise whatever it is the public says they want (or at least a substantial portion of the public) and understands it will not be possible to carry through on some, or all, of that. I understood this 25 years ago, and am kinda glad the Trump sensation is before us, collectively. Trump is, in my mind, not the only candidate doing this right now. I could rank them in order of who I see doing this most to least, and my #2, right behind Trump, would not be on the Pub side of things. Heck, if I were going to run, I'd be promising all sorts of things, and not sure why they all don't go further than Trump. It's not like a politician gets recalled all that often, especially when all it takes is blame on the other side as to why what was campaigned for and what was able to be done, are seemingly always at odds.

With all that said, and desire to return to topic that is this thread, I do not understand the principled position for supporting the grandfather date, other than if I appeal to my cynical side. I get why FDA is saying they can't be the entity to move that date. But don't see why everyone in Congress wouldn't seek to have that moved. And my cynical side tells me that the reason is because moving it would shift the economics of a whole lot of things which could devastate our economy. Would be really really nice if that was honestly being told/explained to us. Instead, it is being slipped on by under the public's radar, and likely slipped right on into a (huge) underground market, that I can't see working out well for national / state politicians. How huge that underground market is, remains to be seen, but I feel I could make a case that this is top 3 issues facing America in 2016 and beyond. If it stays legal/open, then it is likely not even in top 7 issues. Try to kill vaping, and you are essentially making it a martyr that many (far more than what we have right now), will suddenly wish to defend / engage in.

 

[Douggro]

I like(d) this post, based mostly on what the last sentence is saying (to me). <snipped for brevity>

I'm pretty sure that your and my political views aren't anywhere near alignment, something which I'm perfectly fine with. I'm not going to try bashing your head in to get you to see it my way - I just ask the same of anyone else.

Regarding the science aspect: the twisting of science and scientific research is nothing new under the sun. It has been going on longer than any of us care to think. Often with dire consequences. Where science goes wrong is when there is an agenda attached to it, and particularly in the interpretation of the results. As discussed in the other thread, there's nothing inherently wrong with the science of the Harvard study; it was the interpretation of the data that had serious flaws without providing a comparative analysis of other sources of diacetyl exposures. Context is decisive in how the conclusion is applied. There is tons of very good science being practiced every day across this country, from cancer research to renewable energy. Sadly, when science gets twisted for matching some political or social agenda, it's not science anymore - it's testing done to get a predetermined desired result.

As for the issue with the FDA, it's a case where the product technically falls under their purview. I want to believe that the majority of the work the FDA does is honestly meant to protect us as consumers with getting products that are safe to eat and drink. But the reality is that it is also a part of the government, subject to the whims of politics. Vying to keep funding for crucial services like meat and food inspection (sorely lacking, IMO, but that's another topic of its own) as well as investigation and research of emerging exposure issues means that it has to play the political game. Undoubtedly there is some reason why they chose the grandfathering deeming date that comes from the political side. BT, states that get large tobacco subsidies, the taxing implications, etcetera and ad infinitum.. all topics that are being hashed in other threads.

We just need to keep the pressure up as a group to get the deeming date revised or suspended. Whether its voting, lobbying, petitions, or writing and calling our representatives, getting our voices heard on the matter is what counts. Being shrill about it and making it about party politics is counter-productive in my opinion, because we as a people are so attuned to listening for that, that it's what we hear first and will dismiss everything else said. This issue isn't about politics: it's about being fairly represented and having our rights respected. There's this line in the Pledge of Allegiance: "With Liberty and Justice for ALL."

 

[DC2]

What would be an example of this?

Well, IF they demand tamper-proof and leak-proof that would be an example.
And I'm pretty sure that is what they intend to demand.

But we can't know what's in it until they pass it.
They have made that very clear.

 

[beckdg]

But we can't know what's in it until they pass it.
They have made that very clear.

Makes perfect sense.

Tapatyped

 

[Jman8]

Well, IF they demand tamper-proof and leak-proof that would be an example.
And I'm pretty sure that is what they intend to demand.

I would equate fire-proof to that, and that legally sold products must be in package that has the FDA (or whatever) seal on it.

Obviously there's distinctions between the products, but I don't see any regulation going (way) beyond what they have done to smokes. If they were more on par, smokes would be allowed to have more than 2 flavors and would have hundreds of companies around. I get that we all agree that it'll go from 1000+ vaping companies to likely less than a hundred, and that if deeming stuff doesn't change from what we understand, there may only be a small amount of flavors. But to go way beyond tobacco stuff, it would have to be less than 2 flavors are available on the legal market.

 

[crxess]

Excellent Article Linked by @LouisLeBeau , have a read.

{People smoke for nicotine but they die from tar." Michael Russell, a South African scientist widely considered to be the godfather of tobacco control, wrote those words in 1976. At the time it represented a drastic new way of understanding smoking: as a physiological addiction to a drug rather than a purely psychological habit. But nearly 40 years later, the revelation of Russell's research has been obscured, as the decades long war on smoking became, in effect, a war on nicotine. Rather than occupying a place on the same spectrum that allows caffeine and alcohol to be consumed without stigma, today the word "nicotine" conjures up images of amputated limbs and metastasizing tumors — even though, as Russell made clear, nicotine in itself has never been the deadly culprit in cigarettes.}

Read more: E-Cigs' Inconvenient Truth: It's Much Safer to Vape

 

[Tommy-Chi]

I would equate fire-proof to that, and that legally sold products must be in package that has the FDA (or whatever) seal on it.

Obviously there's distinctions between the products, but I don't see any regulation going (way) beyond what they have done to smokes. If they were more on par, smokes would be allowed to have more than 2 flavors and would have hundreds of companies around. I get that we all agree that it'll go from 1000+ vaping companies to likely less than a hundred, and that if deeming stuff doesn't change from what we understand, there may only be a small amount of flavors. But to go way beyond tobacco stuff, it would have to be less than 2 flavors are available on the legal market.

I don't know. It's been a while since I've been in a really good tobacco shop and they had hundreds of different tobaccos, cigarettes and cigars to choose from. I'm going to go back and watch YouTube videos on nicotine extraction, order some chemistry glassware and then go for a visit. Should have remarkable results!

 

[Completely Average]

I think a whole bunch of people here need a lesson in both politics and government.

The FDA answers to one man, and one man ONLY. The FDA is under the direct authority of the Executive Branch of government. That means they answer to the President of the United States and no one else. They don't answer to your congressman or senator, they don't answer to the will of the people, they answer only to the POTUS. The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration is appointed by the president. They are not hired into this position, nor are they elected into it, the President chooses who will run the FDA. The FDA reports to the Secretary of Health and Human Services which is a member of the Presidential Cabinet, again, all appointees of the President.

So all of this "choose who you vote for" nonsense is just that, NONSENSE.

The ONLY person who matters is the President of the United States. He chooses who runs the FDA and what they will do, and the FDA reports to his personally chosen cabinet and no one else. As long as they have the blessing of the President then they can effectively act with impunity and do not care one bit about how voters feel because none of them are elected. They do not require voter approval for passage of FDA regulations nor enforcement of those regulations. The ONLY thing they are required to go through congress for is changes to the tax laws, because Congress controls taxes. And if Congress doesn't cooperate the President can always issue an Executive Order to make the changes without them. Beyond that the FDA has powers normally associated with a dictatorship.

That's why I've been saying for more than a year that things like petitions aren't going to make a bit of difference. They can do what they want and you can't touch them and they know it. Your only real chance is to convince the current presidential candidates to support the ecig industry and hopefully they will order the FDA to change it's regulations and enforcement. Short of that it's a lost cause.

 

[Douggro]

Excellent Article Linked by @LouisLeBeau , have a read.

{People smoke for nicotine but they die from tar." Michael Russell, a South African scientist widely considered to be the godfather of tobacco control, wrote those words in 1976. At the time it represented a drastic new way of understanding smoking: as a physiological addiction to a drug rather than a purely psychological habit. But nearly 40 years later, the revelation of Russell's research has been obscured, as the decades long war on smoking became, in effect, a war on nicotine. Rather than occupying a place on the same spectrum that allows caffeine and alcohol to be consumed without stigma, today the word "nicotine" conjures up images of amputated limbs and metastasizing tumors — even though, as Russell made clear, nicotine in itself has never been the deadly culprit in cigarettes.}

Read more: E-Cigs' Inconvenient Truth: It's Much Safer to Vape

When last I spoke to my cardiologist, and he's a very cool guy at that, his only concern with nicotine was the effect it has as a vasoconstrictor and the elevation in blood pressure it induces. His major concern with getting me off the cigarettes was the tons of other junk in them that were much more a factor in my heart attack than nicotine. That, and cigarettes didn't play well with the Brilinta blood thinner I'm on.

 

[DC2]

So all of this "choose who you vote for" nonsense is just that, NONSENSE.

CALL TO ACTION - HR 2058!! Protect U.S. Vaping Industry

 

[Douggro]

Yet, the FDA has to get funding through Congress and the pertinent subcommittees. Why the significance of HR2058? Doesn't your argument render those moot? According to your argument, the President just tells the FDA "Make it so Number One" and WHOOSH, magicifically, Deeming Regs are a done deal, money is never an object and all is smarmy ooky goodness.

Resignation and cynicism = the true state of human being. Evidenced here every day.

 

[Jman8]

I don't know. It's been a while since I've been in a really good tobacco shop and they had hundreds of different tobaccos, cigarettes and cigars to choose from. I'm going to go back and watch YouTube videos on nicotine extraction, order some chemistry glassware and then go for a visit. Should have remarkable results!

Point me to that shop's fine selection of flavored cigarettes, cause I ain't seeing it.

Incidentally, the vaping deeming did address cigars as well. Wonder how that shop will fare post deeming.

 

[Douggro]

Point me to that shop's fine selection of flavored cigarettes, cause I ain't seeing it.

Incidentally, the vaping deeming did address cigars as well. Wonder how that shop will fare post deeming.

Well, there goes my chance of trying an authentic Cuban…

 

[Tommy-Chi]

Point me to that shop's fine selection of flavored cigarettes, cause I ain't seeing it.

Incidentally, the vaping deeming did address cigars as well. Wonder how that shop will fare post deeming.

Yep I just noticed that they quit selling cigarettes! I've been going there on and off since around '84. They sold me my first pack of Gitanes...and since I quit smoking, I guess I will not miss them or the fine cigars, but I'll be stopping in for some tobacco to extract the nicotine from.

 

[Yiana]

Point me to that shop's fine selection of flavored cigarettes, cause I ain't seeing it.

Incidentally, the vaping deeming did address cigars as well. Wonder how that shop will fare post deeming.

There are NO flavored cigarettes unless you count menthol as a flavor because Obama signed an executive order banning them back in 2009. It was "for the children", however you can get flavored cigarellos so I don't know how that did any good but take away my right to smoke clove cigarettes.

 

[Tommy-Chi]

New fool in town! This one plans to raise taxes a minimum of 50% on ecigs and juices. My message to him on Twitter:

@JohnKasich @TeamJohnKasich You will never get Vapers to vote for you (E-Cig) and now we will spread the word about you.

 

[Rossum]

I think a whole bunch of people here need a lesson in both politics and government.

The FDA answers to one man, and one man ONLY. The FDA is under the direct authority of the Executive Branch of government. That means they answer to the President of the United States and no one else. They don't answer to your congressman or senator, they don't answer to the will of the people, they answer only to the POTUS. The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration is appointed by the president. They are not hired into this position, nor are they elected into it, the President chooses who will run the FDA. The FDA reports to the Secretary of Health and Human Services which is a member of the Presidential Cabinet, again, all appointees of the President.

So all of this "choose who you vote for" nonsense is just that, NONSENSE.

The ONLY person who matters is the President of the United States. He chooses who runs the FDA and what they will do, and the FDA reports to his personally chosen cabinet and no one else. As long as they have the blessing of the President then they can effectively act with impunity and do not care one bit about how voters feel because none of them are elected. They do not require voter approval for passage of FDA regulations nor enforcement of those regulations. The ONLY thing they are required to go through congress for is changes to the tax laws, because Congress controls taxes. And if Congress doesn't cooperate the President can always issue an Executive Order to make the changes without them. Beyond that the FDA has powers normally associated with a dictatorship.

That's why I've been saying for more than a year that things like petitions aren't going to make a bit of difference. They can do what they want and you can't touch them and they know it. Your only real chance is to convince the current presidential candidates to support the ecig industry and hopefully they will order the FDA to change it's regulations and enforcement. Short of that it's a lost cause.

Does the FDA report/answer to the POTUS? Yes, indeed. But their authority to regulate anything at is directly created/granted by laws passed by Congress. Congress did grant them the authority to regulate tobacco products back in 2009, but what Congress granted, Congress can also take away....

 

[herb]

New fool in town! This one plans to raise taxes a minimum of 50% on ecigs and juices. My message to him on Twitter:

@JohnKasich @TeamJohnKasich You will never get Vapers to vote for you (E-Cig) and now we will spread the word about you.

Kasich isn't going anywhere as far as his desire to be president , good to know he's looking to screw over vapors though, didn't know that.

 

[crxess]

When last I spoke to my cardiologist, and he's a very cool guy at that, his only concern with nicotine was the effect it has as a vasoconstrictor and the elevation in blood pressure it induces. His major concern with getting me off the cigarettes was the tons of other junk in them that were much more a factor in my heart attack than nicotine. That, and cigarettes didn't play well with the Brilinta blood thinner I'm on.

Life changing FACT you can pass along to your Dr.
Close friend at work, like my also nearing Senior Citizen category. He had collapsed twice and his Dr. was extremely concerned with his high blood pressure.
2 PAD RYO Smoker, he was almost always read faced from his condition and of course the news just added stress to his list.
I offered the possibility of helping him with improving his health in the way of reducing his smoking...............No pressure, just casual talk and of course my recent improvements since switching.
Took about a week for him to bite and we had the serious conversation on equipment/e-liquid/use and maintenance.
I made it perfectly clear, he did NOT have to quit smoking in order to start vaping and it was simply a means to take some of the stress off.
Within 2 weeks - Dual use - his facial color was normal, not cherry red and his blood pressure was borderline rather than extreme.
Within a Month his Blood pressure was down to normal, he had quit smoking without even realizing and he was not taking ANY blood pressure medications.

Yes, nicotine is a vasoconstrictor which Can raise Blood pressure, but that does not mean automatic HIGH Blood Pressure. This is dependent on many things including activity.


* I have converted many friends, but if I could only have helped one - I am Glad to say I would choose Him! 1 Life Saved!!!

 

[Tommy-Chi]

Kasich isn't going anywhere as far as his desire to be president , good to know he's looking to screw over vapors though, didn't know that.

And this should make my Democrat friends very happy! Go get 'em boys/gals! Maybe we can unseat him in his home state.