FDA Well, at least I have this...

[KODIAK (TM)]

FDA E-Cig Regulations Disappoint Democrats, Cheer Industry

Several Democratic lawmakers who have pushed for the FDA to draft e-cig regulations to treat the electronic cigarettes like their traditional counterparts aren’t happy.

It's hard find the rose in the cesspool but *for me*, any time proponents of regulation are "not happy", I smile. (just a little). Durbin and Waxman... go balance a budget or something. Or better yet, just retire your looney asses and leave me alone.

 

[ImperfectFuture]

FDA E-Cig Regulations Disappoint Democrats, Cheer Industry


It's hard find the rose in the cesspool but *for me*, any time proponents of regulation are "not happy", I smile. (just a little). Durbin and Waxman... go balance a budget or something. Or better yet, just retire your looney asses and leave me alone.

Dude, I REALLY like you as a contributor. I look forward to reading your posts, have liked your humor, etc. UNTIL NOW!! Please, there are people of many political affiliations here. I have a pretty thick skin, being older (and I wonder if you realize the political affiliates of those in our side, grimmgreen, rip, bill maher). Don't turn this into a fight for the mid terms, because you will lose folks that want to support, but aren't in your side of the fence (where Russia is close to your house ).

We need people NOT YET vaping, NOR MAY NEVER vape, and we don't need alienation from disagreement on political affiliations (or your definition of democracy).

Those whom claim they are always right, kinda end up in a war, sort of like revelations in the bible (spiritually speaking).

/Back to enjoying your other posts.

 

[Rickb119]

Dude, I REALLY like you as a contributor. I look forward to reading your posts, have liked your humor, etc. UNTIL NOW!! Please, there are people of many political affiliations here. I have a pretty thick skin, being older (and I wonder if you realize the political affiliates of those in our side, grimmgreen, rip, bill maher). Don't turn this into a fight for the mid terms, because you will lose folks that want to support, but aren't in your side of the fence (where Russia is close to your house ).

We need people NOT YET vaping, NOR MAY NEVER VAPE, and we don't need alienation from disagreement on political affiliations (or your definition of democracy).

Those whom claim they are always right, kinda end up in a war, sort of like revelations in the bible (spiritually speaking).

/Back to enjoying your other posts.

So, an offhand political comment is condemned but an offhand religious/spiritual/Christian (bible) comment is acceptable?

Just trying to understand the ground rules as I'm sure that there are many here that are not the least religious/spiritual and may take offense at your comments.

 

[Kent C]

FDA E-Cig Regulations Disappoint Democrats, Cheer Industry


It's hard find the rose in the cesspool but *for me*, any time proponents of regulation are "not happy", I smile. (just a little). Durbin and Waxman... go balance a budget or something. Or better yet, just retire your looney asses and leave me alone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...6485fa-892d-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

Don't turn this into a fight for the mid terms,

Too late!

because you will lose folks that want to support, but aren't in your side of the fence

But my friend... exactly what part of my post put me on one side of the fence or the other? I didn't put the word "Democrat" in the title of that article. Nor did I put those little "D's" behind the names of Senator's Durbin or Waxman (or for that matter, the names of Harkin, Rockefeller, Blumenthal, Markey, Brown, Reed, Boxer, Merkley and Pallone).

But since *you* brought it up )) I pose to you, as evidence, for your very own eyes, that these deeming FDA regulations have clear partisan roots all on their own. Without my help. And now that this partisan volley has been lobbed my way, (completely unprovoked by me, with no political affiliation I might add), I and *you* would be remiss if we didn't consider the mid-terms as a possible solution. Regardless of political views. (Can we all have just have a Kumbaya moment here! )

So right now, I can't think of a better way to nullify this overly partisan 241 page roll of asswipe than by neutering the Senate in 2016. Which effectually puts all this in the crapper where it belongs.

Wish me luck folks!

 

[ImperfectFuture]

So, an offhand political comment is condemned but an offhand religious/spiritual/Christian (bible) comment is acceptable?

Just trying to understand the ground rules as I'm sure that there are many here that are not the least religious/spiritual and may take offense at your comments.

Spiritual is not religious. The bible was used for symbolic teaching, in fact, 8've studied the "condemned" versions by the Gnostics. Revelations is symbolic, and the symbols are represented in change versus the fight to maintain the status wuo. The status wuo is the fiht to maintain dollars in certain pockets, instead of progression to an alternate way of thinking. One small part (very small), is the fight we have now in ecigs. Change has to happen, a species evolves for survival, and we have a bit of conflict in interest for survival via our current system.

However, I understand a lot of this through study of overdeveloped ecionomies, consumer dependent economies, human behavior and the biochemical reactions/synaptics to change, and repetitive (addictive) behavior. PS, the repetition comes from even those Greeks and Romans.

Don't think I mentioned the bible too much there, but the symbols for everything I just stated is in there (but its in a lot of other historical documents too, galaxy quest, such as the Koran, Buddhism, Torah, or Carl Jung -not so much a bible).

Spirit is what sparks you, not a bible.

 

[ImperfectFuture]

Too late!

But my friend... exactly what part of my post put me on one side of the fence or the other? I didn't put the word "Democrat" in the title of that article. Nor did I put those little "D's" behind the names of Senator's Durbin or Waxman (or for that matter, the names of Harkin, Rockefeller, Blumenthal, Markey, Brown, Reed, Boxer, Merkley and Pallone).

But since *you* brought it up )) I pose to you, as evidence, for your very own eyes, that these deeming FDA regulations have clear partisan roots all on their own. Without my help. And now that this partisan volley has been lobbed my way, (completely unprovoked by me, with no political affiliation I might add), I and *you* would be remiss if we didn't consider the mid-terms as a possible solution. Regardless of political views. (Can we all have just have a Kumbaya moment here! )

So right now, I can't think of a better way to nullify this overly partisan 241 page roll of asswipe than by neutering the Senate in 2016. Which effectually puts all this in the crapper where it belongs.

Wish me luck folks!

Unfortunately, the repubs want it too, and they are part of the above mentioned war. Money is the problem, power is the problem, and the fight for power only exacerbates the problem.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Here we go again with the partisan here on ECF.

Um, let's see - the last three Govs to call for taxing/regulating vaping like tobacco cigarettes were from which party? (Hint: the states are MI, NJ and OH. BTW the uncooperative legislators in the first two of those states are not from the Gov's party.)

Which party was the Gov from who just killed an extension to MN's clean indoor/outdoor air act that would define vaping as smoking (including public parks and an outdoor perimeter of [?] 20 ft)?

For some interesting reason, I didn't see a single partisan remark about any of those situations.

Which is just the way it should be.

 

[ImperfectFuture]

Here we go again with the partisan here on ECF.

Um, let's see - the last three Govs to call for taxing/regulating vaping like tobacco cigarettes were from which party? (Hint: the states are MI, NJ and OH. BTW the uncooperative legislators in the first two of those states are not from the Gov's party.)

Which party was the Gov from who just killed an extension to MN's clean indoor/outdoor air act that would define vaping as smoking (including public parks and an outdoor perimeter of [?] 20 ft)?

For some interesting reason, I didn't see a single partisan remark about any of those situations.

Which is just the way it should be.

While I was trying to impart that it was both parties, maybe I did not make myself clear. However, you did. The striking disagreements come when fighting for power. In WA, we got both dems and reps on the side to banish proposed legislation, though the dems took the origianl proposal of the house. It's all about the power and ze money (both of which are addictive, can we get the FDA to regulate those?)

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

Here we go again with the partisan here on ECF.

Um, let's see - the last three Govs to call for taxing/regulating vaping like tobacco cigarettes were from which party? (Hint: the states are MI, NJ and OH. BTW the uncooperative legislators in the first two of those states are not from the Gov's party.)

Which party was the Gov from who just killed an extension to MN's clean indoor/outdoor air act that would define vaping as smoking (including public parks and an outdoor perimeter of [?] 20 ft)?

For some interesting reason, I didn't see a single partisan remark about any of those situations.

Which is just the way it should be.

Well, sometimes (just sometimes mind you), that elephant sitting in the room might look like somebody's mother-in-law so everyone just doesn't say anything. Yes, it's from both sides. But "wishing" it to be one way doesn't change the way it really is in light of recent events. So like it or not, the "here and now" depends on a Republican House and Senate if there's any hope the FDA stalls on this issue. I'm not even bringing the White House into it.

First of course, we need an extension to this 75 day commenting period.

 

[DrMA]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...6485fa-892d-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html

Best news I read all week! Thanks.

 

[Kent C]

Here we go again with the partisan here on ECF.

Um, let's see - the last three Govs to call for taxing/regulating vaping like tobacco cigarettes were from which party? (Hint: the states are MI, NJ and OH. BTW the uncooperative legislators in the first two of those states are not from the Gov's party.)

Which party was the Gov from who just killed an extension to MN's clean indoor/outdoor air act that would define vaping as smoking (including public parks and an outdoor perimeter of [?] 20 ft)?

For some interesting reason, I didn't see a single partisan remark about any of those situations.

Which is just the way it should be.

The Dems in the NJ legislature had the 'proposal' on the books for two years.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

[...] So like it or not, the "here and now" depends on a Republican House and Senate if there's any hope the FDA stalls on this issue. I'm not even bringing the White House into it.

Well, it's not nec'ly a determinative factor. Bill G's view is that vapers' odds are likely better under the double-R scenario, to be sure. I agree.

But deep pockets matter a lot in DC. And we have all of them arrayed against us. Maybe I'm cynical, but I think Durbin et al. are crying croc. tears. (Pun on "croc' intended.) I suspect they knew full well what the FDA was going to do, and that there will be plenty of campaign cash and cushy jobs for everyone involved - regardless of whether their paychecks (currently) come from the legislative or the executive branch. And independently of party.

First of course, we need an extension to this 75 day commenting period.

I look forward to learning more about this. Why it's helpful (other than running out the clock and/or increasing the #comments), what entity makes the deicsion (CTP?) and what pressure points will exist, particularly after Memorial Day when little of political consequence occurs, etc. Presumably we'll hear more tomorrow in the CASAA update.

 

[cbrite]

My only political comment: Don't be a one-issue voter (even if that issue is near and dear to your heart).

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

My only political comment: Don't be a one-issue voter (even if that issue is near and dear to your heart).

It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I have become increasingly convinced that the situation of vapers is going to gradually become very much like that of proponents of {OTHER STUFF} legalization or gun owners.

If these regulations end up doing what I think they're going to do, we'll be like the {OTHER STUFF} legalization proponents in that junk science and protection of minors are used against us (particularly the bogus gateway argument).

I can also see a "cat and mouse" game developing with equipment - vendors who are selling "variable voltage flashlights" pop up, and get shut down. This is similar to modifications made to firearms.

One way that they made progress over the years was by threatening to become (or actually becoming) single-issue voters (and donors, and organizers).

There are other good analogies too, such as the gay rights movement and both sides of the abortion debate.

What all these things have in common is that politicians are unlikely to listen unless and until their feet are held to the fire by a credible threat of job loss.

 

[patkin]

My only political comment: Don't be a one-issue voter (even if that issue is near and dear to your heart).

I hear that thrown around so often (incidentally, usually in a call for political correctness) and it makes absolutely no sense. "Near and dear" means each and every issue is weighted to one degree or another so when the proverbial line is drawn down the middle of the page, that one issue appearing on either side of the pro/con line is going to tip multiple issues on the other side. The point being multiple issues ARE being considered. I don't recall a single time when my choice hasn't boiled down to choosing the lesser of two "evils" and something has to determined which way I go with "near(est) and dear(est) usually being a deciding factor.

 

[Anjaffm]

I hear that thrown around so often (incidentally, usually in a call for political correctness) and it makes absolutely no sense. "Near and dear" means each and every issue is weighted to one degree or another so when the proverbial line is drawn down the middle of the page, that one issue appearing on either side of the pro/con line is going to tip multiple issues on the other side. The point being multiple issues ARE being considered. I don't recall a single time when my choice hasn't boiled down to choosing the lesser of two "evils" and something has to determined which way I go with "near(est) and dear(est) usually being a deciding factor.

Absolutely.
And you are so right about "the lesser of two evils" instead of "the party that you think is great"

 

[aikanae1]

It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I have become increasingly convinced that the situation of vapers is going to gradually become very much like that of proponents of mar!juana legalization or gun owners.

If these regulations end up doing what I think they're going to do, we'll be like the mar!juana legalization proponents in that junk science and protection of minors are used against us (particularly the bogus gateway argument).

I can also see a "cat and mouse" game developing with equipment - vendors who are selling "variable voltage flashlights" pop up, and get shut down. This is similar to modifications made to firearms.

One way that they made progress over the years was by threatening to become (or actually becoming) single-issue voters (and donors, and organizers).

There are other good analogies too, such as the gay rights movement and both sides of the abortion debate.

What all these things have in common is that politicians are unlikely to listen unless and until their feet are held to the fire by a credible threat of job loss.

I've heard several anaylsis on the changes that some of these movements experienced recently and what I took away was that mass opiinion changed (even from people who weren't directly involved) came about when those who were directly impacted, came out from the closet. People knew someone who used for pain, for cancer, were gay; mother's, brother's, co-workers, friends.

I've vaped in the waiting room at the doctors or bathroom at the airport. No one knows. They don't see it or smell it. Smokers aren't as successful at hiding, but they do hide. I'm not saying blow clouds in inappropiate places, just don't hide. I wish there were a pin, stickers, something to let people know we exist. That can do a lot.

Single issue? I can't vote against healthcare.

 

[aikanae1]

Well, sometimes (just sometimes mind you), that elephant sitting in the room might look like somebody's mother-in-law so everyone just doesn't say anything. Yes, it's from both sides. But "wishing" it to be one way doesn't change the way it really is in light of recent events. So like it or not, the "here and now" depends on a Republican House and Senate if there's any hope the FDA stalls on this issue. I'm not even bringing the White House into it.

First of course, we need an extension to this 75 day commenting period.

Ever hear the word "spineless" added to a specific political party?
Well, yea and I think that's how democracy should work. If enough pressure were put on them, they'd bend. As it should be. I suspect there's been a blind spot that has allowed a void to exist and ... nature abhors voids so enter the corporation + unpopular subject anyway. That happens with either party.

I took a look at a few "leftie" type sites and vaping isn't on the map as an issue. When there has been a post on it, most comments were fully behind THR. This just pointed out to me that it's a top down measure and not a call from the general public no matter which party you tend towards.

Politicizing the issue won't help and probably hurts. Besides I wouldn't want to be on the right side now anyway. They have aliented most populations that aren't rich, white middle aged men. Not a very big party. 60% of voters are independent.

 

[cbrite]

hear that thrown around so often (incidentally, usually in a call for political correctness) and it makes absolutely no sense.

Not a call for "political correctness" at all. Just a call to vote for the best candidates overall vs a candidate who is onboard with one
"near and dear" issue.