FDA Why are makers of Cigalikes lobbying to ban vaping?
- Thread starter jdake3265
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- cigalike fda rj reynolds
- Status
Oh, there will be outcries along those lines, from people who don't understand the defining relationships, but again...
"Bullying" is the use of force. Corporations have no force of their own. They can only attempt to use the real enforcers - gov't.
I think you're right about the black market, though. But it depends on how far gov't wants to go as zoidman points out.
It's a matter of judicial precedent (and common sense) that you can't outlaw an item because it can be used for a potentially illicit purpose. It's a good and correct legal doctrine, and it's not going anywhere any time soon.
Tanks and mods are not going to be banned. The RJR proposal is a desperate shot in the dark that's going to be laughed out of the room. We are, frankly, wasting our time even discussing such an eventuality. What's more likely to happen is that onerous restrictions will be placed on the manufacturing and marketing of e-liquid, as an indirect means of trying to drive consumers away from so-called "open system" vaping.
Yes... In a Way we are. Because if something has No Tobacco in it or the Product is Not Marketed to Consume Tobacco, the FDA does Not have Authority over it.
I agree that there are More Relevant Issues that should be Considered/Discussed. And that is why I made Post #13.
Both in this Thread. And in Others.
I don't know you, or what direct experience you have with govt., or lobbying (I can only speak from my own direct experience), so I'll just say that although much of what you're saying is on the mark - especially the misconception many have that so-called consumer protection agcys, like the FDA are on their side - I'd have to say that most politicians, including those I've supported, are already sold to special interest by the time they make it to general elections. Also, it is common practice for a politician to align their vote with a powerful lobby on legislation they may not necessarily agree with in order to gain votes for policies that they consider more center stage in importance to their constituencies.
All politicians are for sale. What they are willing to barter for what gain depends on their individual priorities. Do Not mistake what I am saying to mean that all are self-serving, or amoral in their negotiations regarding support, or opposition, to specific regs and legislation.
We've erected a political system in which it's impossible to gain election to national office without selling yourself, and your vote, to monied interests. The only practical difference between the two major parties is the identities of the people doing the buying.
All I can say is, Yep!
And the fact is that it has been this way since the beginning of our republic.
Last edited:
I am not some naïve idealist
I know the reality of the situation. I frankly don't think it will be changed, but IF it ever can be, it will be through seeking out politicians who are not willing to sell out. Since there has been those types in the past, there's no reason that it couldn't happen again. But, because there is no reason why it couldn't, doesn't mean it will happen. And all that has nothing to do with the point that it is still gov't that has the monopoly of force. GM couldn't make you buy a Volt, (or RJR make you buy a Vuse), but the Gov't can. Or it can gradually eliminate all other vehicles through CAFE standards and other regulations to where the only choice you have is to buy a Volt (or similar).
People should have a better understanding that when it comes to bullying or forcing certain products either into or out of the market, what entity makes that possible, and the answer is always gov't. Without gov't, companies have to compete in the free market - only then is the determination passed to the consumers, where they determine (good or bad) what their choices are by their demand.
I'll make a similar point that DC2 made on stevia/splenda in another post - this doesn't mean that a Volt is good or bad, just that gov't forcing people to buy them would be.
I am not some naïve idealist
And all that has nothing to do with the point that it is still gov't that has the monopoly of force. GM couldn't make you buy a Volt, (or RJR make you buy a Vuse), but the Gov't can. Or it can gradually eliminate all other vehicles through CAFE standards and other regulations to where the only choice you have is to buy a Volt (or similar).
People should have a better understanding that when it comes to bullying or forcing certain products either into or out of the market, what entity makes that possible, and the answer is always gov't. Without gov't, companies have to compete in the free market - only then is the determination passed to the consumers, where they determine (good or bad) what their choices are by their demand.
I'll make a similar point that DC2 made on stevia/splenda in another post - this doesn't mean that a Volt is good or bad, just that gov't forcing people to buy them would be.
No argument from me.
You're right, of course, Kent C. However, govt doesn't come up with this on its own. It's the private business that uses govt as part of their business model who pushes (buys) these kinds of laws to gain an advantage over the competition.
Never said that gov't doesn't come up with this on their own (although sometimes they do). In fact, I've tried to show how any business (or person) acts in their own self-interest - I don't find that shocking - I find it rather natural. But when you say private business 'uses' gov't. That's like saying a carpenter uses a 'hammer'. Take the hammer away (or anything that can be used as one) and no one gets nailed.
I know well, how the 'mechanism' works. I also know what part is necessary and sufficient* for it to work. That part isn't business. In fact, gov't can do it all by itself sometimes.
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
Last edited:
I am not some naïve idealist
There's no shortage of competent, qualified people of good character who would do a great job in Congress or the White House, and who wouldn't sell themselves out to lobbyists and corporate paymasters. The problem is that none of them are Democrats or Republicans. In allowing this 150-year duocracy to persist, and making no meaningful effort to bring it to an end, we the people have no one to blame but ourselves when we're faced with a choice of two options that are equally incompetent and equally corrupt.
@Kent C - that carpenter analogy was pretty clever. Nicely done!
Here's one of my own. When a hitman takes out an his target (alongside a few innocent civilian), both the hitman and her employer are guilty of murder; that is the case even if the hitman is quite capable of and may engage in taking out people in the absence of orders. Moreover, even though the employer only directed the elimination of a single target, she is also responsible for the deaths of the civilians who got caught in the middle. Now, take away the hitman, and the employer may very well start doing her own dirty work.
Here's one of my own. When a hitman takes out an his target (alongside a few innocent civilian), both the hitman and her employer are guilty of murder; that is the case even if the hitman is quite capable of and may engage in taking out people in the absence of orders. Moreover, even though the employer only directed the elimination of a single target, she is also responsible for the deaths of the civilians who got caught in the middle. Now, take away the hitman, and the employer may very well start doing her own dirty work.
Again, the "gun" is the gov't. No gun, no hit. But their may be a pretty even fight
In a free economy, the only way for a company to gain an advantage is by producing a better product or service at the best price. Failing that, if they have enough money to buy a few politicians, then they can do that, but if gov't says "No", then they have to either figure out how to meet the demands of the market or do something else - like work for someone else who can meet those demands. That's what made America at one point in time before the welfare and regulated state gradually took over.But look..... if you want to put the cause point at business, go ahead - you'll be the darling of all of those who love gov't and think that every businessman is a thief, murderer and polluter - something that is depicted by Hollywood, in the college textbooks by multiples of the actual incidences of that type of behavior. Your choice.
Last edited:
This is the shame about their actions. They would have a market guaranteed, with no competition from those of us who use PVs if they properly marketed and sold the cigalikes. I know about seven people at work, about four women and about three men, who smoke and who have tried the PV route and found it too complicated and troublesome to keep up. Some it was just a matter of bad equipment or not being the least bit mechanically inclined, or not researching enough about what to expect or do, but by and large it boils down to the fact that they want something simple and quick, much like cigarettes are for them. I am tempted to guide them in the direction of the Vuse if it helps them quit smoking. I don't see the conflict since they're giving their money to big tobacco anyway and killing themselves by doing it with cigarettes.
But back to my point: So, including those seven people, there are bout 15 people who smoke or vape regularly in the "smoking area" outside at work. Out of those, there are hardcore smokers who don't seem to want to quit, the seven, and myself and three other people who vape using PVs. There's plenty of money to be made there by big tobacco without this move to eliminate the PVs. It's just pure, naked greed. They aren't satisfied with the seven, they want eleven.
darn straight, enough is never enough. That is why I get so excited when I see the commercial on T.V. to end smoking, i am part of that generation and i am doing my part to end smoking tobacco and those of us who vape in public know that at any moment we could turn someone away from smoking cigarettes just by running into them on the street.This is the shame about their actions. They would have a market guaranteed, with no competition from those of us who use PVs if they properly marketed and sold the cigalikes. I know about seven people at work, about four women and about three men, who smoke and who have tried the PV route and found it too complicated and troublesome to keep up. Some it was just a matter of bad equipment or not being the least bit mechanically inclined, or not researching enough about what to expect or do, but by and large it boils down to the fact that they want something simple and quick, much like cigarettes are for them. I am tempted to guide them in the direction of the Vuse if it helps them quit smoking. I don't see the conflict since they're giving their money to big tobacco anyway and killing themselves by doing it with cigarettes.
But back to my point: So, including those seven people, there are bout 15 people who smoke or vape regularly in the "smoking area" outside at work. Out of those, there are hardcore smokers who don't seem to want to quit, the seven, and myself and three other people who vape using PVs. There's plenty of money to be made there by big tobacco without this move to eliminate the PVs. It's just pure, naked greed. They aren't satisfied with the seven, they want eleven.
I'm pretty sure it's been this way with all governments, everywhere, since the beginning of time.
Governments were originally meant to govern, but now they are crazy with power, (name drop coming up) Obama has made more executive orders than any president before him, some of it could be deemed illegal. All i know is that the FDA normally sides with the money, which is bad news for all of us. Sadly even though there are better things out there, like better medicine, healthier foods, better vaping devices, the FDA will always side with the money. They regulate vitamins! vitamins! why? because vitamins help build up the immune system and keep you healthy, but the pharmaceuticals make money when you are sick. Imo there are already cures out there for diseases such as Alzheimers, diabetes, Parkinsons, even cancer, but if the cure was out there then the drug companies would be out of business.
Missed this one. I think it overstates the case. Not saying that there weren't economic interests for some, but it was because of the recognition of that, that the US did something different than no gov't did before (and for the most part after) - it put the sovereignty in the individual and not the state (nor the church).
Economic regulations in the beginning were virtually non-existent unless actions proved harmful to the rights of others (certain 'exceptions' of course, but there would have been NO Republic at all - and not saying that wouldn't have been better, but many would say slavery would have lasted even longer had no Republic been created for all colonies at the time - not for discussion here
.Regulations began during the progressive era - over 100 years after the founding - and against the 'movers' of the economy - hated by many, even now, and even though they enjoy the products and systems built by those individuals - who now have 'foundations' run by people who those 'movers' would never had hired as janitors - people who represent the exact opposite philosophy and politics than the founders of those organizations - Ford, Rockefeller, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, et al.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
