FDA Why are makers of Cigalikes lobbying to ban vaping?

[Augmented Dog]

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.

It gave much sovereignty to the individual If that individual happened to be a white, landed, Christian male. Those with little, or no property (land), had no social, or political power. Respect for individual rights was granted in direct proportion to individual wealth.
Representation in govt. was granted specifically and exclusively to white, Christian, landed men.

 

[Kent C]

It gave much sovereignty to the individual If that individual happened to be a white, landed, Christian male. Those with little, or no property (land), had no social, or political power. Respect for individual rights was granted in direct proportion to individual wealth.
Representation in govt. was granted specifically and exclusively to white, Christian, landed men.

It was within the context of the times. Same in other countries. Slavery was an English institution, inherited by the Colonies. I'd disagree with you on the 'only Christian' part - so would Jefferson and Madison just to name a few (deists -also Monroe) who fought for and gained, eventually, religious freedom for all, not just the subgroups you mention. This is now really off topic so you're on you're own. If you wish to discuss further, you can PM me.

 

[Uncle Willie]

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.

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.

Pretty much a good summation .. and why I don't understand why it's a surprise that any Company, especially a publicly held Company, would use what ever methods we have given them to further their business ..

I'm going to drift a bit off topic .. when examined and studied, you find that out of that all Members of Congress except one, claim to be devoutly Religious to one Religion or other .. One Member out of all is a self admitted Atheist .. this is a statistically impossible scenario ..

My point .. ?? Not only must you cater to the Money, but you need to do it as a Believer, because if you don't, you won't get elected .. and since it is statistically impossible for only One out of 535 to be an atheist, you must also be willing to compromise your own beliefs and, essentially, pretend ..

And, in case you're wondering, depending on the source info, about 6% of Americans are Atheists ..

 

[Nate760]

My point .. ?? Not only must you cater to the Money, but you need to do it as a Believer, because if you don't, you won't get elected .. and since it is statistically impossible for only One out of 535 to be an atheist, you must also be willing to compromise your own beliefs and, essentially, pretend ..

It seems hard to believe that barely 100 years ago, we had a Republican president (William Howard Taft, who also went on to be Chief Justice) who openly stated his non-belief in the god of Christianity. And no one cared.

And, in case you're wondering, depending on the source info, about 6% of Americans are Atheists ..

Those are just the ones who positively identify as atheists. When you ask people whether or not they're religious, over 30% now answer in the negative.

 

[jdake3265]

please keep religion out of the threads, i am a christian but am unbiased towards other people's beliefs, you should be able to believe in whatever you want to.

 

[Augmented Dog]

please keep religion out of the threads, i am a christian but am unbiased towards other people's beliefs, you should be able to believe in whatever you want to.

Of course you should! Historically, however, that wasn't the case.
This is way off topic though and we should refrain from continuing the discussion in this direction.

 

[jdake3265]

Of course you should! Historically, however, that wasn't the case.
This is way off topic though and we should refrain from continuing the discussion in this direction.

agreed, for sure

 

[molimelight]

please keep religion out of the threads, i am a christian but am unbiased towards other people's beliefs, you should be able to believe in whatever you want to.

Here here! What's that biblical quote? "Let not the left hand know what the right is doing." I think I got that right, but I am an atheist, so what do I know from biblical quotes?

I much prefer that people live their faith or their code rather than profess it. And there isn't anything that will send a thread sideways into oblivion faster than a discussion about religion.

 

[jdake3265]

Here here! What's that biblical quote? "Let not the left hand know what the right is doing." I think I got that right, but I am an atheist, so what do I know from biblical quotes?

I much prefer that people live their faith or their code rather than profess it. And there isn't anything that will send a thread sideways into oblivion faster than a discussion about religion.

probably a lot actually, if we want to talk about religion then someone make a separate thread.

 

[jdake3265]

did someone make a new thread?

 

[dragonpuff]

Fwiw, it didn't seem to me like the discussion at hand turned to religion per se. I was under the impression that people were simply using religion as an example of how our government doesn't actually represent the people proportionally, i.e. the people who get elected are less likely to actually represent the population who elected them than is ideal. Honestly I find it terribly unfortunate that the mere mention of religion, without discussing it in depth or being disparaging at all, is enough to make some people uncomfortable. Nonetheless that appears to be the case.

Either way, if you want to find a real in depth discussion of religion here, you must venture into the outside forum.

 

[Nate760]

Fwiw, it didn't seem to me like the discussion at hand turned to religion per se. I was under the impression that people were simply using religion as an example of how our government doesn't actually represent the people proportionally, i.e. the people who get elected are less likely to actually represent the population who elected them than is ideal. Honestly I find it terribly unfortunate that the mere mention of religion, without discussing it in depth or being disparaging at all, is enough to make some people uncomfortable. Nonetheless that appears to be the case.

Either way, if you want to find a real in depth discussion of religion here, you must venture into the outside forum.

I agree with this. It was a valid tangent, and no one said anything (good or bad) about any particular belief system.

 

[zoiDman]

...

Either way, if you want to find a real in depth discussion of religion here, you must venture into the outside forum.

That will be an Eye Opener for Most People when they meet "The One who Shall Not Be Mentioned".

 

[Kent C]

Fwiw, it didn't seem to me like the discussion at hand turned to religion per se. I was under the impression that people were simply using religion as an example of how our government doesn't actually represent the people proportionally, i.e. the people who get elected are less likely to actually represent the population who elected them than is ideal. Honestly I find it terribly unfortunate that the mere mention of religion, without discussing it in depth or being disparaging at all, is enough to make some people uncomfortable. Nonetheless that appears to be the case.

Either way, if you want to find a real in depth discussion of religion here, you must venture into the outside forum.

Exactly - no intent here on any in depth discussion - as I stated, I might add

 

[Scarab]

The elephant in the room invested billions in R&D to develop a cigalike product they believed the market would embrace. But the market "tanked", so to speak (pun intended).

It would be no surprise to learn each has the very same products they are currently lobbying to ban in the research and development pipeline.

 

[zoiDman]

The elephant in the room invested billions in R&D to develop a cigalike product they believed the market would embrace. But the market "tanked", so to speak (pun intended).

It would be no surprise to learn each has the very same products they are currently lobbying to ban in the research and development pipeline.

My Opinion is that RJR Didn't pour money into a Product that the Public would Embrace.

I believe that they Poured Money into a Product that the FDA would Embrace.

 

[Uncle Willie]

Fwiw, it didn't seem to me like the discussion at hand turned to religion per se. I was under the impression that people were simply using religion as an example of how our government doesn't actually represent the people proportionally, i.e. the people who get elected are less likely to actually represent the population who elected them than is ideal. Honestly I find it terribly unfortunate that the mere mention of religion, without discussing it in depth or being disparaging at all, is enough to make some people uncomfortable. Nonetheless that appears to be the case.

Thanks, that was exactly my point in that post .. if any individual is willing to compromise their core Religious beliefs in order to gain public office, then any and all moral code would seem to go out the door ..

 

[jdake3265]

That will be an Eye Opener for Most People when they meet "The One who Shall Not Be Mentioned".

you mean happy or silly or what is his name?

 

[zoiDman]

you mean happy or silly or what is his name?

"Happy" or "Silly" are perhaps the Last 2 Adjectives I would use to Describe Him.

Start your Religious Thread in the OUTSIDE, and He will Come. Sure as the Dark comes in the Night.

Just Remember to Read the Sign when you Enter the OUTSIDE... "There are No Victims in the OUTSIDE. Only Willing Participants."

 

[Nate760]

My Opinion is that RJR Didn't pour money into a Product that the Public would Embrace.

I believe that they Poured Money into a Product that the FDA would Embrace.

Nail, meet hammer. They hit all the FDA bullet points when they designed the Vuse: it calls itself a tobacco product, only comes in tobacco flavors, only comes in one nicotine level (not listed on package), delivers the fabled "precise dose of nicotine," and the cartos are tamper-proof (more or less). They could probably get it approved as an NRT if they had to go that route.