I think with your analogy of a can of soda being an agricultural product vs. nicotine not being a tobacco product is a bit derived. I think you are venturing in semantics here.
Would a change dot org petition help us?
- Thread starter Lessifer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I think with your analogy of a can of soda being an agricultural product vs. nicotine not being a tobacco product is a bit derived. I think you are venturing in semantics here.
Why don't they just cut through the BS instead of beating everyone up using taxpayer money and just come right out and say it?
— We need the 3 billion, or whatever, in tobacco revenues and we'll just excise tax every and all the retailers until we collect all that we've already leveraged into the future and more. We can selectively take the gains from any enterprise we so desire. You are merely the beneficiaries of our benevolent wisdom and control. —
Why this pretense of legitimacy? Why do we let them?
They need one message right now from Americans. It's a simple one.
We will not comply.
And if the retailers and producers who so eagerly take our money today had any damned sense they would have already signed on to this message and organized the delivery mechanism to our legislatures and judiciary themselves. Why is this industry somehow exempt from proactive self-defense? Curious.
Sheesh.
We need a million concerned vapers right now tellin' 'em how it's gonna be. We know the assumptions to be false and the motives clear. Stop begging from those who would offer no consideration. There's no dignity or social justice in that.
Good luck all.
— We need the 3 billion, or whatever, in tobacco revenues and we'll just excise tax every and all the retailers until we collect all that we've already leveraged into the future and more. We can selectively take the gains from any enterprise we so desire. You are merely the beneficiaries of our benevolent wisdom and control. —
Why this pretense of legitimacy? Why do we let them?
They need one message right now from Americans. It's a simple one.
We will not comply.
And if the retailers and producers who so eagerly take our money today had any damned sense they would have already signed on to this message and organized the delivery mechanism to our legislatures and judiciary themselves. Why is this industry somehow exempt from proactive self-defense? Curious.
Sheesh.
We need a million concerned vapers right now tellin' 'em how it's gonna be. We know the assumptions to be false and the motives clear. Stop begging from those who would offer no consideration. There's no dignity or social justice in that.
Good luck all.
I won't turn this into a "e-Liquids that contain Nicotine shouldn't be considered a "Tobacco Product" because ______" thread.
But I don't think we have Any Real congressional support to Appose it. I think that will have to be Pursued in the Court System. If that is Possible.
BTW - I would consider Adding to you Petition Draft a Short Paragraph saying something to the Effect.
"The Federal Government, as well as Every State, has spent Hundreds of Millions of Dollars for decades to persuade people to Not Smoke Cigarettes. We now have a Viable Alternative for those who have been Unable to do so by using an e-Cigarette. Restricting the use of e-Cigarettes by Limiting Flavors that Adults want only lessens the Chances of a Smoker successfully to quitting Smoking by using an e-Cigarette. And this runs completely counter to the Goals of Both the FDA and the CDC with regards to Public Health"
You then could reference the ECF Survey Data relating to Adult Flavor Preferences.
Also. And this Should be Emphasized.
"The Requirement of Face to Face sales of Tobacco Product is Not Necessary. We have a host of Proven Safeguards currently in place to Ensure that Minors can not purchase Alcohol over the Internet. We should Implement these Safeguards instead of Banning Internet sales."
The FDA does Not have any Authority to Tax.
And there is No Other Agency who has the Authority to Regulate the Recreational use of Tobacco or soon to be "Tobacco Products".
Right on point. IMO they will only react to a conviction greater than their larcenous obstinacy. Intellectual and legal appeals no matter how well brought and elaborated did not cause government to yield as long as tax coffers were being filled with cigarette taxes. Hit that slippery slope and it's all over.
Good luck all.
I agree that the "tobacco product" designation is somewhat a semantics issue, and if it were only a name, it wouldn't be an issue. However, when the designation brings the product in question under a regulatory framework that will cripple or kill the industry, even though that product does not share the characteristics that were the inspiration of that framework, it becomes more than semantics.
How exactly is it derived(contrived?)? Nicotine is not a main ingredient of vapor products, it constitutes 5% or less(sometimes 0%) of the actual product. HFCS is normally listed as the second ingredient in soda, behind water, meaning it has the second highest concentration in the mix.
Duh, I meant contrived (brain fart). I'm not sure what you are getting at by giving all the ingredients and percentages, but as I said, you are arguing semantics. Nicotine comes from tobacco, no other source, ipso facto it's a tobacco (based, or whatever term applies) product. It doesn't matter how much or what the percentage is or if it is the main product. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it
I don't see it so much as Semantics. As I do a Statutory Definition.
Right, and isn't that what we are trying to effect? Since the designation as Tobacco Product automatically brings with it the TC regulatory framework, and presently vapor products are not designated as tobacco products, stop it before it happens?
Then don't sign the petition, if you don't agree? What makes something an ____ product? If it's just the fact that it contains something, why is eliquid not a glycerin product, or a PG product?Duh, I meant contrived (brain fart). I'm not sure what you are getting at by giving all the ingredients and percentages, but as I said, you are arguing semantics. Nicotine comes from tobacco, no other source, ipso facto it's a tobacco (based, or whatever term applies) product. It doesn't matter how much or what the percentage is or if it is the main product. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it
It's not just a name, it is a designation that precludes regulation.
I just don't think we have the Congressional Support to accomplish this.
Remember: We are going to ask the Same People who Passed the FSTCA to now say that they Don't want e-Liquids that contain Nicotine to be Deemed as a Tobacco Product?
But you are the one Drafting the Petition. And I will Sign it in it's current form.
Yes, exactly, and the point of a massive petition would be to show the members of Congress that we have the support of the people, hopefully in order to garner their support. Isn't that what this is about? If we already had their support, we wouldn't have to do something like this.
I would hope that we could use this Petition to show Opposition of issues like...
Flavor Bans
Face-2-Face Sales
Nicotine Limits
Closed System Cartridges.
Because I Believe that these Issues have Room for Negotiation.
I would just focus on getting it Written and getting as Many People to Sign it as Possible.
I plan to, I'm also open to others writing/rewriting it. I'm at work today so my access/time is limited.
Say Lessifer, how about a separate petition to amend FSPTCA - to limit FDA -imposed health warnings on tobacco products to true, accurate representations only. I.e. clearly state that they are not allowed to force tobacco producers to print false, unproven or deceitful warnings.
Of course not. The companies that make and sell those products have already paid the (tens of?) millions dollars necessary to have them approved by the FDA as a "Stop Smoking Aid" or "Smoking Cessation Product". In other words, they've already paid their pizzo.
Bravo!Why don't they just cut through the BS instead of beating everyone up using taxpayer money and just come right out and say it?
— We need the 3 billion, or whatever, in tobacco revenues and we'll just excise tax every and all the retailers until we collect all that we've already leveraged into the future and more. We can selectively take the gains from any enterprise we so desire. You are merely the beneficiaries of our benevolent wisdom and control. —
Why this pretense of legitimacy? Why do we let them?
They need one message right now from Americans. It's a simple one.
We will not comply.
And if the retailers and producers who so eagerly take our money today had any damned sense they would have already signed on to this message and organized the delivery mechanism to our legislatures and judiciary themselves. Why is this industry somehow exempt from proactive self-defense? Curious.
Sheesh.
We need a million concerned vapers right now tellin' 'em how it's gonna be. We know the assumptions to be false and the motives clear. Stop begging from those who would offer no consideration. There's no dignity or social justice in that.
Good luck all.
Unfortunately, very few here are willing to question whether their rulers have the moral authority to do any of this, much less stand up and say, "Such authority simply does not exist!" Once someone makes that leap, they tend to become averse to negotiating with the ruling class at all, because such negotiation implies that they consent to the rules being negotiated.
I do not consent.
Vaping as I choose is not negotiable.
I will not comply.
Bravo!
Spoken like a Man who has Many Liters of Nicotine Base in a Freezer.
BTW - I see No Problems getting Senators/Senator to back your "Such authority simply does not exist!" position. And I'm sure their Money givers will Quickly Fall In Line also.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
