Obama Is No Longer a Good President

[ivwshane]

Try again. Maybe you don't know what the definition of banned is.

Yea you did. Funny that. Disgusting.




http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...-big-win-on-vaping/ar-BBsHoXA?ocid=spartandhp

 

[woolfe9998]

Try again. Maybe you don't know what the definition of banned is.

The FDA itself admits that these regs will put most of the industry out of business. It's a de facto ban if not an outright ban. It's nice for the FDA that you're buying what they're selling though. They don't need to ban anything outright. They can just regulate a whole industry out of existence and people like you will play online lawyer for them.

 

[JSt0rm]

who cares? Nicotine use should go down. There is no positive effect. Cigars are fine in moderation but other then that nicotine is useless.

 

[Toastedlightly]

What is the push to be anti-regulation on these sorts of things? Is it the burden of regulation which will increase the costs in the industry?

Should we regulate a substance we are imbibing into our bodies at our own volition? Should the people who supply these substances be regulated to ensure that the harm of the liquid is kept to a minimum?

 

[woolfe9998]

What is the push to be anti-regulation on these sorts of things? Is it the burden of regulation which will increase the costs in the industry?

Should we regulate a substance we are imbibing into our bodies at our own volition? Should the people who supply these substances be regulated to ensure that the harm of the liquid is kept to a minimum?

You need to read the thread. Several people and linked articles have explained what is wrong with these particular proposed regulations. No one in the thread has taken the position that no regulations is best.

 

[woolfe9998]

who cares? Nicotine use should go down. There is no positive effect. Cigars are fine in moderation but other then that nicotine is useless.

Who cares if cigarettes can continue to be sold but the much safer alternative is no longer available? You exemplify all the worst stereotypes about authoritarian nanny state libs.

 

[JSt0rm]

Who cares if cigarettes can continue to be sold but the much safer alternative is no longer available? You exemplify all the worst stereotypes about authoritarian nanny state libs.

ban cigarettes too. The "nanny state" allowed shitty companies to sell these dumb things in the first place.

 

[JSt0rm]

You need to read the thread. Several people and linked articles have explained what is wrong with these particular proposed regulations. No one in the thread has taken the position that no regulations is best.

You are taking that position. We need to have a list of all ingredients in the products so they can be tested by a 3rd party. The tobacco/nicotine industry doesnt have the best reputation for being forthcoming and dont expect the public at large to believe anything they say at face value. Sorry about your job.

 

[woolfe9998]

You are taking that position. We need to have a list of all ingredients in the products so they can be tested by a 3rd party. The tobacco/nicotine industry doesnt have the best reputation for being forthcoming and dont expect the public at large to believe anything they say at face value. Sorry about your job.

My "job?" What are you even talking about? First of all, the "tobacco industry" is the one benefiting from this de facto ban on e-cigs. It only owns 2% of the ecig industry so I have no idea what you are on about. Second, you've been shown that extensive lab testing has resulted in the conclusion that there is little if any concern about what is in the vapor. No, this industry does not need to be put out of business. There are more sensible ways to regulate it.

 

[woolfe9998]

ban cigarettes too. The "nanny state" allowed shitty companies to sell these dumb things in the first place.

Yeah, we should ban everything that harms people's health! Fast food too. Everything! Because people can't be trusted to make their own choices about what to put in their bodies. And besides, we know that prohibition works fabulously well. Just look at alcohol prohibition in the 1920's and drug prohibition since. With such a great track record, how can we lose by just banning everything jstorm thinks we shouldn't be exposing ourselves to? :thumbsdown:

Just in case jstorm has not made it clear exactly where all the anti-ecig propaganda comes from - it is people who want to ban basically everything they don't like. It's not about public health. This de facto ban will damage public health. It's entirely about control.

 

[JSt0rm]

You showed one thing I showed you something else. See how that works?

We do not need another generation of people hooked on nicotine. Berry/ fruit / chocolate flavored fucking nicotine? GTFO.

 

[woolfe9998]

You showed one thing I showed you something else. See how that works?

We do not need another generation of people hooked on nicotine. Berry/ fruit / chocolate flavored fucking nicotine? GTFO.

I showed you a paper which analyzes all the studies done on ecigs. No, it doesn't just "work" like that. Not everything presented has equal weight.

How can you even look at yourself in mirror, being this intellectually dishonest?

 

[JSt0rm]

I dont think nicotine should be in kid friendly packaging and taste like fruit loops. You obviously don't give a fuck about that. How can YOU look at yourself in the mirror?

Nicotine is a controlled substance. It needs to be controlled. And bubblegum flavors are not part of that ecosystem.

 

[woolfe9998]

I dont think nicotine should be in kid friendly packaging and taste like fruit loops. You obviously don't give a fuck about that. How can YOU look at yourself in the mirror?

You want to ban something which millions of people have used to quit smoking, and which research has consistently shown is much safer than smoking. So it's OK with you if millions die because of regulating one industry out of business while propping up another which sells a much more dangerous product.

Nicotine is a controlled substance. It needs to be controlled. And bubblegum flavors are not part of that ecosystem.

Way more teenagers are using e-cigs to quit cigs than the other way around.

LOL at your empty headed demagoguery. You can't even argue any more that e-cigs are harming people's health. You tried that but unfortunately you were unable to respond to the overwhelming scientific evidence presented in this thread. Since your first gambit was shot down now you fall back on "think of the children."

God you're pathetic.

 

[COPOHawk]

I dont think nicotine should be in kid friendly packaging and taste like fruit loops. You obviously don't give a fuck about that. How can YOU look at yourself in the mirror?

Nicotine is a controlled substance. It needs to be controlled. And bubblegum flavors are not part of that ecosystem.

If everyone agrees that nicotine/tobacco are that bad (as the tobacco lawsuits 15 years ago proved) then OUTLAW IT. Go through the proper channels, get the legislation passed and have the President sign it. Obama could have done so back in 2009-2010. But...then the government doesn't get the tax revenue and we lose all the jobs in that industry.

This discussion reminds me that liberals will regulate and litigate everything they dislike as they typically can't get it passed the right way through the legislative process.

If only we could have a dictator in chief to handle these pesky decisions for everything...unfortunately, we stuck with the Constitution.

 

[Toastedlightly]

You want to ban something which millions of people have used to quit smoking, and which research has consistently shown is much safer than smoking. So it's OK with you if millions die because of regulating one industry out of business while propping up another which sells a much more dangerous product.



Way more teenagers are using e-cigs to quit cigs than the other way around.

LOL at your empty headed demagoguery. You can't even argue any more that e-cigs are harming people's health. You tried that but unfortunately you were unable to respond to the overwhelming scientific evidence presented in this thread. Since your first gambit was shot down now you fall back on "think of the children."

God you're pathetic.

If it is being used as a smoking cessation aid and that is the peg upon which the hat is being hung, then it should be regulated as a drug/device combo probably (per current FDA rules). That is why that is not a good argument for no regulation...

 

[woolfe9998]

If it is being used as a smoking cessation aid and that is the peg upon which the hat is being hung, then it should be regulated as a drug/device combo probably (per current FDA rules). That is why that is not a good argument for no regulation...

The rule is that something must be marketed that way in order to be subject to regulations. It has nothing to do with how people may be using it. That is the law. They are not being marketed that way by the manufacturers. Accordingly, they cannot be regulated as a "drug or device" per the federal court ruling. That ship sailed in 2010 so I have no idea why people in the thread continue to want to revisit it.

So far as "no regulation" goes, how many times does the same straw man have to be posed in one thread? For the last time: no one has argued that e-cigs should receive no regulation.

 

[piasabird]

Was he ever a good president? Do you think Hillary Clinton would have been better?

I have been thinking if your spouse was president you should not be allowed to run for president, because then your spouse could just be a shadow president and tell you what to do.

 

[JSt0rm]

a 55 year old guy trying to quit smoking doesnt give 2 shits about fake cherry flavors. This is a stealth way to try and get young people addicted to nicotine again.

 

[Toastedlightly]

The rule is that something must be marketed that way in order to be subject to regulations. It has nothing to do with how people may be using it. That is the law. They are not being marketed that way by the manufacturers. Accordingly, they cannot be regulated as a "drug or device" per the federal court ruling. That ship sailed in 2010 so I have no idea why people in the thread continue to want to revisit it.

So far as "no regulation" goes, how many times does the same straw man have to be posed in one thread? For the last time: no one has argued that e-cigs should receive no regulation.

Why is it constantly used as a reason against the current regulation in that case? If the argument is that it is being used as a cessation product, then get it marketed and regulated as such. You can't market it as a recreational item and then lament the regulation in light of the suffering of people who are using it for an unintended use.

And as far as no regulation, what is the proposed regulation? What standard should be used? As of right now, its looks like the FDA is defaulting to the tobacco standard. Lets start a discussion on how to reduce the levels of potential harm to an acceptable level.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

a 55 year old guy trying to quit smoking doesnt give 2 shits about fake cherry flavors. This is a stealth way to try and get young people addicted to nicotine again.

kinda have to agree with this. and doesn't the fda regulate nicor and other products that help quit smoking?

 

[woolfe9998]

Why is it constantly used as a reason against the current regulation in that case? If the argument is that it is being used as a cessation product, then get it marketed and regulated as such. You can't market it as a recreational item and then lament the regulation in light of the suffering of people who are using it for an unintended use.

The FDA's regulatory authority under the TCA, and that is the only statute under which they currently have legal authority to regulate, does not give them the right to outright ban the product. Regulating an entire industry out of existence by applying regs which are cost-prohibitive to comply with because a court said they couldn't ban their product is an abuse of power. Regulations are supposed to improve product safety. That is not what is going to happen.

And as far as no regulation, what is the proposed regulation?

Maybe you should take a closer look at this thread and links supplied in it.

 

[JSt0rm]

maybe you should just give us a few bullet points of the regulation you support for the ecig industry?

 

[Toastedlightly]

The FDA's regulatory authority under the TCA, and that is the only statute under which they currently have legal authority to regulate, does not give them the right to outright ban the product. Regulating an entire industry out of existence by applying regs which are cost-prohibitive to comply with because a court said they couldn't ban their product is an abuse of power. Regulations are supposed to improve product safety. That is not what is going to happen.

Then stop using that it is a cessation aid to defend why it should be allowed to exist as is. If you want to use that it is a cessation aid, market and regulate it as such. That is the point I am making.

I keep seeing people lamenting Obama and lamenting the high cost of the new regulation, I have not seen a proposed method of regulation or a proposed standard that it will be held to. I may have missed it, there is a lot of chaff in this thread...

 

[Jaskalas]

I take it the people for the "war on cigs" are also quite fond of the "war on drugs", is that correct?