Trump plans ban on sale of flavoured e-cigarettes

[snakestretcher]

Just a guess that it isn't vaping a tobacco product that is killing these people, but rather an additive. Of course we know too little about it to conclude anything for certain.

Eating, smoking, drinking...where does it stop? We can ban all day long, people still want their vices unless we can educate them on the dangers. Ban vap additives, and they take the sales behind the barn. Think about it, the war on drugs/ prohibition.

Ban advertising as the UK did back in 1965. Ban smoking in public places. Make smoking as socially unattractive as possible. The results speak for themselves:

This is the end of tobacco advertising - Cancer Research UK - Science blog

 

[Lovebug]

Ban advertising as the UK did back in 1965.

A few years later we banned it here. People still smoke. I really think that education is key. Back in the day, they gave military personal cig rations, hospitals had smoking rooms. That all has changed.
We have to tell our kids that, while ecigs taste like bubble gum, they are not candy.

 

[snakestretcher]

A few years later we banned it here. People still smoke. I really think that education is key. Back in the day, they gave military personal cig rations, hospitals had smoking rooms. That all has changed.
We have to tell our kids that, while ecigs taste like bubble gum, they are not candy.

Same here with fruit flavoured 'alco-pop' drinks in flashy bottles and girl-friendly neon colours.

21 drinks that'll bring back terrifying memories of how we used to get drunk in the 90s | Metro News

 

[Lovebug]

Same here with fruit flavoured 'alco-pop' drinks in flashy bottles and girl-friendly neon colours.

21 drinks that'll bring back terrifying memories of how we used to get drunk in the 90s | Metro News

Wow, yeah, I can see how that lures kids and adults. Jello shots (with vodka) comes to mind.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Now it's my turn to be cynical. There is no way to remove them from power without imposing term limits. Voting doesn't work because they control that process.

I won't attempt to discourage you, but if I had to bet on which of the two parties might be more workable with regard to term limits and other aspects of the voting process, I would be forced to say that there is a slightly larger opening on the left, with Democrats.
Yes, I know that both major parties are rife with more than a little bit of corruption, but as they say, "politics is the art of the possible".

 

[calamity]

THis is the liberal stuff I expected from Trump two years ago. I am happy to see he has finally seen the light.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I won't attempt to discourage you, but if I had to bet on which of the two parties might be more workable with regard to term limits and other aspects of the voting process, I would be forced to say that there is a slightly larger opening on the left, with Democrats.
Yes, I know that both major parties are rife with more than a little bit of corruption, but as they say, "politics is the art of the possible".

You might want to take a look at this "List of political term limits" and wonder why the United States of America absolutely has to have term limits in comparison with the other countries (of the G-20) that don't.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Neither the NYC subway or the LA parks are Hoovervilles. Close, but no cigar.

Not talking about the subway or L.A.'s famous parks.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You might want to take a look at this "List of political term limits" and wonder why the United States of America absolutely has to have term limits in comparison with the other countries (of the G-20) that don't.

Term limits has pros and cons, unlimited terms have pros and cons.
With that said, let's both acknowledge that the founders never intended representative service in Congress or service in the White House to be a permanent career, rather they seemed to have favored the notion of citizen legislators who then returned to private life.
Now, things being what they are in these modern times, it's not quite as simple as it used to be because modern life is not as simple anymore.

I wouldn't dream of taking up a flag for absolutes on either side, however it is obvious that an established and well funded elite class of political operatives have lent an air of fiefdom and feudalism to Capitol Hill in the last half century.
We did not have seven or eight hundred multi-billion dollar SuperPACS and think tanks all over our nation's capital sixty years ago.
Eighty years ago "The Family" didn't even exist yet.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Dems...so triggered. I truly enjoy your pain...everyday:2wave:

Imagine supporting the absolute demolition of countless small businesses for no good reason, just to trigger the libs. What a thoughtless and immature worldview.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Not talking about the subway or L.A.'s famous parks.

The first Hooverville, and the largest, was in NYC's Central Park. The second in LA, on Wilshire Blvd. Then came the one in DC, centered around the Washington Monument.

All three initiated by unemployed WWI vets.

Not quite what we are seeing today, more like the Okie and Wobbly camps. Or the hobo escarpments.

 

[PirateMk1]

Term limits has pros and cons, unlimited terms have pros and cons.
With that said, let's both acknowledge that the founders never intended representative service in Congress or service in the White House to be a permanent career, rather they seemed to have favored the notion of citizen legislators who then returned to private life.
Now, things being what they are in these modern times, it's not quite as simple as it used to be because modern life is not as simple anymore.

I wouldn't dream of taking up a flag for absolutes on either side, however it is obvious that an established and well funded elite class of political operatives have lent an air of fiefdom and feudalism to Capitol Hill in the last half century.
We did not have seven or eight hundred multi-billion dollar SuperPACS and think tanks all over our nation's capital sixty years ago.
Eighty years ago "The Family" didn't even exist yet.

Term limits of one and done should be the rule. One office, one term. Done. Nobody gets reelected. Mind you this is not my preference. My preference would be people automatically fire as default, their elected officials, unless those officials demonstrate exceptional governance.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Term limits has pros and cons, unlimited terms have pros and cons.

True, rather tritely obvious, but true none the less.

With that said, let's both acknowledge that the founders never intended representative service in Congress or service in the White House to be a permanent career, rather they seemed to have favored the notion of citizen legislators who then returned to private life.

Which was, at the time, the norm and was also something that the limited extent of a country's needs/interests permitted.

Now, things being what they are in these modern times, it's not quite as simple as it used to be because modern life is not as simple anymore.

Quite right. It takes a lot of time to read through a 1,300 page long piece of legislation (which contains a whole bunch of "riders" that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the SUBJECT that the preamble to the piece of legislation says it is dealing with [but does have a whole lot do do with whether or not the proposers of the legislation are able to purchase enough votes to ensure its passage {to say nothing about whether those "riders" show sufficient promise of securing the re-election of the people who demand their inclusion as their price for voting in favour of the legislation <regardless of whether or not they campaigned in direct opposition to what the legislation does>}]).

I wouldn't dream of taking up a flag for absolutes on either side, however it is obvious that an established and well funded elite class of political operatives have lent an air of fiefdom and feudalism to Capitol Hill in the last half century.

If you read what was actually written into the Constitution of the United States of America IN CONTEXT to the franchise laws actually in place at the time, you will see that that is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers had as their Original Intent. The idea that "the common people" would actually have any say in the selection of the President, Senators, or the seniour Judiciary was anathema to the Founding Fathers since they didn't think that "the common people" had either the time or the education to give sufficient study to such weighty matters (and also that "the common people" didn't actually have a sufficient stake in the economic health of the country as a whole to prevent them from being swayed by some charlatan fast-talker who came off a string of really glitzy past endeavours [which had looked really great, but which had actually been major flops] and promised them pie in the sky but who was actually more intent on stealing their money).

We did not have seven or eight hundred multi-billion dollar SuperPACS and think tanks all over our nation's capital sixty years ago.

Possibly that is because sixty years ago there wasn't as much profit to be made out of owning a controlling interest in "US Gov. Inc.".

Eighty years ago "The Family" didn't even exist yet.

Hell, eighty years ago I didn't even exist yet.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Term limits of one and done should be the rule. One office, one term. Done. Nobody gets reelected.

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) thanks you for your support in its campaign to ensure that the government of the United States of America is place firmly in the hands of those best trained and qualified to operate it.

Please cite this response and receive an additional 100 points on your next civil service qualification examination.

 

[PirateMk1]

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) thanks you for your support in its campaign to ensure that the government of the United States of America is place firmly in the hands of those best trained and qualified to operate it.

Please cite this response and receive an additional 100 points on your next civil service qualification examination.

I glad you asked. Civil service should be limited to 10 years total. The active duty military would be the only exception at 30 years. I believe everyone should have a piece of government pie. After all they paid for it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I glad you asked. Civil service should be limited to 10 years total. The active duty military would be the only exception at 30 years. I believe everyone should have a piece of government pie. After all they paid for it.

On behalf of the Anarchist International Governing Body, please accept our thanks for your support for our goals of totally eliminating all forms of government by eliminating any and all possible development of knowledge or skill in government by completely discouraging anyone with any talents whatsoever from even thinking about "going into government".

You are hereby promoted to Acting Assistant Aide to the Interim Pro Tem Anarchist Deputy Under-Director for California and that means that you automatically receive preferred seating on public transportation on the fifth Thursday of every month.

 

[PirateMk1]

On behalf of the Anarchist International Governing Body, please accept our thanks for your support for our goals of totally eliminating all forms of government by eliminating any and all possible development of knowledge or skill in government by completely discouraging anyone with any talents whatsoever from even thinking about "going into government".

You are hereby promoted to Acting Assistant Aide to the Interim Pro Tem Anarchist Deputy Under-Director for California and that means that you automatically receive preferred seating on public transportation on the fifth Thursday of every month.

10 years is plenty of time for someone to get good at a job. Further the military routinely does this. Besides instead of welfare if there is a government job opening stick them into it. Its not like the government is competent anyhow.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

10 years is plenty of time for someone to get good at a job.

Some jobs, yes. Other jobs, no.

Not only that, but it takes a whole lot longer to get good at a job if you are being trained for it by someone who is being trained for their job by someone who is being trained for their job.

Further the military routinely does this.

The military does this by simplifying all tasks to the most basic level possible AND then codifying that simplification in manuals which MUST be followed.

A perfect example of this (and I know of this one from personal experience) was a case where THREE Engineer Officers refused to certify that a 12" x 18" beam (that contained no heartwood whatsoever and had been indoor air dried for over 100 years after being cut from a single piece of Douglas Fir) was strong enough to support a 200# load. They refused to make that certification because their manuals did not include beams of that size.

Besides instead of welfare if there is a government job opening stick them into it. Its not like the government is competent anyhow.

Absolutely, the very thing that society needs the most is randomly assigning incompetent and untrained people to essential public service jobs. Does your city have any vacancies in its police or fire departments? How about its electrical department? How about its sewer department? How about in accounting or building permit application departments?

 

[PirateMk1]

Some jobs, yes. Other jobs, no.

Not only that, but it takes a whole lot longer to get good at a job if you are being trained for it by someone who is being trained for their job by someone who is being trained for their job.



The military does this by simplifying all tasks to the most basic level possible AND then codifying that simplification in manuals which MUST be followed.

A perfect example of this (and I know of this one from personal experience) was a case where THREE Engineer Officers refused to certify that a 12" x 18" beam (that contained no heartwood whatsoever and had been indoor air dried for over 100 years after being cut from a single piece of Douglas Fir) was strong enough to support a 200# load. They refused to make that certification because their manuals did not include beams of that size.



Absolutely, the very thing that society needs the most is randomly assigning incompetent and untrained people to essential public service jobs. Does your city have any vacancies in its police or fire departments? How about its electrical department? How about its sewer department? How about in accounting or building permit application departments?

Everything you bring up is logistical in nature. Yes it may all result in what we have now, worst case scenario, but with two very important points point a lot of people get a chance at a job they dont get to now, and we dont have entrenched bureaucracy anymore.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Everything you bring up is logistical in nature. Yes it may all result in what we have now, worst case scenario, but with two very important points point a lot of people get a chance at a job they dont get to now, and we dont have entrenched bureaucracy anymore.

Both of your points are technically correct, but:

1. There are a whole lot of people who don't get a chance at being a brain surgeon either. Just taking some off welfare and saying "You are a brain surgeon now." isn't likely to work all that well.
   *
   and
   *
2. Replacing an entrenched bureaucracy (where most of its members actually know what their job is and how to do it) with one where most of its members are still attempting to learn what their job is and how to do it (with the ones who actually do know spending much of their time training those who don't) is an absolutely surefire way to improve the bureaucracy, isn't it?

Now I will agree that having a society where people could be seamlessly slid into (and out of) positions of authority with those persons being fully capable of filling the duties and responsibilities of those positions of authority in a selfless manner and for the best interests of all of the people would be a really good thing.

However, the last time that appears to have actually been attempted was BEFORE "Day 7" and that attempt fell apart within a couple of hundred days (at most). Not only that, but the ability of the one who reportedly attempted it would seem to be slightly in excess of either yours or mine (even in combination).

 

[Yelsy]

I know that e-cigarettes have become popular as a safer alternative to cigarettes. To be honest, I used an e-cigarette, but then returned to Marlboro again. For more than a year now I have been using nicotine-free vape juices; I often read reviews of new e-liquids on this portal https://vаpingdаily.com/ . I often see new fruit vape juices, so this is what is popular. I don’t think anyone can ban it because people pay good money for it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I know that e-cigarettes have become popular as a safer alternative to cigarettes.

Considering the actual amount of long-term testing that has been done on e-cigarettes, I wouldn't be too sure of that "safer alternative" bit.

Considering the actual amount of control over the contents of the materials used in e-cigarettes, I'd be even less sure.

To be honest, I used an e-cigarette, but then returned to Marlboro again. For more than a year now I have been using nicotine-free vape juices; ...

Fortunately I have passed the age where any theoretical benefits that MIGHT accrue from ceasing smoking are outweighed by the proven deleterious effect that the stresses of ceasing to smoke WILL produce.

I often read reviews of new e-liquids on this portal https://vаpingdаily.com/ . I often see new fruit vape juices, so this is what is popular. I don’t think anyone can ban it because people pay good money for it.

People pay good money for a whole lot of things that are banned. That doesn't stop other people from attempting to ban (and even succeeding in banning) them. What you have to remember is that it is very easy to ban conduct that you don't personally have any desire to participate in - after banning it doesn't impact on YOUR live one little bit. I can guarantee you that 100% of the males who support a total ban on abortion have NEVER been faced with carrying an unwanted pregnancy resulting from a rape to term and then supporting the resulting child for the next 18 years without any realistic economic prospects of having the financial resources to do so.