Trump plans ban on sale of flavoured e-cigarettes

[vegas giants]

Freedom or safety? The interplay between these two things is ultimately the basis of all political disagreement.

Trump is a banner

 

[lwf]

Trump is a banner

I agree with you. Banning flavored vape oils is a limit on personal freedom that I do not approve of. I was waxing philosophical with the notion of freedom vs. safety. We all want both, but we can't have them both. Where we draw the line as individuals tends to be what triggers most of our political disagreements.

 

[JasperL]

For someone that's so harsh on Big Tobacco, you sure do carry a lot of water for them.

I hope they compensate you for your efforts to help guarantee a successful future for them.

If the tobacco companies stopped selling tobacco, and only sold nicotine infused vape products, we'd be far better off, less disease, fewer deaths, lots less suffering.

There's actually nothing wrong with nicotine. It's addictive, but so is caffeine, and the health risks are similar, as in there are no real health risks from nicotine.

And what's interesting to me about the vape industry is Juul has most of the market share - 70% or more - but there are a lot of small businesses in the industry. Some local people down the road make a really good vape product, for example. Maybe 10 employees.

 

[vegas giants]

If the tobacco companies stopped selling tobacco, and only sold nicotine infused vape products, we'd be far better off, less disease, fewer deaths, lots less suffering.

There's actually nothing wrong with nicotine. It's addictive, but so is caffeine, and the health risks are similar, as in there are no real health risks from nicotine.

And what's interesting to me about the vape industry is Juul has most of the market share - 70% or more - but there are a lot of small businesses in the industry. Some local people down the road make a really good vape product, for example. Maybe 10 employees.

The health risks are not similar

 

[rocket88]

I didn't say poo on it one way or the other. I thought it was interesting he is moving so on the issue. As it is targetted at protecting children I'm shocked at the backlash

We could protect children from , i don't know, oeople with assault weapons coming into the schools. Strange thought, i know.

It''s about persinal liberties. Bans don't work. The recent concerns are because of black msrket products (most of them contsining THC), all the bsn will do is make the black market bigger.

 

[HumblePi]

It is still addiction to a not harmless drug. If I had children I would rather them drink, because they can do that responsibly without forming addiction.

Are you saying the CDC is lying about the link between vaping and increased tobacco use in youth?

You really said that? You said that drinking alcohol isn't addictive? Wow. Beam me up Scottie. Let me tell you a little story. I was a student nurse, had a patient that was 22 years old. Really nice looking young man but a total alcoholic. He had been drinking since the age of 12 and already had cirrhosis of the liver. If you believe that vaping is more dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol, you are very much mistaken. You need to educate yourself on each of them a little more.

And yes, the CDC is absolutely lying about vaping leading to an increase in tobacco use. The agency bizarrely counts tobacco-free, noncombustible e-cigarettes as a kind of tobacco. It's not. Public health officials who see the rise of vaping as a sinister development, rather than an opportunity to dramatically reduce smoking-related disease and death, insist on calling e-cigarettes "tobacco products," even though they do not contain tobacco. Given the enormous difference between the risks posed by smoking and the risks posed by vaping (which is something like 95 percent less hazardous), that position is scientifically absurd. When vaping replaces smoking, that should count as a public health victory, not a setback.

LOL, that's a priceless quote there, but not in the way intended. Teen drinking is about the worst possible option, because among other things teens drive after drinking, and die and kill others from drunk driving. Further, the costs of alcohol addiction in the U.S. can only be exceeded by the costs of tobacco use and addiction, and they are staggering, devastating.

People buy cigarettes where I live at an average cost of $10 to $12 a pack. I just bought a 120ml bottle of e-juice for $24 and that will last me about 3 months. That's another reason to switch from cancer causing cigarettes to a less hazardous and less expensive vaping system.

 

[JasperL]

Thank you. You must be a 'vape' fan? LOL

I vape and it got me off a decades long addition to smokeless tobacco and VASTLY reduced my risk of dying from mouth and throat cancer. It's been a great thing for my health, it's cheap, the products are good. And banning flavors to address the problem of teen use is IMO boneheaded in just about every way imaginable. It's really about Juul, not the larger industry, so deal with that and how easy it is for underage people to get the product in 10s of thousands of convenience markets.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Jesus Christ. It was a joke, bro. Lighten up.

I said, not even to you, mind you, that I am involved in a coordinated effort to convene a constitutional convention. Then you chimed in to rain on my parade. It doesn't really matter to me whether or not you think my cause is a waste of time. You're just another obstacle for us to overcome, like the existing political power structure.

I am not the obstacle you need to be concerned about.
If you did have a chance to make a contribution, that is, if it was clear and obvious that "the little people" actually had a role to play, you'd see me right there, shoulder to shoulder.
But I can't be all Pollyanna when I know how power works. And you know how it works, too. If you don't, you're about to find out.

I didn't chime in to rain on your parade. Is your parade so fragile that a cynical comment is enough to get the parade called on account of inclement weather? I chimed in because based on what I've learned, any so called constitutional convention would spell the end of democracy because an awfully wealthy and powerful minority will stop at nothing to erase it, and pretty much anything else that they deem an inconvenience to their agenda.
And the result would be a "constitution" that resembles extreme right wing authoritarianism writ large.
Your parade isn't the fragile thing here, the democratic constitutional republic is, and a constitutional convention would be the killing field it bleeds to death on in short order.

The Shocking Paper That Predicts the End of Democracy

I believe that your ethics are in the right place, I'm sure you have noble intent. There's no doubt in my mind that you love your country enough that you are willing to sacrifice in a big way to make significant social and political change possible.

I am only warning you that the barbarians are at the gates, and they won't have pre-paid tickets, they'll just crash the event and take over.
And you're killing the messenger.

PS: The number of states that were ready to ratify the call for a convention topped out at 34, and a lot of us were biting our nails and holding our breath. That number has now shrunk again, I think we're back below 25.
There's a reason for that.

 

[HumblePi]

If the tobacco companies stopped selling tobacco, and only sold nicotine infused vape products, we'd be far better off, less disease, fewer deaths, lots less suffering.

There's actually nothing wrong with nicotine. It's addictive, but so is caffeine, and the health risks are similar, as in there are no real health risks from nicotine.

And what's interesting to me about the vape industry is Juul has most of the market share - 70% or more - but there are a lot of small businesses in the industry. Some local people down the road make a really good vape product, for example. Maybe 10 employees.

I think it's a conspiracy between the tobacco companies, insurance companies and big pharma. If people stopped smoking cancer causing cigarettes, they wouldn't need health care, insurance or drugs. Which of those three industries would be happy about that?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But without the Constitutional convention, how can they install Trump as our benevolent king?

Without being overly cynical - "For the duration of the current national emergency, the constitution of the United States of America is suspended, and the power to legislate by decree is hereby granted to __[fill in the blank]__." or something along that line.

It worked in Germany and it will work in -the United States of America- any country because "the constitution" is NOT "amended" or otherwise changed in any manner whatsoever.

 

[HumblePi]

I vape and it got me off a decades long addition to smokeless tobacco and VASTLY reduced my risk of dying from mouth and throat cancer. It's been a great thing for my health, it's cheap, the products are good. And banning flavors to address the problem of teen use is IMO boneheaded in just about every way imaginable. It's really about Juul, not the larger industry, so deal with that and how easy it is for underage people to get the product in 10s of thousands of convenience markets.

There's hundreds of reasons why a smoker should switch to vaping, and all good valid reasons. But the big tobacco companies are just not getting a big enough slice of the pie by selling liquid nicotine. There's no federal excise tax on e-liquids as there is on every pack of cigarettes. There's where the heart of the issue really is. The federal government isn't making a nickel on purchases of e-juice. Some states tax it, but not all. The tax on a pack of cigarettes in my state is the highest in the country @ $4.35 a pack. Remember that states said "we'll raise the taxes on a pack a smokes so high that people will stop smoking". Uh-huh....ain't happening. My son lived in NY for years, $16.00 a pack and that was 4 years ago. He switched to vaping and loves it.

If they want to discourage advertising geared towards teens then they need to address that with those such as Juul that are doing it and stop trying to dictate to everyone what they can vape, smoke, soon it will be what people eat, chew or drink.

 

[JasperL]

The health risks are not similar

You're right, there are risks associated with nicotine, but I've seen no evidence from any study that the use of nicotine (as opposed to tocacco) is actually linked to any increased risk of serious disease. I'm always open to more information, though. Seriously.

 

[HumblePi]

They shouldn't be doing vaping or smoking but flavored liquid leads to increased vape usage, increased vape usage leads to nicotine addiction and increased likelihood to smoking actual cigarettes. Your vapes are not being banned, they being regulated.

Many places ban menthols.

Flavored juices don't lead to increased vaping.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Jesus Christ. It was a joke, bro. Lighten up.

I said, not even to you, mind you, that I am involved in a coordinated effort to convene a constitutional convention. Then you chimed in to rain on my parade. It doesn't really matter to me whether or not you think my cause is a waste of time. You're just another obstacle for us to overcome, like the existing political power structure.

Since you are attempting to amend the US constitution in a perfectly legal manner, you have my support for your basic efforts. However there are two questions that I would have to have answered to my satisfaction before that support would go any further. Those questions are:

1. "EXACTLY what is the wording of the constitutional amendment(s) that you propose to pass?"; and
2. "EXACTLY how do you propose to ensure that other parties (with better organization, more available talent, and more money than you have) do not hijack your constitutional convention and pass constitutional amendments that are not contained in your answer to the first question?"

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Then why does Trump want to ban them?

Because it means that "He is 'doing something about the problem'." and because "Doing something about the problem looks good."?

 

[Scarab]

I am not the obstacle you need to be concerned about.
If you did have a chance to make a contribution, that is, if it was clear and obvious that "the little people" actually had a role to play, you'd see me right there, shoulder to shoulder.
But I can't be all Pollyanna when I know how power works. And you know how it works, too. If you don't, you're about to find out.

I didn't chime in to rain on your parade. Is your parade so fragile that a cynical comment is enough to get the parade called on account of inclement weather? I chimed in because based on what I've learned, any so called constitutional convention would spell the end of democracy because an awfully wealthy and powerful minority will stop at nothing to erase it, and pretty much anything else that they deem an inconvenience to their agenda.
And the result would be a "constitution" that resembles extreme right wing authoritarianism writ large.
Your parade isn't the fragile thing here, the democratic constitutional republic is, and a constitutional convention would be the killing field it bleeds to death on in short order.

The Shocking Paper That Predicts the End of Democracy

I believe that your ethics are in the right place, I'm sure you have noble intent. There's no doubt in my mind that you love your country enough that you are willing to sacrifice in a big way to make significant social and political change possible.

I am only warning you that the barbarians are at the gates, and they won't have pre-paid tickets, they'll just crash the event and take over.
And you're killing the messenger.

PS: The number of states that were ready to ratify the call for a convention topped out at 34, and a lot of us were biting our nails and holding our breath. That number has now shrunk again, I think we're back below 25.
There's a reason for that.

The article was great. Thank you for sharing it. If you have a reasonable alternative for encouraging reform, I will welcome it. As things stand now, however, we are in an unsustainable political environment. The options as I see them are to allow the status quo to continue, which will inevitably destroy the country, reform the system using a method allowed by the Constitution, or revolt. I'm not quite ready for a revolution; and I cannot do nothing since that would ultimately make me complicit in what I view as our rapidly imploding society.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I am not the obstacle you need to be concerned about.
If you did have a chance to make a contribution, that is, if it was clear and obvious that "the little people" actually had a role to play, you'd see me right there, shoulder to shoulder.
But I can't be all Pollyanna when I know how power works. And you know how it works, too. If you don't, you're about to find out.

I didn't chime in to rain on your parade. Is your parade so fragile that a cynical comment is enough to get the parade called on account of inclement weather? I chimed in because based on what I've learned, any so called constitutional convention would spell the end of democracy because an awfully wealthy and powerful minority will stop at nothing to erase it, and pretty much anything else that they deem an inconvenience to their agenda.
And the result would be a "constitution" that resembles extreme right wing authoritarianism writ large.
Your parade isn't the fragile thing here, the democratic constitutional republic is, and a constitutional convention would be the killing field it bleeds to death on in short order.

The Shocking Paper That Predicts the End of Democracy

I believe that your ethics are in the right place, I'm sure you have noble intent. There's no doubt in my mind that you love your country enough that you are willing to sacrifice in a big way to make significant social and political change possible.

I am only warning you that the barbarians are at the gates, and they won't have pre-paid tickets, they'll just crash the event and take over.
And you're killing the messenger.

PS: The number of states that were ready to ratify the call for a convention topped out at 34, and a lot of us were biting our nails and holding our breath. That number has now shrunk again, I think we're back below 25.
There's a reason for that.

Interesting article. It sounds like he read

"Unless the citizenry is actively (and intelligently) involved in finding out what their government is doing and unless they are successfully ensuring that their government is doing only what it is supposed to be doing, "universal suffrage" and "regularly scheduled elections" are no more "Democracy" than boiling an egg is hatching a chicken." - 'Agent X98A' (ca. 2001)​

someplace.

 

[Grand Mal]

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

Triggered? Do you have any idea what these discussion boards are for?
Maybe you'd be more comfortable someplace where everyone agrees and nobody expresses any ideas that could possibly offend anyone else on the board. Wouldn't that be nice?
Then at least those of us who come here looking for stimulating discussion would be spared the irritation of reading stupid inanities like this post.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Trump plans ban on sale of flavoured e-cigarettes - BBC News

So, cigarettes are still not banned, because of the tobacco lobbyists, but then e-cigarettes get it quite quickly.

Just in case no one thought the US govt was corrupt or anything.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The article was great. Thank you for sharing it. If you have a reasonable alternative for encouraging reform, I will welcome it. As things stand now, however, we are in an unsustainable political environment. The options as I see them are to allow the status quo to continue, which will inevitably destroy the country, reform the system using a method allowed by the Constitution, or revolt. I'm not quite ready for a revolution; and I cannot do nothing since that would ultimately make me complicit in what I view as our rapidly imploding society.

I totally understand. The only reason I said anything negative was because for some strange reason our founders never sought to lock down the constitutional convention PROCESS so that it would be protected from the ravages of organized money, and this despite the fact that our founders knew only too well that organized money carries with it much of the same trappings as organized crime, for indeed, much of organized money IS organized crime all too often.

And what is organized money when it acts like organized crime in politics?
It's "The Brooks Brothers Riot" which actually managed to scare Florida poll tabulators into shutting down a legal vote recount because they actually feared physical harm.

And the Brooks Brothers Riot was SMALL POTATOES, and yet it influenced outcome of a hotly contested POTUS election, courtesy of Roger Stone, the architect of that fiasco. One man, unelected and not even officially employed by any campaign, managed to gather enough money and enough power and engineer that piece of skullduggery, and he openly admits that he drew up the plans almost on the back of a cocktail napkin, and yet all he had to do was make a few phone calls and the fix was in 24 hours later, and the riot plans were on like Donkey Kong.

Now imagine operatives with the backing of every right wing extremist money power on the planet, including the Russians...including Putin.
There is nothing, literally NOTHING, in our legal framework, that can be used to stop these groups in their tracks.

All I am saying is, "here be monsters".

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Triggered? Do you have any idea what these discussion boards are for?
Maybe you'd be more comfortable someplace where everyone agrees and nobody expresses any ideas that could possibly offend anyone else on the board. Wouldn't that be nice?
Then at least those of us who come here looking for stimulating discussion would be spared the irritation of reading stupid inanities like this post.

When you hear talk of how someone loves the notion of "triggered liberals" or any variation thereof, please understand that you're talking to a drug addict.
It's not a drug you have to inject or smoke, or swallow, it is a drug called "Trump's Tincture of Libtard Tears" and although it is an imaginary drug, the effects are as powerful and deadly as pure unadulterated Super Fentanyl.

It is the same drug Jim Jones and David Koresh used, it is the same drug that David Miscavige uses, it is the same drug that every crooked televangelist uses. The only difference is the flavor.

 

[poweRob]

You admit you are a sadist, by your own post.
"Everyday Sadists Take Pleasure In Others’ Pain"
Everyday Sadists Take Pleasure In Others’ Pain – Association for Psychological Science

Good on you for coming out.

I'll be coming out as a sadist late next year.

 

[Scarab]

Since you are attempting to amend the US constitution in a perfectly legal manner, you have my support for your basic efforts. However there are two questions that I would have to have answered to my satisfaction before that support would go any further. Those questions are:

1. "EXACTLY what is the wording of the constitutional amendment(s) that you propose to pass?"; and
2. "EXACTLY how do you propose to ensure that other parties (with better organization, more available talent, and more money than you have) do not hijack your constitutional convention and pass constitutional amendments that are not contained in your answer to the first question?"

Our group is not united in the specific amendments our members desire. We certainly have not drafted official language for a convention that might or might never occur. We are generally united on a few reforms, like congressional term limits; overturn of Citizens United; and a complete demolition and revision of the relationships between elected representatives, lobbyists, and money in general. Personally, I also want to limit the length of the legislative session, comprehensively address the role of technology in society and politics, reduce the executive branch's discretion in appropriating congressional funding, enshrine certain civil rights that exist by statute only, and provide broad parameters for redistricting that will make gerrymandering impossible or at least more difficult. Some of my colleagues want to restructure the judicial system, revise war powers, alter congressional representation, require a balanced budget, etc. Most of us realize that the Constitution is intentionally ambiguous. I don't want to amend it to be overly inflexible for evolving times, attitudes, and needs, but the existing framework is no longer sufficient to deal with a country as large, as complex, and as advanced as the modern US.

As to safeguards against malevolent interests, it seems to me that these have to be developed at the state level. That has advantages and disadvantages. I certainly don't want the federal government organizing a convention. On the other hand, how many states' delegations would be hijacked by the same corrupt power establishment that led us to where we are? In our state, we are working with state level lawmakers to codify a process for selecting delegates to a constitutional convention. We are negotiating details on the composition of a convention delegation. There is no way to prevent amendments that I oppose from being proposed or ratified. I don't presume to know all the best answers anyway. I do think it is possible, however, to limit the influence of the people who would use such an opportunity to make us less free and our government even more beholden to special interests.

 

[jdog21]

Dumb.
The devices and liquids are illegal to be sold to minors. Even those without nicotine.

Just let people be free

 

[WillyPete]

How can you possibly say that I 'carry water for Big Tobacco' ? That's just totally opposite from what I've been saying. Are you having some difficulty with reading comprehension? I'm fully aware that 'big tobacco' also got a big slice of the pie with vaping also, all the nicotine in vape comes from tobacco.

You got there, eventually.

We're just viewing this from different POVs.

I view the nicotine addiction as the central problem, and you're waving it off.

To my eyes, you are aiding Big Tobacco in transitioning their product (which has ALWAYS been nicotine, first and foremost) into the next stage of their life cycle.

Anything that makes it easier or more socially acceptable to maintain the addiction is bad. Maybe it's not "as bad," but that ain't good.