E-cigarette rule coming 'very soon,' U.S. FDA chief says

“Lowering the import tariffs has been the single biggest killer of manufacturing.”

So, there you have it. Your one answer to everything. You love the over-regulating EPA and you love artificially high prices for consumers. You prefer big government control on both ends, so no one on this thread should be surprised when you espouse support of government dictate over what we want to consume.

I don't want America to have a pollution problem like China. So yes I support the EPA. But at the same time, I realize it's been abusive in some cases and needs better checks and balances.

And I don't want to see America's wage level driven down to the chinese wage level, so yes, I support import tariffs, just like our founding fathers did.

Founding Father's Original Tax Plan

"I guess you missed this link"

No I had read it, the e-vap industry did a series of tests and weren't willing to say that they were safe, only that they were safer than regular cigs. Sixth paragraph is key...

"In response to the FDA’s public relations attack, several e-cigarette companies immediately hired external laboratories to conduct toxicology testing on liquid and vapor. Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health, along with Berkeley’s Dr. Zachary Cahn, reviewed the results of 16 studies (including the FDA lab report) and statetd, “Although the existing research does not warrant a conclusion that electronic cigarettes are safe in absolute terms and further clinical studies are needed to comprehensively assess the safety of electronic cigarettes, a preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products.”

“Comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products”

So they aren’t any more toxic than the patch or other such products. The only difference is that they aren’t regulated (yet) by the FDA. Meaning of course, the mechanisms aren’t in place yet to tax them to death. Because anyone who is conservative should know, that’s the FDA’s motivation.

That’s the government’s motivation really. They see an untapped revenue stream and they want their cut. Just like the mobsters they are. So they need a justification to tax them more than just by sales tax. Anyone who says differently, anyone who says this is only for concern for the “public health”, is deluding themselves.

The only reason this isn’t being done for caffeinated products is because caffeine is too popular. It’s use isn’t demonized like nicotine use. They are both drugs though, and both stimulants. And with the e-cigarette delivery system, there is no difference between consuming either (in their respective non-toxic amounts because yes, both are also poisons in the right amount)

Think about that over your next cup-o-Joe.

"Meaning of course, the mechanisms aren’t in place yet to tax them to death. Because anyone who is conservative should know, that’s the FDA’s motivation."

So you ascribe to the FDA a motive that is not written in the law authorizing them. And then proceed to claim anyone who doesn't recognize that the motive you have impugned the FDA with, must not be conservative.

Well, I reject your reality and substitute my own. The FDA is there for safety. They don't get the taxes, so they don't care about taxes. And true conservatives don't go around making up motives for other people just to try to make their argument.

And your comparison of caffeine to Nicotine is off base too. There is really no comparison. Pros and Cons of caffiene Pros and Cons of nicotine

"Meaning of course, the mechanisms aren’t in place yet to tax them to death. Because anyone who is conservative should know, that’s the FDA’s motivation."

So you ascribe to the FDA a motive that is not written in the law authorizing them. And then proceed to claim anyone who doesn't recognize that the motive you have impugned the FDA with, must not be conservative.

Well, I reject your reality and substitute my own. The FDA is there for safety. They don't get the taxes, so they don't care about taxes. And true conservatives don't go around making up motives for other people just to try to make their argument.

And your comparison of caffeine to Nicotine is off base too. There is really no comparison. Pros and Cons of caffiene Pros and Cons of nicotine

You know, again, if you read what you just posted with some objectivity you’ll actually see that what you’re trying to claim is false.

The links comparing nicotine pros and cons and caffeine pros and cons have the EXACT SAME pros and cons for each drug if you discount the cancer link to nicotine.

And WHY should we do that in this case? Because we’re talking about e-cigs now, NOT tobacco products which is what the ehow comparison is taking about.

So there we go my main case is made: if you want nicotine itself regulated by the FDA “for the good of people” you should also want your morning cup of coffee regulated.

Otherwise you’re being a hypocrite. Or short-sighted if you can’t see or don’t want to see that the reason the FDA doesn’t even DREAM of trying to regulate caffeine is because there would be too much of a backlash. And why would there be a backlash? Because the price of every caffeinated product would go up tremendously as does every FDA regulated product because once the government’s hand is in production of anything the price of production skyrockets. Because of all the regulatory costs!

This is basic conservative 101 stuff. Like I said anyone who is a conservative knows this. KNOWS that the FDA is bloated beyond control, just like all agencies and looks for ways to justify its bloated state. Not to mention the overarching agenda of statism fluent throughout all government. The petty desire to control everyone because nanny states know best. At least know what’s best for you, for me, and everyone else who is not in charge.

Does the FDA serve a purpose? Of course it does. But it could be at least as effective with probably half the staff they have, if they weren’t so obsessed with nicotine in particular and in general the (medical)lives of every American.

It’s not anyone’s business if I’m inhaling the same vapor mixture as is produced when one slathers Vicks vapor rub on a humidifier (because that’s all that’s in an e-cigarette, other than the nicotine, water vapor and glycerine)

Just as it’s not my business if someone is a caffeine addict.

"if you discount the cancer link to nicotine."

And if you discount the additive nature of nicotine.

Two very big differences.

I'm not a coffee drinker either.

Caffeine is also addictive.

Not like tobacco.

From WebMD...

"There's no question," says Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, professor in the departments of psychiatry and neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore and a veteran researcher in the area. Caffeine is addictive for some people, he says. "Caffeine does produce dependence, and caffeine withdrawal is a real syndrome."

But George Koob, PhD, professor of the Committee on the Neurobiology of Addictive Disorders at The Scripps Research Institute, San Diego, disagrees. "While it is possible to be addicted, most people are not," he says. "I think most of my colleagues would agree."

I didn’t say it was as addictive as nicotine but it is strongly addictive. Ask anyone who’s given up coffee for health reasons.

But honestly, now all you’re arguing is that nicotine should be regulated because it’s more addictive than caffeine. A real point of victory there. Sarc.

The last word is yours if you desperately need it.

And causes cancer.