James Madison, from Federalist 83
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion in to their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, and parish and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
It doesn't go unnoticed the ingenuous tactic of changing debunking the notion of the general Welfare clause being a grant of power to debunking Article I Section 8 in it's entirety.
As far as it being a regulation rather than a ban, it's effectively the same thing if it puts all of the manufacturers out of business.
Excusing this is just going to invite more of the same until they exercise absolute control over every single facet of your life.
Hmm, let's take another look at that Article I, Section 8:
Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."
It looks to me like "common defense" and "general Welfare" have equal weight in that clause. So, you really cannot ignore part of the clause without ignoring the whole of it. It's kind of like that Second Amendment, where liberals are always trying to argue that the right to bear arms part of it doesn't really count--but in reality, it does.
James Madison, from Federalist 83
The Federalist papers are not the Constitution.
As far as it being a regulation rather than a ban, it's effectively the same thing if it puts all of the manufacturers out of business.
It occurs to me that you may not be aware that just about every product sold is regulated. You know, like the food you buy at the grocery store (regulated at every step from planting seeds in the field to final point of sale), the plastic bins you buy to store that food in (manufacturers are limited to a very few plastics that the FDA has determined to be food-safe), the detergents you use to wash those bins, the cosmetics, creams, soaps, shampoos, etc., you use to keep yourself clean, etc., etc.
Vaping is relatively new. It does have the potential of being a safer way to use nicotine than cigarettes. But the fact is that there is no way for a customer to know how much nicotine is in them, whether it is a trace amount, or a potentially lethal amount--or to know about the purity of the other ingredients used--or to know if the other ingredients are food or drug quality--and so on. Nor can the customer know whether the delivery components--the heater and battery--are made from cheap materials likely to fail catastrophically under use, or are high-grade components that would only fail under extreme circumstances.
E-cigs have already failed catastrophically, causing serious injury. Of course the government is going to take an interest in that, because it is the government's job to protect its citizens. The very purpose of regulating e-cigs is to ensure that they meet a standardized set of specifications and are safe to use.
Being against regulatory standards because it will put small businesses out of business is somewhat hyperbolic, IMO. Whatever the cost of regulation, it can't be nearly as business killing as the cost of litigation, which can run millions for a single serious injury. Are you aware that if you decide to make jams and jellies in your kitchen and sell them at flea markets, the FDA regulates that? They want to inspect your kitchen, they want to examine and approve your recipes. And despite that, every time you go to a flea market, farmer's market, or any other venue where crafters sell their goods, you see people selling homemade jams and jellies. Gee, it doesn't look like regulation has been an unbearable burden on them, does it?
Excusing this is just going to invite more of the same until they exercise absolute control over every single facet of your life.
No. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We will never have a perfect, corruption-free system. The fact that some self-serving politicians use legitimate government functions for their own aggrandizement does not mean that the function should be abolished. What it means is that we should be very careful about who we elect to oversee those functions.