Thread: Where's the Fire?
#1 Where's the Fire?04-08-2009, 02:21 PM
Our amazing politicians never cease to amaze!
The first time Tom Kiklas saw an electronic cigarette, he recalls, "I couldn't stand it … I thought, 'I don't want to be involved in this.' I'm an anti-smoking kind of guy."
But after Kiklas realized that electronic cigarettes, a.k.a. e-cigarettes, deliver nicotine without tobacco or combustion products, thereby eliminating virtually all of the health hazards associated with smoking, he was comfortable becoming media relations director for inLife, one of the companies that sell the devices in the United States. Unfortunately, many anti-smoking activists and public health officials are stuck in that first stage of visceral antipathy toward anything that resembles cigarettes, an emotional reaction that could prove deadly for smokers.
Last week, the House of Representatives approved a bill that authorizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate tobacco products. Lest anyone think that cigarettes will be safer as a result, the bill prohibits manufacturers from mentioning FDA regulation, saying, "consumers are likely to be confused and misled" if they know about it.
Meanwhile, supporters of the bill, which the Senate will consider later this year, are demanding that the FDA ban e-cigarettes, a potentially life-saving alternative for smokers, as unauthorized drug delivery devices. Last month, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who brags that he is "one of the Senate's leaders in protecting Americans from the dangers of smoking," urged the FDA to take e-cigarettes off the market "until they are proven safe." The next day, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids applauded Lautenberg's position.
Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, did not. "This is about as idiotic and irrational an approach as I have ever seen in my 22 years in tobacco control and public health," he wrote on his blog.
: “Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal.”
” I wondered why the rock was getting larger. Then it hit me.
04-08-2009, 03:36 PM
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
The whole thing for most liberal lawyers is tax paid lawsuits that have made a lot of Harvard lawyers very wealthy men .Pot is illegal so they can't tax that but inch by inch they will allow it and then tax the crap out of it.Those nicotine patches that help many people withdraw are an ideal way to deliver nicotine but they want the tax money so no dice.
04-08-2009, 06:09 PM
Lautenberg is the sponsor of an amendment that bars anyone who has ever been charged in a domestic violence incident from owning or carrying a firearm. As a result of the Lautenberg amendment, we had to cull a lot of Soldiers who were otherwise outstanding, regardless of the nature of the charge against them (remember that in a divorce, false charges are common). Any activity that Lautenberg claims credit for can be guaranteed to be counterproductive and designed to make him feel good for having done something, even if that something makes things worse.--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
04-08-2009, 11:34 PMStand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|