nonameisgood
Regular Member
I feel so much better now.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
More gov't overreaching ! Regulating e-cigs
- Thread starter davidmcbeth
- Start date
I feel so much better now.
It's the original "True Grit" - we understand better now how country style gravy came to be....country style. :uhoh:
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Please show me where the FDA has any authority outside the ports of entry in the first place.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) Unlimited authority over everything.
And really just for voicing the request you're dangerously close to being a domestic terrorist.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
1. That is a bogus claim.
2. That doesn't show any law.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
The FDA is just the enforcement of legislation. You know, from "the Legislative Branch" . Particularly the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
Except when they overreach. Regulating synthetic chemicals in the guise of regulating "tobacco byproducts" is a stretch. It should probably be handled as a dangerous device or chemical.
Heard today that child overdoses due to sucking liquid nicotine from ecigs has gone from 20/month last year to 200/month this year. Maybe an FTC issue or CPSC
Phoenix David
Regular Member
The US Border.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Luckily overreach is just a matter of opinion. If they say it's not overreaching then it's not.
Reminds me of one of my favorites from South Park:
Father: You see, son, we live in a liberal democratic society...which tells us what we can and cannot say...and what we can and cannot do...
Kyle: But isn’t that fascism?
Father: No, because we don’t call it fascism.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Maybe a parenting issue?
yes, the child/young adult picked up the vap'g habit from being around their caregivers who are vap'g .
ipse
Brian D.
Regular Member
This thread has mentioned e-cigarettes as being adversely affected by these regs. Cigars and pipe tobacco will be taking it in the shorts, too. It may drive newer, smaller cigar companies out of business, or force them to sell out to the bigger cigar makers, not at very good prices. Due to increased revenue collection, what's now a $6 stogie could instantly become $11-$12, nobody knows the numbers just yet.
The reasons why this will be so tough on the smaller factories is, briefly, because any cigar line from a brand that didn't get produced before 2007, will have to undergo rigorous FDA testing before being approved for sale. That's one reason, there are more. I'm still poring through the documents regarding this ruling; about 500 pages, not always easy to decipher.
The reasons why this will be so tough on the smaller factories is, briefly, because any cigar line from a brand that didn't get produced before 2007, will have to undergo rigorous FDA testing before being approved for sale. That's one reason, there are more. I'm still poring through the documents regarding this ruling; about 500 pages, not always easy to decipher.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
I don't smoke cigars. Since freedoms only pertinent to me are important I say it's a great thing cigars should double in price. :uhoh:
nonameisgood
Regular Member
People say they want freedom, but mostly they just want free stuff. And there is nothing wrong with trading away what one has for stuff one wants. But it's often a bad deal if you can't get more of what you have and you need it. Presumably, one can always make more money. Once your freedom is gone, it's gone. It is that fundamental misunderstanding that traps us in service to our own government.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
davidmcbeth
Banned
Look, if people want to suck into their lungs propylene glycol and glycerin ... "let 'em crash"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_516ml5ImGU
The SG should just provide information...beyond that, people make their own choices, its their body
davidmcbeth
Banned
The general is fine. This does not mean being mommy and daddy.
And this comes from the PREAMBLE, which means zip, zero, nada, niff.
utbagpiper
Banned
The phrase "general welfare" appears twice in the US Constitution. Once in the preamble, once in Art I, Sec 8, Clause 1, first sentence. To wit:
Preamble to the US Constitution said:
US Constitution Art I Sec 8 said:
I will agree that the preamble is not binding. It does, however provide for the over-arching goals of the constitution. Promoting the general welfare is one reason the constitution was written. Other stated reasons include securing the blessing of liberty to the framers and their posterity, providing for the common defense, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, and to form a more perfect union.
Article I Section 8 gets into actual delegated powers. Many have termed the general welfare clause as the "elastic clause" which can be stretched to allow congress to do anything it deems is for the general welfare.
I disagree and offer exactly the opposite point of view. I believe the power to "provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States" (we often forget the prepositional phrase attached to the general Welfare clause) is a limitation on all other powers. This is especially true when viewed in light of the 10th amendment reservation of powers to the States and people.
For example, in Art I, Sec 8 congress is given authority to establish post offices and post Roads. Under the "elastic clause" theory of the general welfare wording, anything congress cares to call a post road is fair game. Under the theory I prefer, only post roads which serve the general welfare, as contrasted with individual or specific welfare, would be constitutional. Congress funding a road to one person's summer cabin and claiming it is a "post road" would not pass the "limitation on powers" theory. Clearly, such a road is of benefit only to an individual. In contrast, post roads between communities and to enable the flow of letters, parcels, and commerce between the States, provides a general benefit to the United States as a whole.
The general Interstate highway system can be justified under a requirement that post roads provide for the general welfare of the nation and the preamble goal of promoting the general welfare. There is a stretch, a very expensive stretch, of I-15 between Las Vegas and Utah that is very much an example of this. A ~30 mile stretch of that Interstate passes through the north-west corner of Arizona. This portion of Arizona is isolated from the rest of the State by the Grand Canyon. One, incredibly small "town" exists there. The Interstate offers no material benefit to Arizona. But it greatly aids in commerce between California, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and then, in concert with I-70 and I-80, points East including Colorado, Kansas, etc.
In contrast, bridges to nowhere and even most Interstate belt routes and spurs probably do not qualify. These roads benefit only a small, local area. To be clear, I'm very much in favor of limited access, Interstate-quality belt routes and spurs. But I believe they are local matters that need to be decided upon and funded locally, rather than controlled and funded by congress.
Similarly, congress is given power to impose tariffs and duties. These are often imposed as protectionist measures to benefit one industry, often at the expense of another, most often at the expense of the population as a whole. I believe this violates the requirement to exercise delegated powers so as to provide for the general Welfare of the United States. As presently handled, tariffs too often promote the welfare of a very select sub-group as opposed to promoting the general welfare of the entire United States.
Of course, since the words "Justice", "Congressman", and "Senator" are not proper salutations before my name, my opinion is of little practical value.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
Maybe that is why good cooks sift their flour.
Sifting does reduce density. While that is desirable of itself, it is also a means to another important end.
Bakers (as opposed to cooks) sift their flour to also obtain uniform volumetric measurements. As flour sits in storage it compacts. This affects volumetric measurements which are commonly used in recipes in this nation. A cup of compacted flour will weigh more (ie contain more flour) than will a cup of freshly sifted flour. Sifting multiple times has very little effect on the volume. So once flour has been freshly sifted once, whether it is measured then or sifted ten more times, the measurement won't materially change. But the change between compacted flour that has been sitting for months, and freshly sifted flour can be significant. Higher humidity will cause flour to compact even more than in dry climates.
Fine baked goods tend to be far more sensitive to the amount of flour than are less delicate recipes. So "cooks" can be a bit sloppy with their flour measurements compared to bakers.
Of course, sifting also filters out impurities too large to make it through the sieve. It is also a good way to uniformly mix dry ingredients before adding them to the wet ingredients.
Note, that even when measuring flour by weight (rather than volume), certain recipes may call for (freshly) sifted flour for the aeration benefits and/or to thoroughly and uniformly mix dry ingredients before adding to the wet ingredients.
A web link for those who care to read more on this topic.
Charles
Last edited:
back to the original topic at hand..
I call those mobile vaping mechanisms (womans personal hygiene) flutes.
Why because I researched the results of testing the inhalation of the food based glycol and found it's almost worse then cigarettes!.
I don't want to inhale it, or have my children inhale it, but everyone that does blows out these huge clouds that waft everywhere, pretty much eliminating that possibility.
I call those mobile vaping mechanisms (womans personal hygiene) flutes.
Why because I researched the results of testing the inhalation of the food based glycol and found it's almost worse then cigarettes!.
I don't want to inhale it, or have my children inhale it, but everyone that does blows out these huge clouds that waft everywhere, pretty much eliminating that possibility.
Last edited: