Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: US Sen. Ron Johnson pursues Vicki McKenna's vaping cause

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162

    US Sen. Ron Johnson pursues Vicki McKenna's vaping cause

    Republican Johnson, a nonsmoker who has appeared on McKenna's show 35 times in the past year (twice as many appearances as his second favorite interviewer conservative talker Charlie Sykes), said he was put on the vaping issue by a column on The Wall Street Journal's website. As chairman of the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, Johnson likes to say that he can regulate any issue in the federal government.

    http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noq...384956641.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Republican Johnson, a nonsmoker who has appeared on McKenna's show 35 times in the past year (twice as many appearances as his second favorite interviewer conservative talker Charlie Sykes), said he was put on the vaping issue by a column on The Wall Street Journal's website. As chairman of the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, Johnson likes to say that he can regulate any issue in the federal government.

    http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noq...384956641.html
    I hope it does some good. FDA totally overreached on this one and its going to kill a big chunk of the industry.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    I've seen the benefits of vaporizers in the lives of several people I love who were able to use them to stop smoking. As a non-smoker who hates the all too common litter of cigarette butts and the noxious odor of smokers ashing their cigs at stop lights, I wish we'd outlaw cigarettes and direct the nicotine addicts to vaporizers.

    That said, some regulation and consumer protection seems in order.

    Accuracy in labeling is essential. Consumers are entitled to know what they are inhaling. We don't want a bunch of nasty chemicals in vaporizing fluids because the Chinese or other manufacturers can make a little extra money being sloppy.

    And for all the good vaporizers do for addicted smokers, there is legitimate concern about vaporizers becoming the preferred vehicle for far too many in the rising generation to develop nicotine addictions they might otherwise avoid. In other words, under-age access to vaporizers, and the risks to very young children of getting into the nicotine-laden fluids are both legit safety concerns.

    I suspect all legit concerns can and should be addressed with far less regulation and cost than the FDA would impose. It is entirely possible the industry could be encouraged to self-regulate with a private testing body similar to the Underwriters Lab.

    What a shame that the federal government yet again over-reaches rather than limiting themselves to what might actually be warranted.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I've seen the benefits of vaporizers in the lives of several people I love who were able to use them to stop smoking. As a non-smoker who hates the all too common litter of cigarette butts and the noxious odor of smokers ashing their cigs at stop lights, I wish we'd outlaw cigarettes and direct the nicotine addicts to vaporizers.

    That said, some regulation and consumer protection seems in order.

    Accuracy in labeling is essential. Consumers are entitled to know what they are inhaling. We don't want a bunch of nasty chemicals in vaporizing fluids because the Chinese or other manufacturers can make a little extra money being sloppy.

    And for all the good vaporizers do for addicted smokers, there is legitimate concern about vaporizers becoming the preferred vehicle for far too many in the rising generation to develop nicotine addictions they might otherwise avoid. In other words, under-age access to vaporizers, and the risks to very young children of getting into the nicotine-laden fluids are both legit safety concerns.

    I suspect all legit concerns can and should be addressed with far less regulation and cost than the FDA would impose. It is entirely possible the industry could be encouraged to self-regulate with a private testing body similar to the Underwriters Lab.

    What a shame that the federal government yet again over-reaches rather than limiting themselves to what might actually be warranted.

    Charles
    And, of course, the poster does not see the disconnect between the two bolded sentences.

    Readers, at the bottom of the problem is a pretty simple proposition: once you agree that it is alright to use force to coerce another human being, you necessarily also agree that it is fair for him to coerce you. After that, it is just a matter of who gains control of the levers of power. Better hope you're on the winning end of that argument, because if you lose, you've already agreed it was OK for him to win, and boss you around, tax you, regulate you, etc. It was inherent in your first agreement--that it is OK to coerce someone. Fair is fair. If it is OK for you to coerce someone on things you think are warranted, then it necessarily is fair for him to coerce you on the things he thinks are warranted.

    Was it Will Rogers who said we will never be civilized until we learn to respect the rights of others?
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-30-2016 at 08:33 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    And, of course, the poster does not see the disconnect between the two bolded sentences.
    And of course the anarchist yet again fails to distinguish between a little puffery expressed as an empty "wish" vs an actual desire to infringe on others' rights.

    He also utterly fails to consider on the interaction of rights in question. Notably, the right of property owners not to have their property littered or their olfactory senses assaulted. One wonders whether he considers it a violation of "rights" to have legal limits on the use of cigarettes in publicly owned buildings.

    Isaiah wrote so long ago of those who would "make a man an offender for a word." The anarchist continues to allow personality conflicts to blind him to context. He jumps to condemning those he doesn't like (and whom he refuses to treat as an equal despite his tagline) over a phrase he takes out of context rather than reading for full understanding. He will not condescend to ask for clarification if such is needed, but instead jumps to judging and condemnation.

    Well done, anarchist. Yet again you demonstrate what kind of "civility" (so-called) decent men might expect should you ever get your wish to impose anarchy on the rest of us.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  6. #6
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,886
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I've seen the benefits of vaporizers in the lives of several people I love who were able to use them to stop smoking. As a non-smoker who hates the all too common litter of cigarette butts and the noxious odor of smokers ashing their cigs at stop lights, I wish we'd outlaw cigarettes and direct the nicotine addicts to vaporizers.

    That said, some regulation and consumer protection seems in order.

    Accuracy in labeling is essential. Consumers are entitled to know what they are inhaling. We don't want a bunch of nasty chemicals in vaporizing fluids because the Chinese or other manufacturers can make a little extra money being sloppy.

    And for all the good vaporizers do for addicted smokers, there is legitimate concern about vaporizers becoming the preferred vehicle for far too many in the rising generation to develop nicotine addictions they might otherwise avoid. In other words, under-age access to vaporizers, and the risks to very young children of getting into the nicotine-laden fluids are both legit safety concerns.

    I suspect all legit concerns can and should be addressed with far less regulation and cost than the FDA would impose. It is entirely possible the industry could be encouraged to self-regulate with a private testing body similar to the Underwriters Lab.

    What a shame that the federal government yet again over-reaches rather than limiting themselves to what might actually be warranted.

    Charles
    trade one addicting habit of inhaling crap into your lungs with another where the individuals inhales other more dangerous crap into the lungs. this point has been discussed out here previously...

    sorry, material being vap'd is far more dangerous with unknown consequences.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 06-30-2016 at 09:18 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I've seen the benefits of vaporizers in the lives of several people I love who were able to use them to stop smoking. As a non-smoker who hates the all too common litter of cigarette butts and the noxious odor of smokers ashing their cigs at stop lights, I wish we'd outlaw cigarettes and direct the nicotine addicts to vaporizers.

    That said, some regulation and consumer protection seems in order.

    Accuracy in labeling is essential. Consumers are entitled to know what they are inhaling. We don't want a bunch of nasty chemicals in vaporizing fluids because the Chinese or other manufacturers can make a little extra money being sloppy.

    And for all the good vaporizers do for addicted smokers, there is legitimate concern about vaporizers becoming the preferred vehicle for far too many in the rising generation to develop nicotine addictions they might otherwise avoid. In other words, under-age access to vaporizers, and the risks to very young children of getting into the nicotine-laden fluids are both legit safety concerns.

    I suspect all legit concerns can and should be addressed with far less regulation and cost than the FDA would impose. It is entirely possible the industry could be encouraged to self-regulate with a private testing body similar to the Underwriters Lab.

    What a shame that the federal government yet again over-reaches rather than limiting themselves to what might actually be warranted.

    Charles
    Full Disclosure: I work in the vaping industry. I smoked for 20+ years and quit after a couple months with an ecig. I've never felt better, and I've got a shop full of customers on a daily basis that would echo that sentiment.

    We've done a pretty good job of regulating ourselves in the last few years, but I agree - we needed some help. Unfortunately, it came in the way of an avalanche of local, state and federal smackdowns that, for the most part, make little to no sense given the science. Most reputable shops have been 18+, but some of the less savory, fly by night joints didnt care. As an industry, we welcomed the laws limiting minors. Hell, my shop doesnt allow minors in the door period.

    Accuracy in labeling is essential, especially in foreign product. Good shops dont carry Chinese liquid - it cant be trusted and it tastes like chemicals. A lot of the top end juice manufacturers test, especially after a recent dust up over Diacetyl. Side note: There is more of that crap in a single cigarette than the most heavily loaded juice that's ever been out there. It literally would require you vape a gallon of liquid in a short time frame to show any side effects.

    The "gateway" theory is debatable to most, but I get the fear.

    At the end of the day, the FDA is stepping on us. There is a large segment that feels like they're opening the door for Morris, Reynolds and the billion dollar tobacco companies to corner the market, as they'll be one of the few to compete in what's going to turn into a pay-to-play industry if we cant stop the FDA.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    trade one addicting habit of inhaling crap into your lungs with another where the individuals inhales other more dangerous crap into the lungs. this point has been discussed out here previously...

    sorry, material being vap'd is far more dangerous with unknown consequences.

    ipse
    Hey, if a person wants to suck up glycerin and/or propylene glycol or whatever ... its their choice. Might it harm some? Maybe. But that's the same argument lizzurds make about guns too.

    Puff away ! Suck away ! Whatever away ! We are free or we are not .. there is no try.

  9. #9
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,886
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Hey, if a person wants to suck up glycerin and/or propylene glycol or whatever ... its their choice. Might it harm some? Maybe. But that's the same argument lizzurds make about guns too.

    Puff away ! Suck away ! Whatever away ! We are free or we are not .. there is no try.
    sucking up on a muzzle is permanent tho...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •