|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 12 2019 06:48 Jockmcplop wrote:So I have some personal experience of this subject and I gotta say Trump has done the right thing here without question. In the lab I work at we tested alot of Ecigs, and the fruit flavoured ones had so much dangerous shit in them we had to report our findings to the government (they ignored us). That shit is full of toxic aldehydes. When I say full, I mean if you swallowed some of the stuff we tested you would have to be hospitalized. They should be banned, they are worse than smoking, and by a very long way too. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49667688Show nested quote +US President Donald Trump has announced that his administration will ban flavoured e-cigarettes, after a spate of vaping-related deaths.
Mr Trump told reporters vaping was a "new problem", especially for children.
US Health Secretary Alex Azar said the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would finalise a plan to take all non-tobacco flavours off the market.
There have been six deaths and 450 reported cases of lung illness tied to vaping across 33 states.
Many of the 450 reported cases are young people, with an average age of 19.
Michigan this month became the first US state to ban flavoured e-cigarettes.
Why would you jump from "theres toxic shit in these flavored ecigs" to "ban flavored ecigs" and not "ban putting toxic shit in ecigs"?
|
On September 12 2019 08:42 ThaddeusK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2019 06:48 Jockmcplop wrote:So I have some personal experience of this subject and I gotta say Trump has done the right thing here without question. In the lab I work at we tested alot of Ecigs, and the fruit flavoured ones had so much dangerous shit in them we had to report our findings to the government (they ignored us). That shit is full of toxic aldehydes. When I say full, I mean if you swallowed some of the stuff we tested you would have to be hospitalized. They should be banned, they are worse than smoking, and by a very long way too. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49667688US President Donald Trump has announced that his administration will ban flavoured e-cigarettes, after a spate of vaping-related deaths.
Mr Trump told reporters vaping was a "new problem", especially for children.
US Health Secretary Alex Azar said the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would finalise a plan to take all non-tobacco flavours off the market.
There have been six deaths and 450 reported cases of lung illness tied to vaping across 33 states.
Many of the 450 reported cases are young people, with an average age of 19.
Michigan this month became the first US state to ban flavoured e-cigarettes. Why would you jump from "theres toxic shit in these flavored ecigs" to "ban flavored ecigs" and not "ban putting toxic shit in ecigs"? Because its an convenient reason for the tobacco lobby to get rid of their competition?
|
On September 12 2019 08:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2019 08:42 ThaddeusK wrote:On September 12 2019 06:48 Jockmcplop wrote:So I have some personal experience of this subject and I gotta say Trump has done the right thing here without question. In the lab I work at we tested alot of Ecigs, and the fruit flavoured ones had so much dangerous shit in them we had to report our findings to the government (they ignored us). That shit is full of toxic aldehydes. When I say full, I mean if you swallowed some of the stuff we tested you would have to be hospitalized. They should be banned, they are worse than smoking, and by a very long way too. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49667688US President Donald Trump has announced that his administration will ban flavoured e-cigarettes, after a spate of vaping-related deaths.
Mr Trump told reporters vaping was a "new problem", especially for children.
US Health Secretary Alex Azar said the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would finalise a plan to take all non-tobacco flavours off the market.
There have been six deaths and 450 reported cases of lung illness tied to vaping across 33 states.
Many of the 450 reported cases are young people, with an average age of 19.
Michigan this month became the first US state to ban flavoured e-cigarettes. Why would you jump from "theres toxic shit in these flavored ecigs" to "ban flavored ecigs" and not "ban putting toxic shit in ecigs"? Because its an convenient reason for the tobacco lobby to get rid of their competition?
Worth noting that Juul is owned (35%) by Altria (parent company of Phillip Morris, "Marlboro")
|
I don't think the cigarette lobby really thinks of vaping as their competition (and the tobacco lobby obviously doesn't, since the nicotine in vaping liquid can come from tobacco). It's a great way to get people addicted to something that's in their product and probably lowers the overall price of tobacco. The mere fact their hasn't been much of a dedicated effort to ban it by the companies makes me pretty sure they've crunched the numbers and found it doesn't impact their product negatively or even that it raises the overall number of smokers; industry numbers and studies tend to know about everything years ahead of the public.
|
ICE is setting up an urban warfare training camp to simulate Chicago and Arizona area homes.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is looking to build a "state-of-the-art" "urban warfare" training facility that will include "hyper-realistic" simulations of homes, hotels and commercial buildings in Chicago and Arizona.
In an acquisition form for the procurement of "hyper-realistic training devices" for a new training facility for its expanding Special Response Team (SRT) program, ICE outlined the details of plans for its new training center in a document published on the U.S. Federal Business Opportunities website.
While ICE sought to redact the location of the new training facility in the document, it was not successful in doing so.
After copying and pasting the document's contents into a separate document, Newsweek was able to establish that the facility will be built at the Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs' (OFTP) Tactical Operations Complex (TOC) at Fort Benning, Georgia.
newsweek.com
I think we'd be better off shutting ICE down altogether.
|
Trump accuses ECB of manipulating euro currency down. Will England ever get a trade deal with USA with pound being so low,its cheating after all.
Anyway,if low currency is such a big economic advantage (its not,its a sign of economic problems) then the usa is free to do the same.
Still its a weird comment,i always was under the impression that the usa and Europe coordinated their monetary policy but I guess that is not the case.
|
On September 12 2019 22:23 pmh wrote:
Trump accuses ECB of manipulating euro currency down. Will England ever get a trade deal with USA with pound being so low,its cheating after all.
Anyway,if low currency is such a big economic advantage (its not,its a sign of economic problems) then the usa is free to do the same.
Still its a weird comment,i always was under the impression that the usa and Europe coordinated their monetary policy but I guess that is not the case. If the EU and US are coordinating their monetary policy they probably would make sure not to talk to Trump about it because he'll be guaranteed to fuck it up.
|
On September 12 2019 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:ICE is setting up an urban warfare training camp to simulate Chicago and Arizona area homes. Show nested quote +The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is looking to build a "state-of-the-art" "urban warfare" training facility that will include "hyper-realistic" simulations of homes, hotels and commercial buildings in Chicago and Arizona.
In an acquisition form for the procurement of "hyper-realistic training devices" for a new training facility for its expanding Special Response Team (SRT) program, ICE outlined the details of plans for its new training center in a document published on the U.S. Federal Business Opportunities website.
While ICE sought to redact the location of the new training facility in the document, it was not successful in doing so.
After copying and pasting the document's contents into a separate document, Newsweek was able to establish that the facility will be built at the Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs' (OFTP) Tactical Operations Complex (TOC) at Fort Benning, Georgia. newsweek.comI think we'd be better off shutting ICE down altogether.
Special Agents, Deportation Officers and SRT operators during high-risk search and arrest warrants, fugitive operations, undercover operations, hostage rescue, gang operations, etc
Wait does ice deal with hostage rescue?
The rest of that arrest warrant s and fugitive operations is just capture and deport. There is always some risk is holding people against their will but "battlefield" conditions and other ways their talking shop for operations inside the US.
That just seems very detached.
Or maybe it's awarewolf and ICE is the one holding kids hostage so they can capture and deport a parent.
|
On September 12 2019 12:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I don't think the cigarette lobby really thinks of vaping as their competition (and the tobacco lobby obviously doesn't, since the nicotine in vaping liquid can come from tobacco). It's a great way to get people addicted to something that's in their product and probably lowers the overall price of tobacco. The mere fact their hasn't been much of a dedicated effort to ban it by the companies makes me pretty sure they've crunched the numbers and found it doesn't impact their product negatively or even that it raises the overall number of smokers; industry numbers and studies tend to know about everything years ahead of the public.
And yet all non-tabacco varieties will suddenly be banned because a miniscule amount of deaths, driving the lost consumers towards the tabacco companies. If this was such a big issue, then the entire tobacco situation should have been shut down decades ago. The reaction way outpaces the environment.
|
On September 12 2019 23:25 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2019 12:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I don't think the cigarette lobby really thinks of vaping as their competition (and the tobacco lobby obviously doesn't, since the nicotine in vaping liquid can come from tobacco). It's a great way to get people addicted to something that's in their product and probably lowers the overall price of tobacco. The mere fact their hasn't been much of a dedicated effort to ban it by the companies makes me pretty sure they've crunched the numbers and found it doesn't impact their product negatively or even that it raises the overall number of smokers; industry numbers and studies tend to know about everything years ahead of the public. And yet all non-tabacco varieties will suddenly be banned because a miniscule amount of deaths, driving the lost consumers towards the tabacco companies. If this was such a big issue, then the entire tobacco situation should have been shut down decades ago. The reaction way outpaces the environment.
Yup, hard when you compare to the 480k US smoking related deaths which ecigs could very well reduce some.
|
Most of the cigarette related deaths are long term conditions, which we have nowhere near enough evidence to know if ecigs are linked to yet, so it doesn't really seem reasonable to assume that ecigs will reduce the smoking related deaths.
The current deaths are troubling because they are sudden short term conditions that result in death, and if you can have such serious issues in the short term, why would it be reasonable to believe that that the long term is any safer.
Are regular cigarettes really know for such severe short term consequences? Whatever the case, if there is something defective causing a notable amount of deaths in a short period of time, there is quite a lot of precedence for stopping production of that product until more is known.
|
On September 13 2019 01:35 chocorush wrote:Are regular cigarettes really know for such severe short term consequences?
Yes
http://www.intheknowzone.com/substance-abuse-topics/tobacco/short-term-effects.html
Not to mention: Who cares? We know the long term effects. You don't actually need to wait 50 years to see who dies. There are other ways to extrapolate data. All signs shows that ecigs are much much much healthier than cigarettes, long and short term. If there is a specific substance that is more dangerous to inhale than others, ban that, not all of it. And keeping cigarettes legal while banning the milder solution that people use to quit is hilariously corrupt.
|
I don't know how you jump from mysterious lung condition resulting in death to we have enough information to extrapolate the long term effects.
|
|
|
On September 12 2019 23:25 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2019 12:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I don't think the cigarette lobby really thinks of vaping as their competition (and the tobacco lobby obviously doesn't, since the nicotine in vaping liquid can come from tobacco). It's a great way to get people addicted to something that's in their product and probably lowers the overall price of tobacco. The mere fact their hasn't been much of a dedicated effort to ban it by the companies makes me pretty sure they've crunched the numbers and found it doesn't impact their product negatively or even that it raises the overall number of smokers; industry numbers and studies tend to know about everything years ahead of the public. And yet all non-tabacco varieties will suddenly be banned because a miniscule amount of deaths, driving the lost consumers towards the tabacco companies. If this was such a big issue, then the entire tobacco situation should have been shut down decades ago. The reaction way outpaces the environment.
I mean, pretty much all tobacco products should be "shut down" right now. Cigarettes, cigars, and chewing tobacco all kill people with an extremely addictive substance; even if vapes don't kill people, in my opinion nicotine is so addictive it shouldn't be sold period. But the idea that this is coming from the cigarette lobby (or the tobacco lobby) is just nonsense. If e-cigs were bad for their bottom line they'd have been dead before anyone started using them.
(I'll also point out they're banning the flavoring, not the e-cigs themselves, and that there's pretty much no regulation whatsoever of existing vaping materials, they're almost as bad as supplements; that's why many major e-cig brands are on board with this, since it will wipe out a lot of their competition and they can afford to reintroduce products after FDA review)
|
On September 13 2019 02:37 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2019 23:25 Gahlo wrote:On September 12 2019 12:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I don't think the cigarette lobby really thinks of vaping as their competition (and the tobacco lobby obviously doesn't, since the nicotine in vaping liquid can come from tobacco). It's a great way to get people addicted to something that's in their product and probably lowers the overall price of tobacco. The mere fact their hasn't been much of a dedicated effort to ban it by the companies makes me pretty sure they've crunched the numbers and found it doesn't impact their product negatively or even that it raises the overall number of smokers; industry numbers and studies tend to know about everything years ahead of the public. And yet all non-tabacco varieties will suddenly be banned because a miniscule amount of deaths, driving the lost consumers towards the tabacco companies. If this was such a big issue, then the entire tobacco situation should have been shut down decades ago. The reaction way outpaces the environment. I mean, pretty much all tobacco products should be "shut down" right now. They kill people with an extremely addictive substance; even if they didn't kill people, in my opinion nicotine is so addictive it shouldn't be sold period. But the idea that this is coming from the cigarette lobby (or the tobacco lobby) is just nonsense. If e-cigs were bad for their bottom line they'd have been dead before anyone started using them. (I'll also point out they're banning the flavoring, not the e-cigs themselves, and that there's pretty much no regulation whatsoever of existing vaping materials, they're almost as bad as supplements; that's why many major e-cig brands are on board with this, since it will wipe out a lot of their competition and they can afford to reintroduce products after FDA review)
You should start with banning Alcohol if you only go by the damage argument. Both are bad and should be banned. Is it possible to do? Nope, would need a totalitarian state and decades of enforcement to remove them at this point.
|
|
|
Just curious, is anyone in America watch the Canadian debates tonight? It seems the difference between Scheer vs Treudau being elected would have a major impact on US Canada foreign policy negotiations
|
On September 13 2019 03:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2019 03:01 Yurie wrote:On September 13 2019 02:37 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 12 2019 23:25 Gahlo wrote:On September 12 2019 12:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I don't think the cigarette lobby really thinks of vaping as their competition (and the tobacco lobby obviously doesn't, since the nicotine in vaping liquid can come from tobacco). It's a great way to get people addicted to something that's in their product and probably lowers the overall price of tobacco. The mere fact their hasn't been much of a dedicated effort to ban it by the companies makes me pretty sure they've crunched the numbers and found it doesn't impact their product negatively or even that it raises the overall number of smokers; industry numbers and studies tend to know about everything years ahead of the public. And yet all non-tabacco varieties will suddenly be banned because a miniscule amount of deaths, driving the lost consumers towards the tabacco companies. If this was such a big issue, then the entire tobacco situation should have been shut down decades ago. The reaction way outpaces the environment. I mean, pretty much all tobacco products should be "shut down" right now. They kill people with an extremely addictive substance; even if they didn't kill people, in my opinion nicotine is so addictive it shouldn't be sold period. But the idea that this is coming from the cigarette lobby (or the tobacco lobby) is just nonsense. If e-cigs were bad for their bottom line they'd have been dead before anyone started using them. (I'll also point out they're banning the flavoring, not the e-cigs themselves, and that there's pretty much no regulation whatsoever of existing vaping materials, they're almost as bad as supplements; that's why many major e-cig brands are on board with this, since it will wipe out a lot of their competition and they can afford to reintroduce products after FDA review) You should start with banning Alcohol if you only go by the damage argument. Both are bad and should be banned. Is it possible to do? Nope, would need a totalitarian state and decades of enforcement to remove them at this point. And all that would do is create a really powerful and rich (or more so) underworld.
Fully totalitarian with Soviet style punishments for dissidents and a focused propaganda machine could likely do it. Make selling alcohol or tobacco have a death sentence. Using them 25 years of hard labour, random drug tests of the population. Reward informers. You would instantly remove all casual and sane users while make it unattractive as a drug to sell to the hard core crowds.
I don't think any current state has the political will or support to do that though.
|
On September 13 2019 03:32 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2019 03:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 13 2019 03:01 Yurie wrote:On September 13 2019 02:37 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 12 2019 23:25 Gahlo wrote:On September 12 2019 12:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I don't think the cigarette lobby really thinks of vaping as their competition (and the tobacco lobby obviously doesn't, since the nicotine in vaping liquid can come from tobacco). It's a great way to get people addicted to something that's in their product and probably lowers the overall price of tobacco. The mere fact their hasn't been much of a dedicated effort to ban it by the companies makes me pretty sure they've crunched the numbers and found it doesn't impact their product negatively or even that it raises the overall number of smokers; industry numbers and studies tend to know about everything years ahead of the public. And yet all non-tabacco varieties will suddenly be banned because a miniscule amount of deaths, driving the lost consumers towards the tabacco companies. If this was such a big issue, then the entire tobacco situation should have been shut down decades ago. The reaction way outpaces the environment. I mean, pretty much all tobacco products should be "shut down" right now. They kill people with an extremely addictive substance; even if they didn't kill people, in my opinion nicotine is so addictive it shouldn't be sold period. But the idea that this is coming from the cigarette lobby (or the tobacco lobby) is just nonsense. If e-cigs were bad for their bottom line they'd have been dead before anyone started using them. (I'll also point out they're banning the flavoring, not the e-cigs themselves, and that there's pretty much no regulation whatsoever of existing vaping materials, they're almost as bad as supplements; that's why many major e-cig brands are on board with this, since it will wipe out a lot of their competition and they can afford to reintroduce products after FDA review) You should start with banning Alcohol if you only go by the damage argument. Both are bad and should be banned. Is it possible to do? Nope, would need a totalitarian state and decades of enforcement to remove them at this point. And all that would do is create a really powerful and rich (or more so) underworld. Fully totalitarian with Soviet style punishments for dissidents and a focused propaganda machine could likely do it. Make selling alcohol or tobacco have a death sentence. Using them 25 years of hard labour, random drug tests of the population. Reward informers. You would instantly remove all casual and sane users while make it unattractive as a drug to sell to the hard core crowds. I don't think any current state has the political will or support to do that though.
I'm sure if china NK or russia REALLY wanted to they could, but why would they? Alcohol is a good way to keep citizens placated. And honestly at this point I'm sure if any country really tried the people would riot and most likely either force the ban to be lifted, overthrow the government, or get themselves killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
