In short, the FDA wants to ban this smokeless product. Even though no one knows how unhealthy they may be, they're almost certainly far less unhealthy than real cigarettes. Knapp observes:
[T]ransparently the Democrats [are] a) trying to preserve tax revenues from cigarette sales and b) doing a favor for Big Tobacco, even though they know that that favor will cost lives.More evidence that the Precautionary Principle is a scam and a sham. It is a philosophy that essentially says that if something might be dangerous, it should be banned.
It's real purpose, however, is to protect some products already on the market by banning others.
And this attempted regulation or prohibition of e-cigs is even worse. Protecting Big Tobacco from a healthier alternative is shameful and criminal.
And, like subsidies to tobacco farms before it, it shows just how the State's policies contradict each other.
The State's War on Tobacco has implicated the First and Fifth Amendments:
- Cigarette ads were banned on television, justified under the absurd lie that the First Amendment doesn't protect commercial speech.
- Warning labels were required on print and the packs themselves.
- Smoking bans on private property have passed almost everywhere, under the weaselly, non-existent category of "public accommodation." No,a restaurant, a bar, a jet airliner is private property and if the owner says patrons can smoke, it is an assault not just on his property rights, but on the liberty of those individuals, if the State forbids it.
Yet now the FDA is protecting Big Tobacco.
Away with the FDA!