SUMMARY: The National Park Service proposes to revise the regulation that defines smoking to include the use of electronic cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems. The National Park Service also proposes to allow a superintendent to close an area, building, structure, or facility to smoking when necessary to maintain public health and safety.<<<Read More>>>
“The state’s Air Resources Board can also now regulate bovine flatulence, as long as there are practical ways to reduce the cows’ belching and breaking wind.”<<<Read More>>>
But remember, Kalifornia is the testing ground for the rest of the country. Do nothing and soon you’ll be paying taxes on your own farts.
By James Beers:
I am in agreement with those that say we are living in a “Dictatorship of Relativism”.
Relativism refers to the lack of agreement in any one truth and the embrace of unlimited alternatives that conflict with each other in any and all matters of the day. Consider all the deeply held and conflicting beliefs surrounding such matters as:
– Hunting is and should remain legal.
– Grazing and logging on private and public property is beneficial and sustainable.
– Private ownership of animals is a legal and beneficial tradition.
– Prosecution and punishment of criminals should be the same for all races and sexes.
– Churches should be subservient to government controls.
– Gun ownership is a valuable right of all Americans interested in protecting themselves, their families and their community from criminals, terrorists and government factions determined to establish a dictatorship.
– Government should never discriminate based on sex or race for any purpose.
– Central government should be grown and lower levels made subservient to it.
– Government should control sermons, healthcare, native/non-native species, water, land uses, life support decisions, etc.
– Fetal (in the womb) humans should receive the total legal protection afforded federally-protected migratory birds.
– Central government bureaucrats should decide bathroom use, education priorities, endangered species’ decrees, dam construction, energy development matters, whether to cooperate or not with State or Local officials, access roads and Local decisions affecting Local communities and their economies, etc.
*Note that I do not mention the Endangered Species Act or the US Forest Service or government regulations or some politician’s latest distraction disguised as some all-good proposal to solve some big problem he concocted in the first place. What appear above are the PREMISES claimed to justify government allowing or prohibiting everything government controls or aims to control, as believed and supported by the most powerful among us.
dic-ta-tor-ship, n. 1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator. 2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
“Dictatorship of relativism” means the emergence of a ruling class with absolute power simply declaring under the auspices of what is in THEIR best interest what is right; what is wrong; what will be allowed; and what will be forbidden. There is no “right” or “wrong” beyond what the dictator decrees. There are no “rights” beyond what government allows or prohibits. Regarding the PREMISES examples list; what government allows today, they may well prohibit tomorrow. In other words, there is no truth or consistency guaranteed by government and the powerful that control it: there are only their individual interests served by such uncontrolled and unresponsive government. It has always been so.
I must constantly remind myself of this. While the day-to-day confrontation of the latest US Fish and Wildlife Service lies about government-imposed large predators; or the public refutation of the latest land closures to grazing or logging or hunting or trapping or access or beaches by government; etc., etc. are each and totally necessary: too often we limit ourselves to the minutiae of the problem at hand. By that I mean we refute and argue the “study” or the “regulation” or the court precedent or the bureaucrat’s lie or the scientists misleading humbug and collapse in a heap either as winners emboldened to keep fighting or as losers mumbling “what’s the use, it is hopeless”.
Whether we are hunters, trappers, fishermen, wood cutters, ranchers, animal owners, small businessmen, rural residents, beach-goers, property owners, Local governments, State governments, or the foregoing’s Non-Government Organizations; we all are guilty of not arguing the PREMISES. When we have numerous disagreements among ourselves we are like armies without discipline or any agreement about what we are fighting for. Thus we avoid the conflict associated with taking on the PREMISES with government and those controlling them to savage our rights, our families, our culture, our traditions and our way of life. As long as this persists, we will steadily diminish and ultimately vanish into the maw of a dictatorship like plankton disappearing into the gullet of a whale shark.
For instance, arguing about wolf/coyote hybrids and their “protection” is like arguing about how many angels can coexist on the head of a pin. It is meaningless trivia to avoid reaching agreement that angels exist or not; just like the hybrid question avoids the resolution of the question that government either has or does not have the authority to introduce, protect, take property, reduce rural economies, or endanger rural residents on behalf of any animal not accepted or welcomed by those forced to accommodate them.
Is it “just” (i.e. “actuated by truth, justice, and lack of bias – to be just in one’s dealings”) for government to “prefer” certain “races” and “sexual designations” for everything from jobs and college admissions to housing and financial assistance? What is the Constitutional and “just” role of US government? What is the truth?
All of PREMISES underlying these matters are hidden and distorted by government and media propaganda as well as the schoolroom nonsense disguised as “education”. Rationales from growing government power and the implementation of so many hidden agendas from gun control to elimination of hunting, ranching and timber management are all driving these “do-good” laws, regulations and policies. We are reduced to arguing about these immediate issues based on things like:
– Hunters and trappers are mean persons.
– Ranchers destroy rural habitats.
– Loggers kill animals, habitats, and precious vistas.
– Federal experts are smarter than State or other “experts”.
– “Scientists” (in the employ of or hoping to be favored by government fund administrators) say…
In short, we and “our” (mostly cowardly) organizations need to Argue the Premises of our interests loud and clear. We need to stand firm about defending what we hold dear. All the last 45 years of getting along, pretending to see the “wisdom” of radical government policies, and worrying about how neighbors or voters will see us and our interests has gotten us only deeper into the hole they are digging to bury us. If the Founding Fathers had behaved like we do; we would have just had to vote about whether or not “we” (i.e. Great Britain) would leave the EU (BREXIT)? If Britain was full of folks like us for that vote, they would probably still be in the EU and the papers would be full of pictures of boats full of refugees from not only Islamic war-torn lands but also from Terrorist-infested lands like Norway and Sweden.
Argue the Premise. To do otherwise is like the Founding Fathers sending a Committee to London in 1776 to “appeal” tax and military policies of the King. Lots of luck with that, just like our luck with all this arguing about meaningless things has been and will remain, all bad. If we cannot agree on a common truth (the role of government; the responsibility for our surroundings; the very nature of our humanity; etc.) our fate will be dictatorship by a default we brought upon ourselves.
10 August 2016
If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.
Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.
You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:
In May, the FDA finalized its Deeming Rule regulations, which would force e-cig manufacturers to undergo an expensive and time-consuming premarket tobacco application process unless their products were on the market — or substantially equivalent to a product on the market — prior to the predicate date of February 15, 2007, long before modern e-cigs were introduced. The high cost of the application process means most e-cig businesses will be forced to shut down, eliminating choices of dramatically safer alternatives to combustible cigarettes, which will leave smokers with fewer options to compete against the most harmful form of nicotine consumption, combustible tobacco.
The brief concludes:
The FDA’s Deeming Rule fails to consider the scientific evidence readily available to the agency regarding the safety and the public health benefits of e-cigarettes. The Deeming Rule is improper under the APA not merely because it fails any manner of scientific analysis, and is therefore arbitrary and capricious, but also because it is in direct conflict with Congress’s intent to prevent smoking and aid cessation through the [Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control] Act.
“E-cig technology has grown by leaps and bounds since the FDA’s arbitrary predicate date in 2007,” said Evan Swarztrauber, Communications Director at TechFreedom. “Setting a standard using technology from nearly a decade ago is absurd and highly stifling to innovation. The FDA should issue evidence-based regulations that address legitimate safety concerns without hindering products that improve consumer health by providing a less harmful alternative, rather than implementing a ‘Mother, may I innovate?’ approach that’s become all too common among regulatory agencies.”
“Instead of developing science-based standards which would reduce harm, the FDA directly admitted it didn’t understand or evaluate the potential benefits or harms of e-cigarettes,” said Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Without that science, it relied on the ‘precautionary principle’ standard, in direct conflict with the evidence-based standard required by Congress.”
“Regulations should be promulgated within the constraints of the rule of law, sound policy, and proportionality,” said Daniel Suraci, an attorney working pro bonoon behalf of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “The FDA’s heavy-handed approach to e-cigarettes is an affront to smart governance as the regulations are in direct contradiction of the scientific evidence showing the public health benefits of vaping, and push the public back to cancer causing tobacco products.”
An Example of Brainwashed Ignorance!
When Setting Regulatory Policy, How Do We Protect Health and Consumer Freedom to Pursue Pleasure?
London, England – In a world first, a broad range of experts will meet in London July 13 at the Royal Society of Medicine to discuss and debate the best way forward for society to regulate consumption of pleasurable substances.
In the public health policy world, pleasure-seeking is pathologized as “addiction” and seen simply as a problem to solve. The symposium will include insights from policymakers, consumers and addiction-treatment experts, and start a constructive dialogue between various stakeholders in the public and the policy world.
It is habitually claimed that addiction to legally-available tobacco and alcohol and a range of illegal psychoactive substances leads to tremendous social and economic harm. However, policymakers’ response to reducing harm from such consumption behaviors often manifests in prohibitionist actions.
“Regulating the pleasure drugs bring is a key responsibility that governments tend to duck. At one extreme they have failed to adequately regulate, and gifted the trade to corporates. At the other extreme prohibition has gifted the market to organized crime groups. Recent moves to legalize cannabis shows government can regulate pleasure whilst promoting citizen wellbeing,” says keynote speaker Danny Kushlick, Director of External Affairs at Transform, an influential think-tank on drug policy.
“If the phenomenon of seeking pleasure through psychoactive substances itself is as old as society, the prominence of the medical profession and the use of medical argumentation are new in the debate. Doctors have taken the role of priests in calling for drastic interventions in the lifestyles of citizens. Proposals for restrictions, higher taxes and tougher penalties have the potential to intrude into the private lives of individuals in the very sphere that they are most keen to protect – their pursuit of pleasure,” argues the chair of the session, Dr. Axel Klein, editor of the policy journalDrugs and Alcohol Today.
The topic of this symposium will also be covered in the forthcoming special issue of the journal.
The symposium promises new insights from an often forgotten stakeholder in such debates: the consumer.
Lorien Jollye, of the vaper advocacy group New Nicotine Alliance, will speak on her ‘relationship with nicotine’: “Something that often gets lost or even ignored in the attempt to ‘cure’ or ‘save’ smokers is the fact that many actually enjoy the habit itself. To be effective, safer nicotine delivery systems have to be pleasurable, which is exactly what vaping is for me. By demonizing the least dangerous part of smoking, nicotine, smokers continue to be classed as patients or victims. It’s time that stopped.”
The event is sponsored by the U.S.-based National Center for Public Policy Research, and Senior Fellow Jeff Stier is keen to “share thoughts on what to look for when considering science used to support pro-regulation arguments, so that scientists, policymakers, and the public are better equipped to digest science in a more rational way, leading to better outcomes.”
The organizers hope that the event will pave the way for future wider debates in public health policy on how the pursuit of pleasure can be protected and integrated in the pursuit of a healthy lifestyle.
For more details: https://www.rsm.ac.uk/events/
Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:
FDA Release of E-Cigarette Rules “Imminent”
House Appropriations Committee Can Take Step to Deter FDA
FY2017 Agriculture Appropriations Bill To Be Debated in Committee Next Wednesday
Washington, DC/New York, NY – The Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products will soon publish its so-called “Deeming Regulations,” the framework for regulating e-cigarettes at the federal level.
The Hill reports the rule’s release may be “imminent.”
According to National Center for Public Policy Research Risk Analysis Director Jeff Stier, “the regulation could require all e-cigarettes that came to market after February 15, 2007, which is essentially all of them, to be removed from the market unless they win onerous pre-market approval.”
“This,” Stier warns, “would give deadly old-school combustible cigarettes an almost insurmountable competitive advantage.”
“The regulation would have the effect, intended or not, of taking e-cigarettes away from former smokers who quit smoking by using these less harmful alternatives,” Stier added.
“This,” says Stier, “is exactly the opposite of what government should be doing, which is to create a regulatory environment that encourages smokers to switch to e-cigarettes, the dramatically less harmful way to get nicotine.”
Stier explains that the 2007 date, known as the “predicate date,” was established by Congress with cigarettes and other tobacco products in mind. “E-cigarettes were in their infancy when Congress gave FDA authority to regulate tobacco. There’s just no public health way of making sense of applying a 2007 predicate date to e-cigarettes, as the FDA stubbornly insists it must.”
According to Stier, “the most immediate thing Congress can do to stop the FDA from killing off the most viable alternative to cigarettes for smokers is to change the predicate date to the effective date of the new FDA rule, likely later this year.”
Stier says “the House Appropriations Committee can change the predicate date, literally giving everyone more breathing room, but it wouldn’t completely reign in the FDA, because the FDA would still seek to hold e-cigarettes that go on the market after that date to innovation-stifling pre-market rules.”
“E-cigarettes are innovative products. Health regulators should put reasonable safety standards in place, rather than put e-cigarettes at a disadvantage to deadly cigarettes, already entrenched in the market,” Stier insists.
Stier met with White House and FDA officials twice as the Obama Administration was considering the Deeming Regulations. He has also given talks at leading conferences around the world on the role of tobacco harm reduction. Stier has also offered his expertise on the matter at the United Nations, as well as in city, state and federal regulatory and legislative hearings around the country. Video of Stier testifying to the Los Angeles City Council is available here and at the United Nations, here.
As Mr. Stier told WCBS TV in New York City last year, “E-cigarettes are a free-market solution to the problem of smoking because people are willfully switching from a very harmful product to dramatically less harmful products.”
Stier is concerned that “if, in the name of public health, federal regulations inhibit much-needed innovation in the e-cigarette market, public health will actually suffer, as fewer adult smokers will be likely to switch from smoking.”
In an op-ed for USA Today, Stier argued, “E-cigarettes aren’t threatening the progress of continued smoking reduction. They are helping even hard-core cigarette smokers quit.”
In an interview with Al Jazeera America’s Ali Velshi, Stier called e-cigarettes “a boon to public health” and a threat to the old way tobacco companies did business.
According to Stier, “It is appropriate for the federal government to regulate e-cigarettes, but as even the FDA’s own chief tobacco regulator has repeatedly acknowledged, the law requires the agency to use science to weigh the potential benefits of e-cigarettes against any potential health risk for both the individual user, as well as the population as a whole.”
When the FDA initially issued the proposed Deeming Regulation in 2014, Stier warned, “If the regulations are too heavy-handed, they’ll have the deadly effect of preventing smokers from quitting by switching to these dramatically less harmful alternatives.”
Stier predicts, “If the Deeming Regulations apply overly-burdensome rules, the industry, consumer groups, and health advocates will come together to challenge the rules in court, as well as in the legislature.”
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced at a ceremony yesterday outside Denver that the greater sage grouse will not be listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Jewell also announced final approval of the federal grouse plans that amend 98 BLM and Forest Service land-use plans to incorporate grouse protections that buffer the bird’s prime breeding habitats from oil and gas development, hardrock mining, transmission lines and wind turbines (Greenwire, Sept. 22).
The federal plans establish primary habitat management areas and general habitat management areas. The 10 million acres of proposed mining withdrawals cover designated “sagebrush focal areas” — a subset of the primary habitat management areas that are considered “essential for the species’ survival,” and which the agencies will “offer the highest protections in these anchor areas,” according to the plans.
Faced with President Obama’s vastly expensive Clean Power Plan to remake the U.S. electrical system and other looming regulatory decisions that dramatically affect energy supplies, Republican lawmakers have renewed their offensive against alleged under-the-table legal collusion between the Administration and environmental lobbyists in the cascading anti-carbon agenda.
Bad science and corrupt bureaucrats turned a beautiful migratory songbird that nests only in Texas into a 1990s terror that good science and concerned citizens are now fighting to exonerate.
The songbird is the golden-cheeked warbler and the fear it instills comes from its status as an endangered species protected by a bureaucracy that confiscates property, bankrupts businesses and imprisons decent people – and we now know that the warbler was never endangered at all.