Do you even vape brah?

Thanks!

Quote:

The Trump administration is weighing a ban on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes amid a spate of vaping-related illnesses.

I'll wager that the Juul lobby isn't going to win over the much, much larger tobacco interests.

Thanks!

Quote:

The Trump administration is weighing a ban on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes amid a spate of vaping-related illnesses.

I'll wager that the Juul lobby isn't going to win over the much, much larger tobacco interests.

And you think your beloved progressives don't bend the knee to the tobacco interests?

Tobacco companies continue to play a large role in politics, although not as extensively as in the twentieth century.[12] In 1990, the contributions of tobacco lobbies totalled to over $70 million.[12] In 2017, tobacco lobbies paid $21.8 million.[12] Tobacco companies tend to donate more to Republican candidates, contributing over $50 million since 1990 to Republicans, including Vice President Mike Pence.[13]

By the way, JUUL is a tobacco interest. It's 30% owned by Altria.

Tending to contribute to Republicans doesn't mean they don't contribute to Democrats.

In any case, it's not about donations, it's about very welcomed tax revenue.

In any case, it's not about donations, it's about very welcomed tax revenue.

Quote:

In any case, it's not about donations, it's about very welcomed tax revenue.

What's the problem with tax revenue again?

This from the idealist? Ha!

And yet I can't recall any progressive or liberal who has run a campaign that includes the promise of banning cigarettes.

Could it be the progressive candidates are receiving donations too?

The dirty hardly-a-secret is that tobacco products generate enormous amounts of tax revenue that politicians like to spend...

...especially progressives.

Thanks.

Quote:

And yet I can't recall any progressive or liberal who has run a campaign that includes the promise of banning cigarettes.

Maybe your characterization of "progressives" isn't particularly accurate. You seem to want to minimize the extent of libertarian values on the left. Chomsky even describes himself as a "libertarian socialist". There is a sub-set of leftists who appear keen to "ban" assault-style weapons but I think the more realistic progressives simply want to see better control over their sale and tougher standards for firearm ownership. Banning cigarettes is more akin to the Women's Christian Temperance League than to today's progressivism.

You're kidding, right? Have you listened to the 2020 Democrat candidates for POTUS?

Quote:

Could it be the progressive candidates are receiving donations too?

It should be easy to find out. It doesn't bother me if politicians spend the money that they receive from tobacco companies, or Monsanto, or Jeffrey Epstein for that matter. But if it can be shown that their votes are being bought it becomes a problem. And again, it should be relatively easy to detect this behavior.

Take that up with blatham

Quote:

The dirty hardly-a-secret is that tobacco products generate enormous amounts of tax revenue that politicians like to spend...

If politicians weren't so enthusiastic about cutting broad-based taxes government wouldn't be as dependent of tobacco taxes.

Hey, maybe all we need to resolve the national issue of gun violence is to increase taxes on guns and ammo!!

Quote:

...especially progressives.

The current administration has increased military expenditures as tax revenue is falling.

So to offset expenditures on national security we should increase taxes on death-dealing products?

I really can't believe you are making these arguments.

100% agreeing with hightor here.

Have you listened to the 2020 Democrat candidates for POTUS?

So to offset expenditures on national security we should increase taxes on death-dealing products?

I really can't believe you are making these arguments.

what do you propose?