Daily Archives: 17 February, 2013

How Politicians Will Likely Scupper E-Cigs, No Matter How They Are Finally Regulated


by Dick Puddlecote
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DickPuddlecote/~3/feqB8M0CdXc/how-politicians-will-likely-scupper-e.html

How Politicians Will Likely Scupper E-Cigs, No Matter How They Are Finally RegulatedThis is quite sinister and could well be our future.

Two bills recently introduced in Congress would substantially increase federal excise taxes on tobacco products, and probably allow the imposition of new federal excise taxes on e-cigarettes.

Taxes on e-cigs? Why?

Senate Bill 194 would:

Authorize the Treasury Department to impose federal excise taxes on e-cigarettes (also at a rate equivalent to cigarettes) if FDA deems e-cigarettes to be “tobacco products.”

OK, here’s the state of play. Pharma smoking cessation products like patches and gum are close to useless, their success rate has been measured at around 1.6%. Continue reading

Sean Gabb on Gay Marriage


My article has been cut and rearranged to comply with the TakiMag requirements. However, I do commend it. The more people who read it, the more I may be paid!

“I have never shared or understood the moral prejudice against homosexual acts.Even as a boy, I thought the legal penalties were unjust. A quarter of a centuryago, I wrote an essay in which, among much else, I called for gay marriage to beallowed….”

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/let_us_have_gay_marriage_but_not_yet_sean_gabb/print#ixzz2LBk9PWSN

The Royal “Veto”


by D.J. Webb

Do you recall I wrote a short article over Prince Charles vetoing laws in advance? It turns out that any laws that affect Crown rights or property are referred for comment to the Queen or Prince Charles, including, eg asking him his views on the foxhunting law – as he is the owner of a large landed estate. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9873731/Dozens-of-new-laws-sent-to-Prince-so-he-could-give-approval.html

The basis for getting a Royal view in advance is the Erskine May book of parliamentary procedure. But as you can see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erskine_May:_Parliamentary_Practice , this manual was first compiled in 1844 by the clerk of the House of Commons. It’s precepts have no basis in Common Law or statute – it is just one man’s view of how things should be done constitutionally, and probably reflects the view in 1844 that the Crown had a Coronation Oath to keep up and needed to be able to give input. Just because this is how things have been done doesn’t mean in my view they should be done this way. The Queen should have the opportunity to case a royal veto at the end of the process – given the she has spurned her oath in countless ways it seems wrong to accord her any more influence than that.