Heavy hand of regulation

The FDA has decided to regulate e-cigarettes. What a surprise! It fits the pattern that public health will find something wrong with anything to do with tobacco or smoking. Even if they have to make it up or rewrite the rules.

In 1993, the EPA ruled smoking should be banned because the smoke was found to be a carcinogen. The method used to do this was found to have violated the EPA’s and the National Cancer Institute’s guidelines. These failings stopped nothing; tobacco smoke is banned almost everywhere. Now e-cigarettes give off a vapor in the likeness of theater fog (I was at a concert last night where a fog machine ran for almost 90 minutes, no injuries or deaths reported) or a shower (no harm done unless you slip and fall). Water vapor has no harm attached to it. Regulation is still requested, although the smoke is harmless. Why?

The e-cigarette has been greatly praised by smokers and some anti-smokers for a tool to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes. Its effectiveness is much better than other alternatives such as patches, gum and cold turkey. Many ask, why is the FDA ignoring this fact?

This ruling will likely have many lawsuits filed against it. The e-cigarette manufacturers and retailers will have no choice but to go out of business because the hand of regulation will be so heavy and so ill advised.

Losses will be heavy. The anti-smoking regulators put many restaurants and bars out of business, and losses were in the billions nationwide in the past 20 years. The cash reaper may come back to visit again.

The smokers of America are not stupid; they have seen and felt the slap of regulators for decades and now are fed up. If they have to go to the black market to buy e-cigarettes one of these days because of the clueless action of government, they will.

Ask anyone and they will tell you don’t stay in an abusive relationship. Do you hear that, FDA? Smokers will fight back.

Dave Pickrell

Katy, TX

Curbs are the infrastructure

I am growing weary of the armchair experts who sit at home and complain about taxpayer dollars being used to build curbs and sidewalks instead of streets where potholes are located. If they’d been reading The Gazette with any regularity, they would have noticed where “edges” of streets are always built first. City engineers have explained to even casual readers that curbs are the infrastructure against which a new or repaired street surface must rest if it is to live out its life expectancy. Please find something else to complain about, Your letters about repairing street surfaces first are not very constructive.

Jere Joiner

Colorado Springs

A Republican in the White House

Some GOP leaders such as Speaker Paul Ryan seem intent on derailing prospects of getting Donald Trump elected president, failing to recognize the ease with which he soundly defeated the notable Republicans in the primaries such as Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker and John Kasich and senators like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and business executives like Carly Fiorina. Trump stayed on top of the polls since the day he entered the primary race. Ideologue conservative Republicans find it very hard to embrace pragmatic presidential contender Trump regardless of his huge voter following.

It seems Ryan would prefer Hillary Clinton to win the presidency and her stay in the White House for the next eight years, which may not be bad, but what about how the stunning defeat of Trump will affect the GOP standing in the coming decades? Ryan particularly has expressed concern for GOP unity but seems to have made no serious effort to pull Trump and others to achieve this important goal. Since he does not like the Republican nominee, he is willing to cut his proverbial nose than to demonstrate constructive leadership. As for the electability of Trump, it will be a mistake to underestimate him. Trump is extraordinarily bright and an amazing tactician who can defeat the likes of Clinton as he did his primary contenders. If GOP leaders are wise and are able to set aside their extreme conservative ideology in support of Trump, we may most likely have a Republican in the White House early next year.

Kailash Jaitly

Colorado Springs

City inhabited by trashy people

Mary Jean Nelson is spot-on about the trash in Colorado Springs (Monument Valley Park issues, Gazette, May 9). On my daily morning walks taking the same route, I never cease to be amazed at the amount of litter our population distributes on our streets and roadways. Sunday last in addition to the usual litter of cigarette packages, aluminum cans, coffee containers, candy wrappers, plastic sports drink bottles, etc., I collected almost a dozen miniature booze bottles. I was going to say that our fair city is a trashy city, but alas I think a better description is that Colorado Springs is a city inhabited with trashy people.

Denny Modlin

Colorado Springs

Moral influence starts with parents

Regarding your Faith & Values article, “Faith in school,” Page D12, May 8, I feel the propaganda thrown out by The Washington Post and regurgitated in The Gazette is deeply disturbing on many levels. First, the instruction of right and wrong starts with the parents, and, only if they approve, continues with religion. Second, public school is reserved to educate our children in math, English, science, history and civics, among the basics, with physical fitness thrown in to keep their blood flowing. Although the executive director of the Christian Educators, Finn Laursen, says they are not talking about proselytizing, this nonprofit is doing exactly that and undermining the key reasons our public school teachers are hired in the first place; to teach in the particular subject areas I have listed above.

Religion is not, nor should be, one of those subject areas. Teachers are not hired to teach right and wrong from some religious nonprofit’s lesson plan. Nor should teachers bombard students directly or indirectly with religious objects or music. I am sure, if allowed, numerous and varied religions and cults would love to propagandize our kids in public schools, but it should not be allowed for the simple reason that parents, who are accountable and responsible for their kids, must be the primary moral and ethical influence in their children’s lives.

Neil L. Talbott

Colorado Springs