In The Scheme Of Political Issues....

[Jman8]

After watching yet another Republican debate and seeing yet another national platform where vaping politics is ignored, I was thinking this morning about where vaping fits in with other items on the national political agenda.

I get that for non-vapers, it probably doesn't even register. But I am curious for fellow vapers where it fits in for you, in the scheme of political issues of national importance? Me, I would put it ahead of some items that are very popular right now, and (being reasonable) put it behind, or lower than, other things.

So, let's look at say 10 issues of national importance with 1 of those being the vaping issues (and FDA over reach). This list is not in any particular order.

- Vaping rights / legal market survival
- (Illegal) Immigration issues
- Global terrorism / military spending
- Economy / Jobs
- Free Trade / International Economy
- Gun rights / control
- Health Care
- Education
- Government / Tax reform
- Environment / Climate Change

And now what I'm asking is for people that may respond to this is to prioritize that list and place Vaping rights where you honestly feel it is warranted, in YOUR estimation (and not what you think everyone else will see it as). As I don't wish to make this a really long post, I'll save my justifications for why I put what I do where on the list for a separate post, with the idea that if there is a discussion to be had, others will show up and have that debate. Anyway, my prioritized list would look like this:

1 - Economy / Jobs
2 - Health Care
3 - Government / Tax Reform
4 - Vaping Rights
... and the rest

Don't feel like figuring out the other 5 items, but do feel like stating that I honestly put Vaping rights ahead of them. Might not agree with your list, but I am interested in what others say. And if you have "other" things not listed in the 10 considerations (of national importance), feel free to note those.

Also wish to be clear that I think this matters significantly, because we as vapers I feel assume that certain items are more important than Vaping Rights. Whereas I think it impacts many of those items (i.e. Economy / Jobs), plus deals with a bunch of moral / philosophical issues that really ought to be elevated higher than say Climate Change.

 

[roxynoodle]

For me:

1. Economy/jobs
2. Government/Tax reform
3. Terrorism/military
4. Vaping rights.

And when it comes to vaping rights, I'm most angry that my "free" country has become one of oppression and deceit.

 

[AndriaD]

1 Vaping rights / legal market survival
2 Gun rights / control
3 Government / Tax reform
4 Economy / Jobs

5 Free Trade / International Economy
6 (Illegal) Immigration issues

7 Global terrorism / military spending
8 Environment / Climate Change

9 Health Care

X Education

The first 4, I ranked there because all of them pertain to the fundamentals of what this country is SUPPOSED to be about, and how it's either overreaching or actively doing a disservice to the majority of this country's citizens.

The gov't has no business telling us what personal habits we're "allowed" to pursue, when they don't hurt others. Or even when they do -- alcohol is still legal, after all.

Gun rights are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and I believe they were put there to protect us from gov't overreach -- and we may just need them real soon, since it seems inevitable that we face another revolution that will make the last one look like a spitwad battle.

Tax reform needs to be done, but I'm aware that the foxes are in charge of the henhouse on that matter particularly. Hence the need for that revolution.

Ditto that for the economy, the criminals outsourcing American industry to the 3rd world.

The next two are also a matter of American fundamentals, and are very important, though less so than the first 4.

The next two are matters that any sensible inhabitant of planet Earth should realize are important, but given the disparate beliefs and populations of that planet, will be intractable problems for many years to come, and may in fact seal our doom as a species.

I only ranked Health Care in there at all because someone's got to do SOMETHING about for-profit insurance companies and medical facilities, and the gov't is the only big enough to do it -- if they will. I ain't holding my breath.

The gov't should have nothing to say about education, and in fact all gov't money should be removed from education and research, because of the rampant abuses we're seeing such a good example of, with the paid-for, biased "research" on e-cigarettes. This corruption is deep and pervasive, and needs to be rooted out -- but the gov't isn't going to do anything about it; it will fall to individual educational institutions to reject the money that wants preconceived results. I ain't holding my breath on that either, but it's no place for gov't to be or have any influence on.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

So, for those who responded thus far, vaping rates at an average of top 3 consideration for all national issues, and for sure top 5. Hopefully more will respond as I think it helps with perspective.

Economy / Jobs, from what I can tell, would rank on average at #1, followed by Government / Tax Reform, and then Vaping Rights.

 

[Lessifer]

It's definitely in my top five. Healthcare, the economy, education, sexual health/rights/education, then probably vaping.

Vaping could be a single issue vote for me on the immediate local level, national level though, it has to take a back seat.

 

[bigdancehawk]

For me personally, vaping is the most important issue. I would not hesitate to vote against an anti-vaping candidate, regardless of his/her position on other issues. It has broader significance than the mere regulation of a particular category of consumer products. It is a symptom of a much greater, more sinister trend: ever-increasing governmental meddling in virtually every aspect of our existence.
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[Jman8]

Is it that or is it just not that big an issue for them as is to some of us? I'm not going to vote based on their stance on vaping. Bigger issues are at stake in my view.

I'd very much like for you to post (here) what issues you think are bigger and where vaping ranks for you.

 

[Jman8]

The more election season kicks up, the more I find myself becoming a single issue voter (well, that is if I decide to vote). I read through Facebook posts about candidates and as all candidates currently don't have a known position on vaping, then I have to decipher whether or not their positions on other things (namely the economy) would support 'the survival of free market vaping.' Really just a guess on my part, cause it seems quite possible for someone to claim some principle about economics and then send vaping policies into the opposite direction.

But with the items I noted in OP for my list, as being above vaping rights, I feel those things won't change significantly regardless of who's the candidate, with only possible exception being tax reform. I think a certain candidate could change the way income taxes are done, and that would IMO be a bigger deal than vaping. But all current candidates aren't going to drastically change the economy or health care (yeah, I'm considering Sanders in this assertion). Whereas, I do think the next POTUS will possibly have significant impact on vaping rights. They might not, and current signs show they probably won't. But there's a good 10 months left before vaping could make its way onto the national radar for politics. Get at least two of them (and at least one from each party) taking a stance on vaping rights, and I think vaping community would then have reason to believe a certain candidate could greatly influence the politics of vaping rights over the next 4 years.

 

[retired1]

I'd very much like for you to post (here) what issues you think are bigger and where vaping ranks for you.

No. If you want to discuss politics, we have an alternative location for such discussions. As long as it's strictly vaping related, it can remain here, but it's teetering on the edge of being moved.

 

[Jman8]

No. If you want to discuss politics, we have an alternative location for such discussions. As long as it's strictly vaping related, it can remain here, but it's teetering on the edge of being moved.

Well, as you know I can't visit that section and don't know (from what you've written) how to discuss where vaping fits in within scheme of other issues without bringing up those other issues. The good news, for you, is if you move it there, I'll never know.

 

[Jman8]

As perhaps my final post on this thread, I will note that with the two newer posts on the topic since my last update, that vaping remains in the top 3 for respondents to this thread in terms of national political issues. For me currently, it is. Even while I have it at #4, it is far more viable for candidates to have a position on this and do something about it than the other issues I cited, but those are higher for me, in general.

 

[Jman8]

@aceswired - if you care to discuss where vaping (and perhaps I should note, strictly vaping) fits within scheme of other issues, please let us use this thread. For as long as I have access to this thread, I'll be glad to hold that discussion here. I'm game if you, or anyone else is.

So far in this thread, as noted previously, vaping is seen as a top 5 issue for respondents to this thread. Being an election year (for national candidates), I think it stands potential to be a pretty big deal, and elevate to top 10 concern(s) for many voters, but for sure not all voters. I cannot think of but a few issues (i.e. healthcare, economy, education and national security) that honestly affect all voters, and even all those are debatable. But seeing that vaping politics are currently, and quite clearly, in the larger branch of government overreach, I do see possibility for non-vapers to share this as a viable concern. Of all the issues that amount to government overreach, I'm sure there are many differing opinions among entire electorate which one encapsulates that best. On a vaping forum, we can perhaps stick to the vaping politics as one that most encapsulates that position among the electorate.

 

[aceswired]

Jman, I think vaping rights is really important to most everyone on this forum. But as I said (to your chagrin) in another thread, I don't see it as a presidential issue. It is, perhaps, a legislative issue. In terms of a head of state, it is not on my radar in the slightest. As for respondents seeing it as a top 5 issue, I'll simply call sampling bias (in the extreme) and leave it at that.

I care about vaping rights, obviously. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. But, that being said, I recognize it as a pet issue. I have other pet issues, some to do with personal liberties, but they're not of importance in this forum. Because in terms of voting in a presidential context, vaping rights does not register, nor should it. It's a small issue in a world filled with big issues. Doesn't mean I don't care, just that I can see it for what it is, to me. At a legislative level, probably more at the state and municipal level, I think one can argue that vaping rights could be a factor. At the risk of drawing the wrath of the thread, I think that the idea of evaluating a person's suitability as head of state based on something as small as vaping rights would be pretty myopic.

 

[Jman8]

Jman, I think vaping rights is really important to most everyone on this forum. But as I said (to your chagrin) in another thread, I don't see it as a presidential issue. It is, perhaps, a legislative issue. In terms of a head of state, it is not on my radar in the slightest. As for respondents seeing it as a top 5 issue, I'll simply call sampling bias (in the extreme) and leave it at that.

Why leave it that?

I care about vaping rights, obviously. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. But, that being said, I recognize it as a pet issue. I have other pet issues, some to do with personal liberties, but they're not of importance in this forum. Because in terms of voting in a presidential context, vaping rights does not register, nor should it. It's a small issue in a world filled with big issues. Doesn't mean I don't care, just that I can see it for what it is, to me. At a legislative level, probably more at the state and municipal level, I think one can argue that vaping rights could be a factor. At the risk of drawing the wrath of the thread, I think that the idea of evaluating a person's suitability as head of state based on something as small as vaping rights would be pretty myopic.

I'm going to need the myopic thing better explained, if you're up to it.

I hope the risk is worth it if the stuff you said in the other thread is (remotely) accurate in terms of being willing to hold a discussion.

I don't think anyone in this thread is saying it is the only issue of importance for choosing POTUS, but if they are then THAT would be myopic. Otherwise, to put it up as a top issue among many issues (arguably hundreds) is not (even remotely) myopic. So, hopefully you can choose your words better.

I would say it is a big issue for many reasons. I'm glad to list those off if a discussion ensues. Some of them have already been stated by me, most of the ones that occur to me have been said by me or others (likely others) elsewhere on the forum, and perhaps there's a few that haven't been stated or are under stated. I'm up for those being mentioned so we can put into context just how important the issue is and why it would be top 5 or top 10 for some of us.

Lemme know if you care to proceed.

 

[aceswired]

I'm going to need the myopic thing better explained, if you're up to it.

Short-sighted. Simple as that. It's like picking a president based on his position on [removed], or [insert pet issue]. Yes, it may be important to you. But it's not important, and shouldn't be, to the head of state.

Now, your state senator, that might be another issue.

I hope the risk is worth it if the stuff you said in the other thread is (remotely) accurate in terms of being willing to hold a discussion.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here. You question whether I posses the faculties to hold a discussion?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I misread that.

I don't think anyone in this thread is saying it is the only issue of importance for choosing POTUS

I sincerely hope not.

, but if they are then THAT would be myopic. Otherwise, to put it up as a top issue among many issues (arguably hundreds) is not (even remotely) myopic.

Disagreed. Voting, even in part, based on what the head of state (not even a legislator) says about vaping is very much myopic. Yes, if one came out and supported it, that'd make us all feel warm and fuzzy. But it won't make a bit of difference. The president doesn't legislate, and I don't seen an executive order forthcoming to protect vaping rights. The president will have no impact on any of this. None. NADA. That's not what the president does.

So, hopefully you can choose your words better.

See, now you're starting to lose that benefit of the doubt. You invited me over here to discuss. Two posts in and we've got one veiled insult and one not-so-veiled insult. And that's, of course, after direct insults in the other thread.

Lemme know if you care to proceed.

Not if the tone is going to be that which you exhibited ONE post after inviting me to participate here. If it's going to be scolding me and questioning my intellectual ability to follow your fantastic arguments, then no. That's not a discussion I care to have.

I answered your post in good faith. I'm going to need to see a bit more of the same on your part. To be perfectly honest, I don't really care two wits if you think vaping rights is a presidential issue. People pick presidents for all sorts of silly reasons that have nothing to do with the job. It's no skin off my back.

 

[Jman8]

Short-sighted. Simple as that. It's like picking a president based on his position on legalizing *other stuff*, or [insert pet issue]. Yes, it may be important to you. But it's not important, and shouldn't be, to the head of state.

Now, your state senator, that might be another issue.

*Changed wording so as to not violate forum rules.

All issues are pet issues, by the way you are (under) defining it. You have not explained why it is not important to head of state. Keep trying though.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.

I'm not sure how you can't understand it.

Disagreed. Voting, even in part, based on what the head of state (not even a legislator) says about vaping is very much myopic.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Yes, if one came out and supported it, that'd make us all feel warm and fuzzy. But it won't make a bit of difference. The president doesn't legislate, and I don't seen an executive order forthcoming to protect vaping rights. The president will have no impact on any of this. None. NADA. That's not what the president does.

Depending on the candidate, I do see an executive order coming about to undo what the Obama administration DID do about this, that let to FSPTCA and led to an FDA that thought it their business to regulate in the (entirely foolish) way that they are. But, hey let's continue to discuss this, to see if you can back up your rhetoric.

See, now you're starting to lose that benefit of the doubt. You invited me over here to discuss. Two posts in and we've got one veiled insult and one not-so-veiled insult. And that's, of course, after direct insults in the other thread.

Telling you to choose your words better is not intended as insult. I do hope you can choose your words better.

Not if the tone is going to be that which you exhibited ONE post after inviting me to participate here. If it's going to be scolding me and questioning my intellectual ability to follow your fantastic arguments, then no. That's not a discussion I care to have.

Well, then I suggest you just stop responding if you can't handle the discussion.

 

[retired1]

I think we're done here. There are other sub forums that are more suited for these discussion.