Presidential Candidates that are pro vaping?

[Jman8]

I currently don't know of any candidates that are (for sure) pro vaping. So, I'm curious if anyone else does? Not looking for which party is more likely to support vaping rights cause that I feel is either 'known' to me or is just way too speculative. I'm looking to keep this thread going for noting 2016 U.S. presidential candidates that are fairly clear in their position on eCigs, with clear understanding this thread is mostly to help note which ones are actually pro-vaping.

Ideally, the vaping community does everything in its power to make it so current candidates are on the record for where they stand on eCigs. If FDA deeming is done in 2016, and even before next candidate is chosen, it could still be a pivotal issue for the elections given stances that certain candidates might actually take.

Cited sources to back up claims of where a candidate stands are highly encouraged.

 

[snork]

Some time back I questioned Sanders' campaign and got no response.

 

[Jman8]

Some time back I questioned Sanders' campaign and got no response.

Doesn't help much with what this thread is aiming for, but does help inspire what this thread hopes to achieve. If 50 of us made it a point to ask each candidate, I think we'd get some responses. Unless the FDA thing really blows up into massive media story, I don't know if any candidate will go on record unless we vapers are making it a point (in a CTA type way) to politely ask for their position.

 

[nicnik]

I currently don't know of any candidates that are (for sure) pro vaping. So, I'm curious if anyone else does? Not looking for which party is more likely to support vaping rights cause that I feel is either 'known' to me or is just way too speculative. I'm looking to keep this thread going for noting 2016 U.S. presidential candidates that are fairly clear in their position on eCigs, with clear understanding this thread is mostly to help note which ones are actually pro-vaping.

Ideally, the vaping community does everything in its power to make it so current candidates are on the record for where they stand on eCigs. If FDA deeming is done in 2016, and even before next candidate is chosen, it could still be a pivotal issue for the elections given stances that certain candidates might actually take.

Cited sources to back up claims of where a candidate stands are highly encouraged.

As far as I know, they've all been totally silent on the issue. I'm trying to recall how the recent votes in congress went on that insertion into the Agriculture bill. Did the full Senate have a vote on it? If so, maybe one or some of the Senators running for President voted.

I figure that their silence is the result of a political calculation, and that they won't speak about it as long as they can get away with their silence. It might be easier to get reporters to ask them their positions, than to get them to respond to our inquiries. There also, could be an opening by submitting questions when debates take some questions from social media, but that still depends on the network choosing the question.

 

[r77r7r]

.

 

[WillyZee]

Obama should be vaping instead of sneaking cigarettes

 

[nicnik]

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.

There are huge investments in Presidential campaigns, and people involved are fearful of making mistakes. They do not want to be caught off guard, and I am nearly convinced each and every one of them has made a conscious decision to be silent for now, but have formed, or are forming responses in case they are asked.

Yes, they are not likely to have anywhere near the interest in the issue as we do, but in a sense, have a lot more at stake. If they stumble politically over it, it could cost them dearly, even if their pro or anti vaping views win, should their bid for the Presidency fail in part on account of bungling either their stance, or the way they communicate it.

I am not, and will not be a one issue voter. I will vote for Sanders, even if he turns anti-vaping, unless he goes too far, similar to how Senator Durbin, or Senator Boxer, for example, have dealt with vaping. The issue is of HUGE importance. Millions of lives are at stake.

 

[Jman8]

Sorry. This thread isn't for discussing issues and where vaping fits in. If you'd like to do that, please go to other thread I started awhile back that is set up just for that. I actually have preference on that thread over this one, but wanted to keep this specifically to information on candidates that actually support vaping.

I do think it is in our best interest to not allow them to remain silent on this issue. But probably easier for us to organize a CTA when there are fewer candidates. Someone getting around 3% in polls right now isn't likely to do much with 50+ vapers contacting them on this issue. But if down to say 2 to 3 candidates in each party and a CTA that puts them on the spot, could be a wondrous thing.

 

[retired1]

But if down to say 2 to 3 candidates in each party and a CTA that puts them on the spot, could be a wondrous thing.

Bear in mind. Politicians lie, and they lie big. Anything to get a vote. Then once they're in office, it's "Oh so sorry, we can't do that."

 

[Jman8]

Bear in mind. Politicians lie, and they lie big. Anything to get a vote. Then once they're in office, it's "Oh so sorry, we can't do that."

Very good point. I wish I had counter argument for this but I do not. Still would be somewhat comforting to hear their position on it while they are running. I'd rather feel like our community's main topic is on their radar rather than ignored.

 

[nicnik]

As far as I know, they've all been totally silent on the issue.

I forgot how Kasich proposed a bill in Ohio, to tax vaping at a rate well over 100%, last year. I think the bill included increased cigarette taxes and a very big tax increase on smokeless tobacco, but the vaping part got dropped and the rest of it went through. I think.

 

[Jman8]

I forgot how Kasich proposed a bill in Ohio, to tax vaping at a rate well over 100%, last year. I think the bill included increased cigarette taxes and a very big tax increase on smokeless tobacco, but the vaping part got dropped and the rest of it went through. I think.

Unlike.

 

[roxynoodle]

Kasich raised cigarettes 40 cents per pack and wanted (IIRC) a 40 cents per ml tax on e liquids in the budget bill. They passed the cigarette part, but not the e liquid.

 

[spartanstew]

If I listed 100 things that were important to me regarding a politician and his/her stance, I don't think vaping would make the list.

 

[Grimwald]

If I listed 100 things that were important to me regarding a politician and his/her stance, I don't think vaping would make the list.

Everything being equal, I would consider a politician's stance on vaping...but it's way down my list of priorities.

In some respects I wonder if making vaping an issue, at least a public issue, is all that wise. I mean, if you took a vote on the issue, vaping would likely lose. IMO, more education of the public is needed.

 

[Jman8]

If I listed 100 things that were important to me regarding a politician and his/her stance, I don't think vaping would make the list.

I have another thread in this same subform where I did a list of 10 things. For respondents to that thread, the average is it is a top 3 item of importance. For me it is around #3 or #4.

On a vaping forum, during an election year, I would think it would be a fairly important consideration.

 

[mcclintock]

I don't think presidential candidates are going to want to commit. Non-vaper non-smokers would mostly be against anyone for vaping, or maybe even just saying anything.

One reason vaping is an important topic in government is they are causing a problem, if they'd keep their hands off it wouldn't be. It's also a metaphor for government as a whole:
corrupt uninformed people determined to show how much they "care" about people by treating laws as the solution for all problems.

 

[aceswired]

If I listed 100 things that were important to me regarding a politician and his/her stance, I don't think vaping would make the list.

My thinking as well. Think big picture folks, not micro pet issues.

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[Rossum]

Think big picture folks, not micro pet issues.

Except it it tell you a lot about someone's mindset. Kinda like the former mayor of NYC who wanted to ban soft drinks above a certain size. That's just a small thing, but it tells you a lot about he views things. FWIW, he's now considering a run as an independent.

 

[Jman8]

I think honestly that non-smoking non vapers don't care either way about vaping. I think they are made to care when something comes up in media. If they are against it, I think we all know why that would be, and it wouldn't be because of something they just came up with on their own.

Really, the presidential issue is microcosm of what we are up against. If not even going to register on the national political radar, then what's the point of any CTA? Perhaps good for some local fights, I'd grant that, but why even contest FDA deeming if not something that is on national radar and/or considered a 'pet issue' by vapers?

IMO, it truly is a bigger deal than other issues, and for sure has something that can be done about it in a viable way. Education or say global warming, not so much. Though I recognize all non-vapers will treat those like a huge deal, but won't see ANY viable changes on that front in the next 8 (or 80) years.

This thread wasn't meant for this type of discussion, and yet, as long as there isn't any mention of the issue from national candidates, it seems like this type of discussion is all that can be had for now.