When visiting the legislation news area, which I like to do periodically, I see there are more states now pushing for some sort of ban of some sort.
My thinking when I see those type of threads are:
- okay, this really really sucks
- I'm glad I don't live in that state / location
- screw that second point, I want to fight this on principle
And yet, I don't know how feasible it is to fight the larger, principled, fight on 50+ different fronts. Instead, our opposition is engaging in divide (by state/locale) and conquer, and proceed accordingly.
I'm not sure what the way around that is. Even if me and say 50 other ECF people (or other vapers elsewhere) were committed to fighting the fight everywhere, we'd have a lot of work to do and have to put a bunch of things (like work and family) on the back burner, just to stay up.
But as opposition seems to use the exact same talking points and pitiful rhetoric to make their current version of banning seem easier to swallow, I do want to counter that. And right about now, I'm thinking a standardized version that says the same thing regardless of location would be more effective than not fighting a bill because I don't live there.
Perhaps a current vaping advocacy group already has this covered and I'm missing something (fairly important) in this diatribe of a post. If that is the case, please remind me of where that is.
I think a few hundred, to a couple million, of us fighting each of these in pretty much the same way would work more effectively than 10 to 50 of us fighting them individually and adapting our counter strategy to the particulars of a locale.
Telling me to write my congress person when I've done that numerous times and I don't live in your locale where current version of banning is taking place doesn't seem all that helpful. I'm inclined to write YOUR congress person to let them know we understand the game being played at the national level and that dividing and conquering us can be tried, but it will fail. And we'll see to it that it does.
Feedback?
My thinking when I see those type of threads are:
- okay, this really really sucks
- I'm glad I don't live in that state / location
- screw that second point, I want to fight this on principle
And yet, I don't know how feasible it is to fight the larger, principled, fight on 50+ different fronts. Instead, our opposition is engaging in divide (by state/locale) and conquer, and proceed accordingly.
I'm not sure what the way around that is. Even if me and say 50 other ECF people (or other vapers elsewhere) were committed to fighting the fight everywhere, we'd have a lot of work to do and have to put a bunch of things (like work and family) on the back burner, just to stay up.
But as opposition seems to use the exact same talking points and pitiful rhetoric to make their current version of banning seem easier to swallow, I do want to counter that. And right about now, I'm thinking a standardized version that says the same thing regardless of location would be more effective than not fighting a bill because I don't live there.
Perhaps a current vaping advocacy group already has this covered and I'm missing something (fairly important) in this diatribe of a post. If that is the case, please remind me of where that is.
I think a few hundred, to a couple million, of us fighting each of these in pretty much the same way would work more effectively than 10 to 50 of us fighting them individually and adapting our counter strategy to the particulars of a locale.
Telling me to write my congress person when I've done that numerous times and I don't live in your locale where current version of banning is taking place doesn't seem all that helpful. I'm inclined to write YOUR congress person to let them know we understand the game being played at the national level and that dividing and conquering us can be tried, but it will fail. And we'll see to it that it does.
Feedback?
