Regulation offered from within the industry might provide the best of possible outcomes.
Not so good news
- Thread starter Cool_Breeze
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If nothing else, it's a great start .. it shows a willingness to self control without waiting for someone else to shove it down your throat .. the point I find myself making continuously on ECF is the "Industry" (if that's what you want to call it) is held back by greed and fear .. greed for a quick buck, fear that "The Man" is going to step in and take a giant dump on our technology ..
So how does this happen? I guess you need a "Certification Board" (say ECF for example) and then the different websites sign up to become members. So alien Visions, for example, has an "ECF-certified" logo on their website, and they pay a fee to ECF, and ECF in turn comes up with rules and hires inspectors. The inspectors will have to go to China, of course!
The websites, in turn, pass these costs along to their customers, so ECF-certified sites will be slightly more expensive than non-certified sites.
Are there examples of similar small industries where something like this has been acheived successfully?
Samples are sent to the organization .. no trip to China required ..
There are many examples of self regulation .. problem is, they are not always very effective .. Banking and Real Estate come to mind ..
I'm trying to think of smaller industries though -- dry cleaners come to mind -- there have been efforts to self regulate as they use alot of chemicals
There is a good article in a legal summary here: Update May/June 2011 - (31) that sums up the legal battle to date.
The last paragraph says
Maybe we will get lucky and the FDA will actually help the industry? Maybe?
Hi Elaine, I'm mostly on the Pre-vet thread nowadays, or in the Vets forum. I'm glad we won the case, but I do miss the SE vs FDA thread. That's the reason I joined the ECF in the first place.
Julie and I were just chatting on Skype. She misses it too, and you as well!
Members of Professions ban together and petition governments for recognition. This happens from barbering to law. Usually the profession creates standards of knowledge and perhaps practice which qualify individuals for certification. State Boards are funded by the professions themselves and people not qualified by the profession are usually banned from using the title, i.e., "Mixologist." Professions attempt to provide a fundamental set of qualifications in order to protect the public and law protects the professions in their role.
In our area of interest, one qualified might need to know a lot about handling nicotine, effects on the body, more...on and on. One dealing most significantly with nicotine wouldn't need the extensive body of knowledge of a pharmacist, but could well know more than a pharmicist when it comes to the particular topic.
Costs are borne by professionals and their businesses. These costs are passed on to end users. If the profession's aspirations and the demands upon them are kept modest, costs might not be substantial.
One of the benefits of professions over goverment regulatory agencies, is that no bureaus need be set up within government. As well, the standards of individuals can meet those agreeable to the bulk of the profession.
That's how the theory goes.
In our area of interest, one qualified might need to know a lot about handling nicotine, effects on the body, more...on and on. One dealing most significantly with nicotine wouldn't need the extensive body of knowledge of a pharmacist, but could well know more than a pharmicist when it comes to the particular topic.
Costs are borne by professionals and their businesses. These costs are passed on to end users. If the profession's aspirations and the demands upon them are kept modest, costs might not be substantial.
One of the benefits of professions over goverment regulatory agencies, is that no bureaus need be set up within government. As well, the standards of individuals can meet those agreeable to the bulk of the profession.
That's how the theory goes.
I'm trying to think of smaller industries though -- dry cleaners come to mind -- there have been efforts to self regulate as they use alot of chemicals
There is a good article in a legal summary here: Update May/June 2011 - (31) that sums up the legal battle to date.
The last paragraph says
Maybe we will get lucky and the FDA will actually help the industry? Maybe?
Interesting. Actually, Greg Conley and I met the author in June.
A random example that comes to mind. Volvo.
When safety regulations on vehicles were minimal to non existent, Volvo on its own, through its own research and development introduced safety features such as three point safety belts, padded dashboards, laminated windshields etc. They put these features in because they wanted to, they thought it would set them apart from other manufacturers.
Sure these added features did add to the price tag of the car, and it was up to the consumer to decide if these features were worth the extra cash. They had the choice, if protecting their family in a collision was a major concern of theirs then these features were valuable to them.
Up to this point, everything is the way it should have been. Consumers had options and voted with their dollars, and other manufacturers took notice and adjusted their vehicles safety features as the free market demanded.
I'm going to stop there with my example, because the next part has to do with the Government getting involved in vehicle safety and unnaturally forcing it on an industry and consumers.
There are many solutions to the problems we face. I will leave the legistative and regulatory solutions to those more knowledgeable than myself. In my experience, the best counter to the "anti's" or the "true believers" is the truth. Facts and logic will always resound with the general public. Anti's and believers tend to proceed from a weak standpoint. They start with emotion and belief, then use junk science and anecdotal statistics to support those beliefs. Take out the base, and the tower of lies falls.
Most people believe what they're TOLD. A lie, if HEARD often enough, becomes truth. But most people will not believe a lie if they SEE the liar telling it. Since most "anti's" are running with too little knowledge and too much emotion, let people SEE them for what they are.
Case in point:
Rosie O'donnell. She had her own talk show, had hosted children's shows, and was the TV commercial representative for a few major retailers. She was relatively popular and liked by many people. One day on her talk show, she suddenly goes off on Tom Selleck for his being in an NRA ad. Tom remains calm, reasonable, and responds with facts in a logical manner. Rosie counters with increasing volume, excessive emotions, and actions that are generally regarded as personal attacks. She associates unlikely scenarios with statistically improbable outcomes and produces little in the way of facts. Each time, Tom responds calmly until shouted down by Rosie.
Within weeks her show is cancelled, her sponsors pull her contracts, and she is regarded by most people as some sort of fringe wacko. Her career takes nearly a decade to even start a slow recovery. Even then, she still bears the stigma of her previous actions. She has lost all credibility with most folks.
Nothing she said during any of her rants is particularly unusual. The information can be easily located on a dozen different news sites and anti-whatever blogs. The information is readily believed by many people. When it is READ.
When anti's write, they have the benefit of behavioral anonimity. When people read information, they internalize it in their own fashion. In a way, people self-edit the data then apply it to their own experiences. It's an innoculation of a sort. It makes the information seem more reasonable. If the author was to say it aloud during a speech, the credibility of the information becomes questionable because the audience can see the telltale signs of obfuscation. Don't believe me? Read a politician's speech, then watch it as it's delivered.
When no questions are asked, the speaker will seem intelligent. But when debate is raised and questions come, if the facts are against them, they will respond just as Rosie did. With emotion, shouting, and vitriol.
People have been told that PV's don't work, are toxic, are full of anti-freeze, and make you look like some sort of deviant or drug abuser.
I believe the best counter to these lies is to SHOW the truth. Instead of discreetly sneaking around or otherwise concealing the nature of your actions, be open. Let people see you vaping. Their curiosity will lead them to you and you can lead them to the truth.
Understanding human nature is the key to this. Here's an example.
You go wandering through Walmart, vaping away. Odds are someone will see you and have some sort of panic attack. Society is full of tattle-tales with knee-jerk reactions. They create a scene and direct attention towards you as if you were sacrificing an infant in the housewares aisle. Store employees will undoubtedly ask you to stop. Anything you say at this point will be futile. The crowd will only interpret your actions as a lame attempt at an excuse. Now people associate vaping as some sort of deviant, sneaky means to smoke indoors. The snitchy little "anti" goes home with the sense of positive achievement and spreads their tale of social heroism to their friends.
Doesn't do much to help. Now on the other hand....
I vape openly as I walk through parking lots or outdoors on my way to whatever I'm doing. I almost never use a device which could never be mistaken for a cigarette. People occasionally notice me and usually express curiousity. I'm friendly and approachable. So I tell them what I'm doing. I explain how the device works and how well it has worked for me. People become educated without even knowing it.
I routinely visit the Hard Rock casino in Tampa. The casino allows smoking nearly everywhere. The one place where smoking is an immediately noticeable no-no is the poker room. Every pit boss, dealer, and a quite a few players will dog pile you with warnings to stop immediately. Vaping, on the other hand, is totally acceptable there. When I sit at a table, I start vaping away. Pit bosses and dealers will take a quick look at you and see that it's a PV. They then proceed to say that "its OK".
This always causes nearly every player within visual range to look at me for an explanation. They ask me, if they're near enough, or they ask their table's dealer what am I doing. Explanations come. Some ask for local retailers, some ask for websites, others just nod their heads in understanding. I'm friendly, helpful, open, and polite. Made quite a few converts over the years.
If you vape where you are authorized and the staff backs you up, people will accept your behaviors and come to you for knowledge. If you get pointed out as some sort of walking plague daring to infect the poor innocent bystanders with second-hand whatever, people will look at vaping as deviant.
Any "anti" that has raised a stink in public over my vaping has always ended up looking like what they really are. An idiot. When the foolish nature of their incorrect assumptions is brought to light in public, they become incredibly embarassed and do whatever they can to scurry away from attention.
Best thing to do is to face the problem. We are ambassadors of vaping. We have experience and knowledge that many do not have. We should give this to others freely. If we do so in a polite, friendly manner, people will associate vaping with polite and friendly people. If we use the "in-your-face" approach, people will respond as any human does when confronted with aggression. We really want public opinion on our side.
I would also recommend public gatherings. Attend local vaper's meets, conventions, and gatherings. People will see the true face of vaping. Decent everyday folks getting together and having fun. Their curiousity is your opportunity to educate.
Very soon, the existence of vaping will be common knowledge to the general public. It is our responsibility to make sure that the knowledge is correct and positive. We can do this by sharing what we know. We can join groups like CASAA or local vapers clubs. Anything useful is helpful.
......even if it is only posting long winded rants
Most people believe what they're TOLD. A lie, if HEARD often enough, becomes truth. But most people will not believe a lie if they SEE the liar telling it. Since most "anti's" are running with too little knowledge and too much emotion, let people SEE them for what they are.
Case in point:
Rosie O'donnell. She had her own talk show, had hosted children's shows, and was the TV commercial representative for a few major retailers. She was relatively popular and liked by many people. One day on her talk show, she suddenly goes off on Tom Selleck for his being in an NRA ad. Tom remains calm, reasonable, and responds with facts in a logical manner. Rosie counters with increasing volume, excessive emotions, and actions that are generally regarded as personal attacks. She associates unlikely scenarios with statistically improbable outcomes and produces little in the way of facts. Each time, Tom responds calmly until shouted down by Rosie.
Within weeks her show is cancelled, her sponsors pull her contracts, and she is regarded by most people as some sort of fringe wacko. Her career takes nearly a decade to even start a slow recovery. Even then, she still bears the stigma of her previous actions. She has lost all credibility with most folks.
Nothing she said during any of her rants is particularly unusual. The information can be easily located on a dozen different news sites and anti-whatever blogs. The information is readily believed by many people. When it is READ.
When anti's write, they have the benefit of behavioral anonimity. When people read information, they internalize it in their own fashion. In a way, people self-edit the data then apply it to their own experiences. It's an innoculation of a sort. It makes the information seem more reasonable. If the author was to say it aloud during a speech, the credibility of the information becomes questionable because the audience can see the telltale signs of obfuscation. Don't believe me? Read a politician's speech, then watch it as it's delivered.
When no questions are asked, the speaker will seem intelligent. But when debate is raised and questions come, if the facts are against them, they will respond just as Rosie did. With emotion, shouting, and vitriol.
People have been told that PV's don't work, are toxic, are full of anti-freeze, and make you look like some sort of deviant or drug abuser.
I believe the best counter to these lies is to SHOW the truth. Instead of discreetly sneaking around or otherwise concealing the nature of your actions, be open. Let people see you vaping. Their curiosity will lead them to you and you can lead them to the truth.
Understanding human nature is the key to this. Here's an example.
You go wandering through Walmart, vaping away. Odds are someone will see you and have some sort of panic attack. Society is full of tattle-tales with knee-jerk reactions. They create a scene and direct attention towards you as if you were sacrificing an infant in the housewares aisle. Store employees will undoubtedly ask you to stop. Anything you say at this point will be futile. The crowd will only interpret your actions as a lame attempt at an excuse. Now people associate vaping as some sort of deviant, sneaky means to smoke indoors. The snitchy little "anti" goes home with the sense of positive achievement and spreads their tale of social heroism to their friends.
Doesn't do much to help. Now on the other hand....
I vape openly as I walk through parking lots or outdoors on my way to whatever I'm doing. I almost never use a device which could never be mistaken for a cigarette. People occasionally notice me and usually express curiousity. I'm friendly and approachable. So I tell them what I'm doing. I explain how the device works and how well it has worked for me. People become educated without even knowing it.
I routinely visit the Hard Rock casino in Tampa. The casino allows smoking nearly everywhere. The one place where smoking is an immediately noticeable no-no is the poker room. Every pit boss, dealer, and a quite a few players will dog pile you with warnings to stop immediately. Vaping, on the other hand, is totally acceptable there. When I sit at a table, I start vaping away. Pit bosses and dealers will take a quick look at you and see that it's a PV. They then proceed to say that "its OK".
This always causes nearly every player within visual range to look at me for an explanation. They ask me, if they're near enough, or they ask their table's dealer what am I doing. Explanations come. Some ask for local retailers, some ask for websites, others just nod their heads in understanding. I'm friendly, helpful, open, and polite. Made quite a few converts over the years.
If you vape where you are authorized and the staff backs you up, people will accept your behaviors and come to you for knowledge. If you get pointed out as some sort of walking plague daring to infect the poor innocent bystanders with second-hand whatever, people will look at vaping as deviant.
Any "anti" that has raised a stink in public over my vaping has always ended up looking like what they really are. An idiot. When the foolish nature of their incorrect assumptions is brought to light in public, they become incredibly embarassed and do whatever they can to scurry away from attention.
Best thing to do is to face the problem. We are ambassadors of vaping. We have experience and knowledge that many do not have. We should give this to others freely. If we do so in a polite, friendly manner, people will associate vaping with polite and friendly people. If we use the "in-your-face" approach, people will respond as any human does when confronted with aggression. We really want public opinion on our side.
I would also recommend public gatherings. Attend local vaper's meets, conventions, and gatherings. People will see the true face of vaping. Decent everyday folks getting together and having fun. Their curiousity is your opportunity to educate.
Very soon, the existence of vaping will be common knowledge to the general public. It is our responsibility to make sure that the knowledge is correct and positive. We can do this by sharing what we know. We can join groups like CASAA or local vapers clubs. Anything useful is helpful.
......even if it is only posting long winded rants
is it just me or does "Cobb and Abrams" sound like the name of some cheesy comedy duo?
EDIT: yeah, you know what? they're the new Beevis and Butthead. I can just see it now: "uhhhhhhhuhuhuhuuhuu hey Abrams uhuhuuuhhuh E-cigs suck" "yeah! yeah! heheheheheh they suck so much they like... aren't approved by the fda... and stuff hehehe heheh hhehe" "uhuhuuhh yeah this is like... a good article... right?" "yeah! we're going to make so much money doing this... I think!" "uhuhuhuuhuhuhuhuhuhuh" "heheheheheheheheheeh"
EDIT: yeah, you know what? they're the new Beevis and Butthead. I can just see it now: "uhhhhhhhuhuhuhuuhuu hey Abrams uhuhuuuhhuh E-cigs suck" "yeah! yeah! heheheheheh they suck so much they like... aren't approved by the fda... and stuff hehehe heheh hhehe" "uhuhuuhh yeah this is like... a good article... right?" "yeah! we're going to make so much money doing this... I think!" "uhuhuhuuhuhuhuhuhuhuh" "heheheheheheheheheeh"
Last edited:
I like how they immediately throw bupropion out there at the end.
Given the choice between vaping PG and nicotine (no proven long-term harm yet) versus taking bupropion, I think I'll take the risk and vape, thank you very much. Bupropion's side effects include seizures, depression and thoughts of suicide(if you exhibit the depression-related symptoms, your odds of experiencing bupropion-related seizures inexplicably DOUBLES) and tremors, sweating, increased seizure susceptibility, arrhythmia, pulse rate blood pressure and other cardiovascular oddities. Its metabolites can even throw off the more sensitive amphetamine drug tests and threaten your job!
Three people have had acute liver infections connected with their taking of this stuff: ScienceDirect - Digestive and Liver Disease : Acute cholestatic hepatitis induced by bupropion prescribed as pharmacological support to stop smoking. A case report -- That's right, they got hepatitis. When they stopped taking bupropion, their symptoms cleaned up and their bodies went back to normal.
So, no thanks, I'm good.
Given the choice between vaping PG and nicotine (no proven long-term harm yet) versus taking bupropion, I think I'll take the risk and vape, thank you very much. Bupropion's side effects include seizures, depression and thoughts of suicide(if you exhibit the depression-related symptoms, your odds of experiencing bupropion-related seizures inexplicably DOUBLES) and tremors, sweating, increased seizure susceptibility, arrhythmia, pulse rate blood pressure and other cardiovascular oddities. Its metabolites can even throw off the more sensitive amphetamine drug tests and threaten your job!
Three people have had acute liver infections connected with their taking of this stuff: ScienceDirect - Digestive and Liver Disease : Acute cholestatic hepatitis induced by bupropion prescribed as pharmacological support to stop smoking. A case report -- That's right, they got hepatitis. When they stopped taking bupropion, their symptoms cleaned up and their bodies went back to normal.
So, no thanks, I'm good.
Tinstar!! Beautifully said!! I try to educate in the same peaceful way. I vape in the smoking area of the hospitals I work at... same thing. We are adults and know "smoking is bad". Other nurses are curious and some have evolved. Great post!! 
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
