19 Aug 14 - Bill Godshall - Another View: The Pros of Electronic Cigarettes

[Kent C]

aubergine: I agree with what you say there, except I don't think the regulation of cigarettes is a good thing. It (and the demonizing) was the precedent that has allowed easier entry (since 'everyone agrees') into regulations (and demonizing) of ecigs, snus, etc.

 

[aubergine]

Wait. wv2win AND Kent C just 'liked' that post.
And I'm a bleedin' liberal.
I must be losing my grip.
wv3win, you can't possibly say what you just did, and agree with a large part of what I wrote.
Kent C can and still be consistent.

Onward and upward. Peace and Love.

 

[aubergine]

aubergine: I agree with what you say there, except I don't think the regulation of cigarettes is a good thing. It (and the demonizing) was the precedent that has allowed easier entry (since 'everyone agrees') into regulations (and demonizing) of ecigs, snus, etc.

Ya, I'm wobbly on that one myself. I actually deleted that before I saw your post here. I hate 'em in a personal and emotional way because of the death of my mother, and the consequences of my own choice to use them, but that sort of governmental pogrom against anything that ought to be a matter of choice is ultimately noxious and often leads to further regulatory excess.

 

[twgbonehead]

This mostly excellent article pisses me off. Bill, CUT OUT THE PARTISANSHIP!!!

You come across exactly the wrong way. Even disregarding the political bias which is not even apparent, it is totally IN YOUR FACE,

EVERY time you mention Obama you put the dialogue back to Blame, rather than to Progress.

Want to change things? The worst way to do it is to say "Well, it's the purple ones who got us here. We're the orange ones, and we think it needs to change".

Are you interested in blame, or progress?

Gotta say as an avid vaping supporter, and a disgusted liberal (ex-democrat), I still find Bill's article offensive and ineffective. A lot of solid content, totally compromised by "Obama this, Obama that".

 

[wv2win]

Wait. wv2win AND Kent C just 'liked' that post.
And I'm a bleedin' liberal.
I must be losing my grip.
wv3win, you can't possibly say what you just did, and agree with a large part of what I wrote.
Kent C can and still be consistent.

Onward and upward. Peace and Love.

Your points were relevant and not partisan. And you clearly stated in part of your comments, what Kent, DC, Anja and many of us have stated, that this IS a political issue caused by this current administration and their allies in Congress, which happen to all be part of one party. I have nearly bitten my tongue cleanly off, by not writing in more depth what I think about the support I see from some on this forum for this administration and how vaping is just one issue in a long line of policy decisions, that have one thing in common: dictating how we live. But I don't delve into those other issues because, although I see a connection, it won't advance the cause of keeping vaping from being regulated out of existence. All I will say is: how we vote does have consequences. If only for this one upcoming election, the attack on vaping could be stopped, if the control of the Senate changed hands. I would hope that everyone who vapes considers this reality.

 

[Kent C]

There are so many more important things that effect me and the future of my kids.

 

[aubergine]

I "liked" Grimwald because I think this camp has been suppressed in here and doesn't get to self-define without the accusation that they're on the side of the enemy. Not so, unless Grimwald is unwilling to oppose his party on this issue. Which I doubt. He/she doesn't have to be willing to vote Republican (I never will, either) - he/she has only to have this quarrel within his own party.
It happened immediately and bingo.
Better in here that no one has to feel the need to declare a strong general political position in defiance of another. Better that we honor one another's reasons for being here in common cause, and focus.
And now I'm doing the cheerleader, shoulder-to-shoulder thing, and that's sort of cheesy, and I'm going to go play poker with my granddaughter.

 

[Kent C]

Ya, I'm wobbly on that one myself. I actually deleted that before I saw your post here. I hate 'em in a personal and emotional way because of the death of my mother, and the consequences of my own choice to use them, but that sort of governmental pogrom against anything that ought to be a matter of choice is ultimately noxious and often leads to further regulatory excess.

We're in sync then


Your mom, my dad - they made choices. I disagree with much of the second-hand smoke stuff, so cigs are an individual choice - see the 'vices aren't crimes' stuff by Spooner, that I've linked before. It's where Bill and I would part as well. Did you catch my 'levelers' wink?

 

[Kent C]

I "liked" Grimwald because I think this camp has been suppressed in here and doesn't get to self-define without the accusation that they're on the side of the enemy. Not so, unless Grimwald is unwilling to oppose his party on this issue. Which I doubt. He/she doesn't have to be willing to vote Republican (I never will, either) - he/she has only to have this quarrel within his own party.
It happened immediately and bingo.
Better in here that no one has to feel the need to declare a strong general political position in defiance of another. Better that we honor one another's reasons for being here in common cause, and focus.
And now I'm doing the cheerleader, shoulder-to-shoulder thing, and that's sort of cheesy, and I'm going to go play poker with my granddaughter.

I'm glad s/he 'feels good about it'. That's about it. Again, if the 'Obama's FDA' issue doesn't come up (it's been discussed elsewhere), you don't hear from me, other than praise for Bill's piece.

 

[aubergine]

KentC: We're in sync then

Dear Gawd, I need a drink.

"Did you catch my 'levelers' wink?

Oh yes. Leveraging the table. All for a good cause. Right?

 

[Kent C]

Dear Gawd, I need a drink.

 

[Rossum]

You can't just walk away and not blame anybody - somebody must be responsible for the millions of preventable deaths that will occur if the FDA have their way. So who is that person or persons?

IMO, if anyone is responsible, it's the electorate at large, because they keep voting for people who openly advocate various nanny-state policies, both on the left and the right; an electorate that wants somebody else to look out for them, to keep them safe from various boogy men; an electorate that has abdicated personal responsibility; an electorate that believes it has the moral authority to dictate others' behavior, even when that behavior does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

 

[BuGlen]

I "liked" Grimwald because I think this camp has been suppressed in here and doesn't get to self-define without the accusation that they're on the side of the enemy. Not so, unless Grimwald is unwilling to oppose his party on this issue. Which I doubt. He/she doesn't have to be willing to vote Republican (I never will, either) - he/she has only to have this quarrel within his own party.
It happened immediately and bingo.
Better in here that no one has to feel the need to declare a strong general political position in defiance of another. Better that we honor one another's reasons for being here in common cause, and focus.
And now I'm doing the cheerleader, shoulder-to-shoulder thing, and that's sort of cheesy, and I'm going to go play poker with my granddaughter.

I very much agree with the part that I bolded, as most of the rest, with the exception of never voting Republican. I would actually prefer that the libertarian candidates run on the independent ticket, but I would vote for one on the Republican ticket if there was a candidate that didn't move so far right during the primaries. Maybe we'll see a fully formed Libertarian party during my lifetime, not that I'd join that party (or any party), but it would be great to have another major party choice during elections.

With that said, I do have MAD RESPECT for people who affiliate with a political party and openly (and loudly) oppose certain factions of that party. This is exactly what's needed to bring the party back inline with the will of the people that are members, and I've seen more of that on this forum than most places. That's just one of the things that keeps bringing me back here, along with the fact that even the partisan discussions are very civil and constructive.

 

[Sirius]

And this is the correct answer, for those who aren't aware of the correct answer, or wish it weren't the correct answer.


It would be nice it we could make this whole forum apolitical.
Or at least these legislative discussions.

But really?

These discussions, which are based on political legislation, are political by their very nature.

And there is one party that has been hounding the FDA to destroy what is best for us as vapers.
And it IS NOT the Republicans, and it is NOT the Libertarians.

That's a hard pill to swallow for some.
But the facts are not changed by how hard the pill is to swallow.

And please don't bother posting exceptions to the rule, because that just distracts from what is REALLY happening.

This is like ...the second or third post on regulation that I completely agree with 100%..I can add no more. Kudos DC2!

 

[Kent C]

BuGlen: I would actually prefer that the libertarian candidates run on the independent ticket,

Me too.

but I would vote for one on the Republican ticket if there was a candidate that didn't move so far right during the primaries.

I have. But one must be really informed before and that doesn't always ensure - but not voting the next time or running a primary candidate against them really helps.

Maybe we'll see a fully formed Libertarian party during my lifetime, not that I'd join that party (or any party),

Me neither

 

[Grimwald]

I "liked" Grimwald because I think this camp has been suppressed in here and doesn't get to self-define without the accusation that they're on the side of the enemy. Not so, unless Grimwald is unwilling to oppose his party on this issue. Which I doubt. He/she doesn't have to be willing to vote Republican (I never will, either) - he/she has only to have this quarrel within his own party.
It happened immediately and bingo.
Better in here that no one has to feel the need to declare a strong general political position in defiance of another. Better that we honor one another's reasons for being here in common cause, and focus.
And now I'm doing the cheerleader, shoulder-to-shoulder thing, and that's sort of cheesy, and I'm going to go play poker with my granddaughter.

And I thank you.

Perhaps I did not do a good job illustrating not my point. What I was trying to say was that the FDA actions are just not a voting issue for most people. They will not even change my vote and I'm a well informed avid vaper.

My point is that we need to educate and inform non-vapers, because the only way you win this, or any other argument, is thru public opinion. When you write an article for publication, or an editorial, or just blog a comment on another's article, you need to try to reach everyone. If you continue to tick off 1/2 the population, you don't win.

The same argument applies to those organizations who want members and contributions to promote vaping. Keep it non-partisan and you will get more support.

Just my again.

 

[Kent C]

What I was trying to say was that the FDA actions are just not a voting issue for most people. They will not even change my vote and I'm a well informed avid vaper.

My point is that we need to educate and inform non-vapers, because the only way you win this, or any other argument, is thru public opinion. When you write an article for publication, or an editorial, or just blog a comment on another's article, you need to try to reach everyone. If you continue to tick off 1/2 the population, you don't win.

Words mean things. "Win" in this subject means changing regulations or stopping them. The only way to do that is through the political process. That means there has to be more than half the population of Congress that supports those ideas. There isn't right now. For us to 'win', that has to change.

For that to change, then some people will have to change their minds about for whom they vote. Since you and a few others here, are never going to vote for some people who might make a difference, but will continue to vote for Harkin, Rockefeller, Durbin, Boxer... or their types, then if Bill or anyone else 'tick's you off' doesn't mean that he tick's off 1/2 the population because there are some people who may think vaping or just individual rights (even just to vape or not vape) are important, and would have a better understanding how to help bring that about. If his pieces convince 51%, then there's a chance for 'winning'. As for the other 49% .... oh well.

I've been in that 'oh well' group on some issues. It just inspires me to be more informative for those looking for information. I know, I'll never change your minds, but that has never been my intent. It has happened, but again, never my intent.

 

[Sirius]

One way of looking at this is to make this an individual issue: name and shame the politicians who want to protect smoking, ban ecigs, and force us back to smoking (for whatever reason/s). That way it isn't a political issue so much as one of unexplainable actions by an individual politician in a position of power, rather than by their party.

I believe that is what has been asked for by the Democrat supporters in this thread?

If you re-read Bill's article, there aren't many mentions of Dems or GOP, he goes after Obama. That seems to accord with the preceding request.

You can't just walk away and not blame anybody - somebody must be responsible for the millions of preventable deaths that will occur if the FDA have their way. So who is that person or persons?

See Transnational Progressivism .. the roots of the nanny state. Believe me when I say it's going to get worse way before it gets better.
I am Libertarian and believe the state should keep their grubby paws off me or any personal choices I make. Superficial legislation hurts society and with most of these politicians that's all they know to come up with. Look at The Affordable Health Care Act. On second thought, it would take you a year to get through that one. So maybe not. lol

 

[DrMA]

If it weren't for their inane economic policy, I'd label myself libertarian. However, a more accurate description would be social libertarian and economic liberal. My point is, labels and partisanship are arbitrary, compromising, and divisive. Or, just because party X appears to be accepting of vaping, doesn't mean we should agree with their policy of restricting other choices. Also to the point, everybody currently in politics from any party has some sort of blood on their hands, and some sort of ill gotten money in their pockets.

That being said, I really hope we can get back to the substance of Bill G's article, which makes for a great advocacy piece using a well regarded platform with an influential audience directly linked to the healthcare field.

 

[Sirius]

I guess what I'm trying to say here is pretty simple. Ladies and gentlemen..welcome to Regulation Nations,(formally US, UK, EU, and Australia)
If I left your country out sorry.