Without presuming anything, let me take the liberty of asking you whether you are familiar with these general sources of information:
1) CASAA's point of view, which should be (generally) clear from their initial statement on the FDA Regs (released on the 25th), their subsequent press release, Bill G.'s FDA letter (posted in another thread), and C.V. Phillips' recent blogs? (Older blogs by C.V. and Bill G. are also relevant, and I hope you've looked at some of those. As well as some of those from Mike Siegel, Brad Rodu, D!ck Puddlecote, Clive Bates and many others [listed in no particular order].) It's not as if we're working in some kind of informational vacuum here about where CASAA stands, and very roughly where it will seek to move the discussion. It's about
not regulating vaping in
exactly the same way as tobacco cigarettes. This is what our opponents seek: vaping should be taxed, it should be regulated and vapers should be regarded as tobacco cigarette smokers by employers, health insurance companies, and of course by society as large. Vaping
IS tobacco cigarette smoking, period - full stop: that's what they want the policy to be, and they have shouted it from the rooftops. Therefore the FDA (which is completely in the hands of our opponents), proposes to treat vaping products like tobacco cigarettes. What CASAA believes is that vaping is a different activity, and that harm reduction needs to be considered. How exactly they will ask us to proceed, I don't know. But you seem to think that the general outlines of their position are some kind of mysterious and possibly even nefarious deep dark secret. There's no secret. It's right there out on the web, on their site, C.V.'s site, Bill's site, Clive Bates' blogs, etc. This has also been shouted from the rooftops, if you will.
2) Similarly, I would hope you are familiar with the history of FDA regulation in the context of smokeless tobacco products, its recent actions (beyond Soterra) regarding vaping, the CDC's recent behavior regarding vaping (since the two cooperate), the stances of other interlinked portions of the US Tobacco Control Government-Industrial Complex (e.g. Glantz and his ilk), the WHO, the EU TPD, and so forth. Because there is essentially no difference at all between any of these organizations and the position that they take. To repeat: they believe that vaping
IS tobacco cigarette smoking for every intent and purpose, and hence no distinction can be ever made between the two activities for any reason and in any context. And they have proven over and over again in this context as well as in the smokeless tobacco products context that they don't give a hoot about the real science, and are quite happy to churn out whatever junk science that they need or desire, in order to feed the media and convince the public. For just one example, are you aware that one member of the CTP's advisory board (who happens to be a USC prof.,) recently told a Pasadena CA newspaper that someone vaping in a restaurant would present a health risk to anyone who subsequently sat at that table, due to "third hand" nicotine residue? For starters, I hope you've carefully read the FDA's PDF in full, and dug through Bill G.'s, C.V. Phillips', Mike Siegel's, and Brad Rodu's blogs for more information about how the US Tobacco Control Government-Industrial Complex operates. (You also might take a look at Christopher's Snowden's work - he's the author of "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist.")
3) Finally, I assume you are familiar with the steps in this regulatory process, and the background and history behind the statute under which vaping is about to be regulated (the FSPTCA). Because if you are, the concepts of "dialog" and "negotiation" involved in the term "compromise" should be quite evidently entirely irrelevant. We are not going to be "cutting a deal" with the FDA. The FDA has already made their position quite clear, and we have a limited number of levers within the process to deal with them: namely comments and then subsequent organized action that will be addressed to our elected officials. That's it. It's not as if someone from CASAA is going to meet someone from the FDA in some kind of vapor-filled room, and trade horses. One way or another, vapers have to directly or indirectly convince a sufficient number of elected officials about, and/or hold FDA's feet to the fire on, the issue of harm reduction, and force them to cognize the (non-junk) science. Otherwise, if there's no reduced harm, then the default position that the WHO, the EU TPD, the US Tobacco Control Government-Industrial Complex, the CDC, and of course the FDA have already taken will prevail. To repeat: their goal is to ensure that vaping
IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM tobacco cigarette smoking, and will be taxed, regulated, and regarded as the same thing for all intents and purposes,
no matter what the science says.
Now if you understand all of those things (and I am not saying that you don't), then I would hope that you could do more than speak in general terms about "compromising" and so forth, or in dark language about "white flags" or whatever - let alone suggesting that CASAA (and/or the position that it's broadly likely to take) involves any unknown quantities.
So by all means: lead some kind of "charge" up a proverbial "hill" if you'd like. I won't stop you; indeed I might follow you.
But so far you're not offering any specifics, and you have yet to convince me that you have the kind of background understanding of the process and the current situation that might be required to "lead the charge" or "rally the troops," as it were.
(I confess to having rather lazily not provided links here in this post, but I'm sure others can and will be happy to do so.)
I don't want anyone to think I am waving the white flag and rolling over but if you believe that there will be no negotiation; it is all or nothing and the conviction and resolve of what I feel is a small fragmented group of all vapers has the numbers to make a difference; I just think that is an unrealistic thought process. The industry is going to get regulated by someone at some point, there aren't many industries who don't have some type of regulation on them.
You could say, "we won once, we will win again" but look at the numbers of consumers and manufacturers then and now. I will gladly eat my words if later this year, the FDA folds up their tent and says that we win and there will be no regulation. We don't have NRA numbers nor NRA money and I would guess that half or more of all vapers do absolutely nothing.
What happens if the CASAA asks for a compromise? What if I don't agree with it? What if it favors the vendors and not the consumers? I would love to get no regulations and have the FDA go eat a d*&k sandwich but something more than relying on the CASAA needs to be done in order to win. We need greater numbers of both vapers and educated non-vapers.
In all this talk of war, battle, etc........."let's wait it out", "we have time" are things no military leader said ever.
At least in the context you are using that word it in. This whole discussion sounds to me like "Terms of Surrender". And don't assume this "commenting period" is some kind of olive branch that Zeller magnanimously pulled out of his silk shorts either. He's required to do it by law. 
