A Note on the Election

[maxx]

Something that will likely get overshadowed by the massive Republican victory on the national level...dozens of state legislatures and senates have also fallen to Republicans. In addition, a large number of governorships have also flipped. Now Republicans don't guarantee e-cigarette freedom and legality, but I think Republicans have show themselves to be a bit more friendly to our vaping cause than democrats. Not wanting to get political....but I think that is an accurate assesment with some exceptions of course. Hopefully this will reduce the number of state-sponsored initiatives to ban e-cigs like we had this year.

Anyway...regardless of how you feel about how the election went....I believe it bodes well for our vaping cause. Just my opnion on it....

 

[Elokin6]

I don't think this is the proper forum for this, but I'll comment anyway.
I don't honestly believe that it makes any difference which party is in power. The issue with e-cigs is money. The real forces behind the potential ban are the pharmaceutical and tobacco companies. We're cutting into their profits by abandoning the quit-restart-quit cycle that so many of us have experienced. Lost tax revenue is an issue too, but I think that it is minor compared to the influence of big tobacco and Phrma.

 

[Bill Godshall]

maxx is correct that yesterday's Republican victories will not only benefit e-cigarettes, but tobacco harm reduction overall.

At the federal level, Republican control of the House should make it easier to investigate, moderate and/or modify the FDA's overzealous anti-tobacco and e-cigarette prohibition policies. Still need to find out committee chairs and members.

At the state level, Republican gains will make it more difficult for e-cigarette prohibitionists to enact bans on e-cigarette sales or indoor usage.

And at the local level, Republican gains are likely to make it more difficult for e-cigarette opponents to enact e-cigarette usage bans indoors.

State and local jurisdictions that are totally controlled by Dems are the where we are likely to face the toughest challenges on e-cigarette sales or usage bans.

 

[sl_rat]

Rush Limbaugh uses openly uses and brags about one. he'll blast the republicans if they even think of banning them.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I don't think either party is particularly friendly to the e-cig issue. Republicans have been somewhat more sympathetic, but only to the extent that they support big tobacco and see the e-cig issue as an extension of that fight. Very few politicians have clued into the risk abatement and NRT angle of PVs.

 

[Automaton]

Sadly, I think you're right. I certainly wouldn't vote on based on it, personally. I think a ban is extremely unlikely either way. But the Republicans in general have been friendlier to vaping.

Not trying to get political either. That's just the observable case based on what I've read about which politicians are trying to hamper vaping, and which ones aren't.

I don't know how big of a difference it really makes. Any politician can be bought, and I'm sure the FDA is willing to buy anyone out that they have to.

It's a messy issue.

 

[Surf Monkey]

The central problem is that the "culture war" around cigarette smoking is over and the anti-smoking lobby won. Currently most people (including most politicians) see e-cigarettes as CIGARETTES, not as an alternative or a therapy. Therefore, they know that supporting them goes against mainstream thinking on cigarettes and none of them want to be on the wrong side of a "concluded culture war."

That said, slowly but surely people are starting to understand that PVs are not cigarettes and need to be considered in a different light. It's just going to take time. A LOT of time. This election probably won't have any significant impact on our cause.

 

[kristin]

Additionally, politicians aren't our only concern. Organizations are hard at work spreading disinformation and outright lies. A recent report by the American College of Physicians is urging doctors to counsel their patients to avoid using e-cigarettes - even though all evidence to date points to the high probability that they are much safer than smoking and more effective than NRTs.

The more doctors openly oppose e-cigarettes as a safer alternative, the more people will think they are just as bad or worse than traditional cigarettes and see no reason not to allow the politicians to ban them indoors and/or altogether. Also, after years of hearing how the tobacco companies lied about the safety of cigarettes, smokers will have no reason not to believe their doctors and the number of new e-cigarette users will decline. Our growing numbers is a huge weapon against the opposition. The more vapers there are, the more support we have from them and their friends & family.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Yeah, I completely agree with that. The bigger threat here is anti-smoking groups who see any concessions to e-cigarettes as damaging to their overall anti-smoking agenda... even though PVs are probably the single most powerful anti-smoking tool on the market today.

 

[banjo]

Given the fact that many Republicans are the beneficiaries of huge amounts of cash from big tobacco, I see no reason that we would consider them friendly to the eCig community.

 

[Luvs5rugrats]

^^ what banjo said. I was going to say more but...politics gets my blood pressure going.

 

[kristin]

Given the fact that many Republicans are the beneficiaries of huge amounts of cash from big tobacco, I see no reason that we would consider them friendly to the eCig community.

I have a thought on that. (I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, so I have no alliance with either party, BTW.)

If e-cig manufacturers thrive, BT can sell them nicotine from their tobacco crops. BT is already looking to get into the e-cig market and wouldn't see e-cigs as the competition that BP would. E-cigs could be just another huge source of revenue for BT - either selling their own brands or supplying the nicotine to smaller companies.

Additionally, if Republicans really do support BT, then they would support the idea that tobacco use/users shouldn't be vilified (that would be counter-productive) and the concept of free choice for adults. It'd be nearly impossible to support tobacco use this way and not support e-cigarettes.

Not to mention the growth in jobs and revenue for the country - something the Republicans have been campaigning on. Capitalism and industry growth is very Republican.

 

[maxx]

Points about big tobacco and big pharma are well taken. However, something interesting has been happening in the big pharma area since about 2004. It was then that pharma started to shift and change their minds on which politicians they wanted to buy. In the last 6 years they have increased thier money to democrats to the point where they are about equal to both sides. My guess is this is tied to idea of healthcare reform which really started getting legs back then, culminating in the current laws passed recently. Too complicated for me to understand, but I am sure big pharma had some angle whereby they wanted to steer reform in their best interest and they needed dems.

On the big tobacco front...and I might be in the minority thinking this....I really don't think BT is all that fearful of electronic cigarettes. It is a market that they can step into anytime they wish, and dominate it. I think they are just biding their time to see if this is just a fad or perhaps something that might get squashed legally. Once the legal fights are over and they feel that e-cigs are established, they will jump in with both feet with their own devices. If e-cigs get squashed or people don't take to it in big enough numbers, they go back to business as usual.

As I said, just my opnion and perhaps gut feeling...but I think my vaping freedom is just a bit safer now. Others will feel differently.....

EDIT: Oops, Kristen had already hit on the BT angle while I was still typing. I am slow today, was up til 4AM watching election returns.

 

[Katya]

Rep. John Boehner, the speaker of the house elect, is a smoker. So is the President...

 

[Bill Godshall]

Virtually every policy (and perhaps every policy) at the federal, state and local level to ban the sale of e-cigarettes and to ban the indoor use of e-cigarettes has been sponsored by Democrats.

And all laws that have been enacted banning the use of e-cigarettes indoors were enacted in jurisdiction under total control of Democrats.

And FDA Deputy Commissioner Josh Sharfstein (who held the press conference on July 22, 2009 to misrepresent the health risks of e-cigarettes and who is responsible for FDA's decision to appeal Judge Richard Leon's ruling in the SE/NJY v FDA case) worked for Henry Waxman from 2004-2007 opposing amendments (that I and others advocated) to the FSPTCA legislation to inform smokers that smokeless tobacco is far less hazardous alternative to cigarettes, and to allow tobacco companies to truthfully inform smokers of that fact.

 

[Skud]

Rep. John Boehner, the speaker of the house elect, is a smoker. So is the President...

actually, the president is an ex-smoker, hence all the new tobacco taxes to prove to his "we know what's best for everyone, and smoking isn't what's best for you" friends and supporters that he wasn't going to be "soft" on big tobacco. just look at Obama's total BS Children's Healthcare National Tobacco Tax, which by the way, never ended up going to children's healthcare at all, yet smokers are still paying the tax.

 

[Bill Godshall]

In regards to smokeless tobacco, Democrats have sponsored all policy proposals to ban the sale of certain smokeless tobacco products, and have sponsored nearly all policy proposals to tax smokeless tobacco products at the same (or higher) rate as cigarettes.

Its no coincidence that the vast majority of smokeless tobacco users live in Republican controlled jurisdictions (i.e. rural) and the vast majority of smokeless tobacco users (who vote) are Republicans.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The biggest political coup for e-cigarettes would be to convince John Boehner to use e-cigarettes instead of cigarettes.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Virtually every policy (and perhaps every policy) at the federal, state and local level to ban the sale of e-cigarettes and to ban the indoor use of e-cigarettes has been sponsored by Democrats.

Absolutely, and this makes perfect sense given the historic alignment of the parties. It was primarily Democrats who successfully waged and won the smoking culture war, while it was primarily Republicans who opposed it. The tobacco legislation from last year showed that the parties have more or less converged on this issue at this point, with Democrats tending to continue pushing forward based on their track record and Republicans coming along for the ride in order to appease voters.

But I don't think the problem here is party based. The problem is the blurring of lines between actual smoking and e-smoking. For the most part, people perceive electronic cigarettes to be cigarettes first and foremost, not as inhalers, vaporizers or therapy devices. Cigarettes have been demonized for the better part of three generations now so the equation is simple: if it looks like a cigarette, emits "smoke" like a cigarette and delivers nicotine like a cigarette... it's a cigarette and cigarettes = BAD.

This is why I've always said that the most powerful tool at our disposal is exposure and education. As e-smoking becomes more topical, more and more people will be exposed to it through channels that present misinformation, disinformation and outright lies. Too many have too much to lose if they allow smoking (whether it's actual combustion based smoke or vapor) to be "cool" again. First impressions are hard to alter, so every person who encounters PVs through these anti-smoking sources is a person who's going to be drastically harder to convert to our viewpoint than they would have been. Conversely, every person who WE expose to PVs is far more likely to understand and be empathetic to our viewpoint.

Elections come and go. Politicians are, as a rule, corrupt. What doesn't change is facts, and in this case the facts are on our side. Evangelize. That's how Apple did it.

 

[Surf Monkey]

The biggest political coup for e-cigarettes would be to convince John Boehner to use e-cigarettes instead of cigarettes.

Yeah, but after his whole "tobacco checks" kerfuffle, that'll never happen.