Are we going to win this war?

[Berylanna]

This is the biggest problem we face. Science and logic are in favor of ecigs, but science and logic have little to do with how governmental bureaucratic agencies work.

An example (and please do not use this as an excuse to derail) is in the debate about man-caused climate change. There is one senator who was on a committee listening to testimony from some environmentalist in favor of regulation. The senator asked some very pointed science based questions and the one testifying talked around the questions without answering. Finally the senator asked the guy if he had ANY scientific background. Again, no real answer. This time the senator/scientist didn't allow him to talk around it and pushed him into a corner. The person testifying had absolutely NO background in science and was trying to present a position that required scientific understanding. Later, that senator found out no one else on the committee felt it was relevant that the organization represented by the man testifying had any no scientific background.

My point - Decisions will be made in government without scientific merit because not enough people care about scientific merit, in congress or average daily life.

My question - How do we get those types to hear the science and logic?

Well I disagree with you on man-caused climate change but NOT on sending an eejit to speak to the Senate. Glad they nailed him.
I don't think we can get them to hear anything that requires numeracy. Absent numeracy, they will get the interpretations from whoever they trust. Conservatives and liberals will both attack someone who is representing a side they disagree with, but I'm not sure that is evidence that they listen to the science, I suspect it is law school training.

A crucial difference between science and law is that the degree to which the audience likes the speaker is important in law and NOT in science. My cousin the lawyer says "You need evidence on your side....like a former Surgeon General speaking on your side." I nearly threw up. THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE IN MY WORLD. The evidence is in the numbers.

HOWEVER, I think these folks want votes and that is why I want the infographics to publish and T-shirts for us to wear in public. To educate our friends, family, neighbors, and non-Starbucks-Coffee-House regulars. With pictures that ILLUSTRATE the science. Not test tubes. Steaming plates of potato gnocchi with tomato sauce -- THIS IS MORE DANGEROUS TO PREGNANT WOMEN THAN 2nd-hand vape. Stuff like that.

 

[AgentAnia]

The ANTZ weren't expecting a fight and we showed that we are not willing to go down without one. It seems that they are in panic mode because the calls to action are coming faster and more of them. We need to keep them scared. They make mistakes when they are. They say stupid things when called out and show exactly how idiotic their reasoning really is.

^^^^^ This! ^^^^^

 

[MTFogger]

We will win after they do allot of raiding and find nothing but bottles of PG and VG and the public realizes just how much money is spent on the raids and how stupid it is.

 

[ImThatGuy]

I for one welcome regulation, but not taxation.

Nothing wrong with setting standards to what we consume, but banning what we can do or not do with our own lives, I do not accept.

Until then, I shall vape happily with the ejuice and devices I use and purchase without thought of breaking any kind of law...

 

[brevity]

I won't lie and claim that I understand a lot of the science behind the things I do (okay, maybe I will claim more than average, but I do have a lot of medical training so I understand physiology) but the logic is something that all but can't be ignored. I forget who it is, but please note that I'm not taking credit for it, but someone on this forum has a signature to the effect of "Telling people they can't vape because we don't know what the long term effects are is like telling a drowning person they can't use a raft because it may have a hole in it."

That pretty much sums up the logic for me. I think, at the end of the day, we have to find a way to make it a human issue. We are people. We're people that would otherwise be MUCH less healthy if we were still sucking down the analogs.

Do I see a war? Oh yeah. Do I think we'll win the war? Well, it's a big change. It will be a major reformation of something that was once a fairly large part of our adult lives and with those big changes comes major resistance. I'd ask the founding fathers if they thought they'd win, but I really doubt they'd have signed the declaration if they didn't think so. At the very least, they knew they would go down fighting for what they thought was right. I hope most of us are at least prepared to do the same.

 

[MTFogger]

Politicians must use something else besides PG/VG because the fog in their brains would be gone already.

 

[Robino1]

I won't lie and claim that I understand a lot of the science behind the things I do (okay, maybe I will claim more than average, but I do have a lot of medical training so I understand physiology) but the logic is something that all but can't be ignored. I forget who it is, but please note that I'm not taking credit for it, but someone on this forum has a signature to the effect of "Telling people they can't vape because we don't know what the long term effects are is like telling a drowning person they can't use a raft because it may have a hole in it."

That pretty much sums up the logic for me. I think, at the end of the day, we have to find a way to make it a human issue. We are people. We're people that would otherwise be MUCH less healthy if we were still sucking down the analogs.

Do I see a war? Oh yeah. Do I think we'll win the war? Well, it's a big change. It will be a major reformation of something that was once a fairly large part of our adult lives and with those big changes comes major resistance. I'd ask the founding fathers if they thought they'd win, but I really doubt they'd have signed the declaration if they didn't think so. At the very least, they knew they would go down fighting for what they thought was right. I hope most of us are at least prepared to do the same.

To make it a human issue we all need to be willing to share our personal stories when called to make our voices heard. The Calls to Action are those times.

 

[stevegmu]

Since I started vaping- back when BLU came out, absolutely nothing the federal government has done has hindered my vaping. I don't live in a nanny state, so nothing to worry about on the state or local level. Taxes don't scare me.

I just don't see a war. ANTS and NUTZ are a joke. Middle ground is nothing happens, which is where I have placed my bets.

 

[beckdg]

I for one welcome regulation, but not taxation.

Nothing wrong with setting standards to what we consume, but banning what we can do or not do with our own lives, I do not accept.

i agree with the sentiment.

HOWEVER

i am familiar with the world and the times we live in and realize regulation is rarely ever even loosely based on anything tangible.

regulations thus far have pushed to limit nicotine content and fluid volumes, etc.. things that help the players poisoning their patrons take over.

regulations that should have happened may include eliminating the sale of plastic atties that break down and/or include known leaching dangerous compounds such as bishpenol a, polycarbonate, etc..

i don't see anything that leads me to believe regulating anything has anything to do with public health or safety... or that it's even conceivable to consider regulation going in that direction to be possible.

what i do see is execs from the wrong teams leading the major regulating bodies by buying their way onto the board.

so while i see a need for regulation, i'm still completely against it. there's an agenda. and it's not in our favor.

 

[jwag1973]

I agree that a lot of vapor's don't realize what's going on politically to our community. I believe there's a bunch of them, that don't see the severity of what could potentially be coming.This is a war, it's real, and it's here. The government could careless as long as they can tax us to death. The tobacco and pharmaceutical industry seem at times to be the same. I joined the ECF three month's ago, wanting to learn about equipment. My neighbor's daughter lives in NYC, he saw me vaping and said "those things are being banned in NYC. So I started reading the legislation thread a month ago.
I for one am more than concerned, and feel we have one serious fight on our hands. The government will not allow the revenue loss to continue. They're steadily moving towards not only regulations on where one can vape, they want the revenue they've lost due to vaping. As I see it, it's all about the money. Nothing more.

 

[Navy20]

I have to wonder if the Federal Government , Big Tobacco and the Pharmaceuticals, are all in on this together. Seems as though anytime, anyone invents something that can better humankind, it is bought up and shelved, never to be seen again. With Big Tobacco buying up
e-cig companies and creating their own versions, is the attempt here to corner the market and eventually put it away. War? Personally, I think that "we" need to stick together and fight for our rights, stop giving them away. The prohibition of alcohol created a black market, the same could happen here.

 

[beckdg]

I have to wonder if the Federal Government , Big Tobacco and the Pharmaceuticals, are all in on this together. Seems as though anytime, anyone invents something that can better humankind, it is bought up and shelved, never to be seen again. With Big Tobacco buying up
e-cig companies and creating their own versions, is the attempt here to corner the market and eventually put it away. War? Personally, I think that "we" need to stick together and fight for our rights, stop giving them away. The prohibition of alcohol created a black market, the same could happen here.

i have the perception you have no idea what you are on to. you will soon enough though. i will say that the FDA has BT and BP cronies on the board that decides the fate of e-cigs via regulation. IE: fed gooberment + BT + BP = right on the money.

 

[Mr343]

Just like the OP said... Do you think we will win?..... Well we will if WE participate. We have many good fighters in our corner. But make no mistake friends it is we (the people) that will edge out the win! Support everything you can find the time for...from DC to the PC and I think we are good for a win

 

[patkin]

Sure we will. They want the money. It won't be like it is now. We'll probably be restricted on where we can buy so there will be fewer but bigger B&Ms carrying more products. Competition will be at the local level and, of course, we'll pay more. I imagine there will be work-arounds we create sending and receiving products we can't find locally among ourselves. If I'm wrong and they go with prefilled only and old-style hardware we'll be up a creek but I'm not at all sure they'll go that far because... yeh, they want money.

 

[Robino1]

Utah vendors are begging for help in fighting the state legislation.

This is copied from Utah Vapers site:

Call to Action - Online sales ban

SB0012 - Age limit for Tobacco and related products

If enacted, this bill would:

Raise the legal age to purchase tobacco products (and by default e-cigarettes) to 21
Ban all online retail sales of electronic cigarette related products to and from Utah

Senator Reid has included language in section 76-10-105-1 (buried near the bottom of the bill) which if passes as written, will create an online prohibition of electronic cigarettes for the state of Utah. This means that NO Utah resident will be legally able to purchase products online from anywhere in the world and bans Utah retailers from having the ability to compete with the 2000+ online retailers across the United States.

Senator Reid believes this will save consumers money and elevate state revenue through added sales tax by forcing residents to purchase in-state. However, due to the highly restrictive zoning requirements which B&M locations are forced into our retailers are unable to open leaving online stores as the only available option. The Utah Vapers believes this will force e-cigarette consumers in rural areas of the state back to smoking deadly cigarettes.


To whomever said there is no war: Yes, there is a war.
If you don't think it affects you, the old saying is Monkey see Monkey do. You bet it will be tried elsewhere.

 

[Vermonster13]

At 18 we can die defending the power of these folks who make these laws but not smoke/vape/drink like they do. My 18 is way gone but this always gets up my ire.

 

[Penn]

Utah vendors are begging for help in fighting the state legislation.

This is copied from Utah Vapers site:

Call to Action - Online sales ban

SB0012 - Age limit for Tobacco and related products

If enacted, this bill would:

Raise the legal age to purchase tobacco products (and by default e-cigarettes) to 21
Ban all online retail sales of electronic cigarette related products to and from Utah

Senator Reid has included language in section 76-10-105-1 (buried near the bottom of the bill) which if passes as written, will create an online prohibition of electronic cigarettes for the state of Utah. This means that NO Utah resident will be legally able to purchase products online from anywhere in the world and bans Utah retailers from having the ability to compete with the 2000+ online retailers across the United States.

Senator Reid believes this will save consumers money and elevate state revenue through added sales tax by forcing residents to purchase in-state. However, due to the highly restrictive zoning requirements which B&M locations are forced into our retailers are unable to open leaving online stores as the only available option. The Utah Vapers believes this will force e-cigarette consumers in rural areas of the state back to smoking deadly cigarettes.


To whomever said there is no war: Yes, there is a war.
If you don't think it affects you, the old saying is Monkey see Monkey do. You bet it will be tried elsewhere.

I do agree there is a war but defining it is where I tend to disagree with many. The biggest battle to me is separate vaping from smoking. Second leg would be what I mentioned earlier, get people to see the science and logic (yeah that second leg could be used to accomplish the first but I'm referring to reinforcing the harm reduction).

If you look at most of the proposed legislation in Utah and some other places the actual desire is keeping tobacco out of the hands of children and vaping is caught in the crossfire because the word isn't out enough to the general public that it simply isn't the same as smoking.

 

[Vermonster13]

You assume that they care that there is a difference. They want it the same for headline purposes and votes. Showing the ignorant sheople that they care about protecting the children and the voting constituents.

 

[jpargana]

This is the biggest problem we face. Science and logic are in favor of ecigs, but science and logic have little to do with how governmental bureaucratic agencies work.

An example (and please do not use this as an excuse to derail) is in the debate about man-caused climate change. There is one senator who was on a committee listening to testimony from some environmentalist in favor of regulation. The senator asked some very pointed science based questions and the one testifying talked around the questions without answering. Finally the senator asked the guy if he had ANY scientific background. Again, no real answer. This time the senator/scientist didn't allow him to talk around it and pushed him into a corner. The person testifying had absolutely NO background in science and was trying to present a position that required scientific understanding. Later, that senator found out no one else on the committee felt it was relevant that the organization represented by the man testifying had any no scientific background.

My point - Decisions will be made in government without scientific merit because not enough people care about scientific merit, in congress or average daily life.

My question - How do we get those types to hear the science and logic?

Well... in a nutshell... we don't...



Just look at how many so-called 'health' organizations have been not only ignoring proper science, but also distorting facts and spinning results to match their beliefs (Dr Siegel's blog is full of such stories).

When people are blinded by ideology, the only use they have for proper science is turning it into junk-science, and then they have the nerve to spread their lies as 'scientific facts'...

 

[rurwin]

I'm cautiously optimistic.

The law is being passed in the EU very soon... But whether we win or not, it won't come into effect until 2016.

Vaping has doubled or tripled every year since it was first marketed. That means that by 2016, we will have four to six times the traction that we have now. Decent scientific studies are now answering the questions that need to be asked: what's in the vapour, is it harmful, can it aid smoking cessation.

Politicians may (or may not) be in the pockets of BT and BP, but they can read the writing on the wall and they care about what the electorate wants, at least once every four or five years.

Even if vaping is made illegal in some places, it is being legitimised in others. Those will prove the safety and utility and the nay-sayers will repeal their laws. For a while, that won't be comfortable for all of us. I'm going to Panama soon (if anyone knows the exact situation there, or can read legalise in Spanish, please take a look at my post in the Travel forum) and I've a nasty feeling I'll be back on stinkies for a fortnight. But it won't last forever. Vaping will win in the end, simply because it works. The only way BP can stop it is to replicate it.