Are we going to win this war?

[DC2]

Even if we win the war, the government will probably start to tax vaping to make up for the lost revenue.

Perhaps they should start their inevitable campaign against sugar, salt, fat, and fast foods a little earlier than they wanted to?
Because that is the next generation of sin taxes that are coming down the road.

I'm not sure they have sufficiently softened up the public on that one yet though.
It may take another decade of demonization before they can get away with going down that road.

 

[Exchaner]

In the old days tyrannical governments would tax anything they wanted. One government actually put a tax on beards. Whoever wanted to wear a beard, had to pay a yearly tax. I am not making this stuff up. It actually happened 150 years ago in the country I was born.

 

[Lifted]

Even if we win the war, the government will probably start to tax vaping to make up for the lost revenue.

Taxation will kill vaping. The only way the local governments will be able to tax the batteries, toppers, liquids, and such effectively is eliminate internet sales under the current tobacco restrictions. We'd all be stuck going to licensed B&M stores to pick up our monthly supplies of tobacco and menthol liquid. Big tobacco will have the greatest to gain from this.

The largest hurdle governemnt will always face is enforcement. After internet sales are prohibited and taxes are levied; there will be little incentive for veteran vapers to buy special purpose gear or pre-made liquid. We'll all be right back to modding flashlights, and the barriers to entry will be raised again for the less experienced.

I really don't see outright prohibition on the horizon, but outcomes favoring either BT or BP are very very real given the trends in legislation.

Edit: In the short term BT has the most to gain. If science eventually falls on the side of vaping, BP will have the most skin in the game.

 

[BillyWJ]

Even if we win the war, the government will probably start to tax vaping to make up for the lost revenue.

That IS the war.

Make no mistake here, this is not about health, this is not about children, this is not about public safety. This is about taxes, and corporate profit.

They don't want that PV in your hand, until you pay them for the privilege. And pay a LOT. They're leveraging the built-in bigotry of the ANTZ in public to get support for banning it by using the scare tactics of "it's going to make kids do DRUUUUUUUUGS" and "It's going to addict everyone in public to nicotine! And Nicotine will KILL YOU ON CONTACT!"

It's getting surreal.

 

[rsdntbplr]

Perhaps they should start their inevitable campaign against sugar, salt, fat, and fast foods a little earlier than they wanted to?
Because that is the next generation of sin taxes that are coming down the road.

I'm not sure they have sufficiently softened up the public on that one yet though.
It may take another decade of demonization before they can get away with going down that road.

Well they already tax BISCUITS here so I guess taxing Vaping gear and such isn't too out of the question.

 

[Penn]

That IS the war.

Make no mistake here, this is not about health, this is not about children, this is not about public safety. This is about taxes, and corporate profit.

They don't want that PV in your hand, until you pay them for the privilege. And pay a LOT. They're leveraging the built-in bigotry of the ANTZ in public to get support for banning it by using the scare tactics of "it's going to make kids do DRUUUUUUUUGS" and "It's going to addict everyone in public to nicotine! And Nicotine will KILL YOU ON CONTACT!"

It's getting surreal.

I think I made mention along the lines of "depends on what you consider the war to be" (if not I meant to). Well if the issue of taxation IS the war, as you say, the answer is no the war will not be won. Those of us saying we want lower taxation (on all fronts) and less government involvement in our lives are either made out to be crazy fringe element or flat out demonized quite successfully. Even some of the very people fighting for e-cigs have openly shown they support the very same mentality they are fighting against on this subject (though they just don't see the connection of their views on other things to this but since this isn't "the outside" I won't elaborate). That truth worries me when it comes to the aspects I see as winnable.

 

[Schwiggiddy]

I just want to add that in the state of Kentucky, my home state, there is a law gaining traction that would ban public smoking statewide, in all businesses and workplaces. Little mention is made of the fact that e-cigarettes and all other PVs would also be banned by this. It would completely ruin all B&Ms in the state, and hurt businesses that have allowed vaping. If it can happen in Kentucky, it can happen anywhere.

Link Here

 

[Pocha]

The situation will probably get worse before it gets better but we will win the war. The sheer number of people switching over, having great experiences, improved health and telling their friends, families and doctors is going to eventually have a huge impact. The scientific evidence will begin to pile up in our favor and the medical community will HAVE to support us in lieu of the obvious and proven dangers of smoking. Gradually bans/restrictions will be loosened or abandoned altogether.

But I'm essentially an optimist. I heard on the radio the other day that when automobiles first came out, they were considered frightening and foreign and were banned from certain cities and locations. How did that work out?

 

[Kropotkin]

I was thinking of pulling together a packet of information, not only about e-cigs, but about all the money connections behind the scenes and sending to media outlets to try to get one of them to cover this story.

Just out of curiosity, I found this page What should we investigate? - News | NBC News
"We're about investigative reporting on topics that matter: corruption, conflicts of interest, broken systems, abuses by institutions and individuals with power, whether that's government, nonprofits, or the press itself."

I would imagine that most news outlets want the same thing, and our story certainly seems to have all the elements.

There are links to upload information and then contact information for them to follow up. I don't feel informed/expert enough to field any follow up details.

Maybe we need a Media/PR director in CASAA?

In addition to getting our story out for free using these types of outlets, maybe a crowd funding effort to pay for advertising?

This is a genius idea.

 

[second2none]

I'm beginning to think we may need to take the war to them . Start having organized protest that clearly let the public know ,that the government knows more about our juice then they know about cell phones since it's been in use since the 40's let the media come and educate and show them how strong we feel. And if our numbers aren't yet big enough well I think our fate has been decided.

 

[rurwin]

This is a genius idea.

No it isn't.

Going to the media with a story is never a good idea. Almost invariably they will twist it to maximize the shock value. With very few honourable exceptions, they don't care about the truth any further than to be certain they are not caught in an outright lie. In all my fifty years, I have seen a large number of news articles where I had personal experience of the facts of the matter. Of all those, only two fairly and accurately reflected the truth. Maybe half of the rest tried to but had misunderstood major elements, many of them so badly that they were worse than useless. All the rest had a contrary agenda.

See this one for example: ITV Tonight The Rise of the E Cigarette - YouTube

 

[DC2]

I'm beginning to think we may need to take the war to them . Start having organized protest that clearly let the public know ,that the government knows more about our juice then they know about cell phones since it's been in use since the 40's let the media come and educate and show them how strong we feel. And if our numbers aren't yet big enough well I think our fate has been decided.

This is what I'm thinking will happen (hopefully) if the FDA deeming regulations get ugly.

 

[Exchaner]

No it isn't.

Going to the media with a story is never a good idea. Almost invariably they will twist it to maximize the shock value. With very few honourable exceptions, they don't care about the truth any further than to be certain they are not caught in an outright lie. In all my fifty years, I have seen a large number of news articles where I had personal experience of the facts of the matter. Of all those, only two fairly and accurately reflected the truth. Maybe half of the rest tried to but had misunderstood major elements, many of them so badly that they were worse than useless. All the rest had a contrary agenda.

See this one for example: ITV Tonight The Rise of the E Cigarette - YouTube

I watched the video and found nothing wrong with the reporting. Did I miss something?

 

[second2none]

This is what I'm thinking will happen (hopefully) if the FDA deeming regulations get ugly.

The way state and local bans have been coming waiting for the fda may be too late.

 

[rurwin]

Ask someone who watched it and previously knew nothing about e-cigarettes.

Yes, they never tell a lie... but...

The majority of expert opinions are that it is bad. They allow the WHO guy to say "We know that a lot of the toxins which are consumed through E-cigarettes have not been adequately researched," and do not challenge him as to what those toxins are or in what quantities they were found.

Their coverage of vapers is limited to two groups of bearded weirdos (I would have come across the same), blowing vast clouds and their probably extensive interviews cut to meaningless sound-bites. Even the poor guy with terminal cancer barely says more than "nicotine is my high."

There's a highly dubious section about a chap who died after smoking all his life and vaping for six months. They never challenge the "oil" explanation, even though there is clearly no oil in e-cigarettes.

The section about the vaping shop was limited to showing that it was being marketed as a smoking cessation device without evidence that would support that. I wonder how many they visited before finding one with a nice poster and a proprietor willing to defend the position.

The section on the YouTube channel was limited to showing how unregulated and home-built e-cigarettes are.

I wonder how many hours of interviews they did with experienced vapers who pointed them at the truth only to have all of that cut down to half a meaningless sentence. After all, they did show ten seconds or so of an EU demonstration; the evidence would have been there. But all that came across was incoherent shouting and clouds of vapour.

We are immune; we know the truth. But for anyone who doesn't, it will come across as significantly negative.

 

[Exchaner]

Rurwin, On second thought you might be right....

 

[jwag1973]

So I stopped by two local B&M's on my way home from work tonight. I know the owners of both shops by name, they know who I am as well. I started chatting with them about possible regulations coming down from the FDA as well as the Government. Neither shop owner seemed in the least bit concerned, both of them basically echoing the other. They both feel that internet sales will be shut down, and we will be paying a tax on liquids comparable to the cigarette tax. The other notable thing was, they both made comments about how their business will increase when the regulations kick in. That is not what I wanted to hear! I was expecting them to convey some concern for vapor's rights, not selfish joy! I would like to believe this is not the sentiment of the majority of shop owners, if it is well have to do it by our self. I'd like to know if anyone else has spoke with the Owners of B&M's in their area, if so, how do they feel.

 

[Jman8]

If that's the case, then maybe we should be very concerned about the increasing absurdity of the spreading smoking bans...

Public beaches?
Public parks?
In your own car with a child present?
Public housing?
Anywhere on a college campus?
Entire football stadiums?

What's next?

IMO, the war is found in TCA (control act). If winning that huge front was so darn easy, I reckon BT would've won it sometime in the 80's. Yet, vapers now seem as motivated as ever (and were once squarely aligned with BT), that it behooves us to take on TCA and win there foremost. May take another 20 years, but is worth it, I think, in the long run.

Usage bans, online sales, restricting flavors, controlling nicotine amount and somehow, magically, controlling production of devices are all battles that stem from TCA which stems from a movement that's been in play for 50+ years. That movement, I reckon would go on for another thousand years regardless of the fronts that we may capture.

I truly believe if we continue to concede on the smoking aspect of the TCA battle, then we are painting a nice pretty picture or roadmap as to how to win (rather easily) on trying to eliminate vaping from the game.

We gotta draw our lines based on a position where our middle is non negotiable (in reality) and where our extreme positions appear as if they are non-negotiable. Example would be that vapers no longer agree to usage bans for smoking in certain type of locations. And we are prepared to fight for them, and not give an inch. A ban is never a 'reasonable regulation.' Perhaps if a battle starts to spin out of control, then maybe, just maybe, we draw the line to our middle and say we can agree to that to end the fighting, and come to terms with a REASONABLE regulation.

If you can't smoke at a beach soon (or already), chances are you won't be able to vape at that beach sometime down the road.

Persons reading this that think you (or I) can't vape everywhere... yeah, you have already lost that war. Sorry, but that's reality. Haters going to keep on hating, and vapers are going to keep on vaping (everywhere).

Persons who think you shouldn't vape everywhere/anywhere, well guess what? I can find a bunch of people who not only agree with that sentiment, but would take the words after vape, and think the point is entirely valid. As in, you shouldn't vape (period).

 

[MTFogger]

I don't think we are gonna win anything. The ANTZ goal IMO is to put vaping in the same minimal place, ban if possible as smoking regardless of any scientific proof its less harmful. They fear and do not want an alternative to smoking and therefore it becomes acceptable social habit again. That would be a loss to them.

Certain people on here gave the warning signs that the war was beginning and the front was gonna be the local areas...Well its happening.

 

[MTFogger]

CASAA doesn't have that much money, though there is some discussion how to do better in this area. The LAST "investigation" NBC did was all against us, IIRC it was like the CDC junk -- flavors, kids, etc. But hey, maybe that has changed. It's almost-temping to email them the ALA's "Liar of the Year" award from the THR lies forum, but it may be too early for that. It CERTAINLY could not stand alone, backup docs would need to be sent with it.

The reason I'm asking for help from artists and a photographer is that T-shirts and bumper stickers are crowd advertising where, by definition, each donor gets to pick their own size and color and when to "air" (wear) the ad. (I'm on the "Art Committee" for casaa)

I want a bumper sticker that reads " E-Cigs are like E-lectric Cars both don't burn fossil fuels and water is the byproduct and you said the cars were less harmful.