Attn: Los angeles, ca
- Thread starter ImThatGuy
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
@soba1:
So that lady spends her energy on adding another word to the long list of words scorned by "political correctness" (Newspeak as in George Orwell's "1984"), but nobody gives a flying fig when the real-life rights of citizens are trampled upon?
yup.
So that lady spends her energy on adding another word to the long list of words scorned by "political correctness" (Newspeak as in George Orwell's "1984"), but nobody gives a flying fig when the real-life rights of citizens are trampled upon?
yup.
Indeed they do.
They actually ended up with 2 segments about it. I called in during the first segment, spoke with the screener and was queued up but didn't make it on the air before the segment ended at the top of the hour.
The second segment was during an Ayers Hotel remote in Ontario (I think), where they actually invited vapers to attend. I didn't get a chance to hear it (wasn't near a radio at the time).
Why I mention this is because it was so pro-vaping that it surprised me.... John, especially, seems to have done some homework on the issue. One of the guys who got on the air during the first segment (while I was listening on hold) even pulled out the old "antifreeze" argument (!!!!) which John directly addressed as false and the "#1 myth about vaping".
Hey, at least we get some positive press for a change, on a very popular talk show during peak drive time nonetheless.
I hate to say it, but the rally we held this weekend in L.A. had basically zero impact on public opinion because there was no coverage of it anywhere. Google "los angeles rally e-cigarettes" and see what you come up with. What a waste of time and energy. 
We should have done it at City Hall, I guess, to have more impact? At least it happened, even if no one knows.
We should have done it at City Hall, I guess, to have more impact? At least it happened, even if no one knows.I hate to say it, but the rally we held this weekend in L.A. had basically zero impact on public opinion because there was no coverage of it anywhere. Google "los angeles rally e-cigarettes" and see what you come up with. What a waste of time and energy.
That is sad to hear. But not unexpected, unfortunately.
Most of the press covers only what is approved by the government and by the industry that gives them advertising money.
Why do you think most press articles blather on about "antifreeze" and "cancer causing substances" (failing to mention the minuscule amounts that are like those found in NRTs), oh and the chiiiiildren, while completely ignoring all the science, all the truth, all the facts? (And no, not because they have not received that information. They have.)
It is the same in my country.
But doing something, standing up for your rights, is never a waste of time and effort.
It is much better to say "I have done all I could" than to sit on one's behind and then whine and complain that some mysterious "others" did not take some mysterious "action".
I feel your pain. I was one of the fighters against that EU regulation on e-cigarettes.
We lost big time on 26 Feb, with only 130 of the EU members of parliament in our favor. And with corrupt bureaucrats and Big Industry and all their money against us.
BUT - and I say BUT - if we had not been active before, e-cigs would already have been banned (regulated as "medicines" and relegated to pharmacies) for all of the EU on 8 October 2013. We stopped that nonsense. At least.
Now, we will take a breather and fight on when it is time to turn that favor-Big-tobacco nonsense into national law.
Standing up for your rights is never a waste of time.
The e-cig topic was on the health segment on channel 5 (ktla) news this morning. They pulled the "antifreeze liquid" lie and the anchor said: "these things contain propylene glycol". The doctor on that segment said that e-cigs are less riskier then analogs and explained somewhat the difference between burning (combustion) and vaporizing, but ended with e-cigs not being regulated by the FDA argument.
That antifreeze thing is just killing us - but not in the sense they mean it. How do we even begin to counter that kind of thing? "If it bleeds, it leads" right?
Big time. I was watching that load of crap, and after the "anti-freeze" and "propylene glycol", I swear I expected her to say "run to the hills!".
These one sided arguments are frustrating on so many levels. Specifically when it's all hinged on the "when FDA regulates" crapola.
I missed the segment, but did they actually CLARIFY that antifreeze is ETHYLENE glycol and these contain PROPYLENE glycol? Or did they just say "antifreeze" next to "propylene glycol", inferring that they are the same or similar?
I doubt they clarified it... that's way too many long scientific words for Joe Sixpack to comprehend.
They use propylene glycol in antifreeze now to make it less toxic. That's the connection. They conveniently leave out that it's also used in just about everything humans consume from baby toothpaste to MIO water flavorings.
Gotta love Wikipedia, and learning something new.... apparently they do use it in "non-toxic" antifreeze under certain situations where ingestion may be possible. They just leave out the "non-toxic" part when reporting on the vaping + antifreeze connection.
I missed the segment, but did they actually CLARIFY that antifreeze is ETHYLENE glycol and these contain PROPYLENE glycol? Or did they just say "antifreeze" next to "propylene glycol", inferring that they are the same or similar?
I doubt they clarified it... that's way too many long scientific words for Joe Sixpack to comprehend.
No clarifications were given.
First the anchor mentioned something about FDA reporting in 2009 that "anti-freeze" is present in e-liquid. The doctor, their usual Dr. Jandial, said absolutely NOTHING. I'm like: Hmmm... this guy has no clue about this.
At the end she goes: "oh, there is propylene glycol in these..."; Dr. Jandial agrees...
It was clear that they did the segment based on the new ban the e-cigs hype, having no clue about the subject, except from a few words they had memorized.
There's calcium and magnesium in rat poison.
8-o Oh no! Can't take calcium any more... it's used in RAT POISON!! 8-o
8-o Oh no! Can't take calcium any more... it's used in RAT POISON!! 8-o
I don't have a problem with that... as log as it's kosher.
Thanks for clarifying... this is exactly what I suspected had happened. *sigh*
UPDATE:
CASAA: Call to to Action: Los Angeles E-Cigarette Usage Ban
The proposed ban passed (Los Angeles Council meeting on March 4th 2014), and is pending Mayor Garcetti's signature to become ordinance. Garcetti indicated that he will sign the proposal. Los Angeles vapers contact Mayor Garcetti to let him know that you oppose the ordinance and ask him to reject it.
Contact information for Mayor Garcetti: (213) 978-0600, mayor.garcetti@lacity.org
CASAA: Call to to Action: Los Angeles E-Cigarette Usage Ban
The proposed ban passed (Los Angeles Council meeting on March 4th 2014), and is pending Mayor Garcetti's signature to become ordinance. Garcetti indicated that he will sign the proposal. Los Angeles vapers contact Mayor Garcetti to let him know that you oppose the ordinance and ask him to reject it.
Contact information for Mayor Garcetti: (213) 978-0600, mayor.garcetti@lacity.org
It's official:
LOS ANGELES E-CIGARETTE BAN EFFECTIVE DATE IS APRIL 19, 2014.
Ordinance Number 182927
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...ord_182927.pdf
Los Angeles City Mayor's approval: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...03-07-2014.pdf
A minimum of 56,683 signatures will be necessary in order to overturn the ordinance via referendum.
LOS ANGELES E-CIGARETTE BAN EFFECTIVE DATE IS APRIL 19, 2014.
Ordinance Number 182927
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...ord_182927.pdf
Los Angeles City Mayor's approval: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...03-07-2014.pdf
A minimum of 56,683 signatures will be necessary in order to overturn the ordinance via referendum.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
