Building Consensus on the Important Issues

[Jman8]

I'm always curious what fellow vapers think are the most important issues regarding politics of vaping. So, this thread is made for that purpose. I ask that you list your top 2 to no more than 6 issues that you see as most important items facing the vaping community. I would ask that if you are affiliated with some (vaping or health) organization, you note that in your post, but up to you.

My desire, as OP, is to see and then perhaps list what appears to me as consensus around the lists as they come in. I realize we won't all agree on what's most important, though I think we might. I also realize side discussions and tangents are possible with this sort of thread, though as OP, I hope that is kept to a minimum, as there are plenty of other threads on ECF that allow for discussions on the many important issues on the politics (and inevitable disagreement) of vaping issues.

Anyway, I'll go first. I am currently not affiliated with any vaping or health organization. My list of important issues looks like this:

1 - flavors of juice (my desire is that these all be permitted, indefinitely)
2 - online sales (my desire is this continue indefinitely)
3 - safety of eCig products, including juice (my desire is that this be regulated and ask vendors to either put labels on products or link on product to place on their website where this information is front and center)
4 - public vaping (I advocate for vaping everywhere, openly, with respect to all persons)

Depending on what others post, I may amend my list by adding to it or changing order, but for now those are what I see as 4 most important issues currently facing the vaping community.

What does your list look like?

 

[DC2]

The issues important to me...

1) The FDA deeming regulations
2) The FDA deeming regulations
3) Elimination and/or prevention of outdoor vaping bans
4) The FDA deeming regulations
5) The FDA deeming regulations
6) Elimination and/or prevention of indoor smoking bans where it makes sense

Regarding the FDA deeming regulations, I consider any moves to restrict the following to be disastrous...
--Eliminating online sales
--Eliminating flavors
--Limiting nicotine content below a useful level
--Restricting the market to only cig-a-like devices
--Eliminating free-roaming nicotine

Of course, the main thing that REALLY matters is the that there be no elimination of free-roaming nicotine.
Because that is the thing that is necessary to enable ANY of the other restrictions to be effective.

 

[EddardinWinter]

I think the following are important:

1) Protection of property owners rights to determine whether or not to permit vaping on their premises.
2) More studies to show the relative safety and potential health benefits of nicotine. The demonizing of nicotine is the prime weapon used against vaping. Until the lies and ignorance of this natural substance is better understood by the public, we face a difficult and uphill fight.
3) Protection of online sales
4) Continued freedom of vendors to make juices of any strength, with any flavor, and in any size bottle they find a market for. This industry is still very young. It must be permitted to flourish for vaping to be all it can be.
5) Consumers to continue to have the freedom to choose whatever hardware they like to vape with. (I think this one is relatively safe)

 

[retired1]

Moved to General E-Smoking Discussion

 

[Jman8]

As I said, I'm interested in building consensus, and listing up to 6 of the top items we all agree on. Putting them in an exact order may be challenging, though I will try. Of the 3 responses so far, here is that consensus (in order of most important):

1 - Protection of online sales
2 - Permitting vendors to sell any flavor
3 - Elimination and/or prevention of indoor/outdoor vaping bans (decision of property owners foremost)
4 - Product safety and studies that establish the safety of nicotine / vapor
5 - Protecting free market for vendors to sell strength of nicotine they desire, size of bottles they desire. Allowing vendors to flourish.
6 - Protecting consumer choice with ability to buy whatever device works for them.

This list is subject to change, pending more responses and/or challenges / questions on how I chose to order things.
I would prefer questions on these periodic posts regarding consensus be sent to me via private message. Thanks!

 

[Tempesta]

Protection of online sales
Not classifying PVs as tobacco products
Letting property owners decide whether or not to allow vaping
Not taxing PVs
Letting manufacturers use flavors
Neutral studies on use of PVs as smoking cessation aid

 

[BillyWJ]

1. Keeping the FDA's mittens off of vapor.
2. Keeping the Fed's mittens off of vapor via "sin taxes".
3. Promoting the positive effects of vaping, instead of focusing on urban legend and negative attitudes.
4. Research, more research, and did I mention research?
5. The downfall of Big Tobacco
6. Finding a fair and balanced approach to where vaping is allowed.

I don't think that's too much to ask for, really.

 

[shelleyb]

1. Protecting Online Sales
2. Protecting the ability to buy nicotine liquid
3. Fair research that is fairly reported to the public
4. Not banning vaping in public
5. No unreasonable taxes -- shouldn't be any "sin" taxes

 

[Jman8]

Of the 6 responses so far, here is the consensus (in order of most important):

1 - Protection of online sales
2 - Elimination and/or prevention of indoor/outdoor vaping bans (decision of property owners foremost)
3 - Product safety and studies that establish the safety of nicotine / vapor
4 - Permitting vendors to sell any flavor
5 - Protecting free market for vendors to sell strength of nicotine they desire, size of bottles they desire. Allowing vendors to flourish.
6 - No unreasonable taxes, i.e. 'sin tax'

Recently dropped from the list (of top 6)
-Protecting consumer choice with ability to buy whatever device works for them.

This color represents change in item (raised) since last time I updated the list
This color represents change in item (lowered) since last time I updated
This color represents new item added to the list

This list is subject to change, pending more responses and/or challenges / questions on how I chose to order things.
I would prefer questions on these periodic posts regarding consensus be sent to me via private message. Thanks!

 

[2coils]

Refillable e-liquids and toppers need to stay available
online sales in tact
nic strength remaining effective.

Good thread Jman!

 

[wv2win]

Of the 6 responses so far, here is the consensus (in order of most important):

1 - Protection of online sales
2 - Elimination and/or prevention of indoor/outdoor vaping bans (decision of property owners foremost)
3 - Product safety and studies that establish the safety of nicotine / vapor
4 - Permitting vendors to sell any flavor
5 - Protecting free market for vendors to sell strength of nicotine they desire, size of bottles they desire. Allowing vendors to flourish.
6 - No unreasonable taxes, i.e. 'sin tax'

Recently dropped from the list (of top 6)
-Protecting consumer choice with ability to buy whatever device works for them.

This color represents change in item (raised) since last time I updated the list
This color represents change in item (lowered) since last time I updated
This color represents new item added to the list

This list is subject to change, pending more responses and/or challenges / questions on how I chose to order things.
I would prefer questions on these periodic posts regarding consensus be sent to me via private message. Thanks!

Very good thread, Jman. I like these six. I also really like DC2's list. I am assuming that if these six become reality, then the issue of the FDA will be eliminated.

 

[Rule62]

My list:
1. Protection of online vendors
2. Leave it solely to business owners' discretion as to whether or not to allow vaping on their premises.
3. No general vaping bans imposed by local, state, or federal governments.
4. No restrictions on available flavors for vendor liquids.

 

[p.opus]

Of the 6 responses so far, here is the consensus (in order of most important):

1 - Protection of online sales
2 - Elimination and/or prevention of indoor/outdoor vaping bans (decision of property owners foremost)
3 - Product safety and studies that establish the safety of nicotine / vapor
4 - Permitting vendors to sell any flavor
5 - Protecting free market for vendors to sell strength of nicotine they desire, size of bottles they desire. Allowing vendors to flourish.
6 - No unreasonable taxes, i.e. 'sin tax'

Recently dropped from the list (of top 6)
-Protecting consumer choice with ability to buy whatever device works for them.

This color represents change in item (raised) since last time I updated the list
This color represents change in item (lowered) since last time I updated
This color represents new item added to the list

This list is subject to change, pending more responses and/or challenges / questions on how I chose to order things.
I would prefer questions on these periodic posts regarding consensus be sent to me via private message. Thanks!

This one may be a bit controversial, but I believe it is necessary.

No selling of nicotine containing e-juice to minors. Yes, I know minors smoke, but that is not allowed either. If minors want to vape (which I personally shudder at the idea) then they should be limited to zero nic juice.

 

[wv2win]

This one may be a bit controversial, but I believe it is necessary.

No selling of nicotine containing e-juice to minors. Yes, I know minors smoke, but that is not allowed either. If minors want to vape (which I personally shudder at the idea) then they should be limited to zero nic juice.

For the sack of the vaping community as a whole, we almost have to take this position, purely for political purposes. But there are valid reasons why a 17 year old should be allowed to vape, as a means to get off analogs.

 

[p.opus]

For the sack of the vaping community as a whole, we almost have to take this position, purely for political purposes. But there are valid reasons why a 17 year old should be allowed to vape, as a means to get off analogs.

I understand what you are saying. But the reason that a 17 year old is on analogs is because he broke the law in the first place. Personal Responsibility is a "beeeotch". Like you said, there has to be some give and take, and although I understand there are underage smokers who could use e-cigs to quit, we kind of have to sacrifice them to the fact that if we DO allow nic juice to be sold to minors, then we are simply peddling addiction to children.

Other controlled Nicotine methods could be made available to under-aged smokers. Such as using a zero-nic juice PV in conjunction with a doctor prescribed patch. Then the under aged smoker can limit their nicotine withdrawals while still getting addressing the other smoking behaviors using a nic free pv.

 

[Funk Dracula]

1.) FDA regulations on E-Liquids
2.) Local governments and e-cig usage bans
3.) Official terminology.

Example: Changing the damn name of this forum from "General E-SMOKING Discusson" to "General Vaping Discusion." We are at a point where it is very critical, politically, as to what we officially refer to this activity as. We didn't "quit", we switched from smoking to a safer alternative. Believe it or not, it makes a critical difference in what ANTZ can do or say.

-B

 

[amoret]

I have joined CASAA.

For me personally the most important issues are protecting internet sales and allowing all flavors to be allowed (even though I personally find most of the candy and pop flavors repulsive, that doesn't mean that I don't think adults should have these choices taken away).

I think that the issue under most of the things listed so far is that we have to establish that vaping isn't smoking. So the most important issue to me is education of the public about what it is. I would love to be able to completely dump the term e-cigarette, but I don't know how.

So my numbered list would be:

1. Education
2. Research
3. Education
4. Education
We need those before we can expect any of the specifics to be protected.

 

[Jman8]

This one may be a bit controversial, but I believe it is necessary.

No selling of nicotine containing e-juice to minors. Yes, I know minors smoke, but that is not allowed either. If minors want to vape (which I personally shudder at the idea) then they should be limited to zero nic juice.

I'll allow it, but I'd like to know where that stands for you on a list of say 3 to 6 issues.

 

[Uma]

1) Protection of property owners rights to determine whether or not to permit vaping on their premises.
2) Affordable, no excessive sin taxes, especially for those newly switching over.
3) Protection of online as well as B&M sales
4) Vendors freedom to sell Flavors, nicotine strengths, hardware, accessories the consumers request.
5) Consumers freedom of speech
6).Right to stealth vape wherever needed, especially for the new users whose bodies are still adjusting.


ps. Wonderful thread JMan8!

 

[Jman8]

Of the 11 responses so far, here is the consensus (in order of most important):

1 - Protection of online sales
2 - Elimination and/or prevention of indoor/outdoor vaping bans (decision of property owners foremost)
3 - Product safety, studies and education that establishes the safety of nicotine / vapor
4 - Permitting vendors to sell any flavor
5 - Protecting free market for vendors to sell strength of nicotine they desire, size of bottles they desire. Allowing vendors to flourish.
6 - No unreasonable taxes, i.e. 'sin tax'

Recently dropped from the list (of top 6)
-Protecting consumer choice with ability to buy whatever device works for them.

This color represents new item added to the list

This list is subject to change, pending more responses.