Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
"The best government is that which governs least."
Thomas Jefferson or Henry David Thoreau or John Locke - take your pick.
Sadly there are very few in or out of government who hold to such a thought.
Thomas Jefferson or Henry David Thoreau or John Locke - take your pick.
Sadly there are very few in or out of government who hold to such a thought.
First, it would be NVA - National Vaper's Association (not VRA).
Second, the NRA has a HUGE advantage in any fight they partake in. It's called the 2nd Amendment. Every time someone tries to go against them they just have to point to to those 4 little words: "shall not be infringed" and they pretty much win. If we could find some constitutional ground to stand on, we would be a lot better off. I am just not seeing it at this point. We are going to have to be more of a "hearts and minds" type of group. Even in that space the NRA has a HUGE marketing arm. They even have their own TV channel, not to mention magazines, etc. I agree that in that respect we do need to be more like the NRA. The NRA also has HUGE support from the gun manufacturers and sellers. We seem to get very little support from the vape manufacturers and stores. It's just never going to be as easy for us as it is the NRA, but yes we need to try.So who is going to start the NVA?
Last edited:
First, it would be NVA - National Vaper's Association (not VRA).
So who is going to start the NVA?
First, I actually liked the name “VapeRA”...ok??? [sarcastic tone]
No but really...it’s kinda cool because it has the word VAPER in it...
Constitutional ground?
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...”
Sure that’s not in an amendment, but I’m sure there’s something in that precious document somewhere.
You’ve got the right idea...finding constitutional backing.
I haven't really found anything. So far the best I have come up with is a twist on Roe V Wade. Essentially if a woman has the right to "choose what to do with her body" then why doesn't everyone? If the government cannot tell a woman she can't have an abortion, then why can they tell me I can't vape flavors, or vape in general? My health is (or at least should be) my business, not theirs.
The Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Well we certainly can't have a vape culture promulgated by retail interests if they can't partake in free commercial speech. As pointed out by Scalia's dissent below, if the courts continue to abridge the 1A by depriving speech as essential to trade, there is no way to well inform the public as to the inappropriate nature of legislation or regulation or the very real advantages of vaping.
The greater duty in my estimation has been for the vape retail industry to promote and defend the culture. In my estimation it's been the unspoken entry ticket for all of us to evangelize the benefit for each of us and society. But especially so for those merchants whose self-interest has been so handsomely served over recent years. We've needed retailers to spearhead a defense of our mutual interests and independence. That should have been an assumed cost of doing business.
There is no adequate refuge from ignorance. It has a way of finding you. So the end game undeniably and necessarily involves all of us, each of us, making the case to the public at large. Had retail taken this lead and stance (albeit many have, not an indictment here) perhaps we might be holding our own.
We most of us may have used vaping to quit. But we're not still vaping for nic or tab. And once we crossed that threshold it became a different mission. It became about rights; not the mitigation, negation or negotiation of them. That needed to be well understood — that we're in this together. And not just vapers, but our society as a whole.
Recall there is a group of CA retailers that formed a class action on 1A grounds and nary a peep heard around these parts. Discovered in the press but I'll look now as perhaps some mention here.
Good luck.
“The virtue of a democratic system with a First Amendment is that it readily enables the people, over time, to be persuaded that what they took for granted is not so, and to change their laws accordingly. That system is destroyed if the smug assurances of each age are removed from the democratic process and written into the Constitution. So to counterbalance the Court’s criticism of our ancestors, let me say a word in their praise: they left us free to change. The same cannot be said of this most illiberal Court, which has embarked on a course of inscribing one after another of the current preferences of the society (and in some cases only the counter-majoritarian preferences of the society’s law-trained elite) into our Basic Law.”—Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, United States v. Virginia et al. (94-1941), 518 U.S. 515 (1996)
Last edited:
That is the reason they are using the kiddos. It would be hard to argue against the "right to personal" happiness, except that making good and sure vaping has been "criminalized" first via the children (or society at large), is the only way to "criminalize" a harm reduction process.
Because if they just say, "We don't like this vaping stuff, although cigarettes are LEGAL," even the most wildly anti-vape organization can't say much.
This is why it is death by a thousand cuts. We do need an organization strictly for vaping, and yes, financial help from the manufacturers would be huge.
IDK if I have time. But, if we chartered a vape-defense organization, we could request manufacturer aid. That's something I'd be willing to do a chunk of, as far as requesting aid from manufacturers. IDK.
I agree there isn't the requisite lawful angle to pursue, other than perhaps liberty and the right to vape as an adult. We could work on getting "pledges" from vendors that no, they don't sell vapes to kids. We could try to set up something where a small percentage of every sale goes to the organization. If affordable in the slightest, we could send a lobbyist to congress.
I am 100% willing to take that position. When I lived in DC I testified before (on child abuse stuff) which is how I know how ANNOYING congress persons behavior on the floor actually IS. But, as a former SW, I would seriously consider being a vape lobbyist. I'm a fairly decent schmoozer, and I know some folks who have connections and etc. My sister, who works for a Federal Judge, for one. I could ask her more about it, actually (what angle as far as the constitution would be most useful to pursue. She's pretty creative, I'll probably email her about it. It could be accomplished. I guess it would be a matter of deciding our angle, getting members, and ideally enough funding for a lobbyist position. IDK that seems like it would be one way to go. But, we'd actually need a platform, and then split up the work of contacting the myriad vendors etc (although the ones associated with ECF would be an easy way to start) but there are so many more. A lot of laundromats around here might be willing to give it a go, they are genuinely laundering money.
But, that is what would need to start happening, and IMO it would be a ton of work, that literally would HAVE to be spread across members, and then amping up as possible and fundable.
Anna
Because if they just say, "We don't like this vaping stuff, although cigarettes are LEGAL," even the most wildly anti-vape organization can't say much.
This is why it is death by a thousand cuts. We do need an organization strictly for vaping, and yes, financial help from the manufacturers would be huge.
IDK if I have time. But, if we chartered a vape-defense organization, we could request manufacturer aid. That's something I'd be willing to do a chunk of, as far as requesting aid from manufacturers. IDK.
I agree there isn't the requisite lawful angle to pursue, other than perhaps liberty and the right to vape as an adult. We could work on getting "pledges" from vendors that no, they don't sell vapes to kids. We could try to set up something where a small percentage of every sale goes to the organization. If affordable in the slightest, we could send a lobbyist to congress.
I am 100% willing to take that position. When I lived in DC I testified before (on child abuse stuff) which is how I know how ANNOYING congress persons behavior on the floor actually IS. But, as a former SW, I would seriously consider being a vape lobbyist. I'm a fairly decent schmoozer, and I know some folks who have connections and etc. My sister, who works for a Federal Judge, for one. I could ask her more about it, actually (what angle as far as the constitution would be most useful to pursue. She's pretty creative, I'll probably email her about it. It could be accomplished. I guess it would be a matter of deciding our angle, getting members, and ideally enough funding for a lobbyist position. IDK that seems like it would be one way to go. But, we'd actually need a platform, and then split up the work of contacting the myriad vendors etc (although the ones associated with ECF would be an easy way to start) but there are so many more. A lot of laundromats around here might be willing to give it a go, they are genuinely laundering money.
But, that is what would need to start happening, and IMO it would be a ton of work, that literally would HAVE to be spread across members, and then amping up as possible and fundable.
Anna
One of the problems we have when looking for a Constitutional basis for objecting to the regulation of vaping is that most of us on here are quite content and happy to have the federal government regulate those things that "need" regulation. How many think that the federal government has the power to regulate gas mileage, mandatory seat belts, mandatory school standards or diets, the coding of diseases, requirements that one purchase health care insurance and on and on? What is the basis of that power? Each of these will find its constituency on this forum and that constituency will see one or more of these areas to be perfectly appropriate for governmental regulation.
If a person here finds that any of the above perfectly acceptable areas for governmental intervention then that person will have a hard time differentiating between any regulation of which they approve and any other regulation which does not have their approval. The only difference is that in our case the vaper’s ox is gored and so we are agitated, however the other approved regulations are just “real good ideas” and "there oughta be a law". Let us face it, we like the regulatory state unless it impinges upon us in a way that we do not like.
Take a peek at the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, the enumerated powers of the legislative branch. The Supreme Court has allowed Congress to exceed its enumerated authority including the delegation of its responsibility to the Executive Branch.
If a person here finds that any of the above perfectly acceptable areas for governmental intervention then that person will have a hard time differentiating between any regulation of which they approve and any other regulation which does not have their approval. The only difference is that in our case the vaper’s ox is gored and so we are agitated, however the other approved regulations are just “real good ideas” and "there oughta be a law". Let us face it, we like the regulatory state unless it impinges upon us in a way that we do not like.
Take a peek at the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, the enumerated powers of the legislative branch. The Supreme Court has allowed Congress to exceed its enumerated authority including the delegation of its responsibility to the Executive Branch.
Last edited:
How about the ingestion or injection of addictive drugs or not using a seat belt, should that be Okay? I am not disagreeing with you but how far down the "my body" road does one go? Does it have definable limits?
And occasionally the tree of liberty requires watering with the blood of patriots, paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson.
I heard about that last night. My kiddo seems to think the lawyer got fired after retrieving some sort of damaging info about Trump or something, like Trump sends his minions to do his bidding (court Russians) and then fires them. He was a bit incoherent about it (I arrived bearing mom donations, he's got the flu).
Also, apparently, for those of you who read (it was brief) the Medical Records on Trump, published in the NY times? Then, immediately retracted? My son says he sent some "lawyer" to go get the medical records, and promptly fired the lackey, because he didn't want anything connected to him/it. Etc. "The lawyer he sent didn't even have a medical release!" the kid said, incoherently.
I decided not to get into the fact that the NYtimes most DEFINITELY did not have a HIPPA release when they got their hands on those records. Also, I did not state, "Quite frankly, after READING that story, the dude Trump needed to fire was his DOCTOR. Because, anyone willing to prescribe that sort of stuff, then somehow allow them to be released? (Although, probably, someone stole them since I think they were based on that "assessment of fitness to be president" thing. Man, though, I would fire my doc in a heartbeat, and I will admit, that when I first read the story, I thought to myself, "THIS. THIS explains each and every strange Trump act, from the dawn of time, to the end of time." The side effects from his baldness meds caused, (I'm doing my best from memory) wild mood swings, incoherence, forgetfulness, especially late a night, possible dementia in older persons," and etc. It really explained each and every late night Trump tweet.
I enjoyed the medical records. They told a story that really made me come to "understand" Trump, I've had a hard time forming an opinion, honestly, and that's unusual for me, quite frankly. I can usually read people to a point. When I stare at Trump, I kind of alternate between: autism, alien abduction, just a rich kid looking to do something prior to death, sociopathy, a nice but misunderstood gentleman, and etc.
Dementia explains all of it. I'm not saying that is the case, mind you, and I have some respect for some of Trumps actions, and I also understand that the media has saved ALL their bile for the next Republican president, and also, they were sad they couldn't do it to the black dude, even if on their side, to an extent, but Trump remains absolutely baffling to me. He's one of the most polarizing figures, and IMO, it's because he is Impossible to Read, almost, I mean, I tend to put more sway in my personal reaction to a president than what is being SAID about them. Him, I genuinely have no clue.
I have decided that "W" is my new favorite prez. He just, you could tell he was doing it because he had to, not because he wanted to, but he was genuinely a president I respected as a human being.
Whether Trump is an alien or not, I will take him over Hillary any day of the week. I'm pretty sure she's the second coming of Satan (if it was not in fact my "keep the change" president, I remain uncertain) but yeah, I'm pretty sure she was Satan in the flesh. Let's hope that doesn't make Trump Jesus, a demented Jesus is just... Well, I'd be hoping for more, although he sure is colorful. I will say that.
Anna
Also, apparently, for those of you who read (it was brief) the Medical Records on Trump, published in the NY times? Then, immediately retracted? My son says he sent some "lawyer" to go get the medical records, and promptly fired the lackey, because he didn't want anything connected to him/it. Etc. "The lawyer he sent didn't even have a medical release!" the kid said, incoherently.
I decided not to get into the fact that the NYtimes most DEFINITELY did not have a HIPPA release when they got their hands on those records. Also, I did not state, "Quite frankly, after READING that story, the dude Trump needed to fire was his DOCTOR. Because, anyone willing to prescribe that sort of stuff, then somehow allow them to be released? (Although, probably, someone stole them since I think they were based on that "assessment of fitness to be president" thing. Man, though, I would fire my doc in a heartbeat, and I will admit, that when I first read the story, I thought to myself, "THIS. THIS explains each and every strange Trump act, from the dawn of time, to the end of time." The side effects from his baldness meds caused, (I'm doing my best from memory) wild mood swings, incoherence, forgetfulness, especially late a night, possible dementia in older persons," and etc. It really explained each and every late night Trump tweet.
I enjoyed the medical records. They told a story that really made me come to "understand" Trump, I've had a hard time forming an opinion, honestly, and that's unusual for me, quite frankly. I can usually read people to a point. When I stare at Trump, I kind of alternate between: autism, alien abduction, just a rich kid looking to do something prior to death, sociopathy, a nice but misunderstood gentleman, and etc.
Dementia explains all of it. I'm not saying that is the case, mind you, and I have some respect for some of Trumps actions, and I also understand that the media has saved ALL their bile for the next Republican president, and also, they were sad they couldn't do it to the black dude, even if on their side, to an extent, but Trump remains absolutely baffling to me. He's one of the most polarizing figures, and IMO, it's because he is Impossible to Read, almost, I mean, I tend to put more sway in my personal reaction to a president than what is being SAID about them. Him, I genuinely have no clue.
I have decided that "W" is my new favorite prez. He just, you could tell he was doing it because he had to, not because he wanted to, but he was genuinely a president I respected as a human being.
Whether Trump is an alien or not, I will take him over Hillary any day of the week. I'm pretty sure she's the second coming of Satan (if it was not in fact my "keep the change" president, I remain uncertain) but yeah, I'm pretty sure she was Satan in the flesh. Let's hope that doesn't make Trump Jesus, a demented Jesus is just... Well, I'd be hoping for more, although he sure is colorful. I will say that.
Anna
The hardline libertarian stance is totally unproductive if you want to achieve political change, as the vast majority of people value living in a society that doesn't produce unnecessary orphans due to their parents being too lazy to wear a seatbelt over one's freedom to be too lazy to wear a seatbelt. Comparing vaping to not wearing a seat belt is even more counterproductive.
Honestly I don't agree with seat belt laws or even motorcycle helmet laws. To me the line is drawn so that your freedom of choice ends where it can start negatively affecting other people. You wearing a seat belt or not, wearing a helmet or not, vaping or not, only affects you. Ingestion or injection of substances that can cause you to become violent and harm others is crossing that line. Just as using substances that can impair driving such as alcohol can be legal as long as you aren't driving while under the influence. To me the line is very clear, and vaping is clearly on the right side of it.
It was not a comparison or equating a vape to a seat belt, those were examples of regulations, some of which you obviously favor. They are some examples of what people consider good ideas and we need a law. Where would you draw the line and do you think other, presumably rational, people might disagree with you?
Last edited:
Left the best part out. ;- )
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If I understand, regulation that is protective of others is acceptable regulation and the individual is responsible for the consequences of harm to themselves.
Similar threads
- Locked
