Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
After the switch, google searches, and links I had saved, didn't work for posts from prior to the switch, only post-swithover posts. I'm not sure what the status of that is, now.When we switched over to the new software, we became a secure website. In other words, we now have a link that starts httpS. The old links, that he has kept, have no 's' after the http.
DC, just rebuild the links by putting an 's' after the http. Anyone clicking the old links will get bumped out of ECF. Easy fix.
I fixed the link in your original post. You are going to have to fix them on your end.
Just letting ya all know what causes this.
I probably link back to old posts and old threads more than anyone.
Sharing what came before is an important endeavor.
I will try to remember to add an "s" to all my future Wayback Machine links.
And I will probably forget most of the time.
So apologies in advance to those that get logged off by clicking my links in the future.
And thank you Robin for explaining why my links are so toxic.
Yours doesn't log me out.WARNING: This is an old post.
White House OMB rejects FDA's draft regs for e-cigs as too restrictive, tells agency to draft/submit a new proposal
According to my software, only 61.3 KB in that email. How much in the photo?
EDIT: Or is the photo grabbed from the web?
10-11?
But I have sponsored several new vapers!
I'm not sure why, but I was kind of hoping that wouldn't make its way around the forum. I know, I sent it to ~55k people... But you all "know" me.Thank you for filming this Lessifer and making it available for all of us to share
It's an email generated by changedotorg with the YouTube link embedded, maybe that doesn't play well with Linux?
...I have been consistently poo-poo'ed in the
past for insisting that vapers should vape everywhere and very often.
I personally do not even care which style of vaping is used because it is
irrelevant to the issue.
Vaping bans are not about health or what might harm or offend anyone.
That was never the intent the same as smoking. Bans are for one reason
and one reason only. Control (conformity) and,controlling public opinion.
It's banned in public,ergo, it must be bad. Pre-smoking bans public opinion
was against bans. Post smoking ban ,especially as we see it today public
opinion is overwhelmingly for smoking bans. The powers that be are using the
same play book. Society must not be allowed to make up its own mind.
If smoking in public was allowed to prevail sooner or later the public would
figure out all the second hand crap was bunk. The long term studies are baring
this out. The public does not know nor in all probability care because second hand
smoke kills,right? This is why vaping in public absolutly with out a doubt must be banned.
Just one encounter between a vaper and non vaper must be avoided if at all
possible. Vaping compared to smoking in every aspect is so benign anyone
who was exposed to it just might come to the immediate conclusion that
the government is full of it. People enter or pass by candle stores,herb and aroma
stores all the time with no ill affects. Not even fake coughing. They know the smell
can't hurt them. They have experienced this in the past with no ill effects.
The biggest dirty little secret is society has,can and,will work out the issues
of vaping etiquette just as they had with smoking before the bans.
This must not be allowed.
Regards
Mike
I wish it was as simple as you make it out to be.
Lifting smoking bans would not expose the bunk science of 2nd hand smoke any more than interaction between an anti-vaper and someone vaping would change the anti-vaper's mind. The marketing has been too successful.
If you were a public smoker any time in the last ten years, you've no doubt been outside a business smoking, dozens of feet away from anyone passing by, and had some self-righteous twit cough and wave their hand in front of their nose to dispel the imaginary smoke. I've even had people say "what's wrong with you? I'm asthmatic!"...when I was 30 feet away.
People die from lung cancer who never smoked a single cigarette. Everytime that happens, it would be blamed on second-hand smoke- never mind if they were a frequent jogger in LA traffic, it must have been someone smoking in a car that drove by them. Lifting smoking bans wouldn't dismiss the misinformation that's already taken root.
It's the same with vaping. Vaping in front of an anti-vaper is not going to change their mind. No one is going to be exposed to one of us and think "huh, I just breathed two or three breaths of that stuff and I didn't even get emphysema", or "funny, my lungs don't feel pop-corny".
No, instead, they're going to make a show of their offense to anyone who can see them (the old fake cough and hand wave for dramatic effect), and end up making a bigger negative splash than you do with your couple puffs of vapor.
That night, when their hypochondria gets the best of them, they're going to crackle and wheeze, and worry and fret about the long-term effects of what you exposed them to, thereby cementing the negative impact of the event into a place in their brain where it will far outlast any memory they might have of what actually happened.
In 20 years, when they get skin cancer, it won't, in their mind, have anything to do with their weekly trips to the tanning bed. Instead, it'll be because of that pushy vaper who held them down and blew popcorn-lung smoke all over their exposed skin.
You're 100% right about the added difficulty we face because of our reactionary stance. Because we, as a community, didn't take this looming day seriously enough, we no longer have a bunch of fence-sitters that we need to coax over to our side. Now, we have a population on the other side of the fence, actively against us, and we have to somehow convince them to climb the fence and come to our side.
I'm not very optimistic that we can make that happen.
But, if there's a hope, it's not going to come from cloud competitions and ads with sexy girls. If anything, those are probably just going to continue moving the needle the wrong way.
If we stand a chance of winning back public opinion, it's going to be from celebrity testimonials, and 10 second commercials of people telling their tobacco cessation stories, and print ads of stylistically copied quotes from the RCP study.
Yeah yeah...Eh, never mind...
Not going to go there...
But yeah.
The tiny tyrant always takes precedence though. The most remarkable thing about that video is the fact that I was left alone for 10 minutes to shoot it.
Last edited:
OMG. I just say this really slick add put out by still blowing smoke dot come, affiliated with the California DPH...teenager having fun using ecigs, then starts smoking cigarettes. Message on the ad says teens who use ecigs are more likely to smoke.
Honestly, what are everyone's panties in a bunch about? Teens who are going to smoke, are going to smoke. That's when I started.
Honestly, what are everyone's panties in a bunch about? Teens who are going to smoke, are going to smoke. That's when I started.
This post, as much as I HATE it, is absolutely 100% factual.
I don't think I would change a word of it.
I've seen that ad over a dozen times.
Well, that's not entirely true.
I've seen about one third of that ad once.
And then put it on mute every other time it polluted my television screen.
But even seeing only one third of it one time, I was enormously angry.
I don't think I could have possibly handled hearing the rest of it.
But even with the sound off I saw where they went with it.
Oh it makes me so mad just thinking about.
What an enormous load of crap that commercial is!!!
ARGGGGGHHH!!!
Hmmm....that kind of thing works with ecf, for me.
Emphasis mine:
Maybe you should instead say it a different way, if you send something like that, again. I was gonna check the page on change.org, later, so no big deal, but I'm now concerned that I may be missing attachments from people, sometimes. So good that I'm aware of that possibility, now. I guess that deserves another thank you, to you.
You shoulda let me know cause you know I gotta share it
Yep, we "know " you and it is a plus to put a face to the great ideas 
The thing is, there's actually no science behind the thought that vaping would lead someone to smoking. Common sense would dictate that vaping would prevent someone from smoking.
ah, I see. I shouldn't have said attachment. It's not attached, there's just an embedded link in the email.
Most of the public and medical professionals equate vaping with smoking. Nicotine addiction with cigarette addiction and view the hazards to be the same.
Apparently the cigar industry is in the same boat as we are as far as deeming regulations stand. Just watch the Cigar Dave and other premium cigar reviewers going on on YouTube about the FDA and the coming regulations. Replace the words "cigar industry" with " vaping industry" and it sounds exactly the same. They have the same grandfathered date of February 2007. Every cigar manufactured after that date will have to go through the same arduous process. This will kill hundreds of small manufacturers and retailers and will hurt the consumers. The whole boutique cigar industry will be decimated. Of course they have been given the same excuse of" protecting the children". Because as we all know it is common for children to smoke premium cigars. The question is why we don't fight these regulations together? There are millions of vapers but I am sure there are legions of cigar consumers. In my opinion uniting we have a better chance of beating the FDA.
Similar threads
- Locked
