Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[englishmick]

IMO the vape store was our town hall. Each enterprise owner a team leader in comm org. I think many of us saw the inherent value of this premise. But commercially we became a box house and what we do a commodity. A shame. What we lose is not tobacco or nicotine.

vaping is joy and freedom to us! Something we want to pass along to all who need and want it.

Yes, it would be great if we had a savior in some media wizard. But what we needed to do was widely and prominently promote what we are doing and why to all around us. Such that they all become allies and advocates for our profoundly human cause. This will not end until our partners, children, co-workers, employers, doctors, teachers, preachers sons and daughters right to the garbage man and dog catcher, indeed everyone we touch, understands just how miserable this unjust process is making our efforts to be healthy and whole. If the impact on us is never personalized, they will never see it.

If we're going to be saved at this point it's going to be by a miracle. A miracle of human understanding. It will not be accomplished in a cave or a bunker.

Good luck.

Sometimes it's easy to forget what a miracle vaping felt like when we first got off the cigs. Now it's just a fun thing to do.

I think quite a few people around me, like family and friends, understand that vaping is a good thing. Some I haven't been able to convince. That's probably true for all of us. But I doubt many of them understand the nature and extent of the campaign against vaping. I've told people about it but I suspect they often write that off as me indulging in a conspiracy theory.

And the non-vaping people around me may have a positive view of vaping, but not to the extent that they would get involved in the struggle. The people who control the media machines have got so many voters focused solely on how evil one or other of the political parties is. Our issue is about as significant as whether mining companies can dump their waste 10 feet or 20 feet from the local creek. We are the only people it actually matters to.

I took that flavor survey. I've persuaded one vaping family member to take it. I've communicated with quite a few politicians. I donate to CASAA. Those seem like small actions but it's all I can figure out to do as an individual. If I was a billionaire I could make a few phone calls to my politicians and it would be over.

I'm not sure what the future holds. There does seem to be more discussion of the positive side out there. At least to the extent that the negative propaganda isn't all you see. Even from the official side. ​

 

[stols001]

I don't think anyone knows. It can be hard to remain hopeful, but it's a good objective to keep in mind, certainly. I didn't try to get non-vapers to take the study (I figured surely enough vapers would) and it just didn't seem right.

I will say, I advocate in part for new vapers, but if it comes to lazy vapers who just don't do their part, that's a bit upsetting.

I guess many vapers are either uninformed, or just are vaping very simply and in a gas station utilitarian fashion. I do see those vapers a lot at my gas station, and I doubt very much that they've encountered the survey. Perhaps next time, if I find some, I will snag them and "educate" them but it's usually during the early morning, off to work rush time.

Trying to remain hopeful however...

Anna

 

[Baditude]

Hasn't the Flavor Survey deadline come and gone?

 

[MacTechVpr]

Who owns your body?

Easy to make light of but the most poignant question of the past five years I've been here.

Repeat often. Let stew.

Good luck.

p.s. What is property and consent?

 

[ENAUD]

I don't think anyone knows. It can be hard to remain hopeful, but it's a good objective to keep in mind, certainly. I didn't try to get non-vapers to take the study (I figured surely enough vapers would) and it just didn't seem right.

I will say, I advocate in part for new vapers, but if it comes to lazy vapers who just don't do their part, that's a bit upsetting.

I guess many vapers are either uninformed, or just are vaping very simply and in a gas station utilitarian fashion. I do see those vapers a lot at my gas station, and I doubt very much that they've encountered the survey. Perhaps next time, if I find some, I will snag them and "educate" them but it's usually during the early morning, off to work rush time.

Trying to remain hopeful however...

Anna

Then there's folks like me...I have transitioned to mostly non flavored e-liquid. When I started vaping, I quickly found that most vendor juice was overbearingly flavored to me. I abstained from the survey for the betterment of the community...

 

[ENAUD]

Just because one owns one's body doesn't mean one is free to do every conceivable action with it, as I'm sure you would agree if somebody stood peering through your window while playing with themselves.

Apples to Oranges argument there, being that in this scenario one is violating another person, not the same thing as what one does with their own body, the involvement of the second persona creates an action that affects others...just sayin'.

 

[stols001]

Well I'd suppose vaping "affects others" but only in a positive sort of way. Even never smoking teens (who would otherwise have smoked) are being positively impacted by vaping. Second hand vape is harmless, etc.

However, the government does not want to hear it. They don't want to see net positive change, they want to see more teens smoking.

Harm reduction is a model the US doesn't understand, well, at least the government doesn't.

It's odd, too with all this talk about the need for an improved economy, the need for jobs, etc. A gas station attendant will do just fine even if no one buys cigarettes there, there is plenty of other stuff to purchase. A vape shop is a whole bunch of new employment opportunities.

With that said, the US is hanging on, tooth and nail, to attempt to preserve smoking, and to make vaping less appealing. This is due to sin taxes, and sin taxes only.

I genuinely wouldn't mind a federal tax, if it meant more smokers weren't born. I wouldn't love it, but I could deal with it. And clearly at least the kids can afford and obtain the high priced Juul. The Feds just need to tax vaping, then leave it be. But, that somehow "cannot" happen. Make no mistake, it will be taxed either way, but it's the interference that really has me "going." Tax something all you want, those who are vaping (child or adult) don't seem to mind paying for it.

However, the problem is that gear has gotten so much more durable. So, after a while, there is mostly juice left to "tax" and they'd have to almost price it out of the market to make the economics work, I think. Not to mention direct importation.

But, I'd rather have a tax than have vaping ruined, although such taxes do tend to make it less likely for harm reduction to occur. One of the benefits of vaping is that it is, (currently) a lot less expensive AND you can wind up with durable things besides a zippo lighter, etc.

Anna

Anna

 

[Ionori]

Apples to Oranges argument there, being that in this scenario one is violating another person, not the same thing as what one does with their own body, the involvement of the second persona creates an action that affects others...just sayin'.

And yet the violation you are describing is nothing other than a feeling of disgust at what a person is doing with their own body. The same logic can be easily applied to any other activity, including vaping, which is why the "my body" argument is not valid.

 

[Wooots]

tl;dr what do all that concretly mean ?

 

[Kent C]

p.s. What is property and consent?

This is just to point Mac to some sources he (and others, perhaps) may find interesting, not to continue a discussion along these lines. I don't think this is actually 'off-topic' but suggest PMing me for further correspondence.

Property:

The Philosophy of the Declaration of Independence: Part 2

Whereas we would say “This pencil is my property,” earlier libertarians were more likely to say “I have a property in this pencil.” When John Locke argued that the proper function of government is to protect property, he explained that by “property” he meant a person’s “Life, Liberty, and Estate.” This usage is what Locke had in mind when he wrote that “every Man has a Property in his own Person.”

In Jefferson’s day both meanings of “property” were common, but the older usage, according which I would be said to have a property in my pencil, was giving way to the modern usage, according to which this pencil would be said to be my property. This dual usage was discussed by James Madison in 1792, and his treatment deserves to be quoted at length:

This term [property] in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right, and which leave to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

[note also the explanation of why Jefferson worded the Lockean idea of 'life, liberty and property' as 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'. Basically because he was speaking in terms of inalienable rights (the 'unalienable' in the D of I was a typo), and property can be 'alienated' (sold, traded, thrown out...) However, Locke's view of property is explained in terms of being able to acquire, trade, sell, etc. - an inalienable right as well.]

Consent:

Freedom, Rights, and Political Philosophy, Part 2

Natural rights can be transferred, delegated, or alienated only through consent, according to Locke. Therefore, no person can lay claim to a natural right of sovereignty (legitimate political power), which supposedly entitles him to rule others without their consent.
...
Some Americans, such as James Madison, were painfully aware of the appearance of hypocrisy. After achieving independence, how could American governments claim political jurisdiction over people who refused to acknowledge their legitimacy? After noting the “pestilent operation of this doctrine [of consent] in the unlimited sense,” Madison appealed to another feature of the Lockean paradigm, namely, tacit consent:

I can find no relief from such embarrassments but in the received doctrine that a tacit assent may be given to established Governments and law, and that this assent is to be inferred from the omission of an express revocation…Is it not doubtful whether it be possible to exclude wholly the idea of an implied or tacit consent, without subverting the very foundation of civil society.

 

[Ionori]

The idea of natural rights is absurd, rights are granted by the sovereign, and some people are lucky enough to have inherited systems that make the nation sovereign through some sort of democracy, instead of some supreme bandit.

 

[MacTechVpr]

This is just to point Mac to some sources he (and others, perhaps) may find interesting, not to continue a discussion along these lines. I don't think this is actually 'off-topic' but suggest PMing me for further correspondence.

Property:

The Philosophy of the Declaration of Independence: Part 2

Whereas we would say “This pencil is my property,” earlier libertarians were more likely to say “I have a property in this pencil.” When John Locke argued that the proper function of government is to protect property, he explained that by “property” he meant a person’s “Life, Liberty, and Estate.” This usage is what Locke had in mind when he wrote that “every Man has a Property in his own Person.”

In Jefferson’s day both meanings of “property” were common, but the older usage, according which I would be said to have a property in my pencil, was giving way to the modern usage, according to which this pencil would be said to be my property. This dual usage was discussed by James Madison in 1792, and his treatment deserves to be quoted at length:

This term [property] in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right, and which leave to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

[note also the explanation of why Jefferson worded the Lockean idea of 'life, liberty and property' as 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'. Basically because he was speaking in terms of inalienable rights (the 'unalienable' in the D of I was a typo), and property can be 'alienated' (sold, traded, thrown out...) However, Locke's view of property is explained in terms of being able to acquire, trade, sell, etc. - an inalienable right as well.]

Consent:

Freedom, Rights, and Political Philosophy, Part 2

Natural rights can be transferred, delegated, or alienated only through consent, according to Locke. Therefore, no person can lay claim to a natural right of sovereignty (legitimate political power), which supposedly entitles him to rule others without their consent.
...
Some Americans, such as James Madison, were painfully aware of the appearance of hypocrisy. After achieving independence, how could American governments claim political jurisdiction over people who refused to acknowledge their legitimacy? After noting the “pestilent operation of this doctrine [of consent] in the unlimited sense,” Madison appealed to another feature of the Lockean paradigm, namely, tacit consent:

I can find no relief from such embarrassments but in the received doctrine that a tacit assent may be given to established Governments and law, and that this assent is to be inferred from the omission of an express revocation…Is it not doubtful whether it be possible to exclude wholly the idea of an implied or tacit consent, without subverting the very foundation of civil society.

I'm with Locke. Sure I'll ack a certain tacit consent to the limited extent of positive rights (obligations) afforded gov by our Constitution, i.e. by We the People (@Ionori). Otherwise, there's some splainin to do.

The nature of gov is to eventually turn things on their head. That's perhaps when some should come off.

Good luck.

 

[gerrymi]

That (MAOI inhibitors) was the toughest to get over. You know, that almost instant calm that comes over you from the first smoke of the day.

offtopic

I LOVE vaping my MAOI's...(not only in the morning...but, also, during the day...at night...and at bedtime)...

Dvap put a lot of time/effort in isolating them...culminating in his (Aroma) WTA e-liquids...

Madame Psychosis Summary - Pt 1 | E-Cigarette Forum

Whole Tobacco Alkaloid WTA Eliquid Ejuice


..

 

[Myk]

The idea of natural rights is absurd, rights are granted by the sovereign, and some people are lucky enough to have inherited systems that make the nation sovereign through some sort of democracy, instead of some supreme bandit.

You have a natural right to free speech. I can no more force you to shut up than I can force a dog not to bark. I can kill you thereby removing all rights is my only choice.
You have a natural right to self defense. I can ban all weapons and tell you that you have no right to defend yourself but at some point in doing you harm you will reassert your natural right. It is the nature of every living being.
That is the idea behind natural rights. Humans can claim they don't exist but that claim does nothing to remove them.

 

[Ionori]

You have a natural right to free speech. I can no more force you to shut up than I can force a dog not to bark. I can kill you thereby removing all rights is my only choice.
You have a natural right to self defense. I can ban all weapons and tell you that you have no right to defend yourself but at some point in doing you harm you will reassert your natural right. It is the nature of every living being.
That is the idea behind natural rights. Humans can claim they don't exist but that claim does nothing to remove them.

So I have a natural right to perform any action that I am capable of performing? That sounds more like an ability than a right. The only thing that makes a right exist is the power and will of the sovereign to punish those who violate that right (e.g. having a right to free speech means you will be punished if you kill me for speaking, but if you have the right to self-defense you will not be punished for killing me if I choose to assault you).

 

[mikepetro]

The only rights you dont have are the ones that are against your own personal morality, OR those that have been taken away by the sovereign.

 

[Myk]

So I have a natural right to perform any action that I am capable of performing? That sounds more like an ability than a right. The only thing that makes a right exist is the power and will of the sovereign to punish those who violate that right (e.g. having a right to free speech means you will be punished if you kill me for speaking, but if you have the right to self-defense you will not be punished for killing me if I choose to assault you).

I like the animal equations more than anything you're capable of. You can punish dogs for doing whatever they want but there are things you won't train out of them, it's in their nature.
Totalitarian places punish for natural rights all the time. There is always resistance because the rights they punish are natural.

 

[Ionori]

I like the animal equations more than anything you're capable of. You can punish dogs for doing whatever they want but there are things you won't train out of them, it's in their nature.
Totalitarian places punish for natural rights all the time. There is always resistance because the rights they punish are natural.

If you are punished for doing something that is a natural right, then having the natural right is indistinguishable from not having it. You can refer to something as a natural right, but unless that right interacts with the world in the same way as actual rights, it is not actually a right.

 

[Myk]

If you are punished for doing something that is a natural right, then having the natural right is indistinguishable from not having it. You can refer to something as a natural right, but unless that right interacts with the world in the same way as actual rights, it is not actually a right.

I see the problem. It's not that natural rights can't be infringed, everything can be infringed, you can kill people infringing on the most natural right of all, life. The thing is you shouldn't infringe on them because people won't listen so it requires an iron fist to try.

 

[Ionori]

There are large bodies of people that will happily infringe on the natural rights of others for frivolous reasons (ladies and gentlemen, the Middle East).

The difference between a right and a non-right is that infringing an actual right will lead to the sovereign punishing the infringing party (or doing his best to do so), and that can be anything from prima nocta to free speech.

The only rights you dont have are the ones that are against your own personal morality, OR those that have been taken away by the sovereign.

That would have to mean that in the absence of a sovereign (say, a person stranded on an uninhabited island), you would have every conceivable right, but if we examine the situation we can detect no rights interacting with the world in that situation.