In the interests of full disclosure, let me say that I'm a lifetime Kos member. I don't spend much time on the site, but I've done a lot of political work in the past, and used to be a minor Dem party officer (very minor). Since I live in IN, I'm familiar with the views of conservative Dems (the only kind who get elected to statewide office here), as well as my fellow liberals. I also know a lot of Repubs, both of what I might refer to as the Statist and Libertarian variety. (Tea partiers are not nec'ly Libertarians, BTW.)
And one other thing: of the four states with the harshest anti-vaping laws, two are dark red: UT & ND. Add AR which is fairly red (despite a vanishing number of conservative Dems), and you get the picture. NJ is obviously bright blue, and MN is mostly-blue (I mention MN only because of its taxes, but there's a fight coming there on the clean air act - as I reported today).
There are plenty of statist GOP politicians who support tough anti-vaping statutes outside of those states. Usually the statist Repubs favor them because they see smoking is immoral and generally tend to favor gov't intervention when they view an issue as one of morality. They also warm up when you bring in children. (For ex., the push to regulate internet porn for ex. was substantially fueled by statist Repubs.) Many of these Repubs will also reflexively oppose anything that they think Dems favor. These folks represent what you might call the "establishment" GOP. (They also tend to be neo-cons who never ran into a war or a defense appropriation that they didn't like.)
On the other side, you have conservative Dems who also tend to have a moralist streak (which is why people like my own Sen. Donnelly are staunchly pro-life). Some liberal Dems also have a Libertarian streak,which explains the support for laws concerning THAT_OTHER_STUFF. Those same folks tend to be anti-big-business - so to reach them, the ANTZ have done a good job of smearing vapers with BT "cooties" (not a strong enough word, but you get the idea).
It's clear that there's no pro-vaping built-in constituency right now w/i the Dem party. This probably explains why some national Dems are so relentlessly aggressive. It's equally clear that there's a built-in pro-vaping Libertarian constituency w/i the GOP (who favor vaping in part because Libs don't like gov't restrictions, period), and they're assisted by a certain number of statist Repubs who will be pro-vaping only because they think Dems are against it.
On the other hand, as this complex multi-jurisdictional game plays out at various levels of gov't, I think you'll see more and more dark-red state and local governments passing onerous restrictions. The fact is that the ANTZ have gotten to them, too - by (1) tying vapers to already-demonized-and-by-hypothesis-immoral smokers; and (2) by fear-mongering tactics involving minors. You'll see this especially in small rural towns and counties, which tend to be populated principally by pious Puritannical statist Repubs. (This probably explains the situations in ND and UT, for ex.). For every Richmond or Solana Beach CA, I'll give you a Williamson TX or a Manketo MN (yes, MN is a bluish state, but not out in the sticks). Frankly, I wouldn't be at all be surprised if states like KY, OK, TX, TN, AL, LA, KS, NE, SD, and MO follow ND's lead (althogh for the nonce, AL seems to be curiously not under threat - quite the opposite).
Even worse, you may see liberal Dems and statist Repubs form a "strange bedfellows" alliance in purple states like IA, WI, FL, CO, and OH (currently not under threat this year) and even tobacco-growing states like VA and NC. What will happen in dark red states with lots of libertarians *and* Bible-thumping statist Repubs like WY, MT, ID and AK? Your guess is as good as mine. ME is also going to be a fascinating state to watch.
The situation is going to look a whole lot different after this legislative session, and will become even more complex if the FDA doesn't act this year.
The only thing that I think I can say w/ confidence is that simplistic "red vs blue" generalizations just aren't going to cut it, in terms of accurately describing the landscape. Nat'l Dems and blue states may be getting all the limelight, but this is more a matter of reputation than reality.
: Being tagged as seriously malfeasant shouldn't be aimed solely at members of a specific political party but to any and all politicians, regulators, public health and medical practitioners, and NGO and non-profit grant-seeking troughers who advocate restricting ecigs because they "just don't know"...
