Does this seem right to you?

[Lessifer]

So are you saying that having Cartoon Characters on e-liquid Label helps Us?

I'm saying it only hurts us in the hands of someone who will lie and say that it is marketing to children, and that my appropriate reaction to that is not to agree with it and say we shouldn't have cartoon characters, but instead to point out that it is a falsehood. When someone lies to my face I don't just say, that's a lie that others might believe so I better go along with it, I call them a liar, loud enough for others to hear.

 

[zoiDman]

I'm saying it only hurts us in the hands of someone who will lie and say that it is marketing to children, and that my appropriate reaction to that is not to agree with it and say we shouldn't have cartoon characters, but instead to point out that it is a falsehood. When someone lies to my face I don't just say, that's a lie that others might believe so I better go along with it, I call them a liar, loud enough for others to hear.

And you think that is going to Sway the Non-Informed General Public?

 

[Lessifer]

I'm sorry if Beck is All Bent over a 36mg/ml limit. But I think you Know that I wasn't trying to throw him under a Bus.

The point is that "reasonable concessions" are only "reasonable" to some people. If this were a negotiation, where everyone had a seat at the table, we might be able to reach an agreement. That isn't going to happen.

Many of us believe, and we have ample reason to do so, that whatever regulations result from the deeming will not be reasonable. You can't reason someone away from zealotry. You can, however, do your best to have them removed from a position of power.

 

[Lessifer]

And you think that is going to Sway the Non-Informed General Public?

Do you think the FDA regs will be put to a popular vote?

Do you think that if Senator XXXX is exposed for misrepresenting the truth, fighting to protect the cigarette market while claiming to fight for public health, that the public won't take notice?

 

[zoiDman]

The point is that "reasonable concessions" are only "reasonable" to some people. If this were a negotiation, where everyone had a seat at the table, we might be able to reach an agreement. That isn't going to happen.

Many of us believe, and we have ample reason to do so, that whatever regulations result from the deeming will not be reasonable. You can't reason someone away from zealotry. You can, however, do your best to have them removed from a position of power.

If you can't get enough Congress Member to agree to a 50mg/ml limit, but you could get enough to agree on a 36mg/ml limit, would you continue to Fight for 50mg/ml? When the Downside is we would have to except a 12mg/ml Limit if we Lose?

 

[Lessifer]

If you can't get enough Congress Member to agree to a 50mg/ml limit, but you could get enough to agree on a 36mg/ml limit, would you continue to Fight for 50mg/ml? When the Downside is we would have to except a 12mg/ml Limit if we Lose?

What would be the justification for a limit on mg/ml?

 

[zoiDman]

Do you think the FDA regs will be put to a popular vote?

Do you think that if Senator XXXX is exposed for misrepresenting the truth, fighting to protect the cigarette market while claiming to fight for public health, that the public won't take notice?

Do you think Senators will Fight for e-Cigarettes if 60% of those who Re-Elect them are Against them?

If we Can't garner some Non-vaping Support, we are in for a Very Tough Time.

 

[zoiDman]

What would be the justification for a limit on mg/ml?

Poisoning.

And before you Flame Me. I'm not say'n I agree. Just what will be a Part of there Justification.

 

[beckdg]

I think you just want to Argue.

And will resort to Taunts to do so if I won't.

Tapatyped

 

[Lessifer]

Do you think Senators will Fight for e-Cigarettes if 60% of those who Re-Elect them are Against them?

If we Can't garner some Non-Vaping Support, we are in for a Very Tough Time.

I think that 90% or more of the non-vaping public doesn't care one way or the other. I think we can directly effect that number by continuing to spread our stories. If every non-vaper/non-smoker knew someone who used vaping to quit or drastically reduce their smoking, and they knew that the government was using lies and misrepresentation of facts in order to squash vaping, we might garner more support.

Poisoning.

And before you Flame Me. I'm not say'n I agree. Just what will be a Part of there Justification.

And again I say, is it better to just accept their lie, or point it out?

 

[beckdg]

I'm sorry if Beck is All Bent over a 36mg/ml limit. But I think you Know that I wasn't trying to throw him under a Bus.

Your "compromises" would be succeeding. No try about it.

Tapatyped

 

[zoiDman]

...

And again I say, is it better to just accept their lie, or point it out?

No arguments Here. Let's point out the Lies.

So How do we Point things out to the General Public?

 

[Lessifer]

And you think that is going to Sway the Non-Informed General Public?

What message do you think "You're right, we shouldn't have cartoon characters or anything that could be attractive to 'kids' on our labels" conveys?

We START here on ECF, getting vapers to move beyond "well, vaping is like smoking, so yeah we have to protect the children."

Then we branch out, social media, commenting on news articles. If any of the groups can get organized and funded enough, maybe an actual media campaign. I've been meaning to look into how to suggest material for NPR, The Daily Show, John Oliver, Bill Maher, etc. but I will admit that it hasn't gone much beyond an idea, life is a bit hectic and vaping isn't the only thing in my life.

 

[beckdg]

If you can't get enough Congress Member to agree to a 50mg/ml limit, but you could get enough to agree on a 36mg/ml limit, would you continue to Fight for 50mg/ml? When the Downside is we would have to except a 12mg/ml Limit if we Lose?

Popular vote
Uninformed public
Senators opinions

Subjects of concern only to those who've conceded defeat.

As the people, it's our country and their obligation to represent our concerns.

Tapatyped

 

[caramel]

No arguments Here. Let's point out the Lies.

So How do we Point things out to the General Public?

like this:

 

[beckdg]

Do you think Senators will Fight for e-Cigarettes if 60% of those who Re-Elect them are Against them?

If we Can't garner some Non-Vaping Support, we are in for a Very Tough Time.

40% is 400% more than we need.

Tapatyped

 

[caramel]

Talking about the bus. I'm wondering maybe we could get some favours from the General Public and Moderate Senators if we give them the teachers. Zoid, any good argument on why people that come in permanent contact with children shall be allowed to use nicotine?

 

[zoiDman]

What message do you think "You're right, we shouldn't have cartoon characters or anything that could be attractive to 'kids' on our labels" conveys?

We START here on ECF, getting vapers to move beyond "well, vaping is like smoking, so yeah we have to protect the children."

Then we branch out, social media, commenting on news articles. If any of the groups can get organized and funded enough, maybe an actual media campaign. I've been meaning to look into how to suggest material for NPR, The Daily Show, John Oliver, Bill Maher, etc. but I will admit that it hasn't gone much beyond an idea, life is a bit hectic and vaping isn't the only thing in my life.

Take the Cartoon Characters Off e-Liquid Labels. Then use as Bright Colours and Text as you Want.

Remember: The Vast Majority of e-Liquid companies Don't put Cartoons on their Bottles of e-Liquid. And those Comapines are Doing Fine. As long as they have a Decent Tasting e-Liquid of course.

---

I have Contacted the PBS News Hour, Charlie Rose, Frontline, Fox News, WSJ and Forbes asking them to read some of the Positive Studies such as what is seen on the CASAA website. And then Do a Piece on e-Cigarette HRT.

They all seem somewhat Respective to the Idea. But the Replies are more Form Letters than anything Else.

 

[Jode]

We can Disagree on things. No Problem.

Just like I Disagree that "their goal" (if you are referring to Congress or BT) is to Snuff Out vaping completely.

Congress and BT Want an e-Cigarette Industry. If you are Congress, you Can't Tax e-Cigarettes if they are Gone. And if you are BT, you can't make Profits on something that is Banned.

They Both Want e-Cigarettes. I just Disagree with what the Majority of our Senators want the e-Cigarette Market to Look Like. And Completely Disagree with BT's goal of 100% Market Domination.

The Only people that want e-Cigarettes to be Fully Banned is a Very, Very Small percentage of the General Public. And they will not get Their Wish.

---

I don't Actively Search out companies to look at their Labels. LOL. But if I see something that I Feel could be Perceived as Marketing to Minors, I will Definitely send an e-Mail to the OEM.

That's terrific!! Continue on with your effort then. I will continue with mine by supporting CASAA and SFATA, and sending my thoughts on how vaping as a whole (the way it is now) has helped me, family and friend. But I don't feel that I should decide prematurely which labels are good and which will be made to change. I guess I am a true New Hampshirite (Live and Let Die).

 

[zoiDman]

like this:

I'm not a Huge Fan of Fox News.

But I have to Like Anyone who can put out some Positive Perspective on e-Cigarettes.

BTW - I have sent this Vid to Everyone I know who will Watch it.