Newbie here but have read some of the articles regarding banning of e-cigs.
Since I am limited to where I can post as a new user, I opted to start this thread to discuss what I think is the best strategy to confront the bans as well as to keep the resources of time and money to a minimum.
To me, it seems that whenever a city or town wants to ban something, they cherry-pick a study (usually by grant or govt agency) to depict the issue as dangerous to the public. At this point, it becomes "the bible" and the ban is pushed through the councils, assembly, senate etc. to get the job done.
There really is no effective way to stop this scenario by fighting the "study". People can petition, write/call their representatives, march or whatever to no avail. As as example, see the global warming debate.
Therefore, my feeling is that instead of trying to disprove the FDA or any other 'study', we should simply demand that if e-cigs are banned, so too will all fog machines used in the entertainment industry. Since the fog machines use amounts of glycol millions of times the dosage used in an e-cig, the fog machines shouldn't be allowed as they are, based on amounts used, millions of times more dangerous to the public based on the "study".
I feel this is a much more effective strategy. The lawmakers would have to decide the issue based on the foggers which were already tested and used since the 50s. The entertainment industry would also join the fight since loss of the fog machines would lower the entertainment value of their productions.
Anyway, I wonder what others think of taking this course? I just don't feel trying to fight a trumped up study is going anywhere based on previous laws passed using the scenario I described initially.
Since I am limited to where I can post as a new user, I opted to start this thread to discuss what I think is the best strategy to confront the bans as well as to keep the resources of time and money to a minimum.
To me, it seems that whenever a city or town wants to ban something, they cherry-pick a study (usually by grant or govt agency) to depict the issue as dangerous to the public. At this point, it becomes "the bible" and the ban is pushed through the councils, assembly, senate etc. to get the job done.
There really is no effective way to stop this scenario by fighting the "study". People can petition, write/call their representatives, march or whatever to no avail. As as example, see the global warming debate.
Therefore, my feeling is that instead of trying to disprove the FDA or any other 'study', we should simply demand that if e-cigs are banned, so too will all fog machines used in the entertainment industry. Since the fog machines use amounts of glycol millions of times the dosage used in an e-cig, the fog machines shouldn't be allowed as they are, based on amounts used, millions of times more dangerous to the public based on the "study".
I feel this is a much more effective strategy. The lawmakers would have to decide the issue based on the foggers which were already tested and used since the 50s. The entertainment industry would also join the fight since loss of the fog machines would lower the entertainment value of their productions.
Anyway, I wonder what others think of taking this course? I just don't feel trying to fight a trumped up study is going anywhere based on previous laws passed using the scenario I described initially.
