FDA E-cig opponents in Congress urge State AGs to lobby for FDA deeming reg/ban & risk their political careers by unlawfully suing e-cig companies under M

[Jman8]

Seems like every time I post a note on ECF urging folks to engage in advocacy to help keep e-cigs legal and affordable to make/sell/use, Jman, Kent and/or other "right to smoke" ideologues discourage vapers from engaging in that activism (by changing the ECF thread's subject to criticize me and other smokefree activists).

Your OP in this thread, in first 10 words, reads "protect cigarette markets."

You keep harping on that, expect to be called out on it. I don't like that you were once huge ANTZ leaning person that has now come around to see that ANTZ use deception to achieve their goals. Yet, refuse to see that cigarette data is trumped up nonsense. When you are ready to have that debate, do let me know. If not up for that and want to work together to save vaping, then please stop harping on BT with your rhetoric to allegedly motivate us.

 

[Kent C]

Bill Godshall:

Thanks for the clarification, as I've long considered skyrocketing e-cig sales to be an unintended "benefit", not "consequence", of the MSA, cig tax hikes and smokefree workplace laws).

"Consequence" is merely a result, neither good or bad. In the case of Tobacco Control ANTZ it was unintended and from what we see - not one they welcome. Most of the THR faction see it as a beneficial consequence, but a consequence nonetheless.

Except that none of us knew who you were. And I'm probably the only smokefree campaigner who now somewhat knows you (due to correspondences on ECF).

It wasn't my intent to say they knew who I was, only that I knew most of them, before any (including you and by some exchanges Carl and perhaps through email, or reading posts here, a few others) knew of me. Not that it matters, but the point was - that I knew them from my readings before ECF, which 'colors' my perception vs. others that only know of the pro-ecig work. And, not that there aren't others here, who may have known some of you in their own smokers' rights readings.

And again, just to be clear, I stated that my smokers/vapers rights have been consistent, I realize that your THR position is also consistent, but we were at odds wrt to smoking, but now near completely aligned wrt vaping. That happens on various issues. And I support and admire the work you and others have done with regards to ecigs. I like helping you on links requests and requests for emails, comments, votes and likely have more time than you to do on some of the searches that help us all

 

[Kent C]

Seems like every time I post a note on ECF urging folks to engage in advocacy to help keep e-cigs legal and affordable to make/sell/use, Jman, Kent and/or other "right to smoke" ideologues discourage vapers from engaging in that activism (by changing the ECF thread's subject to criticize me and other smokefree activists).

I think that's a bit unfair since I've partticipated in every CASAA CTA as well as contributiing funds toward those issues and have emailed my own congressmen and others as well, and go to almost all easily accessible sites to vote and/or comment. I also PM'd you to find out where to contribute to your group.

When gov't agencies attempt to regulate anything for any reason, the underlying issue is always a rights issue - an attempt to control behavior usually under the guise of 'safety' or some collectivist goal like 'public health'. When actual harm is an issue, not junk science harm, then we already have laws in place for that, but 'regulations' are attempts at only controlling behavior that, (in the eyes of the regulators and the private and public 'agencies' that promote regulation), is annoying, or against their purtianical or socialistic sensitivities.

To inform people and provide the history of regulations goes further to stop this gov't invasion rather than to just focus on the current 'annoyance' whether it is kids riding bikes, usings skateboards, experimenting with cigarettes or ecigarettes. Focusing on just one issue, doesn't really help stop the more basic and underlying attack on rights. Rather than hitting each pop up issue like with whac-a-mole, I find it more effective and efficient to remove the gears of the machine. Yet with me, anyway, I do both - the CTA's etc. as well as keeping informed and informing people on the true source of the problem. And I might note that some of your comments "Obama's FDA" (which I defended, btw, agasint some attacks) and your own solution by changing Congress by getting rid of people like Harkin, Waxman, et al. points in the same direction, but perhaps not the same exact route.

 

[BuGlen]

Seems like every time I post a note on ECF urging folks to engage in advocacy to help keep e-cigs legal and affordable to make/sell/use, Jman, Kent and/or other "right to smoke" ideologues discourage vapers from engaging in that activism (by changing the ECF thread's subject to criticize me and other smokefree activists).

I don't really believe that is a fair assessment. Not everyone on ECF will put THR above their beliefs, and there will always be other ideals at play in this and similar issues, but I don't think that's causing any diminished engagement in advocacy by vapers in general. From what I can tell, it's probably much more likely that we're just seeing a bit of politics fatigue, and I believe that the extremely poor turnout in the mid-term elections reflect that. Of course, I haven't been involved in this fight as long as you or many others, but that's my (hopefully objective) view of what's going on right now.

 

[AndriaD]

Here's what I don't get: since some of the "nannies" have finally wised up regarding our "rights," why can't they convince the other ANTZ nannies to shut the hell up about e-cigs? Is it just that with the ANTZ, they see you as either totally with them, or totally against them? If so, then that just illustrates all the more clearly what immature, simple-minded, fascist fools they are -- only children think the world is black and white without shades of gray. And only children think that their way trumps every other way.

Andria

 

[Lessifer]

This isn't really pertinent to the OT but isn't winning a settlement against the tobacco companies, forcing them to pay for health care issues that they "caused" and then allowing them to raise their prices to pay for it, as opposed to cutting into their profits, like winning a suit against an insurance company for wrongful death and then having them increase your premium to pay for punitive damages? Sometimes I hate the way the legal system works.

 

[JustMeB]

To inform people and provide the history of regulations goes further to stop this gov't invasion rather than to just focus on the current 'annoyance'

From someone who is not "in the know", thank you, for informing and providing history. It is much appreciated. I don't like the feeling of being led by the nose like cattle are. (This goes to other vapers out there as well, who take the time to inform others that may be reading the thread).

Also, being as I am in PA, I find anything with the title "Smokefree Pennsylvania" a bit discouraging.

 

[Kent C]

From someone who is not "in the know", thank you, for informing and providing history. It is much appreciated. I don't like the feeling of being led by the nose like cattle are. (This goes to other vapers out there as well, who take the time to inform others that may be reading the thread).

Also, being as I am in PA, I find anything with the title "Smokefree Pennsylvania" a bit discouraging.

I truly appreciate your comments above, and thank you for posting them. If anything, I hope that it inspires others to look a bit deeper into issues rather than the latest daily news .. and I'll usually give some links to help in that effort.

As far as "Smokefree Pennsylvania" goes, I'm guessing it reflects the first move into that market against smoking and likely is still a goal but now with ecigs, perhaps a change in method of achieving it. There simply wasn't any viable THR alternatives prior to ecigs.

Those in Tobacco Control who saw ecigarettes as a THR tool, are rare, and most of them likely opted out of more remunerative positions by this recognition, and their ethical stand against former collegues, and should be admired for that, imo. I can forgive (but not forget), their anti-smoking positions, for their now pro-vaping stances. (And I don't presume to think that they want or need or care about that

 

[AndriaD]

I truly appreciate your comments above, and thank you for posting them. If anything, I hope that it inspires others to look a bit deeper into issues rather than the latest daily news .. and I'll usually give some links to help in that effort.

As far as "Smokefree Pennsylvania" goes, I'm guessing it reflects the first move into that market against smoking and likely is still a goal but now with ecigs, perhaps a change in method of achieving it. There simply wasn't any viable THR alternatives prior to ecigs.

Those in Tobacco Control who saw ecigarettes as a THR tool, are rare, and most of them likely opted out of more remunerative positions by this recognition, and their ethical stand against former collegues, and should be admired for that, imo. I can forgive (but not forget), their anti-smoking positions, for their now pro-vaping stances. (And I don't presume to think that they want or need or care about that

I may not be a smoker now, but it's very hard for me to forgive anyone who had a hand in causing me suffering of any kind, not to mention inflicting that suffering on millions of others with their self-righteousness. Maybe 2nd-hand smoke *is* bad for pretty much everyone, it certainly wasn't kind to my son, but to cast all smokers as 2nd-class citizens not deserving of basic human respect is just evil. I may not like the smell of cigarette smoke, but I don't like the smell of most perfumes, disinfectants, and cleaning products, nor a lot of other things, but I'm not going around inflicting my opinions on the general population as a matter of law, either. All those ANTZ fascists seriously need to get a life, and stop trying to dictate how other people live theirs.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

I may not be a smoker now, but it's very hard for me to forgive anyone who had a hand in causing me suffering of any kind, not to mention inflicting that suffering on millions of others with their self-righteousness. Maybe 2nd-hand smoke *is* bad for pretty much everyone, it certainly wasn't kind to my son, but to cast all smokers as 2nd-class citizens not deserving of basic human respect is just evil. I may not like the smell of cigarette smoke, but I don't like the smell of most perfumes, disinfectants, and cleaning products, nor a lot of other things, but I'm not going around inflicting my opinions on the general population as a matter of law, either. All those ANTZ fascists seriously need to get a life, and stop trying to dictate how other people live theirs.

Andria

I agree with most of that except the "2nd-hand smoke *is* bad for pretty much everyone" (although you did preface that with "maybe" I'd say it could be bad for some in certain contexts, but while smelly is annoying, there's no harm involved (with the caveats mentioned and in those cases the people affected (or their parents) should take appropriate actions to avoid, just like diabetics should avoid sweets and alcoholics avoid alcohol rather than making others or other things or companies responsible for their conditions).

It is not carcinogenic as we've seen with several studies. And the EPA studies were fudged and cherry picked, as pointed out by a judge. And even that didn't stop the lies and pr campaign that followed. So those lies are now a given for those who either can't allow that into their ideology or who never actually looked deeply into the subject to find the source of the lies and the liars involved.

 

[AndriaD]

I agree with most of that except the "2nd-hand smoke *is* bad for pretty much everyone" (although you did preface that with "maybe" I'd say it could be bad for some in certain contexts, but while smelly is annoying, there's no harm involved (with the caveats mentioned and in those cases the people affected (or their parents) should take appropriate actions to avoid, just like diabetics should avoid sweets and alcoholics avoid alcohol rather than making others or other things or companies responsible for their conditions).

It is not carcinogenic as we've seen with several studies. And the EPA studies were fudged and cherry picked, as pointed out by a judge. And even that didn't stop the lies and pr campaign that followed. So those lies are now a given for those who either can't allow that into their ideology or who never actually looked deeply into the subject to find the source of the lies and the liars involved.

Yes, I did say "maybe" because what you said is pretty much my own take on it -- there are those with various conditions who should never be around 2nd-hand smoke, but the rest, I've always thought, were just sissy little crybabies, ooooh it smells bad, poor little babies have to go around making millions of people completely miserable just because of their sissy little noses -- and *I* have a sensitive nose, and I no longer care for that smell myself -- but I don't have a freaking hissy fit about it, everytime I smell it out in the parking lot. I just try to get upwind, and carry on with my life, without making a self-righteous "...." or "donkey" of myself. I can hang out with people drinking alcohol too, even though I no longer partake of it myself -- it's not my place to lecture them on the "evils of drink" anymore than it's the ANTZs' place to lecture smokers on the evils of tobacco.

Andria

 

[bigdancehawk]

This isn't really pertinent to the OT but isn't winning a settlement against the tobacco companies, forcing them to pay for health care issues that they "caused" and then allowing them to raise their prices to pay for it, as opposed to cutting into their profits, like winning a suit against an insurance company for wrongful death and then having them increase your premium to pay for punitive damages? Sometimes I hate the way the legal system works.

Insurance doesn't cover punitive damages.

 

[Jman8]

I can forgive (but not forget), their anti-smoking positions, for their now pro-vaping stances. (And I don't presume to think that they want or need or care about that

I find it easy to forgive anti-smoking positions as I've had that myself when I went cold turkey and was, on hindsight, more naive on the issue. Anti-smoking strikes me as the norm.

Smoking (and anti-smoking) seems forever tied to vaping. Most of time, I wish that weren't the case, but I realize it may always be the case. And as long as it is currently the case, I just assume revisit the anti-smoking position and not allow naivete / righteousness get in the way. I now routinely hear/read information that makes it rather easy to challenge hard core anti-smoking people.

I do not appreciate that some incredibly praise-worthy, staunchly supportive pro-vaping enthusiasts are also vehemently strong anti-smoking advocates as is the case in this thread. Some vapers may consider that grounds for lots of leeway. Yet, if such a person is going to bring up anti-smoking rhetoric in their own way, I'm not going to sit back and simply allow that. I just assume have the ongoing debate we keep dancing around or remind that type of pro-vaping enthusiasts to back off of what I believe I've told them to back off of umpteen times before.

I'm not so sure "smokefree" people are for sure on same side I am on.

 

[AndriaD]

My only real objection to smoking these days is the smell of it, and if it's outdoors, as I said, it's pretty easy to get away/disregard. If it was indoors in a closed space, I'd feel differently, because I don't want my hair or clothes to pick up that stink so I have to carry it around with me. But I strongly doubt that after 39 yrs as a smoker, a bit of 2nd-hand smoke up my nose is going to do any worse damage to me than that I've already done to myself. A room clouded with cigarette smoke is a whole different animal; fortunately, that's no longer really an issue.

Andria

 

[DC2]

Maybe 2nd-hand smoke *is* bad for pretty much everyone, it certainly wasn't kind to my son, but to cast all smokers as 2nd-class citizens not deserving of basic human respect is just evil.

I think it is important to remember that just like some Tobacco Control "activists" have come over to the harm reduction side, there are also LOTS and LOTS of Tobacco Control "activists" who just wanted to do what they thought was the right thing, and did not intentionally wish to demonize smokers. I will, however, agree that those that were on board with such an agenda should be hung by their genitals until their ability to procreate is decimated.

 

[Kent C]

Jman8: And as long as it is currently the case, I just assume (sic) revisit the anti-smoking position and not allow naivete / righteousness get in the way. I now routinely hear/read information that makes it rather easy to challenge hard core anti-smoking people.

You can do what you want, of course, but I think it would be off topic to re-argue anti-smoking points that don't apply to ecigarettes. The only reason I brought up the MSA and it's effects in my first post on this thread - post #23....

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-cig-companies-under-msa-3.html#post14872910

....was to make the point that the MSA could be used against ecigs - as Bill reported the possibility in his original post, then at post 22 gave reasons why he didn't think that is the case.

In post #23, I quote Bill from wiki: "... it appears that the tobacco industry has emerged from the state lawsuits even more powerful." which then gets into the whole 'unintended consequences' aspect where the anti-smoking factions ended up helping the tobacco companies, and where Bill agrees (or has a similar view) - a rare occasion - with the smoker's right advocates - in this case Robert Levy from CATO, on the unintended results of MSA.

Then I close with "And now, since the 'structure is in place', some look to applying it to ecigs." ... a 'structure' which Bill clearly states he help build, which brings it back on topic of how that structure could now affect ecigarettes - almost in the same manner that the FDA deeming actually could set up the tobacco companies with the 'best results' of the deeming - again, an unintended consequence of Tobacco Control.

Again, the only reason to bring up MSA, smokers' rights and the junk science of 2nd hand smoke, HERE at ECF, is to show the history and to give information that is pertinent to ecigarettes, NOT to 're-argue' the anti-smoking/smokers' rights argument, that imo, has already been won by the rights advocates, - the rational debate part - not the gov't disregarding that, and implementing MSA and anti-smoking laws anyway. They - the anti-smokers - clearly won the implementation part, but through pull, money and control, not through reason.


jman8:I'm not so sure "smokefree" people are for sure on same side I am on.

As a dual user, they (the THR faction) are still against you on smoking and with you on vaping. A bit like the Russians during WWII and then after ...except reversed, timewise...... A good argument can be made that without the Russians, we may not have won WWII. And along those lines, a good argument that we can't win the ecig war without Bill, Carl, Dr.Siegel, Clive, et al. But that only makes them 'allies' and not necessarily "trusted friends." They could be.... just not 'necessarily', even though they are on our side* now.... *as vapers, not as smokers.

 

[Kent C]

I think it is important to remember that just like some Tobacco Control "activists" have come over to the harm reduction side, there are also LOTS and LOTS of Tobacco Control "activists" who just wanted to do what they thought was the right thing, and did not intentionally wish to demonize smokers.

I think you'd have a hard time finding those would didn't demonize smokers, even though they may be pro-vape/THR now. Dr. Siegel surely doesn't fit, by his comments made before ecigs that I posted. And a lot of harm has been done (in many areas) where some just "wanted to do what they thought was the right thing". It's their actual acts that matter, not their 'good intentions' which, as the saying goes, paved a certain road.

 

[DC2]

I think you'd have a hard time finding those would didn't demonize smokers, even though they may be pro-vape/THR now. Dr. Siegel surely doesn't fit, by his comments made before ecigs that I posted. And a lot of harm has been done (in many areas) where some just "wanted to do what they thought was the right thing". It's their actual acts that matter, not their 'good intentions' which, as the saying goes, paved a certain road.

To be clear, I was just talking about the foot soldiers.
I do not in any way believe the most paymasters were not on board with the agenda.

And I will without hesitation blame the paymasters for misleading the troops.
But I do find it hard to blame the troops.

And when I speak of troops, I'm thinking about a colleague at work who would not stop harping on me to quit smoking.
Her mother died of cancer, which she blamed on smoking, and caused her to become an activist.

I don't blame her for her stance so much as I blame many others first.

 

[Kent C]

To be clear, I was just talking about the foot soldiers.
I do not in any way believe the most paymasters were not on board with the agenda.

And I will without hesitation blame the paymasters for misleading the troops.
But I do find it hard to blame the troops.

And when I speak of troops, I'm thinking about a colleague at work who would not stop harping on me to quit smoking.
Her mother died of cancer, which she blamed on smoking, and caused her to become an activist.

I don't blame her for her stance so much as I blame many others first.

Ok. That is clearer. And I tend to agree. I consider 'Glantz' et al. as 'activists' as well. But yeah those recipients of the lies and PR campaigns aren't as liable - although for their own good, they should dig a bit deeper before 'giving advice'

 

[Jman8]

You can do what you want, of course, but I think it would be off topic to re-argue anti-smoking points that don't apply to ecigarettes.

I am saying - what they are bringing to ECF - as is noted in first 10 words of this thread and many many other places on ECF. Because anti-smoking is the pre-dominant position, I really don't have to do anything. It comes up a lot of the time. Ex-smokers bring it up often.

Refuting the nonsense is on topic or else one is essentially saying, "you were right about that, but here you are wrong." When in reality, as you already know, they were wrong (to some degree) about that, but they feel so righteous from a psuedo-victory.

There is literally no way that Durbin, Waxman and Pallone will EVER publicly see their position as protecting cigarette markets. And it is because there is a significant divide in the anti-smoking faction that this sort of rhetoric works, here on ECF. This strikes me as foolish to bring up to my state's AG. Especially as I don't take issue with that sort of 'protection' as some ex-smokers apparently do, and some smokefree advocates as well. I'm pretty sure BT felt like it was doing fine before anti-smoking advocates came along and did their dirty work. To say they 'benefited' would be like saying vaping will 'benefit' when FDA allows the product to stay on the market while doing a de-facto ban on those that cannot pay the piper. Just cause 'you' think lawsuits didn't go far enough doesn't mean that all vapers ought to see things that way. I currently see BT as on side of vaping while playing within the market and political field in a way that makes sense. They are the only big player that vaping currently has in the game. While they may have strong, capitalistic, reasons to screw the little vendor in the market, they also have way way more reason to come up with a game plan that addresses and/or hopefully defeats the ANTZ in the equation. Without BT, it seems to me that vaping community has it's own little divide going on where vapers are asked to trust those who, just a decade ago, proudly wore the label of ANTZ and/or carried that torch.

Renounce your hatred for BT, and I'll be more assured that we are on same side. If that is asking too much, then at very least, please do not make your pro-vaping advocacy messages at all about how we all ought to agree that protecting BT is really really bad. And if for some reason that is asking too much, then expect Jman, perhaps others, to call you out on your quasi-ANTZ rhetoric.