Eca, why?

[ladyraj]

TropicalBob, I share the same experience with my research on the current status of our much loved PVs and agree completely. Some vendors appear to be jumping on the bandwagon for a quick buck and are actually doing more harm than good. One must be very careful when reading these PR campaigns because many of them contain misquotes, lies, and misdirection.

The populace has been conditioned to view the method of inhaling nicotine to directly cross the blood-brain barrier as more adictive and dangerous than street drugs. That is a powerful mentality to disprove...particularly when nicotine users are viewed as addicts in denial who are simply attempting to justify their continued use.

If the fight of your life is at hand one should not supply the weapons to the enemy.

 

[Thulium]

Instead of letting the terrorists win by succumbing to the attacks from BT & BP and turning against one another, why are we not taking the fight to the enemy? If the "problem" with electronic cigarettes is that they have flavors that are attractive to children and manufacturers are making false claims, why don't we hold BP to the same standards?

I just went to www.nicorette.com to see for myself...and there is a completely false medical claim right in the title "Quit smoking aid to make smoking cessation permanent"--oh really? Do they have any study to show even a double digit success rate after 12 months?? From the FAQ: "Nicorette doesn't contain any of the other addictive substances and carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) that are found in cigarettes." However, "The levels of TSNA found in the saliva of Nicorette chewers seem to be higher than the few values of TSNA reported in the saliva of smokers."

From the Nicoderm CQ site: "Why is it safe to get nicotine from a patch or any other Therapeutic Nicotine and not from cigarettes? Because when it's delivered to your body through a patch, it comes without the harmful carcinogens that cigarettes contain." However, laboratory studies of Nicoderm CQ found x3 cancer growth, x9 spreading and x3 regrowth

 

[kc0cmp]

I disagree. Cessation means you quit. You no longer have the habit. We are replacing one habit with another. The goal is not cessation t is harm reduction. There is a big difference.

I disagree entirely. A lot of people try to make that argument, and most do not. Cessation means you quit *smoking*...if you revert to oral tobacco, you've "Ceased" smoking. What you havn't done is ceased using nicotine..and you've traded one form of cancer for another (sweedish snus claim otherwise..but now that i'm free of (whole) tobacco, and only intaking a chemical component found in tobacco, I consider myself as having "ceased" smoking. No tar, no carbon monoxide, no cyanide, no combustion products...literally thousands of chemicals in varying quantities.

It kinda gripes me to see the "puritan" types draw a line in the sand with their toe as if nicotine were something bad like crack or ..... It's not. In fact I'm surprised these people aren't equally millitant about caffine or other substances.

It is my belief that the minute you quit smoking, your health improves, and that even includes oral tobacco. vaping removes "whole" tobacco from the equasion...reducing it to the primary (though not only) addictive chemical in tobacco.

By your defination of "quitting" if I were to stop smoking tobacco, and start smoking dope, then I'd have actually successfully "ceased" as I was no longer taking in nicotine. My point of contention is that you'd still be "smoking"...IE taking in combustion products which are without a doubt harmful and cause cancer...and would have traded one unhealthy activity for another.

Nicotine, by itself is only harmful (in proper quantities) to people with heart or other medical problems in which nicotine consumption is contraindicated. For the general public it's considered relatively harmless...about as harmless as coffee (caffine) in moderate amounts.

You see, Smoking is like sitting on your front porch and baning yourself in the head with a metal hammer. Way back when, they invented the "filter cigarette" which was more like banging yourself in the head with the same hammer, but now you're wearing a stocking cap. They tried lights, and virtually every filter construction technique to try to make the head protection better or the hammer smaller. Then vaping came along.

Vaping is when you realize maybe you should just stop hitting yourself in the head with that hammer.

 

[kc0cmp]

Correct I do not and have not for over 11 months now (insert dramatic music here)

Still, we are addicted to nicotine, not smoke. Smoke is the delivery system. Perhaps I have found a superior delivery system. One that is less toxic. One that doesn't make me reek. One that saves me money. All of these are positives. But am I any less addicted? The answer is no. And although yes I have quit smoking. I have not stopped being addicted to nicotine which is the key difference. They call cessations utilizing nicotine NRT's. That stands for nicotine replacement therapy. The key word there being therapy. Therapy treats a medical problem. The medical problem here is addiction which as I just illustrated an e-cig does not remedy.

So then you call smokless tobacco users "smokers"? seriously, one must think about what theyre saying. "Smoking cessation" means exactly that...the cessation of smoking. Overcomplicating the plumbing just leaves more places to stop up the pipes.

 

[kc0cmp]

Anecdotal evidence is worth the paper it's written on.

They want SCIENTIFIC proof.

Sure, people here CLAIM they have quit smoking, but for how long? There's no proof that people will stay on the e-cigs and off tobacco.

Sure, people CLAIM they feel better and breathe better, but for how long?

Sure, it seems OBVIOUS that e-cigs are safer than tobacco, but it hasn't been PROVEN in scientific testing that they are safe in-and-of themselves. No one knows if there is anything in e-cigs that could be just as deadly as tobacco over time. We have some reports on PG and nicotine, but not with the two of them combined, nor the effects of the ingerdients in the flavorings, nor with the constant inhalation. Theatrical fog machines are approved, but the average user of those doesn't sit in front of it and inhale copious amounts.

Sure, it seems reasonable to switch to a REDUCED HARM product, but many people view e-cigs as being just another potentially dangerous product being put on the market. Rather than seeing it as a tobacco alternative, they see it as an ADDITION to the tobacco market.

The thing I have a problem with is banning something that has not had one single report of serious illness or death associated with it.

When they went after things like fen-fen in diet pills, the diet pills were getting people sick before they banned fen-fen. There was EVIDENCE that they were harmful.

It's unreasonable to ban something which COULD be harmful, when it isn't. But the e-cig companies kept using words like "healthy" and "safe" and "no carcinogens" and "no toxins" and that caught the attention of the FDA (after the pharma companies complained, of course.) They should have stuck to FACTS that they could prove - no tobacco, no tar, no smoke, no ammonia, LESS toxins - and let people come to the logical conclusion on their own.

But they opened the door and the FDA stepped right in.

It is my opinion that the e-cig should be just as regulated as the "dietary suppliment" market..in that it isn't. Millions of people flock to the "vitamin and herbal suppliment" asile in the store without considering the fact that few if any of them are subject to FDA regulation other than their "claims" and that most if not all of them don't do one damn thing beneficial (outside of actual vitamins..and even those are only advised for people with a medical deficiency).

The fact is that ginko doesn't make you smarter and the thousand others they market and distribute don't do a thing either (or at least don't do what they hint they do)...then there's products like Enzyte and such which are again, taxes on the stupid. Effective taxes, because they only tax their intended targets. I think if the government can allow such incredulous claims on most dietary suppliments, they can allow electronics as a "safer alternative"...at least they don't claim to make "that certain part of the male anatomy" larger HAHA..jeez!

 

[Mac]

So then you call smokless tobacco users "smokers"? seriously, one must think about what theyre saying. "Smoking cessation" means exactly that...the cessation of smoking. Overcomplicating the plumbing just leaves more places to stop up the pipes.

I think maybe you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I believe 100% that e-cigs can help people get away from burning tobacco. But that is not how cessations and NRT's are defined by law. There is a reason the laws in our country prohibit people who don't have a medical license from opening up a shop in a mall and giving medical advice. Addiction is considered a disease. Our addiction is not to smoke. It is to nicotine. You can say it's not that simple but in my mind really it is. I am not going to tell people they can quit with this. That would be illegal. But more importantly I don't believe it. So I tell people the truth. It's a better kind of cigarette. It has fewer toxins and won't make you reek. Everyone seems happy with that, me included.

 

[JoeMcPlumber]

Hi Kristen,

I hope you were only playing devil's advocate here,
because your arguments are consistently amongst the more cogent and articulate on this forum
but this post seemed off the mark to me.

Sure, people here CLAIM they have quit smoking...
Sure, people CLAIM they feel better and breathe better...
Sure, it seems OBVIOUS that e-cigs are safer than tobacco...

Personally i used this forum as quasi-scientific evidence in and of itself.
When i first heard of e-cigs i was intrigued but skeptical.
In fact on my first visit to this forum via Google search
when i saw the level of enthusiasm and the promotion of certain brands of devices,
(i mean seriously, we've all got our favorite products
but who goes online to talk about them?),
it was so over the top i thought i was looking at a shill site.
But in the end, (i actually snorted in disgust and left),
when Google kept pointing me back here,
this forum convinced me to give it a go
because of the sheer volume and consistency of the anecdotal evidence.

At some point when you have enough anecdotes you might not have "scientific proof"
but you've got enough evidence for intelligent people to make their own informed decisions.

And frankly even if there weren't all this evidence
i'd have probably given it a go anyway once i'd determined
exactly what the things do and how they work.

Now having been smoke-free for an entire week
i completely understand why this forum looks like a commercial
and why people are enthusiastically evangelizing.

So i'm only another anecdote... i'm a very very happy one
and i will now proceed to make unscientific anecdotal claims
to my heart's content,
because my heart loves my fellow humans and wants to spread this miracle,
this hope,
this freedom from possibly the most cynical product ever foisted on the human race.

Yeah i'd be damned sorry if i turned out wrong,
and also damned surprised.
But i'd not be sorry for doing what i believe is right and the point is,
nobody has to believe me anyway.

Sure, it seems reasonable to switch to a REDUCED HARM product, but many people view e-cigs as being just another potentially dangerous product being put on the market. Rather than seeing it as a tobacco alternative, they see it as an ADDITION to the tobacco market.

Firstly i don't see why what (They!) think should in any way
influence the discussion and certainly i don't think (They!) have the right
to stop us based on what they "think" or "see"
especially when they're neither thinking nor seeing.

Nicotine doesn't necessarily come from tobacco.
I mean, that's an important point, for everyone concerned,
you know it, i know it, most everyone here knows it,
and it's easily verified with a Google search.
Is it my fault if (They!) can't see even that far?

i'm not at all pleased with the direction my country is going.
There's a new sort of busy-body-ness that transcends every sort that's gone before,
even surpassing Orwell's pessimistic prognostications
in its frightening subtleties.
OTOH it's not at all new; it comes from a very old paradigm
that i understand all too well.

We're moving into a new age,
wherein technological and human evolution
often blows by an unprepared government
like a semi truck blows by a bicycle on the freeway.
When that happens,
we are fortunate to have the very old and very wise guidance of our forefathers.

Unfortunately all too often (They!) turn to the wrong forefathers
and appeal to the Puritans, the witch-burners and the power-drunken flagellators,
rather than the sober framers of our remarkably ageless Constitution.

If someone wishes to file a civil suit alleging that one e-cig manufacturer or another
told him that his manhood would be enhanced, and it wasn't,
then that's fine by me.
If someone else wants to allege that his lungs filled with PG fluid and
he drowned from vaping,
then the burden of proof is on him.
Perhaps if twenty people died from PG drowning,
the appropriate agency should have a looksee,
and warn me that it could happen to me too.

Dang i'm going on too much, i'm sorry i don't have your gift for articulation and concise argumentation,
but you're citing "outrageous claims" on the part of the industry
as its own downfall.
Please have a look at the Oregon Attorney General's claims against e-cigs,
and tell me they're not every bit as outrageous, spurious, and
--> unscientific
as any claims made by, e.g., the defendants in that suit.

The difference is i retain the rights to my personal liberties
until such time as it's proven that there's some reason
that whatever i'm doing shouldn't be a liberty.
That's a simple premise expressed in the primary law of our country.
It's NOT the other way around and i will resist, so long as i breathe,
any and all attempts to make it so.

"Safety" and "Security" are the fascists of our times,
the coddling blankets of "the children" are used to smother
our freedom to act and think as adults,
and worst of all too many people think that's just how it should be.

I guess i could've just said that i'm uncomfortable
that you should seem to grant validity to ignorance, willful blindness, and the proactive Nanny State,
and to place the burden of proof on the wrong side of the debate.
IMHO.

peace,
- joe

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

"Safety" and "Security" are the fascists of our times,
the coddling blankets of "the children" are used to smother
our freedom to act and think as adults,
and worst of all too many people think that's just how it should be.

I guess i could've just said that i'm uncomfortable
that you should seem to grant validity to ignorance, willful blindness, and the proactive Nanny State,
and to place the burden of proof on the wrong side of the debate.
IMHO.

peace,
- joe

Joe, I couldn't agree with you more...thanks for saying that. But, in regard to kristin's quotes, I think you may have misunderstood. What she's calling "claims" are all they are. I "claim" to be a former smoker and quit using the PV, but that carries as much weight as if I "claimed" I was Batman when nobody's around. The studies aren't there to prove the "claims". That's the point she's making. Also, regardless of a Google search on nicotine resources, the only realistic way to obtain a useful amount is from the tobacco plant. Just wanted to clear you up on a couple of things.....carry on .
......Hold up, there......Enzyte makes false claims???

 

[Webby]

Joe,

The problem lies in the failings of manufacturers and (some) suppliers who have poisoned the public perception well for the rest of us. Kristin is a good friend and I can just about promise you that she wasn’t purporting her opinion, only that we face an upward battle against enemies of the e-cig and a population of non-smokers who simply don’t care. It’s easier for them to go with the flow of what the FDA and the anti-smoking groups are saying. Any information of opinion we say is a lateral move on the informational flow chart and until there is definitive proof we are considered in the wrong.

At some point when you have enough anecdotes you might not have "scientific proof" but you've got enough evidence for intelligent people to make their own informed decisions.

I wish that were true...at the risk of borrowing Thad’s Devil’s Advocate crown, consider this:

“Intelligent People” have mistakenly killed untold numbers of people throughout history with the best of intentions. As much as we decry the FDA on this forum, remember it was created by a need. .......-laced snake oil was commonplace less than a hundred years ago and our grandparents swore by it. The Sears Roebuck catalog sold ...... syringe kits, and many birth defects are now attributed to failings of the FDA to "protect us" from ourselves.

Unfortunately, we’re not dealing with common sense. We’re dealing with closed minded people who have the law on their side. I’m not disagreeing with anything you so passionately said and have no intention of burning my CASAA card. I am a supplier myself and lost my business partner to smoking related disease less than two months after we discovered e-cigs. I’ll never forget his last words to me, “I wish they’d have invented these damn things 20 years ago…”

In my mind, e-cigarettes are one of the greatest innovations of the last 40 years. That doesn’t negate the fact that the burden of proof is on us – not the antismoking groups or FDA. They don’t have to prove these are harmful; we as an industry have to prove they are safe. Unlike many medications that are sitting in the FDA queue, e-cigs have already gotten several PR strikes against them by the refusal of manufacturers to perform the same basic testing we as a nation require of ALL new products.

If we are all completely honest with ourselves, we’d have to contend that should PG become known to cause cancer in long term studies (for example) the world would consider us fools for using them. They seem healthy and compared to analogs (the scourge of modern society) it seems to be a no-brainer. Sure, PG is readily available in fog machines and cosmetics, but who has breathed them in through a metal tube for years on end to really know? Your grandkids may be filing lawsuits against Ruyan and Joyetech just like the ones winding their way through courts now against Big T.

Judge Leon’s decision will decide if e-cigs are classified as tobacco products or drug dispensers. In either case, the appeal process will surely follow in earnest and groups like CASAA and ECA will redirect efforts to that front.

Regardless of how they are classified, (should the PACT Act pass) online sales will ground to a halt for most small business suppliers for a number of reasons I won’t rehash here. Like many historic events, this would have lasting effects both good and bad. Many online sellers may close shop, but the opening of brick-and-mortar retail markets would end the reign of inferior overpriced products to the public.

An optimist sees the glass half full; the pessimist sees it half empty. I am a realist.

I want to know exactly what is in the cup.

 

[Mac]

I am a supplier myself and lost my business partner to smoking related disease less than two months after we discovered e-cigs. I’ll never forget his last words to me, “I wish they’d have invented these damn things 20 years ago…”

I just wanted to offer my condolences and say that I am sorry for your loss.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

You know, the thing that annoys me the most is the double standard. ASH is allowed to tell the biggest, most vile unsubstantiated lies you ever heard and they get a great big pat on the back for being such good citizens. Breathing in vapor from a distance of 30 feet or less can cause you to drop dead from a heart attack???? What a $%^&&* crock of it!
A seller says that e-cigs may help against H1N1 and they get jumped on as charletans. PG is a known germicidal agent. It's a play on fact, an exageration of the truth, certainly NOT a lie.
A seller says that e-cigs can stop you smoking. Hello? Anyone in there? It's the truth, unless I imagined giving up 4 months ago!
Banzhaff can talk all the crap he wants from the anti side and get away with it, yet tell the truth from the pro side and get called liar.
I'm getting really sick of hearing it to tell the truth. We should be telling it as it is, not trying to ride on some self imposed magic carpet of righteousness. We seem to be the ones making all the concessions when it is us who in fact hold the moral high ground. The antis are scum of the earth. The worst section of society, not even fit to lead.
You know what? We are the good guys here. I'm not giving an inch to scumbags like Banzhaff, and I don't even have a stake in this issue from across the pond.
Damn, how can two countries with such similar philosophies have such a wide political gulf between them? The govt would NEVER get away with this over here. Their butts would be in a sling!

 

[JoeMcPlumber]

As much as we decry the FDA on this forum, remember it was created by a need. .......-laced snake oil was commonplace less than a hundred years ago and our grandparents swore by it. The Sears Roebuck catalog sold ...... syringe kits...

I'm not opposed to sensible regulation but c'mon,
where do we draw the line?
Our country is become a bureaucratic dictatorship,
and our lives and liberty dictated by administrative law
issuing from the executive branch and bypassing citizen representation entirely,
then we are no longer a free people living in a constitutional federal republic.

Maybe i'm not being realistic and maybe i'm an idealist
and i mean no disrespect to your efforts,
but i think it's time for people to just stop saying "well that's just the way it is".

... the burden of proof is on us – not the antismoking groups or FDA. They don’t have to prove these are harmful; we as an industry have to prove they are safe.

How do you reckon?
I'm not being belligerent here, i want to know
by what law/precedent/principle/whatever
you figure that the burden is on us?

And by what reasoning do e-cigs need to be "safe"?
Reference Gov. Schwarzenegger's sensible answer...
(paraphrasing), "If adults want to use this device with an understanding of the risks then they should be allowed to do so".
OK and he said that when we still can't claim a full understanding of the risks,
which means

“Intelligent People” have mistakenly killed untold numbers of people throughout history with the best of intentions.

he's acknowledging my right to be stupid if i want to.

Alright, sorry, my neo-Libertarian rants aside,
my point to this entire thread was that there are plenty claims that CAN be made
with confidence and integrity, e.g.,

- It is not a tobacco product. (Notwitstanding where the nicotine comes from; i am absolutely confident that someone could find a way to genetically engineer say, high-nicotine potatoes).
- It is not smoking, it does not produce smoke.
- It is lacking in most of the harmful chemicals associated with cigarette smoke
- It doesn't stink.
- It has not been proven harmful, and the scientific evidence to date is that it isn't.
- Etc.,
i'm not really the best guy to argue this sort of thing.
But obviously neither is the ECA.

Our opponents are bold and assertive
even where their claims are absolute rubbish.
Submissive appeasement only makes us look weak.

In warrior pose,
- joe

EDIT: To echo the condolences on your loss.

 

[JoeMcPlumber]

You know, the thing that annoys me the most is the double standard.

Thank you.

Gee i coulda saved a lot of words if i'd just waited for you to come along.

- joe

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Thank you.

Gee i coulda saved a lot of words if i'd just waited for you to come along.

- joe

A person who thinks like me. I like this guy

 

[VapingRulz]

The onus should be on the FDA and local/state governments to *prove* that e-cigarettes are dangerous - not to operate under the assumption that they are, without any proof. They are making rulings and laws based on speculation.

Furthermore, the idea that a vaper should be exiled to smoking areas is an outrage: vapers are non-smokers and are entitled to the same legal protections as their fellow non-vaping/non-smoking citizens. Will they also forbid nicotine replacement inhalers and other therapies in non-smoking areas? If not, why not?

The [substantial] tax revenue is what this is all about and if smokers and vapers don't pay it, the average citizen will be forced to pick up the slack. Boo-hoo. My heart bleeds for them. I have already decided that I will *never* pay another dime in state/federal/local SIN tax on a smoking or vaping product. I have enough of my vaping supplies on hand to wean myself off nicotine entirely over the course of a year. I'm done.

I am another tax-paying, voting citizen who wonders where the hell the country I grew up in has disappeared to. I'm really beginning to believe that the only thing we can do to send a clear message is to vote out ALL incumbents and start from scratch. That would be a good start.

 

[kristin]

It is my opinion that the e-cig should be just as regulated as the "dietary suppliment" market..in that it isn't. Millions of people flock to the "vitamin and herbal suppliment" asile in the store without considering the fact that few if any of them are subject to FDA regulation other than their "claims" and that most if not all of them don't do one damn thing beneficial (outside of actual vitamins..and even those are only advised for people with a medical deficiency).

I completely agree with you! But here is the biggest mistake the manufacturers made - they failed to add a simple "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" to their ads and packaging. Had they just done that, they may have been able to slip into that catagory.

Unfortunately, unlike vitimin suppliments, e-cigs are a huge threat to two huge and powerful industries - pharmacuetical and tobacco. That puts a huge target on it's back and it forces them to play by different rules.

Hi Kristen,

I hope you were only playing devil's advocate here,
because your arguments are consistently amongst the more cogent and articulate on this forum
but this post seemed off the mark to me.

There are a lot of people that just complain that "this isn't right" and "it's a double standard" and "the government needs to stay out of my life" and those are all true statements. Unfortunately, they aren't going to solve anything.

It's too late. Pandora's box has been opened and can't be closed again. We don't live in a vaccum. We can't just pretend that the government and laws don't exist because we don't want them to. We have to play the game just as everyone else and now we are forced to choose from a lesser of two evils.

So, now we have the burden of proof. The FDA has thrown down the gauntlet with their pathetic "report" and e-cig proponents (and more specifically, the manufacturers and distributors) now have the task of proving them wrong somehow, if we want to keep them available, effective and affordable. Any other approved "drug" on the market is not allowed to point to anectodal evidence as "proof." They are forced to do clinical trials and other testing - to expect a free pass because of what we "believe" is simply a fantasy.

You need to understand that MOST people don't understand the concept of "reduced harm." They see e-cigs as just another dangerous product ADDED to the tobacco market. They think, 'Isn't it bad enough that we have tobacco, but now we have these e-cig things now, TOO??" They don't understand how smokers are using the devices. They worry that teens will be enticed by them, because of what they've been told about the flavors and availablility to teens. (Of course, they HAVEN"T been told that the average buyer is over 30 years old, ALREADY a smoker, can afford the cost and maintenence, that teens don't think that e-cigs are cool and that the candy flavors won't entice them anymore than chocolate Exlax or strawberry Ensure entices them to use THOSE products.)

People do NOT understand e-cigs at all. I just read a thread online where people were concerned about exposure to battery acid in the e-cigs getting into your lungs!! There is still huge confusion between propylene glycol and diethylene glycol - even with e-cig users. There is confusion about second hand vapor. We need to educate them, so they can make an informed opinion.

Organizations like ASH can make up anything they want. They don't have the burden of proof. There are no reprecussions for doing so. If they fail, "oh well." If WE fail, we have everything to lose. If we get caught in lies and untruths, it hurts our cause and everything we say is suspect. That is why the burden of proof lies with us. That is why we have to play within the rules and have to be the ones to make concessions - WE are the one's with something to lose.

Ruyan paid for Health New Zealand to do testing, now they need to pay for a US company to do the same - as does every other e-cig company, if they want to stay in business.

We need to educate the public - exactly why I write the articles I write and ask for people to help make them go viral on the web. I'd rather people google "e-cigs" and get MY articles than ASH's articles.

Anyhow, we can say what we logically "believe" and "feel" all we want, but people just see us as having the wool pulled over our eyes. All of the arguments and rationalizations in the world don't dispell one simple fact - we do not have the U.S.-based scientific testing to back up our feelings and beliefs. As long as that is the case, we are spinning our wheels.

I'm not opposed to sensible regulation but c'mon,
where do we draw the line?
Our country is become a bureaucratic dictatorship,
and our lives and liberty dictated by administrative law
issuing from the executive branch and bypassing citizen representation entirely,
then we are no longer a free people living in a constitutional federal republic.

I keep seeing this argument on these boards and I have to say - it doesn't matter in this context. This problem (you describe above) is a much greater issue than e-cigs themselves. Are we trying to defend our e-cigs or change the U.S. government policy and lawmaking??

I'm not here to change the world, beyond promoting ecigs and saving smokers a horrible death and I think arguments like this just distract us from the real goals - at least mine. If you want to change the world, fine. But I don't think the e-cig battle is the place to do it. We are too much of a minority to have any impact. Ecigs have to try to be accepted and integrated into the system as best we can get away with, without changing our lifestyle and devices. If it takes changing laws and the whole governmental system to keep e-cigs available, affordable and effective, then I guess that is what we'll have to do, but I don't think that is what it'll take.

I do take issue with people who insist that they will not make any concessions nor work with the powers that be, to keep e-cigs, because they don't think it's "right" that the government has any say in it. I don't appreciate their risking my ability to keep e-cigs, because they have some political message they want to send. To me, keeping them affordable, effective and available is a lot more important that making some kind of statement against the government.

If you choose to risk my ability to have my ecig, in order to use the ecig to fight your cause of changing the government or making some kind of statement, then I'm not your friend.

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

Well said, krisin. Wish I could write as effectively. Giving an example of some of your statement about "burden of proof", I faced the same obstacle with my own wife. She's a lifetime non-smoker and her deepest desire has always been for me to quit as well as being outspoken about the evils of smoking. I knew the ecig was the best path, but to her, since it simulated smoking and I use nicotine in it, it was no different and probably deadlier with the "antifreeze" carrier. I was able to explain the difference in glycols with no problem, but had some trouble convincing her that the nic was probably no more dangerous than the strong coffee I drink. This forum helped as well as some links included here, but she still won't be a believer until the studies?? have been conducted. Her's would be the sentiment of the general population and the people who make the final discissions of ecigs. And all the while Big Pharma and Big Tobacco laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

I do take issue with people who insist that they will not make any concessions nor work with the powers that be, to keep e-cigs, because they don't think it's "right" that the government has any say in it. I don't appreciate their risking my ability to keep e-cigs, because they have some political message they want to send. To me, keeping them affordable, effective and available is a lot more important that making some kind of statement against the government.

No probs kristin. I can take a hint. I'll .... out of the debate.

 

[Mac]

No probs kristin. I can take a hint. I'll .... out of the debate.

You have just as much of a right to post here as any other forum member. I don't think kristen was trying to tell you to but out either. She was just expressing her point of view. She makes some very valid points too. Resistance for the sake of resistance doesn't help our cause. believe that our enemies are well organized and well funded. since we don't have the resources of the combined antis/FDA/whoever else, our only chance is to be better organized. I think that is the heart of what she was saying. On that point we agree. Keep posting man. Keep fighting. Never take because I said so as an answer. It's your fight, her fight all of our fight. United we stand!

 

[PlanetScribbles]

You have just as much of a right to post here as any other forum member. I don't think kristen was trying to tell you to but out either. She was just expressing her point of view. She makes some very valid points too. Resistance for the sake of resistance doesn't help our cause. believe that our enemies are well organized and well funded. since we don't have the resources of the combined antis/FDA/whoever else, our only chance is to be better organized. I think that is the heart of what she was saying. On that point we agree. Keep posting man. Keep fighting. Never take because I said so as an answer. It's your fight, her fight all of our fight. United we stand!

I agree that kristin has some good points. I like her spirit too
I just don't see the argument that if we concede that flavors are bad then it makes everything all right. I think if we give an inch, a yard will be asked.
The argument will then be 'well, you concede that flavors are bad but that doesn't change the fact that second hand vapor is also bad. ESPECIALLY in the presence of minors'. Back to square one, on the defensive but without flavors.
It's just my opinion Mac that you have to stand your ground against the likes of ASH and Co. Especially when you know that their argument is spurious and nonsensical.