Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr What the f*#! is wrong with our politicians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! each year they get worse!
FDA may soon propose regulation that could ban many/most e-cigarette products, eliminate many/most companies
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- innokin nicquid revolution revolver
- Status
I saw this news story on the innokin web site and I assume their intention is to have this information passed along, since there are several share links on the bottom of the page. Anyway, I will post it in its entirety and will remove it if it violates ECF or innokin policy. The link is:
APNewsBreak: No NY law seen soon for e-cigarettes - Best Electronic Cigarette | New Ecig Starter Kit| E Cig Manufacturer
The article:
* * * * *
APNewsBreak: No NY law seen soon for e-cigarettes
Published:2012-06-15 11:02Author:未知 Views: 180
New York was expected to become the first state to ban the growing trade in electronic cigarettes this year, but now even passage of legislation that would prohibit minors from buying e-cigarettes appears unlikely.
With two dueling bills and less than a week left in the legislative session, lawmakers aren't optimistic about passing any new state laws dealing with e cigarettes.
New York is among several states waiting for action by the federal Food and Drug Administration. The FDA is continuing a lengthy review of e-cigarettes, and has said e-cigarettes could still be regulated as drugs or drug-delivery devices if they are "marketed for therapeutic purposes," — for example, as a stop-smoking aid. The FDA will also consider regulating them as tobacco products.
For now, re-usable e-cigarettes available in malls and convenience stores around New York are unregulated, even for youths. That means they can be smoked anywhere, any time, and the water vapor they expend doesn't violate any anti-smoking laws.
"It will take, literally, years to regulate this federally," said Russ Sciandra of the American Cancer Society. "The effect is nothing is going to happen and kids will continue to have access and we're worried they will use these things and become addicted to nicotine, then find a cheaper alternative, which is cigarettes."
E-cigarettes are plastic and metal devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution in a disposable cartridge, creating vapor that the "smoker" inhales. A tiny light on the tip even glows like a real cigarette. They were developed in China and have been in the United States since 2006. No definitive studies show they are dangerous or, as advertised, a safe alternative to smoking.
Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and Maryland have already banned e-cigarettes from being sold to minors (in Alaska, that's anyone under 19 years old). At least 13 states have introduced laws over the last two years to regulate e-cigarettes, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. South Carolina and Tennessee have proposed bans, but no state has enacted one.
"A lot of states are waiting to see what the feds do," said Karmen Hanson of NCSL.
In Albany, there have been many twists in lawmakers' efforts to ban or regulate e-cigarettes.
In 2010, Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, a Manhattan Democrat, sought to ban them pending further study. Her bill passed the Democrat-led Assembly, but stalled in the Senate then controlled by Democrats. A year later, when Republicans regained control of the Senate, Health Committee Chairman Kemp Hannon, a Long Island Republican, said the bill would be considered.
Now, Rosenthal has a bill that would prohibit sale of e-cigarettes to anyone under 18 years old. Republican Sen. Owen Johnson is a strong sponsor in the Senate. The bill passed unanimously in the Assembly May 30, but the Senate version is stuck in Hannon's Health Committee.
"I'm baffled," she said. "I'm sure it would pass unanimously in the Senate ... the problem is, the session ends in a few days and it's kind of impossible at this point to revisit it in the Assembly."
On Friday, with two weeks left in the legislative session, Hannon introduced his own bill that called for a total ban.
Even Hannon doesn't think his bill, nor the Rosenthal-Johnson bill, will become law before the June 21 end of the Legislature's regular session.
Why submit the late bill?
"To get some discussion going, to get some reaction by people for and against it and get information that would provide a rational basis for action or inaction," Hannon said.
"We're gathering information," Hannon said, noting the FDA has extensive staffing for the task.
With 600 Health Committee bills to pass in the last five days of session, e-cigarettes isn't likely to be one of them.
"Of all the things we have to do this does not rank very high," Hannon said.
(Responsible editor：Innokin Technology)
* * * * *
I find all of it interesting but particularly,
"It will take, literally, years to regulate this federally," said Russ Sciandra of the American Cancer Society. "The effect is nothing is going to happen and kids will continue to have access and we're worried they will use these things and become addicted to nicotine, then find a cheaper alternative, which is cigarettes."
I guess cigarettes are cheaper than disposables, is that their point? Cigarettes are certainly not cheaper than vaping, in general. Regardless, I don't think most places would sell to minors, maybe I'm wrong. And we do know that there are 17 year olds who have smoked for several years and are not allowed to buy "stop smoking" aids!
I do agree with their final conclusion; Yes, they do have more important things to do!
APNewsBreak: No NY law seen soon for e-cigarettes - Best Electronic Cigarette | New Ecig Starter Kit| E Cig Manufacturer
The article:
* * * * *
APNewsBreak: No NY law seen soon for e-cigarettes
Published:2012-06-15 11:02Author:未知 Views: 180
New York was expected to become the first state to ban the growing trade in electronic cigarettes this year, but now even passage of legislation that would prohibit minors from buying e-cigarettes appears unlikely.
With two dueling bills and less than a week left in the legislative session, lawmakers aren't optimistic about passing any new state laws dealing with e cigarettes.
New York is among several states waiting for action by the federal Food and Drug Administration. The FDA is continuing a lengthy review of e-cigarettes, and has said e-cigarettes could still be regulated as drugs or drug-delivery devices if they are "marketed for therapeutic purposes," — for example, as a stop-smoking aid. The FDA will also consider regulating them as tobacco products.
For now, re-usable e-cigarettes available in malls and convenience stores around New York are unregulated, even for youths. That means they can be smoked anywhere, any time, and the water vapor they expend doesn't violate any anti-smoking laws.
"It will take, literally, years to regulate this federally," said Russ Sciandra of the American Cancer Society. "The effect is nothing is going to happen and kids will continue to have access and we're worried they will use these things and become addicted to nicotine, then find a cheaper alternative, which is cigarettes."
E-cigarettes are plastic and metal devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution in a disposable cartridge, creating vapor that the "smoker" inhales. A tiny light on the tip even glows like a real cigarette. They were developed in China and have been in the United States since 2006. No definitive studies show they are dangerous or, as advertised, a safe alternative to smoking.
Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and Maryland have already banned e-cigarettes from being sold to minors (in Alaska, that's anyone under 19 years old). At least 13 states have introduced laws over the last two years to regulate e-cigarettes, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. South Carolina and Tennessee have proposed bans, but no state has enacted one.
"A lot of states are waiting to see what the feds do," said Karmen Hanson of NCSL.
In Albany, there have been many twists in lawmakers' efforts to ban or regulate e-cigarettes.
In 2010, Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, a Manhattan Democrat, sought to ban them pending further study. Her bill passed the Democrat-led Assembly, but stalled in the Senate then controlled by Democrats. A year later, when Republicans regained control of the Senate, Health Committee Chairman Kemp Hannon, a Long Island Republican, said the bill would be considered.
Now, Rosenthal has a bill that would prohibit sale of e-cigarettes to anyone under 18 years old. Republican Sen. Owen Johnson is a strong sponsor in the Senate. The bill passed unanimously in the Assembly May 30, but the Senate version is stuck in Hannon's Health Committee.
"I'm baffled," she said. "I'm sure it would pass unanimously in the Senate ... the problem is, the session ends in a few days and it's kind of impossible at this point to revisit it in the Assembly."
On Friday, with two weeks left in the legislative session, Hannon introduced his own bill that called for a total ban.
Even Hannon doesn't think his bill, nor the Rosenthal-Johnson bill, will become law before the June 21 end of the Legislature's regular session.
Why submit the late bill?
"To get some discussion going, to get some reaction by people for and against it and get information that would provide a rational basis for action or inaction," Hannon said.
"We're gathering information," Hannon said, noting the FDA has extensive staffing for the task.
With 600 Health Committee bills to pass in the last five days of session, e-cigarettes isn't likely to be one of them.
"Of all the things we have to do this does not rank very high," Hannon said.
(Responsible editor：Innokin Technology)
* * * * *
I find all of it interesting but particularly,
"It will take, literally, years to regulate this federally," said Russ Sciandra of the American Cancer Society. "The effect is nothing is going to happen and kids will continue to have access and we're worried they will use these things and become addicted to nicotine, then find a cheaper alternative, which is cigarettes."
I guess cigarettes are cheaper than disposables, is that their point? Cigarettes are certainly not cheaper than vaping, in general. Regardless, I don't think most places would sell to minors, maybe I'm wrong. And we do know that there are 17 year olds who have smoked for several years and are not allowed to buy "stop smoking" aids!
I do agree with their final conclusion; Yes, they do have more important things to do!
Dear X P3 Flight Engineer:
You have made my day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for such concise reporting and the incredibly uplifting news, though perhaps to all of our dismay the constant is still............the inconclusiveness as to the future of affordable vaping as we now know and enjoy it. Still, your truthful researching, and awesome writing clearly shows what the opposing factions are ignorantly looking at, what importance their pea brains place on e-cigarettes and the knee jerk prioritization and proliferation of false information about this product and it's availability. Most importantly their whimpy, weak stance regarding under-aged vapers, who may or may not parley over to real caustic deadly smoking based on cost factors. I am happy to know they can't get it together, politics as usual, we hope. They obviously aren't looking to be thrown out during an election year or just before there terms and sessions end! GRATTZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!
You have made my day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for such concise reporting and the incredibly uplifting news, though perhaps to all of our dismay the constant is still............the inconclusiveness as to the future of affordable vaping as we now know and enjoy it. Still, your truthful researching, and awesome writing clearly shows what the opposing factions are ignorantly looking at, what importance their pea brains place on e-cigarettes and the knee jerk prioritization and proliferation of false information about this product and it's availability. Most importantly their whimpy, weak stance regarding under-aged vapers, who may or may not parley over to real caustic deadly smoking based on cost factors. I am happy to know they can't get it together, politics as usual, we hope. They obviously aren't looking to be thrown out during an election year or just before there terms and sessions end! GRATTZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!
Last edited:
Dear X P3 Flight Engineer:
You have made my day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for such concise reporting and the incredibly uplifting news, though perhaps to all of our dismay the constant is still............the inconclusiveness as to the future of affordable vaping as we now know and enjoy it. Still, your truthful researching, and awesome writing clearly shows what the opposing factions are ignorantly looking at, what importance their pea brains place on e-cigarettes and the knee jerk prioritization and proliferation of false information about this product and it's availability. Most importantly their whimpy, weak stance regarding under-aged vapers, who may or may not parley over to real caustic deadly smoking based on cost factors. I am happy to know they can't get it together, politics as usual, we hope. They obviously aren't looking to be thrown out during an election year or just before there terms and sessions end! GRATTZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!
You should actually be thanking the author:未知
This was a month ago and there were 2 weeks left in session. Perhaps someone could give us an update.
The other important part for us and CASAA is:
* * * * *
Why submit the late bill?
"To get some discussion going, to get some reaction by people for and against it and get information that would provide a rational basis for action or inaction," Hannon said.
* * * * *
Let's make sure they get some "reaction by people for" vaping, because we know they will get lots of reaction from (highly paid) people against vaping! After all, they want to be provided a rational basis for action or inaction.
That's us!
The update to the proposed legislation in NYS was that both the Senate and Assembly passed the legislation to make it illegal to sell ecigs to anyone under 18 years old before the legislature session ended. The bill to make selling ecigs illegal in NYS never made it out of committee before the end of the session so its dead for now. There is a thread further down from this one where this proposed legislation was discussed.
Thanks, XP3 for posting that. I am heartened to see signs of intelligent life!
Good news but the article is still full of misinformation. E-Cigs are not sold to minors. They are not marketed to minors they just cant give the industry any credit! Why didn't the article say but even with out any laws the industry is doing a great job on prohibiting the sale of their product to miners.
The second part of their reasoning is interesting too:
Why submit the late bill?
"To get some discussion going, to get some reaction by people for and against it and get information that would provide a rational basis for action or inaction," Hannon said.
I'm just naive enough to expect politicians to gather information they need before they introduce a bill related to it.
Why submit the late bill?
"To get some discussion going, to get some reaction by people for and against it and get information that would provide a rational basis for action or inaction," Hannon said.
I'm just naive enough to expect politicians to gather information they need before they introduce a bill related to it.
Kind of like another bill here the US, you'll know whats in it after we pass it. they're just following the congress' lead.
Interesting that the author or the article above is: 未知
If you put that in Google Translator, it comes up as "Unknown," literally! LOL
If you put that in Google Translator, it comes up as "Unknown," literally! LOL
I am joining CASAA and also considering donating to them are they a worthy cause for our fight for the right to Vape, sure sounds like it. I would like some opinions pro and con from some of you in the no! Also what other organizations should I look into in regards to Vaping or Ecigs i am trying to stay away from that word. Thanks
There is no "con" to donating to CASAA. They are the only ones fighting for us, because they ARE us.
And they are doing one hell of a job with very little to work with.
You can start by joining, which costs nothing...
Become a CASAA Member
Then you can attend the next meeting member meeting which is every other Sunday.
They will send you an email with all the information.
And for anyone that wants to donate, let me make it as easy as possible...
Donate to CASAA
And they are doing one hell of a job with very little to work with.
You can start by joining, which costs nothing...
Become a CASAA Member
Then you can attend the next meeting member meeting which is every other Sunday.
They will send you an email with all the information.
And for anyone that wants to donate, let me make it as easy as possible...
Donate to CASAA
Thanks a lot for the links man!There is no "con" to donating to CASAA. They are the only ones fighting for us, because they ARE us.
And they are doing one hell of a job with very little to work with.
You can start by joining, which costs nothing...
Become a CASAA Member
Then you can attend the next meeting member meeting which is every other Sunday.
They will send you an email with all the information.
And for anyone that wants to donate, let me make it as easy as possible...
Donate to CASAA
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
I've read every single post of this chilling thread, from start to finish. What I'm about
to suggest hasn't been proposed by anyone (and perhaps for good reason).
I do understand that renaming, reshaping, repackaging, repositioning the e-cig or PV
(no matter what you want to call it) will do nothing whatsoever to divert or dilute
the powerful opposition to cheap and effective alternatives for self-directed reduced
dependency on smoking tobacco. The opposition has the tenacity as if
following religious doctrine, nearly unlimited resources, and the power
and willingness to forced us to fund their cause.
It's a power, money, and politics game. That's all it's ever been. It's not about health.
It's not about fairness. It's not about what's right or good. While we have some extremely
talented people working on our behalf, we are still woefully underpowered in this fight.
Bill Godshall, God help me if I ever propose something that would cause you to re-think
your affiliation with this cause. If this post makes you do that, please reply to that effect
and I will delete what I'm about to say next and we'll pretend I never said it.
Till date, it seems CASAA has been fighting the good fight. Clean, truthfull,
fair. All the things I (and probably most here) morally like to align myself with.
BUT, isn't this a little bit like bringing a knife to a gunfight? The opposition puts
no such ethical limits on themselves. Power. Money. Politics. Those are the weapons
aligned against us. Not fairness, not logic, not common decency, and certainly
not the smallest measure of compassion. None of that wins the contest. It
might achieve a stay of execution, in my mind, but nothing really much more
than that.
This thread has touched on the solution: NUMBERS. Power, money and politics follows
NUMBERS.
Does anyone realistically think we can organically grow the numbers soley
from within the Vapor community before this whole movement gets buried under
a landslide of lies and corruption from our own government? Sadly, I don't.
Does anyone realistically think enough smokers will see the light and come
over to vaping and join CASAA in numbers meaningful enough to stop that
landslide? Sadly, I don't. I really wish I could say I did, but I don't. Especially not
since the truth has a legal gag-order imposed from the highest levels of government.
Has anyone toyed with the idea that the only way to survive this fight might just be to
fight as dirty as the opposition? Or is it absurd to suggest that's even an option?
What's the fastest way to grow our numbers? Is there an obvious LARGE group of
of similarly oppressed folks out there that we could rally and ally with? An obvious,
natural ally? SMOKERS, perhaps? Isn't there somewhere we could find common ground? Not just
them supporting our vapor rights, but us supporting a "STOP IT ALREADY" with all the
taxes. Enough is enough. Isn't there some corner of a smoker's rights we could find
common ground with that doesn't come off as actually supporting the act of smoking?
By targetting Nicotine, the FDA has already lumped us together with smokers anyway.
Rather than spending resources fighting this, isn't there a way to exploit this without
necessarilly acknowledging it?
After all, if we could put together a proposal with enough appeal to attract smokers
in large numbers based on their issues wouldn't they then have an accelerated
path to learning about harm reduction alternatives that they didn't know about?
Win/win?
Is there a way we could attract some BT money? Unlikely, and probably naive of
me to even suggest, but they do have a dog in this fight too. How many of their
other dog fights can we find common cause with that don't conflict with core
principals?
Another thought. If corporations are now "citizens" and if money is now "speech,"
would it be legal for cottage industries to "donate" their "speech" (money) to political
ads dispensing truth about the saftey of e-cigs? How could this be done to
legally distinquish it from "Marketing?" If it could be done in a way legally distinquishable
as political speech, how could it be shut down? Hell, if we can do this we could even stretch
the truth, discredit the opposition, or what have you, same as they are doing.
Political speech is a license to lie. Cynical? Yes, but an honest viewpoint. It
seems to be status quo for political discourse in the country.
I honestly believe that anyone who thinks this will ever get to a point when it's
over and done with is going to be sadly disappointed. I have not the
slightest confidence that getting a "friendlier" presence in the White House
will get us any more than the defferential referral to the FDA that cancer drug endlessly
spinning in the FDA's approval loop got. (What could be more politically popular than
curing cancer? Yet there it spins.)
Even if we did gain an activist ally in the white house, that's a temporary stay of
execution. The true enemies and power backing our opponents doesn't disappear
with an election. They will simply still be there, unrelenting, and still well financed,
when the political pendulum swings back in their favor. They will take as many
do-overs as they need for as many years, election cycles, and decades as it takes.
To assume they will run out of money or just go away I think is a monumental
under-estimation of their determination, resources, and capabilities.
I don't honestly think this war can actually be won. It can only be continuously
prosecuted. Winning it would seem to require fundamental changes to our form
of government and electoral processes that are even less likely than the FDA
waking up tomorrow and "coming to its senses." For a long term war, I
tend to think we need alliances, and lots of them.
Attributed to Ben Franklin: "Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or assuredly
we shall all hang separately" (a supposed reply to John Hancock's "we must now
all hang together" after his signing of the declaration) would not seem to be a
rallying cry for a bunch of like-minded folks to band together. To me it more
typifies a (probably tounge-in-cheek) admonition for 13 squabbling colonies bitterly
divided about how the future should unfold to put their differences aside, see the larger picture, and combine forces to combat the threat that could put an end to them all.
I guess I've said enough to get the idea across. Bill, if I'm thinking way way too far
outside the box to be productive, just say the word and I'll delete this entire post.
DISCLAIMER: At risk of overstating the obvious, I am by no means a polical
expert, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.
I've read every single post of this chilling thread, from start to finish. What I'm about
to suggest hasn't been proposed by anyone (and perhaps for good reason).
I do understand that renaming, reshaping, repackaging, repositioning the e-cig or PV
(no matter what you want to call it) will do nothing whatsoever to divert or dilute
the powerful opposition to cheap and effective alternatives for self-directed reduced
dependency on smoking tobacco. The opposition has the tenacity as if
following religious doctrine, nearly unlimited resources, and the power
and willingness to forced us to fund their cause.
It's a power, money, and politics game. That's all it's ever been. It's not about health.
It's not about fairness. It's not about what's right or good. While we have some extremely
talented people working on our behalf, we are still woefully underpowered in this fight.
Bill Godshall, God help me if I ever propose something that would cause you to re-think
your affiliation with this cause. If this post makes you do that, please reply to that effect
and I will delete what I'm about to say next and we'll pretend I never said it.
Till date, it seems CASAA has been fighting the good fight. Clean, truthfull,
fair. All the things I (and probably most here) morally like to align myself with.
BUT, isn't this a little bit like bringing a knife to a gunfight? The opposition puts
no such ethical limits on themselves. Power. Money. Politics. Those are the weapons
aligned against us. Not fairness, not logic, not common decency, and certainly
not the smallest measure of compassion. None of that wins the contest. It
might achieve a stay of execution, in my mind, but nothing really much more
than that.
This thread has touched on the solution: NUMBERS. Power, money and politics follows
NUMBERS.
Does anyone realistically think we can organically grow the numbers soley
from within the Vapor community before this whole movement gets buried under
a landslide of lies and corruption from our own government? Sadly, I don't.
Does anyone realistically think enough smokers will see the light and come
over to vaping and join CASAA in numbers meaningful enough to stop that
landslide? Sadly, I don't. I really wish I could say I did, but I don't. Especially not
since the truth has a legal gag-order imposed from the highest levels of government.
Has anyone toyed with the idea that the only way to survive this fight might just be to
fight as dirty as the opposition? Or is it absurd to suggest that's even an option?
What's the fastest way to grow our numbers? Is there an obvious LARGE group of
of similarly oppressed folks out there that we could rally and ally with? An obvious,
natural ally? SMOKERS, perhaps? Isn't there somewhere we could find common ground? Not just
them supporting our vapor rights, but us supporting a "STOP IT ALREADY" with all the
taxes. Enough is enough. Isn't there some corner of a smoker's rights we could find
common ground with that doesn't come off as actually supporting the act of smoking?
By targetting Nicotine, the FDA has already lumped us together with smokers anyway.
Rather than spending resources fighting this, isn't there a way to exploit this without
necessarilly acknowledging it?
After all, if we could put together a proposal with enough appeal to attract smokers
in large numbers based on their issues wouldn't they then have an accelerated
path to learning about harm reduction alternatives that they didn't know about?
Win/win?
Is there a way we could attract some BT money? Unlikely, and probably naive of
me to even suggest, but they do have a dog in this fight too. How many of their
other dog fights can we find common cause with that don't conflict with core
principals?
Another thought. If corporations are now "citizens" and if money is now "speech,"
would it be legal for cottage industries to "donate" their "speech" (money) to political
ads dispensing truth about the saftey of e-cigs? How could this be done to
legally distinquish it from "Marketing?" If it could be done in a way legally distinquishable
as political speech, how could it be shut down? Hell, if we can do this we could even stretch
the truth, discredit the opposition, or what have you, same as they are doing.
Political speech is a license to lie. Cynical? Yes, but an honest viewpoint. It
seems to be status quo for political discourse in the country.
I honestly believe that anyone who thinks this will ever get to a point when it's
over and done with is going to be sadly disappointed. I have not the
slightest confidence that getting a "friendlier" presence in the White House
will get us any more than the defferential referral to the FDA that cancer drug endlessly
spinning in the FDA's approval loop got. (What could be more politically popular than
curing cancer? Yet there it spins.)
Even if we did gain an activist ally in the white house, that's a temporary stay of
execution. The true enemies and power backing our opponents doesn't disappear
with an election. They will simply still be there, unrelenting, and still well financed,
when the political pendulum swings back in their favor. They will take as many
do-overs as they need for as many years, election cycles, and decades as it takes.
To assume they will run out of money or just go away I think is a monumental
under-estimation of their determination, resources, and capabilities.
I don't honestly think this war can actually be won. It can only be continuously
prosecuted. Winning it would seem to require fundamental changes to our form
of government and electoral processes that are even less likely than the FDA
waking up tomorrow and "coming to its senses." For a long term war, I
tend to think we need alliances, and lots of them.
Attributed to Ben Franklin: "Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or assuredly
we shall all hang separately" (a supposed reply to John Hancock's "we must now
all hang together" after his signing of the declaration) would not seem to be a
rallying cry for a bunch of like-minded folks to band together. To me it more
typifies a (probably tounge-in-cheek) admonition for 13 squabbling colonies bitterly
divided about how the future should unfold to put their differences aside, see the larger picture, and combine forces to combat the threat that could put an end to them all.
I guess I've said enough to get the idea across. Bill, if I'm thinking way way too far
outside the box to be productive, just say the word and I'll delete this entire post.
DISCLAIMER: At risk of overstating the obvious, I am by no means a polical
expert, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.
Last edited:
Eloquent and relevant discourse "Whynes". I have the sinking feeling that addiction to nicotine will always be popularly frowned upon. the negativity towards nicotine use, never sways, we might as well face that. This is the biggest criticism the money grubbers (corporate and political interests) use, is that all addictions are bad. (taxing addicts for their favorite vices, what could be more free enterprise, opportunistic or profitable? What they pull out of their hats of dirty tricks. It's similar to the gas pumps, we all drive and when the gas prices go up, we still must pump or quit driving? (who wants to do it first?) On the other hand, can addiction ever be a worthy cause? When there is a huge portion of people who have never or would never allow themselves to be addicted to evile nicotine, how can an addicted group hope to gain sympathy or protection? It may boil down to small business interests and each individual that is vaping, a lonely fight but I agree "wynes" without people from CASAA and the tireless invaluable work of Bill Godshall's, we will become even more of an obscure under-represented group. Even close friends, still blow smoke in my face. I'm an artist and used to being the odd ball, or out of the mainstream, pressures to conform are always brought to bare when success is nearly impossible to attain, how much conviction can any single individual have without some form of group strength? We need each other. I get so happy when I visit the local e-cigarette store, in person right here in Toledo, Ohio.... little businesses are who we need to rally with. I beam and smile from ear to ear when I hang out there at "Revolver" the store and see with my own eyes the numbers of new vapers growing in an amazing popularity frenzie, that I pray isn't just a passing trend. Retail e-cigarette business are in the front lines our cause's "troopers". Buy local!
I agree the most important thing is to grow our numbers.whynes said:
My wife is neither a vaper nor a smoker, but she would be appalled if they tried to take this option away from me.
Every vaper can create a ring of such people around them, including their friends, their co-workers, the people in their sewing circle, poker buddies, whatever.
And if we can get enough people that are willing to support us, and a strong enough message, we CAN stop them.
So can we get enough people? And what is a strong enough message then.
As far as the message goes, I honestly think we need to make our opposition look like murderers.
Not necessarily call them murderers, but make sure it is naturally and easily inferred.
If we can do all that, I can almost guarantee we will win.
I think it would be smart to attack from all sides.
And yes, that includes fighting dirty to the extent it doesn't make us look like whack jobs.
But I don't think CASAA should be doing that, as it will only lessen their effectiveness.
Vocalek,
I found a sympathetic article on a blogger's site who was bashing the FDA somewhat
bombastically. I left a comment that included a copy/paste of a link to your article.
My comment is still awaiting moderation, so even if you went there right now you
wouldn't see it because it is not yet approved. I will post the text of my comment
below as any FYI. But before I do that . . .
Everyone,
One simple thing you can do to promote visibility in the search engines (Google, Bing,
Yahoo, etc) is to find related blogging sites that allow comments; ideally topically related
in someway; e.g., smoking, FDA, smoking cessation, etc . . . anything that's related
to our cause.
If you can leave a comment relevant to the bloggers article, and then leave a link
to, for example, Vocalek's article, Google and other search engines count that link
kind of like a vote of authority. Over time, as those "votes" increase, Vocalek's
article, in this example, will rise higher and higher in Google's search results.
Google will programatically scan that article and kind of "figure out" what search
terms to assign, and over time it will rank that page higher and
higher in the search results as more external comments "vote for" (link to)
that page.
The idea is that as other people who might be interested or sympathetic to the
cause search on Google for related material, we want anything we are advocating
to rise to page one of the searcher's results; ideally, at the top.
A little bit on ethics: you shouldn't spam other peoples website's. Your comment should
be relevant to their blog. Your comment should be of interest, add value, and be related
to that blog's readership. Don't just plant a link with no personal comment or
narrative from you at all on a blog about race cars. You're not adding value, it's not
relevant to the blog, and it's not respectful of the blogger's web-property. And it will
do us no good.
My comment was left on an article that was already ranting about the FDA, so it was
an ideal place to leave my comment and plant a link. I can't post links here yet, but
here was my comment on that blog:
------- Comment -----
"The FDA is at it again. I’m a chain-smoker of 39 years. I tried the patch, I tried the gum.
Nothing ever kept me away from smoking for more than day or two. On a lark, I tried an
electronic cigarette. An e-cig produces water vapor, not smoke. I get the sensation of
smoking (and yes, it does contain nicotine) but I don’t have to burn any tobacco, so I’m
not getting the 4,000 chemicals and carcinogens present in tobacco smoke. Three days
later was was my last tobacco cigarette. Using an e-cig I’m now 10 days clean from smoking.
For someone addicted to smoking like I am, this is simply a miracle. I long ago gave up
any hope of quitting. My breath is coming back, my teeth are whitening, I don’t smell like
any ash tray anymore, and I can feel my body healing day by day. I hadn’t planned on ever
going back to burning tobacco again.
Then I found this: (this was a copy/paste of the same link Vocalek posted, above)
I don’t need the FDA to get involved and prove to me this is a much healthier alternative,
and drive the cost up 50-fold, and then cause it to be taxed the same as tobacco, so that
regular cigarettes become a more economical alternative. But that is exactly what they
appear to be trying to do. Thousands of people are discovering the freedom and miracle of
a cost-effective, safe, smoke-free life, and the FDAs actions will very likely push many of
them back to smoking. They are literally going to kill thousands, in the name of health and
safety.
When you say FDA stands for, 'Forwarding Death in America', sadly, you hit the nail right
on the head. There’s just too much profit in Big Tobacco and Big Pharma to let us
wanna-be ex-smokers off the hook that easily."
--------- End Comment ---------------
Note the bolded text. That phrase is a quote from the blogger's own article. It proves to
him that my comment was left by a human, and not by a robot spammer.
It's also a good idea not to mention any brand names, and DO NOT
leave links to any web-store or product pages that sell e-cigs. That would
be a strong indication of spamming, and your comment will not be approved.
Links to information, whether written by CASAA, or by government or news
agencies in general are the kinds of things we want to be promoting.
Be responsible, and don't come off like a salesman, and over time a comment
or two per week from each of us on other blogs can make a big difference in
getting the word out.
Above all, read the article you are leaving a comment on so you know that
your comment is relevant to the content or context of the article.
EDIT: How to you find blogs to leave comments on? It's not really that hard.
I did a Google searh for "FDA Oppression" and found lots of sympathetic
websites. Clicked the first 8 links in Google's returned search results,
scanned the pages, and 8 links down I found the perfect article that
also allowed comments. I took me all of about 5 minutes.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
