FDA may soon propose regulation that could ban many/most e-cigarette products, eliminate many/most companies

[hellerhighwater]

I like your ideas Whynes, but what I'm concerned about with aligning ourselves with smokers is that the money, power, etc. of the politics game doesn't generate from your average smoker. Rather, its the fairly mighty big tobacco lobby that has the power in washington and elsewhere. This big tobacco lobby is not on our side because we, as vapers, are eating away at their base just as fast, if not faster, than any government initiative. These people are not going to be on our side because they loose money every time we win another over to our cause...

Our long time enemy is the pharmaceutical business who is desperately trying to maintain a foothold on their patch/gum/snake oil sales through whatever means possible. If we can find a way to deal with them, perhaps we'll have a fighting chance at keeping new legislation at bay.

 

[whynes]

hellerhighwater,

I can't say I disagree with anything you say. However, I would take note that the
money and power are squarely against us whether we align with smokers or not.
I think the right question to ask is this: would aligning with smokers more likely
increase or decrease our NUMBERS and influence. I don't think it's possible to
get the money and power any more against us than they already are, so I discount
that part of the discussion completely.

I included that in my suggestion probably more to remind myself, more than anyone
else, that we shouldn't overlook potential alliances simply because on the surface they
would be with who appear to be natural enemies. The only real enemy here is
the one that could destroy us all. Hence, the old saying, "Politics
makes strange bedfellows." It can indeed. And wouldn't it be the strangest of things
if we could get BT to fund an ad for us, even in view of your logic (which is dead on
target, IMHO).

Here's a hypothetical of what I mean.

If Adolph Hitler were living in America, there is not much chance I would agree with
anything he had to say, unless he was speaking about the weather that day.

But no matter how blisteringly offensive his speech is, I would argue to the death
that he has the right to say it. The correct response is not to take his rights (and hence
our rights) away. The right response is to raise your own voice against him.

Likewise, a smoker who wants to open a restaurant or bar in California, hire smoking
or smoke-don't-care employees, and cater to smoking customers can't do that.
Why can't he/she do that? Well, just 'cause. The mom-and-dad-state have taken that
freedom away. I think this represents a country that has lost it's compass of
liberty.

In this context there could, in theory, be lots of things I could agree and support that
would help BT, without stepping on other peoples liberty. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I could easily support any BT initiative that puts liberty as well as the responsibility
for exersizing that liberty, back in the hands of its rightful owner (the citizen).

My goal is not to KILL BT and proscribe behaviours for other citizens. My goal is to
secure MY rights to keep MYSELF safe and healthy in a cost-effective manner. If
I can do that for myself, then I have done it for every other citizen at the same time.

Here I'm sure many would disagree with me. I would disagree with the wisdom of
opening up such a bar. But there are business people that would do that. There are
employees that would happily work there. There are customers that would love to
go there. No matter how stupid I might think that is. If we're going to call
ourselves "FREE", that means the freedom to make dumb decisions. If we are only
allowed to make decisions the state agrees with, then we aren't really free, are we?

The state has an obligation to make sure I am held accountable if my actions
infringe on another citizen's rights. The state is overstepping that obligation
by a wide margin when they curtail my freedom for what they percieve is my
own good.

Even Hitler allowed speech he agreed with. That he allowed it didn't make it FREE speech.

Wow. I guess I might have gone a bit far afield of the original topic.
I guess my main point is that common ground, and a basis for an alliance,
might not be all so obvious without a little deeper inspection.

BT and smokers still have some freedoms left that you and I should want
to keep for ourselves, too. They have also lost freedoms (as you and I have)
that we might want to restore for ourselves.

 

[Vocalek]

I like your ideas Whynes, but what I'm concerned about with aligning ourselves with smokers is that the money, power, etc. of the politics game doesn't generate from your average smoker. Rather, its the fairly mighty big tobacco lobby that has the power in washington and elsewhere. This big tobacco lobby is not on our side because we, as vapers, are eating away at their base just as fast, if not faster, than any government initiative. These people are not going to be on our side because they loose money every time we win another over to our cause...

Our long time enemy is the pharmaceutical business who is desperately trying to maintain a foothold on their patch/gum/snake oil sales through whatever means possible. If we can find a way to deal with them, perhaps we'll have a fighting chance at keeping new legislation at bay.

You are correct that the real enemy is the pharmaceutical business. The tobacco companies have done nothing whatsoever to try to kill the e-cigarette business. All of the major tobacco companies are getting into smoke-free alternatives. Already one major company has bought out a large e-cigarette business and the rumors are that RJR will be the next company to do so. Many tobacco companies are developing their own version of an e-cigarette, working to improve on initial product attractiveness to smokers and lasting satisfaction with the alternative.

There is no future in combusted cigarettes: 1) There is a shrinking number of places where they can be used, which is the major reason why sales are down; and 2) It really doesn't make good business sense to kill off your customer base.

 

[whynes]

You are correct that the real enemy is the pharmaceutical business. The tobacco companies have done nothing whatsoever to try to kill the e-cigarette business. All of the major tobacco companies are getting into smoke-free alternatives.

I just love, love, love what you have to say here Vocalek.

The likely possibility that our most "obvious" enemy is really our potentially most
powerful "friend" in this fight is exactly what I was so inadequate in trying to portray.

Well said! I will modify the comments I leave on other people's blogs as a result.

You make a huge difference! Thank you for being you.

whynes

 

[Vocalek]

I just love, love, love what you have to say here Vocalek.

The likely possibility that our most "obvious" enemy is really our potentially most
powerful "friend" in this fight is exactly what I was so inadequate in trying to portray.

Well said! I will modify the comments I leave on other people's blogs as a result.

You make a huge difference! Thank you for being you.

whynes

And the reverse is true as well. Those groups that we believed considered the health of smokers important turned out to be our worst enemies.

The anti-tobacco community started out as the anti-smoking community. I'm not sure how it happened, but somewhere along the line their common enemy changed from "disease and death caused by smoking" to "tobacco companies and tobacco users."

Yes, tobacco companies do have a history of hiding facts, telling lies, and being indifferent to the suffering they caused. But the important word in the previous sentence is "history." Not one of the tobacco company executives that testified to Henry Waxman's committee some 18 years ago are still leading--or are even still employed at--those companies.

All four CEOs — from RJ Reynolds, Phillip Morris, Brown & Williamson and Lollilard — steadfastly refused to budge an inch under withering questioning from Waxman and other congressmen that they knew cigarettes were addictive and were killing people. They all four claimed they did not believe this.

How Big Tobacco got away with the Crime of the Century | Pepe's Non-Smoking Party Lounge

I have testified at public hearings several times at the FDA and once at an Institute of Medicine hearing, and have participated in various meetings where I have met many employees of tobacco companies--many of them scientists. I don't claim to be a perfect judge of character, but none of them struck me as particularly furtive or dishonest. In contrast, some of the anti-tobacco doctors and scientists who spoke at these meetings said things that I knew, without a doubt, to be misleading or outright untrue.

I have no doubt that on some level these doctors and scientists must understand that non-combusted tobacco cannot possibly do as much damage as inhaling smoke of any kind--yet some of them can probably say in all honesty that they don't believe non-combusted products are less hazardous. Perhaps those tobacco company executives were no more dishonest than the Harvard Medical School professor who testified at an FDA hearing that the smoking rate in Sweden is no lower than the US smoking rate. He managed to juggle the data in a certain way to make the statement seem to be supported by facts. So it is possible that he honestly believes smokeless tobacco products don't help smokers quit and that they kill just as many customers as cigarettes. But I would love to see him explain the biological mechanism by which snus causes COPD.

 

[whynes]

I just found this jaw-dropping notice posted on Vape Safe's e-Liquid page.

"Due to pressure from the State of California's Attorney General's Office,
we have stopped selling eLiquids containing nicotine. We are currently
working on creating a new line of nicotineless eLiquid flavor concentrates
for our DIY customers. The new flavors will be available for purchase in
August 2012."

Just one more example of how our good governor has been creating jobs
in other states since 2010.

This message brought to you by the land of the free to do whatever
the state approves of.

We don't bother passing laws here. We just enforce whatever the
heck we feel like enforcing. Saves time and, well gee-whiz, it's just
a whole lot of fun.

Pretty soon we'll need a passport and approval documents just to
leave the state.

Oops. Is that a black helicopter I hear hovering outside my house?

Gotta go . . .

 

[Lisa Belle]

Big Government that knows what's good for you! Not that cares for you.

 

[whynes]

Big Government that knows what's good for you! Not that cares for you.

God help us all if it ever starts caring for us.

There's only one thing Big Government does well: get bigger.

 

[Lisa Belle]

We agree and hope to still make a stand!

 

[Stubby]

God help us all if it ever starts caring for us.

There's only one thing Big Government does well: get bigger.

It has little to due with government or some type of nanny state (yet another meaningless buzz word). It has to do with corporations and how they are buying government. BP owns tobacco control groups. This includes the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, etc. These groups are nothing more then PR front groups for BP.

It has little to do with left or right. Just look at the Senate vote on the PACT act that has had a very negative effect on tobacco harm reduction. It is now harder and a good deal more expensive to get Swedish snus and other reduced harm products. It was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. Not a single republican cared enough about the issue to even demand a vote.

The Family Protection tobacco bill which gave control of tobacco products to the FDA didn't fare much better. It was overwhelmingly passed in both the house and senate with a few week voices objecting.

This is all about the many millions of dollars flowing into tobacco control that has completely corrupted the whole issue surrounding tobacco.

 

[whynes]

It has to do with corporations and how they are buying government.

I would certainly agree that corporate greed is a party to this corruption;
however, I can't agree that it, as you say, "has little to do with government."

A government that can be purchased, in my view, is a big part of the
problem. And the bigger that government is, the more damage it can
do when purchased.

That a corporation is behaving greedily and doing everything it can to dominate
its market should not come as a surprise to anyone. That's at least what they're
intended to do.

A government that is doing what it is supposed to do would not be for sale
to the highest bidder. In my view, this is the biggest part of the problem.

Let us not forget, corporations are creatures of congress. The
Sherman Antitrust Act was the statute that brought the modern
corporation into being in 1890 in the first place.

I might be oversimplifying this a bit, but my point is that corporations
did not create the legal structure that permits them to exist, and which
governs them (or not, as the case may be) now. Corporations do not
spread corruption in a vacuum.

Corporations do what they were created to do. Expecting them to fix
themselves is futile. If corporations need fixing--and I think a reasonable
argument could suggest they do--the government is the responsible party
that has not taken the necessary action to do it.

Assigning all or most of the blame to corporations seems a bit like blaming
the hammer for smashing your thumb.

It has little to do with left or right.

Amen to that.

I'm sure we could have quite a lively finger-pointing contest if we wanted
to go back far enough into the past, but I don't think it would accomplish
anything.

Regardless of how it got started, anti-tobacco has become institutionalized.
Even though one could consider the original intent to have been largely
accomplished beyond anyone's wildest dreams, the bureaucracies that
control institutions don't voluntarilly disolve themselves when their mission
is accomplished.

This now has a life of its own. It has had for quite a while. Since the end
of the mission is now within sight, it will expand its cause to whatever
degree needed to ensure its own survival. It is now so ingrained that the
financial solvency of many states now depend on its expansion and
continuation.

To enable this requires only that we do nothing. Stopping it requires
political will from the elected and the electorate no matter what color
pin they wear on election day. Voters of all political stripes will have
their oxen gored by this precedent eventually.

 

[sherid]

I've been saying what you said for over three years. You can't throw smokers to the bus since all of us were/are smokers only a short time ago. Those vapers who believe that they can play nice with the anti-smokers are so naive. THEY ARE OUT TO GET YOU, no conspiracy here, just the simple truth. You are facing the same issues as smokers, a rather large group of over 45 million in the US alone, and your efforts to distance yourselves from that group only isolates you further. It really is not a smoker vs. vaper issue. It is an issue where one chooses whether to vape, smoke, drink Big Gulps, eat donuts made with trans-fat oil, feed babies formula rather than breast feed....etc. etc. If you want to live in that world, keep following the nannies. This needs to stop NOW, and ironically, it needs to start with standing up to those who want to take over your lives.

 

[Lisa Belle]

There's nothing like the truth it rings like nothing else! Thank you "Stubby" short, sweet and complete!

 

[Lisa Belle]

Yes it does "sherid" exactly. I am all for what American's had to do in the past with alcohol prohibition. They told the BIG GOVERNMENT to take a leap!

 

[puddlejumper1]

Oh yea, they (the Government) has been doing a great job of keeping harmful ingredients from being added to cigarettes, they took hush hush money (they called them fines) to look the other way.

 

[sherid]

I like your ideas Whynes, but what I'm concerned about with aligning ourselves with smokers is that the money, power, etc. of the politics game doesn't generate from your average smoker. Rather, its the fairly mighty big tobacco lobby that has the power in washington and elsewhere. This big tobacco lobby is not on our side because we, as vapers, are eating away at their base just as fast, if not faster, than any government initiative. These people are not going to be on our side because they loose money every time we win another over to our cause...
Our long time enemy is the pharmaceutical business who is desperately trying to maintain a foothold on their patch/gum/snake oil sales through whatever means possible. If we can find a way to deal with them, perhaps we'll have a fighting chance at keeping new legislation at bay.

BT, like all corporations, is out to make money. They don't care if that money comes from cigarettes or e cigs. They are already entering the e cig market because there is money to be made. BT is no different from any other corporation. If Verizon was fighting a battle against cell phones causing brain cancer, Verizon would use all of its resources to prove that it did not. BT is not an evil empire. They are a staple of the American economy, serving the wants and needs of its billion plus consumers. You want it. They have it. You are not a helpless slave of BT. You decided, as did I, that you liked what they provided. If you separate yourself from the other 45 million smokers in America to prove that you have made a better choice in vaping, you have simply fooled yourself and split the nicotine market and its power to persuade. Use what is already there and stop fooling yourselves. You like what nicotine provides whether it comes from a Marlboro or an EGo. Use the power of numbers to make your voices heard.

 

[Lisa Belle]

So, the numbers have been increasing steadily. You can't go into a convenience store without seeing electronic vaper sticks on or near the counter. Can it be imagined that the entire nicotine using consumers will unite, smokers and vapers? Just to smoke in today's anti smoking climate has enough stigma attached to pardon the expression knock the .... in the dirt, and most smoker's feel like hiding under the nearest rock in most public situations. Standing outside at 30 deg. or less 50 ft., from the door, total humiliation, job discrimination and on.. we treat our pets better. It's a lot to wish for, but whatelse or where else would the numbers we need come from to be taken seriously?

 

[Stubby]

So, the numbers have been increasing steadily. You can't go into a convenience store without seeing electronic vaper sticks on or near the counter. Can it be imagined that the entire nicotine using consumers will unite, smokers and vapers? Just to smoke in today's anti smoking climate has enough stigma attached to pardon the expression knock the .... in the dirt, and most smoker's feel like hiding under the nearest rock in most public situations. Standing outside at 30 deg. or less 50 ft., from the door, total humiliation, job discrimination and on.. we treat our pets better. It's a lot to wish for, but whatelse or where else would the numbers we need come from to be taken seriously?

There are very few smokers who are politically active. There is no doubt the tobacco control industry has stepped over the line as far as restrictions on smoking, but there is also overwhelming evidence that smoking is unhealthy. The problem is that smokers have been pushed so far to the back of the bus, with essentially no support from either party that smokers have basically given up and now just shuffle along with each new restriction.

This changes when people get educated about tobacco harm reduction. When I found out I had been lied to about the dangers of smokeless tobacco for decades, that turned me into an activist. I could have quit smoking a long time ago if I had known the truth about smokeless tobacco, and it is the very people who are supposed to be looking out for public health that are doing the lying. Of course it is the same gangs that are now attacking and lying about e-cigs.

It doesn't take much to scratch the surface and find a world of corruption in the form of tobacco control. It's an industry that has completely lost sight of its original goal of improving public heath and today its only reason to exist is to keep the money flowing. A number of TC groups never even had the goal of public health to begin with as they where started and funded as nothing more then PR front groups for drug companies.

Trying to activate smokers is a losing proposition. Smokers have been so downtrodden that there is little hope of them becoming politically active. Every activist on this forum didn't do so until they became educated about tobacco harm reduction. The key is not to try and activate smokers, but to educate the 45 million smokers in the US, and over a billion worldwide on the concepts of harm reduction.

 

[Lisa Belle]

very true Stubby

 

[MoonRose]

The anti-smoking brigade morphed into the anti-tobacco troops which has now turned into the anti-nicotine nazis. They are against any products that contain nicotine except for the pharmaceutical products which is where they get the majority of their funding from. Tobacco and it's nicotine are legal products and yet they have managed to convince a large majority of people that we are nothing more than drug addicts who are to be treated as nothing better than low-life bottom feeders. We are to be denied jobs and pay higher insurance premiums if we drug test positive for cotinine, a by-product of nicotine use. We are being treated little better than criminals because we enjoy partaking of a legal product.