FDA seizing new shipments

[Vocalek]

Thanks for the link to this. The first sentence looks to me to need a bit of editing, unless I'm not reading it correctly

"... misleading information about electronic cigarettes publicized disseminated by organizations..."

Fixed it last night around midnight for Yvilla to send to New York Codes Committee. I will let you know when the new version has been uploaded.

 

[JohnKing]

Let's not forget that on an annual basis far more non-smokers on a percentage basis die than non-nicotine users.

 

[Vocalek]

Now this I like ... but let's make sure that we do make it clear that we are talking about nicotine obtained from non-burning sources as it is the smoke itself that causes most health problems for those who do smoke and possibly for those around them.

When those who smoke are sent outside (or even must leave the neighborhood) to "restock" their nicotine levels, the productivity benefits are reduced or eliminated. Smokers who used to be able to light up at their desk whenever their brain started going fuzzy often postpone taking care of the problem because it is frowned upon to run outside more than a couple of times per day and to be away for up to 20 minutes. So their efficiency suffers. So does their accuracy while they are in a state of fuzziness. (I'm speaking from experience here.)

Once the smoker shifts to a smoke-free source of nicotine, whether that be snus, orbs, gum, lozenges, patch, or PV, the productivity and accuracy improve.

 

[MoonRose]

Now all we have to do is get people to really understand that nicotine without the smoke is no more dangerous or worse than those coffees, teas and sodas that so many people use to energize themselves with.

 

[Traver]

I hear you. Anyone who wants to create pages like you created and point them towards CASAA would be greatly appreciated! After looking at your sample page, CASAA does hope to add to that "emotional appeal" by getting people to add their story to CASAA on Facebook/Success Stories I think that is more along the lines of what you mean?

The FAQS page isn't up yet - it's still being created. As soon as it's up, we'll announce it to people. It'll be a great link for comments on articles & such for newbies and the uninformed.

Yes the testimonials are a start. Thought I rather have it on a website where you don't have to sign in. But considering how many people use facebook that may just be me. Facebook has potential unfortunately I am way out of date and don't know how to use it effectively. I just did the web page to see if I can come up with something. It isn't much of anything as is and without good images it's not going to be. I would rather have it all on CASAA but you may have restrictions that I don' so well see. I still have a lot to learn.

 

[Traver]

It is disturbing that so many vapers still don't get that the anti-smokers are the enemy. It is not about vaping. It is about anything that resembles smoking. The two battles are exactly the same, and until vapers stop deluding themselves, distancing themselves from smokers, and trying to win approval from the anti-smokers; the battle against vaping is guaranteed lost to the anti-smokers. THEY are the enemy.

We should just promote ourselves as an anti-smoker group. It's half of what we are.

 

[Vocalek]

We should just promote ourselves as an anti-smoker group. It's half of what we are.

A sizeable minority of our online group of e-cigarette users still smoke--in the neghborhood of 20%. I am not against smokers. Some of my best friends and many of my relatives smoke.

I really believe that the "clean air" folks got terribly carried away and have turned "anti-smoking" into "anti-smoker". Sherid is correct that we are fighting exacly the same battle with the antis as continuing smokers are fighting.

As long as we are doing something that a) looks like smoking and b) perpetuates addiction to nicotine, we will never be able to convice the anti-smoker group that we are on their side. Truthfully, the way they think and the way they act, I would not want to be on their side.

 

[kristin]

+1 and AMEN! You said it, Sister!

A sizeable minority of our online group of e-cigarette users still smoke--in the neghborhood of 20%. I am not against smokers. Some of my best friends and many of my relatives smoke.

I really believe that the "clean air" folks got terribly carried away and have turned "anti-smoking" into "anti-smoker". Sherid is correct that we are fighting exacly the same battle with the antis as continuing smokers are fighting.

As long as we are doing something that a) looks like smoking and b) perpetuates addiction to nicotine, we will never be able to convice the anti-smoker group that we are on their side. Truthfully, the way they think and the way they act, I would not want to be on their side.

 

[Treece]

It is disturbing that so many vapers still don't get that the anti-smokers are the enemy. It is not about vaping. It is about anything that resembles smoking. The two battles are exactly the same, and until vapers stop deluding themselves, distancing themselves from smokers, and trying to win approval from the anti-smokers; the battle against vaping is guaranteed lost to the anti-smokers. THEY are the enemy.

Yes, yes, and yes again. It can take a while to see it (at least it did for me), but everything sherid wrote is the truth.

The anti-smokers created this situation--one where the very appearance of smoking (as in, outside, in the open air) is something "decent" people should be protected from (especially, of course, the children). It has nothing to do with anybody's health. It's a moral crusade.

When they banned vaping wherever smoking is prohibited in King County, WA, they didn't even pretend that it was about health. They banned vaping because it looks like smoking and might "confuse" people and make smoking seem like a "normal" thing to do. (It IS a normal thing to do!)

Even if they believed their own craziness about secondhand smoke, it doesn't justify banning smoking (and vaping and smokeless tobacco) in parks and on hospital grounds and college campuses all over the country.

I don't believe this is most people. It's a relatively few rather insane people on a moral crusade who are also trying to keep their high-paying jobs and infinite grants by creating this perpetual idea that, "There's more work to be done."

Unfortunately, it's a relatively few who have a lot of money, a lot of power, and the ears of legislators. They need to be exposed and discredited for lying all these years--not just about vaping, but about all of it. They won't be stopped by cooperating with them.

 

[kristin]

+1 and Amen to this post, too!

It is disturbing that so many vapers still don't get that the anti-smokers are the enemy. It is not about vaping. It is about anything that resembles smoking. The two battles are exactly the same, and until vapers stop deluding themselves, distancing themselves from smokers, and trying to win approval from the anti-smokers; the battle against vaping is guaranteed lost to the anti-smokers. THEY are the enemy.

 

[kristin]

To be honest, I don't think the general public really sees any difference - alcoholic, alcohol dependent, alcohol addict - it's all one and the same to them. Say "nicotine addict" or "nicotine dependent" and there's no distinction for them. The words have just been too interchangable over the past couple of decades. The same as how the word "addict" has changed since the popularity of street drugs grew. It used to mean something you couldn't function without and now it means something that ruins your life.

Elaine has a great point about how nicotine was only detrimental health-wise when you smoked it and it never has been something that impared daily functioning. In fact, it improved many mental functions for users while the smoke exposure was slowly draining their health. That simply is not the case for smokeless nicotine use. Just as health groups refuse to acknowledge varying levels of health risks with tobacco products (high to low) they also refuse to acknowledge varying levels of addiction risk (high functioning vs. low functioning and high health risk vs. low health risk.) The antis have changed their tune and it's all about addiction/dependency (they get around those semantics by simply calling it a "crutch" that we shouldn't need.) Smoking was high functioning/high health risk and smokeless nicotine is a high functioning/low health risk activity. It shouldn't even be compared to the low functioning/high health risks of other chemicals of most illegal street drugs.

Caffeine isn't even considered a drug - it's considered a natural-occurring, beneficial chemical ingredient. That is where we need to get smokeless nicotine products recognized. Nicotine isn't a drug - it's not used to treat any diseases at this time (used to treat nicotine addiction as pills and gums, but it's not "curing" the addiction - it comes down to the user weaning off of it) and it's not anything like the illegal street drugs that negatively affect the ability to function normally. The only thing those have in common is that they create a dependence, but the same could be said for caffeine.

There was a guy on the New York Health Committee who exemplified this. He said it doesn't matter if it's delivered by paper and leaf or in an e-device - if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it's all addiction. It shows that he completely doesn't acknowledge or accept the different risk levels of the methods of delivery and unfortunately he is the rule, not the exception.

Months ago I started a thread about being careful how you label yourself. I was hoping PVers would start to see they need to change their verbage from "addiction/ADDICT" to something like "dependent" to decrease the negative labeling from the anti's.

The responses mainly ended up being, "Hi my name is ______ and I'm an addict." They seemed so proud, too.

Seems to me like a nice way to help the other side.

 

[MoonRose]

I'm not anti-smoking at all, I personally believe that if a person wishes to continue smoking they should have the freedom to do so without being made to feel like a second class citizen in their own country. But the anti-smoking/tobacco/nicotine groups won't settle just for the banning of smoking in all public places but are also pushing for the bannings in private homes if children are present or even visit. If we endorse the anti-smoking agenda then we have literally signed our own death knell on being able to use PV's or any other kind of smokeless tobacco product except for the overpriced ones produced by BP.

 

[Bustastew]

The corruption of our so called leaders that are trying to take away our freedom to vape is just part of a much larger problem.
Watch this documentary, I believe it describes it well =)
YouTube - ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011

 

[Traver]

I don't want to join them I want to use and divide them. You don't have to be against smokers to be against smoking. Any way I wasn't serious. It's not going to happen. It is another way of thinking about it and looking at things outside the box. Or it just appeals to my warped sense of humor.

 

[JohnKing]

Smokers should be our friends, I can't think of a larger group of people that are so demonized. I still do a few analogs a day (MYO organic).

 

[kristin]

True Dorothy. And divorcing ourselves from smokers isn't going to make a difference. If we get the distinction from smoking, they just go after the "it looks like smoking and a bad example to kids" argument and then they go after the "dangers of nicotine" and then they go after the "pathetic addict" angles. No matter what we do or call it, they'll have some angle they can and will object to.

It's basically going to have to come down to breaking them with irrefutable science that smokeless nicotine use is no worse than caffeine use and just as beneficial to the user and that switching to smokeless nicotine products would have a positive impact on smoking-related illness and disease NOT cause more people to start smoking. Without that science, just the presence of nicotine in a product is going to make them oppose it and be able to spread their lies.

I'm not anti-smoking at all, I personally believe that if a person wishes to continue smoking they should have the freedom to do so without being made to feel like a second class citizen in their own country. But the anti-smoking/tobacco/nicotine groups won't settle just for the banning of smoking in all public places but are also pushing for the bannings in private homes if children are present or even visit. If we endorse the anti-smoking agenda then we have literally signed our own death knell on being able to use PV's or any other kind of smokeless tobacco product except for the overpriced ones produced by BP.

 

[cobaltblue]

We're all on the same page. Anti-smokers can't stand Vapers/Smokers, or anything that mimics the act of smoking. Vapers/Smokers needs to stick together.

It's the anti-smoker's "pathetic addict" angle that gets under my skin I guess, but moreso because the target of the rotten label chooses to start calling themselves that.

Seems to me that if someone who hates you calls you a pathetic jackass, the last thing you want to do is stand up and proudly say...


Hi, my name is ________, and I'm a pathetic jackass. lol

 

[kristin]

But what if they called you pathetic because of your race or heritage? We have no reason to be ashamed of our nicotine use anymore than their use of caffeine (and you KNOW they all drink coffee, soda or energy drinks - maybe even depend upon it for weight loss pills, too!)

But you're right, the perception of nicotine use as being only an addiction or crutch and not providing any benefit, something which needs to be discontinued at all costs, needs to be changed. But that can only start to happen once we have more science to back it up. That and the fact that it ISN'T all about the nicotine.

Coffee/soda/energy drinkers don't call themselves "caffeine users." They simply aren't required to justify their use of their products the way vapers and tobacco users are. Just as coffee drinkers enjoy the taste and warm sensations of their drink just as much as the caffeine boost, vapers enjoy the tastes and sensations of vaping as much as the nicotine boost.

But so long as antis alienate anyone from their flocks who even broach the subject of reduced harm tobacco and nicotine use, it'll be hard for the truth to get out. We need to change that. The only way to do that is to give an organization like CASAA (even if it isn't CASAA) the money and the resources to spread the word to the masses through media and legislation and support those in tobacco control like Philips, Siegel and Rodu who want to create the science to back what they know to be the truth.

 

[DC2]

I just give all the factual information there is on nicotine along with the clinical studies that are showing that nicotine is not the "demon drug" so many of them seem to think it is, but that it actually does have some very promising applications to help so many people. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't, just depends on whether or not the person is totally close minded or not. And yes, I do shamelessly compare caffeine and nicotine effects on the body and then pose the question of why people think it's ok to addict both themselves and their young children to caffeine yet demonize nicotine when it's actually the smoke that causes all the harm, not the nicotine itself, that one works quite often to get some folks to thinking.

This is exactly how I approach the issue.

If anyone gets into a discussion with me about my continued use of nicotine, you can bet they are going to walk away having gotten an earful of information about how caffeine compares to nicotine, and the potential health benefits of nicotine.

And I will make sure they also walk away with the question in their heads about how they would feel if I took away their coffee, shut down all the Starbucks, and outlawed the use of caffeine in all forms.

But you're right, the perception of nicotine use as being only an addiction or crutch and not providing any benefit, something which needs to be discontinued at all costs, needs to be changed. But that can only start to happen once we have more science to back it up. That and the fact that it ISN'T all about the nicotine.

Yes, the only way to get the public on our side is to educate them.
The hard part is getting the information to them, and getting them to listen.

When people use nicotine, they don't become dysfunctional: Their thinking is clarified, reaaction time can be improved, attention span improves, and judgement stays the same or improves.

Is this information collected, documented, and/or organized in a place people can be pointed to?

For some people the government it's prohibition for others it's money and there always ignorance and in varying degrees a combination of all or any of the three. I just don't see the point in these endless arguments about who is motivated by what.

I disagree, I think it is crucial to know your enemy in order to know how to fight them.

They need to be exposed and discredited for lying all these years--not just about vaping, but about all of it. They won't be stopped by cooperating with them.

Yes, I do believe that we need to go on the attack against these people.

If we don't give them reason to fear attacking us, they will surely continue to do so.
Truth and facts are not going to sway them one bit, because they don't care about those things.

But so long as antis alienate anyone from their flocks who even broach the subject of reduced harm tobacco and nicotine use, it'll be hard for the truth to get out. We need to change that. The only way to do that is to give an organization like CASAA (even if it isn't CASAA) the money and the resources to spread the word to the masses through media and legislation and support those in tobacco control like Philips, Siegel and Rodu who want to create the science to back what they know to be the truth.

Absolutely!! And you guys are doing a GREAT job by the way.

What matters is what are we going to do about it. On legislation CASA sees to be our best bet and they are doing as much as they can with the resources they have. Shouldn't we be putting more effort into promoting and giving them the resources they need.. How can we do that?

I totally agree, and wish I knew how to do that.

Which reminds me, I had to stop using my CASAA banner in my signature when they changed the size limits.
Does anyone have any "Support CASAA" types of banners that fit the size limitations?

 

[MoonRose]

Here are the problems we are facing as I see it concerning the use of nicotine and even about the effects of second hand smoke:
1. We have the FDA giving out misinformation and downright lies.
2. We have a surgeon general who also gives out misinformation and downright lies.
3. We have BP who stands to lose billions a year if they lose their market for stop smoking aids.
4. We have politicians who stand to lose millions from BP donations if they don't vote on their little agendas.
5. We have the anti-smoking/tobacco/nicotine zealots who think that anything to do with the use of tobacco or nicotine is evil and must be stamped out.

I didn't add BT to this list as I honestly think that BT would stand to lose more than it gains by trying to stop PV's from being on the market.

So how do we start getting those that are being deceptive with the information that they give out to tell the real truth?