- Status
Shame on them for not trying to make the Obama supporters feel good. Welcome to democracy and the right to voice your opinion.
politics
, major trigger. politics bad. hug your kids. enjoy your life. all this stuff is going to sort itself out as soon as doctors are educated and get on board the vaping train. .
, major trigger. politics bad. hug your kids. enjoy your life. all this stuff is going to sort itself out as soon as doctors are educated and get on board the vaping train. .
It might sort itself out if they are allowed to be legal long enough for doctors to be educated and on board. If the FDA decides to shelve e-cig use until there has been adequate research then it could be literally years, if ever again, before we would see e-cigs for sale on the market legally.
The FDA & Deeming Regulations of E-cigarettes
"In theory, anything that wasn't on the market prior to 2007 could be banned until it was approved for sale by the FDA... Because electronic cigarette designs have changed and improved so dramatically since 2007 and many weren't even on the market in the U.S. prior to 2007, this regulation could deny consumers access to hundreds of existing products (leaving them access only to products on the market prior to February 2007) and put many electronic cigarette companies out of business."
It's unfortunate, but all of this has everything to do with politics and money, and very little to do about the actual effectiveness or safety issues of electronic cigarettes.
There's going to be a lot of false claims about the dangers of e-cigs during the next few months as the FDA holds its public hearings on what to do with e-cigs. The anti-ecigarette groups out-number the pro-ecigarette groups by a large margin, and we know from past and current experience that they will use false information in an attempt to sway ignorant lawmakers and regulators.
E-cig users have but one consumer advocate fighting for their right to continue to use them. CASAA. If not a member, join up. Strength is in numbers, and we need as many members as we can to go up against Big Pharmacy, Big Tobacco, and ANTS. The link to join is below in my signature. It's free and literally only takes a minute.
ECF has literally thousands of members. There is no excuse for every ECF member to not also be a CASAA member, too. Our interests in e-cigarettes are one and the same. Support the one organization that is fighting for your right to continue to use electronic cigarettes. Ignorance of the genuine issues and inactivity will allow the FDA remove e-cigarettes and give the anti-vaping special interest groups exactly what they want.
Last edited:
I'm sure the FDA will argue that long term testing is needed for approval. Allowing ecig sales with a disclaimer about the unknown state of inhalation safety with the product would allow continued sales while still reserving the right to test the product over time. After all, we want testing to prove that we aren't once again killing ourselves by inhaling something harmful. Tobacco was once thought to be relatively safe by those who used it. After all, people smoked for 40 year without dieing or contracting disease other than a smoker's cough.
I'm one that supports personal choice in such matters. We know that too much of anything is harmful. Too many sugary soft drinks, candy, greasy meat, and carbohydrates can lead to an early death. Do we make people limit their consumption through bans or do we provide guidelines and educational news blurbs to educate the population so that they can make an informed decision?
The choice for some vapers is between cigarettes and vaping. I don't think I'd take up smoking again if ejuice were banned, but there would be a nic weaning period, I'm sure. The FDA should realize that one is much safer and less offensive to bystanders. It's more about tobacco settlement revenue loss than health, IMO.
I'm one that supports personal choice in such matters. We know that too much of anything is harmful. Too many sugary soft drinks, candy, greasy meat, and carbohydrates can lead to an early death. Do we make people limit their consumption through bans or do we provide guidelines and educational news blurbs to educate the population so that they can make an informed decision?
The choice for some vapers is between cigarettes and vaping. I don't think I'd take up smoking again if ejuice were banned, but there would be a nic weaning period, I'm sure. The FDA should realize that one is much safer and less offensive to bystanders. It's more about tobacco settlement revenue loss than health, IMO.
Last edited:
Well, Obama is a smoker, maybe we can get him vaping and he'll love it. Michelle and the kids would sure like the smell better.
I'm rather under the impression that the executive level doesn't have much to do with it. I picture the Big Tobacco (Umbrella Corporation) and the FDA (dark/covert X-files organization) doing back alley deals.
I'm rather under the impression that the executive level doesn't have much to do with it. I picture the Big Tobacco (Umbrella Corporation) and the FDA (dark/covert X-files organization) doing back alley deals.
I agree with you totally on a personal level. However, you must consider that the special interest groups will also be at these hearings to sway the FDA regulators to benefit their special interests.
Big Pharmacy will want total elimination of e-cigs because they are in direct competition with their products. Big Tobacco will want regulation that will benefit their plan to use nicotine liquid in cartridge-only cigalikes, and remove the bottled nicotine e-liquid like most of us use from the market (as it is now in Canada). And of course the anti-smoking groups are totally against e-cigarettes "just because".
CASAA is the only group that will have a strong enough voice at these FDA hearings to present our interests. However, to truly represent e-cig users, they need a majority of those consumers to be members of their organization.
How the FDA eventually rules will have a world-wide impact, as how the USA goes is often how the world goes. Just because you don't live in the US does not mean you don't need to join CASAA. You have a large stake in this ruling, too.
Being ignorant of how this process works and just sitting back thinking everything will just work out to our benefit is foolish. If you value your right to use electronic cigarettes then click the link and join CASAA and educate yourself on how the political process in regulation works in the real world. Logic and reason has little to do with how the FDA works.
http://www.casaa.org/Home_Page.php
Last edited:
I think you can block individuals so you don't see their posts. If what they said was important, it will get quoted by others. Some forums have the opposite going on -- though those are mostly in "OUTSIDE."
For me, the fear of losing vaping is stronger than my dislike of liberal-bashing, and the truth is that vilifying "tobacco users" has been a liberal pastime for awhile. My sister is a VERY leftist person, and SHE is mad as hell at her favorite politicians and media people over this particular topic.
The other side of that is that is liberals and conservatives and moderates are ALL needed in this movement because each of us are better at communicating with representatives we generally agree with. So we need ALL of us involved.
I'm not supporting CASAA's efforts to preserve the right to vape, THEY ARE SUPPORTING ME. (*) I've discovered a new drug....OXYGEN. And I want to preserve access to it. So even though it is intermittently painful to be in those threads...and tempting at times to just put the lid down on the computer, it is absolutely clear to me that it is not a matter of supporting someone ELSE's efforts. It is a matter of keeping our movement going strongly-enough to make up for the money. So we need dichondra AND bluegrass in our grassroots to keep the brown spots from the BP (Big Poop?) away.
The bottom line is, there are people on this forum I'd like to smack upside the head, but I would NOT wish them BACK TO SMOKING. And I don't think they'd wish me back to smoking.
(*) [Edit: I am not saying at all that CASAA is who is doing the liberal-bashing, I'm saying the movement is not the private property of libertarians, but libertarians are very active in the movement and libertarians appear to be a signficant portion of their motive power. WE ALL NEED EACH OTHER.]
Last edited:
OK, you don't want me to feel good. Do you want me to feel bad-enough to stop looking at the threads that give me the information I need to fight for our vaping rights? I'm old-enough, and fought with my kids enough during their (long-ago) teen years so that I have the stamina to keep reading those threads even though there are a lot of offensive and hurtful posts on them. Some do not.
And, even though I'm scrambling to write letters and keep an eye out for trouble for us, this stuff DOES upset me and make me tired.
Then I get less letter-writing done, and it gets delayed a little more, and then I don't have time to look for a media contact this week. So I'll have to skip another week on that effort, since Mom is still in a cast and STILL has trouble remembering her arm is broken, and my daughter wants help with her kids, and I have to do some overtime.
If this is your aim, to cut in half the number of people fighting for vaping rights, then go ahead and do your best to chase half the readers away from those informational threads.
So what saying is that half of us have the responsibility to keep the other half happy by not voicing our opinions???
And by the way, It's not my job to make your life easier but I guess all is well as long as we agree with your point of view.
And by the way, It's not my job to make your life easier but I guess all is well as long as we agree with your point of view.
Last edited:
I've been very turned off by the party-bashing, as well. It doesn't even matter which party I support, because that's not the point. The point is that we all need to work together to support vaping. We aren't going to get anywhere otherwise, and it doesn't help one single bit to alienate other vaping supporters over something essentially peripheral to the issue.
There are 3 branches in our Federal govt: executive, legislative & judicial. The FDA falls under the executive branch. The Prez therefore has EVERYTHING to do with the FDA. He is their boss.
I'm with you on both points. If no one has already, I really wish someone in the know would introduce Obama to vaping. Couldn't get a better advocate than the ultimate BOSS of everyone at the FDA!
Also, I really doubt, at this point, that the Prez is in anyway involved in the FDA process. Maybe he read something in a briefing once. On the other hand, if there is some big media coverage (i.e. it's on CNN, and not just as a scrolling headline) on the issue, possibly when the FDA does release the proposed regulations, that could spur him to take an interest...
PS - I interpreted the OP as being more along the lines of: Is it really necessary for some folks to equate the right to vape w/ the "right" to be stocking up on AK-47s while Obama dares advocate for a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd amendment?
Just for an example...
Just for an example...
We have a forum for that stuff, it's called OUTSIDE. I have made an effort to avoid p*ssing my liberal beliefs all over the legislative forums, I don't think it is asking too much to ask you to do the same. I have NOT asked y'all to put up with my stuff anywhere other than OUTSIDE. Go do your business in OUTSIDE. Legislative News is for vaping legislative issues, not generic legislative issues, note the forum of which it is a subforum.
That doesn't belong here either. OUTSIDE is...a forum inside ECF. For outside issues. They have a lot of fun there. I got tired of it, I've been on the internet since 5 years before it became the web.
But at least on OUTSIDE you might get a brief comment on a new e-liquid along with your politics. Even enemies have their uses if they find a good juice or mod!
Then why do you keep posting? Once again, as long as we do what you think is acceptable then all is right with the world. Complain to a moderator because they have yet to see this as an OUTSIDE issue. Once they move this thread I'll be more than happy to engage you there but for now it looks like it's here. BTW, this little diatribe of yours was certainly a novel way to avoid answering my question.
No, you don't have a responsiblity to keep us happy. Nor a responsibility to be friendly or nice to other vapers. Nor a responsiblity to promote unity against ANTZ. Nor a responsibility to write your representatives. In fact, you are perfectly free to do anything you want to, even if it results in losing the battle to ANTZ. Go for it!
[Liberty activist enters]
I agree that all sides should be working together on the proposed FDA crap. As mentioned, we know how to best communicate to our side of the aisle (for those of us who have one*). In my case, my US Rep is also a doctor, and I've had various communications with him before, so yeah, this is a good thing.
As for this whole PC issue, it's crap. "Political correctness" is nothing more than tyranny with manners. It's good that people get offended; it means they actually care about something. On that same token, is there really a need to look for a reason to be offended? Is everything everyone says some sort of personal attack simply because they hold an opposing view?
Seriously, this is an important cause. The diversity could actually work to our benefit if worked properly. Let's fight the bad guys now and each other later.
[* I'm Libertarian, which means I think everyone should do as they please as long as they're not infringing on the freedoms of anyone else. Libertarians: Fighting to keep the democrats out of your wallet and the republicans out of your bedroom.]
I agree that all sides should be working together on the proposed FDA crap. As mentioned, we know how to best communicate to our side of the aisle (for those of us who have one*). In my case, my US Rep is also a doctor, and I've had various communications with him before, so yeah, this is a good thing.
As for this whole PC issue, it's crap. "Political correctness" is nothing more than tyranny with manners. It's good that people get offended; it means they actually care about something. On that same token, is there really a need to look for a reason to be offended? Is everything everyone says some sort of personal attack simply because they hold an opposing view?
Seriously, this is an important cause. The diversity could actually work to our benefit if worked properly. Let's fight the bad guys now and each other later.
[* I'm Libertarian, which means I think everyone should do as they please as long as they're not infringing on the freedoms of anyone else. Libertarians: Fighting to keep the democrats out of your wallet and the republicans out of your bedroom.]
- Status
Similar threads
