Globe and Mail article
- Thread starter Heybilox
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Why would any of us in the (mostly) older, vape-so-we-don't-smoke group care whether anyone else (especially a 14 year old) thinks it's "uncool"?
Journalism is getting so bungled these days, I'd be embarrased to admit to being in the business.
As a middle-aged person (let alone vaper), my existence on any level and in any context is uncool to a 14-yr old.
I personally don't give a flying fig about what other people construe as the fashion of vaping. That goes both ways, BTW - I'm equally ambivalent about people thinking/saying "that's so cool" other than people who are referring to the harm reduction aspects.
We play hockey up here. This is just rink trash talk.
I personally don't give a flying fig about what other people construe as the fashion of vaping. That goes both ways, BTW - I'm equally ambivalent about people thinking/saying "that's so cool" other than people who are referring to the harm reduction aspects.
We play hockey up here. This is just rink trash talk.
The article touches on a recurring theme that I still struggle with (though have my own certainties around) and that I'm not sure will ever go away.
The majority of people who vape use it to quit/reduce smoking. I think that fact is well known and established.
The other fact is that regulator types are always going to seek regulation. The harsher, the better - is I believe their motto. From this perspective, I think 'harsher' is spun as 'more accountable' and better is spun as 'the more fair' for everyone.
So, at one point in US history (about 5 years ago) regulators sought to regulate vaping as a drug that is said to mitigate the transition from abusive smoking to less or no smoking. And vapers fought back on this. Fought back really hard. History at that time shows vapers won. The victory resulted in conclusion that vaping is more of a recreational activity than a medicinal one. I think the politically aware vaper in 2010-11 was doing cartwheels and overjoyed with this turn of events.
But this did not stop the regulator types from seeking regulation. We are now facing the second, I would say inevitable, battle from those types. And we are now changing the tactic back to, "but it is medicinal for me. Can't you see that?!"
I think this becomes a really huge issue in all of politics because it is an under regulated product / activity (or even lifestyle) that is coming up against regulator types who kinda sorta seem to be the types that plausibly started the whole lot of zealous regulations back some 70 years ago, or so. Sure puritanism has been around for a long time (much longer than 70 years), but these type of puritans are operating lock step in harmony with (so called) science. Which strikes me as the new paradigm of puritanism that started some 70 years ago. Instead of some preacher type of warlord (or faction of preachers) who wish to force tithing from the people to the governing body to 'better society' we now have scientific types doing essentially the same thing, but treating it like 'we are nothing like them.' IMO, it is almost exactly like 'them' in effect.
Even vapers are willing to concede to the notion of 'more research is needed.' This means, hundreds of billions could be seen as justifiable over the next umpteen years so we can all understand the trillions of nuances that come with this activity.
A recreational activity.
And thus our side of the fight now says, 'why not do that with other things? Why pick on vaping?' Yet, I think for some regulator types the answer is (frighteningly) - 'oh we fully intend on doing it with all things.' As if eCig politics is just a test balloon to float out there and see if the scientific puritans can get away with justifying billions of dollars in need of public financing to explore the trillion nuances that come up with this particular recreational activity.
Sure vaping isn't the first thing to be met with this form of puritanism, but it is a fairly unique animal given the transition that humanity is clearly under. It is under regulated, it is technology related, it stands a decent chance of overturning a previous industry that was at one time the backbone of US (if not world) economy, and it is a drug that by standards of pretty much all other drugs is rather tame in its methods of input and how it actually impacts its user. Plus the activity in question is something that relates to breathing and is done far more often than pretty much all other recreational activities. I personally cannot think of another recreational activity, nor drug, that has its user thinking 200+ doses a day is perfectly fine. I find the game of golf to be habit forming, if not addictive, but I surely wouldn't want to be doing 200+ strokes a day, at least if I cared to be considered good at what I do.
I also see it as fairly unique and interesting because in my lifetime while there have been other substances / products that have been under the radar in terms of their use, and thus a bit counter culture, those were all things that weren't so tame. Many of them are considered 'devastating' to the local community if they are being used by more than a handful of people. With vaping, it would take a zealous puritanical person to even consider the notion of it as 'devastating' to anyone, including kids. Sure, it's impactful to its users, but is seriously on par with a game of golf, or drinking kook-aid, or other relatively tame things like that.
So, because of how tame it is, it is then fair game to be viewed as 'only a demon would use that.' I don't think any of the other counter culture items could get away with that sort of assessment by the public. Go in that direction, and suddenly there'd be a backlash of - we need to be very sympathetic to those users and their feelings or desires to be using in the first place. Calling them demons is highly counter productive. Thus, showing it is more like golfers who may come across as bad guys to many people, but for those who enjoy a game of golf, yeah - we're aware of this in our sport, but our sport does not make for that type of sportsmanship.
Finally, I also just haven't lived through the experience of a product being so under regulated, so available on the open, free market and able to live as long on that open market as vaping has. I recall hearing stories or reading news reports about substances that were later controlled in 2nd half of 20th century, and how they used to be so under regulated that you could get them virtually anywhere, including in a bottle of Coke. But come 1950 and on, all the other things around were either met with heavy regulations from the get go, or treated even among its users as so wildly strong (and thus not tame) that it was likely to always just be a small handful that would partake. And who would darn well know that this is best done in secret, to have any chance of surviving, even on an underground market. With vaping, it really seems different, and obviously different.
Regulator types are going to keep on seeking (harsh) regulations, but that path continues to strike me as overplaying the hand that has been dealt to them. And quite likely showing up as the real demons amongst us, who won't have to do all that much other than just be themselves, to win the upcoming award for biggest demons on the vaping scene.
The majority of people who vape use it to quit/reduce smoking. I think that fact is well known and established.
The other fact is that regulator types are always going to seek regulation. The harsher, the better - is I believe their motto. From this perspective, I think 'harsher' is spun as 'more accountable' and better is spun as 'the more fair' for everyone.
So, at one point in US history (about 5 years ago) regulators sought to regulate vaping as a drug that is said to mitigate the transition from abusive smoking to less or no smoking. And vapers fought back on this. Fought back really hard. History at that time shows vapers won. The victory resulted in conclusion that vaping is more of a recreational activity than a medicinal one. I think the politically aware vaper in 2010-11 was doing cartwheels and overjoyed with this turn of events.
But this did not stop the regulator types from seeking regulation. We are now facing the second, I would say inevitable, battle from those types. And we are now changing the tactic back to, "but it is medicinal for me. Can't you see that?!"
I think this becomes a really huge issue in all of politics because it is an under regulated product / activity (or even lifestyle) that is coming up against regulator types who kinda sorta seem to be the types that plausibly started the whole lot of zealous regulations back some 70 years ago, or so. Sure puritanism has been around for a long time (much longer than 70 years), but these type of puritans are operating lock step in harmony with (so called) science. Which strikes me as the new paradigm of puritanism that started some 70 years ago. Instead of some preacher type of warlord (or faction of preachers) who wish to force tithing from the people to the governing body to 'better society' we now have scientific types doing essentially the same thing, but treating it like 'we are nothing like them.' IMO, it is almost exactly like 'them' in effect.
Even vapers are willing to concede to the notion of 'more research is needed.' This means, hundreds of billions could be seen as justifiable over the next umpteen years so we can all understand the trillions of nuances that come with this activity.
A recreational activity.
And thus our side of the fight now says, 'why not do that with other things? Why pick on vaping?' Yet, I think for some regulator types the answer is (frighteningly) - 'oh we fully intend on doing it with all things.' As if eCig politics is just a test balloon to float out there and see if the scientific puritans can get away with justifying billions of dollars in need of public financing to explore the trillion nuances that come up with this particular recreational activity.
Sure vaping isn't the first thing to be met with this form of puritanism, but it is a fairly unique animal given the transition that humanity is clearly under. It is under regulated, it is technology related, it stands a decent chance of overturning a previous industry that was at one time the backbone of US (if not world) economy, and it is a drug that by standards of pretty much all other drugs is rather tame in its methods of input and how it actually impacts its user. Plus the activity in question is something that relates to breathing and is done far more often than pretty much all other recreational activities. I personally cannot think of another recreational activity, nor drug, that has its user thinking 200+ doses a day is perfectly fine. I find the game of golf to be habit forming, if not addictive, but I surely wouldn't want to be doing 200+ strokes a day, at least if I cared to be considered good at what I do.
I also see it as fairly unique and interesting because in my lifetime while there have been other substances / products that have been under the radar in terms of their use, and thus a bit counter culture, those were all things that weren't so tame. Many of them are considered 'devastating' to the local community if they are being used by more than a handful of people. With vaping, it would take a zealous puritanical person to even consider the notion of it as 'devastating' to anyone, including kids. Sure, it's impactful to its users, but is seriously on par with a game of golf, or drinking kook-aid, or other relatively tame things like that.
So, because of how tame it is, it is then fair game to be viewed as 'only a demon would use that.' I don't think any of the other counter culture items could get away with that sort of assessment by the public. Go in that direction, and suddenly there'd be a backlash of - we need to be very sympathetic to those users and their feelings or desires to be using in the first place. Calling them demons is highly counter productive. Thus, showing it is more like golfers who may come across as bad guys to many people, but for those who enjoy a game of golf, yeah - we're aware of this in our sport, but our sport does not make for that type of sportsmanship.
Finally, I also just haven't lived through the experience of a product being so under regulated, so available on the open, free market and able to live as long on that open market as vaping has. I recall hearing stories or reading news reports about substances that were later controlled in 2nd half of 20th century, and how they used to be so under regulated that you could get them virtually anywhere, including in a bottle of Coke. But come 1950 and on, all the other things around were either met with heavy regulations from the get go, or treated even among its users as so wildly strong (and thus not tame) that it was likely to always just be a small handful that would partake. And who would darn well know that this is best done in secret, to have any chance of surviving, even on an underground market. With vaping, it really seems different, and obviously different.
Regulator types are going to keep on seeking (harsh) regulations, but that path continues to strike me as overplaying the hand that has been dealt to them. And quite likely showing up as the real demons amongst us, who won't have to do all that much other than just be themselves, to win the upcoming award for biggest demons on the vaping scene.
Last edited:
I think the whole treating smoking as an actual disease needs to be stopped. The demonic possession theory of addiction needs to die. By extension no NRT should be considered 'medicine'.
Vaping is recreational and it helps people quit smoking, but saying it can help you quit smoking should not be considered a medicinal claim.
I'll use golf because it was part of your other example.
If people were leaving golf to take up I dunno, bowling that doesn't make bowling a medicinal cure for golf. That's just silly.
Ha .
So obvious. So cheap.
Can't nail vaping itself. Just too much stuff around that debunked all the accusations and allegations about vaping being soo baaad. And - of course - the cheeldrun ...
So the next step :
Belittle the vapers.
We all know that from many arguments/dicussions/disputes : If some run out of ammo they switch from attacking whats being said to attacking the persons saying it.
So vaping is lame and vaping is uncool. And all of a sudden it's uncool to stand for and speak up about the things you believe in. Time moves on and eventually, the 14-year-old might evolve from a peer-pressure-driven facebook-zombie into a thinking individual that actually could cause a blip on my personal radar...
When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
(Mark Twain)
So obvious. So cheap.
Can't nail vaping itself. Just too much stuff around that debunked all the accusations and allegations about vaping being soo baaad. And - of course - the cheeldrun ...
So the next step :
Belittle the vapers.
We all know that from many arguments/dicussions/disputes : If some run out of ammo they switch from attacking whats being said to attacking the persons saying it.
So vaping is lame and vaping is uncool. And all of a sudden it's uncool to stand for and speak up about the things you believe in. Time moves on and eventually, the 14-year-old might evolve from a peer-pressure-driven facebook-zombie into a thinking individual that actually could cause a blip on my personal radar...
When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
(Mark Twain)
- Status
Similar threads
