FDA Godshall interview exposes how FDA deeming reg bans nearly all e-cig, how vapers can fight back

[Kent C]

Allergy to cigarette smoke is very different than allergy to nicotine.

See my edit - before you posted this - I anticipated it...

 

[Kent C]

It has been relayed to me that Mr. Godshall is very allergic to cigarette smoke.
It's been said that he's mentioned it in some interviews.

I have NOT verified this, and I don't recall hearing it before.

I guess if it is true, it might make a difference to some.
And it might not make any difference to others.
:shrug:

I'm allergic to hazelnuts but I haven't tried to shut down the nut industry.

 

[Jman8]

I find it amazing how an anonymous troll (who probably has done nothing to oppose the FDA deeming regulation or anti vaping legislation) can hijack an important ECF thread about the FDA deeming regulation by slandering someone who has campaigned to keep vapor products and vaping legal since 2009, and by changing the subject to cigarette taxation (which has absolutely nothing to do with the FDA deeming regulation).

No wonder ECF is becoming less and less relevant for vaping advocacy.

From what I can tell from watching the interview in opening post is that if you watch from the 8:00 mark to around the 8:08 mark (or all of 8 seconds) you can learn how vapers can fight back.

Almost everything else in the video is explaining just how huge of a problem this is, and unless this is your first week on ECF, you are likely very aware of how Bill G. presents the problem that we are up against.

Is it slander to note that you say in the first 1 minute that you speak in this interview that:
- for 30 years we've been campaigning to ban smoking in workplaces inside the state, as well as outside the state
- we've been campaigning to stop cigarette marketing to kids
- we've been campaigning to sue cigarette companies 20 years ago
- and we've campaigned to raise cigarette tax for the last 20 years
- and for last 8 years we've been a leading activist to support vaping
- we helped overturn FDA ban on all sales in 2009-10, involving the NJOY lawsuit, which is why eCigarettes are legal today

Now surely, noting these are not slander.

But the FDA ban that was overturned was due to judge saying that this product is in reality no different than legal adult smoking, which is a recreational choice. I think you know that I can find words by Bill G., from 2010, that says if the vaping falls under the FDA's TCA, then there is NO CHANCE OF eCigs ever being banned.

So, this does bring us squarely back to understanding the recreational choice that many adults have chosen with regards to smoking, and understanding what adversaries to that choice have done the last 30 to 70 years to make that market as tough as possible. The only way to stay viable in the cigarette market is to be a big boy at the table, otherwise you will fold to all the pressure that is coming down from you, by opposing activists.

You harp on the kids angle in the interview as "all made up lies" but methinks you don't feel that way when it comes to cigarette marketing. Also, I'm fairly certain you dismiss any studies that call to question or debunk studies dealing with dangers of secondhand smoke. And your "fair market" solutions to smoking are: a) sue companies that don't fall in line with opposition (thus raising money via MSA and funding people who are now clearly using that money to attack vaping) and b) raise taxes on products.

That is very very very challenging to support in the current climate. I am very much surprised you don't get more backlash from within the community, but I observe you are treated as leading activist, who does appear to be on our side.

I do hope you recognize that fellow anti-smoking activists are simply taking page from same playbook as anti-smoking to attack vaping. Like the exact same page. Their tactics with regards to anti-vaping are no different than your tactics with regards to anti-smoking and I'm sure they consider you on their side due to your anti-smoking campaigning. Perhaps they too have certain members that think you are a little off your rocker with your views on vaping given your history, that you tout, regarding anti-smoking.

With all that said, I do appreciate many times (and do like several of your posts) when you are addressing anti-vaping rhetoric and how that needs to be overcome for legal vaping to survive. I could've started with this paragraph in this post, but as you chose to start with just how important campaigning against BT is for you, I chose to tuck this down near the end, where I think it belongs.

I really wish you put more distance between you and anti-smoking activists as it ought to be abundantly clear to you by now that they play dirty and will likely continue with that indefinitely or the moment that nicotine use is eradicated from the planet. That you don't put this distance between you and them, makes me think you are not that far from them in principle even while your current words are very much anti anti-vaping types.

 

[nicnik]

See my edit - before you posted this - I anticipated it...

OK. I should've figured you'd be fixing it without my help.

Sometimes the concept of 'allergy' gets extended past it's scientific bounds. Or junk science expands it beyond the bounds of reality.

Yup. Yup yup.

 

[Jman8]

And you bring up a point that I might have included in my post above. It's sometimes advantageous to have an 'insider' on your side - someone who knows the TC people involved, directly or through their writing - who knows something about their own past, connections, etc. You don't get that type of information from someone who has always opposed them.

As I did just touch upon this, I wish to elaborate.

If Bill G. were saying to us vapers that the kids issue is completely made up, that would be one thing. He does say this, and some of us are aware that this is clearly a political tactic rather than genuine concern for kids.

But it would be another thing if he were saying something along lines of, "hey I campaigned in much the same way they are now against marketing to kids. I know exactly what they are up to with this ploy. Here is some inside information to be aware of so you the vaper can help spread the message that they are lying and that this tactic will not be allowed to stand as it is based on lies."

And then present x, y, and z tactics that Bill G. used in the past so us vapers can see how that looks in action and recognize the ploys.

Some of us would not need that explained to us, but those who more prone to follow Bill and appreciate all that he does, would then also be able to be "in the know" when it comes to what vaping consumers could do in the fight for vaping.

 

[nicnik]

As I did just touch upon this, I wish to elaborate.

If Bill G. were saying to us vapers that the kids issue is completely made up, that would be one thing. He does say this, and some of us are aware that this is clearly a political tactic rather than genuine concern for kids.

But it would be another thing if he were saying something along lines of, "hey I campaigned in much the same way they are now against marketing to kids. I know exactly what they are up to with this ploy. Here is some inside information to be aware of so you the vaper can help spread the message that they are lying and that this tactic will not be allowed to stand as it is based on lies."

And then present x, y, and z tactics that Bill G. used in the past so us vapers can see how that looks in action and recognize the ploys.

Some of us would not need that explained to us, but those who more prone to follow Bill and appreciate all that he does, would then also be able to be "in the know" when it comes to what vaping consumers could do in the fight for vaping.

What about that bit about cigarettes costing society over $11 a pack? Where does that come from?

 

[nicnik]

I don't think it is, but I'm not to whom you're saying that :- ) And you bring up a point that I might have included in my post above. It's sometimes advantageous to have an 'insider' on your side - someone who knows the TC people involved, directly or through their writing - who knows something about their own past, connections, etc. You don't get that type of information from someone who has always opposed them.

I once likened Bill to David Horowitz - a radical 60's socialist who became a libertarian/conservative. I was wrong. Horowitz, while knowing the Left inside and out, discarded something in that transition. Bill has not. The thing that links all TC and most THR factions is they think they 'know what's best for us.' They would describe their orientation as 'public health advocates', but I wouldn't ...as I don't think they preserve or advance public health in any way (or that public health and safety trumps other considerations - rights, mainly, in a Republic - see Ben Franklin's quote*.) And I could make a good argument that they tend to destroy public health in the same way that anything done through the prism of gov't (that is not part of why and how our gov't was founded), tends to get 180° opposite of what was intended. Set out to 'solve poverty' and end up institutionalizing it (just for one example). The deeming is a great example of this. It would take away individual choice and result in less 'public health'. To their credit, the THR faction see this, but that doesn't get rid of that 'know what's best' orientation - it's just applied differently.

Unfortunately, if no deeming takes place and things continue in this industry as it has, it will still be those, with that orientation, who will suggest and then organize to institute regulations by the gov't. I see this in posters who are so oriented - mainly 'the usual suspects'. They're the first to suggest banning sales to minors, labeling, child proof caps, etc. etc. that in some people's minds appear as simply 'rational'. I look at it as a 'foot in the door', which later becomes a 16 lane superhighway for regulation. We've seen it in every industry. All 'well intended', of course

*Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I'd like to see this translated from Libertarian to Liberal. You'd probably say it couldn't be done, but I think it could.

 

[nicnik]

From what I can tell from watching the interview in opening post is that if you watch from the 8:00 mark to around the 8:08 mark (or all of 8 seconds) you can learn how vapers can fight back.

Almost everything else in the video is explaining just how huge of a problem this is, and unless this is your first week on ECF, you are likely very aware of how Bill G. presents the problem that we are up against.

Is it slander to note that you say in the first 1 minute that you speak in this interview that:
- for 30 years we've been campaigning to ban smoking in workplaces inside the state, as well as outside the state
- we've been campaigning to stop cigarette marketing to kids
- we've been campaigning to sue cigarette companies 20 years ago
- and we've campaigned to raise cigarette tax for the last 20 years
- and for last 8 years we've been a leading activist to support vaping
- we helped overturn FDA ban on all sales in 2009-10, involving the NJOY lawsuit, which is why eCigarettes are legal today

Now surely, noting these are not slander.

But the FDA ban that was overturned was due to judge saying that this product is in reality no different than legal adult smoking, which is a recreational choice. I think you know that I can find words by Bill G., from 2010, that says if the vaping falls under the FDA's TCA, then there is NO CHANCE OF eCigs ever being banned.

So, this does bring us squarely back to understanding the recreational choice that many adults have chosen with regards to smoking, and understanding what adversaries to that choice have done the last 30 to 70 years to make that market as tough as possible. The only way to stay viable in the cigarette market is to be a big boy at the table, otherwise you will fold to all the pressure that is coming down from you, by opposing activists.

You harp on the kids angle in the interview as "all made up lies" but methinks you don't feel that way when it comes to cigarette marketing. Also, I'm fairly certain you dismiss any studies that call to question or debunk studies dealing with dangers of secondhand smoke. And your "fair market" solutions to smoking are: a) sue companies that don't fall in line with opposition (thus raising money via MSA and funding people who are now clearly using that money to attack vaping) and b) raise taxes on products.

That is very very very challenging to support in the current climate. I am very much surprised you don't get more backlash from within the community, but I observe you are treated as leading activist, who does appear to be on our side.

I do hope you recognize that fellow anti-smoking activists are simply taking page from same playbook as anti-smoking to attack vaping. Like the exact same page. Their tactics with regards to anti-vaping are no different than your tactics with regards to anti-smoking and I'm sure they consider you on their side due to your anti-smoking campaigning. Perhaps they too have certain members that think you are a little off your rocker with your views on vaping given your history, that you tout, regarding anti-smoking.

With all that said, I do appreciate many times (and do like several of your posts) when you are addressing anti-vaping rhetoric and how that needs to be overcome for legal vaping to survive. I could've started with this paragraph in this post, but as you chose to start with just how important campaigning against BT is for you, I chose to tuck this down near the end, where I think it belongs.

I really wish you put more distance between you and anti-smoking activists as it ought to be abundantly clear to you by now that they play dirty and will likely continue with that indefinitely or the moment that nicotine use is eradicated from the planet. That you don't put this distance between you and them, makes me think you are not that far from them in principle even while your current words are very much anti anti-vaping types.

I think the slander accusation was in response to a comment that Bill has no respect for property rights.

 

[DC2]

I'm allergic to hazelnuts but I haven't tried to shut down the nut industry.

I'm allergic to stupid.
But I haven't advocated for eliminating stupid either.

Although I think Darwin might not object to such an idea.


EDIT: Assuming, once again, that one ENTIRELY embraces the theories of Darwin
EDIT: I used the word ENTIRELY for a reason
EDIT:

EDIT AGAIN: This thread is getting seriously interesting now!

 

[stevegmu]

It really comes down to the whole mindset that if I don't like something or claim to be allergic to it, then I will spend my life trying to eradicate it and demonize it's users. That mentality is incompatible with a free society...

 

[nicnik]

I completely agree. I do want him helping us, and I'm glad he is, he's doing a great job. But it does kinda feel like being helped by someone that hates your guts.

Andria

I don't feel like Bill hates our guts, at all. It does feel like some of what he says is catering to those who do. Anyway, I don't wish to invalidate how it makes you feel.

 

[AndriaD]

I don't feel like Bill hates our guts, at all. It does feel like some of what he says is catering to those who do. Anyway, I don't wish to invalidate how it makes you feel.

My feeling about "tobacco control" is that a smoker's suffering is completely irrelevant and insignificant to them; as long as non-smokers get what THEY want, that's all that matters -- our suffering, our inconvenience, our poverty in paying for the cigarettes we NEEDED, of no consequence whatever, because SMOKERS were of no consequence whatever -- smokers just didn't count for anything, and if we suffered, they were HAPPY! Just pleased as punch to be able to inflict suffering on someone doing something they DISAPPROVED of.

Exactly like puritans happy to know that sinners would go to hell; after all, they deserved it, right? Which is why they banished us outdoors to stand by the dumpster -- because smokers are garbage too, right?

And smokers/former smokers are supposed to be happy with those "people"? Grateful, for them making our own lives hell, just so they could be free of smelling cigarette smoke?

This really isn't the Land of the Free anymore. It's the land where those with big bucks and big mouths and fake science get everything they want, at the expense of everyone else.

I'm not a smoker anymore, and I no longer care for the smell of it myself -- but I don't run up to every smoker I see and try to make them feel like dirt. Nowadays I vape, and those TC "people" who haven't jumped on the THR train are now trying to equate vaping with smoking, saying it's the same thing, just because vapor looks like smoke. What totally brainless idiots, so self-righteously certain that they are the only people whose opinion counts for anything.

I've just about had it with all of them.

Andria

 

[skoony]

If someone is allergic to second hand vape does that mean vaping should be eradicated and vapers demonized? Perhaps he should avoid places which allow smoking, rather than eliminate smoking and smokers...

again,no reported cases of anyone anywhere ever having a second hand allergic reaction to vapor.

You must have missed the video concerning someone allergic to second hand anise flavored e juice...

this is from dip trippers video of made up on the spot musings.
never happened.
there are absolutely zero allergic reactions reporting allergic
reactions to second hand vapor.
ever,ever,ever.
now lets get to Bill.
i commend him most whole heartily.
is is doing a bang up job.
some people here miss the point that the smoking thing
has already left the barn. that fight is over.(for now)
have anyone of you even considered that if we win this fight
that,perhaps there will be an opportunity to re-visit these
past transgressions with a more enlightened attitude?
lighten up Francis. it aint' over till we say its over.

regards
mike

 

[Jman8]

some people here miss the point that the smoking thing
has already left the barn. that fight is over.(for now)
have anyone of you even considered that if we win this fight
that,perhaps there will be an opportunity to re-visit these
past transgressions with a more enlightened attitude?
lighten up Francis. it aint' over till we say its over.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

I agree if we win this fight, it'll impact the other fight.

But I disagree that the other fight is over. It's still allowed on market, still legal, still many users. They deserve to know that they are being lied to, like we are.

 

[DC2]

some people here miss the point that the smoking thing
has already left the barn. that fight is over.(for now)
have anyone of you even considered that if we win this fight
that,perhaps there will be an opportunity to re-visit these
past transgressions with a more enlightened attitude?

I've said the same thing on here quite a few times.
it is what it is.

 

[skoony]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

I agree if we win this fight, it'll impact the other fight.

But I disagree that the other fight is over. It's still allowed on market, still legal, still many users. They deserve to know that they are being lied to, like we are.

i thought i had said the same thing there.
as it is now there is nothing on the horizon indicating
the smoking fight has any traction,anywhere.
i might add that is why this vaping thing is becoming
a all out,all or nothing battle.
if we win a lot of people are going to have a lot
of splaining to do.(Dezy Arnez)
regards
mike

 

[Jman8]

i thought i had said the same thing there.
as it is now there is nothing on the horizon indicating
the smoking fight has any traction,anywhere.
i might add that is why this vaping thing is becoming
a all out,all or nothing battle.
if we win a lot of people are going to have a lot
of splaining to do.(Dezy Arnez)
regards
mike

Define winning?

And more importantly, let me know how it'll be different than what is currently available through smoking.

 

[skoony]

Define winning?

And more importantly, let me know how it'll be different than what is currently available through smoking.

when we see the deeming regs' we will both know.
all i am saying is as of right now the smoking issues are
dead,buried and,gone in the public's eye,the governments eye and,
any one who is paying attentions eye.
i am not saying this is good,right or,proper.
the fight we are in now will forever define the power and reach of the government.
if we loose this,and what i mean by lose is having everything after 2007 regulated
out of existence its over for everybody.
not just smokers and vapers. its everybody.
nothing will ever be safe from the government.
its time to think now.
there is a reason you can not get a repair manual for
your new car. i mean a real repair manual.
corporations have been conspiring for years to get basic
knowledge out of the hands of people.
they do this through regulation.
we may think we are standing alone when in fact we are
all in this thing together.
the big trick is making us think we have separate causes.

regards
mike

 

[stevegmu]

again,no reported cases of anyone anywhere ever having a second hand allergic reaction to vapor.

this is from dip trippers video of made up on the spot musings.
never happened.
there are absolutely zero allergic reactions reporting allergic
reactions to second hand vapor.
ever,ever,ever.
now lets get to Bill.
i commend him most whole heartily.
is is doing a bang up job.
some people here miss the point that the smoking thing
has already left the barn. that fight is over.(for now)
have anyone of you even considered that if we win this fight
that,perhaps there will be an opportunity to re-visit these
past transgressions with a more enlightened attitude?
lighten up Francis. it aint' over till we say its over.

regards
mike

My ex girlfriend developed a sneeze after a while when being around my 'vapor.' I totally believe the anise story. I am sure there are many many others. Perhaps peanuts should be banned. Some are allergic to them. How about alcohol? It is too tempting for alcoholics. Some people don't like guns. Why not ban them?

I don't forgive and forget, nor trust those who seek to take the rights away from others through deceit and lies, just because they don't particularly like a certain activity...
They are the epitome of what is wrong with this country and the foundation for nanny statism...

 

[skoony]

My ex girlfriend developed a sneeze after a while when being around my 'vapor.' I totally believe the anise story. I am sure there are many many others. Perhaps peanuts should be banned. Some are allergic to them. How about alcohol? It is too tempting for alcoholics. Some people don't like guns. Why not ban them?

I don't forgive and forget, nor trust those who seek to take the rights away from others through deceit and lies, just because they don't particularly like a certain activity...

Steve,your girl friend analogy keeps growing in scope every
time you repeat it. if you are concerned bring her to a hospital.
bip gippers video is pure hyperbole.
you should know better.
regards
mike