Has anyone thought about this?

[shadd01]

So It seems there are plenty of threads about ecigs being banned. I will do everything to make sure that doesn't happen. Has anyone thought about the fact that our president is an ex-smoker (or not) and if we could some how get him to smoke ecigs then that might be able to help us out?
--Shadd

 

[daredevil]

That may help some if he even admits that he has swithced to e-cigs.
We need to figure out what thier justification and motivations are for banning e-cigs and then educate them to the realities.

 

[urbancowboy505]

from what I read in a news report recently, the president still smokes. So it would be even better if he could just switch over to e-cigs and then be a really strong advocate on our side.

But as daredevil said, he would have to admit to switching.

 

[wmrwl]

Some politician already sent him an ecig but I don't even think he opened the package. I can't think of the link to the story offhand. I'll try to find it and post.

 

[urbancowboy505]

Some politician already sent him an ecig but I don't even think he opened the package. I can't think of the link to the story offhand. I'll try to find it and post.

please do, I'd like to read it.

 

[quakereject]

That may help some if he even admits that he has swithced to e-cigs.
We need to figure out what thier justification and motivations are for banning e-cigs and then educate them to the realities.

Exploitation of profit masked under the guise of caring about the public health.

 

[wmrwl]

Oh yeah that's right it was in that "ecigs dont deliver nicotine article:
Study: 'Electronic cigarettes' don't deliver - CNN.com

President Obama, who has described himself as an occasional smoker, has been offered one of the devices by Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns. The Republican lawmaker's office said the president did not respond.

I think he's the last guy we should to try to get on our side. I'm sure he would agree with the FDA regulating them so they can be taxed (sin taxed, in addition to the existing sales taxes, and income taxes from the proprietors that make a profit selling them)

 

[urbancowboy505]

While I agree with you to a point. (that he would likely side with the FDA toward regulation) I think it's good to remember that regulation, at this point, would be far better than an all out ban. These e-cigs are an item being sold in interstate commerce, the government will get their money one way or another.

 

[Cuco3]

Good idea, although I doubt our President can get anything accomplished.

 

[urbancowboy505]

Good idea, although I doubt our President can get anything accomplished.

well, he does retain a veto power over any legislation enacted that could affect e-cigs. Not that congress couldn't override his veto, but that counts for something.

 

[v1John]

Celebrities could certainly help us! I posted some more detail here:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/vapor4life/87598-free-press-v4l.html#post1304353

 

[wmrwl]

That's the point of all these bans. Look at the one in NY. They specifically state that they are banning it until the FDA regulates (or is permitted to regulate) it.

The FDA is flexing it's muscle because it got shot down in being allowed to regulate them. They are already being taxed just like any other consumer product (through income and sales taxes). If the FDA was in charge of them there would be new possible sin taxes on them along with compliance costs that would invariablely be passed on to the consumer.

Or worse yet, the FDA could allow only pharmaceutical companies to sell them or only available with a prescription.

 

[camel522]

It's actually a pretty tricky situation. If enough states ban it, then the FDA would probably just follow suit. If the FDA bans it, well, the states will follow suit. It is a bitter rivalry between states and the federal government. Technically, the government is not supposed to be able to dictate what the states do in that respect, unless it is specifically unconstitutional. Take medical ......... for example, states can legalize it, authorize dispensaries, regulate and oversee it, but the federal government will sometimes just swoop in and raid the place. Against federal law, yet technically, the fed doesn't have the right to encroach on the state's individual laws--the federal agents should actually be arrested by the state police if they try to raid a dispensary.

So, where does this leave ecigs? Who knows!? States could ban them and the FDA could back them and we would lose, states could ban and the FDA could say they are okay, but states may still restrict them, the FDA could say they are bad but some states could still have them unrestricted. . .it's anyone's guess. I'd say the only thing that can be done at the moment is to fight at the state level while still massaging the federal level--it will probably take both to really give a final approval all around. Ain't politics grand?