A little additional research could reveal that she may, in fact, use the same quality of (mis)information to support other positions and decisions as she does about vaping. Check for yourself.
I resent ECF's campaign regarding the New Mexico State Rep. Liz Thompson
- Thread starter VapingTurtle
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Oh, you're right. We, the users, don't have them. The owner, who this conversation is referring to however, most certainly does.
OK, for clarification, this was my personal decision.
I take the view that in this particular case, a strategic and visible win will have a powerful impact. If it were a left-wing politician up against an anti-vaping rightwing encumbent, I would have supported that also.
"As a Brit" I take the view that this is an international issue, and I've first-hand what happens when progressives buy wholesale into the groupthink that surrounds tobacco - you end up with disastrous "precautionary principal" based knee-jerk actions, or laws. This has also been seen in many US jurisdictions, and will continue to happen as long as they are unchallenged. As someone who would self-identify as a progressive, this saddens me hugely.
I do not believe Greg's motivations on this are due to his relationship with the Heartland institute, and am more than satisfied that this action is entirely in keeping with the overall objective we all share: to ensure that vaping is not cut-down before the revolution really gets going.
Please note, I will not be making a habit of this. It's very much a test case for me.
I take the view that in this particular case, a strategic and visible win will have a powerful impact. If it were a left-wing politician up against an anti-vaping rightwing encumbent, I would have supported that also.
"As a Brit" I take the view that this is an international issue, and I've first-hand what happens when progressives buy wholesale into the groupthink that surrounds tobacco - you end up with disastrous "precautionary principal" based knee-jerk actions, or laws. This has also been seen in many US jurisdictions, and will continue to happen as long as they are unchallenged. As someone who would self-identify as a progressive, this saddens me hugely.
I do not believe Greg's motivations on this are due to his relationship with the Heartland institute, and am more than satisfied that this action is entirely in keeping with the overall objective we all share: to ensure that vaping is not cut-down before the revolution really gets going.
Please note, I will not be making a habit of this. It's very much a test case for me.
Thank you very much for responding, SJ. I have to think you are very wrong about Greg's motivations because of the way that The Heartland Institute operates. The vaping issue is such a small part of this effort.
You should look up who I am and what the main focus of my life for 4+ years has been before making assumptions about my motivations and political beliefs.
Heartland has nothing to do with this campaign and isn't even aware of it.
I vote for the candidate who I feel will do the best job for me and my family.I have no standing in New Mexico so it won't effect me in the least. If a candidate favors most of my views and the other does not I'll vote for the person who favors me. Personally I feel the entire congress and senate should be all fired and we start from scratch as nothing gets accomplished except doing nothing and spending money.
I will admit that it's a crappy choice for vapers: an ill-informed left-winger vs. a pro-corporate trojan horse.
Even so, I think the epistemically-challenged candidate can be educated by appealing to the benefits of policies that leave vaping alone whereas the corporately-funded ideologue will always side with the moneyed interests that support him/her.
I guess at bottom I will never trust the authenticity, integrity or honesty of anyone who has significant ties to the Heartland Institute.
Even so, I think the epistemically-challenged candidate can be educated by appealing to the benefits of policies that leave vaping alone whereas the corporately-funded ideologue will always side with the moneyed interests that support him/her.
I guess at bottom I will never trust the authenticity, integrity or honesty of anyone who has significant ties to the Heartland Institute.
If it makes any difference, I vouch for Greg. I don't believe he's without honesty or integrity, and he has been a tireless campaigner on e-cigarette issues for many years. He's also sacrificed career opportunities because of his desire to make a difference on this issue.
He's a true friend and ally to all vapers, and this is just a part of what he does. He's assured me that if there were another close-call election, where a democrat were fighting an anti-ecig GOPer, he'd do exactly the same. I believe him.
I agree with your analysis--
Vaping is a political topic and if we really do want to be heard--we need to take a stand against those that make judgements and decisions with no research to get all the facts--and then just become part of the 'snowball' effect against something for no reason other than 'they have the power to do so'.
I will also add that I think it's facile to advocate voting according to a single issue. I'm very much an advocate of vaping (duh) but vaping is a low priority when I cast my ballot. The fact of the matter is that there are other larger problems facing any local government that demand urgent prioritization.
The transaction looked something like this
All joking aside -- I have been a vaper for over 4 years. I was CASAA's volunteer Legislative Director for 3 years while I was in graduate school and working for a judge. When that was over, I was faced with a choice -- do I leave vaping advocacy (which had become a 40+ hour a week gig) for a normal job or find a way to survive as an industry advocate? I chose option B. Because I chose Option B, I have been able to spend 2014 helping industry and consumer advocates in numerous states stop taxes (Washington, Rhode Island, Oregon, New Jersey, Hawaii, others), start trade associations and/or hire lobbyists (Tennessee, New Jersey, Ohio, others), and publish Op-Eds in sources like The Hill and U.S. News & World Report.
I am not a partisan in this game. Whether Republican or Democrat, I want people in political office that are sensible enough to see that vaping is a plus for public health. What I saw -- and what 50-60 New Mexico vapers saw -- from Liz Thomson earlier this month was a politician that had no interest in the truth about vaping. She treated the hearing as an adversarial show and made no attempt to speak to the vape shop owners, employees, etc. that came despite making it very clear that she was going to continue to be a loud and prominent voice on this topic.
Last week, I almost pulled the trigger on a post that would have encouraged vapers to support a New York Democrat running against a Republican who voted for the NY Senate e-liquid ban bill earlier this year. Due to my uncertainties about his polling and the use of our money (i.e., money goes further in NM vs. NY), I decided to keep focus strictly on New Mexico.
This is not a partisan witch hunt. As this industry continues to become more mature and starts planning so we can have a larger impact in future elections, I promise you this will become much clearer.
Last edited:
Ok, I will admit that I am perhaps wrong about Greg. I would be encouraged if I knew he were walking away from the HI to pursue a career in public service for the right reasons and I think that is what you're saying.
Crikey! two posts from SJ in 15 mins. He must be trying to boost his post count.
If only this was true. In New York City, some of the very same council members who heard vapers give heartfelt testimony about the impact flavors had on their ability to quit smoking are now sponsoring a bill to ban all flavors.
Last year, we faced a serious threat of excess taxation, tobacco classification, etc. by the New Mexico Senate. We were lucky that the bill was run by someone who opposed taxation, as (from what I've been told) his opposition led to the bill just being killed. If we don't successfully send a message in this campaign, we are in trouble in New Mexico.
VapingTurtle,
Although I disagreed with your view on the 1st amendment, I do very much dislike "single-issue" campaigns, and unfair leverage. Back when I was still under the umbrella of my parents, I witnessed the Catholic Church wholeheartedly endorse and support despicable candidates just because they had the "anti-abortion" check-box. (The abuse, from the Vatican, of our political system was abysmal - Church-organized and funded "symposiums" that were advertized as "support your religious views politically". When you attended, turned out to be fundraisers for Reagan, Bush, and local candidates, all of whom seemed to feel that "right-to-life" was only important until you were born).
Having said that, I also think that it would be a powerful statement if the vaping issue could sway a close election. Perhaps it would give more politicians pause before just deciding that being anti-vape is a no-brainer. It is, after all, a close election (apparently - you never really know), so it's not like ECF is trying to get a total also-ran to win the election.
Totally mixed feelings here. ECF IMHO is entitled to put out the CTA. I understand, and support many of the reasons they are doing this. But it's not a good precedent in general, and I believe the ends never justify the means. And there's so much worse and blatant corruption in our political campaign system - much of which originates from the SC decision that multinational companies have the same rights as US citizens. Never Going To Get Fixed.
I consider my current career to be in public service -- helping enable vapers and vendors to defeat policies that harm public health and small- and medium-sized businesses, regardless of who has proposed them and whether it would benefit the pharma alphabet soup groups (i.e., tobacco taxes, flavor restrictions, usage bans) or Big Tobacco (i.e., Reynolds and Altria's plans to tax e-cigarettes at the state level).
For the record, I would love the opportunity to help defeat a Republican who opposes vaping (so long as the Democrat won't be equally as bad or worse on the issue).
Unfortunately, our biggest enemies in that party on vaping are not in vulnerable seats. You have to focus your energies where you have the best chance of making an impact.
Also, among the Democrats who have stepped up to the plate in state legislatures (a rep in Washington and a rep in Rhode Island come to mind) and been champions for the vaping community (whether publicly or in private), I wasn't able to find any facing tough re-election battles that we could assist in.
Unfortunately, our biggest enemies in that party on vaping are not in vulnerable seats. You have to focus your energies where you have the best chance of making an impact.
Also, among the Democrats who have stepped up to the plate in state legislatures (a rep in Washington and a rep in Rhode Island come to mind) and been champions for the vaping community (whether publicly or in private), I wasn't able to find any facing tough re-election battles that we could assist in.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
