I think i'll sue the fda

[LuckySevens4U]

I have smoked for 20 years.

NOTHING has gotten me off tobacco ciggys until........

the e-cigarette/personal vaporizer.

I NEVER thought I could do this.

I buy very low amounts of the liquid...

I'm not here to party or get a "buzz".

I am doing this to help save my life and not get cancer from those stinky sticks.

I could not be prouder of myself right now......

If the FDA takes this away from me

and

forces me to go back to cancer loaded stinky sticks

and takes away MY choice.....

I think...

I'll sue em

for forcing me back to something they 100% know

KILLS me

All because of the almighty buck

I tried their lousy patches

I tried their nasty gum

I tried their horrific hallucinating drugs........

Nothing worked

Until

My personal vaporizer.

FDA,

PROVE to me these vaporizers that deliver my tiny amounts of nicotine that keeps me off your 4,000 cancer causing chemical sticks that you seem to approve of

is hurting me more than your sticks before you rush to such judgment

People's health isn't what truly matters to you

because if it did...........

you'd be rid of those cancer sticks.

Instead, you want to push me back to them.

I hope I don't have to see you...

in court.

 

[lordmage]

class action ill sign

 

[Phalse]

can i sue too, they are such .... holes, they wont even investigate and publish findings.

 

[kylewinther]

I like the drive. You need to stand up for your right and speak your mind! Let the higher powers hear you!

 

[keymanjim]

That would be great, except any court you take it to would tell you to just not smoke.

 

[LuckySevens4U]

That would be great, except any court you take it to would tell you to just not smoke.

Not true. The tobacco industry that the FDA approves of has me addicted to nicotine from their cancer sticks. They want to sell me patches, gum and pills that don't work with nicotine in them. Why can't I buy and use my personal vaper? Because they aren't getting a cut? Oh I see.

 

[keymanjim]

Not true. The tobacco industry that the approve of has me addicted to nicotine from their cancer sticks. They want to sell me patches, gum and pills that don't work with nicotine in them. Why can't I buy and use my personal vaper? Because they aren't getting a cut? Oh I see.

Then your issue is with the manufacturers of those products, not the FDA directly.
Although I do see your point. But it has to be proven that the FDA is being influenced by those manufacturers.

 

[Calaban]

That would be great, except any court you take it to would tell you to just not smoke.

This is correct.

I agree that the FDA sucks if they ban these things. I agree that it will be a slap in the face to most of us and a death sentence for some

But I really think we need to stop saying that a ban would "FORCE us to go back to smoking analogs". This is not true.

Yes it would make it harder to NOT smoke analogs. Yes, a majority of us would go back to analogs. But that being said, would the ban actually and literally FORCE us to go back? I think not.

No matter how difficult it is to stop smoking, and for me it is damn near impossible, we still have the choice to stop. NOBODY forced us to start smoking, nobody forced us to continue smoking, and a ban on e-cigs would not force us to go back to them.

That kind of language, in fact the whole concept of being "forced" by the ban to go back to analogs, will be looked upon with contempt by any court. They will see it as dramatic, unrealistic, and weak. They will see it as smokers not taking responsibility for themselves.

I agree with and applaud your passion. I even support the idea of a lawsuit against the FDA if they ban e-cigs. But I think the concept of blaming them for 'forcing' us back to analogs is a weak argument and not likely to persuade anyone. It is ALWAYS our choice to smoke or not.

 

[LuckySevens4U]

The FDA never banned 4,000 chemical cigarettes known to cause cancer.

Most of us have been hooked on them for years.

It's not always a CHOICE not to smoke

We are ADDICTS and we don't CHOOSE to be.

If they never allowed the ciggys once proven so bad

We wouldn't have them to be addicted to.

Why can they allow them and try and ban this?

 

[keymanjim]

The framers of the Constitution allowed for the legal taxation of three items: alcohol, tobacco and firearms.
The feds aren't going to outlaw something that brings them in so much revenue. Especially with all the effort they've put into demonizing it for the purpose of increasing taxes on it. Not to mention the fact that the new taxes levied on tobacco is going to pay for SCHIP programs. (A patently bad idea from the start. The revenue source is unsustainable.)
The feds have a vested interest in keeping us addicted to cigarettes and other taxed forms of tobacco.

 

[qdilla]

If one is started i will sign it.

 

[LuckySevens4U]

I may be being a little facetious; however, I think I speak for how most of us feel. You get the jest of it.

 

[Calaban]

The FDA never banned 4,000 chemical cigarettes known to cause cancer.

Most of us have been hooked on them for years.

It's not always a CHOICE not to smoke

We are ADDICTS and we don't CHOOSE to be.

If they never allowed the ciggys once proven so bad

We wouldn't have them to be addicted to.

Why can they allow them and try and ban this?

Lucky,

I hear what you're saying. I too think it is criminal to ban e-cigs while allowing analogs to be sold freely. It disgusts me.

But the issue I have is the concept of being forced to do something.

I started smoking when I was 14. It was my choice to try cigarettes, and it was my choice to try them again and again. Eventually I became addicted. I didn't choose to become an addict, but I chose to smoke the cigarettes which eventually addicted me.

In February of 2000, I chose to quit smoking them. I succeeded for two and a half years. Not a single puff.

Then one night 2.5 years later, I chose to have a cigarette.
I assumed I was safe since I wasn't addicted to nicotine anymore.

My body did not need nicotine at that point. I had not had any nicotine in over 2 years...I was clear of the physical addiction. But I chose to smoke that night, and it flipped a switch in my brain. I think that the mental part of the smoking addiction is much more powerful than the physical part. Within a couple days I was back to buying packs and it wasn't too long before I was back to smoking 20 cigs a day.

The point I'm trying to make is that it is a choice WE make, whether or not it comes from the subconscious or it's deliberate. It is our choice. I chose to start smoking. I chose to quit and I was successful....until I chose to have another cigarette. If I had only chosen to not smoke that cigarette that night (and it was a deliberate choice....I was semi drunk, but I take FULL responsibility), I might not be here today, still struggling with the SMOKING addiction. (I prefer to look at it that way because even after 2 years of no nicotine, I was still addicted to the act of smoking)

The other point I am making is that like it or not, non smokers and the courts will see it as a choice. So suing them on the grounds of the FDA forcing us to smoke analogs will not get us anywhere.

We would have to think of another angle, in my opinion.

I also want to let you know that I respect your opinion and your passion. I am also worrying that a ban will come down the pike, and I will not have the strength to choose abstinence from smoking.

But let's see how this all shakes out before getting too worked up

Respectfully,

Calaban

 

[chokmah]

If I had money I would join you but since I don't I offer a thought...

Instead of this being about us and our health I think it may be more productive to harp on the health of the general public. Non smokers can get cancer from second hand smoke and the vaporizers dont have that and therefore we that vape are helping non smokers be less likely to get cancer as we dont smoke we vape.. This is the idea we should be trying to voice to congress as not all of them smoke but may be around it.

I agree that we should respect the smoking laws and smoke where its permitted but at least this way we are not causing any harm to anyone but possibly ourselves which is much better than what we did when we did smoke analogs..

Sorry for my rant but it is a thought.

 

[LuckySevens4U]

For many of us these devices are the ONLY thing we have succeeded to get off ciggys with. They take them away, I still say it's not so much a CHOICE it's called ADDICTION and where would most of us go back to? Would I WANT to? HELL NO, I'd make the choice NOT to, but if I did, it would be BECAUSE they took my vapor choice AWAY from me.

 

[LuckySevens4U]

OMG tomorrow I am going on day TEN. I can't believe it! I am SO DAMN PROUD OF MYSELF!

 

[Calaban]

If I had money I would join you but since I don't I offer a thought...

Instead of this being about us and our health I think it may be more productive to harp on the health of the general public. Non smokers can get cancer from second hand smoke and the vaporizers dont have that and therefore we that vape are helping non smokers be less likely to get cancer as we dont smoke we vape.. This is the idea we should be trying to voice to congress as not all of them smoke but may be around it.

I agree that we should respect the smoking laws and smoke where its permitted but at least this way we are not causing any harm to anyone but possibly ourselves which is much better than what we did when we did smoke analogs..

Sorry for my rant but it is a thought.

I agree with this 100%.
We should include this heavily in any pro-vaping argument.

I also think it's VERY important for us, and suppliers, to do away with the "You can smoke them anywhere!" tag line.
On top of that we should tread very lightly about smoking them in places where smoking bans are in effect. I think for the time being at least we should go outside like all the other smokers to use them...or at least out of sight/smell of others. Just because we can smoke them legally anywhere doesn't mean we should.

It does great harm to our cause to be shoving our e-cigs indiscriminately in people's faces.

 

[LuckySevens4U]

I agree with this 100%.
We should include this heavily in any pro-vaping argument.

I also think it's VERY important for us, and suppliers, to do away with the "You can smoke them anywhere!" tag line.
On top of that we should tread very lightly about smoking them in places where smoking bans are in effect. I think for the time being at least we should go outside like all the other smokers to use them...or at least out of sight/smell of others. Just because we can smoke them legally anywhere doesn't mean we should.

It does great harm to our cause to be shoving our e-cigs indiscriminately in people's faces.

Yes, true. I've done it where I'm not supposed to just cuz I wanted to try, but I certainly didn't do it where someone could really NOTICE me or shove it in their face. I just wanted to sneak and see if it worked, and it does. lol

 

[Calaban]

OMG tomorrow I am going on day TEN. I can't believe it! I am SO DAMN PROUD OF MYSELF!

Lucky!

We may disagree about the choice/not a choice issue, but that doesn't matter. I am VERY happy that you have not smoked for 10 days!!! Congratulations...you have every right to be proud

Now take that good energy, those great feelings of accomplishment, that positive self image, and tell yourself that no matter if they ban e-cigs or not, you will chose not to smoke again because you are strong and you love your life

Yeah yeah, easier said than done I know!!!

But keep up the great work, and don't let the stupid FDA and Senator Frank Stinkenburg get you down!!!

-Cal

 

[LuckySevens4U]

Frank can bite me.