It's these kind of people that are going to ruin it for all of us...

[beckdg]

No, no, no sweetheart. We need happy pills.

But thank you for the offer.

Tapatyped

 

[Phassat]

Although the vapor might not a hazard to health, people have the right to have clear air.... With the clouds that we make, if it is in public place of course it will get other people cranky.
I do stealth vape though with minimal vapor.

 

[Semiretired]

It all has to do with having Respect for others rights - not just what you feel your rights are...

 

[chopdoc]

After watching this on PBS News Hour I think it is pretty clear what BT's agenda is:

JOHN LARSON, Interviewer
ROBERT DUNHAM, Executive Vice President, Reynolds American

Excerpt below.....

JOHN LARSON: And it is the growing abundance of flavors, variable nicotine strengths, and customizable equipment that Gore says is so popular. Vape shops offer what’s called open systems, so customers can pour e-liquids into open vaporizers.

Big tobacco, on the other hand, offers what’s called closed systems. The nicotine liquid is already enclosed within the e-cig, which turns out to be a huge point, because even as the FDA is writing its proposed regulations, big tobacco is lobbying to outlaw the increasingly successful open systems offered by its competitors.

ROBERT DUNHAM: We do have and we have heard legitimate concerns from others, about the dangers of exposed nicotine. And that’s one that we believe ought to be addressed.

JOHN LARSON: Liquid nicotine is highly toxic. Too much can be lethal. Many of the new vapor entrepreneurs are small business. The owners of The Vapor Hut in Oklahoma City, for example, used to sell snow cones out of this truck. They now have six vape shops and a multimillion-dollar online business selling 140 flavors, which, even in absence of regulation, they are mixing in what they describe as clean rooms.

And they’re just one of thousands of new small businesses now competing with big tobacco.

It feels like a million small businesses are crawling in over the walls into a business that you guys traditionally have relatively owned. I mean, are they a threat? Or, should I say, how much of a threat are they to you?

ROBERT DUNHAM: If we get our act together, the these guys are going to be our — our future customers. There’s no reason that those things don’t want to come together.

I dont see how I missed this. Excellent post and thanks for sharing.

This kinda shows that yes indeed BT has plans to corner and dominate the vaping market. As the interviewer stated, BT is already lobbying to stop any vaping delivery systems except what they offer. How much does anyone want to bet that this will be part of the FDA proposed regulations. Our RDA's and RBA's and RTA's will become "medical devices" that will have to meet stringent requirements that will be designed to put an end for sales of them. The only nicotine delivery system that the FDA will give a free pass to is the ones that BT are already marketing.

 

[snork]

It all has to do with having Respect for others rights - not just what you feel your rights are...

We all probably agree on that.
The problem I have is that some feel that it shouldn't go both ways. Why is it assumed that if we puff out a clouds of harmless vapor in temporary situations, it is not a "right" we have which should be respected? Whether we vape or not we still exhale, vapor just makes it visible. It's like we need to apologize for being alive.

 

[beckdg]

I dont see how I missed this. Excellent post and thanks for sharing.

This kinda shows that yes indeed BT has plans to corner and dominate the vaping market. As the interviewer stated, BT is already lobbying to stop any vaping delivery systems except what they offer. How much does anyone want to bet that this will be part of the FDA proposed regulations. Our RDA's and RBA's and RTA's will become "medical devices" that will have to meet stringent requirements that will be designed to put an end for sales of them. The only nicotine delivery system that the FDA will give a free pass to is the ones that BT are already marketing.

From what I've read, they've moved the grandfather date from 2007 to when the regulations hit.

What this means is anything currently on the market gets a pass.

Much tougher for BT cigalikes to corner the market.

Wonder if they didn't slip up by letting their intentions out thereby screwing themselves.

Tapatyped

 

[caramel]

From what I've read, they've moved the grandfather date from 2007 to when the regulations hit.

I think some people in Congress are working on that but it's not a done deed. First it was Bohner's letter but apparently FDA couldn't care less about it so now they're trying to ammend the FSPTCA.

 

[englishmick]

From what I've read, they've moved the grandfather date from 2007 to when the regulations hit.

What this means is anything currently on the market gets a pass.

Much tougher for BT cigalikes to corner the market.

Wonder if they didn't slip up by letting their intentions out thereby screwing themselves.

Tapatyped

Is this for real? Last I heard a bill had been submitted to make this change, but it only had 4 names on it. This would be a big deal if it happens.

 

[caramel]

No, no, no sweetheart. We need happy pills.

No potentially toxic colorants, flavours and sweeteners, please. Just the active ingredient.

 

[chopdoc]

From what I've read, they've moved the grandfather date from 2007 to when the regulations hit.

What this means is anything currently on the market gets a pass.

Much tougher for BT cigalikes to corner the market.

Wonder if they didn't slip up by letting their intentions out thereby screwing themselves.

Tapatyped

So far everything is just "proposed" and we have yet to see any of the proposal. What they say and what becomes a reality can be many different things with our government. If BT greases enough palms which we all know they are not shy about doing, the final version can be everything they desire.
Take a look at the Indiana legislation. The only ones that favors is BT. Even the average vapor Joe Smoe who does DIY is considered a criminal under that law.

 

[Phassat]

We all probably agree on that.
The problem I have is that some feel that it shouldn't go both ways. Why is it assumed that if we puff out a clouds of harmless vapor in temporary situations, it is not a "right" we have which should be respected? Whether we vape or not we still exhale, vapor just makes it visible. It's like we need to apologize for being alive.

I guess it is majorities vs minorities... If there are considerably more vapers compared to non vapers, maybe it will become vice versa...

 

[WillyZee]

the non-smokers will always outnumber the smokers and vapers by massive numbers.

The non-smokers are the ANTZ target audience.

 

[Robino1]

I guess it is majorities vs minorities... If there are considerably more vapers compared to non vapers, maybe it will become vice versa...

What happens when they successfully lock down vaping BEFORE that is even a possibility? This is what they are desperately trying to get done before our numbers are too large to contain us.

Shut down vaping = no new people discovering that it actually works = numbers stay small and we become even more of a minority.

 

[snork]

I guess it is majorities vs minorities... If there are considerably more vapers compared to non vapers, maybe it will become vice versa...

Imagine a world where everybody vaped. Would that be bad?

 

[raqball]

Given your perspective on this, that's a rational point. But not a reasonable one. Irresponsible vapers didn't cause the ban. The owner made a (downright silly) choice, and that is why the ban is in place.

To not see how (big) tobacco plays a role in all this is IMO, to be ignoring a whole lot of the story. Cause 40 years ago, same bar owner would've allowed smoking in the bar. And it wasn't irresponsible smokers that have lead to this world where you can now no longer smoke in any place, let alone outside in some outdoor locations. That be the work of ANTZ. Thus it takes an anti (big) tobacco and nicotine zealot to realize where we are in this discussion and why it makes sense to even consider banning vaping indoors.

As I said in my first post on this thread, ANTZ are 90% of the reason these sort of bans are put into place. Even if a bar owner today has zero idea what the acronym ANTZ stands for, doesn't fully realize what ANTZ like entities are up to, they are still 100% likely to be influenced by them in making certain business decisions. Not maybe, or sort of influenced, but 100% likely.

To me, this type of thread is both interesting and seemingly without a suitable resolution because of how ingrained ANTZ rhetoric is within our culture, and how much vaping has turned that on its ear. As smokers, we kind of rolled over and allowed our desires to get trampled on for a whole bunch of reasons, but near the top of that is because there was no such thing as social media and ANTZ had a good 20 years of painting a very clear picture (albeit laced with oodles of propaganda) about just how evil big tobacco is, and how utterly addictive nicotine is (it will hook your Sue and Johnny).

Now, if you are politically aware vaper, and have done research of all of 1 day's worth of work, you would see that not only are they being highly deceptive about vaping harms and practices, but were very much doing the same thing with smoking harms and practices. I write that sentence, and I think there are about 20 people on ECF who don't dispute this, but then realize there are perhaps fellow vapers, and perhaps a majority (even on ECF) who fully believe propaganda around smoking, i.e. smoking kills.

For me, personally, what makes the thread interesting is because I see ANTZ within me. Not the first time I've stated that. It is that ingrained in the culture, and so I don't deny that there is some of it in me. But as I am one who really really really wants to publicly debate (anytime, anyplace) on the smoking front, then the vaping stuff seems like child's play to me. Thus, the ANTZ stuff isn't so well ingrained with me, as it once was, when I was more ig'nant.

I think people on ECF who argue for bans in public places as a result of 'irresponsible vapers' are being unreasonable and are carrying the torch for ANTZ. I don't think they are ANTZ shills (though could be, but I doubt it), but do think it is that ingrained and some of us (vapers) only want to see the ANTZ hole as only coming about with vaping, and kinda sorta refuse to look deeper. If you truly believe 'smoking kills' then chances are good that I am referencing you when I say 'refuse to look deeper.'

If you say things like "only vape where you can smoke" chances are you are refusing to look deeper. That argument is easy to poke holes in. Easiest one to me is, then if you vape in your house, you must allow smoking there? You don't? Then why do you vape there? Another easy one is what if outdoor place doesn't allow smoking, you going to not vape there?

Anyway, these threads go on and on for various reasons, but I believe it is mostly due to ANTZ rhetoric, and then partially due to the common courtesy/respect tangent. One side, what I'm calling ANTZ rhetoric, is constantly presenting a picture of all people that vape indoors (or in public spaces) are blowing big clouds, are addicts (can't wait 10 to 30 minutes), are selfish, are willing to cause harm to innocent passerby's and so on and so forth. All ANTZ rhetoric in my book.

This thread was not about big tobacco, politicians or ANTZ. These have been and are still being used by the people who want to vape where they want, when they want and how they want with no respect or common courtesy for others. It's noting more than smoke and mirrors and deflecting away from the real topic of this thread.

There are plenty of other threads discussing big tobacco, politicians and ANTZ. These topics entered this thread as a means to discredit anyone who thinks blowing clouds in a Walmart, movie theater, restaurant or in a day care is inappropriate.

 

[snork]

This thread was not about big tobacco, politicians or ANTZ. These have been and are still being used by the people who want to vape where they want, when they want and how they want and It's noting more than smoke and mirrors and deflecting the true away from the real reason for this thread.

There are plenty of other threads discussing big tobacco, politicians and ANTZ. These entered this thread as a means to discredit anyone who thinks blowing clouds in a Walmart, movie theater, restaurant or a day care is inappropriate.

Thanks for clarifying why these pixels exist on my screen.

 

[caramel]

Ah, the day cares... toddlers having cloudz competitions.... and the owner of the establishment having to ban vaping.....

 

[Robert Cromwell]

So far everything is just "proposed" and we have yet to see any of the proposal. What they say and what becomes a reality can be many different things with our government. If BT greases enough palms which we all know they are not shy about doing, the final version can be everything they desire.
Take a look at the Indiana legislation. The only ones that favors is BT. Even the average vapor Joe Smoe who does DIY is considered a criminal under that law.

I did not see anything in that IN law that prohibits DIY. Please show anything differing from that.

 

[Phassat]

What happens when they successfully lock down vaping BEFORE that is even a possibility? This is what they are desperately trying to get done before our numbers are too large to contain us.

Shut down vaping = no new people discovering that it actually works = numbers stay small and we become even more of a minority.

Hope not... I will become a DIY person with my mech mod after all my vw all broken with no one selling them anymore.

Some local friend can distilled nicotine...

Maybe I will buy like 5 dozens of rta and a dozen of vw and mech if it happened

 

[chopdoc]

We all probably agree on that.
The problem I have is that some feel that it shouldn't go both ways. Why is it assumed that if we puff out a clouds of harmless vapor in temporary situations, it is not a "right" we have which should be respected? Whether we vape or not we still exhale, vapor just makes it visible. It's like we need to apologize for being alive.

I hope my post didnt give you that impression snork for thats farthest from the truth for me. I believe we all have a right to vape anyway we want. The point I was pushing is that we also have a responsibility to be courteous in our vaping so we do not turn the general public against us. We have enough things going against us already with all the lies our opponents are telling without also shooting ourselves in the foot.
All the bad plubicity from vapors, none of it that I am aware of was from tootie puffers. Its always the sub ohm cloud chasers that are to blame. Thats not saying all cloud chasers are bad or disrespectful. What it is really saying is that the cloud chasing is so damn cool that it has attracted a bad element to it. The kids that got vaping banned from the LSU campus. I doubt if we will ever see a single one here debating these points for they care less. They wanted attention and thats exactly what they got. Same with Wal-mart guy. He doesnt give a single hoot about how people view vapors. The cloud chasers who got vaping banned in bars. They too are part of the bad element that shines a bad light on cloud chasers and its not fair in the least to those here who do vape responsibly with their sub ohm drippers and high watt mods.
The responsible sub ohmers here have been given a raw deal by the bad element that cloud chases. In my opinion, if we are to win even a little bit in the end then we need public opinion on our side. Every person who quits smoking from vaping is a mark in the win column for us and an increase in positive public acceptance. By advocating responsible vaping we keep the positive momentum going.