Mdterm elections 2010

[v1John]

Everyone, please register to vote now! Or help those who need to, to go and get registered to vote!

Midterm elections 2010 are in November, only a few months away!!!

Midterm elections:
from wiki here: United States midterm election - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Midterm elections are elections in the United States in which members of United States Congress (including all 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives and full terms for 33 or 34 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate), and some state legislatures and governors are elected...

What do we know about which candidates? Which ones are running for re-election? Which ones are vaper-friendly?


Help your friends, family, relatives, neighbors, and everyone who supports your petition to be sure to get registered to vote!

 

[v1John]

Analog combustible cigarettes are exmpt and protected from bans by Congress.

Which members of Congress and which candidates support the people's right to the safer electronic cigarette alternative, and which ones do not?

 

[ChipCurtis]

I think it's going to be kinda silly to base your entire vote on a member of Congress on whether or not he/she supports vaping. Most likely your member of Congress has no idea what vaping even is, or has never even heard of the e-cig... and once he/she does, will probably support the FDA's and government's position on things anyway.

In addition, it doesn't really help your cause to base a vote on such a narrow interest. It makes you look no better (in the eyes of the people) than all those other "special interests" that get Congressional support based on some very narrow subject matter that is barely even known to the average citizen.

While it would certainly influence my vote on a particular politician if that politician has shown him/herself to be completely against e-cigs and against other liberties, I would base my vote on a Congress person on more important national matters, such as whether that person mindlessly supports Big Oil and "drill baby drill" in the face of a national catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, or whether that person supports these ongoing, endless wars in Iraq and Afghanastan.

 

[v1John]

[oops mistake-sorry.....

 

[v1John]

Well that's your opinion.
I'm in Virginia and everything's perfect here, and the attorney general has just explained that ecigs do not fall under the tobacco cigarette ban.

But many people do need to be well informed, and many need to vape instead of smoke as a matter of life and death. I cannot tell such people fighting for or about their life that I'm not worried about them, that we should focus on the oild industry instead.

The same about NewYork's governor, if he doesn't veto a ban should it reach him, if I were a NewYorker I wuld not be saying 'Oh, ok he may be up for re-election, but his view about world petroleum is just wonderful so I will re-elect him, to hell whether or not he allows us a life extension with the safer alternative ecig' just as an example of course. I don't know myself if it will will reach him, if he is able to veto it, etc.

 

[v1John]

I think it's going to be kinda silly to base your entire vote on a member of Congress on whether or not he/she supports vaping. Most likely your member of Congress has no idea what vaping even is, or has never even heard of the e-cig... and once he/she does, will probably support the FDA's and government's position on things anyway..

Congress is the government. We the people vote for and elect Congress.

Not if they're treated like cigarettes, which is the current ruling, that's the reason tobacco cigarettes are not banned and they're not FDA approved. And the reason why ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES are not under the FDA and why the FDA is trying to say they're not cigarettes.

The FDA can't ban them if they're protected by Congress.
Congress is who we elect.

Who we elect can protect cigarettes or ecigarettes or whatever the people we elect decide. It is important to know who we elect, and elections are just a few months away.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

I think it's going to be kinda silly to base your entire vote on a member of Congress on whether or not he/she supports vaping. Most likely your member of Congress has no idea what vaping even is, or has never even heard of the e-cig... and once he/she does, will probably support the FDA's and government's position on things anyway.

In addition, it doesn't really help your cause to base a vote on such a narrow interest. It makes you look no better (in the eyes of the people) than all those other "special interests" that get Congressional support based on some very narrow subject matter that is barely even known to the average citizen.

While it would certainly influence my vote on a particular politician if that politician has shown him/herself to be completely against e-cigs and against other liberties, I would base my vote on a Congress person on more important national matters, such as whether that person mindlessly supports Big Oil and "drill baby drill" in the face of a national catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, or whether that person supports these ongoing, endless wars in Iraq and Afghanastan.

Their position on vaping tells you a lot about the person in general, and their style of politics. It also tells you whether they are up for sale to the highest bidder. I dunno about you, but that isn't the sort of person I would want representing me.
I have no problem with reasonable debate on the subject, but to completely dismiss vaping as more dangerous as smoking, and expect us to swallow it like good little sheep, takes the mick out of our common sense.

 

[addicted4life]

I'd have to disagree with your comment that "vaping tells you a lot about the person in general, and their style of politics." I disagree with *probably* most people on here when it comes to politics, but I still vape.

I disagree with a lot of my AG's policies, but then again, he did exclude e-cigs as being classified as analogs.

You can't pick just one issue a politician SAYS he believes in and vote for him. If there's anything we've all learned from politicians, it's usually not to believe what they say.

With that being said, everyone get out there and vote, no matter who you're voting for!

 

[D103]

When it comes to "who to vote for or against" I agree, it is a very personal decision and one that should be well thought out. But I would disagree with being 'dismissive' about vaping in terms of it being an important issue or not. It was given as an example: perhaps more 'important considerations' for voting for a politician would be to examine their views on the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe and/or the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I would agree those are definitely important I wonder how they stack up in terms of "loss of life".

According to the Washington Post's most recent (2010) statistics - total number of American lives lost in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq - 5,425

Total lives lost in the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe - 11

Annual American death toll due to smoking related disease - over 400,000

I would strongly argue that having a "safer alternative" to tobacco smoking is VERY Important to me and in fact very important to the overall Public Health Policies in this country and abroad. To believe that this issue does not in fact weigh very heavily in the total Health Care debate is to be mistakenly short-sighted, in my opinion, and is exactly what our detractors want us to believe so that we will 'go away and shut up'. I for one will not do that.

 

[v1John]

Is the New York bill supposed to reach the governor for his signature prior to elections?
Who all is up for re-election there?

 

[v1John]

Senator Frank R Lautenberg (NJ)

Senator Lautenburg wrote a letter to the FDA demanding that electronic cigarettes be banned.
He neglected to mention in the letter that he had received funding from pharmecutical companies to the the tune of $126,000.​

Read more: Anti Electronic Cigarette Funding​

According to the chart, it seems that he is a recipient of $424,572.00 at least as now, from Pharmaceuticals, is this correct?
Pharmaceuticals / Health Products: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets

 

[(So) Jersey Girl]

Senator Frank R Lautenberg (NJ)

Read more: Anti Electronic Cigarette Funding​

According to the chart, it seems that he is a recipient of $424,572.00 at least as now, from Pharmaceuticals, is this correct?
Pharmaceuticals / Health Products: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets

The pharmaceutical industry has a HUGE presence here and collectively is one of the largest employers in the state. I read somewhere (can't remember where, tho) that there are close to 1,500 registered pharmaceutical companies operating here. Plus, Lautenberg is a vehement anti-tobacco prohibitionist and has been for years. It is no surprise that he receives large amounts of money from BP.

 

[v1John]

The pharmaceutical industry has a HUGE presence here and collectively is one of the largest employers in the state. I read somewhere (can't remember where, tho) that there are close to 1,500 registered pharmaceutical companies operating here. Plus, Lautenberg is a vehement anti-tobacco prohibitionist and has been for years. It is no surprise that he receives large amounts of money from BP.

At the state level tho, what is the status and legislative history of ecigs in NJ?

 

[(So) Jersey Girl]

At the state level tho, what is the status and legislative history of ecigs in NJ?

On the state level, they amended the indoor smoking ban on cigarettes to include e-cigs. (This happened before I even knew what an e-cig was.)

Oh, and they banned the sale to minors. Flavors entice them, ya know.