I don't see what the big deal is, I would much rather have people vaping around me any day. People will always find a problem with everything.
My little rant about banning E-Cigs.
- Thread starter Daniel O'Brien
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I don't see what the big deal is, I would much rather have people vaping around me any day. People will always find a problem with everything.
It may have been repealed, but I can guarantee you that more than a few restaurants where I live will not serve you eggs over easy. It's simply not safe and to do so would be courting a lawsuit. 0.5% of eggs are contaminated by salmonella. Law or no law, that is a high rate and if restaurants were stupid enough to continue serving raw egg yolks, there would be a law passed against it soon enough. Unfortunately, it would happen after someone was killed.
The point is, corporate interests have brought us to the point where things that should be regulated aren't, and things that shouldn't need to be regulated must be in order to protect people from the consequences of greedy, cost-cutting corporate entities of all descriptions.
As for the school lunch thing. These are not adults they're dealing with. The school is responsible for that child while he is there. They are judged on the academic performance of their students and a poorly nourished student cannot concentrate or learn properly. So, I think they are well within their rights to insist that their students are properly fed. If the parents don't like it, they can home-school them and feed them any crap they want. If the parents had a modicum of responsibility, the policy wouldn't be needed. Evidently, in some of the schools, it is the judgement of the principal that it is not needed. Either way, it's a far cry from lawmakers telling you what to eat, which was your original criticism.
Look, it's the same psychology that makes people who have spent a lifetime dieting get all bent out of shape when they hear about people who have liposuction. It's the same psychology that infuriates people who spent a lifetime building their pectoral muscles, only to see someone come along with implants. It's also the same psychology that drives people to be against easy methods of birth control. If you sin, you need to pay the price. If you don't, you're cheating.
Some people cannot stand the idea that somewhere, somehow, someone is doing something enjoyable without having to pay a commensurately heavy price for it.
I must admit sometimes it does feel like cheating to me, vaping is so much better than smoking, more enjoyable, less health concerns, no smell etc, we have found an easy way out.
The reality is they already did try to ban vaping nationally and local governments are inacting bans across the country. The possble revenue from vaping would be minuscle in the overall picture, especially in comparison to smoking. Zealots are not concerned about revenue. Vaping is just another form of smoking to them. The only group who is looking at vaping from a money standpoint is Big Pharm. That is why they are leading the effort to have it banned. Take those rose colored glasses off.
Another interesting point which has been made by several leaders in the fight to keep vaping legal and promote the harm reduction position, if you look at the polictical figures who are against vaping, they all come from one party and the ones who have stood in the way of bans on vaping are all from the other party.
Last edited:
I've not noticed any "funny" looks or had any comments yet....
In fact I was in a local hospital for a couple of days and found out that they had no issues with me using my PV in my room. Quite unexpected.
In fact I was in a local hospital for a couple of days and found out that they had no issues with me using my PV in my room. Quite unexpected.
Glad they had no problems with you vaping AltAns! We've just had to fight to keep vaping out of the anti-smoking ordinance up here in Birmingham...E-cigs are now out of the senate version of the statewide anti-smoking bill- but e-cigs were defined as smoking in the first version. Big pharma and the health organizations they provide funding to (ALA, ACS etc) are trying to get e-cigs lumped in with smoking all over the country.
It's not so simple and partisan as all that. Last I heard, states like Utah, Alabama (to name but a few) aren't exactly liberal Democrat strongholds. Big pharma and tobacco are particularly fond of the party you are trying to absolve of blame for instituting e-cig bans. After all, who was was caught on C-Span live passing out checks from BT on the floor of the House? (Hint: John Boehner, not a Dem.) Who snuck it the provision that prohibits Medicare from negotiating prescription drug prices? (Hint: Billy Taubin, the Louisiana Republican who is now a seven-figure lobbyist for Pharma)
From what I can tell, one party is full of health Nazis who are aligned with the ALA, ACS, etc. The other party is full of people who are devoted to representing the interests of BP and BT. Health Nazis can sometimes be persuaded with education. Education is futile when someone's motivation is money and the prospects of a lucrative post-governmental career as a BP or BT lobbyist.
Last edited:
How much? It's *Your Money!* They don't mind spending all of it, and they don't really hope to be successful in their enforcement efforts either. What they're interested in is "job security", and they'll have that.
I have only just started vaping and would like to see that it is recognised for what it is -and distinct from smoking. Only one negative comment so far re addiction- everyone else seems intrigued and can get the shift. If they ban them, I will be protesting big time. In NZ there is a Dr Laugesen (sp?) who is advocating e-cigs being a good alternative to smoking. I am going to do a bit more research re ease of access etc here as vaping is not widely known about as nobody much allows them to be sold. You can import tobacco only for your own use. I am sold on this concept now and will be advocating for easier access to products.
People who oppose it have listened to all the negative reviews that the FDA put out. Do I hide it? Hell NO! Most of the time, I get people who want to know what it is and I'll happily explain and point them to ECF. Only once, I had a woman in a casino wave her arms like a mad woman swatting at flies...she even faked coughing. After my response to her, which wasn't too nice, she got up and moved. I normally don't address people like I did her but that chapped my backside. Later that day, same casino, a worker approached me and asked about it. I gave her some information on where to obtain an eGo kit for her boyfriend and told her to have him join us so he could learn more about vaping.
I've brought some smokers to vape.
I friendly reported about vaping. And I explained, vaping is good to me. And I've suggested it to try. But I was never pushy.
If someone asks me about vaping, I'm always friendly and happy to explain.
So far nobody was rude.
I friendly reported about vaping. And I explained, vaping is good to me. And I've suggested it to try. But I was never pushy.
If someone asks me about vaping, I'm always friendly and happy to explain.
So far nobody was rude.
Look, the facts about "vaping", not any other issue, show that those in the political arena who support keeping vaping from being banned or regulated are from one party and the ones actively trying to institute bans are from the other, period. This information comes from the leaders of the Harm Reduction groups. I am not saying that there are not some from both parties that are on both sides of the issue. But the facts show that much more of one party are in the "pro-vaping" camp and much more of the other party is in the "anti-vaping" camp.
The first Senator to come out in late 2009 requesting that vaping be banned was Democratic Senator Lautenberg from NJ. His largest campaign contributor was Big Pharm. The first Congressman who publicly stated support for vaping (his name escapes me) was a Republican. He actually sent a PV kit to Obama as a gift towards his attempts to stop smoking - he never got a response.
The bottom line is that we as vapers are in a much better position with one party being in control over the other. That's unfortunate, as it should be a positive position for any political party.
No, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter much at all anymore what the Reps in DC have to say about it. They can't ban it, no matter how much they'd like to. They can tax it, but that's not even the worst thing that can happen. The real potential for harm is going to come from the FDA and from the State legislatures. I've been hearing this crap about how Republicans are going to save the day for 3 years now. I have yet to see it. Congress was turned over to the Tea Party in 2010 and did they rein in the FDA? No, they did not. I haven't heard one word from the Orange Man or any of the tri-corn brigade about this issue. The state legislators that have managed to lump vaping into smoking bans have not been any more D than R. You may hear certain politicians from the left speak about it more often because lefty politicians are more likely to adopt health issues as their own. But anyone who thinks the Repubs are going to be white knights on this issue is delusional. They have their own agenda, but crony capitalism doesn't lend itself to public oratory the way health advocacy does.
Furthermore, the FDA is not run by "liberals" by any stretch. It is run by people in bed with, and out to protect, BP, who they consider their "clients". This has been the philosophy of the FDA, and virtually every other regulatory body in the country, since the 80's when they decided to be "facilitators" for industry, rather than overseers.
I'm simply sick of hearing this made a left/right partisan issue. It's not. But to be perfectly honest, even if it were, I'm not so selfish, one dimensional and short sighted as to turn the country over to the current crop of right wing extremists and reactionaries on the basis of any single issue, even vaping.
Very good point. Special interest groups and groups with deep pockets (big tobacco, for one example) more or less determine the laws. Many public health communication efforts are all about how e cigarettes are still harmful, but they're obviously less harmful than regular cigarettes, so common sense would say to leave them alone. But there is no place for common sense in politics.
I've done a little research on this and talked about this with the people who work for Kingpin, the company I order e cigarettes and e-liquid from, and they told me they are in the middle of working on putting together information from some studies to put out as a resource for people. Their e-liquid (and e-liquid from any legitimate operation) is made with the highest purity USP (pharmaceutical) grade ingredients which is sourced in the US and is mixed in a lab that is FDA registered for food and tobacco production by trained professionals led by a group of chemists. That sounds more safe and regulated to me than what I've learned about traditional cigarette production.
The ratios of ingredients used are also specially formulated to have the best balance of vapor production, flavor and viscosity which helps it wick properly.
I was impressed to learn all of this, and I think just actively working to collect solid data on e cigs and inform the public of the good information and benefits of e cigarettes is the best bet for now. Logically speaking, it's insane that there's more talk about making e cigarettes, which studies have found to be significantly less harmful than cigarettes and helpful to quitting smoking altogether, illegal while big tobacco is still up to the usual.
I'm willing to bet that the negative comment abaout addiction was from an ex-smoker. They have a kind of strange attitude about these things. My answer is, "I quit for 10 years and not a day went by that I didn't want a cigarette some time. I don't want to live like that. With this I haven't smoked for a year and I don't want one. I'll take the addiction."
Last edited:
It sure is clear where your leanings lie. Way to use broad inflammatory adjectives to paint one side of the political landscape as being a monolith. To be blunt, that is ignorant.
The FDA is Big Pharms handmaiden to a large extent but they report to Obama and his admistration ultimately dictates how far they can go on this issue. If you actually read the various Harm Reduction Journals and the writings of Bill Godshall, it's clear that there is much less likelihood of bans, limitations and taxation from Republicans than there is under Democrates. There is also a larger percentage of Democratic state legislatures and local politicians calling for bans on vaping by a large margin. It was a Republican governer in CA and a Republican mayor in IN that vetoed proposals calling for bans on vaping by Democrates. It was Republican appointed judges that stopped the FDA from banning vaping nationwide.
Your statements have no validity and no substance to support them.
Let me be clear. I am not advocating that one party has all the right answers over the other party when it comes to national issues as a whole because they don't. I personally am an Independent and believe both parties extreme elements are not helping the country as a whole. But when it comes to vaping, one party is better for the vaping community which has been proven by actions. You saying otherwise just flys in the face of reality which you obviously choose to ignore and would rather stay in your one-sided fog of imagination.
Here is post by Bill Godshall of Smokefee PA and someone who testifies across the country on the benefits of vaping and has political contacts across the country and monitors all legislation pertaining to vaping and other smoke-free alternatives. In one of his replys, he clearly states that we as vapers have a much better chance of success in this fight from a legislative standpoint with Republicans than we do with Democrates:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-products-eliminate-many-most-companies.html
At this point in time there is one party that is far more sympathetic to our cause than the other.
Because the other party (Democrats) are the ones sponsoring almost every bill that would curtail vaping.
And they are the ones behind almost every official urging of the FDA to crack down on vaping.
And yes, the Utah issue is an exception.
The local politicians, such as city councils and boards of health, are not yet wrapped up in this game.
History has shown that they do actually care, and try to make the right choices.
They aren't always just voting the party line.
And that is where we can have serious impact, by educating them.
Because without education, they just vote for whatever an authority figure puts before them.
And those authority figures are folks like the ALA, ACS, AHA, AMA, and CTFK.
And the reality is that those groups are funded by Big Pharma, and don't actually care about their mission statements.
They just care about the money they get from Big Pharma to do their dirty work.
Because the other party (Democrats) are the ones sponsoring almost every bill that would curtail vaping.
And they are the ones behind almost every official urging of the FDA to crack down on vaping.
And yes, the Utah issue is an exception.
The local politicians, such as city councils and boards of health, are not yet wrapped up in this game.
History has shown that they do actually care, and try to make the right choices.
They aren't always just voting the party line.
And that is where we can have serious impact, by educating them.
Because without education, they just vote for whatever an authority figure puts before them.
And those authority figures are folks like the ALA, ACS, AHA, AMA, and CTFK.
And the reality is that those groups are funded by Big Pharma, and don't actually care about their mission statements.
They just care about the money they get from Big Pharma to do their dirty work.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
