I've gotten to the point where my only intent in vaping is enjoyment. I no longer intend to quit smoking with it as I already have long ago. Can I keep my nic now?
My opinion on the labeling of e cigs
- Thread starter DoctorJ
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Not all of it. Some is synthetically derived for potency- as in energy drinks and weight loss pills...
And if it wasn't sourced from a tobacco plant, I would not see it as a tobacco product. I believe Zeller has said similarly, which you'd think would be enough to not have us go in that direction. Other than the notion of it is way more convenient / accessible to get from the tobacco plant.
Thing this tangent seems to neglect is that TPTB tried for the drug angle. I think they'd strongly prefer that. They lost and now are trying tobacco angle. They could lose on that, and then go with own unique category or perhaps have another trick up their sleeve. But it is plausible that regulations could be worse as FSPTCA prevents outright ban even while it opens door wide for de facto bans.
The way I understand the counter argument is that politically aware vapers really don't want vaping under auspices of FSPTCA, but don't seem to present nor understand what would then be the alternative. You can go back on ECF posts from 2011 and see prominent members celebrating that vaping product is not a drug (pharmaceutical) and even promoting the idea of it is a tobacco product. Virtually begging the industry to go that route. So, if it was suddenly not considered a tobacco product, I'd imagine a whole lot of celebrating going on, and then flash forward 5 years from now and people then saying, um, how come we didn't stick to the tobacco deeming. That was so much better than the direction they chose to go instead.
i was just referring to Steve's singular reply to a specific post.
i understand all the rest.
one thing however i would not put to much weight in what
Zeller says about anything. apparently Indiana didn't hear his
statement that zero nic juice cannot be regulated.
regards
mike
I understand that the alternative could eventually turn out to be even worse. But we don't know that yet.
By stopping the deeming as a tobacco product, we essentially buy time. They WILL regulate it, somehow, some way, but the farther we can kick that can down the road, the more our numbers and strength will grow, and maybe we can actually eliminate some of the most egregious and senseless (ANTZ) restrictions from their final regs.
Agree with kicking it down the road. And that it could be better than what FSPTCA offers.
This is one of the issues I don't truly care about because I do see it as semantical. To think they aren't eventually going to regulate it because of classification seems silly. But to think we could delay regulations because of blurred lines around classification seems inherently wise, politically.
The thing about the "ANTZ" term... they are ZEALOTS. That tells you right there, there isn't a rational bone in any of their bodies -- they're all about CONTROL -- those who persecuted Jews and "heretics" under the auspices of the Inquisition were also zealots, who did evil in the name of their god, who would no doubt be appalled at the whole thing.
To embrace zealotry is to leave rational discourse behind, to insist on your own way, come hell or high water -- control freaks. Like those "upright" goodwives and bible-thumping judges in New England persecuting "witches."If there really had been any witches, too bad they didn't vanish the whole lot of their persecutors... or turn them into frogs!
I'd dearly love to turn all the ANTZ into frogs. Then all you'd hear from them would be "ribbit" instead of all the asinine insanity they currently spew.
Andria
Andria, if you could avoid using the persecution of Jews to make a point about ecig regulation, it would be much better. Jew or non Jew, it is extremely offensive.
Anyway, vapors are the biggest zealots on the face of the planet.
Following what you were saying before, why would it be deemed alcoholic if it were even say 3%, while 97% is lemonade?
Like beer is mostly water and around 5% alcohol from malt. From what you (and others) were saying earlier, it could just as easily be considered a milkshake (minus the milk) because of the sugar. From your side of the argument, it makes no sense to call it an alcoholic beverage.
Case and point made. Neither side has many facts. Both say each side is wrong. "Politically aware??"
No facts here either[emoji57]
I would say our side compromises / is willing to compromise on several items, whereas ANT (zealots) aren't willing to compromise on anything from our side. Lemme know of the exceptions you can come up with.
As far as I know, the intent of adding nicotine is the taste. It most definitely is not intended to treat any sort of medical condition, or act as smoking cessation.
The federal government doesn't compromise. The fact we are willing to compromise is irrelevant. I'm simply saying calling ANTZ zealots is hypocritical. Vapors are some of the most fanatical people I have read. Pure fanaticism with little or no fact. We are politically aware though...Comical.
It could be worse, it could be better. The vaping industry, not BT, could actually get a seat at the table. In this case, it's hard to imagine anything worse than the devil we know.
Comical is you claiming with little or no fact. Feel free to try and back that up.
ANTZ aren't necessarily federal government. Do you see Glantz and his movement as federal government?
I have claimed nothing. I did not say ANTZ was the fed. I just said vapors are as big a zealots as antz. That's all I said.
I haven't asserted any side of an argument in this thread; just two posts, both facts.
Edit: To answer your question at the end of the first paragraph, I don't know. If I had to guess, taxation.
Last edited:
Legal facts. But not an explanation as to why that would make sense for you. And by you, I mean more the general you. If / when vaping becomes liquid (with nicotine) is tobacco product, I'll be able to state that as a fact. It's already on the table, so not really far away from idea that it is legal fact.
And to me the legal fact makes sense on principle, but is worthy of being resisted given ridiculous stigmatization around using nicotine as a recreational substance.
The fact that our side is willing to compromise matters significantly to the point of who are more zealous than others.
You are literally saying calling zealots zealots is hypocritical.
You brought up the feds, now I'm not sure why. That strikes me as irrelevant. If it is relevant, then arguably they are more zealous than ANTZ, or equal to ANTZ, while vapers would be 8 light years away from them on the zealot scale.
I'd be glad to stack up ANTZ expressed zealotry over vaper expressed zealotry. And then list issues that vapers appear willing to compromise on with the mythological list on ANTZ side of the equation. Their version of compromise appears to me as, if smokers/vapers agree to this excessive tax hike, we agree to run 3 more campaigns over the next year that will deceive the public about the harms around these two activities.
Deal?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
