I've just sent my veto request.
I sincerely hope he vetos... a minor victory, perhaps, but every little bit helps.
I sincerely hope he vetos... a minor victory, perhaps, but every little bit helps.
Now is the Time To Act! I am Serious! **updated**
- Thread starter LaceyUnderall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- bloog revolution smoke 51 volcano
- Status
I have just read through this interesting discussion. Though I would like to think more on the ideas presented, I am upset because after 25 years of smoking, I finally found something that works for me. I am sure tax money is an issue but lack of understanding is probably also a factor with our law makers. I have been involved in another regulatory problem and one of our representatives when finding out that water had a PH of around 7 wanted to remove all PH from water.
I don't have big money. Surely not the estimated $1B that it would cost for trials. I do have a phone, smoker's cough, and numbers to a LOT of people.
I also have the know-how to lobby locally.
Throw in the mix, I know how to mix up very pure quality nic juice. (Still waiting on my 20% aqueous solution of nicotine to arrive so I can produce some test juice... if you want to acquire it, then if you know how to handle it, you know how to find it... don't ask me to help you)
Now, my ultimate goal with this...
Take a fairly standard e-cig, with quality, pure nic juice, and go have a meet and greet with my local lawmakers. Also go and have a meet and greet with the local university... contact and pursue NIH help... and the list goes on. There are a LOT of grants out there, many of which stem from the multi-billion dollar court fine on big tobacco, which are available for smoking alternatives. I want to find a way to weasel myself into one, and get testing done legitimately.
Its going to be a race.... If big tobacco gets pv's approved first, expect them to cut liquid such that it's freebasing nicotine (like cigs) and labeled a tobacco product... If big pharma gets pv's approved first, expect them to patent it every possible way so that little guys need to wait 20 years before they can produce anything... If one of the many small companies manage to get approval first, it will set the stage to end all of this controversy.
I sent my email to Arnold to veto, instead of thinking up reasons not to send a measly little email, just do it. It might just save the life of a family member. WE REALLY ARE ALL FIGHTING F
OR THE SAME THING, LIFE
OR THE SAME THING, LIFE
I sent mine last nite.. I live in Toronto, and ive only had my e-cig for 3 days now but i know ill never go back to analogs; and if Arnold is as progressive as everybody says he is... he will HAVE to veto this rediculous bill. I dont understand much about US politics... but i do have a lingering thought that many other states will follow arnold blindly into banning e-cigs.. now its just the waiting game i guess.. lets see what happens
Hi Lacey...
Love the comments on the forum. Extremely interesting stuff.
Been a smoker for the past forty odd years. Want to mone on now. Been reading a lot and finally thought I'd found the right ecig with a portable charger that could charge up to 18 times. Brilliant. Got in touch with Instead. They wont ship out of the States. Since I am UK based - simply cannot locate anything quite like their stuff. Wonder if it is possible that you could supply me with two sets and a portable charger. Would obviously pay inclusive of shipping etc.
can you help please.....
Love the comments on the forum. Extremely interesting stuff.
Been a smoker for the past forty odd years. Want to mone on now. Been reading a lot and finally thought I'd found the right ecig with a portable charger that could charge up to 18 times. Brilliant. Got in touch with Instead. They wont ship out of the States. Since I am UK based - simply cannot locate anything quite like their stuff. Wonder if it is possible that you could supply me with two sets and a portable charger. Would obviously pay inclusive of shipping etc.
can you help please.....
Ziva-
We would love to help you but we just don't ship out of the States right now. If you have someone in the States we could ship to, we can certainly do that, and we have done it before.
That said, there are some great suppliers in the UK.Thank you for the kind words and I apologize that we aren't making it easy for you
I went to sign the petition and it said that it was close. Is there a reason why its closed?
Thanks
Jaime
Thanks
Jaime
heaven help me, i cannot stand the blind ignorance that a large number of people walk around with. i tell everyone i can about how i have seen heavy smokers quit, and tht this is a viable form of help to smokers
sucha long thread, fight the good fight. i'll be writing, calling, and politely and smartly harassing everyone who will pay attention in the government. i have done it for more trivial things than personal liberties i'll do it again!
E-cigs are a new concept to me, and I am seriously considering a test run for myself, as I've had a desire to quit smoking for years (like most smokers). I feel that this may be the prayer answered for many people, as it seems to already be for most of you here.
However, before you go around accusing the FDA of strong-arming this *new* industry under influence of monetary interest, keep in mind that they did the same thing to nicotine gum and patches when they first arrived on the scene.
The FDA even seized many shipments of various products containing the great herb stevia, despite hundreds of years of use in other cultures. Why? Because they did not have sufficient objective, scientific data establishing it safe for consumption on a mass scale. The natives of Paraguay may have used the plant for millennia, but I doubt any of them extracted super-concentrates and prepared it for direct injection in the oh-so-gluttonous American style.
FDA critics accused our government of strong-arming the stevia market because of lobbying by NutraSweet. Two days ago, stevia was FDA approved and will soon appear in a whole slew of products from Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co.
So try and put your conspiratorical tendancies aside for a moment and realize that the FDA takes a scientific approach, one that is often slow (further slowed by the fact that it is government), and requires a solid foundation of evidence. The fact that nobody has yet to die from E-cigs does not prove that there is no potential hazard. That kind of logical fallacy is "Ad ignorantiam" and is not the practice of an establishment that has protected our citizens quite well thus far.
However, before you go around accusing the FDA of strong-arming this *new* industry under influence of monetary interest, keep in mind that they did the same thing to nicotine gum and patches when they first arrived on the scene.
The FDA even seized many shipments of various products containing the great herb stevia, despite hundreds of years of use in other cultures. Why? Because they did not have sufficient objective, scientific data establishing it safe for consumption on a mass scale. The natives of Paraguay may have used the plant for millennia, but I doubt any of them extracted super-concentrates and prepared it for direct injection in the oh-so-gluttonous American style.
FDA critics accused our government of strong-arming the stevia market because of lobbying by NutraSweet. Two days ago, stevia was FDA approved and will soon appear in a whole slew of products from Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co.
So try and put your conspiratorical tendancies aside for a moment and realize that the FDA takes a scientific approach, one that is often slow (further slowed by the fact that it is government), and requires a solid foundation of evidence. The fact that nobody has yet to die from E-cigs does not prove that there is no potential hazard. That kind of logical fallacy is "Ad ignorantiam" and is not the practice of an establishment that has protected our citizens quite well thus far.
Skeptic I too share your disregard of the influence of big tobacco, their influence I beleive is minimal and not the issue at hand.
However saying that the FDA has done a wonderful job at protecting our citizens is in fact a statement that is false. There is no doubt that the FDA has made good rulings on some drugs and the like through the years, but it has also compensated more over with poor decisions in the time its been in existance.
I will use Stevia as an example....
Quoting from wikipedia
For centuries, the Guaraní tribes of Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil used stevia, which they called ka'a he'ê ("sweet herb"), as a sweetener in yerba mate and medicinal teas for treating heartburn and other ailments.[10] More recent medical research has shown promise in treating obesity[11] and hypertension.[12][13] Stevia has a negligible effect on blood glucose, even enhancing glucose tolerance;[14] therefore, it is attractive as a natural sweetener to diabetics and others on carbohydrate-controlled diets.
Now how many years has this herb been around and in contention up front to the FDA is the question you need to ask. If in fact the FDA let this herb in freely into the United States (showing as far back as the 70's in some instances) How many people do you think did not benefit from its benefits of controlling obesity and hypertention, and diabeties? And of course those deseases leading to heart heart problems and stroke. With the United States as it is now with high obesity rates and diabetes etc, wouldn't this have been a wonderful thing to have to help combat those issues? Quite a few people I would Imagine.
Now take that case of the gum/patch/ chantix and other smoking cessation drugs. How long did it take the FDA to appove such products for consumption in the United States? Even with the low success rate of them, there is a success rate, in turn saving peoples lives from making the poor choice of smoking to begin with. How many years did the consumer have to wait for those life saving drugs? how many lives were lost in that time of deliberation?
The FDA is acting not in the self interest of the people at large, but acts in its own self interest. The FDA wants to wait a drug out and see its affects so that in turn it won't get egg on its face, and lose the confidence of the puplic at large.
The best answer as history has proven is to allow the individual to decide what risk he wishes to bare, and more over is the most compasionate in terms of who benefits from those decisions.
I appreciate your candor, but I must refute a few things:
On what grounds is that statement false? The FDA's mandate is to screen all commercially sold food products and pharmaceuticals for toxicity, not to ensure that they are healthy or good for you. Otherwise, we'd be hearing about FDA raids on the Oreo factory and Dunkin Donuts. Bad decisions have been made, but I'd say those were mainly due to the fact that all of the FDA's actions and powers are closely watched both by government and private interests. Obviously, no system or organization is perfect, but to settle that aregument we would need to see some data regarding the number of premature deaths the FDA might be held responsible for.
Also quoting from Wikipedia:
As I said before, the only thing I can really accuse the FDA of is being inefficient and slow, which is the case with most government agencies (except those of the military branch). Furthermore, it is ludicrous to blame the FDA for deaths attributed to smoking because they took their sweet time approving cessation products (which, if not CAREFULLY inspected, can be lethal). Everyone, including children, knows the danger of smoking before they begin. Also noteworthy is the stupendously high failure rate of smoking cessation products. So far, the only smoking deterrant that has had any impact at all has been the massive tax increases on tobacco products.
Let us also acknowledge the fact that smoking itself is not a killer. Smoking is absolutely an unhealthy habit, which weakens the body and immune system in such a way that makes our cells more likely to become cancerous. The toxicity of cigarettes is within acceptable parameters for safe consumption, but steady long-term consumption can make one prone to disease. The catch is, that same statement also applies to carbohydrates and protein, of which overconsumption can make us susceptible to diabetes and osteoperosis, respectively.
And what interests might those be? Sorry, but the FDA only gets "egg on its face" when someone dies from consuming something that they could have kept off the grocery shelf. If that happened, they would deserve to lose the confidence of the public. If nobody trusted the FDA to keep them safe, commerce (the life force of our great nation) would come to a grinding halt. Can you imagine the widespread panic that would ensue?
I will agree that every individual has a right to decide what to put into his/her own body, but that is an issue of prohibition and not regulation. According to that logic, it would be permissable to commerically distribute strychnine candy, provided each piece has a "EATING THIS WILL CAUSE DEATH" label on it. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't buy such a product, given I could find a store that would actually stock it.
Mind you, I am not a big fan of our current state of government. I have my own set of issues with the Fed, IRS, and Congress. I am, however, a big fan of science, and as such I must remain objective on all issues. I respect your stance on the matter, but I feel your arguments are a bit subjective.
On what grounds is that statement false? The FDA's mandate is to screen all commercially sold food products and pharmaceuticals for toxicity, not to ensure that they are healthy or good for you. Otherwise, we'd be hearing about FDA raids on the Oreo factory and Dunkin Donuts. Bad decisions have been made, but I'd say those were mainly due to the fact that all of the FDA's actions and powers are closely watched both by government and private interests. Obviously, no system or organization is perfect, but to settle that aregument we would need to see some data regarding the number of premature deaths the FDA might be held responsible for.
Also quoting from Wikipedia:
Not that your information is bad, but I generally avoid Wikipedia when making an argument, as these documents are often subject to bias.
As I said before, the only thing I can really accuse the FDA of is being inefficient and slow, which is the case with most government agencies (except those of the military branch). Furthermore, it is ludicrous to blame the FDA for deaths attributed to smoking because they took their sweet time approving cessation products (which, if not CAREFULLY inspected, can be lethal). Everyone, including children, knows the danger of smoking before they begin. Also noteworthy is the stupendously high failure rate of smoking cessation products. So far, the only smoking deterrant that has had any impact at all has been the massive tax increases on tobacco products.
Let us also acknowledge the fact that smoking itself is not a killer. Smoking is absolutely an unhealthy habit, which weakens the body and immune system in such a way that makes our cells more likely to become cancerous. The toxicity of cigarettes is within acceptable parameters for safe consumption, but steady long-term consumption can make one prone to disease. The catch is, that same statement also applies to carbohydrates and protein, of which overconsumption can make us susceptible to diabetes and osteoperosis, respectively.
And what interests might those be? Sorry, but the FDA only gets "egg on its face" when someone dies from consuming something that they could have kept off the grocery shelf. If that happened, they would deserve to lose the confidence of the public. If nobody trusted the FDA to keep them safe, commerce (the life force of our great nation) would come to a grinding halt. Can you imagine the widespread panic that would ensue?
I will agree that every individual has a right to decide what to put into his/her own body, but that is an issue of prohibition and not regulation. According to that logic, it would be permissable to commerically distribute strychnine candy, provided each piece has a "EATING THIS WILL CAUSE DEATH" label on it. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't buy such a product, given I could find a store that would actually stock it.
Mind you, I am not a big fan of our current state of government. I have my own set of issues with the Fed, IRS, and Congress. I am, however, a big fan of science, and as such I must remain objective on all issues. I respect your stance on the matter, but I feel your arguments are a bit subjective.
Very nicely put, Skeptic. You're correct on all points.
Bottom line: When we have science on our side, we'll have a platform from which to argue. But we long ago stopped the selling of snake oil from covered wagons. E-liquid is today's snake oil. It needs regulation, no matter how much some individual might want it.
This is not about "personal choice"; it's about safety and efficacy. And about proper exercise of authority from the agency charged with assuring that in our foods and drugs.
Bottom line: When we have science on our side, we'll have a platform from which to argue. But we long ago stopped the selling of snake oil from covered wagons. E-liquid is today's snake oil. It needs regulation, no matter how much some individual might want it.
This is not about "personal choice"; it's about safety and efficacy. And about proper exercise of authority from the agency charged with assuring that in our foods and drugs.
- Status
