NYC Vapers PLEASE Get Audrey Silk On Our Side... WOW

[DragonflyVaper]

Checked to see if this article was posted but didn't see anything.... if it is, please delete... Audrey is my kinda activist and someone in NYC should contact her about ecigs.... especially since King Bloomberg is fighting vapers too..... She is also running for Mayor of NYC.... Goooo Audrey!!

Google: Audrey Silk NY Times Article.... or www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/nyregion/25tobacco.html

 

[CJsKee]

Audrey's great! Hadn't heard she was running for mayor. Maybe she'd rescind the bans!

I may be mistaken, but I think maybe Spikey of NVC has been in touch with Audrey.

 

[kristin]

Most smoking advocates don't like vapers much - our community can be pretty anti-smoking with our comments (and they've noticed) and they feel we still buy into a lot of the anti-tobacco rhetoric about smoking and smokers too much.

But you're right, we should align with the smokers and try not to alientate them.

 

[CJsKee]

Good point, Kristen. Since I don't buy into ANY of the anti rhetoric, I forget that.

 

[DragonflyVaper]

Don't know how serious or when this was posted but here's the site: Welcome to AudreySilkForNYCMayor.com - Rallies, Events, News, Tickets, Fundraisers

Audrey's great! Hadn't heard she was running for mayor. Maybe she'd rescind the bans!

I may be mistaken, but I think maybe Spikey of NVC has been in touch with Audrey.

 

[Bill Godshall]

If Audrey Silk began advocating for e-cigarettes, the NY legislature would probably ban the sale and the usage of e-cigarettes throughout the state.

 

[JustJulie]

If Audrey Silk began advocating for e-cigarettes, the NY legislature would probably ban the sale and the usage of e-cigarettes throughout the state.

Your dislike of Audrey Silk and those advocating for smokers' rights is well known. But thank you for sharing them once again.

As for those who suggest that we should find more of a common ground with smokers and not try to alienate them, I couldn't agree more.

 

[DragonflyVaper]

Hummm, that's interesting because I thought NYC was already trying to ban ecigs in NY? Audrey has that much power??

If Audrey Silk began advocating for e-cigarettes, the NY legislature would probably ban the sale and the usage of e-cigarettes throughout the state.

 

[sherid]

Most smoking advocates don't like vapers much - our community can be pretty anti-smoking with our comments (and they've noticed) and they feel we still buy into a lot of the anti-tobacco rhetoric about smoking and smokers too much.

But you're right, we should align with the smokers and try not to alientate them.

You are right about that, Kristen. Audrey posts on Dr. Siegel's blog, and she in a big force within the anti-ban groups. IMO, she would never align with any group that spouts anti-smoking language as so many vapers do. AGAIN, the battle against vaping is exactly the same as the battle against smoking. STOP making enemies. Audrey has worked tirelessly in NYC, and she takes NO crap.

 

[t9c]

After reading the article, she sounds very Libertarian to me. I LIKE her!

 

[Treece]

You are right about that, Kristen. Audrey posts on Dr. Siegel's blog, and she in a big force within the anti-ban groups. IMO, she would never align with any group that spouts anti-smoking language as so many vapers do. AGAIN, the battle against vaping is exactly the same as the battle against smoking. STOP making enemies. Audrey has worked tirelessly in NYC, and she takes NO crap.

I think it took some of us awhile to get to the truth. I know that when I started vaping, I was still buying into a lot of the anti-smoker propaganda (including the lies about secondhand smoke), and I'm guilty of having spouted some of it. I truly, deeply regret that. I was ignorant and brainwashed.

Now that we know better, though, there's no excuse to keep doing it. It's unquestionably the wrong path to take, as lying always is. If Audrey Silk were to see some of the form letters being sent to legislators in the name of vaping activism, she would be justifiably dismissive. And that's a big shame on us....

 

[Placebo Effect]

If Audrey Silk began advocating for e-cigarettes, the NY legislature would probably ban the sale and the usage of e-cigarettes throughout the state.

Gotta agree with Bill. When states, cities, or counties seek to ban the use of e-cigarettes indoors, the letters written by CASAA and vapers are overwhelmingly narrowly tailored to encourage the legislators to vote to amend the legislation to not include e-cigarettes. Regardless of the scientific puffery and deceit involved with many of the bans, for better or worse, bans are here to stay, and they're only going to spread. While I'm against the demonization of smokers, I'm not so sure that having smokers' support in the state of New York is going to in any way help our cause.

Now, a coalition with smokers in states with low tobacco taxes, high smoking rates, and conservative legislators? Not the worst idea.

 

[JustJulie]

Gotta agree with Bill. When states, cities, or counties seek to ban the use of e-cigarettes indoors, the letters written by CASAA and vapers are overwhelmingly narrowly tailored to encourage the legislators to vote to amend the legislation to not include e-cigarettes. Regardless of the scientific puffery and deceit involved with many of the bans, for better or worse, bans are here to stay, and they're only going to spread. While I'm against the demonization of smokers, I'm not so sure that having smokers' support in the state of New York is going to in any way help our cause.

Now, a coalition with smokers in states with low tobacco taxes, high smoking rates, and conservative legislators? Not the worst idea.

With all due respect, I think you're kind of missing the point just a little bit.

Many of us wish to fight these bans based upon property rights issues . . . and then have as our secondary position that these bans have gone so far that now they're even trying to ban something that hasn't been proven to be remotely dangerous to bystanders, and they're banning it simply because it looks like smoking.

To me, that seems to be our best argument . . . not telling legislators that we don't want to be thrown into the smoking areas because we're afraid of second-hand smoke. I mean, you realize that the vast majority of the "smoking areas" are actually outdoors, right?

These arguments are honest and don't unnecessarily throw smokers under the bus. Plus, it still allows us to talk about the most important issue--tobacco harm reduction.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Julie wrote:

Your dislike of Audrey Silk and those advocating for smokers' rights is well known. But thank you for sharing them once again.

I don't dislike Audrey Silk, and I've met her several times. Besides, I'm a smoker's rights advocate, while Audrey is a right-to-smoke advocate (and there's a huge difference between the two).

But the point of my post was that she has zero credibility with elected officials in NY.

At September's NY Senate Health Cmte hearing (where CASAA, NVC and I testified against the e-cigarette sales ban bill), even the Philip Morris lobbyists were upset with Audrey's testimony.

She might be creative at calling people names, but using terms like "health nazis" and "antismokers" in every other sentence isn't an effective way to win votes or public support.

 

[MoonRose]

With all due respect, I think you're kind of missing the point just a little bit.

Many of us wish to fight these bans based upon property rights issues . . . and then have as our secondary position that these bans have gone so far that now they're even trying to ban something that hasn't been proven to be remotely dangerous to bystanders, and they're banning it simply because it looks like smoking.

To me, that seems to be our best argument . . . not telling legislators that we don't want to be thrown into the smoking areas because we're afraid of second-hand smoke. I mean, you realize that the vast majority of the "smoking areas" are actually outdoors, right?

These arguments are honest and don't unnecessarily throw smokers under the bus. Plus, it still allows us to talk about the most important issue--tobacco harm reduction.

Exactly right, Julie.

 

[DragonflyVaper]

I need to clarify my original post asking ECF members to solicit Audrey Silk's help with our ecig mission. It was Audrey's dedication and aggressive involvement that got my attention. After reading the article, it was apparent she was not successful in changing any minds about smoker's rights. She took this defeat by growing her own tobacco that is very time consuming along with running out of the crop before the next growing season. I felt if she was personally introduced to ecigs in order to eliminate her tidious tobacco crop process, she would make a great ecig advocate. But after reading some of the back and forth banter to this thread, it appears to me she isn't admired for her effort due to the way she presents her case as "in your face". Sorry I did not clarify when I started this thread.

We are all in the same sinking boat when it pertains to Big Brother Gov't Politicians telling us what to do with our short existence in so-called "Free" America. I still admire Audrey's out of the box effort ..... look what diplomacy has done to the masses.... compliant and lazy sheep lining up for the slaughter in a diplomatic way.

 

[JustJulie]

I don't disagree that Audrey Silk has pushed buttons. I think there's a lot of frustration involved in fighting stupidity and ignorance, and it gets wearing. I find myself having to work hard not to become strident and accusatory because I'm pretty sick and tired of my tax dollars going to fund a system that is systematically lying . . . and they're not harmless white lies . . . they're lies that are literally killing people.

Be it as it may, I personally feel there's a lot we can learn from Audrey Silk. I admire her bravery in speaking out and standing up for what she believes is right, even if it's not popular.

I understand that CASAA's mission is to fight for smoke-free alternatives, and I support that. I do not feel that CASAA needs to actively champion smokers' rights at every turn. On the other hand, at the very least, CASAA needs to be sensitive to the fact that what they're doing to smokers, they will try to do to us at every opportunity. And what they're doing to the smokers is no longer about the science--they abandoned good science (or any science at all) when they started talking about 3rd-hand smoke and banning smoking in parks and on beaches. (Well, actually, I think it was abandoned long before that, but whatever.)

As you yourself have noted, Bill, it's not just that the "antis" are anti-smoking . . . they're also anti-tobacco . . . and now, more recently, anti-nicotine unless it comes courtesy of Big Pharma.

Audrey Silk may sound strident when she talks about the "health nazis" and "antismokers," but I can't help but feel that she's got a point. Still, I don't think that I'd say that to a legislator's face even though I'd be sorely tempted.

In any event, I'm in favor of the truth. And the truth is that a lot of the stuff that's getting passed off as "science" nowadays is anything but . . . it's propaganda. And I know I'm not alone in saying that I have no interest in playing into the rabid hysteria. It would be intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible. We need to quit throwing smokers under the bus, and when we adopt the rhetoric of the antis, that's exactly what we're doing.

And with that, I'm off my soapbox and off to check the docket.

 

[ChipCurtis]

As for those who suggest that we should find more of a common ground with smokers and not try to alienate them, I couldn't agree more.

I don't know how ANY one of us could possibly take a contrary position and be taken seriously, since ALL OF US -- as in 100% -- were once smokers, just a few months or years ago. Seems pretty hypocritical to take such a negative position against someone who probably just hasn't discovered e-cigs yet. Don't alienate. Convert.

 

[DC2]

We need to quit throwing smokers under the bus, and when we adopt the rhetoric of the antis, that's exactly what we're doing.

Can you, or anybody else, clarify what we are doing to throw smokers under the bus?

There have been some general references in this thread, but nothing specific.
And somehow, I seem to have missed how we are doing that.

Or possibly, I might just disagree, which would explain why I am not getting it.
But if I am going to disagree, I certainly want to make sure I know what I'm disagreeing with.

 

[JustJulie]

Can you, or anybody else, clarify what we are doing to throw smokers under the bus?

There have been some general references in this thread, but nothing specific.
And somehow, I seem to have missed how we are doing that.

Or possibly, I might just disagree, which would explain why I am not getting it.
But if I am going to disagree, I certainly want to make sure I know what I'm disagreeing with.

A very reasonable request.

I think this thread summarizes most of the thoughts, starting at around Post 29 where Elaine posts CASAA's letter on the South Carolina indoor vaping ban:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...a-house-reps-including-e-cig-smoking-ban.html