Our Elected Officials are Ignorant Concerning E-Cigs!
- Thread starter Black Strat
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Our Elected Officials are Ignorant Concerning E-Cigs! Change the title to this Our Elected Officials are Ignorant and you have a correctly titled thread!
I am minimizing concern over a hypothetical ban that I think is unnecessarily hyped up. That address point #1.
And 'overly sympathetic to a viewpoint that most vapers know is not justified' refers to what? On this thread, I found the Senators comments reasonable and explained myself, I thought.
My previous post before this was asking - isn't nicotine in eliquid derived from tobacco? Doesn't FDA/Tobacco Act already speak about products derived from tobacco?
20 years ago, I used to speak with more passion when I spoke mostly from emotion and when I was a little more naive about things. I guess I could revert to that if it will make me fit in better here in ECF. Here, let me give it a try.
Damn that politician! Totally BS! He's so stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid! They better not ban eCigs. I know they will. You know why? Cuz they're stupid. I may as well start smoking again as I have no choice. And I blame them and their stupidity. It's all their fault!!!!!!
Better?
If the FDA bans everything we're willing to use (I really don't think they'll ban prefilled sealed cartos) then we should have alternating vape-ins and smoke-ins, leaving as many butts on the ground as possible after smoke-ins, and cleaning up during vape-ins. Preferably by people in the middle of the crowd, by stealth, so they can't see us picking things up. But go ahead and LET them see us leaving stomped butts!
Overly sympathetic to the FDA not trying to ruin the e-cig industry.
Maybe if you truly believe the e-cig industry as we know it (probably not blu/Njoy cig-a-likes but e-liquids in bottles at high concentration/internet sales/choice in flavors) is not under existential threat from the FDA, then you may remain more naive than you wish to believe. Will the FDA destroy the industry for certain? No. Are they more likely to destroy it if we all remain quiet and complacent? Yes.
I also believe it is naive to read into the senator's boiler-plate ANY likelihood that he will take the OP's comments in mind. Note the absence of ANY acknowledgment that e-cigs may have different risk characteristics than cigarettes or that they may need to be considered in a different regulatory light.
Now, perhaps if we all get excited about the threat, and the senator and his cohorts receive hundreds of letters on the subject, they may actually begin to think about the comments when faced with legislation. As it is, with one letter, responded with boilerplate, I doubt the senator himself actually saw the OP's letter or even knows of it's existence.
Your approach is to counsel complacency - "everything is going to be fine - don't worry about it - don't get excited". That is counter productive to getting people involved in saving the industry and after reading numerous of you comments I question why you wish to convince people this is the correct approach.
I started a thread "What is dumb and true" because, as my pediatrician once pointed out, busy people are dumb by definition. (His exact quote was "Your children will always be smarter than you when they try to push your buttons because they don't have to pay the mortgage and memorize the doctor's phone numbers.")
So, reading the staffer's (lame) email, I would say let's take this to the next step.
1. Ask CASAA exactly WHAT we'd like to see in a bill to be introduced, since Congresscritters can not boss the FDA around by any other means. Also, WHEN. Do we need to ask for something now? Or wait?
2. Write a letter to your congresscritters saying we feel it is important to our individual health, our families, and to the national budget, to amend the Tobacco Control act to remove Harm Reduction products from FDA regulation, i.e. amend the bill to have them control COMBUSTIBLE tobacco products.
Also point out that we are worried that when the FDA reports to congress on their recent hearings, or on their past tests, that they bend the truth by omission. When a 5-year-old lies by omission, that is clever. When a defendant in court lies by omission, that is normal and proper. When an agency PAID by the citizens to protect our health tries to kill off XXXX people per year by omission, that is medical and regulatory malpractice, and this must be taken out of their hands.
(This last might be something to hold off on until we know if they are REALLY going to "deem" or not...I'd really like to see ECF members take guidance from CASAA!!! Is there any way to cross-post to the CASAA thread?)
Can be but doesn't have to be. It's in other nightshade family plants as well. Propylene glycol is used as an aircraft de-icing fluid. Should we get the FAA involved here?
Even when supported submissions in respect to the benefits of e-cigs are placed before them, they don't examine, but fall back into the comforts of the law books. The Senator's response is completely consistent with that of a lawyer, and the concerned public serving him vital information appears not to be his client.
John Boehner, Speaker of the House, reputedly vapes, at least some of the time. Maybe he'd join us.
But I don't think you can vape on federal property.
Last edited:
I agree with that but I also think it wouldn't hurt to contact your local newspaper and/or station and let them in on what's going down as well.
The news does not care most reporters get their stories from a few news papers. There is very little investigative journalism going on these days. I put very little faith in what you see on tv I try to get my information from independent sources they have to at least try to find the truth to be competitive.
I'm not saying that this was the case. But Many times the Content of a Letter dictates the response.
Say I write a letter to my State Senator or Representative.
First of all the chances of it being read by my Rep upon being opened are Zilch. It's going to be read be a Staffer. So to have any chance of getting it moved up the Food Chain there has to be some Meaningful and Relevant content that catches a Staffers attention.
Writing a "We have got to Save the ___________ !" letter (insert whatever cause you chose: Save the Vapers, Save the Children. Save the Ozone Layer. Save the etc.) isn't going to get much attention. There has to be content that can be Substantiated. Like Published Study Data. And there should be some form of a Financial Impact. Ie: Potential Increase in Tax Revenue vs. Cost of Implementation and Regulation Enforcement.
Taking the "Do what is Right Thing" slant with Elected Officials is the Wrong Approach. You have to approach them with the Two Concepts that drive Every Politician. Being able to Impose/Raise a Tax so they can Spend More. And getting them Reelected.
Say I write a letter to my State Senator or Representative.
First of all the chances of it being read by my Rep upon being opened are Zilch. It's going to be read be a Staffer. So to have any chance of getting it moved up the Food Chain there has to be some Meaningful and Relevant content that catches a Staffers attention.
Writing a "We have got to Save the ___________ !" letter (insert whatever cause you chose: Save the Vapers, Save the Children. Save the Ozone Layer. Save the etc.) isn't going to get much attention. There has to be content that can be Substantiated. Like Published Study Data. And there should be some form of a Financial Impact. Ie: Potential Increase in Tax Revenue vs. Cost of Implementation and Regulation Enforcement.
Taking the "Do what is Right Thing" slant with Elected Officials is the Wrong Approach. You have to approach them with the Two Concepts that drive Every Politician. Being able to Impose/Raise a Tax so they can Spend More. And getting them Reelected.
Last edited:
My spin - more reasonable approach to the issue. To me, it's like I'm in a Republican national convention surrounded by birthers who think I'm overly sympathetic to the kenyan born POTUS.
I'm not interested in remaining quiet and complacent, just not following the logic of hyped up emotion.
That's a decent point, but the key right now is whether eLiquid is a product derived from tobacco and what is current law / existing regulations in relation to that. Beyond that, most things eCig related are in a gray market until someone somewhere (could be anywhere, doesn't have to be FDA) decides to put their foot down and make authoritative decision regarding eCigs, and thus present it as less gray and more black and white.
To me, the issue is like if there was another drug within American discussion that was a) unpopular drug among the majority and b) was found in other forms than what is the commonly known form. Now ECF doesn't allow specific drugs to be mentioned, but to make the point I think matters - it is like the drug associated with Cheech and Chong if that were found in liquid form. Would that be distinct from the traditional form? Yes. Would it still likely be perceived by the majority as 'essentially the same?' I'd say yes. If there were law in effect that covered, 'products derived from a certain plant' - then I think no matter how gray the issue is for those who look closely at the matter, it'll be black and white for those who may otherwise be ignorant of specifics. While not a perfect analogy for several reasons, I think it is decent because of how well known the drug is and how much I believe the public perception is against the drug itself regardless of 'facts' that say otherwise. To me, it really really really doesn't help that there are ex-smokers who are also vapers who show up on eCig forums and are essentially putting down the tobacco product in its most common form. In fact, I think that sucks. And plays into the ignorance that we vapers are up against.
Or plausible that the senator is aware of eCigs, has received inquiries already on the matter, and with nothing much specific to deal with at the moment, feels the right thing to do is to present his/her stance, in a boilerplate way, on the Tobacco Act that he/she supported (or didn't support, as the case may be).
You misrepresent my position. Like me saying, your approach is to hype up emotions and rally others to ad hom attacks on opponents credibility rather than deal with the matter in a respectful tone. Yeah, that sounds about right from my more emotional side of things on this matter.
On this forum, I've suggested a petition to the White House that I think would garner more support than the one that is currently going on. I've also noted that when actual FDA deeming proposals are put forth, and if they are 'catastrophic' the the eCig industry, I am certain they'll reach 25K+ signatures within hours, not weeks.
To me, the more correct approach is done in 2 ways. One that I'd really like to see, but probably won't happen, and one that I think could happen, but hard to rally support for when in a room full of birthers.
The one I don't think will happen equals vapers going directly at Tobacco Act and addressing that, not just from eCig perspective, but from perspective of people who once did, perhaps still do, find enjoyment in tobacco (related) products. So, essentially getting on side of BT and going full steam ahead in addressing what is at core of Tobacco Act. As we are likely outnumbered by the majority of Americans and as some vapers are anti-smoking, I don't think this approach will occur. I think it is the best approach. I realize if I am to maintain sanity / balance, I can't put my eggs in this basket.
The other approach that could happen is to assert our position in pro-active way that deals with what we most desire with eCigs without coming off as reactionary. To put forth petition that speaks to free market and attest to why we feel that market is best, why it is working now and ought to continue to work going forward. Do this instead of making the rallying point around what the FDA (or others) may do that would lead us to believe we are being deprived of something we desperately need, otherwise we'll be 'forced to' do something negative and it is the boogeyman who caused that negativity to occur - i.e. FDA forced me to go back to smoking and I will die, ergo the FDA murdered me.
Be glad to address all this further, as desired, and keep calling me out on this and perhaps I'll get even more vocal about what I think is good approach, best approach, and immature approach to the issues at hand.
I apologize in advance if I am reading you wrong, but I have read many of you comments in various threads. The impression I get from you is basically the same as what I believe I would get from someone representing big tobacco.
- Downplaying concern over FDA regulation of vaping (i.e. don't get excited, they are not going to outright ban e-cigs)
- Support for restrictions that allow big tobacco to control vaping market
- Statements such as above that vapers on ecf shouldn't "put down" traditional cigarettes/smoking
- Criticisms of vaping retailers presenting vaping as a way to quit/cut down on smokes
- Encouraging people to support rather than dissuade non-smokers from starting vaping
Basically, big tobacco wants to protect their current business but would love to harness vaping community to help with the fight to ensure e-cigs aren't banned. At the same time they would love to channel the community away from protecting the essence of the current market (internet sales/liquid in bottles) so that in the end, they can dominate the vaping market.
-
Incorrect - I downplay claims that say FDA will outright ban / make illegal vaping. I'm 99% certain FDA will regulate vaping, what those regulations are exactly remains to be seen. If aligning them with Tobacco Act, and Tobacco Act is deemed, generally okay, among vapers - then not sure what the issue is among vapers other than, please don't include eCigs in with the Tobacco Act. Seems some vapers are totally cool with Tobacco Act as long as eCigs are not included.
Getting eCigs out of Tobacco Act might occur, could occur, I'm guessing it won't occur soon. If it did occur FDA would find another way to regulate the product and base it around 'nicotine is an addictive drug that children must never ever be allowed to have.'
Please cite comments from me that suggest this. I believe you are inferring this from my statements and would probably make some assertion along lines of, 'there's no other way to interpret what you're saying here.' So find the quotes where you think I'm saying that and I'll be glad to provide alternative interpretation in case you think there is no other way to look at it than the way you are thinking I must be asserting it.
I didn't say, vapers shouldn't do it. I observe some do. I think it sucks. I think it supports ANTZ in a twisted way.
I have this criticism, yes. But is within context of industry wanting 2 things that seem to work against each other. One is that eCigs are just like smoking, but better (safer, effective, etc.). And one that is saying eCigs are nothing like smoking and ought not to be included in same sentence as the former, especially if trying to tie it to Tobacco Act or other products that are regulated as smoking cessation tools, some of which might be prescribed by doctors.
I say if you (industry) want it to be distinct, then start with yourself and don't reference the other product, especially as the very very common perception for vaping is that the main reason we vapers do this is so we can ingest nicotine into our systems, which is the very very common perception of why smokers smoke. Is like ex-soda drinkers, who now despise soda, are drinking caffeinated coffee and on the distributor websites are making direct comparison to soda drinking. How coffee is safer, effective and fun! Hopefully all you out there that are against caffeine won't realize the big fat target that we just put on the caffeinated coffee drinking product. We dare you to try and ban us, right after we too agreed that drinking soda (that damn caffeine drink) is horrible for everyone and anyone.
I would encourage non-smokers who are earnestly interested in trying vaping because I think it is a rather harmless drug that doesn't have the catastrophic claims that others are convinced it has. I would likely have a discussion with such people, but discussions where I may learn something if I am being honest / open minded.
Let's say one thing FDA wants to do is regulate advertisements for vaping. This would mean that those who are currently against any and all possible regulations that FDA may put forth are, de facto, against this regulation. Well if the advertisement is out there for the general public, and it isn't being marketed as 'use this to quit smoking' - then it is plausible that a non-smoker could become someone who is earnestly interested in trying the product. The advertisement itself would be an encouragement. So, they go to a eCig forum. Some may already be here, and some of us (arguably a vast majority of) may already be encouraging those people. Regardless, the point is, would we knowingly encourage it if we knew they were non-smoker? I would because I have bought into the 'relatively harmless' claim for eCigs and feel there is enough anecdotal evidence all around to support this. Perhaps if there were more vapers who were bemoaning their own vaping desires, I'd have (slightly) different position on this. As we currently live in a world where vaping is treated by vast majority of users who find lots and lots of enjoyment and who are seemingly very healthy / bragging about own health, I think it is safe to encourage non-nicotine users to use this product.
As I've been in bed with tobacco before (so to speak), I don't mind if I am in bed with them now as I continue to exercise my desire to vape freely and enjoy what looks to be a very huge business in the upcoming months / years. That is, unless the anti-groups / player-hating people don't prevail.
! I'm going shopping.
I agree with a lot of what you say, except for a few key things...
1) If ecigs are regulated to the point of being useless, then anyone who has started vaping and using nicotine may be driven to cigarettes
2) We still do not know for certain that there is no long-term potential for harm from vaping, particularly the flavor components
I have said a number of times that I don't think nicotine is as addictive as the world believes it is.
And I have also said that I believe there may be people that are more prone to nicotine addiction than other people.
If somebody started vaping and DID become significantly addicted to nicotine, and then ecigs were taken away?
Clearly that would not be a good thing, right?
And if it were true that nicotine was not really all that addictive to anyone, and if I knew effective electronic cigarettes would always be available?
I still could not "encourage" anyone to use electronic cigarettes because of the unknown long-term effects.
Well, unless nicotine might have a health benefit (to a particular person) that could potentially outweigh those concerns.
Last edited:
In theory I would tend to agree. With current issue, I don't think 'taken away' is plausible. If nicotine were magically not found on this planet anywhere while people are still addicts, that would fit the theory of what you're getting at. If made illegal and enforced with punishment as hard as felonious crimes, perhaps then I could start to see it the way you are getting at. Something closer to misdemeanor and/or very light fine, and I think 'taken away' is just another matter of 'risk' involved for the user/addict.
Would this include fellow vapers?
What health benefit would outweigh unknown long-term effects, if that is in fact the ultimate point you are making with this?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
