Your optimistic about voting. There's too many other issues for vaping to rate. That's not saying a single issue voting block doesn't have power because that's not true. Somewhere in the mix we need to be able to make sure they follow through with what they say. Our AG Horn (R) stuck up for voting rights and less than a month later (I think it was a week) signed off on the AG's letter demanding more regulations. He got a lot of press standing out, then he was one of a crowd doing the opposite.
Please understand, I don't want to bash any side. I'm just attempting to be objective. Context is critical in figuring out motives, intentions, bedfellows. That's where there is some difference in the parties. It doesn't mean much in the long run but that's where strategy comes in. Dems have a history of caving to shock and awe. Republicans have a public and a private face.
You may be the first person to say I am optimistic about voting. I almost resent such a comment (as I am that pessimistic about voting). I think the letter is significant because it could open a debate up that is visible, just as the grandstanding by Dems last year was (made) visible. If anything were to occur in 2015, I'd want the letter to be pushed to point of debate on the (House) floor and have it so members are on record with what they really wish to put forth as public face on vaping. I'll be pleasantly surprised if there is one Dem (or more) that appears to be reasonable with vaping regulations moving forward. And I fully expect there to be some Pubs that are unreasonable when it comes to this matter, but do think Boehner a few others could raise a debate that would challenge people on predicate product stuff. Plus, there's a chance (albeit small) that it opens up debate on FSPTCA and remote possibility that someone, from somewhere claims eCigs ought to be exempt.
I hope your not serious about a leader. This is more of a crowd, grass roots movement and that's what it needs to be. A top down hierarchy is too easily torn down. Think of the way most "kids" (under 30) have been raised and the organizational system most infuential and it'll look more like a mesh, lateral organization / individual action. It does not fit within red vs. blue political systems. Vaping is not the only industry that's labeled "disruptive" before it has a chance to get off the ground and prove anything. I can read many of the same words, different faces and subjects in a number of different areas, and I sympathize because it narrows their futures down to a service industry, "don't think" position. Vaping is one more cog in the wheel.
I was serious about leadership. As far as it relates to coordinated efforts. Whoever takes on that responsibility will be looked at (by us and them) as some sort of leader. CASAA stands only chance that I see for making that happen. Everyone else could make it work to some degree, but would be ripped apart (by them mostly) in the process. And as we seem to have some of 'them' within our ranks, it would also appear like we don't think this person is a good coordinator. Probably doesn't even vape. Some of us will surely call that person ANTZ.
Grassroots is great. I'd prefer that as I'm okay with long term strategizing. I'm okay with black market where true grassroots people will NOT give up the fight.
IMHO, vaping is a really big deal politically as it encapsulates a few other (much bigger) issues. But because it is relegated to "just like smoking," it is easy to be dismissive about it unless you are politically aware vaper. I get why the general public is not all that aware of what vaping is, much less the politics involved. Seems 98% of society (worldwide) is entirely brainwashed on the smoking topic, so why (from that perspective) even be a little concerned about vaping. I count on vaping dangers to go up in what's reported. Predicted this back in 2011 and thus far I feel spot on. I think there is more to come and that if it does go like smoking has, it'll get a lot worse before it gets a little better. Therefore the Boehner letter is really our best chance for legitimate advancement given the troubled road ahead.
We have time. I think we both know that in the back of many vapors' minds, the possiblity of having supplies cut off is real. I'm sure there are those day dreaming of how to deal with it such that if that ever were to happen, it'd get handled. But it's not there yet so we can't get lazy either.
This needs to be fought on all fronts, networked and moving together as one. That IMO is their worst fear.
Grassroots makes it very challenging, if not impossible, to move together as one. There is much disagreement, I observe, on what is core to who we are. I see vaping as recreational alternative. Others are hung up on the THR claim as the core to what we are up to. I see that as okay and workable, but not what we ought to be hanging our hat on. It concedes way too much to opposition, telling them "you were absolutely right about smoking risks" and then attempts to argue "but you are absolutely wrong about vaping risks." As I said, the reports on 'vaping risks' will get worst and if recent issues are any indication on how things look going forward, we'll have many vapers (of the politically aware variety) who will be calling forth regulations based on these reports. I cite diketones as prime example of what I speak of. I bring all this up because 'moving together as one' strikes me as pipe dreaming. Makes me want to re-ask the question on leadership and if that is downplayed, then wondering how grassroots can all be on same page when it is plausible that we have ANTZ within us, within our ranks?
