response from Senator Dianne Feinstein

[Jman8]

My apologies for getting back on topic, but I don't see this as a partisan issue.

Senator said: "Nicotine is a highly addictive and dangerous drug"

I see this as partially what we (vapers, nic users) are up against. The 'highly addictive' argument isn't one we will win on anytime soon, as vast majority buy into notion that nicotine is fairly to highly addictive. But the dangerous one is I think critical in going forward. I'm under impression that many, or at least some, vapers think of nicotine as dangerous. I see it as relatively harmless. I understand it from a medical viewpoint to be a vasoconstrictor, but every drug (that I've ever heard of) has its side effect and this would be it for nicotine. Dangerous though? I have very very tough time understanding how that conclusion is reached.

Senator said: "public health groups have expressed concern that e-cigarettes may be marketed to children"

IMO, this is what we are mostly up against. Here on vaping forum, I feel like anything I say is preaching to the choir. I simply don't see the product as ever marketed to children, and instead see the opposite all the time. Yet, if 'they' can nail the vaping community on this one with grand distortion of facts (in how it is marketed), then vaping as a product will be short lived. I continue to believe this is the #1 issue for all vapers to be most concerned about. But I realize not all vapers would put this at #1.

Senator said: "there is a lack of research about the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes as smoking cessation aids and about the safety of these products, some of which have been found to contain traces of toxic chemicals."

As I understand current politics of vaping, this one is treated as #1 issue. I continue to think that any vaper / vendor hyping it up as cessation aid is overplaying a hand that doesn't even need to be played. It is an alternative and not a substitute to smoking. Yet, because smokers who have smoked for 20+ years are able to quit, rather easily, via vaping, this is likely to be #1 selling and talking point. Fortunately, as more time goes by, the notion of "lack of research" becomes outdated. And "traces of toxic chemicals" is laughable to anyone that does a minute amount of research. But if you don't do that tiny amount of research, I can see how it would scare general public to think vapers are into ingesting toxic chemicals and seemingly don't care as all that matters is getting their nic fix. Again you have to do no research, and thus maintain blissful ignorance, for this position to hold any water.

IMO, it is not one side of the political aisle that holds these views, but instead is closer to mass perception on nicotine products and those who enjoy them / sell them. I think we waste time treating this as a partisan issue, when there are countless people, some right here on this forum that see nicotine as dangerously addictive and can't imagine vaping being used in any other way than to try and stop smoking.

 

[SissySpike]

My apologies for getting back on topic, but I don't see this as a partisan issue.

Senator said: "Nicotine is a highly addictive and dangerous drug"

I see this as partially what we (vapers, nic users) are up against. The 'highly addictive' argument isn't one we will win on anytime soon, as vast majority buy into notion that nicotine is fairly to highly addictive. But the dangerous one is I think critical in going forward. I'm under impression that many, or at least some, vapers think of nicotine as dangerous. I see it as relatively harmless. I understand it from a medical viewpoint to be a vasoconstrictor, but every drug (that I've ever heard of) has its side effect and this would be it for nicotine. Dangerous though? I have very very tough time understanding how that conclusion is reached.

Senator said: "public health groups have expressed concern that e-cigarettes may be marketed to children"

IMO, this is what we are mostly up against. Here on vaping forum, I feel like anything I say is preaching to the choir. I simply don't see the product as ever marketed to children, and instead see the opposite all the time. Yet, if 'they' can nail the vaping community on this one with grand distortion of facts (in how it is marketed), then vaping as a product will be short lived. I continue to believe this is the #1 issue for all vapers to be most concerned about. But I realize not all vapers would put this at #1.

Senator said: "there is a lack of research about the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes as smoking cessation aids and about the safety of these products, some of which have been found to contain traces of toxic chemicals."

As I understand current politics of vaping, this one is treated as #1 issue. I continue to think that any vaper / vendor hyping it up as cessation aid is overplaying a hand that doesn't even need to be played. It is an alternative and not a substitute to smoking. Yet, because smokers who have smoked for 20+ years are able to quit, rather easily, via vaping, this is likely to be #1 selling and talking point. Fortunately, as more time goes by, the notion of "lack of research" becomes outdated. And "traces of toxic chemicals" is laughable to anyone that does a minute amount of research. But if you don't do that tiny amount of research, I can see how it would scare general public to think vapers are into ingesting toxic chemicals and seemingly don't care as all that matters is getting their nic fix. Again you have to do no research, and thus maintain blissful ignorance, for this position to hold any water.

IMO, it is not one side of the political aisle that holds these views, but instead is closer to mass perception on nicotine products and those who enjoy them / sell them. I think we waste time treating this as a partisan issue, when there are countless people, some right here on this forum that see nicotine as dangerously addictive and can't imagine vaping being used in any other way than to try and stop smoking.

Its not polite to rerail a derailed thread!

 

[Stosh]

Better time spent following this thread's instructions.....

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/501859-fda-twitter-bomb-tonight-monday-dec-10th-fda-tomorrow-morning.html#post11528956

 

[LDS714]

My apologies for getting back on topic, but I don't see this as a partisan issue.

...snip...

...laughable to anyone that does a minute amount of research...

Yet many here don't do research beyond the party that a particular lying thief (a.k.a. politician, "public servant" etc.) belongs to, and they're chomping at the bit to use the 'your guy sucks more' defense.

Senator said: "there is a lack of research about the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes as smoking cessation aids and about the safety of these products, some of which have been found to contain traces of toxic chemicals."

From one of the same pack of lying thieves who heartily backed the concept of "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

Consistency - it's a beautiful thing, isn't it? They're definitely consistent. When it comes to lining their pockets, whether it be from insurance companies, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, or just straight out of your pocket.

But it's OK. Someone may be offended if they see one of us exhaling vapor. And it's for the children...

 

[zoiDman]

Its not polite to rerail a derailed thread!

I Blew RC Cola thru my Nose when I Read This.

LOL

 

[Blueeddie1]

sniff sniff
I smell canned response.

Preprinted, & e-inked by an intern (insert joke here) for the senators convenience I'm sure. >.<

E

 

[EddardinWinter]

I Blew RC Cola thru my Nose when I Read This.

LOL

What did you do with the moon pie?



Tapped out

 

[EddardinWinter]

Here is the link to the suggested response.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/blogs/eddardinwinter/5183-letter-senator.html

Feel free to edit your version. Copy and paste it as you like.

This was only my idea of a response that is not too long, cites a few studies, and answers what I viewed as the most egregious assertions that are patently false.

 

[kristin]

Not even close. Harm Reduction and "liberal" are as far apart as the moon is to earth. The other side of the aisle isn't jumping up and down in support, but at least they are not standing in opposition.

Actually, harm reduction traditionally IS a liberal domain. Clean needles for addicts and condoms for "safe sex" are ideas that were usually backed by liberals rather than conservatives. Same with anti-smokng efforts.

That's why it was such a shock to see so many Democrat politicians putting forth anti-ecigarette ordinances and legislation. We thought certainly those who supported other harm reduction policies would "get" how incredible ecigs would be. Unfortunately, the ALA, ACS and Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids got to them first and convinced them that ecigs are just another insidious Big Tobacco product, that all nicotine/tobacco use is equally hazardous and that ecigs weren't "harm reduction" but straight-up "harm."

CASAA members don't make this a partisan issue, the ANTZ did that when they convinced so many Democrat politicians to oppose tobacco harm reduction policies and to try banning e-cigarettes.

As far as people not supporting CASAA because a few people who volunteer express strong political opinions - I doubt a CASAA policy denying members their First Amendment rights would endear CASAA to too many vapers, either. What a few members say on a public forum has nothing to do with CASAA official policy. CASAA does not tell members what political views they should have or who to vote for. If we started kicking out members because of their opinions, where does it stop? Do we also kick people out for expressing views on other controversial issues like abortion, health care and guns? I don't think so. So not supporting CASAA because of a few vocal members seems kind of silly when CASAA has no way to control or stop individual opinions. Nor should CADAA want to. That would make ME not support CASAA then. CASAA isn't the ALA or ACS after all.

 

[wv2win]

Good point, kristin. I was focused solely on harm reduction in relation to vaping.

 

[zoiDman]

What did you do with the moon pie?



Tapped out

I'm not overly crazy about Jerry Brown.

But he is someone who I do have a level of Respect for. Grad of Berkley. Juris Doctor from Yale. A LONG history of Public Service. By all means, a Career Politician.

Jerry Brown is what I would call an Old School Politician. Someone who knows that if he wants to get something he needs to Concede something to the Other Side. Jerry Brown understands that there has to be some Give-n-Take to get things down.

Unfortunately, people of his Era have become all but Extinct.

In todays Political Environment, Compromise and Concession are seen as Weakness. It's All or Nothing. We either get what we Want or the Other side gets Nothing. It's why Nothing can get Done. And why we are stuck in Grid-Lock.

I think Brown could have been a Decent/Good Governor of California, Again. But it's his Own Party that is holding him back. Brown is willing to reach out to Republicans. And he can meet in the Middle. He knows how to Strike a Deal. But the Democrats in the Senate will not allow this to happen.

I vote Republican. But given the Choice of Meg or Moon Beam, I think California had a Better chance of moving forward with Brown in Office. If Brown was going to have a Big Problems get California back on track, which he Did/Does, I saw Little hope for Meg who was an Outsider and had No Experience in the Political Arena and who has Never held an Elected Office.

 

[Caridwen]

Actually, harm reduction traditionally IS a liberal domain. Clean needles for addicts and condoms for "safe sex" are ideas that were usually backed by liberals rather than conservatives. Same with anti-smokng efforts.

That's why it was such a shock to see so many Democrat politicians putting forth anti-ecigarette ordinances and legislation. We thought certsinly those who supported other harm reduction policies would "get" how incredible ecigs would be. Unfortunately, the ALA, ACS and Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids got to them first and convinced them that ecigs are just another insidious Big Tobacco product, that all nicotine/tobacco use is equally hazardous and that ecigs weren't "harm reduction" but straight-up "harm."

CASAA members don't make this a partisan issue, the ANTZ did that when they convinced so many Democrat politicians to oppose tobacco harm reduction policies and to try banning e-cigarettes.

As far as people not supporting CASAA because a few people who volunteer express strong political opinions - I doubt a CASAA policy denying members their First Amendment rights would endear CASAA to too many vapers, either. What a few members say on a public forum has nothing to do with CASAA official policy. CASAA does not tell members what political views they should have or who to vote for. If we started kicking out members because of their opinions, where does it stop? Do we also kick people out for expressing views on other controversial issues like abortion, health care and guns? I don't think so. So not supporting CASAA because of a few vocal members seems kind of silly when CASAA has no way to control or stop individual opinions. Nor should CADAA want to. That would make ME not support CASAA then. CASAA isn't the ALA or ACS after all.

It's not that some express their political views, but some do so in an insulting and demeaning manner that may turn off many that might otherwise get involved.

Our numbers aren't all that large. There should be ways to express your views without turning off a large percentage of people that may otherwise be involved. Call me crazy, but people tend to not want to sign up be involved if they're called idiots for their views. We're all on the same page as far as vaping and people should be mindful of that before posting. I've never seen a breakdown of the demographics of smokers but I imagine it's probably about 50/50- almost the same as repub/dems are about 50/50.

Just be mindful of that before people make their little zings.

 

[EddardinWinter]

I'm not overly crazy about Jerry Brown.

But he is someone who I do have a level of Respect for. Grad of Berkley. Juris Doctor from Yale. A LONG history of Public Service. By all means, a Career Politician.

Jerry Brown is what I would call an Old School Politician. Someone who knows that if he wants to get something he needs to Concede something to the Other Side. Jerry Brown understands that there has to be some Give-n-Take to get things down.

Unfortunately, people of his Era have become all but Extinct.

In todays Political Environment, Compromise and Concession are seen as Weakness. It's All or Nothing. We either get what we Want or the Other side gets Nothing. It's why Nothing can get Done. And why we are stuck in Grid-Lock.

I think Brown could have been a Decent/Good Governor of California, Again. But it's his Own Party that is holding him back. Brown is willing to reach out to Republicans. And he can meet in the Middle. He knows how to Strike a Deal. But the Democrats in the Senate will not allow this to happen.

I vote Republican. But given the Choice of Meg or Moon Beam, I think California had a Better chance of moving forward with Brown in Office. If Brown was going to have a Big Problems get California back on track, which he Did/Does, I saw Little hope for Meg who was an Outsider and had No Experience in the Political Arena and who has Never held an Elected Office.

Um, that was a reference to the song R C Cola & Moon Pie by Andy King. I have no idea of what is going on in California politics.

 

[zoiDman]

Um, that was a reference to the song R C Cola & Moon Pie by Andy King. I have no idea of what is going on in California politics.

Ooops...

I guess I saw "Moon Beam' instead of "Moon Pie".

"Brown proposed the establishment of a state space academy and the purchasing of a satellite that would be launched into orbit to provide emergency communications for the state—a proposal similar to one that was indeed eventually adopted. In 1979, an out-of-state columnist, Mike Royko, at the Chicago Sun-Times, picked up on the nickname from Brown's girlfriend at the time, Linda Ronstadt, who was quoted in a 1978 Rolling Stone magazine interview humorously calling him "Moonbeam"."

 

[zoiDman]

It's not that some express their political views, but some do so in an insulting and demeaning manner that may turn off many that might otherwise get involved.

...

I'm not going to speak for Anyone but myself. But to me, it has Nothing to do with Political Views.

What I have (have had) a problem with is a certain ECF member who Rams Joining CASAA down people's throat's. Making it sound as if a ECF Member is not a Member of CASAA that they are not doing there part. And are in fact, the Problem.

I believe that the Member is Sincere about their Motivations for people Joining CASAA. But Shaming people into joining any Organization is a Bad Practice.

I personally do not agree 100% with some of the Official Views or Positions that CASAA takes. But then again, I don't agree 100% with ANY Organizations Views or Position. The world just Isn't Black or White.

But I do Agree with the Overall Direction the CASAA takes regarding the Fair Use of e-Cigarettes. And I have a High Level of Respect for the Tireless effort of Many of the Active CASAA members.


The View of One Individual does Not, in my mind, Tarnish the Hard work that CASAA has done on behalf of All e-Cigarette user's.

 

[Racehorse]

Someone who knows that if he wants to get something he needs to Concede something to the Other Side. Jerry Brown understands that there has to be some Give-n-Take to get things down.

Unfortunately, people of his Era have become all but Extinct.

In todays Political Environment, Compromise and Concession are seen as Weakness. It's All or Nothing. We either get what we Want or the Other side gets Nothing. It's why Nothing can get Done.

You hit the nail on the head. This is what every effective negotiator (whether they make their living as CEOs, great courtroom trial attorneys, politiicans, or simply the HOA at a gated community) knows.

It's "Negotiating 101 for logical balanced human beings who are able to use critical thinking skills and live in a world with other human beings in it and hammer out a simple agreement, where everyone gives up something to get part of what they want."

For me that has always been called "REALITY" but ymmv

 

[zoiDman]

You hit the nail on the head. This is what every effective negotiator (whether they make their living as CEOs, great courtroom trial attorneys, politiicans, or simply the HOA at a gated community) knows.

It's "Negotiating 101 for logical balanced human beings who are able to use critical thinking skills and live in a world with other human beings in it and hammer out a simple agreement, where everyone gives up something to get part of what they want."

For me that has always been called "REALITY" but ymmv

It's a Shame that you are not in the State or Federal Senate.

Because we Need some people who Understand and Think the way you do. Without Compromise, NOTHING is Really going to get done.

 

[kristin]

It's not that some express their political views, but some do so in an insulting and demeaning manner that may turn off many that might otherwise get involved.

l do understand that, but I still don't understand not getting involved, though. We are talking about ECF members who also happen to be CASAA supporters. What is CASAA supposed to do about them, so people insulted by just a couple of members (out of 8,300) will still want to get involved in helping themselves? CASAA doesn't have any control over members other than when they are representing CASAA official policy and membership is completely voluntary.

It's kind of like a WWII veteran boycotting the Honor Flight Network, because a couple of fellow vets who support that organization are rude to them on a vets forum. Seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

There are a lot of CASAA members (and even one board director), who are on polar opposites of myself politically and I strongly disagree with their views and opinions, but that isn't going to make me stop supporting CASAA's mission. The two are completely separate, in my view.

 

[Caridwen]

I'm not blaming CASAA. I'm just reminding members to realize that while we have the same goals we come from all walks of life and try to be respectful when posting.

I hardly think it's fair to blame the person being insulted, rather remind those that may be insulting to keep it in mind that you may be doing more harm than good.

 

[diggyb]

I got lost somewhere, maybe.

I don't think anyone was saying "DON'T JOIN" - just a couple of us saying that some people don't make the proposition attractive.

It is less about CASAA, and more about the tone in the forum at times, I think.