I disagree with Bill's comments about Dems. I think that's why they aren't in the loop is that no one is talking to them. From what I can tell, this issue isn't even close to being on the map. There are a handful that seem to think they can get some positive attention from grandstanding which is the way most politicans get elected, on both sides. But it's not a party issue / or taking point. Individually, they'd probably back off pretty quick ("spineless"?).
Response to Whitehouse.gov Petition
- Thread starter aikanae1
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
What were the motives of the GOP gov.s who have called for taxes (Christie, Kasich?). Or Snyder (MI) who wanted the simple minor ban to refer to "tobacco products?".
What are the motives of the nat'l Dems who are/were making such a fuss? I previously thought (and said) that this was to get nat'l legislation, but Bill's theory about putting pressure on the FDA turned out to be right.
What are Dayton's (MN) motives for stopping an indoor/outdoor vaping ban? (I hear a rumor that he saw data indicating that more smokers in MN are Dems.)
Unfortunately, if money matters, it seems that all the deep pockets are against us.
I'm going for all the liberal-or-not dems who do NOT keep signing that weird ANTZ bs. I'd rather those 6 or 8 felt lonely. But I might be wrong.
Other than they won't feel lonely since it's not a party issue. It's individual. They'd abandon the position if enough pressure was put on them. THR is way, way, way on the back pages as an issue. But HR is accepted for all other addictions and supported by Dem's.
I think the right has grabbed hold of it to grandstand civil liberties and "bigger gov't" (as if this isn't an example of "smaller gov't" gone wrong, i.e. lead by corporations). Ah well...
I still think the TPP chapter on tobacco is leading the end game. To my knowledge, that chapter has not been leaked. I looked for it. The most I could find was that it definitely existed and of course, tobacco and pharmaceuticals companies helped draft it. But it eliminates domestic sovereignty in areas = so many countries changing tobacco regulations at once. US courts fully support int'l trade agreement over domestic law.
Yup, the real divide is between the money/power vs most of us, and not with each other. I think that's critical to keep in mind. I would base everything on that core concept. I don't think anyone care what color that is.
I think the right has grabbed hold of it to grandstand civil liberties and "bigger gov't" (as if this isn't an example of "smaller gov't" gone wrong, i.e. lead by corporations). Ah well...
I still think the TPP chapter on tobacco is leading the end game. To my knowledge, that chapter has not been leaked. I looked for it. The most I could find was that it definitely existed and of course, tobacco and pharmaceuticals companies helped draft it. But it eliminates domestic sovereignty in areas = so many countries changing tobacco regulations at once. US courts fully support int'l trade agreement over domestic law.
Yup, the real divide is between the money/power vs most of us, and not with each other. I think that's critical to keep in mind. I would base everything on that core concept. I don't think anyone care what color that is.
Last edited:
Other than they won't feel lonely since it's not a party issue. It's individual. They'd abandon the position if enough pressure was put on them. THR is way, way, way on the back pages as an issue. But HR is accepted for all other addictions and supported by Dem's.
I think the right has grabbed hold of it to grandstand civil liberties and "bigger gov't" (as if this isn't an example of "smaller gov't" gone wrong, i.e. lead by corporations). Ah well...
I still think the TPP chapter on tobacco is leading the end game. To my knowledge, that chapter has not been leaked. I looked for it. The most I could find was that it definitely existed and of course, tobacco and pharmaceuticals companies helped draft it. But it eliminates domestic sovereignty in areas = so many countries changing tobacco regulations at once. US courts fully support int'l trade agreement over domestic law.
Yup, the real divide is between the money/power vs most of us, and not with each other. I think that's critical to keep in mind. I would base everything on that core concept. I don't think anyone care what color that is.
IMO the right has grabbed hold of it because the Left handed it to them on a silver platter with a red bow. But I see your point that they are almost-certainly misreading their support base, because the ANTZ and the media are misrepresenting EVERYTHING. So we do need to contact them with a clue-by-4.
Well, Dem's aren't known for brains when it comes to messaging, that's for sure. I mean, "public option" - really? 
I think it was Frank Zappa who said, "it's hard to believe a party could be so stupid". No arguement from me.
Still, I'd rather work with a party that was awkward but responsive, chaotic and messy than work with one focused on straight ideological policy that is unwavering for generations. I see the greatest distance between what they say vs what they actually do on the right. Economic junk = leaves only one party and it's not their's.
And the truth is I don't feel either party is representative. I'm afraid that may get worse. It's strange, when I talk to people on either side of the aisle, they all tend to want the same things. I don't hear a divide. I think that might be D.C.'s / lobbyists' worst nightmare if people realized they agree on some big stuff.
I was told by others on DU that vaping wasn't discussed because it's not an issue. Vaping is a small "support forum" and that's it. They aren't an arm for the party but I have seen them used as a think tank. I've been hanging out here too much to pay very close attention.
I think it was Frank Zappa who said, "it's hard to believe a party could be so stupid". No arguement from me. Still, I'd rather work with a party that was awkward but responsive, chaotic and messy than work with one focused on straight ideological policy that is unwavering for generations. I see the greatest distance between what they say vs what they actually do on the right. Economic junk = leaves only one party and it's not their's.
And the truth is I don't feel either party is representative. I'm afraid that may get worse. It's strange, when I talk to people on either side of the aisle, they all tend to want the same things. I don't hear a divide. I think that might be D.C.'s / lobbyists' worst nightmare if people realized they agree on some big stuff.
I was told by others on DU that vaping wasn't discussed because it's not an issue. Vaping is a small "support forum" and that's it. They aren't an arm for the party but I have seen them used as a think tank. I've been hanging out here too much to pay very close attention.
Last edited:
Sorry. I was trashing MY OWN side. I forget that can be misinterpreted.
That was more of a general statement than pointed at anyone in specific. I am really seeing alot of fracturing in so many threads and we just can't afford to let that happen to our community.
I'm so out of the loop with all of this and I wish I weren't. I keep seeing that we only have one comment to the FDA, so once I've carefully constructed my comment, where/who do I send it? I'm utterly lost and in a bit of shock as to what to do. I got sucked back into analogues and only recently switched back to vaping and man have things changed since 2010... This is a mess.
Please wait until CASAA issues their Call to Action.
I spend all my elevator and commuting time composing 2 things: 1. Things I can say that will be in line with what I think CASAA might recommend. 2. Things I'd like to say. Unprintable.
The actual comments will probably have to be tailored to the 79 questions the FDA asks for comments on in their proposed deeming, or else we won't be able to hold them accountable for not listening.
Hang in there. CASAA is working on a format and from what I understand, the wrong approach will just get ignored by them. I too am anxious to respond, but I don't want to until I know a valid game plan.
I've been reaching out like nobody's business inside California. But they are so busy patting each other on the back they forget that they are probably not gaining ONE SINGLE VOTE with this nonsense. I do have to give credit to one assemblyman who at least listened to us enough to make them put both sides of the argument into the legislative analysis for SB648.
I agree it's time to reach out at the federal level. CASAA always said that Deeming Doomsday was the time we'd have something to say to federal lawmakers that was not just our own (fully justified!) speculation. In a word, we needed a piece of paper to object to.
Now we have it. It's scary, it's a bummer, but, as someone said last night on Vapor Joe's, the good news is we now have a piece of paper to point to, time to organize.
I got my non-smoking, non-vaping, brother to join CASAA.
AND...time to look for other enemies the FDA has made or is making. Craft brewers. Organic farmers.
AND...the one thing (besides "Vapers Rule!") that left and right appear to agree on is that we need a constitutional amendment that only people are people.
AND somehow we need to get those not, to date, interested in this side of vaping to step up and join the battle.
I have a question. I just went back to my email--not sure why.
When I first got it, there were three links for responses:
The first two (purple) links were clickable when I got the email--now they are dead. Error. Anybody knows why? And are (were) they the same?
The third link, blue above, asks to leave a comment about the response--there is a box for comment there. Should we respond to both? All three? What comment should we leave about the response (the blue link).
Since we're only allowed one response, I don't want to mess it up. Help!
I'm so confused.
When I first got it, there were three links for responses:
The first two (purple) links were clickable when I got the email--now they are dead. Error. Anybody knows why? And are (were) they the same?
The third link, blue above, asks to leave a comment about the response--there is a box for comment there. Should we respond to both? All three? What comment should we leave about the response (the blue link).
Since we're only allowed one response, I don't want to mess it up. Help!
I'm so confused.
I have a question. I just went back to my email--not sure why.
When I first got it, there were three links for responses:
The first two (purple) links were clickable when I got the email--now they are dead. Error. Anybody knows why? And are (were) they the same?
The third link, blue above, asks to leave a comment about the response--there is a box for comment there. Should we respond to both? All three? What comment should we leave about the response (the blue link).
Since we're only allowed one response, I don't want to mess it up. Help!
I'm so confused.
I'd ignore the email. Anything legitimate will also be on the casaa.org site. It is possible to make a link that looks like one thing and is another. For instance, the link could lead to your only chance of FDA comment instead of a place to comment on We The People. Or it could link to a key logger and steal your bank account. BE CAREFUL WITH EMAIL. Mouse over links to see where they really go. Or read who the email SUPPOSEDLY came from and go to their web site by hand-typing the URL you KNOW is legitimate and see what's really there.
I didn't sign the original petition, it didn't seem like it was "enough" so I didn't get the email with the clickable links. I have, however, clicked on links to all of those that are being posted all around different subforums on ECF.
So, if I've clicked the links, and not knowing that they are/were/ could be fake, I have to sweep my pc now for keyloggers or whatever? *sigh*
Probably not because it looks like this email is legit, I got a letter from the O.P.
I don't know how your computer handles links from email, it might be different than links online.
HOWEVER, even though this probably DID come from the Federal Gov't, remember the White House gave the petitions to Mitch Zeller of the FDA to answer. It is in the FDA's interest for us to click the links and use up our comment BEFORE casaa is done giving us guidance.
As far as giving feedback to what we think of that response to We The People, I have no idea if it would do any harm, or if it would do any good.
For the actual FDA comment, please wait for casaa.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
