SE, NJoy vs FDA -- Discussion

[Poeia]

I guess we should close Applebee's, because we can't have kids seeing young adults happily chugging their beer, either.

Plus they have potatoes and tomatoes on the menu. Someone eating those nicotine-containing foods might exhale and expose others in the restaurant to that dangerous drug.

 

[JerryRM]

That could apply to many things that children should not use. Perhaps people should not be allowed to use power tools, where children can see them. Perhaps people should not use cleaning products, where children can see them, etc.

The vaping community does not encourage anyone who doesn't smoke, to start vaping. We agree completely with making it illegal for minors to purchase them. No one under 18 is allowed to join this forum.

Those who are offended by the sight of me vaping, however, can go to blazes, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Big Sheepherder]

They should outlaw all Applebees. Their food sucks! Seriously, the country won't even break into a debate sweat over outlawing most public vaping, or bother looking back either, our little support group notwithstanding. Folks, this stuff does not involve a suspect classification or a fundamental right. Get it? If you still don't, here are a couple more quick and dirty primers: see Suspect classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. See also Fundamental rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[JerryRM]

They will, if we make them aware that it doesn't stop with vaping. Already the movement is on against "junk food". Pretty soon, the government will be dictating what we eat, what we drink, what we wear, maybe even what we say and what we think. You seem to have a defeatist attitude about the legal future of vaping. Maybe we will lose, but maybe we won't.

I have always been one to tilt at windmills, I'm not going to stop now.

 

[JerryRM]

This thread is going off track, so I am going to back out of the argument now and get back to the docket watch.

 

[CES]

Jerry, A potential side benefit for the thread going so far afield is an increase in donations to CASAA - I know I finally donated again.

Thanks in advance Julie.

 

[curiousJan]

Some would argue your right to vape in public ends where my kid's eyes begin. Forewarned is forearmed. Be circumspect about your vaping practices.

No, actually you have the right to take your child(ren) somewhere where they won't be exposed to the things that you find questionable. What parents expose their children to is entirely in their purview ... has nothing to do with my right to a healthier alternative to combustible tobacco.

Jan

 

[kristin]

Thanks CES!

Hey - I really like your banner's short and to the point message! Can I steal the idea for one of the CASAA videos for the PSA campaign?

YouTube - CASAAmedia's Channel

Jerry, A potential side benefit for the thread going so far afield is an increase in donations to CASAA - I know I finally donated again.

Thanks in advance Julie.

 

[kristin]

Exactly Jan. Should they ban R-rated movies because a kid might see it? Or the 5 o'clock news, for that matter?? Don't take away my right to use a prefectly LEGAL substance because you can't teach your kid YOUR values.

Meanwhile, I'm watching my college-age son being brainwashed by liberals in Wisconsin into supporting the government union protests, because he doesn't get that the tax rate I'm paying for those unions is one reason why I had to take money out of my 401k rollover (which was once worth $15k and is now worth $6k after 20 years) to pay his tuition!

I was a born liberal Democrat (my mom still is) and the more I watch my freedoms and my livelihood taken away to support someone else's lifestyle and morals, the more conservative I'm becoming!

No, actually you have the right to take your child(ren) somewhere where they won't be exposed to the things that you find questionable. What parents expose their children to is entirely in their purview ... has nothing to do with my right to a healthier alternative to combustible tobacco.

Jan

 

[CES]

Thanks CES!

Hey - I really like your banner's short and to the point message! Can I steal the idea for one of the CASAA videos for the PSA campaign?

YouTube - CASAAmedia's Channel

Of course...i stole the concept from an old editorial cartoon about banning saccharine vs guns...here's a link to a higher resolution version if you want it. http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/cestrang/doyouknowwhichonebannercopy.jpg

 

[Vocalek]

Some would argue your right to vape in public ends where my kid's eyes begin. Forewarned is forearmed. Be circumspect about your vaping practices.

Here's a novel idea: Parents who teach their children what the rules are and monitor their children's actions for signs of drinking, smoking, taking drugs, cheating, lying, or having sex -- instead of outlawing selected things that might prove to be a temptation for the kiddies.

Kristin is right. If we hip young 40-to-70 year olds must hide our vaping from the kids, what's next? Outlaw root-beer because it has foam on it, and models the unhealthy and immoral practice of beer-drinking. Start censoring all the movies and TV shows to go back to the standards they upheld in the 1950s. Ozzie and Harriet, Dezi and Lucy, and most other TV married couples had twin beds in the master bedroom.

 

[Big Sheepherder]

You're extremely unlikely to win the public debate (except among yourselves on this forum) with statements of this nature: "What parents expose their children to is entirely in their purview ... has nothing to do with my right to a healthier alternative to combustible tobacco." I am not even going to begin to tell you how high-schoolish that sounds to folks charged with minding public policy, to saavy local politicians and to the courts. So, yes, please contribute to your spokespersons to handle this for you. Again, to get an idea by contrast of how weak your footing is under the law, see Suspect classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Fundamental rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Laws in this area involve neither suspect classifications nor fundamental rights, to your chagrin.

 

[Nightseer]

Yes, god forbid parents should actually parent. Didn't you know it's all up to government regulation????

Frankly, I AM a soccer mom. And I still disagree with you.........as do many mothers I know who are truly sick of the government telling them how to raise their children. And you know what? They don't even smoke, much less vape.

You're extremely unlikely to win the public debate (except among yourselves on this forum) with statements of this nature: "What parents expose their children to is entirely in their purview ... has nothing to do with my right to a healthier alternative to combustible tobacco." I am not even going to begin to tell you how high-schoolish that sounds to folks charged with minding public policy, to saavy local politicians and to the courts. So, yes, please contribute to your spokespersons to handle this for you. Again, to get an idea by contrast of how weak your footing is under the law, see Suspect classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Fundamental rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Laws in this area involve neither suspect classifications nor fundamental rights, to your chagrin.

 

[ScottB]

You're extremely unlikely to win the public debate... ...Again, to get an idea by contrast of how weak your footing is under the law... ...Laws in this area involve neither suspect classifications nor fundamental rights, to your chagrin.

*sigh*... You’re (sadly) probably correct. In the end, we will need to win legal arguments as opposed to practical arguments. And that is the shame of it. Litigiousness, with its associated corruption, has become self perpetuating at the expense of reality.

Ignore for a moment the lack of definitive study (& your inability to blink in time) and assume that our vapor is indeed harmless to non-using bystanders. All of the practical pro-vaping arguments offered here win… in any forest. You’re left with your “soccer-mom”-as-an-ineffective-parent argument, along with your blanket statement that it’s better to not be an addict. Neither is a persuasive practical argument & neither should have any weight legally.

We are caught in a no-win paradox. Lacking definitive data (only the passage of time will allow it), we’re apparently sufficient in (potential) numbers to necessitate legislation, but insufficient in numbers to sway our litigious “leaders”. As smokers, we were/are sin-taxed into gross financial under-representation; our “user fees” pooled to work against us – both in reality & theoretically – under the guise of “for our own good”. As vapers, we’re a “perceived” threat and as such we’ve become a “cause” for action... *sigh*

 

[Big Sheepherder]

Misimpressions, clearly. Overcoming proposed public vaping bans is not at all about legal arguments. You lose those hands down. It isn't even a close call. Your game necessarily must be about PR influencing the public and politicians at large prior to the passage of public vaping bans.

 

[Poeia]

I was a born liberal Democrat (my mom still is) and the more I watch my freedoms and my livelihood taken away to support someone else's lifestyle and morals, the more conservative I'm becoming!

I'm still a liberal democrat. I am willing to pay higher taxes to support retirement benefits that allow people to have more than dog food to eat, an infrastructure that includes well-maintained roads, levees and bridges, access to a decent education, protecting people from abuse, crime etc.

I am not willing to pay for 15 overlapping and competitive agencies for every problem, a nanny state that tells me what I may think or do because someone might be offended (rather than harmed), a government that blames everyone but the parents for children raised by incompetent parents, a very expensive SIC that allows banks to do whatever they want or an FDA who's main function is to protect large pharmaceutical companies.

Bizarre priorities, I know.

 

[Big Sheepherder]

Let me give you a concrete, topic-specific example. Remember Katherine Heigl showing off her e-cig on the Late Show with David Letterman, and saying "Oh yeah, I'm totally addicted to the device." Do you really think she would have been allowed to carry on that display during a kid's show or on daytime television? The answer is an unequivocal "no." The public already knows, or at least strongly believes, that nicotine addiction is one of the hardest addictions to break, harder than smack, and that such addictions are not a good thing. The best suggestion therefore is to tone down vaping in public and especially around children. Now please don't be silly enough to think that robust vaping rights and privileges for adults in schools, nurseries, public parks, libraries, and place of the nature, are genuinely part of a realistic vaping agenda. They're not.

 

[kristin]

If you can consume your smoke-free caffeine and alcohol in public establishments, then I can consume my smoke-free nicotine. PERIOD.

If they ever ban vaping in public in my area, I WILL test that law and take them to court.

 

[Big Sheepherder]

Kristin, even if you had a million dollar war chest, the firm would tell you not to waste your money or their time on litigating the issue. Public vaping bans not totally incompetently written pass "rational basis" review hands down without any doubt. "Rational basis" is the standard of review that courts apply in the absence of "suspect classifications" or "fundamental rights." For the quick and dirty on rational basis review, see Rational basis review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[kristin]

Then they can put me in jail for VAPING. Let them rationalize THAT.