Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Stifle eCig Marketing

[pamdis]

Which is partly to mostly why I think certain positions ought to be taken by vapers, such as "vape everywhere." If the reasonable position is, "vape in these certain places, but not all places, nor all situations," then I think that is fodder for the opposition. I think they will not stop at the reasonable position and respect a compromise. Instead, I think they'll take whatever vaping community is willing to concede on now, and then in rounds 2, 3 and 8, will push for "vape nowhere." Looking for support from those vapers who rolled over easily in earlier rounds and from ex-vapers who are now willing to throw all vapers under the bus.

So yeah, I'll admit that maybe "vape everywhere" does go a little too far in the other direction from a more reasonable position. But relative to a position held among people who have both power and mass deception in their favor, I see it as reasonable starting point from those who are coming at the vaping debate with gusto of "vape nowhere, ever." For now, they might be an extreme minority, just as us "vape everywhere" advocates are. But if smoking history is any indication of how vaping rights might go, and I truly believe it is best indicator vapers have, then I fully expect all places (includes outdoors) will be subjected to vaping bans.

I too have changed my stance to a 'vape everywhere' position, for just these reasons. We are using circular logic against ourselves otherwise:

Antis say they are dangerous to bystanders
We concede to restrictions in some public spaces, and call that reasonable
We have just agreed with the antis that they are harmful
We now have to argue that they are not harmful, so lay off, you are going too far!

This is also the same reason I have changed my stance on bans for minors:

Antis say they are dangerous to users
We concede to restrictions to minors
We have just agreed with the antis that they are harmful
We now have to argue that they are not harmful, so lay off, you are going too far!

So we need to decide:
They are harmful, in which case, no one should be using them anywhere
They are not harmful, in which case, everyone should be able to use them everywhere

I think the harm reduction argument hurts us in the end too, for the same reasons, because it also concedes that there is some harm, when I haven't seen evidence of any harm. Instead of arguing that e-cigs are less harmful, I think it should be said they are not harmful. And if you think they are, then prove it. Until you can do that, leave it alone.

But like jman8 says, these positions will be seen by some as extreme. Be reasonable, they say, agree to minor bans and banning in restaurants. But instead of the antis seeing these as reasonable concessions, they see them as bolstering their original premises. And as I do not at all agree with their initial premise, that e-cigs are harmful, I can not in good conscience agree to any concessions that tacitly agree that they are.

 

[Doughboy67]

I too have changed my stance to a 'vape everywhere' position, for just these reasons. We are using circular logic against ourselves otherwise:

Antis say they are dangerous to bystanders
We concede to restrictions in some public spaces, and call that reasonable
We have just agreed with the antis that they are harmful
We now have to argue that they are not harmful, so lay off, you are going too far!

This is also the same reason I have changed my stance on bans for minors:

Antis say they are dangerous to users
We concede to restrictions to minors
We have just agreed with the antis that they are harmful
We now have to argue that they are not harmful, so lay off, you are going too far!

So we need to decide:
They are harmful, in which case, no one should be using them anywhere
They are not harmful, in which case, everyone should be able to use them everywhere

I think the harm reduction argument hurts us in the end too, for the same reasons, because it also concedes that there is some harm, when I haven't seen evidence of any harm. Instead of arguing that e-cigs are less harmful, I think it should be said they are not harmful. And if you think they are, then prove it. Until you can do that, leave it alone.

But like jman8 says, these positions will be seen by some as extreme. Be reasonable, they say, agree to minor bans and banning in restaurants. But instead of the antis seeing these as reasonable concessions, they see them as bolstering their original premises. And as I do not at all agree with their initial premise, that e-cigs are harmful, I can not in good conscience agree to any concessions that tacitly agree that they are.

You make some excellent points!!! I agree! We keep hearing they "might" cause harm with long term use with no evidence to support it. I guess we should ban banana pudding too because it "might" cause harm with long term use. No banana pudding in public!!! Protect the kids from banana pudding!! Ingesting banana pudding could lead to other desserts which are more harmful like chocolate cream pie.

 

[patkin]

I have rethought my position also and have to agree. I think in the future when faced with "those are harmful because......" I'm going to ask for statistics showing the number vapers who have been harmed. Banning because "we just don't know" isn't going to fly with me. Had some of the veteran vapers here been smoking instead, their physical exams would have shown consequences already. I've seen enough of anti's and corrupt govenment's agenda at this point. As for kids, I was at Walmart in the crafts department and the kitchen one. I wonder if kids are allowed to buy needles, scissors and knives openly displayed or if anyone needs to show their ID when purchasing them. I also wonder about the diet pills containing high doses of caffeine and other stimulants as I saw a teenage girl looking at those (not at Walmart though) and also thought about the super-revving drinks teens buy. It made me wonder about verbally beating a politician up about not controlling those when writing to them about vaping or at least mentioning a class-action discrimination suit because nothing is done about other products they haven't taken any action on "dangerous" to kids. I'm sure there's a much longer list I haven't thought of.

 

[Doughboy67]

I have rethought my position also and have to agree. I think in the future when faced with "those are harmful because......" I'm going to ask for statistics showing the number vapers who have been harmed. Banning because "we just don't know" isn't going to fly with me. Had some of the veteran vapers here been smoking instead, their physical exams would have shown consequences already. I've seen enough of anti's and corrupt govenment's agenda at this point. As for kids, I was at Walmart in the crafts department and the kitchen one. I wonder if kids are allowed to buy needles, scissors and knives openly displayed or if anyone needs to show their ID when purchasing them. I also wonder about the diet pills containing high doses of caffeine and other stimulants as I saw a teenage girl looking at those (not at Walmart though) and also thought about the super-revving drinks teens buy. It made me wonder about verbally beating a politician up about not controlling those when writing to them about vaping or at least mentioning a class-action discrimination suit because nothing is done about other products they haven't taken any action on "dangerous" to kids. I'm sure there's a much longer list I haven't thought of.

Agree. But we need to be careful not to imply that the government should regulate all these things. They shouldn't but I think they would if they felt like they could! Question is,"When does government control go to far." We should be able to make choices in our own lives!!! Data shows, so far, that we ARE NOT harming anyone by vaping. This is a SEVERE overreach by our politicians right up there with what size soda you can buy which, by the way, was overturned in court. I believe if push came to shove and this went to court, the legislatures have NO EVIDENCE for a case!!!

 

[patkin]

^I agree, they might go off half-cocked on any product mentioned.... so far out of my rationality that I can't even imagine wanting to regulate those but... yeh, they're possibly crazy enough to do just that. I was merely trying to point out that irrationality to them and threaten law suits which is something that gets their attention real quickly. Smoking bans left the realm of health and passed into out-and-out discrimination and, as I see it, that's what' happening with vaping. Smokers didn't ban together to fight based on discriminatory practices and I think its high time vapers start calling a spade a spade. They're discriminating... period... or using propaganda to push people's prejudice buttons for support of the their money grab. I guess I'm saying that instead of staying on the defense all around the country, we need to go on the offense.

 

[Doughboy67]

^I agree, they might go off half-cocked on any product mentioned.... so far out of my rationality that I can't even imagine wanting to regulate those but... yeh, they're possibly crazy enough to do just that. I was merely trying to point out that irrationality to them and threaten law suits which is something that gets their attention real quickly. Smoking bans left the realm of health and passed into out-and-out discrimination and, as I see it, that's what' happening with vaping. Smokers didn't ban together to fight based on discriminatory practices and I think its high time vapers start calling a spade a spade. They're discriminating... period... or using propaganda to push people's prejudice buttons for support of the their money grab.

Quoted for truth!!!! I couldn't agree more!!!!

 

[AgentAnia]

I like the way this discussion is going now. Remember the "Where's the Beef?" ad campaign? Maybe we should start a "Where's the Harm?" campaign. (One of my latest favorite quotes, when anyone mentions risk, is "A risk is an emotional belief open to manipulation, a danger is something else entirely.")

Frankly, I've pretty much stopped trying to debate w/ ANTZ using logic and reason. When they say "We just don't know," I reply, "Well why not! WE know (because we can read and use google and have sufficiently elevated IQs)." When they throw nebulous statistics into the mix, I ask "Where did those numbers come from? Show me the study so I can interpret them myself."

I am constantly calling them on their use of conjecture: "We fear that..." "Something could lead to..." etc.

 

[Doughboy67]

I like the way this discussion is going now. Remember the "Where's the Beef?" ad campaign? Maybe we should start a "Where's the Harm?" campaign. (One of my latest favorite quotes, when anyone mentions risk, is "A risk is an emotional belief open to manipulation, a danger is something else entirely.")

Frankly, I've pretty much stopped trying to debate w/ ANTZ using logic and reason. When they say "We just don't know," I reply, "Well why not! WE know (because we can read and use google and have sufficiently elevated IQs)." When they throw nebulous statistics into the mix, I ask "Where did those numbers come from? Show me the study so I can interpret them myself."

I am constantly calling them on their use of conjecture: "We fear that..." "Something could lead to..." etc.

I heard stories of people hurting themselves accidentally during sex. Maybe our government could take that up as a cause!!! I love the 'Where's the harm" idea!!!

 

[Anjaffm]

Remember the "Where's the Beef?" ad campaign? Maybe we should start a "Where's the Harm?" campaign. (One of my latest favorite quotes, when anyone mentions risk, is "A risk is an emotional belief open to manipulation, a danger is something else entirely.")

I love it!
And I love the quote. Mind if I use it?

 

[AgentAnia]

I love it!
And I love the quote. Mind if I use it?

Here it is, straight from my "quotable quotes" file:

FXR, on antithrlies.com:
"A risk is an emotional belief open to manipulation, a danger is something else entirely."

I am sure FXR won't mind any of us using it! (Personally, any comment I post on the internet I assume has become public domaine, quotable without attribution.)

 

[Uma]

Great show! I love it!

"She claims that there is no way of knowing whether e-cigs are harmful. - There IS, it's called science, you bozo!"

- they stand in the way of the first real progress in ending smoking for good
- it is like banning alcohol-free beer
- why don't you put a patch across their (those Democrats') mouth saying "second hand stupidity kills"

- it is supposed to be about public health, but they are actually enabling the death of people

Haha, you and our man Bill are bothe on a roll today.
A quote from one of Bill's comments in an article about a bill in ct that aims to ban eCigs piece by piece.
"Seems like some Connecticut legislators should wear labels covering 60% of their heads that say "I'm scum".

Ps. Guys. Rachael Maddow is shocking the jones gang of late. Lots of happy dancing going on. Get with the times. Sheesh!

 

[Uma]

I like the way this discussion is going now. Remember the "Where's the Beef?" ad campaign? Maybe we should start a "Where's the Harm?" campaign. (One of my latest favorite quotes, when anyone mentions risk, is "A risk is an emotional belief open to manipulation, a danger is something else entirely.")

Frankly, I've pretty much stopped trying to debate w/ ANTZ using logic and reason. When they say "We just don't know," I reply, "Well why not! WE know (because we can read and use google and have sufficiently elevated IQs)." When they throw nebulous statistics into the mix, I ask "Where did those numbers come from? Show me the study so I can interpret them myself."

I am constantly calling them on their use of conjecture: "We fear that..." "Something could lead to..." etc.

Jman8, Pamdis, Ania, and so on, I love where you're going to! Where's the harm/beef.