Someone Else Will Do It... If Not You, Who?

[Lessifer]

You are in direct opposition to decades of science done on smokeless tobacco. You really do need to do some serious homework before making statements like the above. I do hope you understand that your views are straight out of the ANTZ propaganda machine. I would advice reading the blogs of Brad Rodu and Carol Phillips so perhaps you can be a bit better informed.



Well congratulations, as you are the first person to admit there might be a few problems with the wording of the petition. I guess that has to be taken as progress.

It would have been easy to correct, but in the hast to get it out the author (authors) failed to do so. Anyone up on THR would have seen the flaws immediately, and how to correct them. The problem is the petition was obviously rushed and never looked at by someone knowledgable on THR, Though it does claim THR as its own.

Was it really necessary to throw several decades of THR advocacy under the bus in the haste to get this out? The idea is loony tunes.

I know this isn't a thread about the petition, and that your quotes were not directed at me...
But this is the best place I can see to address the concerns you mention above...

I see what you're saying about throwing "tobacco products" under the bus.
And I can see why some THR advoctates would not support that.

If it can be fixed easily, maybe that can still be done?

You would have to talk to the person who started the petition to see if he is even willing to change it, and them find some one well versed in THR, with the writing skills willing to do it. I'm not even sure it can be changed once it is up.

You are mistaken though on saying some THR advocates would not support it. As of now I know of no real THR advocates who do support it.

You are right about this being the only place where it can be discussed. I tried on one of the threads about signing the petition, but those discussions tend to degrade pretty quickly. The folks on those threads tend to not appreciate any type of criticism and view it as a personal attack.

I am the "author" and I do have the ability to edit the petition, I am also open to constructive suggestions. You have the text of the petition available to you. If you would like to edit/add to it, do so and post it to the main thread about signing the petition, as I don't want to continue to derail this particular thread.

A few things to keep in mind:
The petition is solely about having congress reject the deeming regulations in regards to Vapor products. That will not change.

Congress and the general public are not well versed in THR, so if you are going to distinguish between cigarettes and other tobacco, you will need to include a concise explanation of the relative harms, and links to evidence(studies) that supports those claims.

If you can make those edits without diluting the intent of the petition, and without making the petition something the average person will not read/understand, I will update the text.

However, I will not be devoting time to doing my own research on smokeless tobacco. I can remove any mention of THR and change all references to tobacco so that they read as combustible tobacco or cigarettes if that would be more expedient. I believe I have already offered to do this.

 

[Jman8]

Genie is so far out of the bottle, I see no way to put it back in. Vaping will be around for the long term. Obviously the market will change, but that was known before vaping was even conceived of.

 

[Stubby]

I am the "author" and I do have the ability to edit the petition, I am also open to constructive suggestions. You have the text of the petition available to you. If you would like to edit/add to it, do so and post it to the main thread about signing the petition, as I don't want to continue to derail this particular thread.

A few things to keep in mind:
The petition is solely about having congress reject the deeming regulations in regards to Vapor products. That will not change.

Congress and the general public are not well versed in THR, so if you are going to distinguish between cigarettes and other tobacco, you will need to include a concise explanation of the relative harms, and links to evidence(studies) that supports those claims.

If you can make those edits without diluting the intent of the petition, and without making the petition something the average person will not read/understand, I will update the text.

However, I will not be devoting time to doing my own research on smokeless tobacco. I can remove any mention of THR and change all references to tobacco so that they read as combustible tobacco or cigarettes if that would be more expedient. I believe I have already offered to do this.

If you actually want to clean this up I would advise contacting Bill Godshall or Carl Phillips, both members of ECF, to see if they can edit this for you. Phillips is also be readily available on the CASAA Facebook page. Perhaps even Brad Rodu, who likely can be contacted through his blog.

If you are actually sincere about cleaning this up you are going to have to make the effort to do it. You made the mess so it is your responsibility to take care of it.

 

[Lessifer]

If you actually want to clean this up I would advise contacting Bill Godshall or Carl Phillips, both members of ECF, to see if they can edit this for you. Phillips is also be readily available on the CASAA Facebook page. Perhaps even Brad Rodu, who likely can be contacted through his blog.

If you are actually sincere about cleaning this up you are going to have to make the effort to do it. You made the mess so it is your responsibility to take care of it.

I don't see a mess. There may have been a few phrases that could be taken the way you have taken them, but I honestly think that it is only the case if you are LOOKING for it. Everyone that I have spoken to, excepting you, recognizes that the purpose of the petition is to get people to recognize that vapor products are not tobacco products. Non vapers make no connections to smokeless tobacco. The FDA and congress treat all tobacco as the same. As far as I know, no actual tobacco product has been recognized as "modified risk" or able to make the claim that it is less harmful than smoking.

I have asked Bill for input, and received no response. I had a thread up for weeks asking for help/input prior to posting the petition. I have expressed willingness to make edits. If you would like to do something more than disparage my and others' efforts, you are welcome to.

BTW, I was able to pass CASAA's most recent CTA on to over 27,000 people because of the petition. I'd say that was a good thing.

 

[Stubby]

I don't see a mess. There may have been a few phrases that could be taken the way you have taken them, but I honestly think that it is only the case if you are LOOKING for it. Everyone that I have spoken to, excepting you, recognizes that the purpose of the petition is to get people to recognize that vapor products are not tobacco products. Non vapers make no connections to smokeless tobacco. The FDA and congress treat all tobacco as the same. As far as I know, no actual tobacco product has been recognized as "modified risk" or able to make the claim that it is less harmful than smoking.

I have asked Bill for input, and received no response. I had a thread up for weeks asking for help/input prior to posting the petition. I have expressed willingness to make edits. If you would like to do something more than disparage my and others' efforts, you are welcome to.

BTW, I was able to pass CASAA's most recent CTA on to over 27,000 people because of the petition. I'd say that was a good thing.

If you are not even willing to admit there are issues with the petition, why do you even make an offer to clean it up? That is a rather cynical response on your part. Your lack of sincerity is pretty obvious.

I would never claim to have the skills needed to clean this up (though of course you deny it needs it). My ego just isn't big enough to pretend otherwise. I advised you as to where to go to try and make it a better petition, but you appear to be unwilling to make any real effort. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Lessifer]

If you are not even willing to admit there are issues with the petition, why do you even make an offer to clean it up? That is a rather cynical response on your part. Your lack of sincerity is pretty obvious.

I would never claim to have the skills needed to clean this up (though of course you deny it needs it). My ego just isn't big enough to pretend otherwise. I advised you as to where to go to try and make it a better petition, but you appear to be unwilling to make any real effort. Why am I not surprised?

As I have said, if you would like to make specific suggestions as to what should be changed, and what it should be changed to, I am open to the idea. As I obviously don't see that I am harming the THR movement by advocating that vapor products are not tobacco, I don't see what it is that needs to be changed.

You see something that needs to be changed, I am asking you to specifically point out what, and how it SHOULD read so that I'm not throwing THR under the bus.

The only thing I can think of would be to remove the phrase "tobacco harm reduction" from the petition, since vapor products are not tobacco products, I guess they don't really count as THR. Would that be acceptable?

 

[Racehorse]

If it can be fixed easily, maybe that can still be done?

Seems like that should be possible, huh?

I do a lot of volunteerism, and the general rule is that if you see a problem with somebody else's efforts, you chip in to help them with it. As a matter of fact, even in paid work, on a corporate team, you find a problem that needs fixing then the entire team tends to it.

I guess I don't understand why somebody is complaining that THR is being thrown under the bus----but they have no problem throwing Lessifer under a bus in the process of pointing this out.

We are all supposed to be on the "same team", right?

I doubt very much that Lessifer set out to "betray" anybody. Does anybody really believe that was his purport????

Or maybe, (as I have already written about) ......there just isn't any real leadership going on here in general. If there were, the leadership would normally help align and focus everybody's efforts....problem solving is good, recriminations are not. Throwing people under the bus, who are trying to accomplish a shared goals, is also not good.

I don't know why the THR advocates aren't helping Lessifer. He shouldn't have to beg for help. Maybe somebody can explain this to me cuz I"m not getting it. As Gandhi said, be the change you want to see in the world. If you see something that can be improved, show others how it is done.

 

[hurricanegirl100]

I do not see vaping as a smoking cessation tool anymore. It changed so much since I've joined ECF just a year ago.
I do no like an idea of overtaxation, so I've singed a petition, but I really dislike the way vaping is following now. I am not an advocate of vaping anymore. I have my nic (enough for at least for 10 years), I am self-sufficient, and I do not wish any good for vaping industry anymore. I would be happy to see it dyeing in 15 years.

. And how many people would be dying if the vaping industry were gone? Abhorrent comment...

 

[KattMamma]

I guess I don't understand why somebody is complaining that THR is being thrown under the bus----but they have no problem throwing Lessifer under a bus in the process of pointing this out.

We are all supposed to be on the "same team", right?

I doubt very much that Lessifer set out to "betray" anybody. Does anybody really believe that was his purport????

^^^ This.

And everything Lessifer said.

@Stubby - I think it's less about what you have said than HOW you have said it. I can understand wanting something worded differently. I don't understand why you have to be so vicious about it. The reason your posts in the petition thread was treated as a vicious attack is because it was a vicious attack.

Your first post on the subject was positive...

A very good start, and a lot of good points in the replies.

Then you never bothered to help write it, you just showed up some time later with the bashing and nastiness, and that's all we've seen since :

Holy crap, are you people still trying to push these petitions. It's been done before and they all ended up doing essentially zero good.

It matters not at all as because as I said, this petition will be read by no one of any significance when it comes to the actual regulation.

Signing a freaking petition does nothing. It's been done, doesn't work, and those of us that have been around have moved on.

Lessifer offered to let you help reword it. I'm guessing you didn't take him up on it:

If you would like to PM me on the faulty logic I used in the petition, I do have the ability to edit it...

All I've seen from you is more nastiness :

To all the people signing this misguided, pretty much useless petition, I do hope you are involved with the CASAA call to action.

The above two quotes from the petition show how far afield this petition is, especially the second quote. The author claims vapor products are a safer alternative to tobacco products, but of course that is a lie, and an unforgivable one for someone claiming to be supporting THR.

The fundamental problem with the petition (besides petitions having essentially no positive outcomes) is not because it focused on vaping, it is because while focusing on vaping you chose to throw other THR methods under the bus.

Then Lessifer clearly explained why it would be difficult/counterproductive to differentiate smokeless from other types of tobacco in this petition :

I do support THR in all forms, however, the fate of ST is not going to be put before congress at this point. Smokeless IS tobacco, and while I may know that smokeless tobacco is much less harmful than combustible tobacco, it is still a tobacco product. The fight to have lower harm tobacco products recognized as such is important, but it is not what I am fighting for at this time. You may see that as choosing to throw THR under the bus, I see it as framing the current fight in the terms that the FDA/CDC/etc. are using. They treat tobacco products as a whole, and they are poised to deem vapor products as tobacco products. That is the specific objective of this petition, to not have vapor products deemed as tobacco products, not because calling it tobacco makes it inherently harmful, but because calling it tobacco makes it subject to the tobacco control act.

In an effort to curb the derailment of this thread, I invite you to bring your CONSTRUCTIVE criticism over to the petition discussion thread; but if it's just vicious attacks again, yeah, it will be treated as such. Would a change dot org petition help us? | E-Cigarette Forum

 

[mattiem]

Well done Katt. I hope this ^^^^^ post will put finished to the petition bashing. So far 29,540 folks agreed to sign and support the petition as it is written.

 

[motordude]

Katt, you go girl!!!!!!!!

 

[Jman8]

If you actually want to clean this up I would advise contacting Bill Godshall or Carl Phillips, both members of ECF, to see if they can edit this for you. Phillips is also be readily available on the CASAA Facebook page. Perhaps even Brad Rodu, who likely can be contacted through his blog.

If you are actually sincere about cleaning this up you are going to have to make the effort to do it. You made the mess so it is your responsibility to take care of it.

Perhaps the petition is not perfect, but I'd take how it is worded over much of what I've read by the three names you dropped. Feel free to show me / us something they have written that cannot be scrutinized in any reasonable way. While you're at it, show me something they have done that has lead anyone reading this to thinking vaping is here to stay for the long term, on the open / legal market.

And yet, when they write their words, I generally like it. I usually find things that could've been said better or more concisely, but very much appreciate their efforts and that they fight on the same side we are on.

If any of the 5 points in the petition are not afforded reasonable protection or allowed, the entities that seek to undermine eCig open market will most likely be responsible for creating an underground market that will undoubtedly thrive. As I said before, the genie is so far out of the bottle, there is no way to put it all the way back in. The best hope our adversaries have is finding the things that we, the vaping community, are divided over and pushing hard on the things that would curtail usage or ability to sell freely. Even that will be resisted (by many) and stands a decent chance of ending up in a court battle. Thus far on the major court battles, it is: them 0, Us 1.

I very much understand the reasons for pessimism, especially given the wonderful under regulated market that we've enjoyed for 5 to 7 years (and is still going strong), but in reality, there is reason to be optimistic for the survivability of vaping. I currently do not see a way to please 100% of the vaping community 100% of the time. But do see that the existence of vaping products on this planet does upset our (actual) adversaries 100% of the time.

 

[hurricanegirl100]

So it is ok for smokeless tobacco to rot away your mouth, stomach..but saying vaping is a safer alternative is bullcrap? I strongly disagree.

oh, wait

I strongly disagree, too! Dated a guy who chewed Copenhagen like it was going out of style and then spit the resultant ooze into an empty beer bottle. So, so Ick! Vaping, IMHO, is probably less harmful than snuff and damn sure a lot less revoltin'!

 

[hurricanegirl100]

E-cigarette vapour has NO toxic effect and is as safe as AIR, shock study claims - Mirror Online

I'm a little bothered by the fact that this study was funded by British American Tobacco, but I still thought it was interesting...

 

[ringling]

I have some news, vaping is not a safer alternative to tobacco products.

And what proof do you have that this statement is true. Just as there is no proven facts that Vaping is completely safe, or diacetyl in low doses is harmful, there is absolutely no long term studies to date proving that vaping IS, or Vaping IS NOT, harmful. The only results we see at this time are personal stories of cleaner xrays, breathing better, and feeling better. If vaping is harmful then I ask you to please tell me in what way it has harmed you. Have you grown a third eye? Perhaps uncontrollable hair growth on your toes? Where's your facts.......

 

[WharfRat1976]

Yes get out the vote. Join CAASA. Attend local meetings.

 

[DoctorJ]

We are all supposed to be on the "same team", right?

If there were, the leadership would normally help align and focus everybody's efforts....problem solving is good, recriminations are not. Throwing people under the bus, who are trying to accomplish a shared goals, is also not good.

I should know better than to post my opinion on here but I'll do it anyway.

Well I just erased a very long post that I thought better of posting so as not to rattle the cages of those who fail to see logic, well, at least my version of logic.

I'll simply say this, yes we are supposed to be one team, however, we are not. We are divided into several camps which is normal considering that everyone who speaks is passionate about their stance on vaping and its future. I realize that vaping is under the microscope now and so many different camps are muddying the waters for those ignorant of vaping and just happen to be in charge of its future. All these petitions and calls to action are great and I applaud the efforts of those involved. But bringing all vapers to one camp will never happen for it is human nature to have diversity amongst those fighting for the same cause.

It would be great if we had one body that could represent vapers as a whole, but that will not happen. It's funny that the post I quoted talks about people getting thrown under the bus. Hmmmm, isn't this always the case when there is an issue that is "political" in nature? That right there shows my point of no one body can guide us to the promised land where vaping is as "accepted" as any other personal choice one may make.

 

[Stubby]

And what proof do you have that this statement is true. Just as there is no proven facts that Vaping is completely safe, or diacetyl in low doses is harmful, there is absolutely no long term studies to date proving that vaping IS, or Vaping IS NOT, harmful. The only results we see at this time are personal stories of cleaner xrays, breathing better, and feeling better. If vaping is harmful then I ask you to please tell me in what way it has harmed you. Have you grown a third eye? Perhaps uncontrollable hair growth on your toes? Where's your facts.......

Why you would want to revive a dead thread is a mystery, but at least get your accusations somewhat factual.

You are going to have to point out where I said vaping is harmful (yes there is a good chance of some small risk, but there is little doubt vaping is much less risky then cigarettes).

The problem is that all tobacco is not created equal. Smoking has obvious negative health consequences, but smokeless tobacco has little to none and has the same low risk factor that we hope vaping has. Lumping all tobacco products together as equally risky, something the ANTZ do on a daily basses, is how we got into this mess. It is a serous mistake to continue the lie for some supposed political advantage.