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

[Ou2mame]

Somebody should dump all the cigarettes we haven't smoked on the doorstep of any politician against vaping and light them on fire so that they can inhale what they're trying to push us to potentially go back to... Very safely though. With coordination of fire experts. Do we have any of those here?

 

[TheRac25]

nobody cares unless it effects them personally, majority rule is mob rule

 

[KattMamma]

If you think signing a petition is actually doing something then we have already lost. This is a typical badly written amateur petition, and one that actually pushes misinformation when saying The above quote from the petition pushes the lie that tobacco is the problem, when of course the real problem is inhaling smoke.

No one of any importance will read this, and if they do will immediately disregard it. It is to bad this petition is getting spammed onto the front page of ECF. It is long past due for this thing to have a nice quiet death so we can get back to real activism that actually might make a difference. There are very good reasons why CASAA does not support petitions in general, and especially this one (an advocacy thread on there Facebook page was deleted). Petitions don't work, and this one in particular is badly written and misinforms the public.

The petition was written with one goal in mind - to stop the FDA from deeming vapor products as tobacco products. And yes, it was written by amateurs because "big vapor" doesn't really exist, and the few really big vapor companies are concentrating on surviving the deeming rather than stopping it. We want to stop it.

Will the politicians pay attention to the petition itself? Probably not. But it is getting shared and signed by tons of vapers, and even those who don't vape but have realized vaping could save the life of a smoker. And among some of the vapers that I know, it is helping to keep spirits up in the face of overwhelming opposition. That in itself is worth something.

FYI, there ARE stories of change.org petitions that ACTUALLY EFFECTED A CHANGE. The little guys won. It happens.

 

[mattiem]

If you think signing a petition is actually doing something then we have already lost.

Thank you for helping us spread information on this important petition. Sometimes even negative words can get the attention of those that have not yet read, signed and shared the petition. So far there have been 29,146 signatures so it seems there are a lot of folks that agree that it is worth signing.

Link to it is in my signature but for those that can't see it, here it is:
Petition · U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, President of the United States: Reject the FDA's Deeming of Vapor Products as Tobacco Products · Change.org

----------------------------------------------------

 

[Stubby]

Thank you for helping us spread information on this important petition. Sometimes even negative words can get the attention of those that have not yet read, signed and shared the petition. So far there have been 29,146 signatures so it seems there are a lot of folks that agree that it is worth signing.

Link to it is in my signature but for those that can't see it, here it is:
Petition · U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, President of the United States: Reject the FDA's Deeming of Vapor Products as Tobacco Products · Change.org

----------------------------------------------------

Okay, I'll bite. I will give just a few reasons why this is a badly done petition that in the long run does more harm then good, the big one being that it is giving out false and misleading information that is right up there with anything the ANTZ do on a daily bases.

It is a common tactic of the ANTZ to talk about the dangers of smoking, and then in the conclusion of the piece throw out the idea that all tobacco is the problem. I have seen this tactic hundreds of times. Of course it is a lie as smokeless tobacco is about 99% less harmful then inhaling smoke, but that gets lost in the shuffle and all tobacco products are lumped together as being equally risky. This petition uses the same deceptive tactic. After being somewhat careful about using the term combustable tobacco (and even that is not a good term as I am not about to get on pipe and cigar smokers) the petition now switches gears in a big way. This is a direct quote from the petition

Vapor products are not tobacco products, they are a safer alternative to tobacco products

What a whopper of a lie, and an unforgivable one for someone claiming to support THR. I have some news, vaping is not a safer alternative to tobacco products. Smokeless tobacco has the same low risk as vaping (perhaps a bit lower as nothing is inhaled). The petition reinforces the lie with this quote

However, if vapor products are subjected to the same strict regulatory control intended to minimize harm from tobacco products

This quote below from the petition is really over the top

The Federal government and each state have spent hundreds of millions over decades attempting to discourage people from smoking cigarettes. We now have a viable alternative to tobacco products that could do just that, through tobacco harm reduction.

In a few sentences the petition switches gears from talking about smoking cigarettes to lumping all tobacco products together, and certainly implying (if not outright saying) that all tobacco products are equally risky. Then the petition lays claim to THR, which is rather bizarre twist considering it just trashed the decades of work done by the likes of Brad Rodu and Bill Godshall, among others, who are the founders of THR.

A few folks here are claiming that even if no one of importance reads this, it still serves a purpose as an educational tool. The reality is that if fails miserably as an educational tool as it pushes the same lies that have plagued tobacco users for decades.

 

[hurricanegirl100]

What a whopper of a lie, and an unforgivable one for someone claiming to support THR. I have some news, vaping is not a safer alternative to tobacco products. Smokeless tobacco has the same low risk as vaping (perhaps a bit lower as nothing is inhaled).

Stubby, I've been vaping exclusively for almost four years, after smoking cigarettes for 31 years. Lemme tell ya something...my smoker's cough is gone. My M.D. says my lungs are in MUCH better shape than they were back in 2011. I can climb stairs, run, physically exert myself without getting nearly as winded as I used to. I don't care what you or anybody else says - electronic cigarettes wreak less havoc on a body than traditional cigarettes do. Period.

Would I be less harmed if I didn't inhale anything but air? Probably, but then you get into the whole nicotine addiction problem. I feel like crap when I don't have any nicotine in my system, so inhaling water vapor is a trade-off I'm willing to accept.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[haveblue]

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.

 

[Bad Ninja]

The same politicians that use tobacco taxes to fund public projects and services are the exact same People that will fight to maintain their source of revenue.

The ONLY way to stop the madness is to vote them out of office and elect people who have enough sense not to fund public services with a "sin"tax.
When people stop "sinning" the funds stop, therefore they must encourage the "sin" and fight any alternatives.


It's not a conspiracy, or hidden.
It's right out in the open and as plain as day for anyone wiing to open their eyes.

Research your Local politicians and see who voted FOR increased taxes on tobacco, or who voted FOR tobacco taxes to be used for pubic services or projects that require ongoing funds.

You Voted them in, now you must vote them out, and replace them with someone who has common sense.

 

[Bad Ninja]

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.

There is no way to know how safe vaping really is .....yet.

That's a fact, like it or not.

We have to be painfully honest with others and ourselves about this or we become the fools.

 

[KattMamma]

Okay, I'll bite. I will give just a few reasons why this is a badly done petition that in the long run does more harm then good, the big one being that it is giving out false and misleading information that is right up there with anything the ANTZ do on a daily bases.

It is a common tactic of the ANTZ to talk about the dangers of smoking, and then in the conclusion of the piece throw out the idea that all tobacco is the problem. I have seen this tactic hundreds of times. Of course it is a lie as smokeless tobacco is about 99% less harmful then inhaling smoke, but that gets lost in the shuffle and all tobacco products are lumped together as being equally risky. This petition uses the same deceptive tactic. After being somewhat careful about using the term combustable tobacco (and even that is not a good term as I am not about to get on pipe and cigar smokers) the petition now switches gears in a big way. This is a direct quote from the petition



What a whopper of a lie, and an unforgivable one for someone claiming to support THR. I have some news, vaping is not a safer alternative to tobacco products. Smokeless tobacco has the same low risk as vaping (perhaps a bit lower as nothing is inhaled). The petition reinforces the lie with this quote



This quote below from the petition is really over the top


In a few sentences the petition switches gears from talking about smoking cigarettes to lumping all tobacco products together, and certainly implying (if not outright saying) that all tobacco products are equally risky. Then the petition lays claim to THR, which is rather bizarre twist considering it just trashed the decades of work done by the likes of Brad Rodu and Bill Godshall, among others, who are the founders of THR.

A few folks here are claiming that even if no one of importance reads this, it still serves a purpose as an educational tool. The reality is that if fails miserably as an educational tool as it pushes the same lies that have plagued tobacco users for decades.

I'm really sorry that you want to trash the work of those who are trying to do something to help vaping survive the FDA deeming. As I said before, it was written by amateurs. There was no intention to trash anyone, or demonize all tobacco. This was written in a few days, mostly by Les, with a little help from a few others on here. If we'd had more time to edit and refine it, some (most? all?) of those inconsistencies would have likely been ironed out. But we wanted to make sure it was up and had a lot of signatures before the FDA regs reach Congress, AND speak clearly that VAPOR PRODUCTS ARE NOT TOBACCO PRODUCTS. In our goal, we could not separate smoking from other forms of tobacco use, because it would defeat the purpose. I agree that all tobacco use is not the same, but this is up for another debate, another time. Perhaps another petition.

I agree that contact reps, senators, etc. and voting the bums of office is a good strategy, but even that has its pitfalls. So every thing that can be done, from every angle, should be welcomed.

I believe Les answered you quite eloquently when you bashed the thread where we were working on the petition. I'm not sure that you read it, since you never posted back.

 

[Rizzyking]

Your enemies in the states are your politicians and vaping's worldwide enemy pharmaceutical companys, tobacco companys are loving lower smoker numbers it's lowering the money they will have to pay in the states a fact many states dread as they have already spent the money. Have any of you been to the headquarters of a tobacco company lately last ten years or so??? I've been to four and they all had a global map with coloured zones most of the west is red which to them means diminishing numbers of customers and no possibility of an upturn. Eastern Europe is mainly yellow steady sales but likely to decrease in the mid to long-term and then Asia and Africa pretty much all green developing markets with increasing numbers of customers and where their profits will be coming from for the foreseeable future.

Pharmaceutical companys want vaping gone as it's a double whammy to their easy profits it will destroy the cash cow of nrt if they cannot kill it before enough professional people realise it's the best option to traditional tobacco and less people smoking means lower rates of the really profitable cancers. They have horrendous amounts of money to use to push out junk science and scare stories and if that's not enough they buy professional bodies as has recently been exposed with the British medical association and god knows how many others. You cannot win a fight unless you aim at the right enemies and any time and effort thrown towards big tobacco is wasted time and effort that could be directed at the real enemy.

Being honest I think the fight is over it's not a question of if anymore but when and how hard.

 

[Stubby]

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.

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.

I'm really sorry that you want to trash the work of those who are trying to do something to help vaping survive the FDA deeming. As I said before, it was written by amateurs. There was no intention to trash anyone, or demonize all tobacco. This was written in a few days, mostly by Les, with a little help from a few others on here. If we'd had more time to edit and refine it, some (most? all?) of those inconsistencies would have likely been ironed out. But we wanted to make sure it was up and had a lot of signatures before the FDA regs reach Congress, AND speak clearly that VAPOR PRODUCTS ARE NOT TOBACCO PRODUCTS. In our goal, we could not separate smoking from other forms of tobacco use, because it would defeat the purpose. I agree that all tobacco use is not the same, but this is up for another debate, another time. Perhaps another petition.

I agree that contact reps, senators, etc. and voting the bums of office is a good strategy, but even that has its pitfalls. So every thing that can be done, from every angle, should be welcomed.

I believe Les answered you quite eloquently when you bashed the thread where we were working on the petition. I'm not sure that you read it, since you never posted back.

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.

 

[KattMamma]

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.

You only took what you wanted out of my reply, so I'm done. Best of luck to you.

 

[Alien Traveler]

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.

 

[Jennifer51369]

A big mess. New Jersey has had an indoor vaping ban since way back in 2009-10. There is a big ol' thread around here somewhere about the fiasco.

People putting on the convention thought they could get around the law by a technicality that really didn't pan out.

A big mess.

I visit Atlantic City frequently and spend lots of money there. You can't vape in the nonsmoking sections of any casinos. I haven't been to AC since I've quite analogs and quite frankly am afraid to sit in the smoking sections of casinos to play. So unfortunately, AC will probably be losing quite a bit of my money. I guess that's a good thing for me...

 

[Jennifer51369]

That's why there is so much anti-vaping propaganda out there. While I don't think a couple of years is a reasonable expectation, in the next generation I think the ratio of smokers to vapers will flip. The government stands to lose literally hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue. And the politicians themselves stand to lose millions each in donations (bribes, kickbacks, ever what you want to call it) from BT. The one thing that makes things happen in DC is money. And when you threaten to take money from a politician (especially when it's unreported income) they react by jumping on a soap box and denouncing your ideas and actions.

I was talking to one of the salespeople at the vape shop I frequent and he was telling me that the number of smokers going to vaping is doubling each year. Any thoughts???

 

[Hans Wermhat]

Any thoughts???

Sounds about right. We are millions strong now nation wide. But a lot of the older, hard core loggers will never give up their stinkies. My generation (the current 40 somethings) and those younger are the ones who will make the biggest difference. I see more and more folrs in their 30s and 40s making the switch every day.

 

[Jennifer51369]

Sounds about right. We are millions strong now nation wide. But a lot of the older, hard core loggers will never give up their stinkies. My generation (the current 40 somethings) and those younger are the ones who will make the biggest difference. I see more and more folrs in their 30s and 40s making the switch every day.

Yep, I'm 46 and have been smoking 30 + years. I know a 76 year old smoker with lung cancer and he refuses to give up smoking. So you are right on target with age groups that tend to be quitting.

 

[DC2]

There are very good reasons why there are no ecig advocacy groups that have come out in support of this petition.

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.

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?

 

[Stubby]

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.