The future of vaping

[DC2]

Let me start by saying that I already anticipated a future without free availability of nicotine juice.
Which would mean a future where only pre-filled disposable cartridges would be available.

So in light of my expectations, I think that Lorillard buying Johnson Creek could be a good thing...
a) That would put an Ego sized model (the Vea) in their portfolio.
b) That could increase the chances that they will fight for flavors other than just tobacco and menthol

And if I was being REALLY optimistic, perhaps they will let nicotine juice remain available.
But that is really a stretch.

 

[wv2win]

Were it not for the benefit of history, I would have to agree.

However, it's a different story when you've already caught someone
red-handed trying to break into your house to steal your stuff. If you
see them hiding in the bushes when you come home from work again,
it's probably time to call the police.

As I said earlier, the FDA's intention to take e-cigarettes off the table,
entirely, is a matter of public record. There really shouldn't
be any doubt or debate about that.

Just Google "fda files new appeal on e-cigarettes" and read the first
link that comes up. Then do a little research to find out what "regulate
<fill in the blank> as a drug delivery device" would really mean to the
e-cig business. It would defacto eliminate that as a safer alternative to
smoking for decades, and perhaps forever.

This all happened after the FDA seized products in an illegal attempt
to remove them from the market.

The only reason you still enjoy the freedom to vape is because
a foreign e-cig company had the funding and the will to do battle with the
FDA in court, and prevailed. Were it not for that foreign company (NJOY),
this would have been a settled issue by 2010, and many of us would be
smokers, still, as a consequence.

In the mid '80s there was a very similar device marketed which, instead of
vapor, allowed you to inhale a little puff of nicotine powder. The FDA pulled
the exact same stunt, and that "drug-delivery device" has been "disappeared"
for over 30 years. It remains a non-existent product to this day.

It is not at all far-fetched to suggest the FDA will continue past efforts to
impose a total ban until they achieve it; either in fact, or in effect. They
have a far better source of funding--which would be 'We The People'--than
any who might oppose them.

There is more than enough history to assess what's likely to happen next if
we just sit by and let it happen.

Well stated. What is also really disturbing is we have vapers on this forum who believe that we should all agree that vaping is the same as smoking and act accordingly. With that mindset from some of the very people who have benefited from vaping, we are doomed. Lets hope it is a very small minority with this flawed thinking.

I'm also not opptomistic about Big Tobacco in the vaping community. I hope I am wrong but I think it will lead us down a path of great restrictions that none of us will like.

 

[whynes]

What is also really disturbing is we have vapers on this forum who believe that we should all agree that vaping is the same as smoking and act accordingly.

I couldn't possibly agree that vaping is the same as smoking.
If it were, I'd just keep smoking.

However, the current administration, in spite of the facts
available, has every incentive to demonize and extort vapers
the same as they do smokers. While they are in power they
will pursue this doctrine regardless of the facts, and regardless
of how we view ourselves.

To them, we are the same. To them, facts aren't at issue.
Money is the point, and the facts are merely an obstacle to
overcome in pursuit of that.

I think advocating for smoker's rights can mistakenly be
confused with "agreeing that we are the same as smokers."
I think that view is too narrow and simplistic.

The real question becomes whether we (the citizens) think
we are stronger as a people by letting the government divide
us into small, bickering, groups, thus making it easier for them
to exploit us, one small group, then the next small group, then
the next small group, etc.

Or are we better off standing together and telling the government,
loudly, "NO!" "STOP!" Smokers rights are important. Vapers rights
are important. Big Mac eaters rights are important, etc. Government
should be the servant, not the master of the citizens.

I count myself among the latter of these two viewpoints.

I don't think it serves us well to say it's ok what happens to
smokers. "Go get them, Mr Government. Just leave us vapers
out of it, ok?" I think that approach makes us a smaller, weaker
group and, frankly, I think it makes us a smaller and weaker
country as well.

The decades long work done to demonize and exploit smokers
has laid the foundation and set the precedent for the machinery
of government that has now been turned on us.

In terms of health risk, vapers and smokers are very different.

In terms of small groups getting demonized and exploited by
our current government, we are the same.

 

[dmj4]

I agree about caring about the smokers. I still get very upset when people/places overreact to smokers.

 

[Kay1959]

I happen to disagree that we should stand up for smokers rights. I don't think we should. I think we should try to distance ourselves from smokers as much as possible, because we are NOT smokers. Cigarettes have been proven to cause major health issues. Both with the smoker, and others who are inhaling the smoke passively. If they didn't, NONE of us would be vaping, now would we? I'm personally fighting bans that throw vaping in with smoking bans. Another minor issue is that I doubt that smokers are standing up for our rights. I know this is petty, but it's probably the truth. Just my

 

[Iffy]

Since smokers are already cornered and will never recoup their 'rights'*, I'm a 'vaping separatist'! The more we do to show the vast differences twix smokin' and vapin', the better off vapers will be, at least in da short run.

*The long run involves actions that most citizens, and especially the pols and gov't wonks, don't want to think about; let alone do anything about!

 

[whynes]

I happen to disagree that we should stand up for smokers rights. I don't think we should. I think we should try to distance ourselves from smokers as much as possible, because we are NOT smokers. Cigarettes have been proven to cause major health issues. Both with the smoker, and others who are inhaling the smoke passively. If they didn't, NONE of us would be vaping, now would we? I'm personally fighting bans that throw vaping in with smoking bans. Another minor issue is that I doubt that smokers are standing up for our rights. I know this is petty, but it's probably the truth. Just my

Perhaps surprisingly, I am closer to agreeing with much of what
you say than you might think.

The truth about vaping needs to be told. There needs to be a pure
message out there. If it is to be regulated, it should be regulated
in vastly different ways than smoking is regulated. For this to
happen the public needs to be educated, and there needs to be
a place to go where they can be, and where vapers can rally
around the cause and take action. I think CASAA, for instance,
is a fantastic organization to do that. It needs to keep its message
pure.

In other words, I DON'T think having a VAPERS AND SMOKERS
UNITED type of organization would serve anyone's interests.

When I say "we need to support smoker's rights", I'm talking
about us as citizens, not us as vapers. And I'm not
just talking about supporting smokers. They are not the only other
group who is having their rights and freedoms systematically stripped
away.

What is happening to smokers goes way way beyond responsible
regulation. I agree smokers don't have a right to make other people
breathe their smoke. To be clearer, I'm not talking about supporting
their rights at the expense of my own, or of others'.

Prohibition and extortive taxation is punative regulation, and it is not
a stable or sustainable way to fund the cost of government. That is
what we have allowed to happen to smokers, and as a consequence,
that is what is happening to us.

Fortunately there is no law (yet) that prevents us from supporting
multipe causes. It can be as simple as not joining in on the anti-rhetoric,
or voting against yet another initiative to tax tobacco users, or absurdly
pointless restrictions on smokers, or as involved as actually joining
another organization. It's a change in thinking.

Maybe it's just me, but I think that everyone deserves freedom,
not just the people that happen to be in my small clik. If we,
as citizens, don't recognize the importance of this we will all
end up on our own little island of oppression, forced to fight
the machinery of government all by ourselves. And all of us
will lose.

I don't support smokers because I hope they will support me.
I support smokers because it is in my own self interest to do
so. Granting to the government the power to oppress anyone
grants them the same power to oppress me. That's what we,
as vapers, are struggling against right now.

The harder it is for the government to oppress them, the
harder it will be for the government to oppress me.

 

[JENerationX]

I will support smokers' rights at every step. I was a smoker. Even though I'm not a smoker anymore, I watched my right to smoke being taxed, banned, and restricted for years. The ANTZ were on a mission. Let's say the ANTZ win, and there was no more smoking. Where do you think they would turn next? They have to have something to fight against, and if it's not smokers, then they'll most likely come after anything that resembles smoking or includes smokeless tobacco.

Not to mention I can't stand any government restricting a perfectly legal activity for adults.

 

[Kay1959]

I agree with you to the extent that people should be allowed to do whatever they want in their own homes, or where it dosen't inflict any impact on others. Things such as whether or not one wears a helmet on a motorcycle, whether or not one wears a seatbelt...things like that. I don't think the government has any right to tell people what they should or should not do! And there are ALOT of laws like that, that simply should not be! I also agree that a privately owned business should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to allow smoking or not.

 

[stv4SC]

We are not pure. All of us are ex-smokers. And the dem are nannying us to lose a lot of freedoms. Ca nannyism taxes nanny laws must be stopped. All of them!

 

[kristin]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the ANTZ don't care that it isn't "smoking." It looks like smoking and continues "nicotine addiction," so it may as well be smoking to them.

There is no legal protection for recreational nicotine users - which we are - and that puts us in the same boat as smokers and tobacco users. The ANTZ used the same junk science, arguments and lies against smoking and smokeless tobacco that they are attempting to use against e-cigarettes. You may not consider yourself a "smoker" but it doesn't matter. Unless you use nicotine-free, vaporless e-cigarettes, you are lumped in with all other tobacco users, as far as the ANTZ are concerned. Every freedom they take away from smokers and tobacco users directly affects vaping, because they will use the same logic to apply the laws to vaping.

The reasons we use to defend vaping against irrational laws and excessive taxation are the exact same reasons smoking/tobacco advocates had and still have to defend smoking/tobacco users. Look at what good that did them (which was once US.)