They are saying: Stop signing stupid petitions!

[Lessifer]

Guess you didn't click enough buttons. EASY AS THAT!




You do a great injustice to those who have given their very lives for what they believe in, political, social and economic.

Even just the right to vote. Maybe you can read up on the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. South Africa's first post-apartheid election and how they got there. Talk to the people in Burma and ask them what happened when they showed up en masse to vote for Aung San Suu Kyi and where Kyi went after that. Were you even born yet during the marches from Selma to Montgomery? All those people could have just stayed home and signed petitions and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would have been a cake walk I guess?

(Some younger people seem to be lacking in the basic historical knowledge of the many struggles that went before them....thousands and thousands, all over the planet.)

Too bad we couldn't have just told them how EASY it could have and should have been, huh? (Maybe tell the people who serve in the Armed Forces the same thing.)

Instead of asking people why they are not signing petitions and sending emails, perhaps a more practical question, and one which puts pedal to the metal, is:

What Sacrafices Are You Willing to Make to see what you believe is Justice and Freedom as it pertains to vaping? (or anything else, but this is a vaping forum so we'll leave it there).


To be honest, and maybe I'm just one of those crochety older people making comments on the newer generations, but if you guys think you are going to petition your way and mouse-click your way to a *better world* ----

then good luck with that. I think you're in for a rude awakening myself.

You're right, meaningful change usually doesn't come easy. However, Plumes is also right. This isn't Czechoslovakia, or South Africa, or Korea, or Singapore, this is America where we are supposed to already have rights and freedoms.

In all honesty, being able to choose an alternative to tobacco SHOULD NOT BE A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. We shouldn't have to protest, or march, or petition to have the truth be known. Most of us just wanted to do something other than smoke, we didn't sign on for a political movement. Some of us do what we can, like try to make sure the information gets out there. Others do more. I appreciate the efforts of all.

 

[Racehorse]

You're right, meaningful change usually doesn't come easy.

People have accomplished far more difficult things.

I just got this film I got on my swap:

How to Survive a Plague DVD

It was nominated for an Oscar, but the film explores the activism and unwavering commitment of those involved.

They accomplished their goals, they fought Wall Street, Big Pharma, the FDA, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, the CDC, the government, health insurance companies, and even the Catholic Church, etc............ and won.

Way harder stuff than what is being faced with vaping.

Maybe take a few notes.

They were highly productive, highly effective, and the one thing I came away with was this: Organizational Structure matters.

Vapers don't have to reinvent the wheel. All they have to do is, as I have already said, know history, what struggles came before, and get after it in the ways that have already been demonstrated do bring results.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I say keep sending the petitions. If anything it reminds them their day is coming. It's my sincere hope that when they awaken from time to time in the dark hours of the
night they have a creeping anxiety, a nameless fear, a faceless specter hiding behind
each door. That would be us and sooner or later we're coming.

Regards
Mike

Really love the way you put that skoon. It's a punch in the stomach in the middle of a bad dream. Props.

Good luck all.

 

[MacTechVpr]

People have accomplished far more difficult things.

I just got this film I got on my swap:

How to Survive a Plague DVD

It was nominated for an Oscar, but the film explores the activism and unwavering commitment of those involved.

They accomplished their goals, they fought Wall Street, Big Pharma, the FDA, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, the CDC, the government, health insurance companies, and even the Catholic Church, etc............ and won.

Way harder stuff than what is being faced with vaping.

Maybe take a few notes.

They were highly productive, highly effective, and the one thing I came away with was this: Organizational Structure matters.

Vapers don't have to reinvent the wheel. All they have to do is, as I have already said, know history, what struggles came before, and get after it in the ways that have already been demonstrated do bring results.

Didn't mean to cover your post racehorse. Your point is well taken. We have the most important tool possible…community; If we succeed in getting each and every vaper to understand that we're all in the same predicament. Were we as effective in getting that message across as the latest new mod release it would make a difference. The price for our freedom to choose how we protect our survival post analogs requires participation. That needs to be the new ethic we must demonstrate to new vapers and the uncommitted. We lost our liberties in the smoke wars because just too many fell away into the psychology of submission to derision. Quite the opposite must happen to keep them. We're on the right side of reason.

Good luck all.

 

[Stubby]

Again, can you name things that have worked? Would be nice if the advocates in the trenches could point to some monumental successes (in the real world) they've achieved. How about just minor successes? And just to be as clear as I can, I do think whatever it is the advocates (of which I consider myself and many here) are up to is likely helpful and great, but if bringing into play the idea of it needs to be successful to be worthy of consideration, it would help fellow advocates to understand what that means, in the real world.

So after pointing out that there have been many successes on the local level you come on with this

I was talking about the national level. Care to address that?

Are you aware of any petitions that occur / have occurred at the local level, and were ineffective? Any petitioning at all at local level would possibly suffice to help me realize you were comparing apples to apples.

So after answering your first question about successes, you now move the goalpost. That is pretty low ball on your part, besides showing a complete lack of understanding of how advocacy works.
Activism always starts on the local level and works up the chain. There hasn't been time to go up to the federal level. It takes boots on the ground doing a lot of foot work.

One of the issues with petitions (among others) is that people think it is a magic bullet. It's not as they are essentially useless. Far better to tell the truth upfront that this is going to take lots of work. Giving people the illusion that sighing a petition does anything of value does no one any good. It just feeds the illusion that there is an easy fix.

 

[Jman8]

So after pointing out that there have been many successes on the local level you come on with this

Screw that noise. The successes at state/local level are questionable. I originally meant national level, but given tone of your post, I'm calling you out on the "many successes at the local level" cause I call that as over inflated nonsense. Helps that I don't see those getting better in 2016.

So after answering your first question about successes, you now move the goalpost. That is pretty low ball on your part, besides showing a complete lack of understanding of how advocacy works.

And yet you don't provide any for the national level and only allude to general successes at local level. Put up your so called local level successes if you care to make that your only rebuttal.

Activism always starts on the local level and works up the chain. There hasn't been time to go up to the federal level. It takes boots on the ground doing a lot of foot work.

So, one of these posts I'm sure you'll get around to the wonderful successes at the local level that you think will carry over to the national level. I'll be waiting.

Or if you want, I could point to all the failures at the local level in many instances, so we can be sure to stay at the place where you think the goalposts are securely comfortable.

One of the issues with petitions (among others) is that people think it is a magic bullet. It's not as they are essentially useless. Far better to tell the truth upfront that this is going to take lots of work. Giving people the illusion that sighing a petition does anything of value does no one any good. It just feeds the illusion that there is an easy fix.

Given my observations of your reasoning, I think an issue with local advocacy is people are seeing it as a magic bullet. I'm calling that to task and won't move the goalposts while you provide why there is great reason to be optimistic going forward because of the wonderful and monumental successes we've accomplished at the local level.

Lemme know when you get around to that.

 

[Lessifer]

Show me someone who thinks signing a petition is a magic bullet, and I'll show you someone that A) probably didn't actually read it, and/or B) would probably not do anything more than click a button anyway.

The wonderful thing about online petitions, or basically anything done on social media, is that someone can do a lot by doing the bare minimum. Even if person A does nothing else but sign and share a petition, that simple act of sharing has potentially brought awareness up exponentially.

So, again, even though this point will probably be ignored by the detractors yet again... It's not about the petition, it's about raising awareness. Some people are likely to read forum and blog posts, many more people are much more likely to read something shared via social media. Also, guess what? Liberal democrats are more likely to read a change.org petition.

Stop thinking of it as a "magic bullet" and start thinking of it as a virtually free media campaign. Or don't, up to you.

 

[Canadian_Vaper]

Online petitions will never be as good as real petitions, nothing like trying to ignore a 50 pound stack of paper

What else can you do? I do all sorts of stuff, I made this flyer and put it up in bus stops etc, most people don't know about the issue, most people think vaping is worse than cigarettes, we need to educate non smokers/smokers about the truth, feel free to edit/use this as you wish as long as it shows vaping in a good light...

Please Note: I am willing to edit it to reflect other countries/people, just pm me what you want it to say and which logo you'd like.

 

[zoiDman]

Online petitions will never be as good as real petitions, nothing like trying to ignore a 50 pound stack of paper

What else can you do? I do all sorts of stuff, I made this flyer and put it up in bus stops etc, most people don't know about the issue, most people think vaping is worse than cigarettes, we need to educate non smokers/smokers about the truth, feel free to edit/use this as you wish as long as it shows vaping in a good light...

Right On Asylumsix.

Things like this should be Handed Out by the reams at Every Vape Shop. And they should be Plastered wherever People hang out.

 

[AndriaD]

Show me someone who thinks signing a petition is a magic bullet, and I'll show you someone that A) probably didn't actually read it, and/or B) would probably not do anything more than click a button anyway.

The wonderful thing about online petitions, or basically anything done on social media, is that someone can do a lot by doing the bare minimum. Even if person A does nothing else but sign and share a petition, that simple act of sharing has potentially brought awareness up exponentially.

So, again, even though this point will probably be ignored by the detractors yet again... It's not about the petition, it's about raising awareness. Some people are likely to read forum and blog posts, many more people are much more likely to read something shared via social media. Also, guess what? Liberal democrats are more likely to read a change.org petition.

Stop thinking of it as a "magic bullet" and start thinking of it as a virtually free media campaign. Or don't, up to you.

This is exactly why and how I use social media, though before vaping, I had very little use for it at all. But when I see an article that has something useful and positive to say about vaping, or an article about how our gov't is lying to us, I can share it on 3 different social media platforms in which I'm enrolled -- twitter, FB, and G+ -- I have over 250 followers on Twitter, so that's 250 more people who may see what I'm tweeting. I'm a housewife who doesn't usually have access to a vehicle, and frankly making telephone calls to people I don't know gives me a form of agoraphobia -- I won't do it if I can get away with not doing it. But promote good stuff on the internet, sign petitions, share petitions, send messages to my various lawmakers, even have my own vape-related website? I can do all that, pretty much ALL the time. It's not nearly as much as a lot of vaping advocates are doing... BUT IT'S BETTER THAN DOING NOTHING AT ALL! It raises awareness, if nothing else, and raising awareness is always a good thing. It's one more brick in the wall.

Andria

 

[Stubby]

Online petitions will never be as good as real petitions, nothing like trying to ignore a 50 pound stack of paper

What else can you do? I do all sorts of stuff, I made this flyer and put it up in bus stops etc, most people don't know about the issue, most people think vaping is worse than cigarettes, we need to educate non smokers/smokers about the truth, feel free to edit/use this as you wish as long as it shows vaping in a good light...

Please Note: I am willing to edit it to reflect other countries/people, just pm me what you want it to say and which logo you'd like.

I few changes could be made in the flyer to improve it.

In the first paragraph of the conclusion you state, "It is NOT the nicotine that kills them, it is all the carcinogens found in tobacco that does". That statement is problematic as it is not the carcinogens in tobacco that kills, but the carcinogens in tobacco smoke that kills. You have fallen into the old ANTZ trick of beginning the statement talking about cigarettes (and really cigarette smoke), then making a leap to tobacco. It is not at all the same thing and yet you are implying that it is. Smokeless tobacco has very low risk at least equal with what we hope vaping has. If you are trying to educate the public about THR that is a definite stumble.

In the last paragraph also has a similar clumsy statement, as does the last myth "We just don't know enough about them".

A few minor changes and it would be up to snuff (bun intended).

 

[DC2]

In the first paragraph of the conclusion you state, "It is NOT the nicotine that kills them, it is all the carcinogens found in tobacco that does". That statement is problematic as it is not the carcinogens in tobacco that kills, but the carcinogens in tobacco smoke that kills.

I would amend your statement to say that it is smoke that kills.
It has always been the smoke that kills, and not just tobacco smoke, but ANY smoke.

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but...

The lack of cancer concerns regarding snus has to do with most of the carcinogens having been removed.
All the while keeping in mind that cancer is just one of the things wrong with smoking.

And when I say smoking, I mean inhaling smoke all day long on purpose.

You have fallen into the old ANTZ trick of beginning the statement talking about cigarettes (and really cigarette smoke), then making a leap to tobacco. It is not at all the same thing and yet you are implying that it is.

Yes, indeed he has, although his efforts with that flyer are HIGHLY commendable.

 

[Lessifer]

I few changes could be made in the flyer to improve it.

In the first paragraph of the conclusion you state, "It is NOT the nicotine that kills them, it is all the carcinogens found in tobacco that does". That statement is problematic as it is not the carcinogens in tobacco that kills, but the carcinogens in tobacco smoke that kills. You have fallen into the old ANTZ trick of beginning the statement talking about cigarettes (and really cigarette smoke), then making a leap to tobacco. It is not at all the same thing and yet you are implying that it is. Smokeless tobacco has very low risk at least equal with what we hope vaping has. If you are trying to educate the public about THR that is a definite stumble.

In the last paragraph also has a similar clumsy statement, as does the last myth "We just don't know enough about them".

A few minor changes and it would be up to snuff (bun intended).

You're getting better at this constructive criticism thing.

 

[Coldrake]

Signing petitions and encouraging others to sign them creates AWARENESS, that's a fact, and reason enough to sign them. If they accomplish anything else, that's icing on the cake.

I make countless phone calls, send endless e-mails and faxes to local and federal politicians and agencies, I'm a member of CASAA, and I sign petitions.

If anyone thinks I'm wasting my time signing petitions, I don't care, because I know I'm not.

 

[bigdancehawk]

The best examples are in countries that have totally shut down free enterprise for necessities. We could learn a lot from them except their speech is suppressed as well. Once economic liberties are lost - the next target is personal liberties in such areas as health, communications, press, etc. etc. all justified 'for the public good' while the public either suffers or finds alternative means.

The Fairness Doctrine (requiring "balanced" editorial and other opinion content in TV and radio broadcasts) was adopted around 1949 and subsequently received the blessings of Congress and the SCOTUS. It was abolished under Reagan. When it became apparent that liberal commentators could not compete for air time to equal Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators, Democrats repeatedly sought to revive it--at least as recently as 2009 when a group of Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, sought to do so. Florida even passed a law extending the doctrine to newspapers. The statute was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court but, fortunately, was held unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

 

[Kent C]

The Fairness Doctrine (requiring "balanced" editorial and other opinion content in TV and radio broadcasts) was adopted around 1949 and subsequently received the blessings of Congress and the SCOTUS. It was abolished under Reagan. When it became apparent that liberal commentators could not compete for air time to equal Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators, Democrats repeatedly sought to revive it--at least as recently as 2009 when a group of Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, sought to do so. Florida even passed a law extending the doctrine to newspapers. The statute was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court but, fortunately, was held unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

All true, but imagine what would happen if all the mainstream media had to comply with the Fairness doctrine. Just recently in an attempt to 'soften' the "Lewinsky affair" NBC Savannah Guthrie referred to it as 'alleged' - Trump corrected her. Imagine Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow having to 'bring in' Rush or Mark Levin for comments

Guthrie Briefly Tries to Tell Trump That Bill Clinton's Extramarital Affairs Were Only ‘Alleged’

 

[Stubby]

You're getting better at this constructive criticism thing.

That is somewhat of a bizarre statement coming from you as your petition is full of the same type of misinformation, and you went into hysterics when I pointed that out. When Carol Phillips made suggestions on how to correct it you quietly disappeared. I just read your petition and I see it hasn't changed.

If your goal is educating the public and raising awareness as you claim you are doing a pretty bad job of it. Repeating the lies that have been told about tobacco for decades is not at all a good thing on a petitions you claim supports THR.

 

[Stubby]

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but...

The lack of cancer concerns regarding snus has to do with most of the carcinogens having been removed.
All the while keeping in mind that cancer is just one of the things wrong with smoking.

And when I say smoking, I mean inhaling smoke all day long on purpose.

Yes, indeed he has, although his efforts with that flyer are HIGHLY commendable.

I doubt carcinogens are removed from snus, or if that is even possible. It is simply processed in a way that keeps the carcinogens very low, below the level of any concern. It is not just snus that has low risk. Population studies show that all forms of ST used in the West have vanishingly low risk. It really is the smoke that kills, not tobacco or nicotine.

 

[bigdancehawk]

Online petitions will never be as good as real petitions, nothing like trying to ignore a 50 pound stack of paper

What else can you do? I do all sorts of stuff, I made this flyer and put it up in bus stops etc, most people don't know about the issue, most people think vaping is worse than cigarettes, we need to educate non smokers/smokers about the truth, feel free to edit/use this as you wish as long as it shows vaping in a good light...

Please Note: I am willing to edit it to reflect other countries/people, just pm me what you want it to say and which logo you'd like.

Perhaps say: "contains at most 5 ingredients," or "only 2-5 ingredients" as some e-juice contains only PG and/or VG and nicotine. In fact, I believe there are some people who vape zero nicotine and zero flavorings.
Also, I agree with others that you should not conflate inhaling cigarette smoke with "tobacco in all its forms."

 

[Lessifer]

That is somewhat of a bizarre statement coming from you as your petition is full of the same type of misinformation, and you went into hysterics when I pointed that out. When Carol Phillips made suggestions on how to correct it you quietly disappeared. I just read your petition and I see it hasn't changed.

If your goal is educating the public and raising awareness as you claim you are doing a pretty bad job of it. Repeating the lies that have been told about tobacco for decades is not at all a good thing on a petitions you claim supports THR.

Whenever you made criticisms of my petition, they were not constructive. Constructive is pointing out what needs to be changed and how. Saying "learn about ST" is not constructive.

Same thing with Mr. Phillips. He may have made some constructive criticisms in a Facebook post in a group that I wasn't a member of at the time, but he has never contacted me directly.

I actually considered making wording changes, but since no one offered to assist, I didn't want to make multiple edits, and at the time over 30,000 people had already signed, I and a few others decided against it.

I was paying you a compliment and saying that you handled this post better than you handled interactions with me.