Your much more logical step has some serious flaws, with the main one being that the main active ingredient with vaping is extracted from tobacco. What you are trying to say is that if I extract the active ingredient of a plant (that shall not be named because of EFC censures) that I can now use and sell that extract freely and am not subject to any laws pertaining to that plant (which shall not be named).
I think there may be a few issues with that approach, but perhaps you can set up a shop and give it a go. Let us all know how that one turns out.
You are living in a fantasy world if you think that has any chance in the real world. The fundamental problem isn't that vaping is a tobacco product, the problem is that tobacco control laws are basically loony toons with little to no recognition of relative harm. It treats all tobacco products as equally harmful.
The problem I have with your petition is that it actually reinforces the lie that the basic problem is tobacco. It has fundamental flaws that in the long run probably does more harm then good. If your goal is to raise awareness it fails pretty miserably as it actually reinforces the basic misconceptions that got us into this mess.
I agree with all of this, except for the "reinforcing basic misconceptions" portion. And don't strongly disagree with that. From your words (below, that I highlighted), it is challenging to see you as strongly disagreeing with them.
IMO, it is factual to say that the harms associated with smoking tobacco are yet to be communicated honestly, and without bias. The petition you are railing against says the following:
The classification of vapor products as tobacco products is tenuous at best. While some vapor products do contain nicotine, many do not, and this is where the link to tobacco ends. The goal of the FSPTCA is to minimize the effects of tobacco on public health. In 1976 Professor Michael Russell wrote: “People smoke for nicotine but they die from the tar.”
1 Vapor products are free of tobacco, contain no tar, and are not combusted and as such are orders of magnitude less potentially harmful than combustible tobacco.
2 In fact, more recent studies that look at nicotine, absent tobacco smoke, show that nicotine is possibly not addictive and could have potential health benefits related to treating Parkinson’s symptoms and staving off Alzheimer’s.
3
and says:
This life changing technology has the potential to accomplish what Tobacco Control has failed to do for the past fifty years, unless it is smothered in its infancy. Vapor products, as a recreational consumer good, have the potential to replace combustible tobacco, keeping millions from potential tobacco related illnesses.
and also says:
Vapor products are not tobacco products, they are a safer alternative to tobacco products which may or may not contain nicotine.
Before signing the petition, I took a few moments of consideration. For me those considerations were personal recognition of whether I agree with these tidbits of information balanced by my (strong) desire for political change. Did the same thing before joining CASAA. To date, both have been about as effective in what I seek as change. Both have been great at increasing awareness, and from what I can tell at motivating people to do more, wanting to do more than a single bullet approach.
Education is the key, but it takes a lot of work and it starts on the grass roots level. Unfortunately the vaping community has gotten distracted with the "We are not tobacco" fantasy. We need to educate the public that there are ways of using tobacco (and that includes vaping) that is vastly less harmful then inhaling smoke. When the public begins to grasp the concepts of THR the game is over. Of course that is easier said then done, but that is the only thing that will stop this madness.
Highlighted part is, in essence, no different than what I get from reading of the petition. If that is disputed, please, let us debate on open forum. But I would note that the petition's statement of "Vapor products are....orders of magnitude less potentially harmful than combustible tobacco" and your assertion of "vaping)...is vastly less harmful then [sic] inhaling smoke" strike me as vastly similar. Emphasis on 'vastly.'
According to CASAA (dot org), THR is:
Tobacco harm reduction describes actions taken to lower the health risks associated with using tobacco or nicotine. A very important part of tobacco harm reduction is simply educating people about the risks of different sources of nicotine.
Me, personally, I take issue with this. Not strong opposition, but issues that amount to what I said above (and will repeat here): IMO, it is factual to say that the harms associated with smoking tobacco are yet to be communicated honestly, and without bias.
As I observed shared reality, ANTZ be doing a pretty good job of associating risks/harms associated with different sources of nicotine. Are they the "education" of which THR advocates speak of? Are they not engaged in education of risks? I hope my own answer to these questions are shared by fellow vaping enthusiasts, but a lot of the time (lately), I'm not sure.
As one who's gone cold turkey before, I'm thinking that to the never smoking, never vaper that actual harm reduction would mean avoidance of all nicotine, and not using or quitting (cold turkey). I'd love to see that survey among general public to help us realize that instead of prattling about and around the notion that actual harm reduction would mean don't engage in an activity if you are so sure it has variations that 'cause' you harm. While this would possibly be better termed as 'harm elimination,' I can attest to the idea that cold turkey does NOT equal harm elimination. Thus, that is fantasy talk, while cold turkey does lead to perception (both inward and outward) of harm reduction.
The idea that vaping is magnitudes safer for us than smoking (tobacco) works for us on so many levels that unless one is willing to go through a whole lot of steps that include debating current points taken for granted (i.e. smoking kills 500K people annually), it is rather foolish to debate. Me, I feel very open to that debate, because I really really really want to go after those original memes that are taken for granted, but hold oh so little water. Most, I observe, do not want that debate. Thus, it works for us politically to make smoking the boogeyman and to present vaping as the savior. While ignoring abstinence as if that doesn't really belong in the discussion, since we are talking about harm REDUCTION. And yet, I'm the once cold turkey guy who now smokes moderately and really really really wants to debate all these people who are self convinced that smoking, at any level, is inherently dangerous / risky.
In my strong opinion, it won't be too long now (perhaps we are already at the point, collectively) where vaping will be considered inherently risky, regardless of what's in your vape. Philosophically, it's inescapable as all substances on the planet carry with them risk (and benefit). But practically, it does appear that there are magnitudes of risk, degrees of harm, if we can just limit our scope to the bias that fits our current (and very personal) narrative.
And a petition will do that. As will an organization that seeks to advocate for smokefree alternatives. Or as ANTZ will do in their own way.
If we are going to make the discussion about harms, potential risks, and all the other isolated nonsense that is inherently true about all substances on this planet, then when we single out the activities of vaping and smoking from all other human activities, I'm possibly going to agree with ANTZ rhetoric of stop doing this, now. But if we are going to have discussion on allowing people to make the free decision of using these products despite perceived risks, which are inherent in ALL human activities, then I'm going to be advocating for the recreational nature of either product from a freedom perspective. The petition and the CASAA organization continue to strike me as advocating for the freedom, in their roundabout way. While ANTZ continues to strike me as restricting that freedom and shaming along the way, as if that has inherent merit, and accuracy of scientific data be damned.
