Think of the children... for real!

[Viv Savage]

I posted this comment earlier in the Smoking Everywhere vs. FDA thread, but it just occurred to me that there is no more appropriate place to share this perspective than here. I don't know if the CASAA would necessarily agree with this approach, but I personally plan on using this argument in letters to legislators and anti-PV groups. To me, the best way to fight baseless, knee jerk reaction fear-mongering is with facts!

And speaking of second hand smoke, that is the most serious threat to children! And there are actual statistics on that! If these groups really cared about the children, they would embrace electronic cigarettes (and would have embraced safer cigarettes in the past)... and not waste their time, money, and resources, fighting against bogus, unproven issues like flavors.

That's what we should start including in our letters to these foes, as well as policy makers: "You want to save the children? You want to give them a healthier environment and decrease the health problems associated with second hand smoke? Then HELP their parents who smoke switch to a safer alternative without second smoke! Considering you're expanding your militant smoking bans to include the outdoors, you are basically leaving parents who smoke with no other options than to smoke in their homes and in their cars with their children!"

I mean, the levels of hypocrisy are ludicrous!!

 

[Brewster 59]

What you say is true but the real problem is "the children argument is just a BS ploy" used by the antis, the real issue is money and control.

 

[Viv Savage]

What you say is true but the real problem is "the children argument is just a BS ploy" used by the antis, the real issue is money and control.

Yes, I know that it's BS, which is why I used the word "baseless". And I know it's a ploy, which is why I'm proposing a specific counter-argument.

I also know - as does everyone here on ECF - that money and power are what we're up against. But why post it? I mean, what is the point? You could potentially copy and paste your same comment in regards to every battle we're fighting... but for what purpose? It would suggest you either (1) think there's no point in fighting until the CASAA has enough money & power to wage a financial war against Big tobacco & Big Pharm (which I suppose is a remote possibility if Keith Richards dies and leaves us all his money), or (2) think there's no point in fighting at all. Either way, it just sounds like a defeatist attitude to me.

This forum is for CASAA members and supporters. The CASAA is a new organization with, I imagine, little to no funding. This advocacy group is a really a lobby that can only, at this point, achieve its goals through activism. So until the day comes that the CASAA has as much financial support as the American Heart Association or the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the biggest weapon - the only weapon - we have right now is our voice. We need to figure out how to use words, arguments, and facts to counter every "BS ploy" currently being championed by the opposition. I'm not saying anyone here - both within and outside the CASAA - has to use my argument (I certainly will with my legislators). But to simply resign ourselves to the fact that "the real issue is money and control" is counter-productive and really accomplishes nothing.

 

[Brewster 59]

Yes, I know that it's BS, which is why I used the word "baseless". And I know it's a ploy, which is why I'm proposing a specific counter-argument.

I also know - as does everyone here on ECF - that money and power are what we're up against. But why post it? I mean, what is the point? You could potentially copy and paste your same comment in regards to every battle we're fighting... but for what purpose? It would suggest you either (1) think there's no point in fighting until the CASAA has enough money & power to wage a financial war against Big Tobacco & Big Pharm (which I suppose is a remote possibility if Keith Richards dies and leaves us all his money), or (2) think there's no point in fighting at all. Either way, it just sounds like a defeatist attitude to me.

This forum is for CASAA members and supporters. The CASAA is a new organization with, I imagine, little to no funding. This advocacy group is a really a lobby that can only, at this point, achieve its goals through activism. So until the day comes that the CASAA has as much financial support as the American Heart Association or the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the biggest weapon - the only weapon - we have right now is our voice. We need to figure out how to use words, arguments, and facts to counter every "BS ploy" currently being championed by the opposition. I'm not saying anyone here - both within and outside the CASAA - has to use my argument (I certainly will with my legislators). But to simply resign ourselves to the fact that "the real issue is money and control" is counter-productive and really accomplishes nothing.

Actually Bro, I have written my Congress Reps, have signed petetions, have shared with other smokers about vaping. I am more than willing to fight the antis anyway I can. I think your arguement is really a great one however dont have much faith it will sway many of the powers to be as they really dont care about children at all only about money and control. I actually think your argument might sway some of the masses but not the PTB.

As for my right to post here I believe this is an open forum and if the CASAA wants to be limited to members only then they should get a subforum and make it members only. I actually didnt go to CASAA subform looked at this on todays posts however I think I will look at what the CASAA is doing to fight the antis. My fight isnt with you but rather with the antis.

 

[Janetda]

I see the problem with this argument the same as with any of our arguments (and theirs too really), there is no proof. You can't say SHS is more dangerous then second hand vapor (SHV) because we don't have any peer-reviewed study demonstrating it.

Frankly, I think we're missing the boat entirely. The fact is, I like to vape. There is nothing illegal in it and I just like it. No one has demonstrated that it's harmful to anyone. Therefore, I should be able to vape and vendors should be able to sell them. It's really that simple.

 

[Webby]

...as for my right to post here I believe this is an open forum and if the CASAA wants to be limited to members only then they should get a subforum and make it members only. I actually didnt go to CASAA subform looked at this on todays posts however I think I will look at what the CASAA is doing to fight the antis. My fight isnt with you but rather with the antis.

Not at all, Brewster - your comments and concerns are welcome and IMO, on target. This is a public forum and I never want CASAA to be a group where discussion and decisions are made behind closed doors. We took a lot of heat early on for hashing out debate ad nauseum. Many criticized us for wasting time "over every semicolon" of our charter. IMHO, that helped establish CASAA as a true Consumer's Group.

There is a line where we have to say, "We respect your opinion on this issue, you've had your say, but the general consensus has voted THIS way. We expect you to support the group's decision"

CASAA is a support organization. We aren't a Bat-Line for legal reinforcements, a Better Business Bureau (when you feel screwed by a rogue supplier) or even Banzbusters®. If you're willing to go to the matresses, we'll provide substantiated legal and medical documentation, campaign materials (signs, banners, bumper stickers, printable materials) and phone support so you can talk with grassroots folks who have fought - and won - battles on the local, municipal and state level. What works, what doesn't and the 30,000 foot view of where you can help.

YOU have to take the initiative to help on the local level. CASAA was designed to enpower the grassroots captains to rally local troops, not arbitrarily take crimebuster calls. We will revel in the day when we can do that, but for now the need is for folks who aren't afraid to fight City Hall.

THAT is what CASAA is.

 

[kristin]

If you join CASAA the you are CASAA.

To borrow from JFK:

"Ask not what CASAA can do for you. Ask what you can do for CASAA."

 

[Viv Savage]

Actually Bro, I have written my Congress Reps, have signed petetions, have shared with other smokers about vaping. I am more than willing to fight the antis anyway I can. I think your arguement is really a great one however dont have much faith it will sway many of the powers to be as they really dont care about children at all only about money and control. I actually think your argument might sway some of the masses but not the PTB.

As for my right to post here I believe this is an open forum and if the CASAA wants to be limited to members only then they should get a subforum and make it members only. I actually didnt go to CASAA subform looked at this on todays posts however I think I will look at what the CASAA is doing to fight the antis. My fight isnt with you but rather with the antis.

Hey, sorry man, I kinda over-reacted there... and you're absolutely right... you have every right to post here... and if it sounded like I was asserting otherwise, that was not my intention... I was really just trying to say that I would like to see more constructive approaches to this battle, especially within this particular sub-forum. (And I'm only a "member" by registering on their website, which hardly means anything... so I in no way meant to suggest that this should be a "members only" subforum... the more ECF members who read it and participate, the better.) Anyway, I just find it frustrating to read ad infinitum about why the FDA, Big Pharm, Big Tobacco, and all of the other "Antis" hate vaping... I am seeking more ammo in the forms of arguments and counter-arguments... so I'm sorry for lashing out at you.

I see the problem with this argument the same as with any of our arguments (and theirs too really), there is no proof. You can't say SHS is more dangerous then second hand vapor (SHV) because we don't have any peer-reviewed study demonstrating it.

Frankly, I think we're missing the boat entirely. The fact is, I like to vape. There is nothing illegal in it and I just like it. No one has demonstrated that it's harmful to anyone. Therefore, I should be able to vape and vendors should be able to sell them. It's really that simple.

Well, I never mentioned "second hand vapor"... and never would... for precisely that reason... there are no studies of any kind on its safety or danger. So I would never use the statement "second hand smoke is more dangerous than second hand vapor".... and I never recommended making that argument. I believe, however, that there have been enough studies on second hand smoke that do prove that it is dangerous... especially for children exposed to smoke on a consistent basis. It is also a fact that vapor contains no smoke. So if parents that smoke can make the switch to vaping, they would remove the proven danger of second hand smoke from their children's environment. That is all. I don't know... seems pretty clear cut to me. To suggest that "second hand vapor" might not be any safer is just speculation... although, sure, I can certainly see legislators making the same argument you have, and responding with "Well, until I know for sure that vapor is safe, I don't think it should be legal."

Well, I hope your approach works wherever you may live. I sincerely do. But for me, IMHO, I really don't think the "I like to vape" argument is going to be enough to persuade my two State Legislators who already voted once to ban e-cigs in California to not do so again... and one thing I'm pretty sure of is that once Gov. Schwarzenegger is gone, another bill will be passed and put before the next Governor... and if that Governor is current Attorney General Jerry Brown (who is currently suing SE (oh yeah, for targeting minors, btw... which was part of my initial point) and trying to ban e-cigs), the next bill will not be vetoed this time around. So, I'm going to use every possible argument I can think of to persuade my Representatives to rethink their position. But I do thank you for showing me the rebuttal I will likely face on this particular one.

 

[kristin]

Hey Viv, we still need more LA reps - we only have one.

 

[Janetda]

Well, I hope your approach works wherever you may live. I sincerely do. But for me, IMHO, I really don't think the "I like to vape" argument is going to be enough to persuade my two State Legislators who already voted once to ban e-cigs in California to not do so again... and one thing I'm pretty sure of is that once Gov. Schwarzenegger is gone, another bill will be passed and put before the next Governor... and if that Governor is current Attorney General Jerry Brown (who is currently suing SE (oh yeah, for targeting minors, btw... which was part of my initial point) and trying to ban e-cigs), the next bill will not be vetoed this time around. So, I'm going to use every possible argument I can think of to persuade my Representatives to rethink their position. But I do thank you for showing me the rebuttal I will likely face on this particular one.

Respectfully, if you argue that e-cigs are better for 'the children' because of SHS, the natual reaction will be about SHV. Further, I think you may have missed the point that our best LEGAL argument is the "because I like it" argument. That's essentially what they are arguing in court, and that's what is going to win the SE/NJOY v FDA case. It's not about health, its about e-cigs being an alternative smoke. While logic dictates that e-cigs may very well be a zillion times safer than combustibles, we can't make any such claims or arguments at this point.

 

[Brewster 59]

Hey, sorry man, I kinda over-reacted there... and you're absolutely right... you have every right to post here... and if it sounded like I was asserting otherwise, that was not my intention... I was really just trying to say that I would like to see more constructive approaches to this battle, especially within this particular sub-forum. (And I'm only a "member" by registering on their website, which hardly means anything... so I in no way meant to suggest that this should be a "members only" subforum... the more ECF members who read it and participate, the better.) Anyway, I just find it frustrating to read ad infinitum about why the FDA, Big Pharm, Big Tobacco, and all of the other "Antis" hate vaping... I am seeking more ammo in the forms of arguments and counter-arguments... so I'm sorry for lashing out at you.
.

You know the more I think about this the more I think you are right. even though I feel my statement was realist, I should not have made it especially here and I do not need to make any statements that may cause dissention. I should only be making statements that encourage others to make a stand against those who think it is their right to impose their will on others reguardless of how they feel or think.

I think any stand against nannyism is a good stand and want to join with all who seek to fight it. God I hope Brown is not our next Gov, I think the Governator did a pretty good job overall, anyways I do apologise for the negative response, please understand Im pretty sickened by the state of how things are politically. And the even sorrier choices we are being given reguardless of the party the supposidly represent.

 

[Viv Savage]

You know the more I think about this the more I think you are right. even though I feel my statement was realist, I should not have made it especially here and I do not need to make any statements that may cause dissention. I should only be making statements that encourage others to make a stand against those who think it is their right to impose their will on others reguardless of how they feel or think.

I think any stand against nannyism is a good stand and want to join with all who seek to fight it. God I hope Brown is not our next Gov, I think the Governator did a pretty good job overall, anyways I do apologise for the negative response, please understand Im pretty sickened by the state of how things are politically. And the even sorrier choices we are being given reguardless of the party the supposidly represent.

No worries. No one seems to agree with me anyway!
(Fortunately for everyone else, I'll only be representing myself )