I'm sick and tired of the "we did it to ourselves" argument. We didn't do anything.
We are doing it right now in this thread. We do this to ourselves.
The FDA tried to stop/ban/regulate e-cigs from day one--before we even had a chance to do or say anything on the subject. The courts stopped them in 2009, luckily for us, but they never gave up. FDA, CDC, and the ANTZ will never give up, no matter what we do or say. The facts, the statistics and the science are on our side. Do they care? No. Vaping will be restricted, taxed and regulated not because of what we do or say but because too many hogs have no access to the trough--plain and simple. It's all about the lost revenue and nothing else. They want a slice of the vaping pie and they will get it--or they'll keep trying to ban it altogether to protect their interests. The only question is, how big a slice they will get.
I agree with this historical context of 2009. But, when FDA went in direction that Judge Leon suggested, we scapegoated the FDA. How dare they treat it as tobacco! I can probably still find posts by Mr. Godshall that say, circa 2010, that it would be very good news for the FDA to regulate eCigs as tobacco because that would mean they cannot ban it. In 2009, there was much celebration with the victory from the 2009 legal battle. This is easy to find in the archives of ECF. There is, in my readings, no dissent from the repercussions of that victory and what it could mean down the line; it was deemed incredibly great news that eCigs are, at worst, a tobacco product.
But none of that is really 'science' cause in reality, nicotine is a drug, and FDA going for control in that way, does make sense, especially if some vendors are advertising product as, "this will make you stop smoking, and increase your health." If anything, our side learned, very acutely, to stop making scientific (medical) type claims with regards to what you are selling. And good riddance as far as I'm concerned. Word of mouth can easily handle that, and needs no one from industry spouting off claims that invite scientific scrutiny.
But your point of "do they care? No. Vaping will be restricted, taxed and regulated" is something I agree with. Where we disagree is with what you said after it, "not because of what we do or say." Though what you say right after that is something I think supports my position as I see the 'many hogs at the trough' as arguably (or rather undeniably) made up of people on our side. And so my post that began this tangent does note that we will scapegoat our self-imposed restrictions toward "safer product" as "they did this to us" when it is politically convenient for us to make that point, and when we are in discussions such as this, then one like me who holds dissension is one that seemingly rather be ignorant and encouraging of dangerous products to be available to the masses.
In general, I agree there is a them, and they are ANTZ of the full blown variety, that are observable by name. But, I am 'sick and tired' of this plausible denial we have constructed that allows us to advocate for industry wide restrictions as a "must" thing, and then conveniently turn around and suggest "they did this to us." They, ANTZ, have made it clear that they wish to get rid of all flavors from eLiquid, and yet we (some of us vapers) are on board with that, by either self-imposing that as a personal decision or making arguments on forums that say "industry must do this or it is a very good thing if a portion of the industry goes out of business for not doing this." So, if someone reading this responds with, "I would never say that," well great, then this might not apply to you. But there are forums, or even this thread, where I can find people saying, "it must happen for the industry."
I haven't changed my approach on all this from the original Dr. F. thread, or the various threads that have sprouted from this. And when I say "we are doing this to ourselves," I observe and (fully) understand myself to be part of the we. So, for me, Dr. F. isn't a they, but is an us. And from what I can tell in my umpteen dozen conversations on the politics of vaping, there are many vapers that are onboard with restrictions, with (reasonable) regulations and even with taxation. Thus, this denial that we (vapers) want none of that is perhaps true in a minority of vapers, but there are so many threads where it is quite visible, and I would argue undeniable, that what they want is in some instances, not grossly different than what we will argue with each other over, and generally not resolve, but instead have people amongst us who are instigating arguments (other threads) to make those points from another angle.
This notion of seeking to ban product that has diketones in it, is a precise example of what I am alluding to. Or seeking to have mandatory disclosure around it. Thus far, those holding that position have done nothing to persuade me to their ANTZ-leaning position, and so we are at an impasse. But I've gone a few steps further on that debate to suggest that those seeking it aren't practicing actual science when they seek disclosure, but are, or will be, resorting to faith/trust to get at what they say they want. Do the testing for yourself if it is about science and is truly a personal decision. Otherwise, you done just made it a political matter and your pleas for industry wide restrictions don't fly so well with me. In fact, I'm going to keep on claiming, we are doing this to ourselves for as long as I observe that type of rhetoric being around and not scrutinized for precisely what it is.
Perhaps we'll bring back the diseases from pests to new record levels where some children won't have the opportunity to roll in the grass. It's basically what happened in most of Africa with the banning of DDT.
