Please consider this a side discussion thread to the current threads in the Legislative News sub-forum, specifically the ones dealing with California and Colorado bills on banning non face-to-face sales of ecig products. And please see my point #6 below regarding discussion of party politics in this thread.
Feel free to add to my list with whatever you learned and care to discuss on this thread.
*Bolded parts for the TL;DR readers
1. Being or becoming a member of CASAA is currently in the best interest of vapers who care about the politics of eCigs. If there is another organization around that speaks for vaping consumer and is made up of vaping consumers, I'm very interested in hearing about it. For now, I see CASAA as best of what we vaping consumers have going to address these issues in an organized fashion with plenty of resources available, should we need them in some political fight. And whatever resources are lacking are items you could bring to the table when you become a member for free. Took me a good 2 years to join and I'm still not 100% sold on all things CASAA, but do continue to see it as best option we vapers currently have available in combatting bills like this. Thank God, we have other options though (like own determination) even if this best option doesn't work for everyone.
2. Being on the defense for these vaping issues stinks, IMO. We've been discussing the issues in these bills on vaping forums for last few years, and so it really ought to not send us into some sort of panic mode when they do what we thought they might do, and likely would do, if given the platform to do it.
3. Being proactive makes far more sense on these issues. For many reasons. Think how we all (who care about this stuff) spun our wheels and took time out of our busy day to address this issue with politicians. Because suddenly, someone somewhere took some action that counters our general take on these matters. Putting us on defensive, and forcing our hand. Hence being proactive in own state, local community could do the same. Moreover, it would settle things before they are moving in that other direction. If selling to minors is a stated concern in California, I'm guessing it'll be concern in almost every portion of the US at some point. Coming up with local solution that addresses this for your neck of the woods, would make it a lot more challenging down the road to put forth a bill that pretends like it can prevent such sales. Likewise, every state is likely to be concerned about taxes for eCig products, and there are solutions we could be working on now. If those solutions work for one state / county, they stand a pretty decent chance of being adopted by other states. Or, we could just wait to see what the opposition passes, and be reactive instead.
4. Another reason being reactive stinks is it becomes challenging to decipher what is really going on when people on our side are at different levels of concern. On the California thread, Bill Godshall came in to say "Let's not panic folks" as well as, "even if the bill is approved and signed into law, it is unlikely to be enforced after someone sues in federal court." IMO, this matters significantly because of weight that Bill carries on these matters. If I say that on p.1, I'm thinking it is ignored and everyone on that thread in first 10 pages stays in 'panic mode' about how this is a sign in the vaper apocalypse. Thus, staying in reactive mode, and ultimately feeling defeated that we are so overpowered by the tactics of our well funded opposition.
5. And adding to my 3rd point above, but following the 4th point, being proactive means we get to use our own tactics, designed to keep our opposition on the defensive (hopefully exposing them for who they are in the process) and designed to be underhanded in our own way. Like, our goal could be to capture counties right now where it would be easy to offer up bills that are essentially pro-vaping, and to do so as quietly as we can. Get a few of those under our belt, and then capture a big city, say like Dallas TX, or some other location where we think local politicians stand a chance to listen to reason and help be proactive with what is sure to come in this national eCig battle.
6. Talking along political party lines doesn't work for us on these matters. I think it can help a little bit with venting, but because there are vapers who will strongly disagree with these sort of sentiments, it ought to be clear that such rhetoric is designed to divide the Vaping Party and have us bickering amongst ourselves. Plus, I observe people who express themselves along party lines tend to use such over-the-top rhetoric, that suddenly forum rules are seemingly okay, in their mind, to be bent or broken. Hence, moderators of ECF will have to intervene and possibly shut down entire discussion because of what truly is a side issue. I'd strongly suggest side threads be set up just for those purposes and people who can't or refuse to discuss the matter at hand in any other way but thru the prism of political partisanship. With all this said, I'll note that I lean in a certain direction politically, and am very comfortable talking on that tangent, but feel with vaping, there are bigger fish to fry. Partisan political banter almost always appears to me like a detractor from the discussion, and my conspiracy theory side thinks our opposition could just be sending people into our groups just to use that tactic of dividing us and distracting us so we hopefully lose focus.
7. The kids card. Our opposition will continue to play this card for as long as there is a desire to control eCig items. IMO, it is their trump card. It can take a substantial portion of the the Vaping Party and render them compliant to specific bans / regulations put forth for "public safety." IMO, there's no quick easy way around this. I see this card being played as often as possible going forward and working most, if not all the time. Which is even more reason to be proactive on things. I'm still going to be very vocal about idea that these issues are never (ever) about the kids. I also feel Vaping Party is best to remain neutral on this card, meaning we don't encourage or discourage minors use, possession of eCigs. I further believe if we are discouraging of minors use, and agreeing wholeheartedly with bills that curtail kids and eCigs, we are providing an inroad that will, for sure, be used against adults down the road. IMO, it is already visible in these bills; and very obvious, as in how can you not see it this way? But alas, I almost always feel like I'm in some extreme minority when I bring up this tangent, so as long as that may be the case, I don't know what we can ultimately do, if spokespeople, leaders or otherwise vocal members of the Vaping Party are willing to concede on the kids card with hope that adults won't be affected by the law in place or bill being put forth.
Feel free to add to my list with whatever you learned and care to discuss on this thread.
*Bolded parts for the TL;DR readers
1. Being or becoming a member of CASAA is currently in the best interest of vapers who care about the politics of eCigs. If there is another organization around that speaks for vaping consumer and is made up of vaping consumers, I'm very interested in hearing about it. For now, I see CASAA as best of what we vaping consumers have going to address these issues in an organized fashion with plenty of resources available, should we need them in some political fight. And whatever resources are lacking are items you could bring to the table when you become a member for free. Took me a good 2 years to join and I'm still not 100% sold on all things CASAA, but do continue to see it as best option we vapers currently have available in combatting bills like this. Thank God, we have other options though (like own determination) even if this best option doesn't work for everyone.
2. Being on the defense for these vaping issues stinks, IMO. We've been discussing the issues in these bills on vaping forums for last few years, and so it really ought to not send us into some sort of panic mode when they do what we thought they might do, and likely would do, if given the platform to do it.
3. Being proactive makes far more sense on these issues. For many reasons. Think how we all (who care about this stuff) spun our wheels and took time out of our busy day to address this issue with politicians. Because suddenly, someone somewhere took some action that counters our general take on these matters. Putting us on defensive, and forcing our hand. Hence being proactive in own state, local community could do the same. Moreover, it would settle things before they are moving in that other direction. If selling to minors is a stated concern in California, I'm guessing it'll be concern in almost every portion of the US at some point. Coming up with local solution that addresses this for your neck of the woods, would make it a lot more challenging down the road to put forth a bill that pretends like it can prevent such sales. Likewise, every state is likely to be concerned about taxes for eCig products, and there are solutions we could be working on now. If those solutions work for one state / county, they stand a pretty decent chance of being adopted by other states. Or, we could just wait to see what the opposition passes, and be reactive instead.
4. Another reason being reactive stinks is it becomes challenging to decipher what is really going on when people on our side are at different levels of concern. On the California thread, Bill Godshall came in to say "Let's not panic folks" as well as, "even if the bill is approved and signed into law, it is unlikely to be enforced after someone sues in federal court." IMO, this matters significantly because of weight that Bill carries on these matters. If I say that on p.1, I'm thinking it is ignored and everyone on that thread in first 10 pages stays in 'panic mode' about how this is a sign in the vaper apocalypse. Thus, staying in reactive mode, and ultimately feeling defeated that we are so overpowered by the tactics of our well funded opposition.
5. And adding to my 3rd point above, but following the 4th point, being proactive means we get to use our own tactics, designed to keep our opposition on the defensive (hopefully exposing them for who they are in the process) and designed to be underhanded in our own way. Like, our goal could be to capture counties right now where it would be easy to offer up bills that are essentially pro-vaping, and to do so as quietly as we can. Get a few of those under our belt, and then capture a big city, say like Dallas TX, or some other location where we think local politicians stand a chance to listen to reason and help be proactive with what is sure to come in this national eCig battle.
6. Talking along political party lines doesn't work for us on these matters. I think it can help a little bit with venting, but because there are vapers who will strongly disagree with these sort of sentiments, it ought to be clear that such rhetoric is designed to divide the Vaping Party and have us bickering amongst ourselves. Plus, I observe people who express themselves along party lines tend to use such over-the-top rhetoric, that suddenly forum rules are seemingly okay, in their mind, to be bent or broken. Hence, moderators of ECF will have to intervene and possibly shut down entire discussion because of what truly is a side issue. I'd strongly suggest side threads be set up just for those purposes and people who can't or refuse to discuss the matter at hand in any other way but thru the prism of political partisanship. With all this said, I'll note that I lean in a certain direction politically, and am very comfortable talking on that tangent, but feel with vaping, there are bigger fish to fry. Partisan political banter almost always appears to me like a detractor from the discussion, and my conspiracy theory side thinks our opposition could just be sending people into our groups just to use that tactic of dividing us and distracting us so we hopefully lose focus.
7. The kids card. Our opposition will continue to play this card for as long as there is a desire to control eCig items. IMO, it is their trump card. It can take a substantial portion of the the Vaping Party and render them compliant to specific bans / regulations put forth for "public safety." IMO, there's no quick easy way around this. I see this card being played as often as possible going forward and working most, if not all the time. Which is even more reason to be proactive on things. I'm still going to be very vocal about idea that these issues are never (ever) about the kids. I also feel Vaping Party is best to remain neutral on this card, meaning we don't encourage or discourage minors use, possession of eCigs. I further believe if we are discouraging of minors use, and agreeing wholeheartedly with bills that curtail kids and eCigs, we are providing an inroad that will, for sure, be used against adults down the road. IMO, it is already visible in these bills; and very obvious, as in how can you not see it this way? But alas, I almost always feel like I'm in some extreme minority when I bring up this tangent, so as long as that may be the case, I don't know what we can ultimately do, if spokespeople, leaders or otherwise vocal members of the Vaping Party are willing to concede on the kids card with hope that adults won't be affected by the law in place or bill being put forth.
