What is our goal (as far as campaigning)!?

[rolygate]

Keep up the good work

You won't regret it. Remember this at all times: you have an absolute right to fight for your rights.

You may not be the best-qualified people in your country to start down this difficult road - but you are the ones who had the courage to do it while everyone else did nothing, or talked about it, or even criticised the whole idea. That makes it even more certain that you are the right people (or even just one person) to start this process.

It doesn't matter who is running it in 5 years, someone with enough courage has to start it. Forget any doubts and just move ahead. Many will criticise you, for reasons you can't even figure out; but it just doesn't matter. Press on regardless.

 

[Stubby]

rolygate: I agree with your analysis on page one of this thread except for the fact that in the US there is also a large number of people already using smokeless tobacco. There are more people using american style smokeless in the form of dip then there are using e-cigs. Smokeless has a long tradition in the US dating back a few hundred years.

Unfortunately for the most part people here in the US have been largely brainwashed into thinking american style smokeless is at least as bad or even worse then smoking, and certainly much worse then Swedish style snus, but the science tells us differently. Part of the goal (at least outside the realm of the vaping world) is to get the truth out about readily available (and under no threat of bans) american style smokeless. Outside of Sweden, and to a lesser extent Denmark and Norway, Europe does't have the tradition of smokeless tobacco, but in the US that's not the case.

The good news is the lie about US smokeless is beginning to crack. Smokeless tobacco sales have been going up by 7% a year for some time now. Also, the US smokeless tobacco community is waking up to the fact that US ST is very low risk comparable to Swedish snus and e-cigs. There is a lot of education going on that is having a positive effect.

The point of this is that THR in the US is likely to have a good deal more variety to it then in the EU, where it is almost completely centered on electronic cigarettes.

 

[chartreuse]

After the FDA announces its "Deeming Regulations" ...
This forum may get "hot" again with discussions about
what we can do to "Campaign" to effect changes or
slow down the FDA's plans to keep adding more and more
"deeming" regulations.

Is waiting until the FDA acts necessarily the best approach, though? Once it makes its announcement, its position will become entrenched.

Might there be some merit to contacting our congresscritters now, warning them that if the FDA does what we fear it will be such a blatant piece of skulduggery as to shake every American's faith in government and advising them to head this one off at the pass, before the FDA screws it up for all of them?

 

[sonicdsl]

Check the Legislation News sub-forum for several threads about the FDA, what's been done (thousands of letters sent to the FDA in January per their request for comments, for example), what's coming up, and what's happening now. Also consider joining CASAA!

 

[rolygate]

rolygate: I agree with your analysis on page one of this thread except for the fact that in the US there is also a large number of people already using smokeless tobacco. .........

Yes Stubby, you are right. I omitted to factor that in.

I changed the post by adding in a new #6 item about this. As far as I can see, the US smokeless tradition may mean that either more people will eventually move away from smoking to alternatives than will occur in say the UK, or that the process will happen faster; or both.

Would you agree?

 

[Stubby]

Yes Stubby, you are right. I omitted to factor that in.

I changed the post by adding in a new #6 item about this. As far as I can see, the US smokeless tradition may mean that either more people will eventually move away from smoking to alternatives than will occur in say the UK, or that the process will happen faster; or both.

Would you agree?

Well.... getting out my crystal ball........ its kind of fuzzy.

A big issue here is that about 85% of the population still believes smokeless tobacco is just as harmful as smoking. There has been a misinformation campaign against smokeless tobacco that has gone on for decades. As better information has been leaking out the last few years about the low risk of smokeless the ANTZ have been ramping up their misinformation campaign. There is likely more energy put into attacking smokeless products (all types) as there is smoking. Most of those attacks are on the newer types of smokeless (snus, dissolvables). It's clear the ANTZ see smokeless tobacco as a threat to their livelihood. Of course nearly all of the money for this is coming from pharmaceutical companies. Despite all that smokeless tobacco sales have been going up 7% a year. There are about 8 million people using smokeless tobacco in the US (I got that information from a post by kristin from CASAA. I had been having a hard time pinning down numbers on ST use).

Electronic cigarettes have an advantage in that they don't have the long history of bad information behind it. It came on the market with a pretty clean slate. When the ANTZ went on the attack the e-cig community was ready with an immediate push back. The public has a much better perception of vaping then ST (that doesn't mean they are better, it just means the public has a more positive view as far as risk goes). It is very likely vaping will surpass smokeless tobacco use in the next few years assuming there isn't something catastrophic as in a hard core deeming regulation or taxation at the same rate as cigarettes. Having said that ST isn't going away. What the ratios will be like 10 or 20 years from now would be like betting on who the next president will be. Donno.

If nothing else, in a worst case scenario and the FDA comes down hard on vaping, there are other alternatives. It's just a matter getting through the brainwashing that has been going on for a long time.

 

[rolygate]

Yes, we we did a good job of responding strongly to the attacks. As you say, that put us in a stronger position than the ST users.

The future looks complicated...

 

[Berylanna]

The overall goal of campaigning IMO is to ideally keep it legal to make and sell all nic levels up to 36 (50 preferred) and no regulations about flavors or caffeine or WTA in e-liquids.

Sub-goals include, among other things, trying to get people to put science ahead of ideology. (Any forum full if DIY-ers and modders is going to have an overabundance of nerds!) And that means also supporting snus users (and hoping they will support us) because it's the same war.

So I have given myself a goal of trying to encourage production of materials that "grab" the attention of non-nerds with the absurdity of the claims of the nicotine abolitionists. And to do so, I've created my first cartoon, which I'd like to see go viral in Europe before the Feb 23 Health Commission presentation or whatever it is. Next item is to create one for vaping. (The reason the snus cartoon came first is that the plot for the vaping cartoon requires a better artist )

So, here's the cartoon for Europe:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...o-write-what-say-short-guide.html#post8652739

I remember I've managed to include uploaded images of mine in posts before but for some reason I can't seem to do it this time, let me know if y'all know how. Also, I can't seem to upload to my "album."

 

[D4rk50ul]

If I had to personally say what I want from the FDA/Government I would ask to keep my right to choose what I perceive to be the healthier alternative to my former addiction.

I would agree that systems need to be put into place to keep electronic cigarette supplies and devices out of the hands of minors, and require identification to purchase. I would also be o.k. with a small federal tax being applied to the juice to fund such a system. Scientific studies are always welcome but not at the cost of the now. If they can agree that this is something that you simply cannot pull off the market because of the unknown but that while allowing them to be used will be studied intensely I would be happy with that.

It's kind of like this for me.. If they invented a drink that you could ingest while drunk that instantly sobered you up, and in the process prevented hundreds of thousands of alcohol related deaths and illnesses and shows no signs of side effects would you really pull it from the market because you don't know what might happen to the drunk driver 20 years later? Life is too short and smokers need a solution NOW, not 50 years from now. Rather than work against us why not ask the vaping community for help in research by volunteering for clinical studies and such. I know most of us are all for the truth, we aren't blindly defending this we are just as interested in the true long term effects as the next guy but we just cannot afford to wait as addiction has put a timer on our lives that no other method can effectively take away for us.

 

[Berylanna]

If I had to personally say what I want from the FDA/Government I would ask to keep my right to choose what I perceive to be the healthier alternative to my former addiction.

I would agree that systems need to be put into place to keep electronic cigarette supplies and devices out of the hands of minors, and require identification to purchase. I would also be o.k. with a small federal tax being applied to the juice to fund such a system. Scientific studies are always welcome but not at the cost of the now. If they can agree that this is something that you simply cannot pull off the market because of the unknown but that while allowing them to be used will be studied intensely I would be happy with that.

It's kind of like this for me.. If they invented a drink that you could ingest while drunk that instantly sobered you up, and in the process prevented hundreds of thousands of alcohol related deaths and illnesses and shows no signs of side effects would you really pull it from the market because you don't know what might happen to the drunk driver 20 years later? Life is too short and smokers need a solution NOW, not 50 years from now. Rather than work against us why not ask the vaping community for help in research by volunteering for clinical studies and such. I know most of us are all for the truth, we aren't blindly defending this we are just as interested in the true long term effects as the next guy but we just cannot afford to wait as addiction has put a timer on our lives that no other method can effectively take away for us.

I'm pretty sure they will go ahead and let BT spend the millions to approve systems with sealed non-refillable cartridges of a very few flavors and huge profits (check out how ink cartridges have been a huge profit center for printer companies!) and then claim they have given us our healthy alternative. (In the U.S. -- the rest of the world appears to be a different story.)

My problem is that though that is how I got started vaping, it is NOT how I finally got off combustibles. So this solution is not going to do it for me. I need MORE freedom than that, I need the freedom to choose what worked FOR ME as an individual. Not sure how to phrase that without sounding spoiled. My relatives say things like "so why would it be so unfair to tax ecigs at the same rate as cigs?" Then I have to point out that a 79% tax on a pack that takes $2 to manufacture is quite different than a 79% tax on a $70 device. And that the expense of finding what I needed, of essentially paying for beta testing when I buy new devices that didn't cut it, is high-enough that the long-term savings have to make up for it.

 

[Lisa Belle]

Check this out and all the comments that follow. Include e-cigarettes in Ky. smoking ban | Editorial | Kentucky.com
Then get active speak your opinions loudly and we won't quit quitting or vaping!

 

[Lisa Belle]

Here's another new addition to the truth or injustice regarding our health! Even professional harm reduction workers have issues with tobacco harm reduction « Tobacco Harm Reduction: News & Opinions

 

[Lisa Belle]

News Tobaccoharmreduction.org

 

[Petrodus]

For the benefit of new members
wondering why so many are opposed to e-cigarettes
CLICK HERE

 

[Koman]

News Tobaccoharmreduction.org

Good stuff, thanks!

 

[zoiDman]

...

The key issue will always be: how to make the saving of life due to public health advances in the smoking area more important than the power and influence of people earning tens of billions of dollars from smoking, who obviously need to preserve the status quo. If you know the answer to that question then let's hear it...

...

I don't have the Answer that you, or any of us, want to hear. But I do have an Answer to your Question.

And that is let BT, BP and the US State/Federal collect the Same amount of monies from e-Liquid use as they do from Cigarette use.

I know. I know. I can hear the Screaming already. "ARE YOU MAD... $7 a day for e-Liquids when I'm paying 30 cents Right Now? Are you an ANTZ or Something?"

But as you pointed out Roly, the game is Fixed. The only one who can win with the FDA is BP (and of course, State/Federal Tax Collectors). The game only works one way. And the FDA / Government runs the Game.

So if the Primary goal is Better Public Health. And a person believes that Better Public Heath can be achieved thru the use of e-Cigarettes. Then a Monetary Sacrifice is going to have to happen. e-Liquids would have to be similar in price to Cigarettes.

 

[Stubby]

I don't have the Answer that you, or any of us, want to hear. But I do have an Answer to your Question.

And that is let BT, BP and the US State/Federal collect the Same amount of monies from e-Liquid use as they do from Cigarette use.

I know. I know. I can hear the Screaming already. "ARE YOU MAD... $7 a day for e-Liquids when I'm paying 30 cents Right Now? Are you an ANTZ or Something?"

But as you pointed out Roly, the game is Fixed. The only one who can win with the FDA is BP (and of course, State/Federal Tax Collectors). The game only works one way. And the FDA / Government runs the Game.

So if the Primary goal is Better Public Health. And a person believes that Better Public Heath can be achieved thru the use of e-Cigarettes. Then a Monetary Sacrifice is going to have to happen. e-Liquids would have to be similar in price to Cigarettes.

Not likely an idea that will work. The real money is made by BP and they are the ones blocking THR. If BP was not throwing millions at anti-THR groups (essentially all anti-smoking/tobacco/nicotine groups) we wouldn't have this problem. They are the ones with the most to lose if THR becomes common knowledge and millions of people switch to low risk alternatives.

The only real way of changing the system is to educate the public about THR. This is not going to happen from the top down. The only way for things to change is from the bottom up. When enough people get educated about THR they will simply demand the system change away from a prohibitionist abstinence only approach to a more pragmatic THR.

You will never change the hard core ANTZ, especially those that are making a living off the current situation. Politicians on the other hand can be persuaded as they will respond to votes. It's not an impossible situation. When I got involved in this nearly 4 years ago the idea of THR was almost never heard of in public discussions. Now it's not unusual to have it mentioned. The only reason this happened is because a lot of people started speaking up.

 

[zoiDman]

...

The only real way of changing the system is to educate the public about THR.

...

If you knew me, you would know that I Seldom downplay the Importance of Education.

But in this case, it isn't about Education. And it Isn't about Health. It's about Money and Taxes. Or to be more clear, who is getting the Money and how can e-Liquids be Taxed.

There might be a few Elected Officials left in the world who would not Sell their Sole for more Campaign Contributions. A few. Maybe in Europe. But not here. Here it is all about getting Re-Elected and that takes Money.

And there is the 16 Trillion Dollar hole that needs to be filled. Heck, at the end of this week the cuts are supposed to hit unless something can be cut or some Tax can be Levied.

Think how appealing it would be to tell a Congressman that there was a couple Billion laying around that would be a Slam Dunk Tax-Wise?

 

[Lisa Belle]

Moonshining is illegal? LOL not real funny? But the mainstream, businesses will crumble or succeed? Shops owned by small businesses all over the USA?