Why Do Liberals Hate Smokeless Cigarettes? - Psychology Today

[catlady60]

Why Do Liberals Hate Smokeless Cigarettes? | Psychology Today

Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. But the bad part comes from inhaling burned plant structural material, and the addictive part is the nicotine. Unlike junk food, the bad part and the good part are totally different.Maybe you could separate them?
That's what e-cigarettes are. No, not cigarettes you can download on iTunes. But little cigarette-shaped and -sized canisters that provide you with vaporized nicotine solution. No burning plant material.

Thing is, I'm generally liberal on economic matters, but I don't think vapers should be treated like children. I'm very critical of some of my fellow Democrats on the e-cig issue; it seems as if they're paternalistic and trying to protect us from ourselves, as if we were incompetent to make our own health decisions.

 

[Rossum]

The problem is the e-cigarette doesn't seem to be a gateway drug to quitting, it's a gateway drug to more e-cigarettes.

Especially if the e-cigarette user finds ECF.

 

[AgentAnia]

This article is from Nov. 2011 so I'm going to cut the author a break and excuse his ignorance, as ecigs weren't as well known then, but really, "smokeless cigarettes"? The only smokeless cigarette is a tobacco cigarette that hasn't been lit yet.

 

[mightymen]

Tierney doesn't speculate on why liberals are so averse to e-cigarettes, and I don't know either. To me, it seems like it might be related to snobbery. After all cigarettes are associated with uneducated people, they are associated with poverty, and with people who lack self-control. A lot of people I know (all ivory tower folks) will morally judge someone who smokes (and I am just as guilty of anyone). For example: there's a lot more judgment for smoking cigarettes than for cigars.

So is this just a case of leftist snobbery? Or is there some pragmatic reason why abstinence for nicotine is better than e-cigarettes?

Why Do Liberals Hate Smokeless Cigarettes? | Psychology Today

IMO: They don't hate it they just love Government regulations and welcome an opportunity to have more. It's nothing but a tool to gain power over others with.

 

[wv2win]

.............................

Thing is, I'm generally liberal on economic matters, but I don't think vapers should be treated like children. I'm very critical of some of my fellow Democrats on the e-cig issue; it seems as if they're paternalistic and trying to protect us from ourselves, as if we were incompetent to make our own health decisions.

"Paternalistic and trying to protect" - you are being waaaay too kind to their true agenda. I am shocked that all who voted for these liberal politicians are surprised that they want to dictate and assert control over, most every aspect of our lives.

By now all vapers should realize that how one votes can affect our lives in a very negative way. The systematic attack on vaping started at the national level in 2009 when a new administration came into power. Mitch Zeller, appointed by Obama, is the driving force behind the Deeming Regulations. All the negative committee hearings on vaping are being instigated in the Democratically controlled Senate but not in the House where they are the minority.

The best hope of stopping the Deeming Regulations is a change in the leadership of the Senate. I'm an Independent, but I hope all vapers vote in these mid-term elections and do so with the idea that changing control of the Senate will provide a better chance to stop these regulations.

 

[mightymen]

The best hope of stopping the Deeming Regulations is a change in the leadership of the Senate. I'm an Independent, but I hope all vapers vote in these mid-term elections and do so with the idea that changing control of the Senate will provide a better chance to stop these regulations.

Vapor community is larger enough now that we can be heard with our vote.

Put your priorities in order and get out and vote and if vaping is a top concern of your let them know it right now write them, call them, email them. Then VOTE on election day.

The only way to STOP what's going on is with the POWER that was given you by VOTING.

 

[zoiDman]

IMO: They don't hate it they just love Government regulations and welcome an opportunity to have more. It's nothing but a tool to gain power over others with.

This would have been a Great Thread for the OUTSIDE.

And the One Who Shall Not be Mentioned would, I'm sure, have a Lot to say about it.

LOL

 

[aikanae1]

My observation on liberal sites is that the majority of "liberals" are NOT for these regulations. Even on Huff Po, the comments are overwhelming pro-vaping. It's not the first time politians have taken a stand contrary to want their base might want. I think a larger issue is that their base seems to not care, it's not a prority and registers as a minor thing. I don't understand "who" they are doing this for. They could get campaign funding without all this public grandstanding. They are doing this for some voting block.

A weak spot is that "evidence-based" seems to be a phrase coming up across the board among all progressives. But a person has to bust the bubble they live in to get them to see it.

 

[ChurchMouse]

There are quite a few of us liberal vapers. Liberals in general are no more for or against vaping than any other group.

The problem is it's only an important issue to vapers who keep abreast of the political shenanigans and the hard core ANTZ who drive it. There simply aren't enough vapers involved and invested in the process to be a significant voting block.

As for the individual liberal politicians who are so against it, the answer is cash. They may be able to get campaign contributions and goodies without the "For the children!" routine, but they would still be beholden to the industry for the millions they've already received and the tradeoffs BP and related allowed in the ACA process. I highly doubt even Barbie Boxer cares as much as the foam on her jowls suggests, she's just living up to her side of the bargain.

Meanwhile the right tends to take more from BT, who are invested in vaping. It's in their interests to allow some regulation to go through that's favorable to their client, such as not allowing ecigs to be marketed as smoking cessation, but not so much as to completely gut the industry or take away the flavors, etc. that help make it popular and profitable. If they do that BT stands to lose their investment too.

That's American politics, right, left or in between. *shrug*

 

[Kent C]

My observation on liberal sites is that the majority of "liberals" are NOT for these regulations. Even on Huff Po, the comments are overwhelming pro-vaping. It's not the first time politians have taken a stand contrary to want their base might want. I think a larger issue is that their base seems to not care, it's not a prority and registers as a minor thing. I don't understand "who" they are doing this for. They could get campaign funding without all this public grandstanding. They are doing this for some voting block.

A weak spot is that "evidence-based" seems to be a phrase coming up across the board among all progressives. But a person has to bust the bubble they live in to get them to see it.

This goes toward what you said in another thread about 'illness/addiction'. The liberal/progressive philosophy tends toward regulation. And there is a faction of the so called 'right' (also imo "progressive" - see my note to you on neocons where 'the body is a temple' and that any addiction is bad.

Despite those 'philosophies' - individuals aren't always consistent with them. Most liberals who don't want (some) regulations on ecigs, don't make that exception on other stuff that don't affect them. They're 'self-interested' in ecigs, but want restrictions on other people for other things - guns, for an easy example, and I might add for the same reasons the FDA claims - public good.

When the orientation is individual rights, self-governing, individual sovereignty rather than 'public good', where only actual harm to others (not oneself) is the defining factor for law - not junk science harm or indirect harm - eg. gambling 'harms' the family - then there is no fallout/inconsistency with the philosophy.

 

[Maestro]

A liberal is a conservative who's just been arrested. A conservative is a liberal who's just been mugged.

 

[Kent C]

ChurchMouse: There are quite a few of us liberal vapers. Liberals in general are no more for or against vaping than any other group.

The problem is it's only an important issue to vapers who keep abreast of the political shenanigans and the hard core ANTZ who drive it. There simply aren't enough vapers involved and invested in the process to be a significant voting block.

In general, there are exceptions even with spouses which confounds me - aren't you glad they quit smoking?!? - the support goes beyond actual vapers in multiples with family, friends and co-workers. Most are happy that someone quit or reduced smoking.

As for the individual liberal politicians who are so against it, the answer is cash.

A popular 'liberal' argument ... but that isn't the case with Rockefeller but you're right. Frankly most Senators who, in many cases never made it in the 'dog eat dog' (their view) private economy, but have become multimillionaires as 'public servants' - Harry Reid is a fine example. Power or status is much more important to them now.

They may be able to get campaign contributions and goodies without the "For the children!" routine, but they would still be beholden to the industry for the millions they've already received and the tradeoffs BP and related allowed in the ACA process. I highly doubt even Barbie Boxer cares as much as the foam on her jowls suggests, she's just living up to her side of the bargain.

They have to show they 'care'. Their victim constituencies rely on it, even though their results never live up to their stated intentions. And that's only part of their constituencies. Another part is those who also want to be known as 'caring' - regardless of whether they are or not. It's the appearance of caring that is important to them, like eco-celebrities with huge carbon footprints.

Meanwhile the right tends to take more from BT, who are invested in vaping. It's in their interests to allow some regulation to go through that's favorable to their client, such as not allowing ecigs to be marketed as smoking cessation, but not so much as to completely gut the industry or take away the flavors, etc. that help make it popular and profitable. If they do that BT stands to lose their investment too.



All Senators 2014:
Tobacco: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets

Top 5:
Hagan, Kay R (D-NC) $71,385
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $57,550
Warner, Mark (D-VA) $33,315
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $20,505
Cornyn, John (R-TX) $18,700


All House Members 2014
Tobacco: Money to Congress | OpenSecrets

Top 5

Boehner, John (R-OH) $64,500
Barr, Andy (R-KY) $34,610
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $33,200
Posey, Bill (R-FL) $25,862
McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $20,000


hit the drop down for 2012...



That's American politics, right, left or in between. *shrug*

Not so much 'in between'. I think you'll find that the libertarian/conservatives aren't as involved in BT.

Lee, Mike (R-UT) $1,000
Paul, Rand (R-KY) $1,000
Rubio, Marco (R-FL) $1,000
Johnson, Ron (R-WI) $500
Portman, Rob (R-OH) $250
Cruz, Ted (R-TX) not listed.

 

[wv2win]

There are quite a few of us liberal vapers. Liberals in general are no more for or against vaping than any other group.

The problem is it's only an important issue to vapers who keep abreast of the political shenanigans and the hard core ANTZ who drive it. There simply aren't enough vapers involved and invested in the process to be a significant voting block.

As for the individual liberal politicians who are so against it, the answer is cash. They may be able to get campaign contributions and goodies without the "For the children!" routine, but they would still be beholden to the industry for the millions they've already received and the tradeoffs BP and related allowed in the ACA process. I highly doubt even Barbie Boxer cares as much as the foam on her jowls suggests, she's just living up to her side of the bargain.

Meanwhile the right tends to take more from BT, who are invested in vaping. It's in their interests to allow some regulation to go through that's favorable to their client, such as not allowing ecigs to be marketed as smoking cessation, but not so much as to completely gut the industry or take away the flavors, etc. that help make it popular and profitable. If they do that BT stands to lose their investment too.

That's American politics, right, left or in between. *shrug*

Whether accurate to a larger or smaller degree, this does nothing to help side-track these "vape-killing" regulations. Changing control of the senate will assuredly provide a much stronger possibility of derailing these regulations.

 

[tommy2bad]

I know theirs a pond difference when using the word liberal but I don't think it nannying or a power trip, I think it's part of the liberal mindset. Being liberal means wanting individual autonomy place front and centre in priorities. To get this for the little guy means restricting the power of the big guy, reduce some of his autonomy to prevent him using power to restrict the autonomy of the little guy.
The history of big tobacco using it position of influence and power to actually cause harm has poisoned their attitude to anything that resembles tobacco. Once burned thinking.
That's the basic starting point, add corruption, ignorance and political grandstanding and you have an authoritarian state working on behalf of the exact vested interests they set out to constrain.
It wouldn't be any better if conservatives were running the show, their prism is authoritarian to start with, they also think they are doing the right thing, giving everyone the same opportunities. However add corruption, ignorance and political grandstanding and you are in the same fix as you were with the old liberals. The state working on behalf of the vested interests they sought to constrain.
It's the human condition, I'm afraid.

 

[Ar10shooter]

"Paternalistic and trying to protect" - you are being waaaay too kind to their true agenda. I am shocked that all who voted for these liberal politicians are surprised that they want to dictate and assert control over, most every aspect of our lives.

By now all vapers should realize that how one votes can affect our lives in a very negative way. The systematic attack on vaping started at the national level in 2009 when a new administration came into power. Mitch Zeller, appointed by Obama, is the driving force behind the Deeming Regulations. All the negative committee hearings on vaping are being instigated in the Democratically controlled Senate but not in the House where they are the minority.

The best hope of stopping the Deeming Regulations is a change in the leadership of the Senate. I'm an Independent, but I hope all vapers vote in these mid-term elections and do so with the idea that changing control of the Senate will provide a better chance to stop these regulations.

I wish I could like x a million very and I do mean very well said

 

[Ar10shooter]

Kent c: it is a liberal agenda to put regulations on e-cigs. Liberals are in favor of more regulation on just about everything, larger governments...needs more taxes, get more taxes through more regulation. e-cigs will never be banned but I do believe they will be taxed. As for the ANTZ believe me they are liberals might a a RINO in their some where but they are liberals, that's what liberals do. They tell other people how they should live.

 

[Rossum]

that's what liberals do. They tell other people how they should live.

And "conservatives" don't?

Liberal vs. Conservative is a false dichotomy meant to hide the more important question of Tyranny vs. Liberty.

 

[Ar10shooter]

Lol. Love it. Yes you are correct.

 

[Kent C]

Kent c: it is a liberal agenda to put regulations on e-cigs. Liberals are in favor of more regulation on just about everything, larger governments...needs more taxes, get more taxes through more regulation. e-cigs will never be banned but I do believe they will be taxed. As for the ANTZ believe me they are liberals might a a RINO in their some where but they are liberals, that's what liberals do. They tell other people how they should live.

Like I said, it's part of their philosophy, but it's obvious that not all liberal individuals, like some here, are for ecig regulations (although they are more apt to be for 'some' regulations even with ecigs). As a liberal Ted Kennedy used to say - it depends on whose ox is being gored.

Liberals and progressives hate big business and think that the only way to combat that is by having a government that is bigger. And yet, it is only through government that businesses can get 'too big to fail', at which point, if they begin to fail, it is government who bails them out. It's circular and it began when gov't - under the guise of helping the consumer (shipping rate "equality") - created big railroads and the template was set for any industry - form an agency that regulates it, and keep in business only those who keep you in office.

From 1935 to 1995, there were only 2 years where Democrats didn't have a majority in the House of Congress. (8 other years where they didn't have majority in both Houses.) A lot of agencies, none of which that were in the Constitution, that were created in that time.

 

[zero7starz]

Vaping is at a disadvantage because it is such a small industry. When you really think about it, the majority of vaping related things manufactured or sold within the states is a very small industry. Even ProVape, one of the largest, is small compared to other industries. There is little in the budget for politics.
It's unfortunate we're not in a better position. I believe that if we could hire lawyers and lobbyists we could change their minds. I don't even think it would be that hard if we could really get their attention.
Our other biggest issue is the general association of cigarettes. Look at hookah tobacco (Shisha), and the cigar industry. Both exist with mild regulation and taxation, but for the most part they exist within their standards pretty comfortably.
We have room for some compromise but we have no spokes person. We need a champion.