Why the FDA can NOT make illegal E-Cigs (false concern), Usage Bans in Public are the REAL problem

[Sundodger]

Its probably fairly hard to dismiss because CASAA is doing it in the same post.

For CASAA via their only Vice President, to go the record, that specific people and professionals are liars and cheats, who don't care about how many people die, is reprehensible. It is certainly not true they don't care about death. Calling Stanton Glantz, Ellen Hahn, Prut Talbot, Linda Rosenthal cheats and liars is defamation and libel, which CASAA should immediately retract.

I looked up quickly Dr. Stanton Glantz, who has a long history, and is currently suggesting that second hand vape gives off enough 2nd hand nicotine to be a consideration. But if you look at the study design they have the exposure to 2nd hand vape as 1 hour long. I would call that flawed science, because the experiment did not replicate the real world. Especially with it being a confined space. So I am not likely a fan because bad science is bad science. The put people in an exposure chamber for 1 hour, and found out its 10 times less than analogs, but still monitor-able. Modern sensors can register anything....and its already being compared to 2nd hand smoke risks.

So I can challenge the science easily, I can work the problem of his opinions on bad science.

But for CASAA to defame the man saying he is a liar, cheat, and cares nothing if people die, is abhorrent. How can CASAA the go about being an advocate for rational vapers, when they attack the other side with such unbridled hatred?

Nobody is going to listen to CASAA and give it's views any credibility in public forums when they use these tactics. I am sure they care about whether people live or die, on what they do in their professional lives, they are not monsters. Let's be real.

Libel is defamation, just in print, written or in pictures there Perry Mason. I'd like to see that bunch try and show how she libeled them, that would be better than the O.J. trial and expose this bunch for what they are.

And for you, on January 2, 2014 to "quickly look up Stanton Glantz" is a joke. It proves my first response to your post, that you don't know your history on this subject. You proved what I said all along. Now, back to the books Perry.

 

[Jman8]

Calling someone out as a liar and a cheat may be bad form - but when that person is a liar and a cheat, is it inappropriate?

I'm going to say yes, in response to this general question.

To me, it first fits in with idea of 'takes one to know one.'
So, perhaps more honest (and more appropriate) to say, so and so is a liar and a cheat. How do I know this? Because I too lie and cheat at times to get my propaganda across to as many people as possible. I recognize myself in so and so.

Yet, the implication is always - that side is lying and cheating, while our side would never ever engage in that tactic. Well, go ask the other side if they think you do the same thing, in your own way. Might be too hard to accept it from other side and turn into a shouting match. So, then just ask the people on your own side who are willing to speak up and let the current emperor know he is naked.

IMO, it is appropriate if perfectly willing to have that label/judgment applied to own self. If not, then not appropriate.

 

[kristin]

They can accuse us but I challenge them to prove it, because we make every effort to stick to the truth and facts - specifically because we are highly aware that any lying or cheatng on our part would discredit our message and mission. Even if we say something that turns out to be an error we issue a correction. So, they'd have a really difficult time finding any instances of us lying or cheating, whereas we have plenty of evidence against them.

CASAA spent a couple of years playing nice and our membership told us it was time for us to stop holding back and calling out the ANTZ lies, so that is what we did. But we make sure we have just cause and plenty of evidence before we do. If anyone is interested, last week Dr. Phillips posted our Liars of the Year at Anti-THR Lies and related topics | because cultivating the truth requires both seeding and weeding

 

[Jay-dub]

It does seem like we (the vaping community) frame the discussion in, at least, 2 ways:

1 - FDA, politicians and even some scientists are corrupt. Regardless of what we do, they have the authority to ban eCigs, and their history shows this to be the case.

2 - Next time a ban is proposed, get busy writing letters to politicians and spreading the word, because your letters and actions can make it so these bans are defeated. You have the power, it's all up to you!!!

Not saying there is easy shmeasy way around all this. I think ignoring possibility of #1 does make one come off as naive. I lean towards believing in #2, and that it can / does work. Yet, I do think if we are (still) using language that amounts to "take action now or eCigs will be banned forever" - then we are mixing #1 with #2 whereby we come off as a little corrupt in how we motivate fellow vapers.

In the interest of being productive - some of my skepticism comes from people who cite the FDA on one hand while trying to discredit the FDA on the other. It sets off my rhetoric alarm. Not saying that about you but the number one item on your list reminded me of such posters.

 

[DC2]

You think calling Staton Glantz a liar and a cheat is inappropriate?
That's child's play compared to what I call him.

 

[Jman8]

As far as my "defamation" of the likes of Glantz, you apparently haven't been following CASAA's antiTHRlies.com blog. smh

I have been to this site before and again today. I have general appreciation for its existence and passion to take up the issues that all pro-vapers are up against. Yet, also enough sense to take some to much of what is conveyed here with a grain of salt. It is, for me, like hearing "did you see what Obama did today?" and then going to MSNBC to get the information. Then feeling that is a wee bit too much propaganda for me, so I switch over to Fox News. After a couple minutes, same feeling (different content) as before, wee bit too much propaganda for me. Then, inevitably I go to CNN where something closer to 'middle of the road' can be found, and I can get the reporting without the incessant need to add commentary that is oh so righteous.

For me, using this analogy above:
Anti-vaping content equals MSNBC
Pro-vaping content that makes almost all of its points based on downplaying the anti-vaping content equals Fox News

Propaganda and counter propaganda (which is really another form of propaganda) appears to drive the debate at the level of 'experts' and national attention.

At the more grassroots level, like here on ECF, that propaganda influence is often present, yet on threads, we are willing to look at both sides in what seems to me, a bit more fair terms. Then again, we are among fellow vapers. But is another huge point for me on all this. Would be nice if we could take up the anti-vaping messages right in our own neck of the woods, rather than only pretending it is them over yonder in those other organizations and groups that is spouting off deceit for tactical gain.

Threads of interests to me on ECF deal with "why it is not okay to vape in public" and "why it is perfectly cool shaming smokers for smoking." I fundamentally disagree with both those premises, but like that I get to discuss these issues with fellow vapers, and get as much of the other side's spin as I feel I can get from any current national propaganda campaign that is currently vying for national public attention.

Of further interest to me, is how we might spin both activities. I could see someone saying that sitting here and discussing issues among ECF members (fellow vapers) is sitting on sidelines and not dealing with the big players (real problem we are up against). Yet, IMO what I read on antiTHRlies.com and the other side's websites appears like standing on the sidelines throwing bombs and hoping they make a splash on the field. I am curious if I went there and nitpicked on points being presented how fast I might be labeled opposition or worse (ANTZ). Would humor me if either happened. Just as it humors me that we in this thread, and forum, look at each other that opposes our messages as - obviously you are part of the opposing group. There can be no explanation for your rhetoric other than you are in disguise and infiltrating our group.

 

[Jman8]

In the interest of being productive - some of my skepticism comes from people who cite the FDA on one hand while trying to discredit the FDA on the other. It sets off my rhetoric alarm. Not saying that about you but the number one item on your list reminded me of such posters.

i.e. how can there be a problem with eliquid - most of the ingredients are FDA approved

Oh, so a corrupt organization has approved most of the ingredients in eCigs? I'm sold!

 

[Jay-dub]

i.e. how can there be a problem with eliquid - most of the ingredients are FDA approved

Oh, so a corrupt organization has approved most of the ingredients in eCigs? I'm sold!

Sounds kind of familiar. For one reason or another. Oh wait. That's from a thread I started that got me labeled as ANTz!. LOL! I started off here with people making snap judgments against me, then telling me to trust their judgment. Okay... Who the what now?

 

[Jman8]

They can accuse us but I challenge them to prove it, because we make every effort to stick to the truth and facts - specifically because we are highly aware that any lying or cheatng on our part would discredit our message and mission.

Would you say anyone from pro-vaping side has put forth a petition or CTA that was explicitly written asking for support to prevent the FDA from banning eCigs? Not de facto banning, nor stipulating that, but an outright ban being conveyed as the current item to lobby legislators for?

To me, this is what this thread is about. We are spending umpteen pages dealing with that "lie" that was told, and now spinning and stipulating what that meant.

I put "lie" in quotes, because to me it is a different form of lying and one common to propaganda. Akin to the "no evidence" claim. As we here on ECF debate the "no evidence" rhetoric, some affirming that when it comes to long term studies we have "no evidence" there are ways to spin that point so that it isn't exactly, technically a lie. Yet, given how we pro-vapers received it, or remember first encountering it, it still seems like a very huge lie, regardless of how it is later spun.

Would be nice if the conveyors of "no evidence" would acknowledge that there is "some evidence" and just be reasonable with message of "we'd like more" rather than insisting on "there isn't enough for anyone to make a decision to use this."

Likewise, it would be nice if the "they will ban eCigs" crowd would realize they won't/can't/haven't yet, and just be reasonable with message of "de facto ban which means any and all of these things that I will surely link to every time I am compelled to mention 'they will ban eCigs' in my messages."

What I'm getting from this thread, very acutely, is that our message that FDA will ban eCigs has seemingly distracted some of the pro-vaping crowd from fact that bans of usage are occurring all around us and thus far FDA hasn't done what some on our side has said it would do.

Doesn't mean our side hasn't done CTA's on usage bans. I know they have, and hope OP realizes that is part of what's going on (within CASAA). But most pro-vapers treat FDA like the boogeyman (myself included) when reality is that boogeyman that is currently passing anti-vaping legislation is amongst us, or plausibly is us.

 

[Racehorse]

most pro-vapers treat FDA like the boogeyman (myself included) when reality is that boogeyman that is currently passing anti-vaping legislation is amongst us, or plausibly is us.

I hope you allow for much more puzzle pieces than this "black or white" one.

There is a huge number of vapers, on ECF and otherwise, who don't see the same boogeymen both without and within.

Let's call them moderates, for lack of a better word. They don't take marching orders from the FDA or the ANTZ, but they also don't take them from militant vapers in the vaping community.

I will posit that they make up the largest % of actual vapers.

Combine that with the fact that only a very small % of actual vapers are on ECF, or any vaping forums at all.......this is often forgotten, so that opinions here are not totally representative anyway, and then of course, on every vaping forum, about 80%+ members never even enter the political topics.

To be unaware of that fact is like being limited to central vision but not having wide-angle field / peripheral vision as part of your eyesight.

 

[Jman8]

I hope you allow for much more puzzle pieces than this "black or white" one.

I do. As saying "ANTZ plausibly is us" doesn't make for black and white perspective, IMO.

 

[DC2]

Would you say anyone from pro-vaping side has put forth a petition or CTA that was explicitly written asking for support to prevent the FDA from banning eCigs? Not de facto banning, nor stipulating that, but an outright ban being conveyed as the current item to lobby legislators for?

To me, this is what this thread is about. We are spending umpteen pages dealing with that "lie" that was told, and now spinning and stipulating what that meant.

I put "lie" in quotes, because to me it is a different form of lying and one common to propaganda. Akin to the "no evidence" claim. As we here on ECF debate the "no evidence" rhetoric, some affirming that when it comes to long term studies we have "no evidence" there are ways to spin that point so that it isn't exactly, technically a lie. Yet, given how we pro-vapers received it, or remember first encountering it, it still seems like a very huge lie, regardless of how it is later spun.

Would be nice if the conveyors of "no evidence" would acknowledge that there is "some evidence" and just be reasonable with message of "we'd like more" rather than insisting on "there isn't enough for anyone to make a decision to use this."

Likewise, it would be nice if the "they will ban eCigs" crowd would realize they won't/can't/haven't yet, and just be reasonable with message of "de facto ban which means any and all of these things that I will surely link to every time I am compelled to mention 'they will ban eCigs' in my messages."

What I'm getting from this thread, very acutely, is that our message that FDA will ban eCigs has seemingly distracted some of the pro-vaping crowd from fact that bans of usage are occurring all around us and thus far FDA hasn't done what some on our side has said it would do.

Doesn't mean our side hasn't done CTA's on usage bans. I know they have, and hope OP realizes that is part of what's going on (within CASAA). But most pro-vapers treat FDA like the boogeyman (myself included) when reality is that boogeyman that is currently passing anti-vaping legislation is amongst us, or plausibly is us.

I can agree with most of this.

The problem is, we all use "shortcuts" for what we mean, and expect that people know what we really mean...
--When you hear the word "ban" it means de-facto ban through onerous regulations
--When you hear the phrase "don't vape where you can't smoke" it only refers to indoors
--When you hear someone say "I vape anywhere I feel like it" it means while also observing common courtesy

 

[kristin]

I hope you allow for much more puzzle pieces than this "black or white" one.

There is a huge number of vapers, on ECF and otherwise, who don't see the same boogeymen both without and within.

Let's call them moderates, for lack of a better word. They don't take marching orders from the FDA or the ANTZ, but they also don't take them from militant vapers in the vaping community.

I will posit that they make up the largest % of actual vapers.

Combine that with the fact that only a very small % of actual vapers are on ECF, or any vaping forums at all.......this is often forgotten, so that opinions here are not totally representative anyway, and then of course, on every vaping forum, about 80%+ members never even enter the political topics.

To be unaware of that fact is like being limited to central vision but not having wide-angle field / peripheral vision as part of your eyesight.

This brings up an interesting point. CASAA is active on other social media, including Facebook, Twitter and Skype. We try to post everything here, but our most active members are also on our FB page and Skype, so we tend to post more there. Not to forget our email list, which gets local Calls to Action specific to their area that people across the country or not members may not see. Posts on ECF tend to get buried and lost and most members aren't interested in the politics, so our membership is the largest group we can reach that would be interested and most likely to act.

On ECF, the conversations seem to be about things on the national level (such as FDA or major cities), vaping etiquette and what we should call them. That doesn't mean CASAA isn't doing anything about use bans. However, the use bans are coming so fast and there is only so much CASAA can do without local vaper involvement. We also do believe that the FDA deeming regulation will only increase these local/state issues. Because we are unable to handle the huge increase in use ban proposals, we are working on updating our materials and adding new tools for people to use to fight bans in their area.

 

[Berylanna]

I can agree with most of this.

The problem is, we all use "shortcuts" for what we mean, and expect that people know what we really mean...
--When you hear the word "ban" it means de-facto ban through onerous regulations
--When you hear the phrase "don't vape where you can't smoke" it only refers to indoors
--When you hear someone say "I vape anywhere I feel like it" it means while also observing common courtesy

I'll go along with #1 and #3, they need a positive effort to correct.

But I do NOT get what you mean by #2, Boston and lots of California cities and now Oklahoma are banning ecigs in all the places OUTDOORS that cigs are banned, including those where they are banned for fire danger.

 

[zoiDman]

... We also do believe that the FDA deeming regulation will only increase these local/state issues. ...

Not to Derail this Thread, but you have Any New News as to when the FDA Might make an Announcement regarding deeming. Or Any Announcement?

 

[DC2]

I'll go along with #1 and #3, they need a positive effort to correct.

But I do NOT get what you mean by #2, Boston and lots of California cities and now Oklahoma are banning ecigs in all the places OUTDOORS that cigs are banned, including those where they are banned for fire danger.

I was talking about when vapers here on the forum say that in those huge "should we vape in public" threads.
I'm well aware that in real life "where you can not smoke" most definitely means far more than just indoors.

See this thread that I started for more information...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-should-not-vape-where-we-can-not-smoke.html

 

[Jay-dub]

Do a forum search on the term "ANTz" and tell me the use of the term in this forum is something the community should be proud of. You can make out pretty clear patterns on who and why these accusations are thrown about. If it is something that ECF decides to remain idle about thats fine but I'm going to start calling them out.

 

[tombaker]

Not to Derail this Thread, but you have Any New News as to when the FDA Might make an Announcement regarding deeming. Or Any Announcement?

The FDA has issued its Deeming regulation, its a matter of rubber stamping it, but it will go through. Many folks are acting as if the deeming regulation are the regualtions to manufacturers, it is not. They start with Deeming them under the Tobacco control Act (what the Sottera decision told them do years ago), then they propose actual rules and regs after that. Would be about 6-12 months before any action could take place under the rules, and there is nothing to say the FDA won't wait another 4 years before the rules come about. (The FDA is far more concerned about mini-Cigars by passing all of the cigarette rules, they will being spending time on what they can control)

Here is the Deeming Regualtion Proposal. View Rule It's step 1, and they have not completed it yet.

As far as other information published days ago, the FDA is now talking about Substantial Equivalence in products, including E-Cigs. This is wholly ignored by the CASAA VP and President. It is a strong counter to the theories being sold by CASAA that all E-Cigs would be defacto banned. If you read the text it is pretty fair, including the possibility that adding items could also be seen as Equivalent to a product being marketed by anyone else. Since all Vaping is at the base exactly the same, DC coil, e-Liquid (4 base ingredients, none more needed), vaporized, and unfiltered, these proposed rules make it clear sailing for manufacturers to gain Substantial equivalence.

This is very good news. see them here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ing-substantial-equivalence-requirements.html

Meanwhile various ill informed self appointed organizations spin their wheels like 16 year olds in Daddy's car, the real action is at the local ban level. Which is the subject of this OP. The FDA lost a major legal fight 2+ years ago, they can ban E-Cigarettes just like they can Ban Marlboro, which is to say, they can not. That is what the legal loss gave the FDA, years ago.

 

[Sundodger]

Contradict yourself much?

"The FDA has issued its Deeming regulation"

"Here is the Deeming Regualtion Proposal"

So which is it, issued or proposed?

Then you set yourself up for Libel by stating something that CASAA had NEVER stated.

"It is a strong counter to the theories being sold by CASAA that all E-Cigs would be defacto banned."

Please post a link, where anyone involved with CASAA says that they think the FDA will ban ALL ecig as you so stated here. There will be a lot of crickets before we see you post that link.

Most vapers don't think the FDA will ban ALL ecigs, I don't, most that I know don't believe that, so where does this even come from?

 

[2coils]

Meanwhile various ill informed self appointed organizations spin their wheels like 16 year olds in Daddy's car, the real action is at the local ban level. Which is the subject of this OP. The FDA lost a major legal fight 2+ years ago, they can ban E-Cigarettes just like they can Ban Marlboro, which is to say, they can not. That is what the legal loss gave the FDA, years ago.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I have tried with patience to read this thread and your posts objectively. I find moving forward, my ignore button will be used for the first time. One too many cheap shots at those fighting ALL local, state and federal legislation on a volunteer basis. As you take your shots, you are not helping your cause(whatever that may be). Talk about 16 year olds??? look in the mirror! Sorry mods, had to vent!