Why Vapers are getting a BAD NAME.

[p.opus]

True about snus (which I think is horrid, though it plays a big part in keeping the percentage of smokers in Sweden relatively low), but Sweden didn't fight hard due to the health benefits. It was all about money (the official motive was that there is such a huge number of users in Sweden). It's a big business in the country. Norway's not in the EU so that's why snus is allowed there. The number of people who used snus in Finland (where I'm from originally) was high in the Swedish-speaking coastal regions, but Finland gave in to the EU almost immediately because there was the perception that it wasn't possible to decline (which strictly speaking wasn't true). Many still use snus in Finland.

As for Sweden and nic liquid, the medicinal products agency raided and seized nic liquid from a shop in the fall, and the customs agency seized shipments recently. In both cases the courts decided (really, really) fast that the seizements were unlawful. Yet the medicinal products agency still maintains that nic liquid is not allowed, and thus we have a government agency that is basically going against the law.

Concerning perceptions of vaping, the media has been strongly slanted towards condemning it (though we are starting to get the occasional positive news story) and almost all political parties want to ban it, but I almost every bar I've gone to allows vaping and I've yet to meet anyone in real-life who's openly opposed to me vaping. Most people don't care, some are intrigued. It's not the public who are keen on banning vaping, it's the pharmaceutical industry and their minions. The best way to get people to care enough to protest the possible banning of vaporizers is to let people see and talk to an actual vaper.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Thank you for the first hand report. A lot of my information was second hand, and based on news reports (which are never manipulated). It's nice to get a report from someone fighting first hand. It IS a global fight.

And the next time you are sitting in a Doctors office about ready to blame that vaper across from you blowing out a cloud: Rembmber this..........It's always about the money.

 

[Anjaffm]

Most of it is in the legislature forum here at ECF.
In the 2009 era, the eCigs were becoming popular here in the states. Big Pharma didn't like that one little bit. So the FDA began their illegal seizure of incoming products at customs. A few eCig companies took the FDA to court. Judge Leon told the FDA to knock it off, they are not a big Pharma product, if anything they'd be a tobacco product but they're not that either unless of course you, the FDA deems them as such.
The FDA lawyer gasps and exclaims "your honor! But what about their (BP) investments?" (Paraphrased). So, the FDA lost that battle for their bedfellow, big Pharma. (The FDA loves their testing fees for each product).

Meanwhile, the media is flooded with nonsense stories from the ANTZ about the eCigs. The push was on, to get them banned. Everyone from the MSA/TSET, AG's, big Pharma sluts who push big Pharma drugs & live off grants & smoke taxes got in on the ban wagon. They are unofficially officially called banstabators, btw.

As time goes on, the eCigs become so popular that even Forbes does a Holy End Run article, about the new billion dollar industry.
The next day or so, the attorney generals (AG's) of many states get together, sign a letter, begging the FDA to hurry up and deem them as tobacco products so they can begin super taxing them like smokes. Then they begin their "save the children" campaign, accusing adults of being a flavorless society and declaring that only minors like Flavors.
With that said, the ANTZ push forward with their ban plots, taxing plots, etc.

Meanwhile, eCigs become really really really popular, due to all the ANTZ false advertising. ECigs are in the news night and day. Naturally, smoke sales drop drastically-er. They now drop so far that the next headline reads "smoke sales down, profits way up!". (Para). PANIC!! The senators get on the horn and demand for the eCigs to be included in the 1997 MSA. (Master settlement agreement).

Why did they do that you ask? Because the big tobacco companies (BT) are profiting despite their sales loss, because they now have less legal fees... they now don't have to give the MSA money for every cigarette sold, because the MSA is based on anything equal to or over the grandfathered 1997 sales. For the first time, sales are below 1997!

Oh, boy. The polls all show that everyone is fine and dandy over vaping, except of course the MSA, TSET, BP, and AG's. So, now the cronies demonize SHS and THS again, to re- raise the brainwashed fear in the masses, so the cronies can more easily convince the brainwashed masses that vapor, SHV, and THV are just as bad, dangerous, whatever as the SHS. The funny part about that, is that records show that SHS was tossed out of court by judge Osteen in 1998.(?) due to cherry picked nonsense data. Yet the media still enjoys running ANTZ versions of the outcome, loves watching people get fired from their jobs, catch pneumonia in the rain, go homeless, etc, because the ANTZ love controlling behaviors of the brainwashed masses.

Including vapor in with smoking is the icing on the cake for them.
No vaping wherever smoking is not allowed. Work, public areas, parks, sports, cars, and private homes.

But what about the MSA funds, you may ask. Well, after BT and the eCigs go belly up, BP swoops in and gets the nicotine all to themselves. They like to patent their pills, and have plans for beneficial nicotine. Smart pills, Alzheimer's Meds, Parkinson's Meds, ADHD Meds, .., etc... Smokers & or Vapers who were able to control their neurological disorders before, will now have to rely on BP. Yippee eh.
Another thought, is that BT & BP will continue playing their roller coaster game consisting of on the wagon with BP smoking cessation products, off the wagon & back on smokes, on/off, on/off... It's been quite a happy game for them to date.
There are other thoughts too, but these seem to be the most often spoken.

MSA = Master Settlement Agreement
TSET = Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust
BP = Big Pharma
AG = Attorney General
SHS = Second hand Smoke
THS = Third hand smoke
SHV = Second hand Vapor
THV = Third Hand Vapor.

MSA beget TSET
TSET beget ALA, TFK, ACS, & all the "non-profit" smoking cessation clubs turned lobbyists.
BP has an interesting lineage on their own, all the way down to the Robert wood Johnson foundation.
CDC also has an interesting lineage with board persons on BP firms, according to some. (I would have to research deeper to see. Update: Dr. David Satcher. Plus there is more about CDC at dr. Michael Seigel blog here http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-is-cdc-taking-research-funding-from.html )
RWJf has lineage into Obamacare, etc...
FDA has lineage as well, even Monsanto lineage, .. Will need to gather the specific data, but it's out there.
It's a small world, after all. <insert music here>

Thank you, Uma! This is absolutely brilliant!
And a must-read for those who have no idea about the whole history while insisting that everything is all the vapers' fault.
Great summary indeed, Uma!

 

[wv2win]

Well I guess I'm not one of the Hundreds.

Because I have seen Vapers Blowing Clouds onto the back of Peoples Heads of People in Movies. And I have seen People have a Complete Hissy Fit when asked not to use an e-Cigarette inside a Restaurant.

These are the Exception and Not the Rule. But to make it sound like it Never Has or Is Not Happening is Disingenuous.

The Very Small Percentage of the Population tend to Screw it Up for the Vast Majority. e-Cigarettes Is and Will be No Exception.

First, I really don't believe you. Second, as in society at large, there will always be a small minority who act like jerks in any sub-group of people, whether it be how people eat, play music, drive a car, wear perfume or vape. I don't believe in restrictions due to the behavior of the very small minority at the expense of the very large majority. Unlike many of us, you have made it clear in all of your posts, that you want vaping to be banned/restricted in the same way as smoking. Your positions in "practice" boils down to: vaping = smoking.

Those of us who believe in vaping publicly but respectfully do not agree with you.

 

[wv2win]

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

Disrespectful Vapers isn't Going to Decide the "War" as your Referenced it. But I sure don't see how they are in Any Way Helping our Side.

Yet, YOU consistently lump the very large majority of respectful vapers in with the very small minority of "disrespectful vapers" and propose that vaping should be viewed and restricted like smoking. That makes as much sense as lumping how the majority use perfume with the minority who bathe in it.

 

[wv2win]

Try Not to Read Too Much into what people Type Sometimes.

Causality is Sometimes Not Based on One Unique Event. But the Sum Total of Many Events. And the Significant Impact of Any Given Event is Not Necessarily the Same as Every Other Event.

We routinely follow this advice when reading your circuitous posts.

 

[zoiDman]

First, I really don't believe you. Second, as in society at large, there will always be a small minority who act like jerks in any sub-group of people, whether it be how people eat, play music, drive a car, wear perfume or vape. I don't believe in restrictions due to the behavior of the very small minority at the expense of the very large majority. Unlike many of us, you have made it clear in all of your posts, that you want vaping to be banned/restricted in the same way as smoking. Your positions in "practice" boils down to: vaping = smoking.

Those of us who believe in vaping publicly but respectfully do not agree with you.

You seem to be Contradicting yourself Again.

First you say Don't believe that their are People out there Blowing Clouds in Movies or having a Fit when they are Asked to Not use an e-Cigarette in a Restaurant. Then in the very Next Sentence, you say that there Are people who act like Jerks. Seems like you want it Both ways?

Then you pull out your Boiler Plate reply about Vaping = Smoking. And say that I want Vaping Banned. But Never seem to Back It with Anything.

If I didn't Know Better, I would think that you are Trying to Derail Another Thread.

 

[zoiDman]

Yet, YOU consistently lump the very large majority of respectful vapers in with the very small minority of "disrespectful vapers" and propose that vaping should be viewed and restricted like smoking. That makes as much sense as lumping how the majority use perfume with the minority who bathe in it.

Where do you get this From?

I think just about Everyone has seen this First Hand....

"The Very Small Percentage of the Population tend to Screw it Up for the Vast Majority. e-Cigarettes Is and Will be No Exception."

A few NUTZ who don't reflect the Views of Most but who Actions give something a Bad Name.

 

[zoiDman]

We routinely follow this advice when reading your circuitous posts.

Send me a PM if you are having a Hard Time Understanding what I Posted.

I'll try to Break it Down into Simpler Terms that you can Understand.

 

[Jay-dub]

There are plenty of squishy minded liberals who do what they're told. They even get offended when someone points out that it's mainly Democrats pushing for bans and claim it's a bipartisan issue so they can continue voting for the Nazis that want us back smoking cigarettes.

I'm also a libertarian (note the small L because I don't trust that party either).

Nah. Sounds like Dems to me. But terms like "Nazi" do seem to be used more often by those on one end of an extreme or another. Let me know when people start getting rounded up and gassed over where they can vape and I might roll hard instead of roll my eyes.

Edit: On second thought, it was the Republicans in Missouri who campaigned on "anti-gov't/anti-nanny-state" rhetoric that outlawed strippers from stripping in strip clubs when they got an almost veto-proof majority in the State House. A lot of them are just too chameleon-like and opportunistic to peg with black and white labeling like "Left" or "Right".

 

[p.opus]

Nah. Sounds like Dems to me. But terms like "Nazi" do seem to be used more often by those on one end of an extreme or another. Let me know when people start getting rounded up and gassed over where they can vape and I might roll hard instead of roll my eyes.

Edit: On second thought, it was the Republicans in Missouri who campaigned on "anti-gov't/anti-nanny-state" rhetoric that outlawed strippers from stripping in strip clubs when they got an almost veto-proof majority in the State House. A lot of them are just too chameleon-like and opportunistic to peg with black and white labeling like "Left" or "Right".

I agree. It appears that everyone is a Nanny. I'm either told I'm using the "wrong" light bulbs and thus I'm destroying our planet or I'm told that I'm going to hell because I think what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business.

I can't win.

 

[Jman8]

You seem to be Contradicting yourself Again.

First you say Don't believe that their are People out there Blowing Clouds in Movies or having a Fit when they are Asked to Not use an e-Cigarette in a Restaurant.

Before you said, "I have seen Vapers Blowing Clouds onto the back of Peoples Heads of People in Movies." Then you changed it to, "People out there Blowing Clouds in Movies." Why did you change that?

One seems inherently rude, as in: intentionally blow your exhaled vapor onto a person. The other is, we are in a great big room and people are blowing clouds in that room, but not necessarily in the direction of anyone. As I have posted elsewhere on ECF, I met a non vaper who was in a theater sitting behind a vaper and who said the vaper was not hiding their clouds. This non vaper, sitting right behind that cloud found zero issue with it. So, suddenly I'm no longer considering the "vaping in a movie theater" a slam dunk situation. I recognize that fellow vapers will still have a mental picture of a theater sized room being filled with mist and making it hard to see the film that everyone there came to see. But, I think there is pretty good reason to doubt that mental picture, and thus deem vaping in a theater as not inherently rude. Unless people are taking a drag in, leaning forward and intentionally blowing it on the heads of other people in that theater. But you went and changed the goal posts to try and keep to the notion that vapers who vape in a movie theater are being inherently rude and are ruining it for the rest of us.

Likewise, you changed, "I have seen People have a Complete Hissy Fit when asked not to use an e-Cigarette inside a Restaurant" to "having a Fit when they are Asked to Not use an e-Cigarette in a Restaurant."

So, if you saw me in a restaurant and waitress came over and said, "sir, you're going to have to stop that." And I responded with "may I ask why? For it seems to be a non-issue given where I'm sitting in relation to other people." You then could say, Jman is having a fit when he was asked not to. But then also spin that same situation later to suggest, "people will have a complete hissy fit when asked not to." Which is painting a different picture to, I believe, make it seem as if vapers can't get their way on this issue, they turn into overly rude patrons. When reality could be they were wondering why is the policy in place. It doesn't have to be explained, but I see NO PROBLEM with asking for it to be explained. And if the response to that is, "because I said so, end of discussion." Then respect has just been taken off the table, and I shall proceed accordingly. Causing no undue harm to anyone and still finding a way to vape there if I so choose, likely with no one else noticing, including fellow vapers.

 

[LDS714]

Nah. Sounds like Dems to me. But terms like "Nazi" do seem to be used more often by those on one end of an extreme or another. Let me know when people start getting rounded up and gassed over where they can vape and I might roll hard instead of roll my eyes.

Read the thread. It's the vapers who are gassing people... That's why we shouldn't do it in public because then we won't be able to do it in public.

The previous announcement approved and paid for by M&M Enterprises. What's good for Milo Minderbinder is good for the country.

 

[Jman8]

Nah. Sounds like Dems to me. But terms like "Nazi" do seem to be used more often by those on one end of an extreme or another. Let me know when people start getting rounded up and gassed over where they can vape and I might roll hard instead of roll my eyes.

Were German Nazis being Nazis even when they weren't at gas chambers gassing people? Or was it just when they were engaged in that horrific, unjustifiable act that they became Nazis?

 

[Jay-dub]

Were German Nazis being Nazis even when they weren't at gas chambers gassing people? Or was it just when they were engaged in that horrific, unjustifiable act that they became Nazis?

Okay. Still a term I see used more often by an extreme. But I'll rephrase:
Let me know when people start suffering from horrible, unjustifiable acts. Then, I might roll hard instead of roll my eyes.

 

[zoiDman]

Before you said, "I have seen Vapers Blowing Clouds onto the back of Peoples Heads of People in Movies." Then you changed it to, "People out there Blowing Clouds in Movies." Why did you change that?
One seems inherently rude, as in: intentionally blow your exhaled vapor onto a person. The other is, we are in a great big room and people are blowing clouds in that room, but not necessarily in the direction of anyone. As I have posted elsewhere on ECF, I met a non vaper who was in a theater sitting behind a vaper and who said the vaper was not hiding their clouds. This non vaper, sitting right behind that cloud found zero issue with it. So, suddenly I'm no longer considering the "vaping in a movie theater" a slam dunk situation. I recognize that fellow vapers will still have a mental picture of a theater sized room being filled with mist and making it hard to see the film that everyone there came to see. But, I think there is pretty good reason to doubt that mental picture, and thus deem vaping in a theater as not inherently rude. Unless people are taking a drag in, leaning forward and intentionally blowing it on the heads of other people in that theater. But you went and changed the goal posts to try and keep to the notion that vapers who vape in a movie theater are being inherently rude and are ruining it for the rest of us.

Likewise, you changed, "I have seen People have a Complete Hissy Fit when asked not to use an e-Cigarette inside a Restaurant" to "having a Fit when they are Asked to Not use an e-Cigarette in a Restaurant."

So, if you saw me in a restaurant and waitress came over and said, "sir, you're going to have to stop that." And I responded with "may I ask why? For it seems to be a non-issue given where I'm sitting in relation to other people." You then could say, Jman is having a fit when he was asked not to. But then also spin that same situation later to suggest, "people will have a complete hissy fit when asked not to." Which is painting a different picture to, I believe, make it seem as if vapers can't get their way on this issue, they turn into overly rude patrons. When reality could be they were wondering why is the policy in place. It doesn't have to be explained, but I see NO PROBLEM with asking for it to be explained. And if the response to that is, "because I said so, end of discussion." Then respect has just been taken off the table, and I shall proceed accordingly. Causing no undue harm to anyone and still finding a way to vape there if I so choose, likely with no one else noticing, including fellow vapers.

Is any of the Intent or Context Changed when the Wording does Not Match Word for Word.

No. It Doesn't.

The Long and the Short of it is that there Are people out there who have Used e-Cigarettes in a Disrespectful Manor. Just like there Are people who have Used just about Anything in a Disrespectful manor. It's called Life.

And seeing that this is the Topic of the this Thread, I find it curious why Some People get their Knickers in a Twist when Someone points out that they have seen it First Hand.

 

[zoiDman]

Okay. Still a term I see used more often by an extreme. But I'll rephrase:
Let me know when people start suffering from horrible, unjustifiable acts. Then, I might roll hard instead of roll my eyes.

Sure seem to be a Lot of Symantec Hair Splitting going on in this Thread Lately.

 

[LDS714]

Sure seem to be a Lot of Symantec Hair Splitting going on in this Thread Lately.

As happens with most all passionate discussions on the webz.

 

[Jman8]

And seeing that this is the Topic of the this Thread, I find it curious why Some People get their Knickers in a Twist when Someone points out that they have seen it First Hand.

Correct, we saw first hand in OP that a vaper felt it okay to be openly rude to another vaper (throw a fit) because they were extremely PO'ed and decided to speak vocally against the 'crazy disrespectful' indoor vaper.

 

[Jman8]

Is any of the Intent or Context Changed when the Wording does Not Match Word for Word.

You changed the wording to convey terms in 2 different situations. I've already clearly explained what was done there.

Akin to saying, is it okay if I exhale my normal air when in a mall? If yes, then it ought to be okay for me to go up to people and exhale my air forcefully into their face inches away from their nostrils.

Is any of the Intent or Context Changed when the Wording does Not Match Word for Word.

No. It Doesn't.

 

[Bramble]

Nah. Sounds like Dems to me. But terms like "Nazi" do seem to be used more often by those on one end of an extreme or another. Let me know when people start getting rounded up and gassed over where they can vape and I might roll hard instead of roll my eyes.

Edit: On second thought, it was the Republicans in Missouri who campaigned on "anti-gov't/anti-nanny-state" rhetoric that outlawed strippers from stripping in strip clubs when they got an almost veto-proof majority in the State House. A lot of them are just too chameleon-like and opportunistic to peg with black and white labeling like "Left" or "Right".

If it were the "Dems" it wouldn't be happening in Utah.