Would a change dot org petition help us?
- Thread starter Lessifer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Okay, here's version three. I have to go run some errands, and I should probably get some actual work done today, so I'll be back on later. As always, comments, critiques, additions are welcome.
To Members of Congress:
Soon Congress will be presented with regulations proposing to deem electronic cigarettes and other vapor products as tobacco products, bringing them within the regulatory control of the FDA under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
We, the members of the vaping community, including users of vapor products, ex-smokers, current smokers, and friends and family of smokers and ex-smokers whose lives have been changed by vapor products, as concerned citizens, urge you to reject the proposed deeming regulations.
The classification of vapor products as tobacco products is tenuous at best. While some vapor products do contain nicotine, many do not, and this is where the link to tobacco ends. The goal of the FSPTCA is to minimize the effects of tobacco on public health. In 1976 Professor Michael Russell wrote: “People smoke for nicotine but they die from the tar.”1 Vapor products are free of tobacco, contain no tar, and are not combusted and as such are orders of magnitude less potentially harmful than combustible tobacco.2 In fact, more recent studies that look at nicotine, absent tobacco smoke, show that nicotine is possibly not addictive and could have potential health benefits related to treating Parkinson’s symptoms and staving off Alzheimer’s.3
The Federal government and each state have spent hundreds of millions over decades attempting to discourage people from smoking cigarettes. We now have a viable alternative to tobacco products that could do just that, through tobacco harm reduction. This disruptive technology has the potential to accomplish what Tobacco Control has failed to do for the past fifty years, unless it is smothered in its infancy. Vapor products, as a recreational consumer good, have the potential to replace combustible tobacco, keeping millions from potential tobacco related illnesses. According to recent CDC surveys, in the time frame that vapor products have been available, smoking rates in the United States have plummeted to an all time low.4 However, if vapor products are subjected to the same strict regulatory control intended to minimize harm from tobacco products, they could be rendered ineffectual due to the stifling nature of those regulations5.
By rejecting the classification of vapor products as tobacco products we can:
1 Protect access to flavors, which are an integral part of the vapor experience.6
2 Protect access to online sales that allow consumers to procure the equipment and e-liquids that are best suited for their needs.
3 Protect access to all nicotine concentrations, which allow the consumer to tailor their experience to their needs which could range from higher concentrations to aid in transitioning from smoking to nicotine free for enjoyment and maintenance.
4 Protect access to open, reusable container systems that are more cost effective and environmentally friendly.
Vapor products are not tobacco products, they are a safer alternative to tobacco products which may or may not contain nicotine. Vapor products are also a driving force behind thousands of small and medium businesses across the country, creating jobs and feeding the economy, many of which will not survive the exorbitant fee structure of tobacco product approval that has kept the cigarette market in the hands of only the major tobacco companies. The vapor product industry has already gained ground in self regulation by the formation of industry trade groups, and through the active involvement of the consumers.7 Instead of relegating vapor products to tobacco control, a new category of product regulation can be implemented, one that could inspire innovation along with public health and safety. The best way to protect this life altering technology is to not place it under the auspices of the FSPTCA, by not deeming vapor products as tobacco products.
Cited References
1 Russell M. Low-tar medium-nicotine cigarettes: a new approach to safer smoking. British Medical Journal 1976;1:1430-1433
2 IJERPH | Free Full-Text | Nicotine Levels and Presence of Selected Tobacco-Derived Toxins in Tobacco Flavoured Electronic Cigarette Refill Liquids
3 Nicotine, the Wonder Drug? | DiscoverMagazine.com
4 Adult cigarette smoking rate overall hits all-time low| CDC Online Newsroom | CDC
5 CASAA: April 2014
6 Big Survey 2014 - Initial Findings Eliquid | Vaping.com
7 CASAA.org AEMSA.org SFATA.org
Additional Resources:
http://notblowingsmoke.org
E-cigarettes generate high levels of aldehydes only in “dry puff” conditions (irrespective of the power levels)
The research behind giving up cigarettes: a Q&A with leading expert Peter Hajek - On Health
EPA & FDA: Vapor Harmless to Children - Minnesota Vapers AdvocacyMinnesota Vapers Advocacy
Evaluation of the cytotoxic potential of e-cigarette vapor on cultured cardiac cells: a new study
Clinical Research: Electronic Cigarettes
BMC Public Health | Abstract | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks
E-cigarette research, studies and papers - 2014
What 20 REAL Experts Say About E-Cigs
Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review
To Members of Congress:
Soon Congress will be presented with regulations proposing to deem electronic cigarettes and other vapor products as tobacco products, bringing them within the regulatory control of the FDA under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
We, the members of the vaping community, including users of vapor products, ex-smokers, current smokers, and friends and family of smokers and ex-smokers whose lives have been changed by vapor products, as concerned citizens, urge you to reject the proposed deeming regulations.
The classification of vapor products as tobacco products is tenuous at best. While some vapor products do contain nicotine, many do not, and this is where the link to tobacco ends. The goal of the FSPTCA is to minimize the effects of tobacco on public health. In 1976 Professor Michael Russell wrote: “People smoke for nicotine but they die from the tar.”1 Vapor products are free of tobacco, contain no tar, and are not combusted and as such are orders of magnitude less potentially harmful than combustible tobacco.2 In fact, more recent studies that look at nicotine, absent tobacco smoke, show that nicotine is possibly not addictive and could have potential health benefits related to treating Parkinson’s symptoms and staving off Alzheimer’s.3
The Federal government and each state have spent hundreds of millions over decades attempting to discourage people from smoking cigarettes. We now have a viable alternative to tobacco products that could do just that, through tobacco harm reduction. This disruptive technology has the potential to accomplish what Tobacco Control has failed to do for the past fifty years, unless it is smothered in its infancy. Vapor products, as a recreational consumer good, have the potential to replace combustible tobacco, keeping millions from potential tobacco related illnesses. According to recent CDC surveys, in the time frame that vapor products have been available, smoking rates in the United States have plummeted to an all time low.4 However, if vapor products are subjected to the same strict regulatory control intended to minimize harm from tobacco products, they could be rendered ineffectual due to the stifling nature of those regulations5.
By rejecting the classification of vapor products as tobacco products we can:
1 Protect access to flavors, which are an integral part of the vapor experience.6
2 Protect access to online sales that allow consumers to procure the equipment and e-liquids that are best suited for their needs.
3 Protect access to all nicotine concentrations, which allow the consumer to tailor their experience to their needs which could range from higher concentrations to aid in transitioning from smoking to nicotine free for enjoyment and maintenance.
4 Protect access to open, reusable container systems that are more cost effective and environmentally friendly.
Vapor products are not tobacco products, they are a safer alternative to tobacco products which may or may not contain nicotine. Vapor products are also a driving force behind thousands of small and medium businesses across the country, creating jobs and feeding the economy, many of which will not survive the exorbitant fee structure of tobacco product approval that has kept the cigarette market in the hands of only the major tobacco companies. The vapor product industry has already gained ground in self regulation by the formation of industry trade groups, and through the active involvement of the consumers.7 Instead of relegating vapor products to tobacco control, a new category of product regulation can be implemented, one that could inspire innovation along with public health and safety. The best way to protect this life altering technology is to not place it under the auspices of the FSPTCA, by not deeming vapor products as tobacco products.
Cited References
1 Russell M. Low-tar medium-nicotine cigarettes: a new approach to safer smoking. British Medical Journal 1976;1:1430-1433
2 IJERPH | Free Full-Text | Nicotine Levels and Presence of Selected Tobacco-Derived Toxins in Tobacco Flavoured Electronic Cigarette Refill Liquids
3 Nicotine, the Wonder Drug? | DiscoverMagazine.com
4 Adult cigarette smoking rate overall hits all-time low| CDC Online Newsroom | CDC
5 CASAA: April 2014
6 Big Survey 2014 - Initial Findings Eliquid | Vaping.com
7 CASAA.org AEMSA.org SFATA.org
Additional Resources:
http://notblowingsmoke.org
E-cigarettes generate high levels of aldehydes only in “dry puff” conditions (irrespective of the power levels)
The research behind giving up cigarettes: a Q&A with leading expert Peter Hajek - On Health
EPA & FDA: Vapor Harmless to Children - Minnesota Vapers AdvocacyMinnesota Vapers Advocacy
Evaluation of the cytotoxic potential of e-cigarette vapor on cultured cardiac cells: a new study
Clinical Research: Electronic Cigarettes
BMC Public Health | Abstract | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks
E-cigarette research, studies and papers - 2014
What 20 REAL Experts Say About E-Cigs
Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review
Instead of leaving the '7' unlinked, put one of the groups in there. Your choice
Otherwise, a quick go over and I LIKE! I really, really LIKE!
Looks Good.
I think the Last Paragraph is a Tad Long. And there is a 7 in there for some reason.
I would Split the Last Paragraph into 2 Part. The Last Paragraph is called the "Closer". And it should, in about 3 or 4 sentences, telling Why it is Important to do what is in the Body of the Text.
Many People will read the 1st Paragraph (the Hook) to see if they are Interested. And the Read the Last Paragraph ( the Closure) to see why they should Agree with things. And then Glaze over the Body of the Text looking for Bullet Points.
But It is Fine the way it is if you Don't want to Change It.
In my word doc they're superscript, the forum software made them regular script. I'll see what I can do, or if I can find a site to reference it.
Edit: found it
What is disruptive technology? - Definition from WhatIs.com
I think it fits, but if it's confusing maybe I should change it.
Last edited:
Thank you for the link. It was confusing to me but I may be the only one to question it.
So in that sense, it is a disruptive technology, but do you really want to "threaten" the powers that be when trying to educate them? That's why I mentioned it earlier in the thread.
How about 'new technology'? Although it's perfectly correct, 'disruptive' seems somewhat negative to me. And let's face it, most politicians don't want anything to be disrupted in their worlds, for good or bad. 
At the very least this petition will be a clear statement that we are not a 'fringe' group to be casually ignored.
Let's pull the trigger!
As to the nuts and bolts of collecting actual signatures, every vape shop in the country needs to have a copy of this on their counter next to the cash register, with space for people to physically sign. Make the opportunity to sign immediately available and people will do it. I'll carry a copy with me for my daily travels so the guy at the lumber yard who doesn't vape but likes the idea has a chance to sign.....
Just tell me what to do with the paper copies I'll end up with.
At the very least this petition will be a clear statement that we are not a 'fringe' group to be casually ignored.
Let's pull the trigger!
As to the nuts and bolts of collecting actual signatures, every vape shop in the country needs to have a copy of this on their counter next to the cash register, with space for people to physically sign. Make the opportunity to sign immediately available and people will do it. I'll carry a copy with me for my daily travels so the guy at the lumber yard who doesn't vape but likes the idea has a chance to sign.....
Just tell me what to do with the paper copies I'll end up with.
I love the idea of physical petitions but I am not sure there is a way to transfer those signatures to change.org (I've been digging around change.org for a good while trying to find the answer to this and 2 other questions - they hide such important info well.)
OTOH, physical petitions tend to carry a bit more weight - but I have no idea how to deliver such a petition to Congress. (Maybe Beck can drive it up there for us? hehe)
Re: number of "targets" for the petition - change.org encourages using multiple targets, but never seems to indicate whether there is a limit
Re: petition expiration date - this is set up when you post the petition, and can be changed along the way if necessary. I suggest setting a date in the not-too-distant future, then moving it back if needed.
OTOH, physical petitions tend to carry a bit more weight - but I have no idea how to deliver such a petition to Congress. (Maybe Beck can drive it up there for us? hehe)
Re: number of "targets" for the petition - change.org encourages using multiple targets, but never seems to indicate whether there is a limit
Re: petition expiration date - this is set up when you post the petition, and can be changed along the way if necessary. I suggest setting a date in the not-too-distant future, then moving it back if needed.
My tech skills in the computer world are limited to plugging in and pushing the on button. 
I'll leave any issues of transference of signatures to those with knowledge.
Whether or not the signatures can be transferred to change.org, the overall count will dramatically increase if the opportunity to sign is immediately in front of people. Maybe change.org is just a part of this effort. Public petitions have been around since BC (before computers) so there must be a way to collect them and get them to the proper recipients. I don't know how to do that either. IOW, I'm truly a fount of un-knowledge here with regard to logistics, but I'd like to help.
I'll leave any issues of transference of signatures to those with knowledge.Whether or not the signatures can be transferred to change.org, the overall count will dramatically increase if the opportunity to sign is immediately in front of people. Maybe change.org is just a part of this effort. Public petitions have been around since BC (before computers) so there must be a way to collect them and get them to the proper recipients. I don't know how to do that either. IOW, I'm truly a fount of un-knowledge here with regard to logistics, but I'd like to help.
Okay you old fogies, you're not hip to the new buzz words, I get it, I'll change it
As for paper petitions, I'm not opposed to the idea, but my sporadic availability really only lends itself to virtual involvement. If someone else wants to figure out how to get actual pen on paper signatures where they need to go, I'm all for it.
As for paper petitions, I'm not opposed to the idea, but my sporadic availability really only lends itself to virtual involvement. If someone else wants to figure out how to get actual pen on paper signatures where they need to go, I'm all for it.
That is very true FT. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I just meant that vaping shouldn't be classified as a drug delivery device. Thank you for keeping me on my toes.
Knew you knew that, it was more for those that don't.I’ve ordered you a pair of manly/ECF blue pompoms to wave around during the international public unveiling of the petition. For god’s sake don’t strain anything though.
D'oh, obvious miss on my part. Thanks!
Excellent idea. He's knowledgeable and can really rally the troops.
Nice! Good job, very impressive. Maybe it's just me but this part seems awkward.
We, the members of the vaping community, including users of vapor products, ex-smokers, current smokers, and friends and family of smokers and ex-smokers whose lives have been changed by vapor products, as concerned citizens, urge you to reject the proposed deeming regulations.
... including vapor product users, past/current smokers, their friends and family of smokers and ex-smokers whose lives have been changed by vaping products and concerned citizens.. Still awkward, but it's shorter, lol.
I’ve ordered you a pair of manly/ECF blue pompoms to wave around during the international public unveiling of the petition. For god’s sake don’t strain anything though.
D'oh, obvious miss on my part. Thanks!
Excellent idea. He's knowledgeable and can really rally the troops.
Nice! Good job, very impressive. Maybe it's just me but this part seems awkward.
We, the members of the vaping community, including users of vapor products, ex-smokers, current smokers, and friends and family of smokers and ex-smokers whose lives have been changed by vapor products, as concerned citizens, urge you to reject the proposed deeming regulations.
... including vapor product users, past/current smokers, their friends and family of smokers and ex-smokers whose lives have been changed by vaping products and concerned citizens.. Still awkward, but it's shorter, lol.
I agree, it's awkward, and long. I was trying to encompass everyone, but it doesn't roll of the tongue well. I'll try to rethink/rewrite it.
I'm going up into the mountains tomorrow though so... I might not get back to this until Saturday evening. So, if anyone has any other revisions, or anything else to put in, post them and I'll work them in when I get the chance. Also, if someone wants to save me a few minutes and get me email address for House/Senate majority/minority leaders, I would not be opposed
How about 'new technology'? Although it's perfectly correct, 'disruptive' seems somewhat negative to me. And let's face it, most politicians don't want anything to be disrupted in their worlds, for good or bad.
At the very least this petition will be a clear statement that we are not a 'fringe' group to be casually ignored.
Let's pull the trigger!
As to the nuts and bolts of collecting actual signatures, every vape shop in the country needs to have a copy of this on their counter next to the cash register, with space for people to physically sign. Make the opportunity to sign immediately available and people will do it. I'll carry a copy with me for my daily travels so the guy at the lumber yard who doesn't vape but likes the idea has a chance to sign.....
Just tell me what to do with the paper copies I'll end up with.
EFVI did this, having physical signs.
So if it's doable it'll help for sure.
I'm ready to sign this. And distribute it in all the forums and social medias that I can. The more it's out there, the more people will be aware of it. And not just in the vaping communities. I know many non-smokers that would be willing to sign this as well.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
