VTTV meets Linda McAvan MEP

[steffijade]

So because vaping is growing exponentially, and because in a couple of years time they will represent a significant voting block, especially in todays climate of political apathy where voter turnout is lower than it used to be, the politicians will have little choice but to listen to vapers and not to propose legislation that effectively bans vaping, or they'll find themselves booted out of office.

If a party came out and publicly stated that they were fully behind vaping and would oppose restrictions then I might actually be motivated to re-register to vote.

 

[Cabbo]

I'm on the same boat as far as continued use goes. I like vaping (although I cringe at the word; it might be a colloquial thing but to me it sounds like mc granddad keeping it real with the kids) more than I ever liked smoking, but the government can't be seen to endorse a product that is so closely related in the public's eye to smoking without knowing it won't bite them in the ass. They need to control it, and call it a cessation device, so in future if it turns out there's a serious health risk they can say 'we tried'. I don't know anything about the banning of flavors, but it seems a very clinical and detrimental thing to do. I may not share the same level of distrust of large industries (I try to weigh evidence where evidence is confirmed, so while there is a correlation between large business and corruption it is evidently not the case that all large businesses are corrupt), but I recognize the height of corruption that is hinted at here. I will say that if anyone aims to prevent this kind of corruption, then they are going to need more than opinion. Opinion is intangible and impotent when it is not sourced from solid, irrefutable evidence. Correlation is not causation, however deep it runs, and a hint of corruption, however deep it seems, is no more than a ghost without evidence. VaperCaper is clued in. If there is corruption (which it appears there is on some level - it looks to me that the reasoning used to defend the change may be an attempt at spin, to make it seem attractive to politicians with little stake in the issue. It could also be that their genuine motivation is safety, mixed with some naivety and a few destructive personalities, or it could be that the whole thing is simply a very early stage plan with many flaws) then there are two ways that I see to stop it. Either ensure the use of ecigs spreads to enough of the population that they have a majority vote. They aim to prevent the widespread use of ecigs in three years time? Make it widespread in two. Or call dispatches! Expose it definitively (which would be very difficult to probably impossible). In all seriousness, this is an issue that needs more media attention.