Just as expected, as many said it was coming soon, the U.S. Federal Government turned-the-tables and flipped-the-script on society, suddenly people were forcing opposite claims into the newsrooms on television or chat rooms online of the general public in America.

To make things worse, much of the information being shared to the general public was being communicated by people with prominent positions has been completely irresponsible and only reveals the systemic deceit lingering throughout the political landscape.

Relentless Misinformation

Vaping was our savior in the U.S., but then came the buzzkillers – groups like the Campaign for Tobacco FREE Kids and Tobacco 21, who were (and still are) implying some of the most overly-elaborate affirmations about these harm reduction tools known as vaping devices which they refer to as a sneaky scheme by Big Tobacco. Nothing even close to the facts.

A Well-Respected Credible Supporter of Vapor

The Vape community has been lucky to have several credible supporters. Dr. Michael Siegel, has been a strong and logical voice from academia. Experienced and highly intelligent, this Academic from Boston University has been one of the prominent, outspoken individuals using rational analysis to defend the vaping lifestyle by confronting these preposterous claims made by the anti-vaping affiliates groups who demonize the harm reducing vaping movement.

Broken Record of Truth: “Vapor Products aren’t Tobacco”

These products in fact have nothing to do with this anti-vape establishment platform. Vapor products are not tobacco. Sure, the FDA may recognize and officially label all vapor products as Tobacco, including coils, atomizers, mods, lithium-ion batteries, etc. Therefore, from this clouded judgment and poor understanding of reality. One might assume from categorizing all these items as tobacco products that perhaps those who officially decided to make such an outrageous declaration just may have let their imaginations run a bit too far on the wild side or more accurately, the wrong side.

Consider What is Real & What is False

Regardless, there may very well be some vapers who do in fact feel that vapor products are tobacco given the fact that nicotine is derived from tobacco. Then again you must also consider how nicotine can also be derived from synthetics through a laboratory or from potatoes, cauliflower, tomatoes or eggplants where it is proven to be naturally occurring. These are all facts that most advocates are well-aware of.

We all know this to be true, but those fanatical anti-vapor, anti-freedom, ultimately anti-American groups somehow influenced the USFDA to essentially categorize vape devices as tobacco, granting them the authority to regulate with severe overreach. This was accomplished following the ruling in the Tobacco Control Act.

Vape products do not deserve to be considered as “dangerous” -To be categorized as a product declared far-too-risky for public consumption, and now far-too-risky for public exposure to the vapor that is most likely to be safer than the air we breathe. Vapor products do not deserve to be continually referred to as unregulated wild cards that we don’t know enough information about. These are simply just talking points made for communication purposes via the Talking Heads of the Democratic Party – the partners and spokespersons for the anti-tobacco lobby.

Modern American Society Feels Uneasy

Not to mention, it says a lot about modern American society when we begin referring to consumer products as being associated with things that they are not. This is perhaps the scariest part – labeling products of harm reduction as items causing more harm production – thus changing the very texture of reality. If we continue down such a path, pretty soon our dictionaries will be entirely biased and inaccurate. Before we know it, we might wake up one day and come to find that the word “Yes” now means “No” and vice versa.

This is, of course, an outlandish exaggeration, but at this point, nothing would surprise me. After all, this entire war on vapor has reached global heights and all the misinformation used by governments who rely on tobacco tax revenues have been claiming some very outlandishly exaggerated claims. So, either fight back against such blatant lies and deceit or sit back and watch just how “unentertaining” and pathetic this situation may truly get.

  • Alan Selk

    The great majority of the public believes vaping to be a form of tobacco use, along with most people who vape (outside of some hard core activist) and they are correct, it is a form of tobacco use. It is simply a recreational way of consuming nicotine derived from tobacco (your little rant about nicotine being in other vegetables shows just how far afield many in the hard core vape community have gone. You are lying when you state that nicotine is being derived from other vegetables. It is certainly not). The approach of the hard core activist of claiming we are not tobacco has been a dismal failure on every level. It is losing on the local, state, and federal levels. You can rant all you want, but the we are not tobacco mantra has not worked in the past, present, and it will not work in the future. It is a losing strategy.

    The problem is not that vaping is classified as a tobacco product. The problem is how we regulate tobacco, with no distinction in relative risk between different products. Smokeless tobacco has the same low risk as we hope vaping has, and it to is under threat from the FDA (look at there pending regulation of NNN)

    The narrative needs to be changed in support of concepts of tobacco harm reduction (in all it forms, including heat not burn and smokeless tobacco). It worked in Sweden, is beginning to work in the UK, and it could work in the US if ignorant activist would get off there backsides and stop pushing losing strategies.

    Your little rant about the Democrats also rings false. Many of the state regulations now taking place are happening in Republican run states. Besides that, a bunch of democrats are now supporting HR 1136, which is the Cole/Bishop bill. It is a bipartisan bill with support from both sides.

    • Robert Harvey

      though much of what you say is true in that the majority of nicotine we consume in e-cigarettes is derived from tobacco, I would like to point out however that the anti vaping movement has used far more outrageous claims to support their cause most of which are based on bad science, speculation or down right lies rather then the truth that nicotine can be derived from other sauces even if it typically isn’t, it is true however that they should use a different approach as far as nicotine is concerned, I would rather go with the fact that nicotine has been proven to be far less harmful and addictive then its made out to be and once separated from tobacco is no more harmful or addictive then caffeine in coffee. they need to convince people that nicotine is not the demon it has been unjustly made out to be in the past. even though that is not going to be an easy task.

      • Alan Selk

        That is still pushing the false idea that tobacco is the problem. It is not tobacco, its the smoke. There really isn’t much difference between the vaping enthusiast still pushing the idea that tobacco is the problem, and the tobacco control industry. It is just a slightly modified form of what tobacco control is saying.

        • Robert Harvey

          I don’t recall saying anything in my comment “pushing the false idea that tobacco is the problem.”, I believe my only point about tobacco was “that the majority of nicotine we consume in e-cigarettes is derived from tobacco” which it currently is and that “once separated from tobacco is no more harmful or addictive then caffeine in coffee” which is also true in respect to the current most popular method of getting the nicotine from tobacco, burning it.
          having said that I am not sure I would be happy getting my nicotine in any other method other then from e-juice, in most cigarettes the tobacco is laced with other additives that make them more addictive then raw tobacco and I would not be surprised to find that the tobacco in heat not burn devices is also infused with such additives to keep the unsuspecting user hooked.
          I don’t know if this idea is right or wrong but at the end of the day one of the main arguments against vaping being classed as a tobacco product is that it e-juice contains no tobacco, the same cannot be said if you use a heat not burn device or if you use snus.

    • BDD

      I have completey read the majority of post in this thread and I must say, you are extremely well spoken, and well informed. The points you make regarding the significantly lower health risks from vaping compared to cigarettes and similar forms of tobacco use, are practically flawless. This importance of this point cannot be stated enough. However, the zeal you display when arguing that vaping IS and SHOULD BE deemed a form of tobacco use, makes it easy to see why so many ardent vapers are at odds with you. I think that for the most part, you are correct in saying that the only real option with hope of any success is as you say, to argue for change in how we regulate of tobacco products in regard to risk factor. That being said, just because that is true, it does make the argument that vaping shouldn’t be considered tobacco use at all, false. It would be pointless to restate all of the valid points that proponents of this idea have made to you. The very simplest statement, that there is no “tobacco” in this product us sufficient. People are right to be upset about this misuse of government regulation. It is also a fairly accurate assumption to say that “big tobacco” companies and lobbyists played a part in said events. Your opinion, arguing against this classification, that the war is already lost, and that the majority of people consider this classification to be accurate, is a bit hard to swallow. Especially your comment that even most “vapers ” consider it to be a form of tobacco use particularly suspicious. I posed the question to a number of vapers I associate with as well as to a number at a local vape shop and they overwhelmingly considered vaping NOT to be a form of tobacco use. Also you mention how a product is “intended” to be used, i would argue that tobacco regulations were originally “intended” for products that actually contained tobacco, not derivitives. Regardless, I’ve never considered it wise to let, “everyone else thinks so”, influence my own critical thinking. As for the “war already lost” scenario, I can only say that as long as people still fight, it’s never truly lost. I would also say that though you seen to be correct in your analysis of the current state of affairs in this area, I still hope for change regarding what is considered tobacco use, and I encourage others to do likewise, while still propagating information about the obvious differences in health risk between vaping and tobacco products. Lastly I would say that if your true goal is to change how people think about vaping , change how tobacco products are regulated, you should refrain from your subtle attitide of superiority, as well as your views personal attacks. Phrases like “ignorant” and “hardcore activist”, as well as comparing to tobacco control activists. That route of debate is a losing strategy, which is seemingly at odds with your own ideals.