Skip to main content

View Diary: Are Democrats REALLY Pro-Choice? (39 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  More than a little heavy-handed, but (8+ / 0-)

    all right, vapor inhalation is indeed a choice that doesn't impinge on others and should be a personal freedom issue for adults.

    And yes, it doesn't carry the health overhead of smoke inhalation.

    However jumping in to comparison to abortion freedoms or homosexuality suppression is definitely over the top. There are indeed degrees of severity of restrictions. And some of your lines on the comparison are simply ridiculous - "pulmonary freedom"? Comparing cigarettes to back-alley abortions? You spoil your own case.

    This is not a sig-line.

    by Joffan on Fri Aug 29, 2014 at 12:17:35 AM PDT

    •  How many votes to you want to give to the GOP? (0+ / 0-)

      I was careful with my womb.  Presumably you were careful with your lungs.  Why do you have more right to life than I have?  The examples I put in above are REAL examples of things Democrats have been saying!  I don't know how to express the rage among swing-voting vapers and the sense of betrayal among people like me who have been, up to now, loyal Democrats.  380,000 deaths a year, we now have a way to prevent it, and Democrats are using the same EXACT tactics to stop us that the Republicans are using against women's reproductive health.

      This has been going under the radar for those who do not vape and do not love someone who vapes.

      But I could rephrase your example on the other side:  Pregnancy also doesn't carry the health overhead of smoke inhalation, it does not kill 1/2 of pregnant women.   Does that mean it's no big deal?

      I doubt I'm the only vaper who WOULD have contributed to's campaign to keep the Senate, but am so upset with Democrats right now that I'm just deleting their emails.  And I KNOW how the normally-undecided vapers will vote.  Swing voters are the ones who determine that last few votes that swing the elections.

      •  You're going way overboard with this (9+ / 0-)

        vaping obsession.

        I doubt I'm the only vaper who WOULD have contributed to's campaign to keep the Senate, but am so upset with Democrats right now that I'm just deleting their emails.
        So what you're saying is gay rights and women's rights, minority rights, and voting rights mean nothing. All those people that the GOP hurts can shove it because you want to vape.

        Our parties are coalitions. The fact that your support of the coalition as a whole hinges on whether or not you can vape says you don't care very much about ANY of the other issues involved.

        And you know what? I haven't been following the vaping thing all that closely, but without hearing more I feel that it should be legal with VERY loose regulations. But this comparison was absolutely absurd.

        •   The Democratic War on Vaping costs votes (0+ / 0-)

          Swing voters vote differently every time, they are not dedicated Democrats.  I'm not a swing voter, but I have a lot of vaping friends who are.

          And since in addition to 380,000 deaths a year from smoking there are also massive disabilities, and they fall VERY disproportionately on minorities, gays, the poor, all the people that Democrats are for.  In order, those most-impacted by smoking-related morbidity and death are:

          1.  G.E.D. holders
          2.  LGBT
          3.  African Americans
          4.  Other minorities.

          And Democratic politicians are willing to throw the lives of these people away in disproportionate numbers.

          Democrats are unlikely to gain ONE SINGLE VOTE for their aggressive, united, anti-vaping stance.  So what is the point of throwing away all those swing-voting vapers AND THEIR FAMILIES?  My family supports me.  They're Dems, so their votes are probably safe.  Not so with the 20% of vapers who are swing voters.

          Are you willing to give those votes away?  Or, in my case, you're giving away my enthusiasm, which I would have used to fight the Koch Brothers but all my free time is taken going city to city, to the state, to the feds, fighting for my right to control my own body.  THAT is happening even to dedicated Democratic vapers.

          •  You're being ridiculous (6+ / 0-)

            Restricting vaping to adults and treating a nicotine product like a cigarette is being safe.
            Why are you against regulating e-cigs to keep them out of the hands of children?
            To use your (admittedly ridiculous) line of reasoning, by not regulating e-cigs to keep them away from children, you're condemning them to death.

            Electronic cigarettes need to be strongly regulated — and quickly — to prevent another generation of young people from becoming addicted to nicotine, according to the American Heart Association's first policy statement on the products.

            In its statement, the heart association pointed to studies suggesting that e-cigarettes, which contain nicotine but no tobacco, could serve as a "gateway" drug to addict young people, who may go on to regular cigarettes or smokeless tobacco. The association pointed to flavors in e-cigarettes, such as bubble gum, arguing that these are intended to attract kids.
            More than 263,000 non-smoking kids tried e-cigarettes last year — three times as many as in 2011, according to a study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Monday. About 44% of non-smoking kids who experimented with e-cigarettes said they intend to smoke regular cigarettes, compared to 22% of kids who had never tried e-cigs, the study found.


            If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

            by skohayes on Fri Aug 29, 2014 at 04:05:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wow do you have this backwards!!!!! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I've taken days off to go to the state capitol to SUPPORT bills banning selling to minors! The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association is doing the same.

              The American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, have successfully lobbied AGAINST such bills.  Google it.  They got the governors of Rhode Island and Wisconsin and now I think Missouri to VETO such bills, thus keeping e-cigs available to kids in their states.

              They object to any such bills UNLESS those bills ALSO define e-cigs as tobacco, thus making them automatically subject to a lot of the same restrictions.

              In addition, the (Democrat-Controled) CDC is straight-up lying about those statistics regarding kids and cigarettes.  They are triple-counting the kids, they are reporting kids who say they would "probably not" accept a combustible cigarette from a friend as "Intending to Smoke Cigarettes."  Read this blog and if you don't "get" the math, ask someone:

              •  Giveaway here (3+ / 0-)
                the (Democrat-Controled) CDC
                Care to explain what you mean by "Democrat-Controled [sic]"?

                Looking at the blog post, if you move the 'probably nots' to the no category, which I agree makes sense analytically, the never-e-cig kids' intention to smoke also goes down dramatically. In fact the odds ratio for smoking using that methodology appears even higher than it did before (with e-cig users 8 times as likely to report an intent to smoke [8% vs 1%] vs. just about 2-3 times before [59% vs 24%]). So I'm not sure your point was made there.

                •  It takes some math: (0+ / 0-)

                  To answer your question:

                  I'm an ardent Obama supporter.  However, I am NOT happy AT ALL with his earlier HHS appointments.

                  IMO having CDC bureaucrats putting out junk like that press release while CDC doctors are risking their lives fighting ebola is disrespectful in the extreme.

                   I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Ms. Burwell will rein them in and require the CDC management to go back to honest science.  

              •  Bullshit blog there, friend. (0+ / 0-)

                I'm not trusting someone who posts anonymously on a blog and makes up their own statistics to make the numbers they don't like look better.
                What utter horseshit.

                If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

                by skohayes on Fri Aug 29, 2014 at 12:30:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Do you remember the guy who wrote that... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LeftCoastTom, virginislandsguy

        the restrictions on phosphates in dishwasher detergents was going to cause a realignment for the Republicans?

        He was funny. Hilarious, actually.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Fri Aug 29, 2014 at 08:19:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

          Was he likely to get cancer or COPD if he couldn't use phosphates?  Was he already having trouble breathing when he washed his clothes without phosphates?

          Would lack of phosphates cause 380,000 deaths a year?

          (if it would, you're right.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site