Dimitri Goes Off on Rant About Dishonest Liquid Vendors

[Jman8]

How so?

In sound bite response: with what they advertise, and how it is often conveyed.

Like if you advertise zero nic, but don't disclose at point of sale that there is trace amounts of nicotine in that product, then you just done went and misrepresented the product and key information associated with that product.

If this seems like just one example, I then invite you to pick any industry and/or specific business, and I'll come up with the observable deception. Might take time, and perhaps is better done in PM.

 

[AndriaD]

That is perfectly fine, if this pertains to you and whether or not you will vape liquids that contain diketones, and not a mandate on the industry as a whole. I feel safe in assuming that, from your posting history.


I believe we are capable of self regulation, I would just like this round to go better than the last.

Without an acceptable level of proof, we're back to accepting that SHS kills anyone that comes into contact with it, citrus flavors target 5 year olds, etc.

You know I'm no nanny, and how much I hate 'em. Self-righteous uptight party-poopers, the lot of 'em, and they can kiss my shiney hiney!

But I can't say I share your optimism about the ability to self-regulate; I think it's a valid proposition as regards individuals, but corporate, for-profit entities? Ummm... that's how we ended up with the alphabet soup of Agencies, because those entities will only self-regulate in ways that are profitable -- many companies spout a lot of hot air about their civic and community aims, but it's just PR; their real bottom-line is... the bottom line. They also don't concern themselves overmuch about what is "right" -- they think only "can we get away with it?" -- the very opposite of ethical behavior.

I hate that soon there will be regulations that will no doubt seem very onerous compared to what we have now, but I really don't see any way of avoiding it -- the gov't WILL get their 100 lbs of flesh, and there WILL be regulations concerning the contents of ejuice, just because of that acknowledged tendency of for-profit businesses: they will do whatever they can get away with, and devil take the hindmost -- the most infamous example being the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, but there have been so many examples in all the years since then, I won't even begin to list them all.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

Excellent, we agree on all but what we agree to disagree about.

Lets get down to brass tacks. We know and agree on these things:
Diketones MAY OR MAY NOT be a risk.
If we know they are there, we can choose to avoid this possible risk.
Just because a manufacturer SAYS they're not there, doesn't mean they aren't.

How then, do you propose, that those who do NOT want to expose themselves to this possible risk, do so?
This is what it all really boils down to.

I would think top consideration ought to be given to not participating in the activity. As a fellow vaper, I'd have to state that honestly, but as a fellow vaper, I'd really wish that wasn't the decision that was reached due to this issue.

Next consideration would be to share communication with vendor(s) one likes all that they are aware of on this issue. Be direct, but respectful. Ask the vendor what you want to ask. If you know of any possible way to currently get around industry lying, then ask that type of question to the vendor. Wait for vendor response. If vendor says things that you dislike, find another vendor, and ask and wait.

Next consideration, for those who do not want to expose themselves to this possible risk is to consider going with unflavored or DIY.

Next consideration is to join some sort of consumer group willing to front own costs for doing the tests that the concerned group feel needs to be done.

Any consideration where demands or mandatory are on the table, ought to have "we must" or "I must do my own testing" as the most reasonable mandatory position to take on this matter. If it is not, then I'd like to speak with those people and take to task their idea, principles and ethics around mandatory requirements.

 

[Lessifer]

You know I'm no nanny, and how much I hate 'em. Self-righteous uptight party-poopers, the lot of 'em, and they can kiss my shiney hiney!

But I can't say I share your optimism about the ability to self-regulate; I think it's a valid proposition as regards individuals, but corporate, for-profit entities? Ummm... that's how we ended up with the alphabet soup of Agencies, because those entities will only self-regulate in ways that are profitable -- many companies spout a lot of hot air about their civic and community aims, but it's just PR; their real bottom-line is... the bottom line. They also don't concern themselves overmuch about what is "right" -- they think only "can we get away with it?" -- the very opposite of ethical behavior.

I hate that soon there will be regulations that will no doubt seem very onerous compared to what we have now, but I really don't see any way of avoiding it -- the gov't WILL get their 100 lbs of flesh, and there WILL be regulations concerning the contents of ejuice, just because of that acknowledged tendency of for-profit businesses: they will do whatever they can get away with, and devil take the hindmost -- the most infamous example being the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, but there have been so many examples in all the years since then, I won't even begin to list them all.

Andria

You don't actually believe that the regulators will have our best interests at heart either, do you? Look at how tightly tobacco cigarettes are regulated. It's still all about "what can I get away with" only now you also have an official regulator, "ensuring" your profit margin doesn't "overly" negatively effect the consumers.

I'd take a fact based approach over anything else, even if some things that I believed to be of concern were not eliminated. As with many other things, if I believe it is of concern, I can ask my own questions and either accept the answers I'm given, or look closer.

 

[LouisLeBeau]

Well Jman, you've done a heck of a job making the other sides argument.

We're all on the same bus. Perhaps on the other side of the aisle, but the same bus. You want to drive on the other side of the yellow line (diketones) with the headlights off(disclosure), because it's POSSIBLE we won't get in an accident and you like the other side better, and you have the right to do what you want. I think it's foolish. Is the compromise that your side of the bus be over the line with the headlights off? Wait, IF a truck happens along, it isn't just "your side" thats going to take damage. IF Diketones in vapor DO cause Bronchitis Obliterans, do you think for a second that public sentiment is going to care that it was YOUR Diketone side of the bus? No. VAPING will take the hit.

So, if you're going to do what you're going to do, which could affect me, could we at LEAST turn the headlights on? Can we at least know IF and HOW MUCH of something is coming at us? Does it really take away from YOUR thrill? Sit in the back, where you can't see it coming at all. Tear that label off, you paid for the bottle, do as you please with it. But you are right, we are all in it together.

 

[DC2]

Good Lord people, what a waste of space this is becoming...

We all agree that we want to know what we are vaping.
And we all agree that the FDA is not the body that we should hope to enforce that.

So where does that leave us?

In the freaking obvious place of vendors being clear when asked.

Asked what though?
Asked any freaking thing we want to ask them.

And because of this, that flushing sound you hear might be Five Pawns...

 

[k2zs]

snip...

Good Lord people, what a waste of space this is becoming......

Train wreck would be more applicable...

 

[zoiDman]

It is plausible that this is becoming a wedge issue within the vaping community (most of which I identify as concerned consumers) and that ANTZ-like persons could exploit the division via FDA deeming, further scare tactics (a la CDC) and the inevitable day that ex-vapers roam the planet to provide more authority to what is it really like to be a vaper. I imagine ANTZ operatives tapping ex-vapers to increase fears around "known issues" within vaping community.

 

[zoiDman]

Good Lord people, what a waste of space this is becoming...

...

Damn Straight DC. Damn Straight.

 

[Lessifer]

Good Lord people, what a waste of space this is becoming...

We all agree that we want to know what we are vaping.
And we all agree that the FDA is not the body that we should hope to enforce that.

So where does that leave us?

In the freaking obvious place of vendors being clear when asked.

Asked what though?
Asked any freaking thing we want to ask them.

And because of this, that flushing sound you hear might be Five Pawns...

I agree completely.

Where the debate seems to be, at least to me, is what happens when they don't want to answer?
I'm perfectly happy with not buying, finding another vendor who will answer.
I'm not okay with forcing them to answer.

 

[k2zs]

I agree completely.

Where the debate seems to be, at least to me, is what happens when they don't want to answer?
I'm perfectly happy with not buying, finding another vendor who will answer.
I'm not okay with forcing them to answer.

There should be no depate at all...

I myself have stopped using 5P products all together. I don't need any explanations or excuses for that matter.

I'm letting my wallet speak for me, natural selection will eventually weed out the riffraff...

 

[skoony]

Any corporation/business/individual that is making and selling anything for human consumption is responsible to know each and every ingredient that is in their product and disclose/warn consumers if their product contains ingredients that are known to/potential to pose a serious health risk... why should eliquids be exempt from this...because they can get away with it? If anyone is pushing for regulations it would be those in the industry that are exhibiting business practices like 5P knowingly selling a product with high levels of Da/AP and denying it even exist in any of their products. Seriously I don't know of one consumer that would stand for this with any other things they bought to consume yet this is somehow acceptable because it's eliquid? Makes no sense to me what so ever....

they simply are not responsible for any such thing.
you do your research and make a disision using
your criteria from the vendor of your choice.
regards
mike

 

[AndriaD]

You don't actually believe that the regulators will have our best interests at heart either, do you? Look at how tightly tobacco cigarettes are regulated. It's still all about "what can I get away with" only now you also have an official regulator, "ensuring" your profit margin doesn't "overly" negatively effect the consumers.

No, I think the gov't is one of the worst with the "can I get away with it" point of view. And I think that it's still very much up in the air, exactly what the FDA "can get away with" as regards all of vaping. But I'm pragmatic; it can sometimes be possible to shift the gov't a little, but trying to stop it entirely is like trying to stop a glacier -- just not happening. And in this particular instance, the contents of ejuice, I think that regulation of some sort is not only inevitable, but even somewhat desirable -- I would hope they don't impose any ridiculous limits on nic content, but require factual, lab-based info on the actual chemicals inside that batch of ejuice... really not a bad thing. It's just that I know they won't stop there, and that's really why I wish it didn't have to be necessary.

Andria

 

[LouisLeBeau]

I would think top consideration ought to be given to not participating in the activity. As a fellow vaper, I'd have to state that honestly, but as a fellow vaper, I'd really wish that wasn't the decision that was reached due to this issue.

HAHAHA!!!! REALLY? REALLY? That's your idea of the primary solution to this? That those of us that don't want Diketones in our juice just not vape? Or DIY? If anyone else on "your side" really believes in any way, that these are acceptable propositions, I already KNOW where this is all heading. Why don't you just go back to smoking cigarettes if you want to risk your health? Why don't you propose that non-smokers just stay the hell out of bars, movie theaters, and restaurants?

We've already BEEN down this road, and if this is how you draw the battle lines, you're going to be standing outside in the cold, vaping your Diketones, IF there is any Diketones at all. I have no doubt that if push comes to shove, and an "independent mediator" has to step in? Huh. This isn't a Mexican standoff, you WILL lose this fight if that's your idea of compromise or acceptable solutions to this problem. I'm sure the other side will have some bruises too, which would be sad. So that's it eh? Either your side wins keeping an unacceptable status quo, or everyone loses?

How about we all, united, push manufacturers for VOLUNTARY disclosure, and avoid what WILL inevitably be MANDATORY disclosure, if not an outright ban on Diketones, or worse.

 

[Lessifer]

No, I think the gov't is one of the worst with the "can I get away with it" point of view. And I think that it's still very much up in the air, exactly what the FDA "can get away with" as regards all of vaping. But I'm pragmatic; it can sometimes be possible to shift the gov't a little, but trying to stop it entirely is like trying to stop a glacier -- just not happening. And in this particular instance, the contents of ejuice, I think that regulation of some sort is not only inevitable, but even somewhat desirable -- I would hope they don't impose any ridiculous limits on nic content, but require factual, lab-based info on the actual chemicals inside that batch of ejuice... really not a bad thing. It's just that I know they won't stop there, and that's really why I wish it didn't have to be necessary.

Andria

The problem is, at what level do you set the burden of proof? What is an acceptable potential risk?

Set it too high and kiss many things we all enjoy goodbye. Set it too low and vaping isn't as safe as some would like it to be.

I accept a level of personal responsibility. If diketones are something I feel are of concern, I actively seek out vendors who claim their liquids to be diketone free, and then I look for the lab results confirming that.

 

[skoony]

but they are KNOWN to pose a serious health risk and from inhalation as the exposure... just because they are being inhaled by means of eliquid vapor all of the sudden that makes them safe now? I don't even think you believe that and yes the manufactures of eliquids have known this for a while now, years, and because no one was keeping tabs on them they could and did do and say what ever they wanted to instead of doing the right thing.

a known risk to a very few working in well defined segments
of the food production industry.
regards
mike

 

[Racehorse]

We all agree that we want to know what we are vaping.
And we all agree that the FDA is not the body that we should hope to enforce that.

So where does that leave us?

It leaves us where we keep saying we want to be: A new industry that wants and needs to be self-regulated.

Which I'm pretty sure requires more than empty excuses or a plethora of advertising copy.

The problem is, at what level do you set the burden of proof?

Some don't see to "get" that it doesn't matter if DAP is bad for you, any more than it matters if GMOs are bad for you.

As a consumer, I don't have to wait decades for an answer to that. All I need to do is say that I don't want to vape DAP and I don't want to eat GMOs.

So don't sell me something and say it's not those things, when it is. That is consumer fraud, plain and simple.

 

[DC2]

I'm going to start a contest...

When Five Pawns folds their tent, and comes back as a new company...
What name will they choose?

The winner gets all the Five Pawns juice I have left.

 

[AndriaD]

The problem is, at what level do you set the burden of proof? What is an acceptable potential risk?

Set it too high and kiss many things we all enjoy goodbye. Set it too low and vaping isn't as safe as some would like it to be.

I accept a level of personal responsibility. If diketones are something I feel are of concern, I actively seek out vendors who claim their liquids to be diketone free, and then I look for the lab results confirming that.

In this case, where so little is actually *known for sure*, I don't think the gov't is in any position to say how much can be there -- but they're certainly in the position to require listing of ingredients.

I fall into the category of, if it's in there, period, I won't buy it -- as I said before, equivocation of "how deadly" seems ridiculous to me. Like those things on food that say "produced in a factory with x, y, and z" -- if I was allergic to x, y or z, I wouldn't buy that product. If I saw some indication that there were ANY diketones in an ejuice, I simply wouldn't buy it, nevermind how much or how little. I do that now, with flavors. "Trace amounts" are still more than 0.

But I think there does need to be some regulation that if diketones are present, in any quantity, it should be noted -- those who don't care, buy all you like! I don't care, but I'm not going to buy it. I can't be an informed consumer, if I'm not informed. That's why I went to DIY -- flavor mfr's are more likely to know, more likely to tell, and less likely to lie about it -- they were around before vaping, and would still be around even if vaping went kaput tomorrow - god forbid.

Andria

 

[zoiDman]

I'm going to start a contest...

When Five Pawns folds their tent, and comes back as a new company...
What name will they choose?

The winner gets all the Five Pawns juice I have left.

I'll go with... "Simply Duplicity"