I just don't Not See this as a Political Reality.
Either from a Personal, Political Party, or Reflective View of their Constituents point of view.
Should Children be Allowed to Buy e-Liquids that contain Nicotine?
- Thread starter zoiDman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I just don't Not See this as a Political Reality.
Either from a Personal, Political Party, or Reflective View of their Constituents point of view.
So, by that cynical view, we should just give up? "We can't do anything about it, so why try" seems to be the attitude you're supporting. If one assumes that one is lost and thus doesn't even try... then one is surely lost.
Andria
If you think believing that there Isn't a Single House Member or Senator who will Publically State that they are favor of Selling e-liquids that contain Nicotine to Minors is Cynical, So Be It.
But I think Most would call it Reality.
I just said, they don't HAVE TO publically state or support it -- all they have to do is NOT VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT.
Andria
I dunno anything about The Deciders, I ignored him so long ago, I have no idea what nonsense he's spouting nowadays -- this software won't even show me that he's posted anything, unless he happens to be the last poster of a Watched thread -- what bliss!
Andria
I just Don't think that is Going to Happen.
And even if it Somehow Could, Wouldn't it go Against what about 85% of the Vapers here on the ECF Want? And about what +95% of the General Public Wants.
Why on Earth would a House Member or Senator Do Something like that?
Hmm, let me think... because they have good sense, and realize that vaping isn't harmful TO ANYONE? Hmm, you're right, none of our congresspeople are that intelligent. But still no reason to simply give up and let them do as they will.
Andria
Let me do again a summary.
Camp A. Unlike cigarettes, ecigs have not been proven significantly harmful or addictive. And unlike alcohol, they do not mentally/physically incapacitate the user. Thus they represent a minor danger, and, as such, should be left at parents discretion on how to deal with them. Government mandated restrictions would unnecessarily vilify and raise their cost, leading to less acceptance by people trying to quit smoking.
Camp B. You're trying to sell nicotine to minors, and fortunately the Deciders won't let you do it. Nah nah nah.
Camp A. Unlike cigarettes, ecigs have not been proven significantly harmful or addictive. And unlike alcohol, they do not mentally/physically incapacitate the user. Thus they represent a minor danger, and, as such, should be left at parents discretion on how to deal with them. Government mandated restrictions would unnecessarily vilify and raise their cost, leading to less acceptance by people trying to quit smoking.
Camp B. You're trying to sell nicotine to minors, and fortunately the Deciders won't let you do it. Nah nah nah.
Seems to me, the best way for us all to win, would be for vapor products to not be deemed as Tobacco Products. That way, the automatic age restrictions wouldn't apply, none of the automatic restrictions would apply, and anyone that wants to add restrictions would presumably have to justify them....
Ok so let's just go along with the uninformed public and evil politicians because we're outnumbered. What a defeatist attitude.
As Andria said, they don't have to support it. In fact, how about if 3 of them showed they had a brain by standing on the floor and saying, "There's no evidence that it causes ANY harm. How about we postpone any restrictions until we know there's actually a need for them?" Well, ok, that's probably a pipe dream.
Sounds like a good band name lol
IMO, what is always helpful in a (public) debate, is to take up the counter position, not exaggerate points, and make that argument. I challenge you to do this. But first I am going to challenge myself to do the same thing with your position. I will just request that if you do this, like myself, that you don't retort the position in the same post that you are arguing FOR the opposite of what your current stance is. If you can meet my challenge, then I'll truly believe that you see both sides of the arguments being made.
Why Minors Shouldn't Be Allowed to Buy / Use Vape Stuff
The Basics
- many other things currently exist in today's society that do not allow minors to use. Primarily newer things and especially if those newer things contain a drug. In many instances, though not all, a vaping product contains nicotine, and is perhaps reason enough to forbid children from using / buying the product.
- Tobacco control initiatives, particularly the FSPTCA, have been in a battle for over 50 years to undo the image associated with smoking, due partially to the harms that are clearly associated with prolonged use. While vaping is not exactly aligned with combustible cigarette smoking, it is similar enough that it does plausibly align with FSPTCA purpose and goals. A primary goal of that document is to restrict and/or reduce accessibility to the next generation, to dissuade potential users from becoming (normal) abusers, or addicts. Even if vaping nicotine is significantly less addictive than smoking nicotine, it is plausible that it is still an addictive activity. For this reason, dissuading minors from easy access to buying vaping products ought to be promoted or encouraged.
- At the very least, no vaping company or marketer ought to engage in a practice where they are expressively targeting minor persons in an advertising campaign to attract to new customers. There are fairly well known marketing tactics that will squarely target persons under 18 years of age. If it is determined that a vendor was targeting minors, as an intentional act, this ought to be punishable up to the point of forcing the company out of business and set an example for all those who may consider similar campaigns.
Other Considerations
- Adults may engage in an activity that is known to cause harm to their own body, to some degree. This is questionable even from an adult perspective, even among only adults. Some favor personal liberty over personal health consequences, but for sure not all adults agree that liberty outweighs health considerations. Be that as it may, when it comes to minors, there is greater concern for several reasons. IMO, near the top is because a child presumably has potentially 80 years of life ahead of them, and thus intentionally engaging in an activity that may cause harm to their own body, is far more questionable to the adult population. While this is plausibly over emotional or even discrimination, it is how human societies have been set up for a very long time. If a situation arises where children are reportedly using, and several are being harmed, it does have a plausible effect on all adult use, as it would make the adult argument (that harm is occurring to them) even more apparent. Thus, if adults do wish to keep the activity going as an activity that majority of adults can do so in a reasonable and responsible fashion, it would plausibly be of benefit to disallow all use by kids so as to not make it more well known that there are any harms associated with human use.
- Kids are arguably less informed, and most certainly less experienced with social / health issues than adults. A kid who is somehow in trouble with their vaping activity could exploit any notion of public perception around the notion that vaping (even without nicotine) is an inherently dangerous proposition. While adults may also do this, there will for sure be other adults that will say this older person should've known better or should've known to do things differently. Even with the adult situation, it will exploit public perception around alleged dangers of vaping. But with a kid, who may not know better, it will fall more on the side of the activity is the inherent issue and not the user. This would be yet another consideration for why kids shouldn't be allowed to vape.
And that's about the best I can do. I know there is more I could bring up, but it would be hard for me to do so without exaggerating points.
I look forward to your doing the same with what you feel is (semi) legitimate points on the other side of the coin.
No Need.
I think some Very Good Points have been Made by the No 18+ Age Limit.
As anyone who has Followed this Thread Knows.
With any civil rights issue, and this is a civil rights issue, this is true at some point. This may not be a great historical civil rights issue (then again it may be), but I would think in 1950's, there would be exactly 0 members of congress that would vote in favor of say same sex marriage, and that all of them would very much prefer to not discuss the matter publicly. Thus, reality is such that no one would touch that with a 10 foot pole, politically.
65 years later, and with great assistance from social media, which arguably sped things up about 80 years, this is now something where it is almost hard to find congress members who won't at least talk about it publicly, and in a certain party, it would be hard to find any that would vote against SSM.
For me, on the kids issue, if a politician can't understand the arguments of why to allow kid use / purchases, they are people I would very likely not vote for, and pretty sure I could make the case that they are not people that can be reasonably trusted. And I would make that case, with ease.
So, I currently do not believe you can see both sides of the issue. I think you can understand it in a superficial way, but cannot bring yourself to actually seeing it as (semi) legitimate rational for vaping as a whole, politically.
You can see it Anyway you like. I know what your Opinion is on this Issue. You have made that Clear. So have I.
And I don't have Time to Play Games arguing a Counter Points to something I Don't Believe in.
I'm glad you had time to write a post that counters my respectful request to let me know you don't have time to argue counter points in something you cannot see the other side of.
When the options are on the table, and I have to choose either age restrictions or closed systems, then I will consider a compromise. Until then, I'm not handing anything over.
- Status
