Should Children be Allowed to Buy e-Liquids that contain Nicotine?

[Lessifer]

Of course, I understand that they do what they can to keep the flavor consistent between all of the same offerings. And only a percentage is reconstituted. Ive just always wondered if they did a little something extra to make sure people didn't quit smoking.

I don't think they really had to, if you're the type of person who can become biochemically addicted to that cocktail(not all are) you will. The degree varies from person to person. Some people only develop a "habit" and they often have less trouble quitting.

When talking about addiction, most people mean physical dependence, and nicotine by itself does not cause that. It can help to alleviate the symptoms for someone who is addicted to tobacco though.

 

[SomeTexan]

from what iv read cigars dont have as much nicotine as cigarettes. i used to have the same problem when i didnt have enough money for a pack of cigs id buy cigars(granted they were bought at a gas station) and it would make me feel sick but id still be fiending

Some have quite a bit more. It all depends on the type of tobacco, how it was grown and the curing process.

 

[AndriaD]

Nicotine IS an addictive substance, period. At least your body gets addicted to it.

Only when consumed with tobacco. By itself, it is not, to a never-smoker. If you have EVER been a smoker, the addiction path is already formed, and nothing about "never smokers" applies.

The Great Nicotine Myth
All You Need To Know About Nicotine
Chemical Dependency and Nicotine
Nicotine Propaganda
Is Nicotine Addictive ?

How many times does this have to be said before people get it?!?!?!

Andria

 

[TamiVapes]

from what iv read cigars dont have as much nicotine as cigarettes. i used to have the same problem when i didnt have enough money for a pack of cigs id buy cigars(granted they were bought at a gas station) and it would make me feel sick but id still be fiending

Cigars have more nicotine in them than cigarettes. The inside and outside (wrapper) of the cigar is all from the tobacco plant.

 

[coralsands]

Cigars have more nicotine in them than cigarettes. The inside and outside (wrapper) of the cigar is all from the tobacco plant.

I meant like on a per gram basis, cigars have lower levels of nicotine per gram of tobacco but higher levels of other alkaloids from what i'v read. Plus cigar smokers usually inhale into their mouth while cigarette smokers usually inhale to their lungs so the absorption is different

 

[SomeTexan]

I meant like on a per gram basis, cigars have lower levels of nicotine per gram of tobacco but higher levels of other alkaloids from what i'v read. Plus cigar smokers usually inhale into their lungs while cigarette smokers usually inhale to their lungs so the absorption is different

You said that both cigar and cigarette smokers inhale into their lungs? But, smoking pipes and real cigars isn't about inhaling the smoke. It's about taste. The vast majority don't inhale the smoke into their lungs, just their mouth and sinus's.

 

[coralsands]

typo lol my bad im exhausted atm

 

[TamiVapes]

You said that both cigar and cigarette smokers inhale into their lungs? But, smoking pipes and real cigars isn't about inhaling the smoke. It's about taste. The vast majority don't inhale the smoke into their lungs, just their mouth and sinus's.

You are correct. You really don't want to inhale that smoke from cigars or pipes. It's horrible.

 

[SomeTexan]

You are correct. You really don't want to inhale that smoke from cigars or pipes. It's horrible.

Lol, only secondhand. It tastes wonderful right out of the cigar. Also, many people that hate cigars love the smell of pipes, at least burley and Virginia tobaccos. Latikia and Perique are a little rough on the uninitiated. And the flavored crap is horrid. My dad smoked a light burley blend sometimes. It was the only thing my mom let him smoke in the house.

 

[TamiVapes]

Lol, only secondhand. It tastes wonderful right out of the cigar. Also, many people that hate cigars love the smell of pipes, at least burley and Virginia tobaccos. Latikia and Perique are a little rough on the uninitiated. And the flavored crap is horrid. My dad smoked a light burley blend sometimes. It was the only thing my mom let him smoke in the house.

I like both cigars and pipes to smoke.

 

[TamiVapes]

Lol, only secondhand. It tastes wonderful right out of the cigar. Also, many people that hate cigars love the smell of pipes, at least burley and Virginia tobaccos. Latikia and Perique are a little rough on the uninitiated. And the flavored crap is horrid. My dad smoked a light burley blend sometimes. It was the only thing my mom let him smoke in the house.

According to some, black Cavendish tobacco is flavored. Idk, but it tastes great in a pipe.

 

[Jode]

Only when consumed with tobacco. By itself, it is not, to a never-smoker. If you have EVER been a smoker, the addiction path is already formed, and nothing about "never smokers" applies.

The Great Nicotine Myth
All You Need To Know About Nicotine
Chemical Dependency and Nicotine
Nicotine Propaganda
Is Nicotine Addictive ?

How many times does this have to be said before people get it?!?!?!

Andria

From what I understand, if correct information is given right from the start it should only need to be repeated a couple of dozen times to become learned information, but if the learning is relearning because of incorrect information (like we have been fed over the years about nicotine) that number goes way up. I am being a bit tongue in cheek here because I know this was a rhetorical question, but I often wonder myself why some are very stubborn when it comes to evaluating newer information, thinking about it and readjusting thoughts to accept newer concepts. So many people are just stuck in their ways and rebel change so much that they just will not accept new information so much of the time it is like trying to teach a brick wall. I think a lot of it comes out of fear that they will be duped or shame in admitting that they have already been duped. Not everybody is capable of saying "Oooops, I guess I had it wrong".

There is always going to be those that are so stuck on what they have been led to believe as truth that they refuse to accept anything new. I am not saying that we should give up trying to spread the truth, just that it may not sink in with ones so afraid of change.

 

[SomeTexan]

According to some, black Cavendish tobacco is flavored. Idk, but it tastes great in a pipe.

I should have said cased or topped tobacco's rather than flavored. I didn't know you smoked pipes and knew the lingo when I posted that. Maduro cigars are "flavored" as well, but not by soaking them in chemicals and random flavorings.

 

[AndriaD]

From what I understand, if correct information is given right from the start it should only need to be repeated a couple of dozen times to become learned information, but if the learning is relearning because of incorrect information (like we have been fed over the years about nicotine) that number goes way up. I am being a bit tongue in cheek here because I know this was a rhetorical question, but I often wonder myself why some are very stubborn when it comes to evaluating newer information, thinking about it and readjusting thoughts to accept newer concepts. So many people are just stuck in their ways and rebel change so much that they just will not accept new information so much of the time it is like trying to teach a brick wall. I think a lot of it comes out of fear that they will be duped or shame in admitting that they have already been duped. Not everybody is capable of saying "Oooops, I guess I had it wrong".

There is always going to be those that are so stuck on what they have been led to believe as truth that they refuse to accept anything new. I am not saying that we should give up trying to spread the truth, just that it may not sink in with ones so afraid of change.

Well I saved those links to a text file this time, so the NEXT time someone comes along hollering about how godawful addictive nicotine is, save the cheeeeeeldrun! I can post them easily.

Guess it's not really surprising; it took a lot of men sailing around the world for people to accept that the world wasn't flat, even though the ancient Greeks knew it already. And some obstetrician in the 19th cent proved that doctors simply washing their hands decreased childbed mortality by 50%, and it still took a decade or two for the microbe theory of disease to become accepted. Not exactly sure who first understood that fingerprints were unique, but it took a LONG time for that info to be accepted and put to use by crime solvers.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

There is talk of tobacco companies adding things to make the nicotine in their tobacco more addictive, or at least more readily available, however there are others that say that those things occur during the curing process, or in the tobacco naturally. What is true though is that cigarette tobacco, the combination of regular and reconstituted, is tightly controlled so that each cigarette conforms to a standard, contains x amount of nicotine, and produces x amount of tar, etc.

I respond to this because it comes up so often on the forums that it needs to be responded to with alternate perspective. This notion that tobacco companies added things to make their product more addictive. I very much invite people to do their own research (via Google) on this. To not stay in comfort zone of why this was possibly done.

From my research, I learned that tobacco companies did this because of the attack they were under. The attack being that tar harms/kills its users. Everything after this attack occurs is IMO, not really needing a google search to understand how things went, but does help nonetheless because some think the only reason BT did what they did is because they are heartless greedy folk. I believe the research would show otherwise to anyone looking at it with open mind.

Essentially, they came out with low tar alternatives or "light cigarettes" as a response to the attack. And in that process that took years to sort itself out, while attacks continued (on various fronts mind you), BT understood well that what people really wanted was good tasting tobacco that left you feeling satisfied. The nicotine is what was (likely still is) determined to be the component that left people feeling satisfied. So, they upped that in a way to deliver more satisfaction in lieu of the low tar / light offerings they were compelled to offer to consumers. From what I recall in research, they explored possibilities / test marketed variations with very little to no nicotine and routinely heard back that the products were no longer satisfactory.

So my take on this continues to be that had BT not been under assault (in much the same way vaping is nowadays), they wouldn't have gone in direction they did to appease their consumer base and adapt to the market. I don't see BT as squeaky clean in what their business model has been over last 120 years, but also don't put on narrow blinders and filter everything through notion of their product harms consumers and they've known this all along and were just interested in making a profit at any costs. I find that take to be very ignorant and a childish attack.

 

[Lessifer]

I respond to this because it comes up so often on the forums that it needs to be responded to with alternate perspective. This notion that tobacco companies added things to make their product more addictive. I very much invite people to do their own research (via Google) on this. To not stay in comfort zone of why this was possibly done.

From my research, I learned that tobacco companies did this because of the attack they were under. The attack being that tar harms/kills its users. Everything after this attack occurs is IMO, not really needing a google search to understand how things went, but does help nonetheless because some think the only reason BT did what they did is because they are heartless greedy folk. I believe the research would show otherwise to anyone looking at it with open mind.

Essentially, they came out with low tar alternatives or "light cigarettes" as a response to the attack. And in that process that took years to sort itself out, while attacks continued (on various fronts mind you), BT understood well that what people really wanted was good tasting tobacco that left you feeling satisfied. The nicotine is what was (likely still is) determined to be the component that left people feeling satisfied. So, they upped that in a way to deliver more satisfaction in lieu of the low tar / light offerings they were compelled to offer to consumers. From what I recall in research, they explored possibilities / test marketed variations with very little to no nicotine and routinely heard back that the products were no longer satisfactory.

So my take on this continues to be that had BT not been under assault (in much the same way vaping is nowadays), they wouldn't have gone in direction they did to appease their consumer base and adapt to the market. I don't see BT as squeaky clean in what their business model has been over last 120 years, but also don't put on narrow blinders and filter everything through notion of their product harms consumers and they've known this all along and were just interested in making a profit at any costs. I find that take to be very ignorant and a childish attack.

Yeah, I don't hold up BT as angels but things are usually more complicated than a sound bite can handle. When you take a mixture of organic products that are processed and recombined with other products, and potentially have varying yields of certain substances, there's really only one way to ensure a "consistent" product.

 

[Jman8]

kids CAN get access to vaping ...., just like they can get access to cigarettes(probably much easier with the internet). It doesnt mean we should go around saying that children SHOULD be able to legally obtain them.

Because we know kids can get access to vaping, just as almost every (ex)smoker reading this was able to get access to cigarettes when they were not legally allowed to buy them, it is PRECISELY why we SHOULD be allowing legal access to them. The alternative is for kids to fend for themselves, be put in position of buying from underground (arguably more dangerous) market, and then learn for themselves why the product was denied to them in the first place. Then, find out the truth, and only be able to convey pros/cons for use amongst themselves, with the spin that only minors can put on things, and coupled with stage of human development where peer pressure is arguably at its peak.

If we allow legal access, there is better chance that minors, on the whole, would get more balanced perspective about what it actually means to use nicotine, as a recreational drug, from older folks. Both in terms of what it is truly like to use one or two (aka in the short term) and what it is like to use habitually over the long term.

By denying legal access, it means adults are kept out of the discussion regarding teen use, and to the degree that is not true, then it very likely means that all that kids will hear from adults is "you shouldn't do this, because you're not old enough" and if that doesn't work, then let us tell you all that is wrong with it, and let you discover on your own, or from peers that have tried it, all that might be good. Once you learn that we adults were lying to you about the good, or refusing to discuss that with you, we won't be surprised if you essentially don't trust us on other matters, because in shared reality, we were no different than you when we were that age. Some of us clearly knew that smoking was a way to act out / rebel against establishment (read as adultism) which was another benefit for using, even if adults may vehemently disagree with that sort of rhetoric.

 

[Jman8]

Nobody should give or sell anything to any child their parents might not approve. There is no exception for retailers. Hasn't this been the common law for about 50,000 years?

I can't think of anything we could give / sell to a child that their parents MIGHT not approve. For sure sugar would be out. Likely some aspects of education would be out. The adult version of "love" is clearly off the table. The adult / popular version of "protection" would be off the table (kids can't have access to guns for self defense). Most video games would be out. Most movies that are beyond rating of G would be out as PG necessitates parent be involved.

Water might be possible. But if parent heard about kids OD'ing on water, then they MIGHT not approve of even water being given to their child.

So, we managed to come up with a policy that means there is literally nothing that any adult, outside of a child's own parents, could give or sell to kids.

Man, we adultz r smrt!

 

[TamiVapes]

Well I saved those links to a text file this time, so the NEXT time someone comes along hollering about how godawful addictive nicotine is, save the cheeeeeeldrun! I can post them easily.

Guess it's not really surprising; it took a lot of men sailing around the world for people to accept that the world wasn't flat, even though the ancient Greeks knew it already. And some obstetrician in the 19th cent proved that doctors simply washing their hands decreased childbed mortality by 50%, and it still took a decade or two for the microbe theory of disease to become accepted. Not exactly sure who first understood that fingerprints were unique, but it took a LONG time for that info to be accepted and put to use by crime solvers.

Andria

Message received. Thank you for the information! I've not known anything about nicotine prior to vaping. I do think the legal age should be lowered for nicotine products.

 

[TamiVapes]

Because we know kids can get access to vaping, just as almost every (ex)smoker reading this was able to get access to cigarettes when they were not legally allowed to buy them, it is PRECISELY why we SHOULD be allowing legal access to them. The alternative is for kids to fend for themselves, be put in position of buying from underground (arguably more dangerous) market, and then learn for themselves why the product was denied to them in the first place. Then, find out the truth, and only be able to convey pros/cons for use amongst themselves, with the spin that only minors can put on things, and coupled with stage of human development where peer pressure is arguably at its peak.

If we allow legal access, there is better chance that minors, on the whole, would get more balanced perspective about what it actually means to use nicotine, as a recreational drug, from older folks. Both in terms of what it is truly like to use one or two (aka in the short term) and what it is like to use habitually over the long term.

By denying legal access, it means adults are kept out of the discussion regarding teen use, and to the degree that is not true, then it very likely means that all that kids will hear from adults is "you shouldn't do this, because you're not old enough" and if that doesn't work, then let us tell you all that is wrong with it, and let you discover on your own, or from peers that have tried it, all that might be good. Once you learn that we adults were lying to you about the good, or refusing to discuss that with you, we won't be surprised if you essentially don't trust us on other matters, because in shared reality, we were no different than you when we were that age. Some of us clearly knew that smoking was a way to act out / rebel against establishment (read as adultism) which was another benefit for using, even if adults may vehemently disagree with that sort of rhetoric.

I agree with lowering the age to take the stigma and shame out of nicotine use. I apply this same argument to alcohol.