I feel like I'm being labeled extremist in this thread (perhaps not), but to be as abundantly clear as I can, I desire some regulations. But stronger than that desire is arguing against this notion that the industry 'should be' regulated. Honestly, if it were almost any other industry, I'd be more inclined to seek required regulations, but it is precisely because ANTZ are in the game and have such amazing influence that it strikes me as recipe for disaster for vapers to be arguing for regulations with the word 'should' in there.
For me, a fair minded regulation would allow for diacetyl in eliquid, up to a limit. For another, it would be a requirement that the liquid be diacetyl free. So, who wins in that situation? Well, let's add ANTZ to this equation and then see how it would play out. And if you follow that implication, then I really can't think of a situation other than intentionally putting in poisons that lead to immediate death, that would be something all people are going to agree with. I'd be surprised if all vapers could agree on 'reasonable regulations.' That's the sort of 'self regulation' I think you are arguing for. But again, if I desire diacetyl (up to a limit) and majority says 'absolutely zero allowed' then a) I feel that is unreasonable and b) I am being shut out with what I desire, and what has already existed in the Golden Era of vaping.
But when you do add ANTZ into what is certainly coming about, I don't see how vapers think we are going to get 'reasonable regulations' by advocating for regulations. Instead, we are likely to get limits on nicotine, limits on gear, limits on toppers, limits on flavors, limits on where vaping can be done. And from ANTZ perspective, the more limiting, the better. ANTZ is constantly floating out propaganda that suggests the stuff we vapers consider GRAS (to inhale) is deadly contaminants that no one should ever inhale (with clear implication that no one should ever vape).
So, if you don't like the juice that people make in their homes, the very clear solution to that is not to buy it. And instead buy from sellers who are telling you they make it in a controlled lab. Saying sellers who make it in non controlled lab shouldn't be allowed to distribute it is challenging to understand from vaper's perspective. Not so hard to understand from non-vaper's perspective, but taken to level that ANTZ would, it would be argued that no one should be allowed to make liquid in their house (even for own use). If you do, I would think ANTZ would like to see that criminalized, and enforced wherever possible.
But in a world, that certainly feels like it is coming about, I believe the choice will be between Big Vapor, or DIY'er who does distribute among private network. I think the visible majority will choose to go with Big Vapor, while a substantial amount of people will be very glad to go with people who make it in their own home.
So, in your first sentence, you are implying that the current vaping world is unacceptable, are you not?
I am compelled to reiterate the ANTZ influence going forward as I think it matters greatly to perception of 'informed choice.' People all over ECF use the phrase 'safer than cigarettes' which admittedly I find hard to argue with (though not impossible) and yet, routinely strikes me as uninformed persons making that claim. For almost all the info regarding 'harms of smoking' come from ANTZ sources, and are so ingrained in our culture that if you challenge it, I find most people simply don't want to have that discussion. And at the level of perceived danger that comes from smoking, it would be like saying I ought to be able to physically discipline children whenever I want, because it's safer than shooting them. I mean it is accurate to say that, even while a sane person might say do neither.
Anyway, I slightly digress, but I believe it does relate because ANTZ is saying do neither. They already have appearance of clear victory on smoking, and jury is still out on vaping. IMO, they appear to be winning when it comes to soundbite discussions I occasionally encounter in general public, in that people do believe vaping carries with it intrinsic harm, and therefore reason not to do it. Well, once regulations do kick in (of the nationally mandated kind), this will make ANTZ work a little bit easier. I see their aim as shaming users and sellers, while maintaining a campaign of fear and thinking that by doing so, it will rid the world of this "evil" nicotine product or any desire to use anything that contains it.
Individual regulation, or current status quo, is the clear cut alternative to long term stability of vaping. But in a world co-habitated by ANTZ it is unrealistic to think free market for vaping will continue without any opposition. At same time, because of how zealous zealots are, they can, rather easily, manifest a situation where strict (and unreasonable) regulations lead to greater harm, as people will still desire to use (demand product) and suppliers will likely always be with us in some fashion. In the meantime, as ANTZ are going to keep being ANTZ, then our best course of action is to do what many on ECF and other vaping forums engage in almost every day; which is challenging ANTZ propaganda and logic, and informing everyone that is open minded to look at vaping in another light. One where grave harm is not the immediate perception, and where lots of variety and innovation is honored / respected. And part of that variety, IMO, needs to allow for people who make juice in their home and who are allowed to distribute it to whomever wants to buy from that type of seller.
