Ask your favorite suppliers to remove diacetyl from their e-liquids!
- Thread starter JeffTM
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Given that you made the statement, I just thought that you would be able to provide us with at least one example to back it up.
When someone says that it's not a suppliers fault for not knowing what's in a flavoring companies liquid it is taking responsibility away from the supplier....especially when the supplier is using those flavorings. We have to demand disclosure and stop making excuses for the suppliers. This is one example...there are many more.
The suppliers also need to demand disclosure from the flavoring companies. If they refuse the supplier should not use their flavorings in products that are being sold for people to inhale.
The suppliers also need to demand disclosure from the flavoring companies. If they refuse the supplier should not use their flavorings in products that are being sold for people to inhale.
Darlene, you may find this vendor's responses interesting. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/freedom-smoke-usa/128437-please-remove-diacetyl-your-liquids.html It will give you idea of what we are up against here.
Since you're a new member I would like to know your thoughts on this thread. There are a few others I can give you links to if you are interested.
Added: Sorry just noticed you are not new to vaping, just haven't posted much. That makes your opinion matter even more IMO.
Since you're a new member I would like to know your thoughts on this thread. There are a few others I can give you links to if you are interested.
Added: Sorry just noticed you are not new to vaping, just haven't posted much. That makes your opinion matter even more IMO.
Last edited:
Please show us one poster on this or any other thread on this forum that has taken the position you are so shocked about. This is the kind of faux self-righteous posturing that undermines any serious discussion of this topic.
Given that you made the statement, I just thought that you would be able to provide us with at least one example to back it up.
It is obvious that you cannot or will not back up your original statement on this topic. Typical. This is the reason that every discussion of this topic has ended up at an intellectual dead end.
Banjo, do you not think we've hit an intellectual dead-end because everyone says "I'm all for disclosure!" but then out of the other side of their mouth mocks those of us fighting for it?
Questioning the way some people choose to conduct themselves in this discussion, and some of the highly questionable statements they make, with little to back them up, is not "mocking" anyone. It is simply asking for a little intellectual honesty.
Banjo, I am not going to play this game with you. I do not have to search for an example for you...they are here as well as other places on this forum. There is also no "faux" self-righteous posturing here undermining anything. There is concern that suppliers are using chemicals that can damage lung tissue and kill people...period. If you don't see a problem with this and don't want to know what's being used in your juice...fine...vape away.
GoodDogs link is a perfect example. This supplier told a member that Diacetyl wasn't being used in his juices. The member only discovered the truth after doing further research on her own. The supplier then downplayed the dangers of inhaling Diacetyl and locked the thread. He still refuses to disclose which of his juices contain Diacetyl. This is a popular seller who has admitted to selling thousands of bottles of juice....
Edwv30: I am not questioning your concern about Diacetyl, or the fact that its use in the juices we inhale should be of concern to the vaping community. What I am questioning is the attitude and tone that many posters exhibit in the discussion. If you look back through this and the other threads on the subject, you will see that many posters have dropped out of the discussion because of the self-righteous tone that many posters have taken toward anyone that ventured an opinion that disagreed with their position. There has also been a lot of personal snipping, and way too many people making opinionated statements without providing any documentation to back them up. If you really want to make an impact on the vaping community about the problems associated with Diacetyl, this approach to the subject is not going to advance your cause. I am not the one playing the game, you are, and it is your responsibility, not mine, to back up statements that you have presented as fact. If you don't want to be confronted about statements you make, back them up with some facts.
Last edited:
I disagree. And I would say it has certainly gone both ways, so there's no high road to be taken here. Unless you think starting cutesy threads meant to mock other members is a high road.
I have seen that cutesy thread! I for one am paying close attention. I may not be posting like others...but do know we are very aware of diacetyl. BTW I do not want to inhale this...............I appaud those who are willing to post their concerns related to this discussion on the hazards of diacetyl. This subject will not go away..until vendors start labeling/showing msds on the juice. Some vendors are already performing this...
Good...we agree on something.
Somewhat like you are doing on this thread?
See above
I am sorry...didn't realize that you were the expert on making impacts. You have derailed the thread and made personal attacks but I am not sure how that adds to the topic of this thread?
My responsibility is to get the information out there in order for people to know what they are inhaling. You are right...I can't do that without facts...which lies on the shoulders of the suppliers. They need to disclose what is being used in their juices.
I like the fact that you are quoting me. Now you are beginning to get the idea about using facts to back up your arguments. It is really not fair to others to just make statements without backing them up. Good job!
Oh yes! I found a link...sorry...it is to a thread that you yourself started:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/129123-anti-diacetyl-meeting-room.html
I don't even need to comment. I do want to say that our "dubious" standards you refer to are simple. We want disclosure...don't know how "dubious" that is unless you are against it.
Also...not sure why you are upset about a list of suppliers who disclose\don't disclose the chemicals being used in their juices...unless you disagree with disclosure.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/129123-anti-diacetyl-meeting-room.html
I don't even need to comment. I do want to say that our "dubious" standards you refer to are simple. We want disclosure...don't know how "dubious" that is unless you are against it.
Also...not sure why you are upset about a list of suppliers who disclose\don't disclose the chemicals being used in their juices...unless you disagree with disclosure.
have you posted on this thread http://http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/130120-do-you-agree-disagree.html? Banjo is correct, some of the attitude is over the top, and doesn't do any thing to further the discussion, and have actually caused people to turn away from vaping.
We all agree disclosure is the goal. What we don't all agree on is the level of risk. And until the level of risk is determined it isn't fair to single out one supplier because they didn't respond in a way that some agree with. I personally have no problem with the way that supplier reacted...many others don't either.
The fact is we are vaping flavors meant for ingestion not inhalation. People around the world have been vaping for several years, and we have not heard of one single case of Boops amongst the vaping community...NOT ONE. Does that mean that I'm against disclosure? NO, I'm all for it! Is that clear??? I am for disclosure and have tried to be proactive and do something toward that goal. It seems to me the concern is more about keeping the debate going than toward actually solving the concerns. I'm also interested in toning down the rhetoric. We have options, there are vendors who will tell you straight up...or you can DIY. Personal responsibility, and yes suppliers must be responsible too.
Last edited:
I agree with this! I have been asking vendors nicely..not in an alarmist way either. I asked one vendor who is just starting out on this forum. I obtained an immediate reply and thus he added this to his website. (Mister e-liquids). Very nice young man. I am not going to go apesh#t over anything at this point. I think the vaping community can set some standards without pressure from the darn FDA.
Amen, Nikhil has also been great. Pure Vapes: Home is his website and he's got some great e-liquids that going forward will be diacetyl and AP free.
NikHil is a very knowledgeable supplier, and is very helpful to those concerned about this issue - his juices are highly recommended.
Of course I have read that thread, (and thank you for starting it), but I need to ask, "what has become of the letter?" Has there been any change because of it? Does it even exist? It's a great idea but I don't see any change. A simple letter isn't enough. Do we take a suppliers word that their product is Diacetyl free because they say so in response to a letter, (if they say anything at all)? This letter idea has stopped further discussion, at least in my mind, more than anything. People now think there is a solution in place when, in reality, nothing has changed.
We will have to agree to disagree on the above. No supplier is being singled out because we didn't like their response....it was because they didn't tell the truth. That supplier denied that Diacetyl was being used in their juices. And no, I didn't care for their follow up by downplaying the dangers of Diacetyl inhalation...and a lot of other members didn't care for his response either.
And we know these symptoms can take a long time before they appear. Much more than several years.
I also try to be proactive by letting people know about Diacetyl and it's harmful effects when inhaled. This subject will cause debates and I don't see any way around it as there are a lot of people with differing opinions. Debates can also be productive in affecting change...and is often necessary.
I know there are a few vendors who who tell us about Dicetyl and I also know about DYI. This doesn't help the thousands of people who have no clue about Diacetyl and it's possible effects when inhaled. There are many people with severe lung damage who start vaping thinking it's a healthier alternative when that may not be the case. They are trying to take personal responsibility by quitting analogues. We need to get the information out to people who vape...all people, (not just the members on this forum who decide to read the Diacetyl threads).
So, we agree on several things and I guess that's a start.
Last edited:
Fiery, I commend you for making an attempt at getting people to work toward a common goal. I think the problem lies in what the definition of "disclosure" is to some people. Some people think it's as simple as getting a "yes, we use diacetyl" or "no we don't use diacetyl". Some want to know about the alternatives as well. Yet others want to see the evidence, or an explanation, behind why it's used, not used, how much is used, etc. Until those are defined, we simply can't say we all agree on disclosure.
And for the record, I know you personally don't have a problem with the way "that supplier" reacted. But "that supplier" flat out told me that my concerns were understood and that none of their liquids contained that ingredient, then flip-flopped when it became public and said that it isn't a big deal anyway before locking threads associated with it. I don't see how you can be "for disclosure" yet have "no problem" with the way it was handled. You can choose not to believe me and I don't mean to come across as confrontational in any way. That's obviously your right. But I still have that email.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
