You have read the research and have come to your own conclusions about the potential risk...who are you to determine what is worthy of concern or not for others? In this industry diketones are known as a potential risk which means that different people are going to weight that potential differently. Many good vendors get that, but then there are those vendors who will go over and beyond to resist and disrespect that concern and make false claims still to make a buck even when they are directly asked. Those vendors are damaging to the vaping community and they will be dealt with by customers who will do so with the law!
Dont' ask me to sympathize or give them a break just because they are a vaping vendor like you have in another thread..i feel no pity for them and want them gone for the sake of customers and the vaping industry...your ideology reminds me of a saying..."the road to hell is paved with good intentions"...well your supposed good intentions and sick support for these vendors..all in the name of the good of the vaping industry... is what is going to kill it if these types of business practices continues. But you keep on believing your some kind of vaper savior and that your saving the industry by practicing the good old broom and rug mentality....psst!! seriously some people need to get past their ANTZ paranoia especially when it comes to a point where it's blinding their ability to differ right from wrong.
I find it amazing you were able to put these two ideas together:
who are you to determine what is worthy of concern or not for others? In this industry diketones are known
Asking me who am I to determine what is worthy of concern, then proceeding to tell me that something is known by all. If I dispute that, then what?
Again, it is equally known, or arguably more known, that nicotine is a known actual risk. I believe all people everywhere get this. And to use your language, that different people are going to weight the actual risk differently.
Same goes with idea that vaping is healthier than smoking. Well known meme to many in and outside vaping community. But is very much weighted differently by different people. Went through a whole period within industry where that was inflated so much we had major court case over it, and told can't do that anymore (unless wanting to be regulated as a drug). Those vendors that wish to advertise in that way aren't necessarily lying, but they will be dealt with by the law!!
Whoopdie doo. Doesn't change the fact that vaping is likely healthier than smoking, but does change how it can be marketed. In this case industry learned it would be insane to mention that, even while the information may be accurate.
So, we had another learning lesson similar to that with the DA/P issue. Now at a point where it would be insane to mention that chemical's presence or lack thereof. Those that do mention it, and assume it is not in their product, have damaged the credibility of the industry. To the point where now smokers can, rightfully say, not so clear anymore that your product is healthier than what I'm using. Perhaps we can debate them on that point, but then turn around and on forum play a different game and essentially speak the opposite to what we say to smoker who refutes our points on healthier.
Another reason why it is insane to mention molecular chemicals that may, or may not be present, in eLiquid (even at trace amounts) is with idea of looming regulations. If no regulations, then the debate may go on indefinitely, and we could work it out in whatever way we wish to work it out. But with looming regulations, then we would be far better off to wait and see how regulators will handle that (and all other chemicals). And we can speculate all we want how that might happen, and how you might hurt industry if we don't do thus and so now, but also speculate the other way. Me, I am convinced the federal regulators will allow it in there, will not require full disclosure to consumers, will not allow claims of DA/P free, and will likely limit the amount that is allowed per ml. The key point here being, it will be allowed under my version of speculation. If another feels there's no way it will be allowed, then I guess we agree to disagree and will soon find out.
But telling me I ought to be concerned with it, gets us back to point you asked me on top. I'm not that concerned, because I'm convinced it will be allowed.
The "ANTZ paranoia" is claim that is essentially ad hominem at this point. I rationalize that point and walk people through the steps if I'm called out on how I arrived at that. To think I only come from that or that I call people that who participate on forum is baseless accusation. If you disagree, you'll quote my posts and show otherwise. Until you do, I say it is baseless. The claims lately, that attempt to marginalize me, assert that I only come from that mindset and use the term it in relation to everything. All ad hominem cause, IMO, you've lost the rational debate.
Interestingly, in the post you quoted from me before, around 400 words, and not one mention of ANTZ.
so if there is any issue you won't be alone, is that it?
No we who understand common sense won't be taking that route and vaping being the pleasure/relief it is, it, is not a burden at all.
