Deeming Regulations Are In Effect

[Completely Average]

Does everyone still think that age restrictions are reasonable? Keep in mind that, to date, there is no evidence of harm or development of addiction to vapor products.

Allow me to answer this with 3 questions of my own.

#1. There is a product for sale in some states. This product is sold for "medicinal" purposes in most states such as California, but is also sold for recreational use in the states of Colorado and Washington. To date there is no evidence of harm or physical addiction to this product. So would you find it acceptable for me to sell your 5 year old child this product?

#2. If you were to sell vapor products to underage children without their parents consent and it was then discovered that vapor products do cause harm and/or addiction, would you agree that you should be held legally, financially, and possibly criminally responsible for the harm and/or addiction that you caused to these underage children that you sold vapor products to without the consent of their legal guardians?

#3. Do you believe there is any possible way for you to answer No to either of the above questions without demonstrating a significant amount of hypocrisy considering your position of age limitations and "to date" evidence of harm in regards to vaping?

 

[grandmato5]

I don't mind pointing out the obvious, it has been illegal for decades for minors to purchase cigarettes, yet teens start smoking every day.

On that same note, I was just reading through the thread on the various age verification methods vendors are using, and I wanted to ask something of the people participating in that thread but didn't want to derail it, so I figured I'd ask here. We now have vendors, even some foreign vendors, asking for information like parts of SSN or to send selfies with our DL visible. Does everyone still think that age restrictions are reasonable? Keep in mind that, to date, there is no evidence of harm or development of addiction to vapor products.

I've not thought age restrictions were reasonable since I had a conversation with my then 14 yr old grandson almost five years ago. If one believes that vaping is not the same as smoking and believes that it is safe ( or at least 95% safer) then why is it such a horrible thing that a teenager vapes ? Especially one that is already smoking before they are 14. And I should add, its not been found to be a gateway to smoking.

Back after I started vaping I was having a conversation explaining vaping to one of my 14 yr old grandsons. That conversation has always stuck with me. As I thought the conversation was ending he become all excited and wanted to know if he could get an Ecig for his 14 yr old friend. His friend had been smoking for 2 years and he wanted him to quit. When I explained that no, he couldn't buy an ecig for his friend until the friend was 18 his response was, "So my friend who has already been smoking for 2 years and isn't going to quit because his parents and siblings all leave their cigarettes laying around for him to take, has to keep smoking for another 4 years before he could switch to something without all the harmful stuff in it ? " "He has to smoke for 6 years before he could switch to vaping"" " What stupid adult thinks that makes any sense? "

Ya, I know, the friend could quit at anytime but we all also know that once he's started smoking he's hooked and isn't going to just stop smoking.

More recently my grandsons, who are now over 18, confided in me that many of the high school kids that are vaping are vaping zero nic. Those kids that were smoking before vaping are the ones vaping with nic. Most are getting their ecigs from friends that are 18 or over walking into stores and buying them for them, just like they get many of their cigarettes. Not to say that there aren't any, but they don't know any kids that are ordering with credit cards on line.

 

[seminolewind]

I'm so angry I just can't read this stuff anymore. I knew it was only a matter of time until the FDA and Big Tobacco could figure out a way to oust e-cigs without damaging the sale of cigarettes. If this e-cig was not such a big threat to tobacco, this wouldn't be happening. And the FDA allows Big Tobacco to write the new regulations? They may seem innocent to some but they have finally figured out a way to squash our device and not touch the sale and money making of tobacco.

Seriously, why else would Big Gov protect Big Tobacco- tobacco being a known carcinogen that's allowed to be sold because it makes loads of money for some people, gov. included.

Isn't this Pay to Play? Which is also illegal?

Tobacco products "grandfathered" in prior to 2007? Doesn't that coincide with e-cigarettes just beginning to enter the market?

 

[Ed_C]

That is the catch 22 of all this. But, bottom line is that kids will get cigarettes and vapes regardless of the law. I'm not comfortable saying let's make it legal for minors until we have some long-term studies to back up how safe it is, long term. That being said, if it was my kid and he was a smoker, I'd go buy him a vape.

 

[Lessifer]

Allow me to answer this with 3 questions of my own.

#1. There is a product for sale in some states. This product is sold for "medicinal" purposes in most states such as California, but is also sold for recreational use in the states of Colorado and Washington. To date there is no evidence of harm or physical addiction to this product. So would you find it acceptable for me to sell your 5 year old child this product?

As this product does have medicinal, and mind altering properties, I would not find it acceptable. My 5 year old, and I do have a 5 year old, would also not be able to purchase it as she doesn't have any of her own money, no credit card, and never goes anywhere without an adult. When she's a teenager, and she does have her own money, she will likely have access to it just as I did. That will be a conversation between myself and her. The two are not comparable. Now, if starbucks sells my child an espresso, I would not have words with them over it, though I would have a talk with my daughter.

#2. If you were to sell vapor products to underage children without their parents consent and it was then discovered that vapor products do cause harm and/or addiction, would you agree that you should be held legally, financially, and possibly criminally responsible for the harm and/or addiction that you caused to these underage children that you sold vapor products to without the consent of their legal guardians?

If I sell any product to anyone and it is later determined that it causes harm, even though all evidence points to the contrary at the time I am selling it, should I be held legally responsible? Do we hold candy companies responsible for tooth decay and diabetes?

#3. Do you believe there is any possible way for you to answer No to either of the above questions without demonstrating a significant amount of hypocrisy considering your position of age limitations and "to date" evidence of harm in regards to vaping?

I wouldn't answer no to your first question, but for reasons other than anything related to anything I suggested with my initial question. To your second question, I believe I did answer it with a No, with little to no hypocrisy.

Your post does bring up something that is always a big issue with me. When I, and I would assume most other people, talk about minors purchasing vapor products, I mean adolescents/teens. A 5 year old has no business purchasing anything without their parents consent, but I place that onus on the parents. Why does everyone always jump to the 5 year old buying vapor products? I don't know any 5 year olds with the means or knowledge to purchase anything on their own.

 

[Ed_C]

Tobacco products "grandfathered" in prior to 2007? Doesn't that coincide with e-cigarettes just beginning to enter the market?

I believe this grandfather date was in place in 2009 for tobacco products (not vaping), the change is that vaping was lumped in with tobacco products this year. I don't think it was planed at that point to kill vaping, as vaping was almost nonexistent in 2009. Tobacco products are in much better shape because they have a long history of products dating before 2007. At least that how I understand it. Now was the grandfather date not reset for vaping products because of pressure for BT? I think this would be speculation, unless someone has some evidence.

 

[Ed_C]

Also isn't it correct that there's no law against minors vaping, only purchasing?

 

[seminolewind]

Ed, vaping in 2009 was not so non existent. The FDA had confiscated a large shipment of e-cig parts and juice from China. Until about a year later (not sure, about a year) the FDA lost the case in court and had to release the shipment.

That was the start of the problems and lies, such as ejuice having antifreeze in it. It did appear that the FDA was stalling about the legalities of e-cigs to give BT time to produce their own. Which did happen. Now it appears that BT's brands have too much competition and need to reduce the competition by torturing all of us out of our ecigs. And letting BT write the new regulations?

 

[Lessifer]

Also isn't it correct that there's no law against minors vaping, only purchasing?

The federal regulations only address sales, as the FDA only regulates the "marketing" of tobacco products. State laws vary when it comes to possession, and most consider providing a vapor product to a minor an offense, even when it's a parent.

 

[Vandal]

I'm so angry I just can't read this stuff anymore. I knew it was only a matter of time until the FDA and Big Tobacco could figure out a way to oust e-cigs without damaging the sale of cigarettes. If this e-cig was not such a big threat to tobacco, this wouldn't be happening. And the FDA allows Big Tobacco to write the new regulations? They may seem innocent to some but they have finally figured out a way to squash our device and not touch the sale and money making of tobacco.

Seriously, why else would Big Gov protect Big Tobacco- tobacco being a known carcinogen that's allowed to be sold because it makes loads of money for some people, gov. included.

Isn't this Pay to Play? Which is also illegal?

Tobacco products "grandfathered" in prior to 2007? Doesn't that coincide with e-cigarettes just beginning to enter the market?

I think BP had a much bigger hand in these regulations than BT. For BT, this may all be a happy accident. I think the FDA is populated with BP shills and it's the states who favor BT in order to keep their tobacco tax revenues rolling in.

 

[skoony]

Were these studies dealing with Alzheimer's disease? If I remember correctly, there was some studies with nicotine, but I don't know the details. It does seem that non-cigarette tobacco users (pipe, cigar, etc.) are much less addicted than cigarette users. As for developmental issues, I was thinking more about preadolescent children and what might happen if there's not regulation and the parents perceive ecigs as safe. Maybe a long shot, but with what some parents do, I wouldn't be all that surprised.

@Ed_C Here is a good over view of the nicotine addictive v non-addictive? argument.

The myth of nicotine addiction - Formindep
Regards
Mike

 

[skoony]

#2. If you were to sell vapor products to underage children without their parents consent and it was then discovered that vapor products do cause harm and/or addiction, would you agree that you should be held legally, financially, and possibly criminally responsible for the harm and/or addiction that you caused to these underage children that you sold vapor products to without the consent of their legal guardians?

If I let any 5 year old I see get into a car and there's an accident and the child is
harmed or killed should I be held legally,financially and criminally responsible?
I know over 1600 children 15 or under will be killed in auto accidents. Many more
injured.
Road Crash Statistics

There can be no excuse for this as they are children. I have grand kids all but one
under 15. There is no discovery needed. 1600 children are go'in to die.
I am a hypocrite.

Regards
Mike

 

[Bob Chill]

Age restrictions on purchasing anything is just a weak and thin barrier of entry which does more to appease parents and do gooders than to actually prevent youth access. I'm not rabidly opposed to them in general but I also understand that they accomplish very little. Especially for kids 14-18. For some kids they are an effective deterrent and that is good. But we all know any interested teen gets what they want. Good parenting trumps any imposed age law no matter how you slice it.

If vaping is scientifically proven to be no more harmful or habit forming than drinking coffee then I don't think there should be age restrictions at all. That's pretty far down the road so doesn't call for much discussion. And would probably never happen in America. Maybe in Europe though.

When my now in college daughters were in high school I preached drinking responsibly if you do it at all. And it worked. No picking up wasted high schoolers in the middle of the night. Always a designated driver. They were really good about how they broke the law when they chose to and I was very satisfied with that. Prohibition and abstinence sound good and all but we don't live in a magical fairytale world.

When they started drinking coffee I preached pure coffee only and no energy drinks. I educated them about high sugar and artificial sweetener consumption. It worked. They drink less soda or energy drinks than 95% of their peers. This is a big deal honestly. Sugar is destroying America's health far more than many other dangerous things.

I vape in front of all 4 of my kids all the time. I don't think twice about it. I've educated them well and they all know that if they want to experiment with it I want to know and also go zero nic. I kinda doubt any of them will vape honestly. They have no interest and only see it as a way for ex smokers to no longer inhale smoke.

 

[DC2]

I sure could use a tractor though.

Couldn't we all?

 

[Robino1]

Realistically, there already is a law where minors cannot buy cigarettes. Has been for years. Long before I started smoking at the age of 16.

How is that working?

Now there is a law where minors cannot buy e-cigarettes.

Think it will work any better?

There is a law where minors cannot buy alcohol.

How is that working?

Parents are relying on Government to take care of their children. When the laws the government come up with don't work, the first people to yell are the ones that are relying on the government to parent for them.

Time to put the parents back in charge of their kids.

Time to quit using the "For the children" argument to push legislature through.

 

[Lessifer]

Realistically, there already is a law where minors cannot buy cigarettes. Has been for years. Long before I started smoking at the age of 16.

How is that working?

Now there is a law where minors cannot buy e-cigarettes.

Think it will work any better?

There is a law where minors cannot buy alcohol.

How is that working?

Parents are relying on Government to take care of their children. When the laws the government come up with don't work, the first people to yell are the ones that are relying on the government to parent for them.

Time to put the parents back in charge of their kids.

Time to quit using the "For the children" argument to push legislature through.

It's not just tobacco and vapor products that this happens with. I have back issues, I've been in pain management/physical therapy for years. While it is true that certain pain medications are being abused in this country, the legislation and regulations they've introduced have done little to stem this. What they HAVE done is force me to spend more time and money going to monthly doctor visits instead of only needing to go in for occasional checks or when changes are needed.

My point being, most regulations like this do little or nothing to prevent the "illegal" behavior they are meant to protect against, but, at a minimum, inconvenience those who are participating within the law.

 

[Ed_C]

While I agree to a point, you can make that argument with all laws. Some people just don't follow laws. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't think it's just throwing in the towel.

While this doesn't really apply to cigarettes, but with other illegal substances, it was always easier to get those in high school, compared with alcohol, as the other substances could be had in the school yard or just about anyplace.

 

[GaryInTexas]

I think the solution is to require the government to prove that a law is needed to protect the public instead of the citizens being required to prove the law is not needed. Too much law making combined with a lack of common sense by the lawmakers will end with this type of witches brew.

 

[Ed_C]

I think the solution is to require the government to prove that a law is needed to protect the public instead of the citizens being required to prove the law is not needed. Too much law making combined with a lack of common sense by the lawmakers will end with this type of witches brew.

While that sounds good, I'm not sure how that would work. What constitutes proof and who decides this?
I still think the number one problem is that special interest groups run the country and citizens have very little say anymore. The fact that now, money = speech doesn't help the mater.

 

[GaryInTexas]

While that sounds good, I'm not sure how that would work. What constitutes proof and who decides this?
I still think the number one problem is that special interest groups run the country and citizens have very little say anymore. The fact that now, money = speech doesn't help the mater.

Proof would be that the FDA actually performed studies that proved vaping is causing health issues for many people instead of regulating an item that has not harmed many if anyone. Just some straight up basic science would be a good start. Proving that vaping is not less harmful than smoking should be required and if unable to provide that proof then no requirements for vendors to forgo that claim in their stores. In other words back your legal requirements up with actual facts or pass no law.