Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[ScottP]

No problem with it working for alcohol. If a parent is found supplying underage minors or their own kids with alcoholic beverages they are busted. Obviously it occurs when you allow your 16 year old to throw a party and the cops are called for all the noise. If the kids are standing around holding a beer that adult parent is leaving in cuffs.

That may vary by State. Here it is technically legal for a parent to take their kid to a bar and buy them alcohol. Although I have never witnessed this occurring. It is also legal for a 21yr old husband/wife to buy alcohol for his/her 18-20yr old spouse in a bar as well. I have seen that done. In fact I knew a girl that at 21 that got her 19 yr old brother into a bar once claiming they were married since they had the same last name and address. Lucky for them the door man didn't make them kiss to prove it. I know the brother would have ralphed on the spot at just the thought. I have heard of some bars that require seeing the actual marriage certificate to do this though.

 

[sofarsogood]

In the past few years I've asked a number of police and retired police if they had ever, EVER, in their career, written a ticket to a minor for posession of cigarettes and the answer without exception was never--ever. I'm sure we could survey police across the country and find the same.

I'm sure we agree that alcohol is a different case. I would be surprised that kids getting some alcohol in a strictly private family setting would trigger criminal action. (My mother had 7 babies. My parents decided to be teetotelers so may be the kids wouldn't drink. Thank you Mom and Dad.) On the other hand I agree it's in the best interest of children to prohibit their consumption of alcohol in every other setting.

As I might have written already, if posession of ecigs by kids is made a crime there will have to be enforcement on cigarettes too and that never happens in most jurisdictions. The message of a double standard would be kids can't vape but they can smoke. It will be interesting to see if America has the stomach to go to war against ecigs wiithout doing the same with combustible tobacco while recreational weed is legalized.

The government's response to ecigs is a can of worms.

 

[Eskie]

That may vary by State. Here it is technically legal for a parent to take their kid to a bar and buy them alcohol. Although I have never witnessed this occurring. It is also legal for a 21yr old husband/wife to buy alcohol for his/her 18-20yr old spouse in a bar as well. I have seen that done. In fact I knew a girl that at 21 that got her 19 yr old brother into a bar once claiming they were married since they had the same last name and address. Lucky for them the door man didn't make them kiss to prove it. I know the brother would have ralphed on the spot at just the thought. I have heard of some bars that require seeing the actual marriage certificate to do this though.

That's wild. Clearly a state thing. But carrying your marriage certificate around to get a drink? That's really weird. The only time I remembered handling my marriage certificate after signing it was handing it over to the divorce lawyer.

 

[Rossum]

The government's response to ecigs is a can of worms.

Not harmless worms. Poisonous snakes.

 

[DaveP]

I think that the FDA would rather have vaping widespread as opposed to smoking, but they have to watch what they say in the media for fear of stirring up the tobacco companies who pay huge tax rates for tobacco products. Congress loves tobacco money. $368 billion in taxes to the states over 25 years gives big tobacco some wiggle room with Congress.

 

[Eskie]

Here comes a problem. I think it's reasonable to say that smoking tobacco rates among teens have decreased despite the rise in e cigarettes. At least some of those folks may well have turned to smoking if vaping had not been available.

Now, cut off all access to vape products. Come back in two years and check smoking rates and discover they went up my a modest amount. You can then have two interpretations.

First, vaping was helping that population not smoke and removing access resulted in a return to higher smoking rates. Or two, see, we told you so! That vaping got them addicted and now they're smoking. It never would have happened if vaping hadn't come along!

So, which interpretation do you think will carry the day?

 

[CMD-Ky]

I choose door number two.

 

[zoiDman]

...

Now, cut off all access to vape products. Come back in two years and check smoking rates and discover they went up my a modest amount. ...

Why wouldn't you just Massage the Data so the numbers Don't Reflex the up tick?

Kinda like how the Did with to describe the current "Epidemic".

 

[DaveP]

Any outcome can be speculated upon. Teens are going to try whatever is cool. Most would probably try cigarettes and be turned off by their friends disgust when they walk up and smell like an ashtray. Vaping doesn't create an offensive odor around the body, so I can see teens turning to vaping either as a diversion or to quit the smoking habit.

Cigarettes and vaping products are both restricted to age 18 in most states, so either is illegal for younger teens. That doesn't mean they won't vape. They all have older friends who will procure either for them.

 

[Eskie]

Why wouldn't you just Massage the Data so the numbers Don't Reflex the up tick?

Kinda like how the Did with to describe the current "Epidemic".

That's the problem. You can manipulate them to satisfy your expectations. Which is why this reaction to a supposed "epidemic" is self defeating from a public health perspective.

But what do we know? We're just vapers and they're the experts. Then again, we embrace experts who agree with us and shun those who do not support our beliefs (that's a generic topic we and those, as it applies well beyond the vaping). Really throws the whole "science" part out of science.

 

[zoiDman]

That's the problem. You can manipulate them to satisfy your expectations. Which is why this reaction to a supposed "epidemic" is self defeating from a public health perspective.

...

I think Anyone who has followed e-Cigarettes and the FDA knows that "Public Health" is way down on the List of Priorities.

If it Wasn't, then we would probably be going down the road that Public Health England is.

 

[Rossum]

But what do we know? We're just vapers and they're the experts.

Can one actually be an expert on something with out actually doing it or having done it extensively at some point?

Can one be an expert pilot without having flown a few thousand hours?

Can one be an expert engineer without having designed stuff, gotten it built, and placed into service?

Can one be an expert on vaping, especially as it relates to smoking, having never done either?

Asking for the next FDA Commissioner.

 

[Baditude]

@Rossum. Does one have to be a opiate user to be an expert on opiate use? (Just throwing that out there.)

 

[Eskie]

Can one actually be an expert on something with out actually doing it or having done it extensively at some point?

Can one be an expert pilot without having flown a few thousand hours?

Can one be an expert engineer without having designed stuff, gotten it built, and placed into service?

Can one be an expert on vaping, especially as it relates to smoking, having never done either?

Asking for the next FDA Commissioner.

I was being facetious, but that view would suggest you can't be an expert on an illness without having it, or understand astronomy without traveling to distant stars, or any other scientific inquiry without personal experience. We seem to respect the work of the RCP, Dr F, and others who I'm reasonably sure have never vaped (maybe Dr F has, I don't know his whole story). Even Gottleib when he seemed to be the savior of vaping.

Yes, vapers have much experience to share, but vapers do not necessarily have the skills to test for all the very factors we need to know. I'm not sure how many organic chemists are here to tell you if the methods for testing volatile compounds are valid, how many physicians here to review clinical data gathered on actual smokers and vapers, and so on. You don't have to he a vaper to evaluate it's uses and risks. You should have an unbiased mindset when designing a test, survey, statistical analysis, population study, or whatever to help assure you come to an objective conclusion.

Relying solely on the personal reports of vapers experiences is as unscientific as the craziness about banning flavors or cities banning vaping because "it's bad".

 

[BillW50]

Relying solely on the personal reports of vapers experiences is as unscientific

Ah but experience is scientific. And being book smart minus the experience doesn't hold up well scientifically. Of course, those who are higher educated, but lack the experience most likely doesn't believe this.

 

[Eskie]

Ah but experience is scientific. And being book smart minus the experience doesn't hold up well scientifically. Of course, those who are higher educated, but lack the experience most likely doesn't believe this.

Experience itself is not scientific. Science is a process that requires testing of a hypothesis before it comes close to being a theory. A theory is not proven. A theory is continually tested and challenged to see if it is reproducible and predictable. The more times a theory is tested by third parties and found to accurately describe the outcome, the more trusted it becomes. One can be experienced in the application of scientific principles to obtain useful information but experience itself is pretty useless. If experience is the criteria, it's already polluted by bias, and the entire scientific method is designed to eliminate that bias as much as possible.

Experience may help identify preconceived notions and bias, but it doesn't yield anything else without the willingness to test those presumptions to determine what's real and what isn't. Reaching any conclusion without testing it or being willing to allow others to test your theories isn't science, it's dogma and blind belief. One is objective, the other is not.

 

[BillW50]

Experience itself is not scientific.

Ah a skeptic! I like it.

Science is a process that requires testing of a hypothesis before it comes close to being a theory. A theory is not proven. A theory is continually tested and challenged to see if it is reproducible and predictable. The more times a theory is tested by third parties and found to accurately describe the outcome, the more trusted it becomes.

Same is true of experience. Say you take a glass and put ice in it and then fill it up with water, you get cold water. How do you know? Experience tells you so. And if it didn't work all of the time, you wouldn't bother. I just did this a minute ago. No science required.

Reaching any conclusion without testing it or being willing to allow others to test your theories isn't science, it's dogma and blind belief. One is objective, the other is not.

Experience is sharing. If thousands of years ago, I discover rubbing two sticks together will give me fire. I am going to share this experience with my friends and family and teach them how to make fire. And some will improve on the idea and teach me.

And science is very flawed! Science ignores its own rules whenever it sees fit. Like for example, most science requires an observer. But then the double split experiment comes along. And we learn that an observer affects the outcome of any experiment. Thus most of what science is based on is flawed.

Worse, science or anybody else sees reality through consciousness filters. Thus the scientist can't really be sure of anything because they can't see around the filters. And remember, science never proves anything. It just makes up theories why things are so. And doesn't it bother you to know that science was wrong yesterday. It is wrong today. And it will be wrong tomorrow.

 

[Rossum]

@Rossum. Does one have to be a opiate user to be an expert on opiate use? (Just throwing that out there.)

I think there's a strong argument that the answer is, "Yes". Consider the current opiate addiction "epidemic". How many of the at the drug companies had personal experience with the products they asked the FDA to approve? How many people at the FDA who approved them had personal experience? How many of the doctors who wrote the prescriptions had such experience? Would we have the current "epidemic" if these "experts" had personal experience with these substances?

 

[Rossum]

I was being facetious, but that view would suggest you can't be an expert on an illness without having it, or understand astronomy without traveling to distant stars, or any other scientific inquiry without personal experience.

Astronomers are the first to admit how little they know about distance star systems.

Doctors who are considered experts on a particular illness may not have had that illness themselves, but will generally treated numerous patients with that illness. In this example, I'll accept that as a substitute for having had it themselves.

(maybe Dr F has, I don't know his whole story).

Dr. Farsalinos is indeed a former smoker who switched to vaping.

Yes, vapers have much experience to share, but vapers do not necessarily have the skills to test for all the very factors we need to know.

True, but have you noticed that the so-called "experts" in the the US just ignore our personal experiences? They brush us off as "anecdotes".

 

[jandrew]

Can one actually be an expert on something with out actually doing it or having done it extensively at some point?
...

Certainly one can ... just ask @bombastinator