Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
I 1000% would rather kids vape than smoke. It is not that I want to "protect" the children, I would just rather NOT antagonize the 3 letter acronyms needlessly. Blatantly introducing cartoon characters just sort flies in the face of a sensitive issue, at a point in time when we are actually seeing some give and take from the Feds.
It is unfortunate that we live in a society in which self-restraint is a virtue that is not only un-practiced but is denigrated. Enlightened self interest would dictate some self-restraint as to marketing ploys; the wise would avoid killing the golden goose. But, the marketers are not wise and the marketing will continue until it is restrained by force of government. Once the force of government is unleashed, it rarely has any restraints upon itself.
They are already on us about flavors, gee, I wonder if this will piss the Feds off. A little discretion within the industry might go a long way.......
Perhaps the Feds would like a more "appropriate" look as far as they're concerned:
Surely that would keep kids away....
Perhaps the Feds would like a more "appropriate" look as far as they're concerned:
Surely that would keep kids away....
You know what's funny? THAT will appeal to more kids than the minion atty ever will. Psychology 101, kids desire what is forbidden.. not what is acceptable.
I used to tell my kids (when they were teenagers) NOT to do something just so they would turn around and do it, hence make the decision I wanted them to. It's life, run around telling kids no, and that's going to be the first thing they do.
Last edited:
Yeh, actually I have heard protect the children for so long, I forgot it's actually "Protect the adolescent." Technical impossibility.
Anna
Anna
...we just can't have cute stuff.
We are old, we are ex-smokers - it's just not acceptable...act appropriately - Kids might see you having fun !
I get the not adding fuel to the fire...but just DANG !
No one bats an eye when a 16 year old girl re-stocks at Victoria's Secret !
We are old, we are ex-smokers - it's just not acceptable...act appropriately - Kids might see you having fun !
I get the not adding fuel to the fire...but just DANG !
No one bats an eye when a 16 year old girl re-stocks at Victoria's Secret !
Sex sells. The government tries to regulate that too. Let the cops catch an 19yo boy with that same girl.....
I get it, they "should" just leave us alone. In a just and fair world that would be the case.
Alas it is not a "just and fair" game the FDA is playing. We are fighting for our lives here, and the lives of future generations. Most of us "here" realize that.
When I play the Chess game, trying to think a few moves out, this just doesnt seem to help our cause. Is it right that images like these matter, hell no it isnt, but the reality is that they do nonetheless. It is just fodder for those that want to regulate us.
Imagine seeing this plastered on a billboard around town:
Heck...
They've made teen pregnancy a new fad with TV shows like "Teen Mom" and "16 & Pregnant"...on popular channels like MTV no less...
I'm not old (about half the age of many here on the forum...if you were born in the mid-to-late 50's)...but I can't believe the hypocrisy our whole society is based on.
Give it a couple more decades and your head will really be spinning
Well it doesn't (or maybe it DOES) help that I was practically raised by my grandparents, who were born in 1933...
So I have a lot of "old fashioned" virtues and my moral compass always seems to point to the past...when people weren't the kind of bat (crap) crazy they are today...
Don't get me wrong...people have always been crazy and there's been a lot of good progress in many respects of society, but man...we are indeed living in some VERY strange times.
It's almost like we are becoming aware that we've pretty much done "everything there is to do" and now we are just going crazy for the sake of something "new"...
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem I have with this line of thinking is that the folks we are dealing with don't want give and take or compromise. We give, they take, and we get nothing in return. They have no interest in compromise and there isn't really anything they can offer us in return for our compromises. In reality every "compromise" is just a whittling away of my rights. Its the same kind of thing with the gun control lobby. Give us x we'll leave y alone. A few months pass and they are back again. Just give us y and you can keep z. If you say no to the continued demands then you're "unreasonable" you don't have any interest in compromise, etc etc. When in reality you're just tired of giving and giving and getting nothing in return.
Imagine you have a cake. It's your cake. Someone comes along and says give me the cake. You say no that's my cake. Well how about you just give me a 1/2 of the cake? That's reasonable. You don't need a whole cake. So you agree.
They come back the next day. They want half your cake now. No, i just gave you half my cake yesterday you say. Come on, thats only a small bit and you still have plenty of cake. Give it to me and I won't ask for any more cake. I promise. The rest is all yours. You give them half of your remaining cake.
A couple days go by and they are back again. That last half wasn't enough
We want more of your cake. But I've already given you three quarters of my cake. I barely have any cake left at all you say. Why do you have to be so unreasonable they reply. We aren't trying to take all of your cake. Just give us half of what you have left. You'll still have some cake and we will too.
As they leave you look down and see what was once a whole cake that was fully yours is now just a single slice while they have almost all of your cake.
They've gotten everything and you're left with almost nothing.
That's the end game here. Its not a give and take and its not a compromise. Its a give and give and give until you've got nothing left.
I'd be Happy to compromise. Just let me know what I'm getting in return for my concessions.
Its not a victory if get to keep something we had all along by giving up something else.
Up until last week, your view was supported by the actions being taken regarding vaping. On Friday it became a completely different game. There is now a much clearer road map of how things will be going forward. Even on the issue of flavorings, it was expressed as a reconsideration of flavoring use balancing teen/child encouragement vs. benefits to adult users. That in itself is a major shift in position. Add in evaluating vaping on a harm reduction scale rather than a rigid modified tobacco product was a major shift. And it's even looser if you don't plan to label your products as a less harmful alternative. Given I haven't seen much vape gear making that claim there's not a lot being given up there.
Just as the shift of last week represented a major policy shift, there could well be another sometime down the road. That can better be handled with legislation (although even legislation can be overturned or voted out) for more security, but given the political climate as it stands in Washington, I would see that as likely as North Korea selecting Nancy Pelosi in as their new "dear leader".
Last edited:
MikeP, that sad eyed kid vaping image (not sure where it came from) really got me for a minute. Then I thought, "Wait a second, that kid looks about 8, that's when my husband started smoking." It kind of put the image in perspective for me... Though I think it's a manipulative, horrible image, and I can see how a never-smoker would be horrified.
Anna
Anna
All 4 of those images came off a 3 minute google search, including the kid vaping.
Yes, when I put those together it even grabbed at my own heart strings a bit, but that is exactly how the opposition will portray vaping, with a nice big "children" mantra underneath it.
They have done it before!
That's why we give what's reasonable and not a inch more. After all, we can't all own a nuclear warhead, now can we? I'm happy with my AR-15, 30 round magazines and a gas mask...
That would actually be a good ad if you added "Don't Smoke, Vape Instead" as the next line.
...as in saving the next generation from smoking cigarettes.
That last, 'so you agree', is the problem.
"There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property." Ayn Rand
"The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over." Rand
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." Rand
Edit: This isn't to say that 'compromise' is bad in all situations:
"It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one’s product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one’s demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one’s product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other." Rand
"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal." Rand
Last edited:
You know, all of that sounds good, but that is assuming you have the "power". The government has the power to enact laws, all we can do is protest them. We can elect different regimes, but the regimes still have the power, our power is diminished once the election is over.
In the context of cartoon character attys, which was the original point, I dont see "restraint" as a compromise, I see it as "not poking the bear". Sure, lets release Spongebob mods, Minion attys, and Cinderella ejuice, yeah they are cute, but is it really smart while this whole regulation thing is evolving? The "children" aspect of it is so emotionally charged that we are just fueling the opposition.
There is wisdom in restraint, and that does not necessarily equate to compromise.
Similar threads
- Locked
