Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
They make SOME people nervous - nervous types.. lol ... or those who just like to speculate for speculation sake - usually to extend conversation past a point of necessity. I won't speculate as to why, but I have some ideas :- )
I disagree, intolerance closes the door to discussion and possible resolution of conflict.
Not exactly sure what your implying but..I for one will always consider that I may not know all there is to know on a given subject. When one stops examining, questioning and learning they risk being run over by facts they failed to consider.
The benefits of nicotine has shown good results in studies of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, mental health in general and focus and relaxation. That has to be included in the 'net effect'.
The studies on vaping vs. air have specific values that were tested. Not subjective....
For Hardware. No, I don't see that the FDA should really be Involved.
For e-Liquids? I can see where Regulations much like what are seen in the Food or Brewing Industry are needed.
But what the FDA has done is Light Years from that type of Regulations. And is Extreme to the Point of a Ban for all but BT.
The question I ask is, given those two statements, why support ANY of the proposed regulation?
I see statements like "Of course I support age restrictions" or "These labels/flavors give the ANTZ ammunition" as either supporting some regulation, or supporting the ideas that are used as the justification for regulation.
Of course, we can all have our own opinions, but I'm not going to stop arguing against opinions that I disagree with.
Intolerance itself is not harmful in the way that banning ecigs by the force of gov't would be. Intolerance here never reaches that level.
Very few here have 'stopped examining' - after 7 years and before, we've examined plenty and at this point there is not much that hasn't been discussed ad nauseum, and as a result we have self-regulated to a point where it has made an affect on the industry. I've laid this all out before - exactly what has been done just from what I know and I'm sure other threads have done the same or similar. It's the incessant questioning for the sake of questioning that actually stops forward progress and distracts from what is known or even what has been considered already at some point. An "open mind" ends up empty since everything flows through it, never deciding on anything - probably out of a fear of being wrong.
“Open Mind” and “Closed Mind” — Ayn Rand Lexicon
If we try to win the no-harm debate, we will lose.
Even if we can point out that urban air has existing, and in some cases higher, levels of all the things that have been documented as being present in vape vapor, the obvious counter is that that urban air will be drawn in through our AC holes and our coil's product will just add to that.
Vapor is not good for you. Hell, it's not even not NOT bad for you.
If you want nicotine for its own merits, chew some gum, or eat a bunch of tomatoes. If you're trying to cease the MUCH worse combustible habit, go cold-turkey. Everyone knows someone who quit cold-turkey, so you should be able to, too.
We're not going to win an argument based on statistics and logic, because the other side doesn't care. The non-smokers don't understand, and the cold-turkey quitters feel superior to the rest of us.
If we're going to win this, it is going to be based on the "none of your damned business" clause of the constitution. Many folks miss it, but it's there, between every line in the document.
This is why the Libertarian vein comes out in this debate so heavily. People who would never consider themselves of that particular political bent quickly discover their Libertarian leanings when their own personal issue comes under attack.
I've brought up my firearms-industry perspective multiple times throughout this discussion- but there are legitimate parallels.
I've watched high-dollar focus-group feed-back, and it can surprise you.
I've watched a group of "anti-gun" subjects maintain their anti position through discussions of personal protection - "a rape victim is just as likely to have her gun stolen and end up killed instead of just raped".
I've seen them dispel the merits of teaching gun-safety to kids - "yeah, but they'll end up complacent and think they know how to handle them around friends".
But, when you talk about personal freedom, everything changes. Point out, to an anti-gunner, that they're "probably right", and if they're "trusted" with a weapon of their own, they'll probably just end up hurting themselves or a family member, and the claws come out.
Everyone thinks they're above average, and the well-meaning restrictions they'd place on others, for their own good, are just because "the masses are really dumb".
If ONLY the harm-reduction is engaged, then, at best, we'll end up with closed-systems using state-defined nic levels, packaged by multi-million dollar "trusted" BT and BP labs.
The only way you're going to keep the right to taste-test juice in a shop to take home and drip onto the coil of your choice, is to win the personal-freedoms debate.
People just can't seem to help thinking that what is best for them is best for everyone else.
Even if we can point out that urban air has existing, and in some cases higher, levels of all the things that have been documented as being present in vape vapor, the obvious counter is that that urban air will be drawn in through our AC holes and our coil's product will just add to that.
Vapor is not good for you. Hell, it's not even not NOT bad for you.
If you want nicotine for its own merits, chew some gum, or eat a bunch of tomatoes. If you're trying to cease the MUCH worse combustible habit, go cold-turkey. Everyone knows someone who quit cold-turkey, so you should be able to, too.
We're not going to win an argument based on statistics and logic, because the other side doesn't care. The non-smokers don't understand, and the cold-turkey quitters feel superior to the rest of us.
If we're going to win this, it is going to be based on the "none of your damned business" clause of the constitution. Many folks miss it, but it's there, between every line in the document.
This is why the Libertarian vein comes out in this debate so heavily. People who would never consider themselves of that particular political bent quickly discover their Libertarian leanings when their own personal issue comes under attack.
I've brought up my firearms-industry perspective multiple times throughout this discussion- but there are legitimate parallels.
I've watched high-dollar focus-group feed-back, and it can surprise you.
I've watched a group of "anti-gun" subjects maintain their anti position through discussions of personal protection - "a rape victim is just as likely to have her gun stolen and end up killed instead of just raped".
I've seen them dispel the merits of teaching gun-safety to kids - "yeah, but they'll end up complacent and think they know how to handle them around friends".
But, when you talk about personal freedom, everything changes. Point out, to an anti-gunner, that they're "probably right", and if they're "trusted" with a weapon of their own, they'll probably just end up hurting themselves or a family member, and the claws come out.
Everyone thinks they're above average, and the well-meaning restrictions they'd place on others, for their own good, are just because "the masses are really dumb".
If ONLY the harm-reduction is engaged, then, at best, we'll end up with closed-systems using state-defined nic levels, packaged by multi-million dollar "trusted" BT and BP labs.
The only way you're going to keep the right to taste-test juice in a shop to take home and drip onto the coil of your choice, is to win the personal-freedoms debate.
People just can't seem to help thinking that what is best for them is best for everyone else.
I will in here. Some of you can't agree to disagree.
The subjective part would be me choosing to accept that as justification for my own actions, as opposed to someone choosing to want more information.
And now that I have aged, I realize I know nothing.
It's how you stated it that made me wonder.... the studies actually showed 'better than air' with the data sets, but yeah, subjective as to whether you believe it or not, or want more info.
I know as much as I used to know....probably know more than I used to know but now I know there is a lot more I don't know than what I do know and I didn't know that when I thought I knew everything.
Know what I mean?
Is there a Must or Must not ............ or is it a realistic may or may not? I'll stick with hard working Honest Science for now and agree there are a few unknowns only Study and time will answer.
Those Greyish Skies once were Blue.........I know, I have witnessed them.
As to Vaping - Nic, PG, VG - nothing is showing anything.
As to Flavorings time and research will tell, but so far little concern has been proven.
Cinnamon, Menthol are both on a Questionable list.
I do not buy into anything lightly..........even considering choosing Vaping to quit smoking took me months of reading to decide for myself.
I feel I made the right choice - for me.
Last edited:
It most certainly does and that's the point. Vaping is so safe when compared to smoking
as to have the real danger inflated to account for people that will absolutly not believe
that vaping may in fact be totally harmless for otherwise healthy individuals.
7 years is more than long enough to start tracing any pathology. So far it's been a
bust. They can't find anything.
Regards
Mike
Similar threads
- Locked
