Diacetyl Free - Does it Matter?

[AzPlumber]

Any eliquid seller who makes false claims on the level 5P has deserves to be sitting under the scrutiny of the law...looks like 5P will be an example for the rest of the shady vendors. I couldn't be happier to see this lawsuit....5P earned it!!

So your happy with this? It is a quote from the law suit.

Some e-liquids manufactured by other companies are sold without DA and AP, propylene glycol, nicotine, or flavors, as it is possible to source ingredients that do not contain these toxic ingredients.

 

[DeAnna2112]

So your happy with this? It is a quote from the law suit.

Honestly, i think what it was saying is that you can buy pg, nic and flavors without DA or AP in it. DA and AP is the toxic ingredients it was talking about. I will say the wording was bad but i didn't read it the way you are....but can see how one would read it that way.

 

[AzPlumber]

Honestly, i think what it was saying is that you can buy pg, nic and flavors without DA or AP in it. DA and AP is the toxic ingredients it was talking about. I will say the wording was bad but i didn't read it the way you are....but can see how one would read it that way.

Doesn't matter how I read it or you read it, only matters how the jury reads it and how, if successful, this class action law suit will be used for many years to demonize all vaping.

 

[DeAnna2112]

Doesn't matter how I read it or you read it, only matters how the jury reads it and how, if successful, this class action law suit will be used for many years to demonize all vaping.

Only thing being demonized is bad business practices..not vaping. Vaping is not on trial, a vaping business and it's practices are. You want to point a finger then point it at 5P, they are the one's who caused these problems not vapers who are mad as hell.

 

[AzPlumber]

Honestly, i think what it was saying is that you can buy pg, nic and flavors without DA or AP in it. DA and AP is the toxic ingredients it was talking about. I will say the wording was bad but i didn't read it the way you are....but can see how one would read it that way.

Sorry I failed to add this to my last reply.
So the way you read it they claim that some PG and Nic come with DA & AP already added?

 

[ImThatGuy]

"
without DA and AP, propylene glycol, nicotine, or flavors, as it is possible to source ingredients that do not contain these toxic ingredients."

No, I read it as...without da and ap, pg, nic, or flavors. It separated and itemized individual ingredients.

 

[DeAnna2112]

Like i said it was bad wording but i believe that is what they were trying to say. Nic or PG has nothing to do with the bases of this case clearly DA and AP are and the false claims that they were not present in vendors juices when vendor had test that stated otherwise. The case takes no issue with Nic or PG being in vendors liquids.

 

[AzPlumber]

Only thing being demonized is bad business practices..not vaping. Vaping is not on trial, a vaping business and it's practices are. You want to point a finger then point it at 5P, they are the one's who caused these problems not vapers who are mad as hell.

Not sure how you got all that from my post, we really do read different.

 

[AzPlumber]

Like i said it was bad wording but i believe that is what they were trying to say. Nic or PG has nothing to do with the bases of this case clearly DA and AP are and the false claims that they were not present in vendors juices when vendor had test that stated otherwise. The case takes no issue with Nic or PG being in vendors liquids.

There's a big difference between what you believe the suit is about and what is printed in the actual documents.

 

[skoony]

Honestly, i think what it was saying is that you can buy pg, nic and flavors without DA or AP in it. DA and AP is the toxic ingredients it was talking about. I will say the wording was bad but i didn't read it the way you are....but can see how one would read it that way.

Aside from flavors that wouldn't have DA or AP in them were not these
used before the removal by some vendors? Should not these evil
vendors be taken to court for all the harm caused before the removal.
The fact they removed them is blatent evidence erethey they were
poisoning there customers. Then there are hundreds if not thousands
of online vendor's with no mention of DA or AP whom are giving
their customers popcorn lung. Get a rope.
Regards
Mike

 

[Gauntlgrym]

Google any of the 4 main ingredients in eLiquid along lines of "the danger of inhaling (ingredient)" and be honest on what that search finds. I believe it'll point to many instances of potential danger, if not propaganda existing for current risks (i.e. for nicotine).

as i have stated in multiple times in this thread already. the difference is D/AP is not NEEDED to make eliquid. VG/PG/NIC are.
some dangers will always exist in vaping, but we might as well do everything we can to keep them at a minimum.

As DA/P is not one of the 4 ingredients, but is part of eLiquid,

doesn't have to be a part.

then also need to realize at this point that eLiquid isn't, nor ever was as simple as 4 ingredients. If smokes are said to have thousands of chemicals, then astute vaper needs to realize their 4 ingredient product has dozens of chemicals at least, if not hundreds, maybe / possibly even thousands. So, then google any of those chemicals with the words above suggested for search.

so what are you trying to say here? since maybe sometime down the road, some other compound in eliquid might be red flaged, we should just say "f it, why bother trying to be safer and healthier"?

Thus again, it comes down to calling out the bluff of the propaganda. Are there actually known, observable harms strictly correlated with that ingredient? AND can that be tied specifically to vaping usage? If it cannot, then vapers/vaping industry has a leg to stand on. A fairly solid leg. If only going with loose connections and "makes us look bad," then kindly show me this ingredient/chemical you found that has no risks associated with it. I will THEN believe that one does have a chance of never coming under scrutiny from opposition. I might not fully believe this, but it would help with case I think that you think you are making right now.

well, i believe it better to error on the side of caution. maybe you are the type of person that when someone tells you "your plate is hot", you have to touch it and get burned to believe it. i however am not.

who knows? maybe you are right, and D/AP is overblown.......or maybe you might wish you took more caution 25 years from now.

 

[herb]

Addressing the parts I chose to highlight with blue color, in order.

Yes, people are really wondering if vaping diacetyl is good for you or not. Given both the current evidence (with vapers) and the historical evidence (with smoking), the accurate indication and/or evidence tells us that inhaling diacetyl at the levels up for discussion is that it is not bad. So "not bad" that when compared to nicotine, it is more tame than that ingredient, and even that ingredient by us users who are arguably more in the know than all non-users (ever) is that inhaling nicotine is really not harmful, not bad. Compared to that, based on both current scientific evidence and anecdotal evidence (or what we users have experienced), inhaling diacetyl is more tame.

Thus, the only thing that right now the 'rather not inhale diacetyl' crowd has is to raise strong concern with long term usage. If this is a personal concern for this person, then who can reasonably argue against that and expect to 'win' the debate? Would be like anyone saying I'm deathly worried about inhaling PG, and is a personal concern I have, and so I'd rather avoid it. How might anyone convince me that I ought to inhale PG against my wishes?

I honestly hope with what I've written up to this point that all vapers are on the same page. If not, I think there is a debate to be had, one that ought to be had, and that it could get strongly worded if there is seriously a dispute to be had on anything I've written thus far.

Where it becomes another matter is beyond the personal concern and language of "but if YOU think there will be no consequences later in life, think again." That goes beyond personal concern and is either outright stating, you should be as concerned as I am or is strongly implying it.

The question has no way of answering itself in the short term for all involved. Literally no way. It will take long term data for whatever alleged harms (over the long term) to come to fruition in order for us to exercise a reasonable concern that all can observe / be made aware of. For otherwise, you have to return to what is said in rebuttal in first paragraph of this post. When anecdotal evidence returns information that suggests lots of vapers are being harmed specifically by inhaling diacetyl, then after all the years of smoking/inhaling it, and either nothing happening or very little and after the first 7+ years of humanity vaping it and very little happening, we now live in a (currently hypothetical) reality where in fact it is a problem for people to inhale this via vaping.

Plus there is a problem when there is this divide in the community and the side that is 'not okay inhaling diacetyl' tells the other side, "you think there will be no consequences in life." That is, IMO, as much of a problem as when mainstream articles go in direction of suggesting that (all) vapers think vaping is completely safe, and then the article notes one aspect of harm from vaping (i.e. batteries blow up) therefore, it is not perfectly safe. I'm pretty sure this is called straw man fallacy, but to elaborate on this point and be clear, you'll be hard pressed IMO to find this other side within the community claim that there is no consequences whatsoever. Instead, we are addressing people who have taken their personal concern for extreme danger and want that to be everyone else's concern and only filter the diacetyl data through that perspective. Short of that, and you (on the other side) must be saying it is totally harmless.

I continue to find that insulting.

And the reason we look at as people telling us what to do is because of how OP chose to word the first post of this thread, or if you'd like we could go look at any of the other 97 threads on this issue where someone, like as many as 30 people, are presenting the issue as very much in the vein of "the industry absolutely must change. Absolutely needs to go in direction of mandatory disclosure. Absolutely, we should all be sharing our concerns for endangerment with vendors." So, when some of you present it in vein like say @Racehorse does where there is no demand to change the industry for the personal concern, that does at times get lost in the shuffle of yet another thread talking about what course the entire community should take to change the industry and rid it of this problem.

The one where we, a portion of the vaping community, have taken a personal concern with diacetyl in the market and inflated it to a full blown problem that "should be" everyone's concern.

When our actual opposition does this (with say formaldehyde, among many things I could've selected) we have tended to band together and fight back on such claims. This one has stuck. And yet, the evidence just isn't there for the inflated concern. When/if that changes, I'm sure I'll be made aware of it. Until then...

Thanks for the post but i see it very very differently than you do , it's OK to disagree though and i thank you for your response .

Have a good day

 

[Gauntlgrym]

Doesn't matter how I read it or you read it, only matters how the jury reads it and how, if successful, this class action law suit will be used for many years to demonize all vaping.

well.....vendors better start making D/AP free eliquid. then they will not be able to demonize eliquids with D/AP.

 

[englishmick]

Good, so we're all agreed then.

 

[skoony]

well.....vendors better start making D/AP free eliquid. then they will not be able to demonize eliquids with D/AP.

Then it will be something else that will be the harm dejure.
I wonder who will be leading that charge?
Regards
Mike

 

[AzPlumber]

well.....vendors better start making D/AP free eliquid. then they will not be able to demonize eliquids with D/AP.

Brilliant, unless those liquids have nicotine, PG or flavors.

 

[LouisLeBeau]

Thank you VERY much for posing this, @ImThatGuy . A very enjoyable read.

 

[Robino1]

Like i said it was bad wording but i believe that is what they were trying to say. Nic or PG has nothing to do with the bases of this case clearly DA and AP are and the false claims that they were not present in vendors juices when vendor had test that stated otherwise. The case takes no issue with Nic or PG being in vendors liquids.

Unfortunately, the court will go by the wording as it is precisely written, not by what one thinks it's trying to say.

I cannot see this as being completely good for vaping in general. Time will tell since the ball has already started rolling down that slippery slope

 

[ImThatGuy]

Unfortunately, the court will go by the wording as it is precisely written, not by what one thinks it's trying to say.

I cannot see this as being completely good for vaping in general. Time will tell since the ball has already started rolling down that slippery slope

Of course it will be bad for vaping in general. We are all here screaming for healthier alternative and reducing risk, but they are marketing it as such, but is proven wrong, when they themselves (redundant?) are members of an advocacy group that is for us. It disgusts me even more.

 

[zoiDman]

Setting aside the Debate as to whether Diketones are Harmful or Not for a second.

Where does the Issue of Advertising and Marketing come into Play?

Does an e-Liquid OEM Have the Right to say that something is Not In an e-Liquid they produce when it Actual Is?

And what happens when the OEM Knows that something is in an e-Liquid they Make/Sell when Asked by Consumers and or Interested Parties and then tells them it Isn't?

And Lastly, should e-Liquid OEM's/Sellers receive a "Pass" just because they are Part of the Vaping Community? Or do Individuals have a Right to Seek Remedies thru the Courts if Wrong Doings can be Shown to have Occurred?

I don't like seeing someone Bringing Forth a Lawsuit against an e-Liquid Company. And I agree, this Doesn't Help the e-Liquid Industry in general. I just wonder if we would be where we are Today if Five Pawns had just Told the Truth when First Asked if their e-Liquids contained either Da or AP?