Perhaps you could, but when juice contains nicotine, that fact is not usually hidden.
Correct. Not usually, but it could be, and I think many of us know this. Might be that some 'zero nic' contains some of it, or that 1.8 is actually 1.7239937898093.
At any rate, the industry has so far managed to do industry wide disclosure on this without a mandate, so one might think why not do that for diketones? I mean, really why not? And I'm thinking it might have to do with witch hunt type politics around it. Plus the idea that it is really trace amounts we are talking about though 'trace amount' is so subjective, that it is confusing the issue. So, people are (sometimes) claiming they need to know exact amount and anything not precise is vendor making false claims.
I would find vaping to be rather pointless without the nicotine, and I'm rather confident it would not have been an adequate substitute for my 2PAD habit without it. I still reach for the nicotine gum when I'm stuck somewhere I can't vape (rare, but it happens).
Would you find vaping pointless without diketones? Would you find some other means to get your diketone fix if you were stuck somewhere you couldn't vape?
I would not find vaping pointless without diketones. I think those who are never-smoking people who do vape (and ought to be fully allowed to vape) probably could do without nicotine, and thus would see a point to vaping without nic. For me, knowing all I currently know about inhaling nic and diketones, I'm okay with it being in there. I'd like disclosure, but don't consider it a requirement. If it were told to me, even via lab report, I'd be skeptical. I'd really want to confirm via my own lab report if I had true concern over it. I truly would. If that was somehow cost prohibitive, then I would want that cost lowered and would be all like why charge money for this? But even then, I wouldn't want mandate. I'd just look at all current cases of known issues with it, and probably base my decision on that.
I don't know for a fact that diketones cause harm in vaping. I simply find it unconscionable for vendors to sell liquids that contain high levels of this stuff without disclosure when they're suspected of causing the kinds of problems that have been alleged. It also puzzles me what could possibly motivate anyone to defend such practices.
I'd challenge the high levels aspect and the disclosure aspect and the causal relationship aspect. As I already have. With all that said, I'd stick to vendors where I thought it was less an issue if I were to publicly say I care. If those type of vendors didn't exist and disclosure was simply not possible, I'd strongly consider not vaping at all.
And I would stick to the idea that it is unconscionable to suggest a mandate in the face of looming regulations. Or I'd hope no one connects the dots and sees that I must actually favor (strict) regulations even while I'm on other threads saying "we don't need these regulations. They will just hurt the industry." I'd pray no one makes that connection, cause I'd really dislike looking like a hypocrite on this matter (of regulations).
I think you know me well enough by now to understand that I'm vehemently opposed government prohibitions, mandates, or regulations of any kind. But they're coming anyway, and the fact that the industry didn't clean up its act with respect to these compounds is just one more point they can use to justify them.
Agreed, which is why it behooves the pro-vaping enthusiast to challenge this issue in the many ways it can be challenged.
No, because the industry did clean up its act with respect to that. When was the last time a vapor product tested positive for diethylene glycol?
I see the anti-freeze fear mongering as bigger assertion than diethylene glycol. As PG is found in anti-freeze, it became part of the tactic to blast out disinformation, and hope something sticks. Which to me is how the diketone issue currently shows up. No cases of actual harm, but float enough disinformation out there, hope something sticks, and now we have 'good' reason to be restrictive of vape production.
Would probably help the vaping concern if smokers weren't the predominant users and had been inhaling diketones for decades prior to vaping. But instead, we gotta resort to the incredibly bizarre notion that it was misdiagnosed previously. Still can't back that assertion up, but say it enough times and suddenly it's not junk science, but 'legitimate scientific fact.'
And the Devil (the gov't) benefits in more than one way, when those failing at BP's NRT end up back at cigarettes -- the MSA, and then the direct tobacco taxes.
