Does this seem right to you?
- Thread starter khalidmna
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
So if this bottle were left on a table, open, in a house with a 2 year old, and the 2 year old drank it, would it be the manufacturers fault because of the label they put on it?
You are right in a way, and I stand somewhat corrected.
I too will "teach" the children when needed.
And teach their parents too, if that is what it comes down to.
Nothing wrong with that, and we could use a lot more of it.
Especially when parents are not willing or able to do it themselves for some reason.
We don't need the government doing it though.
There is nothing good that comes from that.
"it takes a village" is not necessarily the problem, "don't worry, the village will do it for you" is the problem.
A person under 18 can not enter into a legal binding contract (without a parents consent). They can't "own" anything. I let my kids know this many many many times.
Heck when I was 10.. I left the house when I got home from school. I had to be home before the sun went completely down. If I was ever late mom grabbed a branch off the tree and chased me with it.
I really think the government doesn't have enough to do or they are focusing on the wrong things.
I disagree, if a product is dangerous to children, whether it has a picture of mickey mouse or a skull and crossbones, it is Your Responsibility To Protect Your Child. If you choose to make the product accessible to your child You should be held Responsible!
Sorry, You struck a nerve.
The sad fact is that local gov't makes a significant amount of money from writing you a ticket. So, no they don't have anything better to do.
When will people learn, government, american especially, only cares about money. If ejuice was taxed we would be able to drip straight from my little ponys assand no one would think twice about it. There is no right and wrong here, we are all getting ....ed.
There are still 8 states that do not prohibit the sale of eliquid to minors
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/alternative-nicotine-products-e-cigarettes.aspx
On April 25, 2014, the FDA released proposed regulations for "Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act". These regulations would include electronic cigarettes and other alternative tobacco and nicotine products.
At this stage of the game it is ignorant to believe things like cartoon cookie labels do not matter and won't be used against us along with accidental poisonings and a sharp increase in teen use. Parenting skills or lack of have nothing to do with it, freedom to love cute cartoon bottles, labels and great flavors have nothing to do with it you are only fooling yourself if you believe that. While some are willing to take a tough stand on allowing cookie cartoon labeling here in the forums are you also ready to take that same stand on the senate floor when vaping as you know it now could become restricted back to 2007 technology?
....the forest for the trees
And I believe you are fooling yourself if you think that "throwing them a bone" by accepting sales bans, indoor vaping bans, marketing bans based on faulty science and logic is helping the cause at all.
In all honesty, the only way I don't see this going badly for vaping as we know it, is if by some miracle we get people to accept that vaping does not pose a significant health threat. Not only for the smokers/ex-smokers, but for your average non-smoker as well.
Saying, "you're right, even though we have this mound of data that says it's relatively harmless, we still need to protect the children because we don't know," is surrendering.
If it's bad for the kiddies,
it's bad for the non-smokers/non-vapers,
if it's bad for them it must be bad for us too,
if it's bad for us, it needs to be regulated and taxed so that maybe some day we'll be able to rid ourselves of this filthy habit
because....
it LOOKS like smoking.
Then I am not fooling myself because I never said anything about accepting sales bans, indoor vaping bans, marketing bans. What I said was why keep handing them fuel for their fire? We have one and only one big advantage here, the knowledge of what they are using in the war against vaping, but we are failing to use the knowledge wisely, to our advantage, we just keep handing them the tools they need to fight with, we are being our own worst enemy here.
If your kids don't see it they won't..... See it? Don't hate packaging. They have to put it on a shelf next to other brands and sell it.
Maybe I misunderstood, I thought you were of the opinion that companies should voluntarily not use labeling like this, because it can be perceived by some as marketing to children. That would be a self imposed marketing ban. This would be akin to the argument of "don't vape where you can't smoke, because you'll make people mad, and then they'll make it so you can't vape where you can't smoke."
Seems like a No Brainer to Me.
Take away the things that Policy Makers can Use to Hurt Us.
Where is the Downside?
The downside, Zoidman, is that they won't stop with regulating the labels. They'll move right on into regulating the flavors out of existence. Sorry, but on this one, I have to say "raise your own kids". You can't control the outside world, but if the e-juice is in YOUR HOUSE, then whose responsibility is it to keep the e-juice out of the hands of YOUR Children? I'm all for more stringent regulations on internet purchases - personally, I think every 1st order from an e-juice vendor should require a legal, picture ID and a signature. But after the company's done that, verified that the purchaser is over 18, that purchaser, you, me, everybody, should be able to buy what appeals to them. Label included.
We need to ban the sales and use of children's toothpaste, that comes in cute packaging and can lead to poisonings {face_roll_eyes}
This Entire Topic really Doesn't have Anything to do with Kids. Or with Parents or Personal Responsibilities.
It has to do with Doing whatever it Takes to get Swing Law Makers to Not Agree with Every Rule that the FDA Proposes to Congress during the Deeming Approval Process.
And BTW - I was asking more what the Downside is for the Retailer?
What would be the Downside to the Retailer if they did decide to Not Use cartoon characters so there would be NO Perception that they were Marketing towards Minors?
- Status
Similar threads
