FDA Opinion about "kid" juice flavor

[Oliver]

Honestly, I don't think we KNOW this. I don't think we even know if "kids" are really even using flavors. I haven't looked into it, but the few things I have seen with teens vaping have been all about tricks, I've never heard a teen mention a flavor. Just like no one asked if they were using nicotine, no one asked if they were using flavors either. Granted, some undoubtedly are, but they could just as easily be vaping pure VG.

You're right though, the real question is whether or not vaping is a credible public health "threat," as opposed to just a "potential" one.

It's in (I believe) path: the question was asked (and, yes, probably led) - I paraphrase: why do you use vaping products?

Flavors came back as the top answer. I don't know whether they asked about tricks, or whether responses were unprompted. Anyone?

In any case, why should we be surprised that kids say "flavors" when asked why? The reality is that there's another argument which is politically unpalatable and which not enough people are asking.

 

[Oliver]

You're right though, the real question is whether or not vaping is a credible public health "threat," as opposed to just a "potential" one.

No, that's not the "real" question. That's a question on the way to the real question.

 

[Lessifer]

It's in (I believe) path: the question was asked (and, yes, probably led) - I paraphrase: why do you use vaping products?

Flavors came back as the top answer. I don't know whether they asked about tricks, or whether responses were unprompted. Anyone?

In any case, why should we be surprised that kids say "flavors" when asked why? The reality is that there's another argument which is politically unpalatable and which not enough people are asking.

Yeah, I haven't looked at the questions in PATH if they're available. A lot goes into creating a survey and it's very easy to get results you want by the questions you ask.

Is the real question you're alluding to: Why is there an age restriction on a product that is relatively harmless and that could actually prevent teens from developing a smoking addiction?

If so, I've been asking that one for awhile.

 

[DC2]

Is the real question you're alluding to: Why is there an age restriction on a product that is relatively harmless and that could actually prevent teens from developing a smoking addiction?

The REAL question is why is nicotine being demonized.
Or should I say, WHEN will nicotine STOP being demonized.

 

[Verb]

The REAL question is why is nicotine being demonized.
Or should I say, WHEN will nicotine STOP being demonized.

When the market is firmly in control of companies that understand the system, that know when to pay the appropriate tribute without being asked.

 

[sawlight]

It's the golden rule folks! He who has the gold, makes the rules!

 

[DC2]

When the market is firmly in control of companies that understand the system, that know when to pay the appropriate tribute without being asked.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

IMNTBHO, Big Pharma has their sights on nicotine.
There is a HUGE potential for using nicotine as a drug.

I hesitate to even start listing the potential benefits for fear of TL/DR syndrome.

But what obstacle is like a mosquito buzzing around their bank accounts?
What stands in the way of them making their dreams come true?

Vaping.

Free range nicotine liquid being vaped by any damn person who wants to.
Wow. What a concept.

Can't have that now can we?

 

[lynn508]

This I firmly believe has been the plan all along and i said three years ago on this forum that big Pharma was the problem, but no one listened.

 

[lynn508]

The US will eat itself alive. The greed of all the alphabet agencies will destroy the host. All the nannies who want to make rules for others will find themselves jobless as their pensions evaporate. What happened to the country I once knew?

 

[Oliver]

@Lessifer PATH is good. It has a couple of glaring errors - one of them being a failure to ask about nicotine - but by-and-large it's robust.

It should be able to pick up on the "interruptive effect", if it exists. But it has to be put forward explicitly as a hypotheses.

Is it so politically unpalatable to discuss, publicly, the idea that nicotine in vape may not be (particularly) addictive (and certainly not addictive where there's zero nicotine), that vape is potentially causing "disruptive denormalisation" (my invented phrase) whereby cigarettes themselves are made less appealing to teens DUE to the presence of vape, and that by trying vape, kids have LESS opportunity to try cigarettes?

Or, to view it slightly differently: The FDA is mandated to act according to the interests of public health. if the interruptive effect exists, I presume FDA must be cautious not to disrupt it?

 

[Oliver]

If so, I've been asking that one for awhile.

You and I can ask this until we're long in the tooth. The CDC should be asking this question, the FDA should be asking this question. The tobacco control community especially should be asking this question.

The fact that they are not, and are putting forward ONLY the negative interpretation is, charitably, down to a hideous groupthink. Uncharitably, it's because the actors are dishonest. I honestly don't know which is true. I suspect it's a hybrid.

 

[skoony]

This I firmly believe has been the plan all along and i said three years ago on this forum that big Pharma was the problem, but no one listened.

Many of us agreed with this back then.
The problem we face and what everyone needs to under stand is it's not just
Big Pharma.
Big Pharma
Big Medicine (Doctors,hospitals,clinics,research and development,preventive and curative
cessation,counseling,etc...)
Big tobacco
Big Taxman (local,state and federal)
Big ANTZ
Big Non-Profit.
Big Government Agencies (local,state and,federal)

Each of these working singly or together in any combination are all arrayed against
vaping. With the media and public education as their willing accomplices they think
and rightly so that they are the gatekeepers of what will and what will not be allowed.
Our greatest strength is also our worst enemy. Vaping as a concept and in its execution
is inherently safe,simple and,cheap. Any one can make e-liquid. If you can make Kool
Aid you can make e-liquid. It's literally that simple. The hardware in its simplest form
consists of a reservoir,coil,switch and battery. The raw ingredients for e-liquid are already
made to exacting standards and purity and available. There is no mysterious scientific
lab grade process needed to insure safe e-liquid. Measure,pour and,mix. That is it.
You can watch a more complicated manufacturing process behind the counter of any
Dairy Queen. This is why vaping must go. It's to safe and easy.

Regards
Mike

 

[Jman8]

I don't know if you've spotted the inherent danger here.

It's obviously a truism that flavors appeal to children. Flavors, after all, appeal to everyone.

Now, availability is clearly key and as you note, kids are accessing these devices illegally (although I'm not sure who's actually doing the lawbreaking), but largely because they are available legally to adults. The FDA thinking may well be something along the lines of: "We don't really care if adults like the flavors, if they appeal to kids they're a problem. So we'll get rid of them."

And I don't think the threat of flavors going underground argument is really going to wash. I think we all realise that if they did go underground, kids would almost certainly vape less. The problem is, so would adults.

The question is then, "does the FDA have the political clout to deal with this in "the [actual] public health interest"?"

In other words, is the FDA able to tackle honestly and head-on whether kids are becoming dependent on nicotine via vape, and the extent to which vape is currently responsible for record year-on-year declines in adult smoking?

I fear not.

I think vaping if it goes underground will go through phases. Hard to predict which type of phase will come first and how long it will last, etc.

I think it's possible, perhaps likely, that the first phase would be that all vaping usage (by anyone of any age) goes down dramatically. Not that we'd have way of knowing this for sure as people would probably lie than expose themselves as having product that was obtained from underground market. But I could see it possibly going down.

But at some point in the future, assuming supply and demand for vaping are still around (in an underground market), it would be certainly known among kids that some adults are lying about what this product does to you. Thus, a phase emerges where people are intentionally using it in a rebellious sort of way, while gaining all the benefits that we open market users enjoy(ed). That phase could have lots of potential, or it could be a fad that dies out after say 3 to 10 years. But that phase could repeat itself a few more times over say the next 100 years and each time hold potential to have things revisited.

Personally, I think because we are in the information age, it won't be 100 years. The potential is there right now and anyone paying attention knows lying is occurring. But once the so called 'long term data' is in, the other side better hope they can muster up propaganda to show eCigs as inherently dangerous, or the information age will essentially have debunked the only hope they have for keeping the product as low key as humanly possible.

How smoking / smoking rates play into the upcoming phases of the underground market remains to be seen, but IMO doesn't matter a whole lot. It might be where I have vastly different opinion then the rest of politically aware vapers. I think it will play a role, just not all that significant. Vaping has been so disruptive in the traditional cigarette market, that the whole 'genie out of the bottle' thing tells me the FDA will eventually make it mostly to only about vaping. For the next 1 to 20 years, I can see them (or everyone) making it about both, but a time will come when that is no longer conceivable way to frame it and be up to speed with reality. It'll be like trying to understand digital camera use as compared to analog use in current culture. No amateur photographer is even talking about analog cameras anymore, though pros for sure still do, and is where the analogy falls apart. Vaping is so disruptive, it will be challenging to make it about smoking the more time goes on.

 

[bnrkwest]

I remember when the idea of smoking was to attract kids, even my parents bought me candy cigarettes LOL