Our friends at ATR launched a massive counteroffensive

[Lessifer]

Clearly parents have the ultimate responsibility, but that's not what we are discussing. So are you saying yes, a nine year should be able to legally purchase e-cigarettes ? Is there any goods or services that an adult could legally purchase, that you feel children should not be able to ?

Alcohol would be one that comes to mind, as something that is harmful, and alters consciousness. Neither of which I find to be the case with vapor products.

ETA: I am saying there is no reason for a legal restriction against a 9 year old purchasing e-cigarettes. It is truly a different statement, though the outcome is the same.

 

[Stosh]

Btw, i use to buy cigarettes for my uncle when i was younger than 9, but that was a different day and age !

So I take it you never saved up deposit pop bottles to buy your own pack back in the day? I must have been an awful kid.

 

[Katya]

ETA: I am saying there is no reason for a legal restriction against a 9 year old purchasing e-cigarettes.

Really?

E-cigs are safer than smoking and are a life-saver for smokers. However, I don't think they should be sold to non-smoking 9-year-olds...

 

[Mazinny]

Alcohol would be one that comes to mind, as something that is harmful, and alters consciousness. Neither of which I find to be the case with vapor products.

ETA: I am saying there is no reason for a legal restriction against a 9 year old purchasing e-cigarettes. It is truly a different statement, though the outcome is the same.

Thanks for your feedback ! So is the key for you something that alters consciousness or does it have to be harmful, or both ? Does the harm need to be reasonably immediate or could it be long-term harm ? And how certain do we need to be as a society that it is harmful ? And who determines that ?

I'm not trying to be contentious, just want to find out what some of the people who hang in these subforum think about these issues, without having to wade through post after post political post about the evils of government

 

[Katya]

So I take it you never saved up deposit pop bottles to buy your own pack back in the day? I must have been an awful kid.

Right. I used to buy cigs for my parents when I was a kid... I know, I'm dating myself. That's how most of us got hooked on smoking back in the day--unrestricted access.

 

[Lessifer]

Thanks for your feedback ! So is the key for you something that alters consciousness or does it have to be harmful, or both ? Does the harm need to be reasonably immediate or could it be long-term harm ? And how certain do we need to be as a society that it is harmful ? And who determines that ?

I'm not trying to be contentious, just want to find out what some of the people who hang in these subforum think about these issues, without having to wade through post after post political post about the evils of government

Either altering consciousness or causing harm, and the altering consciousness is really only because it can lead to causing harm. As far as how harmful and whether or not it would need to be immediate or long term, I don't have a hard and fast rule. I think it would need to be more harmful than say reasonably clean tap water, or sugar, or fatty foods, or any other number of consumer goods that are not necessarily good for you but are also not restricted. Zero harm is an unattainable measure.

 

[Katya]

Either altering consciousness or causing harm, and the altering consciousness is really only because it can lead to causing harm. As far as how harmful and whether or not it would need to be immediate or long term, I don't have a hard and fast rule. I think it would need to be more harmful than say reasonably clean tap water, or sugar, or fatty foods, or any other number of consumer goods that are not necessarily good for you but are also not restricted. Zero harm is an unattainable measure.

I believe that 50mg/ml JUUL or 46mg/ml Enjoy disposable could be very dangerous to a young child. Not to mention mods with replaceable batteries, mechanicals, and bottles of high strength e-liquid.

 

[TheMike21]

"Unlike cigarette smokers, vapers aren’t sitting idly by as a product they use is under assault" - Loved this line.

Yeah, I would prefer to see vaping teens over smoking teens but I don't think a vaping 9yo would be good for the cause.

 

[Lessifer]

I believe that 50mg/ml JUUL or 46mg/ml Enjoy disposable could be very dangerous to a young child. Not to mention mods with replaceable batteries, mechanicals, and bottles of high strength e-liquid.

So can bleach, or dish soap, or any number of things without age restrictions. Also, the toxicity of nicotine has been reevaluated, it might make a 9 year old sick if they consumed the juice in a juul, just as it would an adult.

I simply don't think it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that a 9yo isn't vaping. If a parent doesn't want their young child vaping, they should be monitoring their activity. Much like if a parent doesn't want their 9yo wielding a chainsaw, they should monitor their activity and not allow them to purchase their own or use their parents'.

 

[TheMike21]

I simply don't think it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that a 9yo isn't vaping. If a parent doesn't want their young child vaping, they should be monitoring their activity.'.

I agree with this, but in recent years that right to be responsible for one's self was renounced, now it is the government, the manufacturer, the service provider, etc. who are responsible for our safety. This happened around the time they started blaming Mcdonalds for how hot the coffee was.

 

[Lessifer]

I agree with this, but in recent years that right to be responsible for one's self was renounced, now it is the government, the manufacturer, the service provider, etc. who are responsible for our safety. This happened around the time they started blaming Mcdonalds for how hot the coffee was.

Yeah, the responsibility for one's own health and safety, and that of one's family has definitely shifted. However, as in the case with McDonald's coffee, the "solution" was not to make the coffee any safer, or restrict access. The solution was to "regulate" a useless warning onto the lid and cup, making it more difficult for the consumer to sue in the event they actually are injured.

I believe a 9yo is still able to walk into McD, buy a scalding cup of coffee, and do whatever they wish with it.

 

[mgmrick]

Just a little fyi... I live in a pretty small school district less than 50 in senior class more of a country setting. A local student told me the other day that alot of the students have and use ecigs far more use than cigarettes... I was surprised that many even heard of ecigs

 

[skoony]

Good articles but:


Actually, some of us don't. Some of us recognize that if everything we claim to be true actually IS true, there is no reason to restrict sales. Some of us recognize that restricting sales to minors only reinforces the idea that vapor products are something that people need to be protected from.

I tend to lean toward this line of thinking myself with the caveat the purchases are done
with parental permission. Until recent times minors could drink in bars accompanied by
parents in Wisconsin. In Minnesota prior to the seventies there were general purchase
restrictions making it illegal to sell anything to a minor if the amount was over 20 or 40
dollars with out parental consent. I can't remember the ages involved,probably under 16
or under 13 years of age. The original reasoning was to prevent juvenile delinquency.
The reason I mention this is because the main reason people here were against changing
this law was the fear that it would allow the powers that be to turn the young skulls
full of mush into just another market segment to exploit and would interfere with parental
control. Of course the powers that be assured all that wouldn't be the result. The law was
old fashioned and antiquated and unnecessary.
Looking back its easy to see the cultural shift that's happened since then. The start of
the seventies was the beginning of the shift in child protection laws we know today.
Making the school and criminal records of juveniles non-public. Making corporal or
verbal punishment a crime further interfering with parental control. The shift in
public education from being a surrogate parent teaching a child to becoming a
giant cultural experiment and governmental propaganda machine.
Essentially the government has emancipated the underage population to a
certain extent. They remove some of the best tools parents had to control
their child's behavior and turn around and use the child's behavior as an excuse
for further restrictions and regulations. All the while blaming it on BT and errant
parenting.

Regards
mike

 

[englishmick]

I have a list of priority targets:

That's definitely a good start. Right now we have a handful who have spoken up against vaping, and a handful who have spoken in favor of vaping. I wish there could be a vote in Congress and the Senate so we would know where everybody stands on this. It looks like the Grandfather Date bill is the only chance of that happening, though there's a good chance that the party managers will stop it coming to the floor for a vote. And then all we will know is that the leadership of the majority party didn't want a public vote. Which wouldn't necessarily mean they were against vaping.

Even if it did come up for a vote there could be bunch of reasons why people vote the way they do.

Hey Mac, which way you planning to go on this vaping bill?
What's vaping?
Who cares. My donors really need a NO on this one buddy. If you can give me a NO here I can go your way on the Sprocket Realignment Bill.
Works for me mate.
Hey, sorry about comparing you to Attila the Hun the other day.
No Prob. My constituents are good with Attila.
Beer later?

 

[Jman8]

To me, a reasonable (intelligent) person would resist age restrictions. Since @Lessifer has made all the points I would make on this not much more I can add, but did wish to say that this is the reasonable position. The other position is the one based on emotion. The other one NEEDS vaping to be "very dangerous for kids" to hold any water in its argument. Without that, it starts to become a reasonable discussion. With that in the picture, then suddenly adult users are having to explain how it is "very dangerous" for kids, but far less so for adults. So a 17 and a half year old person would be in mortal danger while a 18 and a half year old person would be engaging in an activity that is 100 times less harmful than smoking. Makes you scratch your head, when being reasonable. But works wonders on those who never want to see a minor put into any danger at all. But even more of a head scratcher when you fully realize the pro age restriction crowd is putting minors in arguably more danger by intentionally creating a black market for that group.

 

[Kent C]

I wish there could be a vote in Congress and the Senate so we would know where everybody stands on this. It looks like the Grandfather Date bill is the only chance of that happening, though there's a good chance that the party managers will stop it coming to the floor for a vote.

I also think there should be a vote. As with other matters (perhaps even more important), the 'beltway thinking' is that if the President would veto it, then it's a waste of time to bring it up. But, that (and the votes in both chambers) would show where the true anti-ecig movement lies.

And as is usual, you would have minority leaders criticizing the majority for even bringing it up and wasting time that could be used for 'more important' business. And in many cases, majority leaders caving with the same thinking. I blame the majority for not pushing the case that would provide us with information for voting on that issue. We'd have all votes, not just the co-sponsors who supports the new GF date or the Senate 'letter writers' who want to push the final rule through now! as it's written. And to be fair, this happens on many issue regardless of who is in the majority or who is President.

 

[Racehorse]

Alcohol would be one that comes to mind, as something that is harmful.

So are you saying ecigs are harm-less?

I thought vaping was harm reduction (for smokers or people who might take up smoking)-----are you now saying it is harm free???? (because it doesn't alter consciousness like alcohol).


For those of you who say kids are their parents responsibility, then to me, the parents can certainly purchase ecigs for their child if they feel their child is at risk for smoking. Otherwise, you can't have it both ways i.e, "it is ultimately the parents decision" then it either is or it isn't.

Virgin lungs + ecig = harmfree? Not in my book, sorry. Better than smoking, yes i.e. harm reduction.

 

[Lessifer]

So are you saying ecigs are harm-less?

I thought vaping was harm reduction (for smokers or people who might take up smoking)-----are you now saying it is harm free???? (because it doesn't alter consciousness like alcohol).


For those of you who say kids are their parents responsibility, then to me, the parents can certainly purchase ecigs for their child if they feel their child is at risk for smoking. Otherwise, you can't have it both ways i.e, "it is ultimately the parents decision" then it either is or it isn't.

Virgin lungs + ecig = harmfree? Not in my book, sorry. Better than smoking, yes i.e. harm reduction.

Nope, not what I said. You obviously read at least some of my later posts, and I know your reading comprehension is better than that.

Nothing in this world is harmless. On a spectrum of harm, I truly believe that ecigs, used as intended, are at about the same level as tap water, soda, french fries, living in a moderately urban area and breathing the air, etc.

In order to protect those virgin lungs from the "harms" of ecigs, best you only vape outside, at least 20 feet away from anyone else, especially if you live in an apartment building that might share walls with other tenants, or own a condo that might be within 20 feet of someone else's doorway.

 

[Jman8]

So are you saying ecigs are harm-less?

I thought vaping was harm reduction (for smokers or people who might take up smoking)-----are you now saying it is harm free???? (because it doesn't alter consciousness like alcohol).


For those of you who say kids are their parents responsibility, then to me, the parents can certainly purchase ecigs for their child if they feel their child is at risk for smoking. Otherwise, you can't have it both ways i.e, "it is ultimately the parents decision" then it either is or it isn't.

Virgin lungs + ecig = harmfree? Not in my book, sorry. Better than smoking, yes i.e. harm reduction.

How did you get harmless from what @Lessifer wrote?

What would be a product that is harmless? If none are, then kids ought to not be able to purchase anything, no? And anything they could purchase, their parent could, so even more reason (by this logic) to make it so kids can purchase nothing.

 

[r77r7r]

Not the thread for it, but there seems to be alot going on. Where did CASAA and Godshall ever get to?