I just used my lunch money. In 1975 (when I was 14), with $1 I could get a pk of Kools and a Pepsi and get a nickel back in change. THOSE are the kids who need to have legal access to e-cigs.
Andria
Our friends at ATR launched a massive counteroffensive
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I just used my lunch money. In 1975 (when I was 14), with $1 I could get a pk of Kools and a Pepsi and get a nickel back in change. THOSE are the kids who need to have legal access to e-cigs.
Andria
Lessifer, here's the practical application: the ecig industry has enough problems....by-passing the age requirement will just expose it to lawsuits down the road.
Every legal department knows this already, and so do all the reasonably intelligent attorneys, business people, industry trade orgs and ecig advocacy groups, which is why they are okay with caving to the age requirement.
Obviously, so is the ECF forums, otherwise it would be okay to have 12 years olds on here talking about what gear they should buy.
Am I for or against that? Lets just say I think it is a *judicious* decision.
BTW, you didn't address the parenting thing.
I keep hearing people here say "children are their parent's responsibility."
Then lets apply that belief evenly, not selectively and only where it suits one's argument.
If children are the responsibility of their parents, then their parents are responsible for providing for their health and well-being. They can certainly provide vape gear for their own children if they deem that necessary or advantageous.
I've met plenty of parents who think alcohol for minors is fine, in small quantities, or that "near beer" is fine since it is so weak, and they buy it for their kids to use under their supervision at parties, family gatherings, etc.
And that is true of many age-restrictive products (video games, fireworks, knives, crossbows, DVDs, etc.) and using this forum. There is nothing to stop a parent from joining ECF and letting their 12 year old use their account once in a while to ask vaping questions if their parent support them vaping, right?
I happen to believe that about some alcoholic and caffeinated drinks. I think used as intended, they are not at all dangerous.
I have no problem flipping that and saying children are not the responsibility of their parents, and should be able to participate in the market freely ..... just for debate purposes. But again, I would want to see belief systems applied evenly.
Last edited:
And I believe that is why it is so difficult to get anyone, even vapers, to truly believe that vaping really is as low risk, and not addictive to never smokers, as we keep saying it is. Everyone has in the back of their mind, from years of propaganda, that tobacco is bad and we need to protect the children from it. Of course everyone knows vaping is just another form of tobacco...
I actually already addressed this. I don't know of any, though there might be, cigarette laws at the state level that make it illegal for minors to possess cigarettes, only to purchase them. However, many of the new vape laws have made the POSSESSION of vapor products illegal.
Aside from that, there are many instances where I would rather have a 15 year old able to purchase their own alternative, instead of relying on their parent to do it for them. Similar reasons to why you don't have to be 18 to buy condoms.
Even ignoring those reasons, are they harmful if used properly? Do they lead to addiction? Why exactly should they be restricted?
"Both the state ban and propensity to smoke results are consistent with a harm reducing
effect of e-cigarettes on adolescent smoking. Moreover, the second set of analyses find that the
reduced smoking effect acts through those teenagers who are most likely to smoke ex ante, with
no statistically significant impact on lower propensity to smoke teens. As age is a key predictor
of smoking behavior and propensity, with a notable increase in habitual smoking at age 16
(Lillard, Molloy, and Sfekas, 2013), these findings suggest that banning e-cigarette sales to those
under age 16 may be preferable to an under-18 ban, in terms of the effect on teen smoking."
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/af...tes_affect_adolescent_smoking_circulate_0.pdf
via Access to e-cigs associated with Decrease in cigarette smoking in adolescence
I expect to see more studies along these lines - it's, as I said in my post at the thread - something we all know because we were 12-16 years old :- )
But here's the thing... while this study even suggests a ban 'pre-16' even though those 'averages' could run several years earlier or later (there are some 10-12 yr old farm boys who could more safely drive a car, than some 30 year olds), there will be those who want regulation who will cite a "8 or 9 year old" rather than the 15 or 16 year old, to make their point. Why not a 4 or 5 year old? Because there are actually 8 or 9 year olds that smoke, so it gives some credence to the idea, but still an exaggeration of where the normal experimentation in this type of stuff occurs as the study points out.
Yep, I started smoking at age 11, after age restrictions were in place and smoking wasn't allowed anywhere indoors. It was incredibly easy to know which stores would sell to me. The only obstacle I ever had was coming up with the money, which wasn't that big of an obstacle because I already had part time jobs.
And I had lunch money every day -- starting off my very long career of choosing smoking over food -- maybe that's why I've never had a big weight problem?
If I could only afford one or the other.. smoking won, every last time.Andria
I don't think that at all. I was never a smoker basher and still am not. But in theory, I don't even disagree with you.
I think there is a big difference between arguing a "personal opinon" and putting together a formal argument, in front of a legislature, or courtroom, that is carefully planned and thought out. No good litigator goes in arguing their personal opinion....they go in arguing points they think they can WIN.
So, when I answer in some of these posts, I am keeping the latter in mind. (I learned this by seeing many medical specialists and if you bring in too many things, they're going to say, like one did to me "I don't work off laundry lists. We can realistically work on 2-3 things this visit." And he was totally right! ) Since he taught me that, I have very fruitful appointments where a lot gets accomplished.
So----I find it of utmost imporance to choose one's battles, and don't nit-pick that which will have the least impact on the result you want.
Personally, in real life, I am pretty liberal about what other people do, as I grew up in the tumultuous 60's and 70's, and have never been a stick-in-the-mud about what people should be allowed to do. I've been in many rivers where a bunch of flower children showed up to skinny dip. (where I live now, you would be arrested and quickly). I am a live and let live type person, and think people should get out of other people's lives about a lot of things..... condoms, morning after pills, birth control pills, alcohol, religion, who can marry, what they should be able to do with their own body, and many other blankety blanks that I can't talk about here.
Unfortunately, I'm living in a conservative state in the South where I can't order a glass of wine with dinner, and can't order eliquid on-line. My young friend who produced a belly dancing (artful kind) theatrical event has been pressured not to do that again, and a friend of a friend who started a Buddhist discussion group had crosses burned on his front lawn. Yet everyone here is supposedly a freedom fighter/tea party/libertarian. (I guess it only applies to guns and having confederate flags on your truck). I can assure you that if I were in public, at a street fair, and "spiked" my cola with some Jack Daniels, I may be subject to being asked to remove the cap on my drink, for inspection, and possibly cited and/or arrested (and yes, it's happened to some tourists who came here a few years ago.)
Was it better in liberal New England when I lived there? No. Just different. It was higher density population, and I had people call me in for defying the leash laws on the beach, when it was deserted, not fit for man or beast, in February and 0 degrees, when not a human soul was out there.....when I let my dogs off leash to run. And promptly got called in by somebody a block away who saw me out their window
Or maybe with binoculars, who knows. Now we have Facebook, so that everybody can mind everybody else's business even more!!!
I'm saying that its a "can of worms" and how these things go is directly based on the cultural, religious, social and legal belief system that is customary in the region in which you are living, as well as the tax and $$ benefits that the people in charge of things can realize and suck out of you.
Therefore you have to pick the battles that you think you can win. And if you are any kind of negotiator, in real life, not words on a forum, you carefully decide what is most important and let the other stuff fall by the wayside. Bring plenty of smaller chips that you are willing to give up, because otherwise, you have zero bargaining power.
And, if you think you are going to "win it all" that very philosophy will set you up to become a loser. And you will walk away with nothing. (a few of the posts i read on ECF leave me wondering if some of the people who write them have even even been in a work place where they had to negotiate even a simple privilege?? with other people in real life. ).
So back to topic: Age restrictions are definitely a chip I am willing to toss across the table.
Not a big picture item IMHO
In theory I agree with you, as far as being willing to compromise. However, what I see in the vaping community specifically on this topic is that we aren't even compromising. Most of the time this is being offered up as a given. "Of course we support protecting children from vapor products."I don't think that at all. I was never a smoker basher and still am not. But in theory, I don't even disagree with you.
I think there is a big difference between arguing a "personal opinon" and putting together a formal argument, in front of a legislature, or courtroom, that is carefully planned and thought out. No good litigator goes in arguing their personal opinion....they go in arguing points they think they can WIN.
So, when I answer in some of these posts, I am keeping the latter in mind. (I learned this by seeing many medical specialists and if you bring in too many things, they're going to say, like one did to me "I don't work off laundry lists. We can realistically work on 2-3 things this visit." And he was totally right! ) Since he taught me that, I have very fruitful appointments where a lot gets accomplished.
So----I find it of utmost imporance to choose one's battles, and don't nit-pick that which will have the least impact on the result you want.
Personally, in real life, I am pretty liberal about what other people do, as I grew up in the tumultuous 60's and 70's, and have never been a stick-in-the-mud about what people should be allowed to do. I've been in many rivers where a bunch of flower children showed up to skinny dip. (where I live now, you would be arrested and quickly). I am a live and let live type person, and think people should get out of other people's lives about a lot of things..... condoms, morning after pills, birth control pills, alcohol, religion, who can marry, what they should be able to do with their own body, and many other blankety blanks that I can't talk about here.
Unfortunately, I'm living in a conservative state in the South where I can't order a glass of wine with dinner, and can't order eliquid on-line. My young friend who produced a belly dancing (artful kind) theatrical event has been pressured not to do that again, and a friend of a friend who started a Buddhist discussion group had crosses burned on his front lawn. Yet everyone here is supposedly a freedom fighter/tea party/libertarian. (I guess it only applies to guns and having confederate flags on your truck). I can assure you that if I were in public, at a street fair, and "spiked" my cola with some Jack Daniels, I may be subject to being asked to remove the cap on my drink, for inspection, and possibly cited and/or arrested (and yes, it's happened to some tourists who came here a few years ago.)
Was it better in liberal New England when I lived there? No. Just different. It was higher density population, and I had people call me in for defying the leash laws on the beach, when it was deserted, not fit for man or beast, in February and 0 degrees, when not a human soul was out there.....when I let my dogs off leash to run. And promptly got called in by somebody a block away who saw me out their window
Now we have Facebook, so that everybody can mind everybody else's business even more!!!
I'm saying that its a "can of worms" and how these things go is directly based on the cultural, religious, social and legal belief system that is customary in the region in which you are living, as well as the tax and $$ benefits that the people in charge of things can realize and suck out of you.
Therefore you have to pick the battles that you think you can win. And if you are any kind of negotiator, in real life, not words on a forum, you carefully decide what is most important and let the other stuff fall by the wayside. Bring plenty of smaller chips that you are willing to give up, because otherwise, you have zero bargaining power.
And, if you think you are going to "win it all" that very philosophy will set you up to become a loser. And you will walk away with nothing. (a few of the posts i read on ECF leave me wondering if some of the people who write them have even even been in a work place where they had to negotiate even a simple privilege?? with other people in real life. ).
So back to topic: Age restrictions are definitely a chip I am willing to toss across the table.
Think about that for a second. What are we protecting the children from? If the children deserve to be protected, don't the non-vaping adults deserve to be protected too? If we're protecting others from something, that means what we're doing must be even worse for the user right? If it's bad for the user, shouldn't we have policies in place to discourage the activity?
I know that my position is not the popular one. I simply believe that getting the message out that vaping is not smoking is far more effective than surrendering the fight before we enter the field.
If there were actual reasons to restrict the sale by age, that were not holdovers from tobacco age restrictions, I might feel differently.
You should post more often in this sub-forum. It seems it has been " surrendered " to the Tea Party faction on ECF, to borrow their own term lol.I don't think that at all. I was never a smoker basher and still am not. But in theory, I don't even disagree with you.
I think there is a big difference between arguing a "personal opinon" and putting together a formal argument, in front of a legislature, or courtroom, that is carefully planned and thought out. No good litigator goes in arguing their personal opinion....they go in arguing points they think they can WIN.
So, when I answer in some of these posts, I am keeping the latter in mind. (I learned this by seeing many medical specialists and if you bring in too many things, they're going to say, like one did to me "I don't work off laundry lists. We can realistically work on 2-3 things this visit." And he was totally right! ) Since he taught me that, I have very fruitful appointments where a lot gets accomplished.
So----I find it of utmost imporance to choose one's battles, and don't nit-pick that which will have the least impact on the result you want.
Personally, in real life, I am pretty liberal about what other people do, as I grew up in the tumultuous 60's and 70's, and have never been a stick-in-the-mud about what people should be allowed to do. I've been in many rivers where a bunch of flower children showed up to skinny dip. (where I live now, you would be arrested and quickly). I am a live and let live type person, and think people should get out of other people's lives about a lot of things..... condoms, morning after pills, birth control pills, alcohol, religion, who can marry, what they should be able to do with their own body, and many other blankety blanks that I can't talk about here.
Unfortunately, I'm living in a conservative state in the South where I can't order a glass of wine with dinner, and can't order eliquid on-line. My young friend who produced a belly dancing (artful kind) theatrical event has been pressured not to do that again, and a friend of a friend who started a Buddhist discussion group had crosses burned on his front lawn. Yet everyone here is supposedly a freedom fighter/tea party/libertarian. (I guess it only applies to guns and having confederate flags on your truck). I can assure you that if I were in public, at a street fair, and "spiked" my cola with some Jack Daniels, I may be subject to being asked to remove the cap on my drink, for inspection, and possibly cited and/or arrested (and yes, it's happened to some tourists who came here a few years ago.)
Was it better in liberal New England when I lived there? No. Just different. It was higher density population, and I had people call me in for defying the leash laws on the beach, when it was deserted, not fit for man or beast, in February and 0 degrees, when not a human soul was out there.....when I let my dogs off leash to run. And promptly got called in by somebody a block away who saw me out their window
Now we have Facebook, so that everybody can mind everybody else's business even more!!!
I'm saying that its a "can of worms" and how these things go is directly based on the cultural, religious, social and legal belief system that is customary in the region in which you are living, as well as the tax and $$ benefits that the people in charge of things can realize and suck out of you.
Therefore you have to pick the battles that you think you can win. And if you are any kind of negotiator, in real life, not words on a forum, you carefully decide what is most important and let the other stuff fall by the wayside. Bring plenty of smaller chips that you are willing to give up, because otherwise, you have zero bargaining power.
And, if you think you are going to "win it all" that very philosophy will set you up to become a loser. And you will walk away with nothing. (a few of the posts i read on ECF leave me wondering if some of the people who write them have even even been in a work place where they had to negotiate even a simple privilege?? with other people in real life. ).
So back to topic: Age restrictions are definitely a chip I am willing to toss across the table.
It would be nice to read different perspectives.
This is the fight we are in. If you subscribe to the idea of public health, which I actually do to an extent, this argument makes sense:
Our only defense against this is actually our strongest argument, IMO. There is nothing that "the children" need to be protected from, not to the extent that tobacco control regulations go. Consumer protections, truth in marketing, the same as other goods.
I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question. What are we protecting the children from?
Our only defense against this is actually our strongest argument, IMO. There is nothing that "the children" need to be protected from, not to the extent that tobacco control regulations go. Consumer protections, truth in marketing, the same as other goods.
I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question. What are we protecting the children from?
Hey I never care about that. The majority isn't ALWAYS right.
If I were an attorney advising a large ecig company, I'd say litigation. Of the personal injury consumer type. Good to avoid.
By putting age restrictions, think about it in terms of percentages.
You have just drastically reduced, statistically, the number of people who could potentially claim they were "harmed" by something. (Not to mention, our society has a particular aversion to anything that "harms children".)
Actuarials, accountants, attorneys, help make decisions for businesses, for industries, for advocacies, for political campaigns.
It usually involves how not to bleed $$$ and how to win carefully chosen, big ticket items you need to win in order to stay alive.
Maybe we should start a topic: What are the 3 most important, essential things we want to WIN for the vaping industry, vaping consumers, and the future of vaping? It would help everybody distill and crystallize their agenda.
Let's just say that if we were in a life raft, there are people here who would be unable to "jetison" the baggage that would need to be tossed overboard in order not to sink or die.
That is not easy. Sort of like some women who can't clean out their closets, or men who can't clean out the garage. But I don't WANT to be in a life raft with the latter types.
And, again, choose the 3 you think we can WIN. Because in this game, when the fairy godmother gives you 3 wishes, you don't waste 'em on stuff that is not ultimately VITAL.
Is not having age restrictions vital? Are non-child proof caps vital? (see it doesn't MATTER about my personal opinion about these things....I AM going to choose to toss some overboard because they are not big wins....not essential to survival..)
Last edited:
I
What are your top 3 vaping rights priorities? How many of them can't be knocked down by "protect the children"?
I'll tell you my top three, in no particular order. Online sales, unrestricted flavors, availability of the full range of nic levels. "Protect the children" can and has been used to knock all three of those down.
I don't consider "fear of litigation" to be a valid public health reason for an age restriction.Hey I never care about that. The majority isn't ALWAYS right.
If I were an attorney advising a large ecig company, I'd say litigation. Of the personal injury consumer type. Good to avoid.
By putting age restrictions, think about it in terms of percentages.
You have just drastically reduced, statistically, the number of people who could potentially claim they were "harmed" by something. (Not to mention, our society has a particular aversion to anything that "harms children".)
Actuarials, accountants, attorneys, help make decisions for businesses, for industries, for advocacies, for political campaigns.
It usually involves how not to bleed $$$ and how to win carefully chosen, big ticket items you need to win in order to stay alive.
Maybe we should start a topic: What are the 3 most important, essential things we want to WIN for the vaping industry, vaping consumers, and the future of vaping? It would help everybody distill and crystallize their agenda.
Let's just say that if we were in a life raft, there are people here who would be unable to "jetison" the baggage that would need to be tossed overboard in order not to sink or die.
That is not easy. Sort of like some women who can't clean out their closets, or men who can't clean out the garage. But I don't WANT to be in a life raft with the latter types.
And, again, choose the 3 you think we can WIN. Because in this game, when the fairy godmother gives you 3 wishes, you don't waste 'em on stuff that is not ultimately VITAL.
Is not having age restrictions vital? Are non-child proof caps vital? (see it doesn't MATTER about my personal opinion about these things....I AM going to choose to toss some overboard because they are not big wins....not essential to survival..)
What are your top 3 vaping rights priorities? How many of them can't be knocked down by "protect the children"?
I'll tell you my top three, in no particular order. Online sales, unrestricted flavors, availability of the full range of nic levels. "Protect the children" can and has been used to knock all three of those down.
Dadgum, I love it when intelligent people are actually debating, and not hurling insults, veiled or otherwise. Keep going!
Andria
I've been around here a while and while I may have missed a few posts here, I don't recall anyone referring themselves as 'the Tea Party'. I see a lot more declaring themselves as liberals or progressives (usually with a "but" where they agree with a story from Forbes, Fox or Reason magazine). I certainly have no affiliation with the Tea Party. I haven't done a search .....yet, but I'm guessing the phrase is most often cited by liberals and progressives where they denigrate them.
I'm also not saying that there aren't some people from that or aligned with that party, just that they don't seem a need to point it out like others do of their alignment.
And I welcome Racehorse's comments - I find them entertaining at the least - saying people shouldn't use 'personal stories' to argue then following with a biography of personal stories. Again interesting but not much to do with the subjects. On other issues we're in complete agreement as can be seen from time to time. I welcome all viewpoints, but some will be challenged, esp. if they're insulting or have no basis. I would not censor, as do certain liberal publications - on comments or content (deleting or simply disallowing stories that don't toe the line - sometimes stripping tenure from professors).
The fact is, is when gov't is attempting to take away rights, intervene or attempt to control behavior, you're going to get more liberty seeking views than those who want to compromise and 'be reasonable' to 'get a better deal' in regulation, cut our losses - ie what Republicans do in Congress
It isn't so much the people involved in the discussions, rather than the subject at hand. You'd get the same in any other product or service that is being intruded upon by those who know what's best for us. Some used to be liberals (the Old Left), though not so much anymore, sadly. I have much more respect for some - I'll name a few -BuGlen, zoidman, nicnik (sometimes), and others who have said they have been Democrats/liberals but who see the value in media pieces from Fox, Jacob Sullum, Greg Gutfeld, Forbes and others... than those who sit on the sidelines or in ways, work against us.Edit:And not Andria with her popcorn - she's definitely not on the sidelines
I've been around here a while and while I may have missed a few posts here, I don't recall anyone referring themselves as 'the Tea Party'. I see a lot more declaring themselves as liberals or progressives (usually with a "but" where they agree with a story from Forbes, Fox or Reason magazine). I certainly have no affiliation with the Tea Party. I haven't done a search .....yet, but I'm guessing the phrase is most often cited by liberals and progressives where they denigrate them.
I'm also not saying that there aren't some people from that or aligned with that party, just that they don't seem a need to point it out like others do of their alignment.
And I welcome Racehorse's comments - I find them entertaining at the least - saying people shouldn't use 'personal stories' to argue then following with a biography of personal stories. Again interesting but not much to do with the subjects. On other issues we're in complete agreement as can be seen from time to time. I welcome all viewpoints, but some will be challenged, esp. if they're insulting or have no basis. I would not censor, as do certain liberal publications - on comments or content (deleting or simply disallowing stories that don't toe the line - sometimes stripping tenure from professors).
The fact is, is when gov't is attempting to take away rights, intervene or attempt to control behavior, you're going to get more liberty seeking views than those who want to compromise and 'be reasonable' to 'get a better deal' in regulation, cut our losses - ie what Republicans do in Congress
Edit:And not Andria with her popcorn - she's definitely not on the sidelines
Well, I'm an agoraphobic housewife, but "I have internet, and a Twitter account," to paraphrase someone...
I also have strong opinions, personal knowledge of the efficacy of vaping in the fight against smoking, and a website of my own -- with which I can't do much, but try to make the echo of truth and knowledge a little louder. And also a scary amount of outrage at our benighted elected officials -- they ought to be scared, anyway.But I'm truly enjoying an actual debate, between intelligent people who know how to express themselves, and who both make good points. It's so rare these days.
Andria
But I'm truly enjoying an actual debate, between intelligent people who know how to express themselves, and who both make good points. It's so rare these days.
Isn't that nice?
I actually understand both points of view and I really wouldn't have a problem with either outcome. I don't think it matters, really.
I come from a place where there was absolutely no customer protection; no rules, no warning labels on anything, no lawsuits... We could buy anything we could find in stores, which wasn't much to begin with--regardless of age, sex, religion or race.
When my mom needed another bottle of wine or more cigarettes or cigars for her dinner guests, my brother or I were dispatched to get them. Nobody cared and it was perfectly legal for kids to buy anything they wanted. What we didn't have were basic freedoms that America grants her citizens: freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of information; oh, and the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We were supposed to pursue higher goals of the ruling people's party like social justice and such, and never question them--or else.
So yeah, I really don't much care if kids can buy cigs or e-cigs or even alcohol--so long as we can keep those other rights and freedoms.
Getting sick from nicotine overdose (JUUL comes with 50 mg/ml cartridges), malfunctioning batteries, melting chargers. We have enough adults getting in trouble as is.
And before you tell me that bleach is dangerous too, I don't know of any kids who would buy a gallon of bleach to make themselves look cool in the eyes of their peers. Or to emulate a favorite pop star or a movie actor.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
