Our friends at ATR launched a massive counteroffensive

[Kent C]

But really how effective are age restrictions ? Maybe just making them criminals?

They nail the vendors or the people that buy it for them, not the kids or their parents (although sometimes it involves Child Services - another blot on the Constitution.

 

[Racehorse]

I don't consider "fear of litigation" to be a valid public health reason for an age restriction.

I didn't say it was valid.

I offered an explanation as to why age restrictions might be a bargaining chip some would concede and that there might be strong statistical monetary/insurance consideratons for doing so (having nothing to do with public health).

What are your top 3 vaping rights priorities?

Don't have 3 yet. My #1 is pretty all-encompassing though:

1) Ecigs are not tobacco products and therefore should not be classified, hence regulated, as such

Tobacco and ecigs are entirely different and divergent products and not at all synonymous. Ecigs are non-combustible products that use no tobacco, and many vapors do not even use nicotine. Ecigs are not tobacco products nor are they smoking cessation devices.

They are an innovative, new disruptive technology that deserve their own special niche, as vaporizing doesn't fairly fit into either of the above categories and is actually an alternative to the above categories.

Let the government, the FDA, WHO, the courts, etc. go back to the drawing board on this one, because in their rush to regulate, they have utterly mis-classified ecigs.

 

[Racehorse]

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.

But I didn't say that (bolded), Kent.

I said:

there is a big difference between arguing a "personal opinion" 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.

I said that if one is formally arguing / negotiating an issue, opt for presenting the most effective, big picture issues, (not what may be at the top of your own little assortment of personal opinion). You speak to what your listeners view as the "key issues", not necessarily every single one of "your" issues.

Because, if you are unable to get a bead on what your room views as the key issues, if you are inflexible and too wrapped up in every tiny facet of your personal world view, then you cannot properly adapt your argument to The Room, to a judge, to an FDA panel, etc.

(I suppose for those more interested in an ego boost, it would be great to go into The Big Room and bluster/spout off. But you will be seen as a loose cannon, whom nobody listens to. I was saying know what to take to the table and what to leave home.

I shared my personal story precisely to demonstrate that my own personal values are far more libertarian and liberal than would be acceptable to the larger audience called "the world I'm living in". So, to go into a room and hammer them would represent an automatic loss.

But you would be suprised at how many people do just that.

 

[YoursTruli]

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?

POSSESSION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS BY MINORS

Thirty-one states prohibit minors from possessing tobacco in all circumstances. Five states, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon, and Rhode Island, ban possessing tobacco in limited circumstances, such as in public or on school property.

In 2013 Arkansas expanded illegal for minors to possess tobacco products law to include e-cigarettes.

It is unlawful for a minor to use or possess or to purchase, or attempt to purchase an e-cigarette as defined or an e-cigarette product. It is also unlawful to use falsified identification or someone else's identification for the purpose of obtaining or attempting to obtain e-cigarettes or e-cigarette products. An e-cigarette or e-cigarette product found in the possession of a minor may be confiscated and destroyed by a law enforcement officer. It is not an offense if the minor was acting as an agent of a business within the scope of employment.

ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-27-233 (c&d) (2013)

 

[Katya]

Like those who bleach their hair?

Never bleached my hair, but I believe that the "bleach" used for hair lightening is actually hydrogen peroxide. Quite harmless, really.

 

[Kent C]

Your quoting me: people shouldn't use 'personal stories'

But I didn't say that (bolded), Kent

Not in that post but a post of yours a few days ago with the same basic message:

Because this idea of sending in little personal stories to entities (who don't care about you) hasn't accomplished anything.

=======

So, to go into a room and hammer them would represent an automatic loss.

This is a refrain that one hears a lot. Mainly from liberals but also from the Washington establishment Republicans and their campaign consultants. I don't buy it and neither do voters. Reagan never bought it either and won by landslides both times. The '94 taking over of the House and Senate was done by bringing the hammer down - although they didn't follow through on everything- although they brought each point of the 'contract' up for vote - but they got elected to majorities in both Houses for the first time since the New Deal.

The consultant class 'recommends' not shutting the gov't down on Gov't Spending Bills - "continuing resolutions" saying that Republicans would get blamed for it and not good for campaigns. .... and promoted that way by the lapdog media. And they blame the Republicans for 'kicking the can down the road' as well when they sign a continuing resolution - having your cake and eating it too.

But.... it's not true. Oh, Republicans do get blamed (by the media), but they didn't suffer in elections as a result. The picked up 700 seats in 2010 and picked up majorities in Congress and State Legislatures and Governorships in the 95 shutdown and in 500 more after the 2013 shutdown. There's a loss of the Senate, (got it back) but it was close - and there were some Dem reaching across the aisle on occasion.

Now in the boardroom, things might be different - I know of no surveys that would validate that one way or another but with gov't sometimes holding to principle is what wins. And abandoning principle loses - I give you Bob Dole, GHW Bush (read my lips), John McCain and Mitt Romney. And a whole host of Senators and Representatives that were taken out by the Club for Growth and other Pacs for that very reason.

And again, as I said earlier regarding ecigs - we are in no position to deal. We are going to be dealt what looks like a losing hand at this point. So whether we are the flag bearers or the seasoned negotiators makes no difference. There may come a point to where one of the other is needed and I'll go on what I just said above - holding by principles has been shown to be a winner. Not always - there's always Goldwater, but there are more Nelson Rockefellers who lost as well, standing for nothing.




Government shutdown in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kent C]

Never bleached my hair, but I believe that the "bleach" used for hair lightening is actually hydrogen peroxide. Quite harmless, really.

Of course I meant the stars they want to emulate - a more common term than what is actually used which is not quite as deadly but there have been some.

 

[Katya]

Reagan never bought it either and won by landslides both times.

Really? If I remember correctly, Reagan made all kinds of deals, including the deals with Henry Waxman and Ted Kennedy on Medicare. He also raised taxes multiple times because he believed it was for the good of the country. He also made many deals with unions when he was governor of California.

Notable & Quotable: Reagan on Compromise

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it. “Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.

I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: “I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.”

If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

 

[Kent C]

Really? If I remember correctly, Reagan made all kinds of deals, including the deals with Henry Waxman and Ted Kennedy on Medicare. He also raised taxes multiple times because he believed it was for the good of the country. He also made many deals with unions when he was governor of California.

Notable & Quotable: Reagan on Compromise

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it. “Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.

I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: “I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.”

If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, [as I've said re: ecigs - say in court or later changes in legislation] and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

Sigh... he was Democrat first and there were not that many 'radical conservatives' then - a few though.... Dixiecrats perhaps. Strom Thurman, Fielding Wright (also both former Dems) lol.

A blurb from the book at Amazon:

"He tells us, with warmth and pride, of his early years and of the elements that made him, in later life, a leader of such stubborn integrity, courage, and clear-minded optimism."

And that's how most people remembered him and why the liberals hated him almost as much as Nixon.

What I mean is what he campaigned on lowering interest rates, and putting up a 2 tiered (near flat) tax which is what worked. Yes, he wasn't perfect and did compromise on some things but not on the economy which was major at the time, and it is not what he was known for. His economic policy resulted in the longest recovery ever, and he stood up to Gorbachev at the Reykjavík Summit which imo, led to the demise of the USSR - only that happened under GHW Bush of course, but the start was with Reagan - in much the say way that the mortage crisis started with Clinton and ended up in W's lap. (and Obama's).

There's more but I'll leave it at that.

 

[Katya]

Yes, he wasn't perfect and did compromise on some things

You say it like it's a bad thing.

Reagan was a great president because he knew how and when to compromise and when not to compromise. And when he said, "Mr. Gorbatchev, take down this wall," he meant it--and Mr. Gorbachev knew that he meant it. And he took down the wall.

As opposed to our current president, who won't compromise on anything. My way or highway, executive orders, meaningless red lines...

 

[Lessifer]

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.

i have no doubt that vapor products in general need better standards. Not necessarily regulations, but standards. Those standards would serve to protect all consumers, regardless of age.

I didn't say it was valid.

I offered an explanation as to why age restrictions might be a bargaining chip some would concede and that there might be strong statistical monetary/insurance consideratons for doing so (having nothing to do with public health).



Don't have 3 yet. My #1 is pretty all-encompassing though:

1) Ecigs are not tobacco products and therefore should not be classified, hence regulated, as such

Tobacco and ecigs are entirely different and divergent products and not at all synonymous. Ecigs are non-combustible products that use no tobacco, and many vapors do not even use nicotine. Ecigs are not tobacco products nor are they smoking cessation devices.

They are an innovative, new disruptive technology that deserve their own special niche, as vaporizing doesn't fairly fit into either of the above categories and is actually an alternative to the above categories.

Let the government, the FDA, WHO, the courts, etc. go back to the drawing board on this one, because in their rush to regulate, they have utterly mis-classified ecigs.

I agree that they're not tobacco products, it's why I wrote the petition urging people(congress) to recognize that fact. Taking them out of the realm of tobacco control would/should remove the default age restriction that is part of tobacco control. If there were sufficient reasons for vapor products themselves to be age restricted, not political but actual reasons concerning the products, I may not object as much.

POSSESSION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS BY MINORS

Thirty-one states prohibit minors from possessing tobacco in all circumstances. Five states, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon, and Rhode Island, ban possessing tobacco in limited circumstances, such as in public or on school property.

In 2013 Arkansas expanded illegal for minors to possess tobacco products law to include e-cigarettes.

It is unlawful for a minor to use or possess or to purchase, or attempt to purchase an e-cigarette as defined or an e-cigarette product. It is also unlawful to use falsified identification or someone else's identification for the purpose of obtaining or attempting to obtain e-cigarettes or e-cigarette products. An e-cigarette or e-cigarette product found in the possession of a minor may be confiscated and destroyed by a law enforcement officer. It is not an offense if the minor was acting as an agent of a business within the scope of employment.

ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-27-233 (c&d) (2013)

I stand corrected about possession of tobacco, though I'm curious as to how often it is enforced in regards to cigarettes. The possession, not the sale. That also throws out the "their parents can buy it for them" argument though, as that would also be illegal.

 

[Kent C]

You say it like it's a bad thing.

"Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim."

Regarding the deeming have people been discouraged or felt paralyzed? Some go past that....thankfully. And has it been said that a victory by FDA will only encourage them further - some of them have said 'this is just the beginning'.

"When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil."

Rand quotes and they're not even the best ones - which I've quoted before :- )

 

[skoony]

What are we protecting the children from?

No one is going to protect the chillin' from me. I stealth vape and, I do it very well.

And before you tell me that bleach is dangerous too,

just as an aside, I bought a bottle of bleach the other day. When I got it home to my astonishment I noticed
it had a child safety cap.
Regards
mike

 

[pennysmalls]

I'm with Lessifer there's nothing to protect the children from. There's no proof that nicotine damages brain development in young people yet that's constantly thrown out there. If that were true the planet would be littered with adults suffering from the consequences of that damage, it would be a thoroughly documented condition. The vasoconstrictor argument doesn't work either. Salt, licorice, decongestants, sugar and of course caffeine are vasoconstrictors and I don't know of any 9-13 year old who's never ingested any of those. It leads to smoking, nope. That horse has been bludgeoned to death and is no longer a viable argument. Nicotine is highly addictive, another horse that's getting put down. The stigma attached to smoking and anything that looks like smoking is all they have left and that's the only thing left that can damage our children. Turn them into little antz/haters and keep the stigma alive.

 

[AndriaD]

I'm with Lessifer there's nothing to protect the children from. There's no proof that nicotine damages brain development in young people yet that's constantly thrown out there. If that were true the planet would be littered with adults suffering from the consequences of that damage, it would be a thoroughly documented condition. The vasoconstrictor argument doesn't work either. Salt, licorice, decongestants, sugar and of course caffeine are vasoconstrictors and I don't know of any 9-13 year old who's never ingested any of those. It leads to smoking, nope. That horse has been bludgeoned to death and is no longer a viable argument. Nicotine is highly addictive, another horse that's getting put down. The stigma attached to smoking and anything that looks like smoking is all they have left and that's the only thing left that can damage our children. Turn them into little antz/haters and keep the stigma alive.

Notice how many folks still pop up here at ECF who are CONVINCED that nicotine causes cancer??? I know it's not true, you know it's not true, but combatting 50 yrs of disinformation is a real PITA!

Just about everybody who first shows up in the newbie forum at least *mentions* "lowering nicotine level," as if that's something imperative that must be done or else one isn't a "real" quitter. And most of them also throw in the "obligatory" "of course kids shouldn't have access..." as if that's perfectly obvious to any fool. I guess it must be obvious to FOOLS who have bought into the ANTZ party line for 50 yrs, but it's really getting OLD.

I know that emperor is buck nekkid, but so many people admire his gorgeous garments... I don't know how we're going to erase all that disinformation when so many people are so absolutely convinced of it.

Andria

 

[pennysmalls]

Yep Andria, I have noticed the comments about reducing nicotine to as low as possible as fast as possible and my thought is always.."Ugh, why??? Why do that to yourself?" And then I sit here hoping they don't end up failing as they try to make the switch.

Oh, yeah I forgot about the cancer connection.

I also forgot about the "we just don't know the long term affects" argument...that's right we don't know that inhaling vapor is going to harm anyone, ever. Let's stop pretending that the opposite side of the argument isn't just as valid and reasonable. Let's let 2 million smokers switch to vaping, let's document their progress and health stats over the next ten years. Then we'll know. Not let's keep 2 million smokers from switching for the next ten years and see how many of them die, because if we are to believe what they have been hammering into our brains for the last several years those smokers will die.

 

[Jman8]

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.

I do think this is a valid point. If magically the entire vape community (including all distributors) were against age restrictions and nothing else changed in either society or the eCig industry because of that position (which I think would be even more magical), then there would be lawsuits down the road. You don't explain what these lawsuits are or would be based on (in this post), but I see it plausibly based on notion that if any child were harmed through use of eCigs, they would be sued. It would then likely be followed by legislation to not allow that age to purchase.

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.

Here we disagree, but I don't think you are far off.

The item you do seem to be missing though, actually 2 items, are:
1 - we are very likely to face lawsuits down the road even with concession to the age restrictions. Heck, there are a couple that I'm aware of from reading of this section of the forum. Both IMO frivolous type suits, but both having some impact on mainstream culture that vaping is inherently dangerous (to adults).

2 - kids are going to vape anyways. Will come back to this later, but is the antithesis to your "practical application."

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 did, but since you are seemingly ignoring my posts, my points are therefore easier to make, while simultaneously make it look like you are the one not really thinking through the issues.

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.

Not if it is deemed criminal for a child to possess. For sure they could provide and allow for use only in the home, but when kid is out with friends, then things can get wonky pretty quickly if some kids have them and some don't. I'm thinking LEO would be very interested in knowing who is providing these kids with vape gear.

So, if your position here was to hold water, it would mean kids cannot have criminal action for possession. And as this is where CASAA falls on the issue that sales are not okay while possession is, then it comes closer to addressing practical application. I still see it as highly impractical and not really judicious, but also realize that eCigs are among countless other items that kids are not able to buy, so it would take magic to change thinking on this. When I first joined CASAA this was huge deal for me, and I was very clear that I would not go along with their take on this, which was deemed as "okay" by those people from CASAA that knew I was interested in joining but who understood things. I have told CASAA that at very least, politically, they ought to be not advocating for bans / restrictions on sales, and just be indifferent on this point. For really, this is up to industry advocacy to make the determination, politically. When I first joined, I strongly believe I was seeing support for age restrictions, now it is very rare, but also is at point where there is a small vocal minority (myself, Lessifer, probably a couple hundred others) who take this issue head on. If it were instead tens of thousands of vapers (out of the millions), I would then want to see CASAA be indifferent, and not state a position either way. If they were compelled to state a position, I would hope they fall on the practical side, the one that knows kids are going to vape anyway.

 

[Jman8]

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.

I would definitely favor this, especially as we are faced with politics and are currently only fighting for survival of the industry. Pretty soon, how the industry looks will be known to us, and so it will be back to agenda type items.

As I see it, age restrictions drive either all other regulations or most of them. Therefore, conceding on this point is literally political suicide. It is highly impractical to concede on this point and think other points will not be framed by opposition forever work against us, once that concession is made.

For example: "you already conceded that children should not be using this product under any circumstance, so why would you have flavors that are allowed and would appeal to children. I would concede that adults may like those flavors as well, but if they do appeal to kids, then you are giving us mixed information. Therefore, we who wish to work together on reasonable regulations need to not have product that would appeal to children."

So, I would have 2 variations on "3 most important things we want to win for the vaping industry" and the 2 variations have to do with notion that FDA deeming could right now be changed. Right now, I'd go with:

1. Having determination that eCigs cannot be deemed a tobacco product, or more importantly is not the type of product that was intended to be part of FSPTCA.
2. Flavors of all varieties be allowed indefinitely.
3. Online sales be allowed indefinitely.

Apart from FDA deeming, I'd go with:

1. No age restrictions for who may purchase eCigs / vaping products.
2. Flavors of all varieties be allowed indefinitely.
3. Government (state, local or federal) cannot partake in discussions of where product can be used unless it is governmental property; and is therefore entirely up to businesses / private owners.

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..)

Not having age restrictions is vital. This is not a discussion I will remain silent on because of how vital it is. As long as it is a concession that is seemingly easily made on our side, then I will be the person in the room saying, "why did you think online sales would be allowed if you favor age restrictions?" Or "why did you think flavors of all varieties would be allowed if you favor age restrictions?" Or pick an issue any issue, and I'll throw your age restrictions concession right back at you and ask you why you thought that other policy would be allowed when the goal is to make sure kids never have access? And hopefully helps explain why I was one of around 5 people that when FDA proposal came out in April 2013, I saw it as tame. Actually still do, since the age restriction thing has never swung the other way. If 90% of vapers are willing to hand over the #1 item to opposition, then really everything else becomes tame at that point. To not see this and then to hold CTA's and discussions about public policy as if we have a chance is the ongoing debate we are having. And me, I ain't gonna be shy about where we went wrong with trying to overcome our strong adversaries and what they are bringing to the table.

 

[AndriaD]

Yep Andria, I have noticed the comments about reducing nicotine to as low as possible as fast as possible and my thought is always.."Ugh, why??? Why do that to yourself?" And then I sit here hoping they don't end up failing as they try to make the switch.

I hope that, everytime someone says they stopped smoking by vaping, and now they're going to quit vaping. I'd like to get to a point where I'm a *casual* vaper, not a needful one, but vaping just for the enjoyment of it is a long way from "I must quit everything enjoyable because somebody says so." I hate puritans deeply, completely, and viciously, for the disservice they've done to the psychology of this entire country. And of course the ANTZ are just a particularly wicked branch of puritans.

I also forgot about the "we just don't know the long term affects" argument...that's right we don't know that inhaling vapor is going to harm anyone, ever. Let's stop pretending that the opposite side of the argument isn't just as valid and reasonable. Let's let 2 million smokers switch to vaping, let's document their progress and health stats over the next ten years. Then we'll know. Not let's keep 2 million smokers from switching for the next ten years and see how many of them die, because if we are to believe what they have been hammering into our brains for the last several years those smokers will die.

Actually that's how I often answer the "we just don't know..." type of objector -- "but we DO KNOW that smoking is extremely dangerous and will kill a large percentage of those who do it." And then point out that for me and a large number of people, there IS NO "just quit everything" -- it's one or the other, and I vote for the OBVIOUSLY less dangerous.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

I didn't say it was valid.

I offered an explanation as to why age restrictions might be a bargaining chip some would concede and that there might be strong statistical monetary/insurance consideratons for doing so (having nothing to do with public health).

Your explanation, as I understand it, is that because children are a segment of the population that could conceivably be harmed by vaping products, then if we just cut them out of the political picture, the opportunities for (frivolous) litigation go down. Perhaps dramatically down.

And this is a somewhat valid point. But it is not a point that is stated this way, and would make a huge difference if it were. It would change a whole bunch of other points and how they are then conceived of going forward. It would also make the current framing of the kids issue a lot more honest in that we would be able to honestly assess degree(s) of harm that we are constantly prattling on about.

But I would wonder if product could be made that is specifically designed for younger users? Such as: no nicotine, no fancy battery types (that could easily explode), etc.

Cause to me, that looks like trying to compromise on this issue, and be reasonable with the FACT that kids are going to use anyway. Said I'd come back to this point and this is the post I'll do that. This notion that policies in place that limit access to minors means we've done our work on kids not using shows up as you are a highly immature adult if that is the extent of your rationality. You are displaying a strong sense of disconnect from reality, and if all you got is more regulations to limit access, you really ought to not be allowed at the table where reasonable adults are discussing this issue. If you finally get around to understanding the reality that kids will use no matter what, then we will welcome you back to the table, but may put you on mute when all you are proposing is more restrictions.

The notion of "appeal to kids" would have to be squarely addressed first. It seems popular (like extremely popular) to assume that kids are most drawn to products that are youthful / fun in how they are displayed, and the more youthful, the more appealing they will be to youngsters. Me, I'd say that works for kids 10 and under. And at that level, it is highly likely that parents still have influence on their kids choices, so making product that is concession above I mentioned would be IMO, most reasonable.

But teens are very clearly showing up as having appeal to products that are marketed as 'strictly for adults.' The more adult-like a product is made, the more that many teens (arguably a majority) are going to be drawn to it. So the non cutesy vape gear with the non cartoon labeled eLiquid and the non fun flavor inside is the product that may be MOST appealing to teens. Then add to all that this idea of telling the teen "you cannot use this" and you managed to make the MOST appealing product to teens even MORE appealing. Way to go "caring adult." You so wise. Not!!!!!!

And this point addresses the idea that regardless of regulation that is put on the table to limit minor access, the fact is the regulation itself serves as a draw for teens to try it out. Then add in the lies / fear mongering that are geared specifically for minors (nicotine will do thus and so, along lines of hurt you really bad), and the gateway, the actual gateway, then becomes - if they are lying to us/me about this product, that I find to be very tame, what else are they lying to me/us about. Here let's go try those other items that are forbidden to us, and that they have said would make me want to leap off a building and fly to my death.

So, for ANY adult to not realize that the regulation to limit access (really freedom) is not plausibly adding appeal, arguably making product even more appealing, is to me an adult that is politically immature. And if that is all the adult has in terms of rationally discussing the issue, they ought not be allowed in the discussion and/or treated as if they are in fact being highly counter productive.

Pretty much said all I feel needs to be said, but do wish to add the paramount point that unlike really all other sub-segments of the population, kids are the one segment where we ALL come from. There is literally zero exceptions to this understanding. To therefore frame the ongoing debate as "us" (adults) and "them" (kids) is exercising a disconnect that I find very tough to relate to at times. In reality, they are us and we are them.