Our friends at ATR launched a massive counteroffensive

[VNeil]

It's harder to tax Bonami or Clorox Bleach. We are low hanging fruit.

That was a quick 180, from "How can any marginally sane human being not concede this example is not a public health issue?" to low hanging fruit. At least I trust you now agree it is ridiculous to worry about labels and flavoring since other household dangers are 1000x more common.

 

[MaxwellPink]

It's not the 12 year old. It's the 4 year old that sees the bottle of 36mg nic in a Hello Kitty strawberry hearts bottle, opens it up and swills it down. How can any marginally sane human being not concede this example is not a public health issue?

Wait! They have Hello Kitty e liquid?

Replace "36mg nic in a Hello Kitty strawberry hearts bottle" with "90 proof watermelon flavored vodka in a pink bottle". I don't recall booze coming with safety caps* but every bottle of e liquid I've purchased has had one. If the kids are getting into it it's because the parental units aren't doing their jobs.

*safety caps on liquor would be a wonderful thing. Too drunk to get it open? You've had enough.

 

[skoony]

Give some to a 4 year old in your family, Mike. Let us all know the results.

First of all the children most likely to accidentally poison themselves are toddlers
age 3 and younger. They haven't fully developed their senses enough to discriminate
using their senses of smell and taste and to combine that with what they have been
taught concerning what is good and not good to eat. In other words,what ever they
can put into their mouths is good until someone or something gives them reason to do
other wise.
As far as your crack about giving some to a 4 year old in my family nicbase I'll have you know
I have grandchildren that age and dearly love them. I resent that remark in its
entirety and hope that it was nothing but an exited utterance.
Regards
Mike

 

[Jman8]

It's not the 12 year old. It's the 4 year old that sees the bottle of 36mg nic in a Hello Kitty strawberry hearts bottle, opens it up and swills it down. How can any marginally sane human being not concede this example is not a public health issue?

Really? You went from the kids issue is a gimme to choosing this as your position. So, not the 12 year old tells me that you are possibly okay with 12+ being allowed to use vape products. Thus, ought to be not so willing to give in on the policy that rules them all.

Seriously, at the very least, if you are not in favor of tackling the realistic usage by minors (say 12 and up) then just don't comment on the policy via favoritism that we ought to concede it. Remain indifferent.

Regarding the issue you bring up that others have spoken to, noting how rare it is, I would say it is possible issue that has 2% to do with how the bottle looks and 98% to do with where the bottle is placed (i.e. unattended) by those who have youngsters in their home. With that realization, it doesn't matter what's in the bottle. It becomes a public health issue that ought not to unfairly target eliquid and justify tactics to heavily regulate an entire industry based on what critical thinking would, easily, show is not a problem with the industry / distributors.

 

[Lessifer]

It's not the 12 year old. It's the 4 year old that sees the bottle of 36mg nic in a Hello Kitty strawberry hearts bottle, opens it up and swills it down. How can any marginally sane human being not concede this example is not a public health issue?

Unless that 4 year old walked into the store and bough the liquid themselves, your point has nothing to do with the conversation that was happening. I wasn't arguing against child resistant packaging, and no amount of packaging, plain labels, even a picture of broccoli would stop a toddler from trying to experiment with an open bottle.

Give some to a 4 year old in your family, Mike. Let us all know the results.

The only remotely credible cases of child harm from e-liquid(actually liquid nicotine) have come from basically just that, an adult leaving a bottle open and unattended, which will or would not happen regardless of who is able to purchase it.

I would be happy to see a 15 year old be able to vape. I have at least 2 grandchildren who vaped around that age, and they both previously smoked. Now they both still vape and neither of them smoke.

Thing is, they vaped then even though it was illegal. And unless vaping is wiped from the face of the earth they would be able to vape in the future no matter what the law or their parents or anyone else thinks. Our best chance of giving them that opportunity is to keep vaping alive, not to make it legal for them.

Not all arguments about vaping are equal. Some will be hard to win, some will be impossible to win, at least in the short term. If we bundle them together into an all or nothing package then the package will sink or float based on the heaviest rock in the bag. It seems like if we advocate for legal access for teens we are jumping into an unwinnable fight over something that won't even make any difference.

You're right, they can probably get it on their own, and I don't really expect most people to advocate for no age limit.

I've just been expressing my views that advocating FOR an age limit is counter productive. It cements in the minds of those who don't know the idea that vapor products are tobacco products, and people need to be protected from them.

As for teens finding a way, which would you think is better: a teen using whatever they can get ahold of and learning from their peers/youtube OR being able to walk into a credible vape shop, speak to a knowledgeable sales person, buy proper equipment and liquid for their needs and being able to participate in discussions with the rest of us?

 

[Jman8]

I would be happy to see a 15 year old be able to vape. I have at least 2 grandchildren who vaped around that age, and they both previously smoked. Now they both still vape and neither of them smoke.

Thing is, they vaped then even though it was illegal. And unless vaping is wiped from the face of the earth they would be able to vape in the future no matter what the law or their parents or anyone else thinks. Our best chance of giving them that opportunity is to keep vaping alive, not to make it legal for them.

Perhaps in this moment that is pre-FDA final rule, what you say makes sense. But only in this limited time period. Without an explanation on why you arrive at the conclusion you do, I would just emphasize strong disagreement with what you are purporting. And would note that you are essentially saying it is very okay for kids to go to underground market to obtain product that would arguably me more harmful, as DIY'ers would likely be their best option.

Not all arguments about vaping are equal. Some will be hard to win, some will be impossible to win, at least in the short term. If we bundle them together into an all or nothing package then the package will sink or float based on the heaviest rock in the bag. It seems like if we advocate for legal access for teens we are jumping into an unwinnable fight over something that won't even make any difference.

To the degree that the age restriction is an unwinnable fight, is similar degree to which all our fighting on any possible CTA is winnable. All opposition has to do is accept short term defeat on the rare CTA we do win, and then keep plugging away at that same item until we are worn out and/or they've stacked the deck with those who will push it through. In essence, we are conceding on the point that for some people (minors) vaping, even non-nic eLiquid, is inherently dangerous/wrong. To not realize how much political mileage can be had from this is to not be on our game when it comes to all other CTA's. All of them.

What is the last major CTA that we won on? And that opposition has given up on? Where is their equal concession to the monumental concession you are suggesting we not fight them on?

It is at the point that if those questions aren't answered directly / honestly, then it is hard to join fellow vapers in CTA's. Especially if those CTA's involve language of fear mongering. They instead become unwinnable if the monumental concession is deemed unwinnable.

Opposition is giving us hell on little things and not holding back. Why wouldn't we give them hell on the one that rules them all and show up as if there is sense to making it legal, rather than resorting to fall back notion that recognizes a) kids are going to use no matter what and b) we adults are somehow very okay with minors accessing illegal / underground market?

The ONLY reason it appears unwinnable and an uphill battle is because 90% of the vapers have conceded on the issue. It is, in reality, like any other issue that faces us. If 90% of vapers thought flavors are item we ought to concede on or that we ought to concede on online sales, those would appear the same. And as both of those have direct connection to the age restriction issue, you can rest assure that opposition will use our concession to keep pushing (hard) on those items.

 

[Jman8]

What is the last major CTA that we won on? And that opposition has given up on? Where is their equal concession to the monumental concession you are suggesting we not fight them on?

Quoting myself and this bit because I don't believe it can be over stated how much of a monumental concession this is on our part.

As things stand now, our monumental concession has lead us to a place where it actually makes sense for us to accept incredibly high taxation on our legal product for it to survive. So, now the monumental concession appears as: if you want vaping to be kept legal, knowing that it is very harmful to minors, then you must go along with high taxation on your product. This way, opposition will play nice (for a day or two) and say okay keep it legal. After a couple days, opposition will be right back at attacking product and curtailing the market in all ways conceivable, plus focussing on shaming users for all possible usage cases.

Whereas the original monumental concession (age restrictions) ought to be played in such a way that would amount to stripping opposition of all future attacks for any reason other than 20+ years of verified scientific data that provides very solid evidence on a need to regulate (further). If opposition breaks this pact, then the monumental concession is removed from the table and age restrictions are now held as item that politically aware pro-vapers will stand together and not back down on.

For the bargaining chip that this really is (as in really really), this would make the most sense. Short of that, and the monumental concession that has been made does equal to opposition DOES have 'legitimate' point when it seeks to curtail all possible adult purchase / usage scenarios, and we really ought to not fight them hard on these items IF we have already conceded on the monumental concession. Why would you???????????

 

[AndriaD]

Suzy public-school teacher doesn't want ANYONE to get their hands on anything at all that might be fun or enjoyable unhealthy -- she thinks we're supposed to "mortify the flesh" sacrifice ourselves to earn our way into heaven a socialist utopia, and since SHE believes that, she thinks it applies to EVERYONE. She also lives in some fantasy world where adolescents never ever smoke, so why would they need e-cigs? People like that can't be reached by reason or logic or education; they "know" what they know and they refuse to even consider that there might be something else to know.

That works too. They're all fantasists. Control-freaks with their own particular agenda which they're keen to ENFORCE on EVERYONE ELSE. I'm an American; I think everyone has a right to believe any malarkey that pleases them, but it's that "enforcing on everyone" part that makes me violent.

Andria

 

[WharfRat1976]

First of all the children most likely to accidentally poison themselves are toddlers
age 3 and younger. They haven't fully developed their senses enough to discriminate
using their senses of smell and taste and to combine that with what they have been
taught concerning what is good and not good to eat. In other words,what ever they
can put into their mouths is good until someone or something gives them reason to do
other wise.
As far as your crack about giving some to a 4 year old in my family nicbase I'll have you know
I have grandchildren that age and dearly love them. I resent that remark in its
entirety and hope that it was nothing but an exited utterance.
Regards
Mike

You asked me to "back this claim up", so I did.

 

[Jman8]

You asked me to "back this claim up", so I did.

Where was that asked of you? I can't find it. Doubt you will.

 

[Lessifer]

It's not the 12 year old. It's the 4 year old that sees the bottle of 36mg nic in a Hello Kitty strawberry hearts bottle, opens it up and swills it down. How can any marginally sane human being not concede this example is not a public health issue?

You know what? Thank you for posting this. In this one post you have given a perfect example of how our opponents can make the leap from "should not be sold to minors" to
1. Needs CRP or better yet, closed systems
2. Should not be sold in high nicotine concentrations
3. Should have plain labels
4. Should not be available in flavors that could appeal to children

So, whether or not you've intended to, you've actually proved my point.

Now, all we have to do is take the next step and say that the only way to prevent children from getting their hands on this "deadly" and "highly addictive" substance is to require Face to Face sales, and of course we need to tax the product at a rate equal to or higher than cigarettes, so as to discourage their use and to make them cost prohibitive for teens.

 

[Kent C]

Norquist represents nearly everything I detest about a representative government corrupted by moneyed interests and their paid lobbyists.

There are a lot of participants in that process - the recipients of the money, for instance - no doubt you're ok with the money from George Soros and the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has accounted for almost 45 percent of all political donations in the area of health policy in America since 1995. RWJF has given support to Senators that write letters to the FDA and OMB demanding the final rule in deeming as written. And they've given grants to Glantz, UCSF and many of the three and four letter agencies that have lied and supported junk science against ecigarettes.

When and if there are lawsuits by pro-vaping interests affected by the deeming, there is a good chance that Norquist would be one of the people (and his organizations) (and perhaps the Koch Bros.) that would provide funding for such lawsuits. He has done it in several other cases for freedom oriented issues, not just taxes.

But if you can make a good case against Norquist, you might start a movement within our community, maybe contacting CASAA, and other pro-vape organizations to make sure they reject any and all support - press or financial - from Norquist.

 

[skoony]

You asked me to "back this claim up", so I did.

Please feel free to correct me kind Sir but, what claim were you backing up?
It seems to me you were suggesting I poison one of my grandchildren.
Or, do I need to adjust my med's?
Regards
Mike

 

[DC2]

Glad to quote from deeming (proposal) if you doubt that 80 to 100% of it is justified based on kids.

I'll agree that grandfather date is NOW our most practical option for survival of vaping, but you can want that and the kids thing too. But agreeing with the age restriction really doesn't offer any hope that regulations will get better anytime soon. Heck, with just a little play on devil's advocate, I could make a convincing argument for why all other regulations are fully justifiable.

--Flavors must be banned or the children will start smoking
--Closed systems are the only thing that should be allowed or the children will die from nicotine poison
--Free-roaming nicotine base must be banned or the children will die from nicotine poison
--Online sales must be banned or the children will get electronic cigarettes

So there you have it...
As long as children exist, only face-to-face sales of closed-systems that can not be refilled should be allowed.

 

[AndriaD]

I'd just like to declare open season on all these parents that go about procreating willy-nilly and then let their spawn just roam around unattended. It's obviously a huge problem, since the gov't feels compelled to do all the parenting that these willy-nilly parents aren't providing.

Andria

 

[LoveVanilla]

There are a lot of participants in that process - the recipients of the money, for instance - no doubt you're ok with the money from George Soros and the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has accounted for almost 45 percent of all political donations in the area of health policy in America since 1995. RWJF has given support to Senators that write letters to the FDA and OMB demanding the final rule in deeming as written. And they've given grants to Glantz, UCSF and many of the three and four letter agencies that have lied and supported junk science against ecigarettes.

When and if there are lawsuits by pro-vaping interests affected by the deeming, there is a good chance that Norquist would be one of the people (and his organizations) (and perhaps the Koch Bros.) that would provide funding for such lawsuits. He has done it in several other cases for freedom oriented issues, not just taxes.

But if you can make a good case against Norquist, you might start a movement within our community, maybe contacting CASAA, and other pro-vape organizations to make sure they reject any and all support - press or financial - from Norquist.

Kent, I understand your libertarian bent, and that's okay with me. On the other hand, you seem to suppose my comment was made from a progressive perspective -- but you are wrong on that count. Moneyed interests have widely corrupted elected representatives on BOTH sides of the isle. Their shared value is that profit outweighs the interests of this nation and citizens.

 

[Kent C]

Moneyed interests have widely corrupted elected representatives on BOTH sides of the isle.

Never said it wasn't.

On the other hand, you seem to suppose my comment was made from a progressive perspective -- but you are wrong on that count.

I wouldn't describe myself as a "libertarian" - although it describes what many people would call some of my ideas. (and sometimes what I'll call them for simplicity's sake). And I didn't give a description of you, other than since you targeted Norquist by name and in almost the exact same manner that progressives, liberals, socialists attack him, that leaves a few other options - fascists and there is what I consider a false line of attack by some Beck followers - where they tried to smear him, attempting a 'guilt by association' by one of the persons that Grover did some work with (there have been thousands of people he deals with) and then a 'friend of a friend' (or associate) of that person who is linked to one of Beck's 'enemies'.

It was a stretch and Beck interviewed Grover where Grover answered every question asked and Beck's tone was not appropriate for a frank discussion - laughing and rolling eyes at times although he didn't fake cough and say an obscenity under their breath like liberals do, but it quite disgusting, imo. But from your other comments and 'likes' I don't think that's where you're coming from. :- ) My suggestion of Soros was just a touché of your slamming of Norquist who I respect and admire for what he has done regarding taxes and individual and economic freedom in general - the opposite of what Soros funds.

 

[bobwho77]

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.

Unfortunately, CASAA, nor any other vaping organization, has membership numbers, money, and political clout like the NRA uses to pull off ssome of their hard line stances.

 

[MaxwellPink]

--Closed systems are the only thing that should be allowed or the children will die from nicotine poison

By "closed systems" I'm assuming you mean one piece disposables, correct? Small children could put cartridges in their mouths, and not only risk poisoning but choking, too.

Anybody got a sled for this slope?

 

[Jman8]

"Every reasonable person and business supports restricting the sale of nicotine containing products to minors."

Actually, rereading this assertion, and while knowing what is implied, if taken literally it is saying (only) minors ought to be using nicotine containing products, no?