No sale to minors is a gimmie now go put your cheese block on your head.
Our friends at ATR launched a massive counteroffensive
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Just to make sure I understand you correctly, is this what you're saying?
The general public, and therefor politicians, equate vaping to smoking, and won't budge on the age restriction. So there's no point arguing it. Because they will never understand that vaping is not the same as smoking.
If that is the case, how do we win any of our battles? How do we fight for flavors, high nic concentrations, online sales, not being forced outside even from our own homes? How do we fight any of that when all they have to say is "think of the children?"
The only thing significant about deeming is the RETROACTIVE DATE. There is ni counter offensive to the children argument. The original posting was pretty simple. Go read the articles in it. All this other discussion has nothing to do with the OP.
Perhaps you missed the quoted part from post #7 of this thread.
And perhaps you missed the fact that between 80% and 100% of the deeming is 'justified' based on logic that vaping is inherently harmful / wrong for minors. With that admission (by any politically aware vaper), it really does no good to fight regulations. You've essentially handed opposition the need to regulate on a silver platter.
And perhaps you missed the fact that between 80% and 100% of the deeming is 'justified' based on logic that vaping is inherently harmful / wrong for minors. With that admission (by any politically aware vaper), it really does no good to fight regulations. You've essentially handed opposition the need to regulate on a silver platter.
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.
I really don't get why any politically vaper would easily give in on this point. Tells me that many are not thinking through things critically and that it is proper to assess the FDA proposal as tame IF you are willing to go along with that key nugget.
Whether it's reasonable or not, the fact is there's a big difference of existing opinion about regs to children and regs to adults, both among non-vapers and vapers. It's so wide that, as I pointed out before, FDA involvment is in no way needed or justified for age restrictions, they already exist. Meanwhile, if it comes to judging if one ecig is better than another for example, I think local/state authorities (other than California) would leave it to the FDA.
Do I expect any of the major vaping advocates to urge the FDA or congress to remove the age restriction? No.
Would I like them to stop listing it as a given, as if it's completely rational to restrict the use of something that is not devastatingly harmful, addictive, nor a gateway to smoking? Yes.
I'm not an idiot, I know that Suzy Sunday school teacher sees an ecig, thinks smoking, and wants Timmy twelve year old not to be able to get his hands on it. What I would love to see us doing is educating both of them about what vaping is, what its potential harms and benefits are, and letting them make up their own minds.
Would I like them to stop listing it as a given, as if it's completely rational to restrict the use of something that is not devastatingly harmful, addictive, nor a gateway to smoking? Yes.
I'm not an idiot, I know that Suzy Sunday school teacher sees an ecig, thinks smoking, and wants Timmy twelve year old not to be able to get his hands on it. What I would love to see us doing is educating both of them about what vaping is, what its potential harms and benefits are, and letting them make up their own minds.
Suzy Sunday-school teacher doesn't want ANYONE to get their hands on anything at all that might be fun or enjoyable -- she thinks we're supposed to "mortify the flesh" to earn our way into heaven, 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.Andria
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.
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.
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?
As much as I support the sentiment, Norquist represents nearly everything I detest about a representative government corrupted by moneyed interests and their paid lobbyists. Indeed I would crow loudly if Norquist had come down on the other side of the issue. He is definitely not someone who should serve as a figurehead on this issue.
I'd like to see one of the following:
1. Vape products sold in the same grocery store isles as coffee, tea and Red Bull
-or-
2. Coffee, tea and Red Bull et al as tightly regulated as vaping. Including sales to minors.
-or-
3. Conclusive scientific evidence that nicotine is more hazardous than caffeine.
(if you google "fatal caffeine overdose" you will find that the amounts required are similar to nicotine and people have actually died by drinking too many energy drinks. And you may want to watch how energy drinks are labled because that same 4 year old might OD on attractively labeled energy drinks)
1. Vape products sold in the same grocery store isles as coffee, tea and Red Bull
-or-
2. Coffee, tea and Red Bull et al as tightly regulated as vaping. Including sales to minors.
-or-
3. Conclusive scientific evidence that nicotine is more hazardous than caffeine.
(if you google "fatal caffeine overdose" you will find that the amounts required are similar to nicotine and people have actually died by drinking too many energy drinks. And you may want to watch how energy drinks are labled because that same 4 year old might OD on attractively labeled energy drinks)
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.
The only fatal poisoning reported of any child in the USA by nicotine happened almost a year ago
in out state New York. The child was 17 months old I believe. An opened bottle of nic base
was left unattended. The cap was never found. With in the space of a minute or two the child
found the bottle supposedly drank some of its contents and was found convulsing on the floor.
The child was rushed to the hospital and perished there. The coroner ruled the death accidental
poisoning by nicotine. Due to privacy restrictions no toxicology results were ever released to
back this claim up. The fact that the office of coroner is an elected position in out state New
York and most if not all coroners there are in the funeral home business the lack of verifiable
results is concerting in and of itself. I personally doubt that the coroner can order post mortem
testing unless there is conclusive evidence to indicate otherwise. This has to be paid for and I
doubt the coroners office is sufficiently funded to do so. Even the police have to make a special
request to get proper post mortem testing if they believe it is necessary.
Regards
Mike
How many children are poisoned every year with household cleaners and other items found around the house? Why is that not a public health issue? Why, in all those other cases, are parents expected to child proof their homes rather than regulate products out of existence or micromanage labels?
Give some to a 4 year old in your family, Mike. Let us all know the results.The only fatal poisoning reported of any child in the USA by nicotine happened almost a year ago
in out state New York. The child was 17 months old I believe. An opened bottle of nic base
was left unattended. The cap was never found. With in the space of a minute or two the child
found the bottle supposedly drank some of its contents and was found convulsing on the floor.
The child was rushed to the hospital and perished there. The coroner ruled the death accidental
poisoning by nicotine. Due to privacy restrictions no toxicology results were ever released to
back this claim up. The fact that the office of coroner is an elected position in out state New
York and most if not all coroners there are in the funeral home business the lack of verifiable
results is concerting in and of itself. I personally doubt that the coroner can order post mortem
testing unless there is conclusive evidence to indicate otherwise. This has to be paid for and I
doubt the coroners office is sufficiently funded to do so. Even the police have to make a special
request to get proper post mortem testing if they believe it is necessary.
Regards
Mike
It's harder to tax Bonami or Clorox Bleach. We are low hanging fruit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
