Much to comment on all the misrepresentations in this post but I'll just take this one. This is a stereotypical response of an altruist that can never make the distinction between 'selfish' and 'rationally self interested'. You don't know what I care about or anyone else here, and it's an insult to say that someone doesn't care about anyone else when you don't know. So for the sake of the 'community' that you've insulted, I'll take responsibility to reply to your lies and misrepresentations. You're a 'safety hustler' and using that to further your own self interest as being part of a 'group' who is supposed to be representing this community but count up the number of posts for and against this idea and see what side you're on. You're not representing us very well but of course you know what's best for us.
Man, you guys act like I and the OP are calling for the outright banning of e-liquid altogether.
First of all. Reread the sentence. I didn't say that YOU or anyone else specific were in this category. I said that people who DO fit in this category disgust me - not that everyone here fits that category. If you don't fit the description, then I wasn't referring to you.
Sometimes, looking out for one's self is misguided & counter-productive. By allowing manufacturers to sidestep any responsibility, it quite possibly will hurt the PV community MORE in the long run. The smoking/vaping community is not in a bubble. People have to look at the larger picture and not just the obvious. We are affected by what non-smokers/vapers want and expect too. Look to smoking bans as proof. If we can't appease that group with little things, like the availability of safe packaging and labeling, it only furthers their arguments against us. And they outnumber us by a HUGE margin.
Just because more people post that they are for or against something doesn't make them right. Look at all the posted comments on articles about PVs where people jump to conclusions and say they are against PVs because of second hand vapor and nicotine causes cancer.
The people responding to this thread obviously are passionate about the topic. There are a lot more members of this forum that didn't even bother to answer. Who knows what a poll of the whole community would reveal.
How about we look at the pros and cons of having safety standards vs. not, rather than what people "want?"
Pros:
1. Makes the industry look responsible to non-vapers and helps legitmize e-cigs, keeping e-cigs available to ALL of us.
2.
Could save a life by making it harder for a child to open.
3.
Could stop an accident caused by inattentive parenting.
Cons:
1. Harder for some people to open the bottles.
2. Could raise the cost of the liquid a little.
It may be just one point, but the pros still outweigh the cons. To me, the pro of #1 outweighs any cons just by itself.
I'm not the safety police, but I do believe some safety precautions are reasonable and are for the greater good of the community. I am willing to live with
some reasonable restrictions on my freedom in order to protect those who may not be able to protect themselves or to be protected from people who don't care if other people get hurt by their behavior. For example, people shouldn't be allowed to drive drunk. Seatbelts should be required in cars. Motorcycle riders should be required to wear helmets. (Yes, I ride.) Children should be in car seats. Safety caps should be on poisonous products.
But I am in no way a control nazi. I'm against the smoking bans in privately owned businesses. I think condoms and real sex education should be available to teens. I'm pro choice. I think marajuana should be legal, but regulated. I think spanking is a parental right, but not beatings. I think prostitution should be legal, but regulated. I think conceal and carrying a gun should be legal for licensed, registered gun owners. Gays should be allow to legally marry.
Does that sound close-minded and restrictive to anyone?? Just because I think a couple of things should be regulated doesn't mean I think EVERYTHING should be regulated.
I agree that there should be personal choice, but this idea that no restrictions should be put on anyone is ridiculous. How far do we go with it? Does no one have any responsibility for their actions and how it can affect other people in a community?
Let me ask other parents this: How many of you would be OK with a registered child molester living next to your child's school or your home?
Think it through carefully before claiming that it has no relevence to this conversation.
This whole anti-nanny state stance is completely hypocritical. People who cry "foul" only seem to do so when the restriction affects what THEY want to do. But when something is threatening them, they still want someone to look out for their safety & restrict others.
In no way do I want to limit anyone's access to something that is not affecting anyone else. There should be limits to how much the government is allowed to interfere in a person's personal life. I don't want someone telling me how to raise my children or how to live my life. People suing companies for things that were obviously their own responsibility disgust me too. McDonalds made you fat & now owes you? Gimme a break. People need to have personal responsibility. But McDonalds DOES have the responsibility to provide ingredient lists & nutritional values of what is in their food, so people can make informed decisions. See the difference?
I first approached my favorite vendor about safety caps when I had a near call with my 2 1/2 year old. She grabbed the bottle (which was only a few feet from me) and had it in her mouth (cap on) in the blink of an eye. I had it from her within a few seconds, because I DO watch my child, but accidents happen. She has gotten up on and into things before I realized she was even able to reach them yet. Now, she may have been able to get past a safety cap, if given enough time, but at least the safety cap gives a parent more time to react in a situation like that.
However, it got me thinking. What if a PV owner ISN'T as vigilant? Not all parents ARE responsible. Could it hurt to help those people with keeping the liquid just a little more inaccessible to little kids? Or should we just forbid the sale of PVs to people with kids? (being sarcastic.)
My 8 year old step-daughter's mother smokes in the same room as her. She comes to our house reeking of cigarette smoke. Her mother also has smaller children in the house. Is this a responsible parent? She's obviously looking out for herself and doesn't care that her kids are breathing in cigarette smoke all day. Do you think she'll bother to care where she put her liquid if she switched to vaping? Would it HURT, in this case, to have safety caps available?
I can just see the public backlash the first time some kid downs a bottle of e-liquid without a safety cap. That parent's (and manufacturer's) irresponsibility will affect ALL of our ability to get PVs after something like that happens.
Even if just one kid dies, is another human being's life really worth less than spending a little more on e-liquid, in order to have some minimal safety precautions available?
For all of you accusing me of being a safety nazi, tell me this. Substitue the word "crack ......." for "e-liquid" and tell me you'd still make the same argument against any kind of safety precautions.
Again, if you think that is not applicable or over the top, think again. A kid would be just as dead drinking a bottle of nictoine liquid.
Thanks for saving me from typing the same, however if the suppliers feels they they want to offer it or not, you can vote with your $$ 
