Should Children be Allowed to Buy e-Liquids that contain Nicotine?
- Thread starter zoiDman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That's Fair.
And BTW: I thought you knew (or maybe you did)? I live in California also.
I may have at one point, but wasn't sure.
Also, according to this: State Laws Prohibiting Sales to Minors and Indoor Use of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems — United States, November 2014 there are only 10 states and D.C. that do not restrict the purchase of e-cigs to those at least 18 or older, as of November 2014.
BTW - You have seen this...
https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB24/2015
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB24/2015
Seems like No One is Very Upset about it. And I see no Organized effort to do much with it. Not like 2014 CA AB-1500
https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB24/2015
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB24/2015
Seems like No One is Very Upset about it. And I see no Organized effort to do much with it. Not like 2014 CA AB-1500
Idk I can't find it I only have my phone and am not so great at searching for these kinds of things but anyone that wants to look it up I'd like to know
I hadn't actually seen anything about this yet, I've been a little too disheartened to spend time in the legislation news as of late. I would think the vendors might have an issue with the new licensing requirement, and it seems to be dependent on the redefinition of vaping products in SB140 to include them in the STAKE program.
No Worries. I was just Curious.
And it can be Hard to do Searches on a Phone using a Virtual Keyboard.
http://www.senate.mo.gov/14info/pdf-bill/tat/SB841.pdf
It's long, and seems to contradict itself in certain sections, but I did find this:
22 No person or entity shall sell, provide or distribute any tobacco product,
23 alternative nicotine product, or vapor product or rolling papers to any
24 minor, or sell any individual cigarettes to any person in this state. This
25 subsection shall not apply to the distribution by family members on property that
26 is not open to the public.
So it looks like you a family member can provide it on private property, but possession by someone under the age of 18 is illegal. So a parent can buy, and the child can use at home, but that's it.
I also couldn't tell if this had been signed by the governor yet.
This was My Concern. The Licensing.
But I can't seem to find much about it other then what the Bill Text states.
This is an Example of a More thought out Law. And not the "Carpet Bombing" type legislation that California is known for.
it is "better" than the CA law, but still unnecessary. Vapers, myself included at an earlier time, have made the concession that we'll accept an age limit(some are even in favor of it) in the hopes that it would somehow appease the public. It's not working...
I believe it is possible with an argument, rather than a statement. Which is how my earlier post differed from yours. Both were speculative. Yours suggested I was lacking critical thinking. I explained both your and my point (you're welcome) and argued how your point (yet again) lacks critical thinking.
Even if it were 100% accurate that more kids will buy from the black market than the open market, I don't see how that would be possible to establish as 100% true. Surveys aren't going to get everyone to be 100% honest, especially if the survey takers are (funded by) ANTZ.
But I think there is an argument to be made.
And if it is ignored, I've learned to be okay with that. I recognize that most adults are either okay or don't care whether kids buy things from the black market as long as they have weighed in and said "absolutely not okay to be available on the open market." I see it lacking critical thinking skills. But just as 88% of the people responding to this poll get to feel righteous in their position, I get to feel quite cozy knowing that the 88% has co-created a black market that ensures kids ABSOLUTELY WILL BUY NICOTINE from a plausibly more dangerous market, precisely because of these type of, short sighted adults.
It actually kind of humors me, because the crowd that claims to be looking out for the children the most is, in all actuality, the one that is placing them in the most danger, but thinking the whole time that they somehow, magically, are the responsible people in the room. And the icing on the proverbial cake is the utter hypocrisy that comes from knowing that almost all these adults were likely engaging in the same activity (of buying nicotine as a minor) when they were under 18.
So again, as much as some might love being part of the 88% crowd, I really really really like being in the minority advocating for an open market and knowing it ain't my position that done went created a black market that will ensure kids do get nicotine. Grow up only getting the cons side of the equation. Playing a solo game in trying to discover the pros, and if history repeats itself, like it usually does, they too will favor the generation after them to never ever be allowed these things. Cause, you know, kids will be hurt by such policies of openness.
From the mouth of glANTZ himself:
But banning e-cigarette sales to kids only makes teens want them more, says Stanton Glantz, a professor of tobacco control at the University of California-San Francisco.
States racing to regulate e-cigarettes
This concession isn't working, they've already decided they need to go for more. Expect any legislation that includes a ban on sales to minors, but doesn't include either a tax or a definition of vaping as tobacco to be strongly OPPOSED by "public health"
But banning e-cigarette sales to kids only makes teens want them more, says Stanton Glantz, a professor of tobacco control at the University of California-San Francisco.
States racing to regulate e-cigarettes
This concession isn't working, they've already decided they need to go for more. Expect any legislation that includes a ban on sales to minors, but doesn't include either a tax or a definition of vaping as tobacco to be strongly OPPOSED by "public health"
Are you Playing the "We have to Save the Children" card Jman8?
Seems Almost Hypocritical.
LOL
I kinda agree. I don't think everyone thought their answers thru including me until now
That's what they're counting on. Emotional ploys that evoke a knee jerk reaction. As evidenced by the "shame on those who voted against a minimum age" posts sprinkled throughout the responses. People have a gut reaction of "how dare you want to sell nicotine to kids?!" Instead of taking the time to think about what it actually means. We KNOW kids are going to vape, as long as it's available to anyone. What making it illegal does is force them to find alternative methods of obtaining it, the least potentially harmful of which is finding a store that will sell it illegally, or getting an older friend to buy it. Unfortunately, a shop that would sell illegally to kids, is probably more likely to also carry those other things that people vape, that aren't "nicotine e-liquids" but instead contain synthetics meant to do more than provide a smoking alternative.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
