Should Children be Allowed to Buy e-Liquids that contain Nicotine?
- Thread starter zoiDman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If you mean those who will use them regularly, hopefully as many who would have started smoking at some point. If you mean "try" then possibly a lot more, depending on how effective the negative propaganda campaign is. As for those who become lifelong addicts, if the research is correct about the potential for nicotine addiction in never smokers, less than 1%.
That's a Big "If".
And I applaud you Willingness to take a Child who will not buy Cigarettes, and then Allow Him/Her to buy e-Liquids that Contain Nicotine just to see what Happens.
BTW - We are going to then Allow kids in K~6 to use e-Cigarettes in Class, Right?
Or will that just be Allow at Recess?
Last edited:
Honestly, sure, why not? Can you give me a shred of evidence that hasn't been refuted as to why that would be a bad thing?
Some examples of similar products that most people have no problem letting children use regularly, all of which had at least some questioning their safety at some point: cell phones, vaccinations, vitamins, energy drinks, soda, high fructose corn syrup, genetically modified food, food dyes, skate boards, grilled food, sunscreen, school buses.
ETA: nice use of absurd situations to tug on those heart strings, you wouldn't happen to live in SF would you?
zoidman, did you happen to read the story linked here? Minor sales bans aren't going far enough according to glantz, et al, they have to be accompanied by exorbitant taxes to make e-cigs even less accessible to teens, is that also how you feel?
Why is it an Absurd Situation? Especially when you Say there is No Problem having Kids Using an e-Cigarette in K~5 Classrooms.
And if you are Going to Open Up the No Age Limit Box, Don't we have to Think about Where we are going to allow these Kids to use an e-Cigarette?
Or is the Answer Simple for you. Anywhere they Want?
It's absurd because as I've stated before, under a certain age, children won't have the wherewithal to purchase e-cigs, even if they legally can. Parents do have to take some responsibility, at some point, for their own children. If a parent wants to give their child money, take them to a store, and let them buy, possess, and use an e-cig, it's not my place to intervene. As for using them in a classroom, as a former teacher, I'd say no, it would be a distraction just like cell phones, food, chewing gum, sunflower seeds, etc.
It's actually worth the read to see where the anti-vaping movement is heading, but you can just answer the question instead:
If minor sales bans are not effective enough in preventing children from vaping, do you believe that taxes should be applied to make e-cigs monetarily less accessible?
Whoa Whoa Whoa. Slow Down.
You Can't ask People to buy Into the Entire No Age Limit thing and then put No Thought into the Ramifications.
You Allow Kids to but e-Cigarettes and e-Liquids and they are going to bring them to School. So you better Think how you are going to Deal with it.
I was Fortunate. Because I only Taught to Adults. But e-Cigarettes became an Big Issue on the Campus where I taught.
So you better Consider what is Going to Happen when Kids Start Pulling out e-Cigarettes and want to use them in Class. And or in the School Yard.
I already answered that, but here, I'll post it again:
As for using them in a classroom, as a former teacher, I'd say no, it would be a distraction just like cell phones, food, chewing gum, sunflower seeds, etc.
Schools can make any number of restrictions against what is and isn't allowed in a classroom, with no real justification needed.
In case you were too distracted to see it the last two times, I still have a question I'd like you to answer:
If minor sales bans are not effective enough in preventing children from vaping, do you believe that taxes should be applied to make e-cigs monetarily less accessible?
Also, I'd still like some evidence that children being exposed to nicotine(more than they are through their normal healthy diet) that isn't coming directly from tobacco, is harmful.
BTW - Taxes are kinda Off Topic.
But I have said from Day 1 that Taxes are Inevitable. The Question you should be Asking is What Level of Taxes are Appropriate?
I think e-Liquid Taxes should be Aligned with State Sales Taxes. But that is a Topic Best left for a Thread like this...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...most-every-state-passing-legistlation-10.html
Why don't you Pose the Question there?
But I have said from Day 1 that Taxes are Inevitable. The Question you should be Asking is What Level of Taxes are Appropriate?
I think e-Liquid Taxes should be Aligned with State Sales Taxes. But that is a Topic Best left for a Thread like this...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...most-every-state-passing-legistlation-10.html
Why don't you Pose the Question there?
Somehow you've missed the point. I would leave it up to the school to decide their policy about use on school property, including school buses. Though, since as you already know, I don't have an issue(with the current evidence) with anyone vaping, I wouldn't personally be against it. On the bus might pose a distraction issue for the driver, so again, I'd leave that up to the school.
Any item sold, that isn't exempt, is subject to a sales tax. E-cigs are not exempt, and therefore already are subject to the sales tax. I don't think my question about punitive taxes to make e-cigs even less accessible to "children" is off topic at all. Even the glANTZ man himself doesn't think that sales bans to minors are going to do enough to protect the children from the evils of nicotine. I'm asking if you agree with him.
IMO any additional tax is inappropriate.
So the idea behind allowing children to buy NIC is that we don't want our vaping rights to ever be infringed on? The argument being that if we make it illegal for a 5 year old to buy an addictive DRUG then in 10 years DEA operatives are going to be assisinating anyone vaping because all e-cigs are illegal?
And I thought this was a thread about making a "moral" choice to keep children safe.
Just in case though:
How to Make a Tinfoil Hat | eHow
And I thought this was a thread about making a "moral" choice to keep children safe.
Just in case though:
How to Make a Tinfoil Hat | eHow
The idea is that believing that vaping is harmful to children, stands on the belief that vaping is harmful, and if vaping is harmful I don't want you to do it near my kid, or near me, and really you shouldn't be doing it at all so if you continue to do it we're going to tax the hell out of it to discourage your use, because we care.
To put it another way, what is the basis of your "moral choice?" What exactly are you keeping the children safe from?
Tell zoiDman, with regards to post #241 that the answer to his question (as well as the meaning of life) is:
42
The answer to these 2 questions are:
a) only if they are cloud chasing and
b) only if they double pinky swear to blow huge clouds in other people's faces.
I see Lessifer already handled these questions in the appropriate manner and that you are still pushing the emotional tactic for all its worth.
From my position on all this, the ramifications for allowing a minor (of any age) to vape (everywhere, with respect) is balanced here in the theoretical with how it weighs against creating a black market via "should forbid" and how that not only creates more danger to minors, but the stigma that tells everyone, paying attention, that vaping is inherently harmful. Lessifer's already addressed this and in the shared reality we live in, this is already occurring. On the one hand it is, "we have no idea what's in eCigs" along with "no idea about the harm that may arise from them" and on the other hand (knowing what was just said), it is "therefore, vaping must be very dangerous and absolutely must be kept away from kids."
Even some vapers believe this, as you can find many posts on ECF where a vaper says they would never vape around a child / minor. IMO, it isn't really all that challenging to figure out how we (as a society) went from smoke everywhere to smoke nowhere in public (ever, including outdoors) when you realize how effective the smear campaign has been, and yet, is insufficiently backed up. I routinely ask for anyone on ECF to provide data on "smoking kills" or "SHS is harmful." No joke, but to this moment, I've had zero people reply to this. I believe I could provide such evidence, and thus am fairly certain what might be conveyed to me at some point, but the science is truly lacking there and is able to have holes poked at it. A few of us on ECF are (well) aware that SHS hazards have been debunked, and yet most people in society (includes most vapers) still think of it as harmful to innocent bystanders.
All this relates to this thread's topic because it is around 33% of why it is crucial to make sure everyone agrees that banning to children is righteous. It will make ANTZ agenda with regards to vaping much easier if that is accepted despite any science to the contrary on the grounds of harm. If it is inherently bad (read as detrimental to health) for a minor, then it's just a short skip and a hop to convincing everyone else that it is very dangerous / highly addictive for ALL people to vape.
So, let's say you (general you) as a vaper aren't sure about the harm. I would strongly suggest remaining neutral on the political stance on this topic. Because we are facing a very visible smear campaign within political battle for vaping freedoms / rights, it seems utterly foolish to agree with ANTZ on the kids issue. I stand by the claim that it is the one regulation that drives all the rest. Some far more than others, but it plays into all of them. Agreeing on the kids issue (as in asserting kids should not be allowed to vape) is siding with ANTZ, on this issue. Doesn't mean that you side with ANTZ about everything, but does mean you side with ANTZ on the regulation that drives all other regulations. I suggest all vaping enthusiasts stop doing this. Now.
One significant concession I am willing to make in this theoretical discussion is that if vaping is allowed for minors, but many other things (i.e. drinking, voting, etc.) is forbidden, then the ramifications for allowing are, IMO, unlikely to amount to a lot of positive aspects for vaping / society going forward. For me, that is at least 50% if not up to 67% of what else is at stake in this discussion. For me, it's just another issue for adults to engage in ageism / adultism (look it up) which is a most important political issue, IMHO. Allowing vaping while disallowing (or forbidding) other things adults enjoy is still begging for trouble and likely stands a chance that rebellious teens (or normal minors) are going to take up vaping just because they can, and because they are acting out, or against the fact they most of their freedoms are denied, restricted. For perhaps many reasons, but near the top is because of institutional discrimination that is arbitrary and well ingrained, even while it is continuously, and incredibly, short sighted.
While I make that concession (that allowing kids to vape legally isn't necessarily great for society right now), it continues to strike me as still far better than the position to forbid. As most can tell, I don't tire of this debate and don't shy away from it. Apart from the philosophical / civil rights issue that is clearly at stake, the fact that this is the one regulation that drives all others ought to be enough for a politically aware vaper to realize why not give in to forbiddance.
But I do recognize that 88% of the respondents to this poll, and likely about that many on ECF and probably higher percentage in rest of society are very much in favor of forbidding kids from buying / using eCigs. I do realize that this is a theoretical discussion and that there's a very strong likelihood that minors in every jurisdiction on the planet will be forbidden from purchasing vape stuff (with or without nicotine) and overwhelming majority of those same jurisdictions will also have policy of forbidden to use / possess.
But I'm also just cynical enough to observe all that fall into place, and then make fun of the society that created the black market that kids will be purchasing from, while everyone paying attention concedes that kids do vape, and that the problems they are likely encountering is from having to sneak around and hide what also stands a very good chance of being stigmatized so that adults will constantly be playing a game of - will this product I enjoy be available on the legal market or should I start stocking up, finding a black market source to get my stash?
If you are unwilling to write politicians on this fundamental issue regarding vaping rights, then I hope you'll excuse me if I'm not in the same mindset you are weeks / months from now to write politicians on an issue that stems from this one, but that you showed up as giving in without a fight. Or worse, that you supported without apparently realizing that it is precisely what brought about the regulation later on that you are now having a tizzy fit over.
oh oh. i wouldn't use the "addictive" word here. Dependent is okay. In case you didn't get the memo ... prevailing opinion here is that nictotine is not addictive.
Many vapers claim that vaping is a hobby.......there is no addiction. Others claim that it is a dependency but not an addiction. Other vapers claim that neither is true, but that they enjoy the effects of nicotine and so does their body/health.
Not saying I agree or disagree, just saying you are bound to run up against this issue if you remain in these kind of topics.
Since I"ve read at least 4 instances of mech mods burning holes in pockets just this last month on this forum, by those who didn't know the safety measures involved or didn't follow them, I can only say:
I imagine that an ecig catching fire on a school bus would definitely fall under the title of "distracting*.
The other point is are children more knowledgeable about these issues, and/or do they have the maturity to be able to use that knowledge to remain safe and keep others around them safe.........if grown adults, with some knowledge of vaping, aren't all succeeding in this respect?
I guess, in the absence of a reasonable response, we can just revert to calling everybody stoooopid. Or careless. But that is not the response I'm looking for.....I'm actually looking for a thoughful answer.
Those accusations surface all the time in topics about things happening to children, and of course, it's always because they have neglectful, stooopid parents.........despite the fact that we know that things happen, in a split second, to children with watchful repsonsible parents......but there aren't many here who work in trauma centers or ERs and know these things.......
Last edited:
oh oh. i wouldn't use the "addictive" word here. Dependent is okay. In case you didn't get the memo ... prevailing opinion here is that nictotine is not addictive.
Many vapers claim that vaping is a hobby.......there is no addiction. Others claim that it is a dependency but not an addiction. Other vapers claim that neither is true, but that they enjoy the effects of nicotine and so does their body/health.
Not saying I agree or disagree, just saying you are bound to run up against this issue if you remain in these kind of topics.
I'd suggest just be prepared to explain your use of the word addiction.
I know I'm prepared. And thus welcome a discussion when someone uses the word but clearly has little idea what the term actually means.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
