Should Children be Allowed to Buy e-Liquids that contain Nicotine?

[Jman8]

No no no no NO! If you have to be 18 to buy analogs that contain nicotine why should it be any different? Even at 0 nic it's still a bad idea. I think it's sending the wrong message to kids, teens or not. IMO it's like giving a kid a real cig.. plus think in this POV, many states are already trying to ban e-cigs so encouraging or letting people under the age of 18 to vape is just another reason against us vapers to further prove their points

Reality is vaping is a safer alternative to analogs and you must be over the age of 18 to purchase them (them being analogs ((even though kids will still get a hold of them..)) the point is that kids shouldn't be allowed to use them cuz they aren't allowed to smoke cigs therefore the use of PVs should be used only as a way of getting off analogs and that follows the law discussed above and in that perspective there is no way to fight that "its harmful to kids and/or adults" so the FDA would have nothing to argue if the matter was brought up this way

You don't explain why they shouldn't be allowed, except with circular logic.

"the point is that kids shouldn't be allowed to use them cuz they aren't allowed to smoke cigs"

And my counter point is kids should be allowed to smoke. That you and society currently disagrees with this, is a debate I'm always up for having. Let's go!

You already concede kids will still do them (smoke and vape), and yet would make it so kids can't even vape zero nic. I find that indefensible, but as you brought it up, would love to make you defend that.

I would argue, or will continue to argue, that banning vaping to anyone under 18 is continuing their points. You are arguing otherwise. I understand the political game the vaping community is trying to play. That we are being faced with 'inevitable FDA regulations' makes my take on this matter easy to defend. Thus far, politically aware vaping advocate leaders have managed to put us in a position where we MUST concede that vaping COULD BE HARMFUL to kids. How's that working out for us?

Your point of "PVs should be used only as a way of getting off analogs" is their point (them being Big Pharma). I see PV's as a recreational activity that free thinking individuals should be allowed to decide upon for themselves.

 

[Lessifer]

Either vaping is SAFE ENOUGH for me, you, anyone to do; or it isn't. Unless you want to buy e-liquid from pfizer, stop arguing that pv's are only good for smoking cessation.

Nicotine in moderation is not harmful, and without tobacco is not addictive. There's the new talk of "we don't know what effect nicotine will have on developing brains," to which I say, Yes, We do. Take a look at all the people that started smoking when their brains were still developing, we're not a population of mentally challenged individuals. Well, some of us are but that's OT.

ETA: I guess it boils down to, how do you feel about vaping?

1. It's a great way to kick a smoking habit.

or

2. It's an enjoyable activity with many benefits, one of which seems to be decreasing dependence on tobacco.

 

[Jman8]

we're not a population of mentally challenged individuals. Well, some of us are but that's OT.

I'm not entirely sure it is OT, but it did make me:

 

[zoiDman]

Either vaping is SAFE ENOUGH for me, you, anyone to do; or it isn't. Unless you want to buy e-liquid from pfizer, stop arguing that pv's are only good for smoking cessation.

Nicotine in moderation is not harmful, and without tobacco is not addictive. There's the new talk of "we don't know what effect nicotine will have on developing brains," to which I say, Yes, We do. Take a look at all the people that started smoking when their brains were still developing, we're not a population of mentally challenged individuals. Well, some of us are but that's OT.

ETA: I guess it boils down to, how do you feel about vaping?

1. It's a great way to kick a smoking habit.

or

2. It's an enjoyable activity with many benefits, one of which seems to be decreasing dependence on tobacco.

Isn't the Issue of "Safe Enough" based on an Individual making an Informed Decision for themselves? Because I don't know of Anyone who has said that e-Cigarette use is Safe.

---

Whereas the statement that "Nicotine in Moderation is Not Harmful" is Debatable. I would first like to know how much Nicotine is considered Moderate? And what a Generally Expectable definition of "Not Harmful" is?

And if the same Amounts and Definitions can be Applied to the 20% or so of Chemical Flavorings and Artificial Sweeteners that a Vaper Inhales 7 Days a Week in the Average e-Liquid.

 

[Jman8]

I would first like to know how much Nicotine is considered Moderate?

A daily range of .5 ml of eLiquid to 5 ml of eLiquid. If going as high as 5 ml, then anything over 12 mg, would likely start being on the less moderate side of things, but might be perfectly okay based on personal choice. Just hard to defend as "generally accepted as being used in moderation."

While this might be read as speaking from authority, I would offer it up as starting point for reasonable discussion and ask he who asked to add his own take on what makes for moderation before expecting further answers/clarification to what has been conveyed. That will surely come, as may be desired, but not if it is simply a one-sided discussion to evade agreement.

And what a Generally Expectable definition of "Not Harmful" is?

Not causing immediate health issues that would plausibly bring someone to ER whereby medical staff would deem the person in need of immediate attention.

If it is of the type of "harm" that is long term, then that is between unknown and just like every other product/substance currently found on this planet. There are zero substances on this planet that, over the long term, cause zero harm to living beings. Therefore nicotine products ought not to be held to standard of "long term harm" unless that is known and hard science (not the soft science, survey variety) can firmly establish what the actual causal relationship is between the hypothesized harm, the latency period and the actual, observed results AND determine the exact percentage of all currently living people that would reasonably be impacted. Please note: this is yet to be accomplished with regards to combustible tobacco, or more precisely, with SHS.

And if the same Amounts and Definitions can be Applied to the 20% or so of Chemical Flavorings and Artificial Sweeteners that a Vaper Inhales 7 Days a Week in the Average e-Liquid.

Same standard of harm (or not harmful) can be applied to all other substances.

 

[Lessifer]

Isn't the Issue of "Safe Enough" based on an Individual making an Informed Decision for themselves? Because I don't know of Anyone who has said that e-Cigarette use is Safe.

I would argue it's based on the same thing that makes 99% of what we consume GRAS, including children, who are allowed to buy things for themselves. Like Cheetos, or coffee, red bull, vitamins, etc.

Whereas the statement that "Nicotine in Moderation is Not Harmful" is Debatable. I would first like to know how much Nicotine is considered Moderate?

Pretty much anything below the lethal dose, definitely anything found in a commercial e-liquid made for consumption and not mixing, of course individual tolerances will vary.

And what a Generally Expectable definition of "Not Harmful" is?

I would argue it's based on the same thing that makes 99% of what we consume GRAS, including children, who are allowed to buy things for themselves. Like Cheetos, or coffee, red bull, vitamins, etc.

And if the same Amounts and Definitions can be Applied to the 20% or so of Chemical Flavorings and Artificial Sweeteners that a Vaper Inhales 7 Days a Week in the Average e-Liquid.

Until someone proves otherwise, using them in the way that we are using them, and not extrapolating from a very different situation(manufacturing safety guidelines), yes.

 

[zoiDman]

A daily range of .5 ml of eLiquid to 5 ml of eLiquid. If going as high as 5 ml, then anything over 12 mg, would likely start being on the less moderate side of things, but might be perfectly okay based on personal choice. Just hard to defend as "generally accepted as being used in moderation."

While this might be read as speaking from authority, I would offer it up as starting point for reasonable discussion and ask he who asked to add his own take on what makes for moderation before expecting further answers/clarification to what has been conveyed. That will surely come, as may be desired, but not if it is simply a one-sided discussion to evade agreement.



Not causing immediate health issues that would plausibly bring someone to ER whereby medical staff would deem the person in need of immediate attention.

If it is of the type of "harm" that is long term, then that is between unknown and just like every other product/substance currently found on this planet. There are zero substances on this planet that, over the long term, cause zero harm to living beings. Therefore nicotine products ought not to be held to standard of "long term harm" unless that is known and hard science (not the soft science, survey variety) can firmly establish what the actual causal relationship is between the hypothesized harm, the latency period and the actual, observed results AND determine the exact percentage of all currently living people that would reasonably be impacted. Please note: this is yet to be accomplished with regards to combustible tobacco, or more precisely, with SHS.



Same standard of harm (or not harmful) can be applied to all other substances.

Trust Me, I am Not Taking what you say as Speaking from Authority.

---

So as long as "Not causing immediate health issues that would plausibly bring someone to ER whereby medical staff would deem the person in need of immediate attention.", something is Not Harmful?

By that Reasoning, we could Vape Asbestos and it would not be Considered Harmful to You.

LOL

 

[zoiDman]

I would argue it's based on the same thing that makes 99% of what we consume GRAS, including children, who are allowed to buy things for themselves. Like Cheetos, or coffee, red bull, vitamins, etc.


Pretty much anything below the lethal dose, definitely anything found in a commercial e-liquid made for consumption and not mixing, of course individual tolerances will vary.


I would argue it's based on the same thing that makes 99% of what we consume GRAS, including children, who are allowed to buy things for themselves. Like Cheetos, or coffee, red bull, vitamins, etc.


Until someone proves otherwise, using them in the way that we are using them, and not extrapolating from a very different situation(manufacturing safety guidelines), yes.

I can Take Everything you mentioned ( Most of which I do Not Agree with) and say if an Adult wants to use Any product that is Legally Sold, either with or without an Informed Choice, No Problem.

But I can't go so Far as to Apply this to a Child.

 

[Lessifer]

I can Take Everything you mentioned ( Most of which I do Not Agree with) and say if an Adult wants to use Any product that is Legally Sold, either with or without an Informed Choice, No Problem.

But I can't go so Far as to Apply this to a Child.

Where do you see the difference between vaping and an energy drink? Both contain ingredients that people did not consume in regular amounts until recently. Neither of them have long term safety studies. One has sent thousands of people to the ER, guess which, I'll give you a hint, it's not the one you currently have to be 18 in most states to purchase.

 

[zoiDman]

...

Not causing immediate health issues that would plausibly bring someone to ER whereby medical staff would deem the person in need of immediate attention.

...

BTW - This same Reasoning can be Applied to People Smoking Cigarettes. Because ER Rooms are not Chucked Full of People who Smoked their First Pack of Cigarettes.

So Maybe we Should Allow Children to Buy Cigarettes?

And before you Answer, Yes, I know you are in Favor of Children Buying Cigarettes.

 

[zoiDman]

Where do you see the difference between vaping and an energy drink? Both contain ingredients that people did not consume in regular amounts until recently. Neither of them have long term safety studies. One has sent thousands of people to the ER, guess which, I'll give you a hint, it's not the one you currently have to be 18 in most states to purchase.

What Relevance is there to Comparing Energy Drinks to e-Liquids that Contain Nicotine?

 

[Lessifer]

What Relevance is there to Comparing Energy Drinks to e-Liquids that Contain Nicotine?

Because my argument is that nicotine is comparable to caffeine, both in potential for harm/physical dependence, and physiological affect. That is, nicotine absent tobacco.

 

[Lessifer]

Trust Me, I am Not Taking what you say as Speaking from Authority.

---

So as long as "Not causing immediate health issues that would plausibly bring someone to ER whereby medical staff would deem the person in need of immediate attention.", something is Not Harmful?

By that Reasoning, we could Vape Asbestos and it would not be Considered Harmful to You.

LOL

I believe Asbestos would fall under:

If it is of the type of "harm" that is long term, then that is between unknown and just like every other product/substance currently found on this planet. There are zero substances on this planet that, over the long term, cause zero harm to living beings. Therefore nicotine products ought not to be held to standard of "long term harm" unless that is known and hard science (not the soft science, survey variety) can firmly establish what the actual causal relationship is between the hypothesized harm, the latency period and the actual, observed results AND determine the exact percentage of all currently living people that would reasonably be impacted. Please note: this is yet to be accomplished with regards to combustible tobacco, or more precisely, with SHS.

 

[Jman8]

So as long as "Not causing immediate health issues that would plausibly bring someone to ER whereby medical staff would deem the person in need of immediate attention.", something is Not Harmful?

By that Reasoning, we could Vape Asbestos and it would not be Considered Harmful to You.

LOL

Give it a try and report back if there was need for immediate medical attention.

 

[zoiDman]

Because my argument is that nicotine is comparable to caffeine, both in potential for harm/physical dependence, and physiological affect. That is, nicotine absent tobacco.

OK.

Are the Dosages the Same? Are the Frequencies of Ingestion the Same? Are the Same Chemicals found e-Liquids found in Caffeine Energy Drinks. And if so, do People put Energy Drinks in their Lungs?

Not sure if you Will Agree, but Many People consider Caffeine to be Addictive. (Just take away Coffee from Most People in the AM and see what Happens)

 

[Jman8]

So Maybe we Should Allow Children to Buy Cigarettes?

And before you Answer, Yes, I know you are in Favor of Children Buying Cigarettes.

I say we deny it to them, speak forever negatively about smoking, tell a kid no just to be sure they get the message. Sit back and act all surprised that they instead chose to use it. Blame their use on tobacco companies. Tell as many lies as we can about what happens to smokers who dare defy our infallible logic and, if at all possible, set up a governmental Ponzi scheme whereby we get paid to study all the observances of the lies we've told everyone about. All the while, telling people that we do this 'for the children.' Which must never, ever, be seen as a lie.

 

[zoiDman]

Give it a try and report back if there was need for immediate medical attention.

Lets Not and Say we Did.

And I would also put Selling Asbestos to Children in the "No" file.

 

[Jman8]

Because my argument is that nicotine is comparable to caffeine, both in potential for harm/physical dependence, and physiological affect. That is, nicotine absent tobacco.

Seriously, just stop. He'll keep asking questions forever, all in a vain attempt to evade any sense of agreement or actual discussion on a discussion forum.

If you choose to continue, best wishes. I'll probably be liking most of your responses.

 

[Lessifer]

OK.

Are the Dosages the Same? Are the Frequencies of Ingestion the Same? Are the Same Chemicals found e-Liquids found in Caffeine Energy Drinks. And if so, do People put Energy Drinks in their Lungs?

Not sure if you Will Agree, but Many People consider Caffeine to be Addictive. (Just take away Coffee from Most People in the AM and see what Happens)

Show me a study that says that nicotine, by itself, is harmful and/or causes physical dependence. When restricting activities based on potential for harm, the onus should be on the regulator to prove that the potential for harm exists, not hypothesize based on a tangential connection to another product as is the case with nicotine and smoking. Caffeine, depending on your definition, is not addictive. It is habit forming, it does produce short term physical withdrawal, but is generally recognized to not cause harm, unless of course you overdose.

 

[zoiDman]

I say we deny it to them, speak forever negatively about smoking, tell a kid no just to be sure they get the message. Sit back and act all surprised that they instead chose to use it. Blame their use on tobacco companies. Tell as many lies as we can about what happens to smokers who dare defy our infallible logic and, if at all possible, set up a governmental Ponzi scheme whereby we get paid to study all the observances of the lies we've told everyone about. All the while, telling people that we do this 'for the children.' Which must never, ever, be seen as a lie.

That sounds like How a person Dances around the Issue that they are In Favor of Selling Cigarettes to Children.