It's nothing personal, here. But just for the sake of argument, what if the entire vaping community got vocal - we would tolerate ZERO RESTRICTIONS on vaping. Not childproof bottles, not banning sales to minors, we wanna vape any place our little hearts desire!
The ANTZ would have a field day with us.
The ANTZ are already, in their own ANTZY way, trying to have a field day with us.
I'm about as anti-regulation as they come, though I think there might be some that are more anti-regulation than me, and I've seen some that are equal. Given what you gave as examples above, I would not compromise (much) on the sales to minors issue. And I do wanna vape any place, with respect, that I desire. I currently cannot think of a place I wouldn't vape. I can think of situations I may not vape in, and have refrained from vaping in a vape shop, given the situation. I am going to advocate to what I'd like to think is crowd of vaping enthusiasts to vape everywhere, with respect.
Other things like childproof bottles are best taken care of by free market. If literally zero vendors offered this, I could see consumer group calling it forth as a demand on the industry. But if some are and some aren't and parent with (small) children at home chooses not to purchase from vendor offering it, I see that as mostly to entirely on them.
This whole "no-compromise, no-quarter" attitude that currently pervades the U.S. government has resuted in two of the most ineffectual Congresses in American history. It's crap....we have to listen to each other, the non-smokers, the smokers and the vapers. Understand their concerns, and when it's FOR THE CHILDREN (yeah, I know it's a ploy, but it's a ploy that works!) be willing to make at least SOME concessions.
And vapers who argue that we shouldn't make any concessions, IMHO, are almost as dangerous as the ANTZ. Chucking clouds in an enclosed, public place too often could potentially create the legal problems those damn ANTZ WANT us to have!
Conceding on the children issue is political suicide. For the umpteenth time, I am saying that this is the regulation that drives them all. I wrote above that I would not compromise (much) on the sales to minors issue. I put "much" in parentheses because I would consider a compromise there, but it would be after reasonable discussion is being had. If that is not occurring, then I would think everyone being honest in the room would be able to observe which side is willing to compromise and which isn't. Concessions from the other side that would show they are entirely willing to listen would be the zero nic aspect as something they could conceivable concede on, and then the age of use for nicotine as something they might be willing to discuss / negotiate. Depending on how such a discussion went, I could see me compromising on an age around 12 years old as being the cutoff. I honestly believe anything above that would be creating a black market for those not included. I would attribute the creation of such a market at around 80% the responsibility of those who did not appear to listen very well during the reasonable discussion that was had during political negotiations.
Now, getting back to shared reality, there's no discussion being had. ANTZ, if anything are going to go for 21 as age for buying ANY type of vaping product (zero nic or not). They're not going to allow any politician (local, state, national, world) to consider anything under 18. They're not going to compromise on this issue, and I truly believe that some of them are well aware of the whole underground market creation thing, and consider it not in anyway a result of what they advocate for.
When has ANTZ shown any desire, remotely, to compromise on these items? Our side shows it often and I think ANTZ counts on that. Counts on us rolling over on certain things so they can go full steam ahead. From what is conveyed in mass media and based on their press releases, they give literally zero credit for anything they are after to anyone but themselves. Smoking rates are down since 1960, and rate of decline in last 7 or so years is even greater. Every vaper knows that it partially because of vaping. ANTZ can't bring themselves to that realization and to date not one of them has publicly stated such. For them, vaping is entirely part of the problem. Once TCA kicks in, it is likely they consider this an increase in the rate of "tobacco use" and tackle the problem according to their playbook.
And that playbook is, on the surface, about staving off another generation from becoming people that are addicted to nicotine, for life. That actually sounds noble and like something that most reasonable people can get behind. But everything from their playbook and the policies that they seek are all about shaming users, and denying any sense of legitimate use of nicotine as a recreational choice.
This is the short version of why I don't think compromise is something to go for. At the local level, I could see how compromise might work. But beyond that, you'd be very naive if you thought any politician in the fight was not being directed by ANTZ operatives to a) not compromise and b) to dictate policies that amount to shaming users into submission to ANTZ ideology.
And for this reason, it would be entirely foolish to concede on the sales to children issue (foremost) and to make the type of compromises we seem all too willing to make on the indoor vaping issue. Some of you all want to draw a line at outdoors public vaping. I laugh at that. You don't think your EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS for not vaping indoors will not be used against you/us for why vaping in certain outdoor locations can not be tolerated? As usual, I'm up for taking up their position for how that will happen. To think it won't happen when we already lived in a shared reality that disallows smoking in areas that are outdoors / in your own car, is so politically naive, I feel it needs to be pointed out just how misguided it is for us to compromise on this.
We give them miles, and have been, going back 50 years. When have they, at any time, given us an inch?
