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

[AndriaD]

Message received. Thank you for the information! I've not known anything about nicotine prior to vaping. I do think the legal age should be lowered for nicotine products.

I came here thinking that nicotine was the most addictive substance known to man, just as most everyone *outside* vaping still thinks, thanks to all those "public health" LIARS. That website containing those links I posted was my first encounter with the real truth, so I still refer to it, and those articles, since they were the ones that first opened MY eyes. Since then I've also done a lot of reading at these sites:

The counterfactual
Anti-THR Lies and related topics | because cultivating the truth requires both seeding and weeding
Tobacco Truth

And lots of others, whose links you can find at those sites above.

Once you start reading this stuff, it makes you really angry, that we've been duped so thoroughly and egregiously, for so long, by those who purport to stand for the public's health. At this point, I don't trust "public health" as far as I can throw them, and that includes the CDC, which I thought was so wonderful. They're all liars and shills, pretending to give a crap about public health, but really caring ONLY for money. If they came out tomorrow with news of some godawful plague, I wouldn't believe them, and lots around here wouldn't either, because their integrity is clearly bought and paid for by Big Bad Evil Pharma. And that's a terrible evil in its own right, that they've willingly and willfully compromised their own integrity, so that matters which really ought to be paid attention to, now probably won't be, by anyone with a brain in their head and actual ethics in their character.

Andria

 

[Jode]

Message received. Thank you for the information! I've not known anything about nicotine prior to vaping. I do think the legal age should be lowered for nicotine products.

Welcome. Please do not take any my posts on this subject as being directed at you. There is so much information out there and that makes it extremely difficult to separate fact from fiction or fear mongering. As you explore this site you will learn so much. Enjoy and welcome to the world of vape.

 

[coralsands]

Only when consumed with tobacco. By itself, it is not, to a never-smoker. If you have EVER been a smoker, the addiction path is already formed, and nothing about "never smokers" applies.

The Great Nicotine Myth
All You Need To Know About Nicotine
Chemical Dependency and Nicotine
Nicotine Propaganda
Is Nicotine Addictive ?

How many times does this have to be said before people get it?!?!?!

Andria

From what i can tell all that these articles cite is the lack of clinical evidence of the addictiveness of pure nicotine in never smokers(also what is defined as a never smoker? does second hand smoke count?) and the fact that there is extremely small amounts of nicotine in everyones diet. Well there is also small amounts of arsenic in our diets, doesn't mean we should grant people free access to pure arsenic. You cant cite a lack of studies as evidence of something. there is a lack of studies showing that humans need to breath to survive, you dont see people claiming that breathing isn't necessary to sustaining human life. Now I am genuinely curious as to what actual clinical evidence you can pull up to support your hypothesis but you cant claim that something is true purely out of lack of evidence that it might not be false. That is literal insanity. If you can prove your theory I can fully admit that I am a dumby and you are the all knowing queen of nicotine but until then please stop spouting opinion as fact, as that is the definition of misinformation. Again not trying to be a douche here, but please cite actual studies.

 

[Lessifer]

From what i can tell all that these articles cite is the lack of clinical evidence of the addictiveness of pure nicotine in never smokers(also what is defined as a never smoker? does second hand smoke count?) and the fact that there is extremely small amounts of nicotine in everyones diet. Well there is also small amounts of arsenic in our diets, doesn't mean we should grant people free access to pure arsenic. You cant cite a lack of studies as evidence of something. there is a lack of studies showing that humans need to breath to survive, you dont see people claiming that breathing isn't necessary to sustaining human life. Now I am genuinely curious as to what actual clinical evidence you can pull up to support your hypothesis but you cant claim that something is true purely out of lack of evidence that it might not be false. That is literal insanity. If you can prove your theory I can fully admit that I am a dumby and you are the all knowing queen of nicotine but until then please stop spouting opinion as fact, as that is the definition of misinformation. Again not trying to be a douche here, but please cite actual studies.

I think something has been misunderstood. If you are asking for a study specifically designed to determine whether or not exposure to nicotine at higher than environmental levels does or does not create physical dependence, I don't believe there is one. However, if you read the studies cited in those articles and the analysis of them, a common observation of them was that NONE of the participants, who had not previously been tobacco users, developed a dependence to nicotine. That's not an absence of evidence, it is about as close to evidence of absence as one can get.

 

[coralsands]

I think something has been misunderstood. If you are asking for a study specifically designed to determine whether or not exposure to nicotine at higher than environmental levels does or does not create physical dependence, I don't believe there is one. However, if you read the studies cited in those articles and the analysis of them, a common observation of them was that NONE of the participants, who had not previously been tobacco users, developed a dependence to nicotine. That's not an absence of evidence, it is about as close to evidence of absence as one can get.

and how many of those were developing adolescents?
I will go through these studies but its likely to take me a while to review the conditions of said studies.(as you might know not all studies are well formed and if im not mistaken something has to be proven time and time again in the scientific community before it is accepted as fact for this very reason.)

 

[Jman8]

and how many of those were developing adolescents?

as opposed to non-developing adolescents?

 

[coralsands]

as opposed to non-developing adolescents?

im making a point theres a difference between the way chemicals act in the body of an adult vs. a developing adolescent. the adolescents body is still adjusting to its environment, trying to figure out what kind of world it is going to have to survive in, what chemicals it will have to deal with, etc.

 

[Lessifer]

and how many of those were developing adolescents?
I will go through these studies but its likely to take me a while to review the conditions of said studies.(as you might know not all studies are well formed and if im not mistaken something has to be proven time and time again in the scientific community before it is accepted as fact for this very reason.)

I don't remember, it's been awhile since I read through the back links to be honest. However, I can tell you that I've never seen a study showing that nicotine by itself DOES alter the brain of a developing adolescent. If you have seen a study showing otherwise, I would love to read it.

 

[coralsands]

I don't remember, it's been awhile since I read through the back links to be honest. However, I can tell you that I've never seen a study showing that nicotine by itself DOES alter the brain of a developing adolescent. If you have seen a study showing otherwise, I would love to read it.

again like i said before you cant cite absence of research to support a hypothesis. "F+ck it, why not?" is not a good enough reason to grant children access to a drug. look i will fully admit I might be wrong about low levels of nicotine being addictive to someone that has never been exposed to cigarette smoke or tobacco products but letting children use drugs whose effects have never actually been known in the developing body is not something that the public would take well, especially something that is a chemical found in whats generally known in the public as one of the most addictive substances known to man(whether that is actually true or not). If that was actually proposed to a wide public by a proponent of electronic cigarettes, do you really think everyone would just be like "ok yeah i guess hes right". If anyone here can actually even just convince the general public that nicotine is not addictive to neversmokers then i would forever respect that person but even that, if it is possible, is such a long ways off that its pointless to talk about the ethics of granting children access to nicotine. again why would a child need any drug? if its not for a disease they will surely die from, cant they just find a way to work through whatever they want the drug for instead of going to the instant gratification magic pill solution? would that not make them better suited to handle lifes problems in the future? If you look at alot of successful people that get questions alot from others one of the most frequently asked questions is "how do you stay motivated?' do you think their answer is "drugs"?

and looking for a study on the effects of a drug that is accepted in the public as dangerous in children is pointless, such a study would be extremely unethical (as viewed in the eye of the general public, which is the only view that matters to any large institution)

 

[Lessifer]

again like i said before you cant cite absence of research to support a hypothesis. "F+ck it, why not?" is not a good enough reason to grant children access to a drug. look i will fully admit I might be wrong about low levels of nicotine being addictive to someone that has never been exposed to cigarette smoke or tobacco products but letting children use drugs whose effects have never actually been known in the developing body is not something that the public would take well, especially something that is a chemical found in whats generally known in the public as one of the most addictive substances known to man(whether that is actually true or not). If that was actually proposed to a wide public by a proponent of electronic cigarettes, do you really think everyone would just be like "ok yeah i guess hes right". If anyone here can actually even just convince the general public that nicotine is not addictive to neversmokers then i would forever respect that person but even that, if it is possible, is such a long ways off that its pointless to talk about the ethics of granting children access to nicotine. again why would a child need any drug? if its not for a disease they will surely die from, cant they just find a way to work through whatever they want the drug for instead of going to the instant gratification magic pill solution? would that not make them better suited to handle lifes problems in the future? If you look at alot of successful people that get questions alot from others one of the most frequently asked questions is "how do you stay motivated?' do you think their answer is "drugs"?

and looking for a study on the effects of a drug that is accepted in the public as dangerous in children is pointless, such a study would be extremely unethical (as viewed in the eye of the general public, which is the only view that matters to any large institution)

So, because "society" thinks it's wrong, even if they're incorrect, it's wrong. You're not open to the notion that society is wrong, so there's no point going over the actual facts, plus, they've been presented multiple times, all you'd have to do is go back through the thread.

 

[coralsands]

So, because "society" thinks it's wrong, even if they're incorrect, it's wrong. You're not open to the notion that society is wrong, so there's no point going over the actual facts, plus, they've been presented multiple times, all you'd have to do is go back through the thread.

I already stated that you might be right about nicotine only addiction. you havent actually gone over any facts with solid scientific basis so basically your just trying to argue at this point. and seriously you think im not open to the notion that society might be wrong? seriously? im talking about not giving drugs to children, as in what the healthcare system is doing to children right this moment with pharmaceutical speed aka adderall and several other unnecessary drugs. At this point your just trying to argue, which is pointless to do with someone who thinks drugs should be widely available to children(obviously you picked the right avatar, just as freud proclaimed the health benefits of coke and how everyone should be on it)

 

[Lessifer]

I already stated that you might be right about nicotine only addiction. you havent actually gone over any facts with solid scientific basis so basically your just trying to argue at this point. and seriously you think im not open to the notion that society might be wrong? seriously? im talking about not giving drugs to children, as in what the healthcare system is doing to children right this moment with pharmaceutical speed aka adderall and several other unnecessary drugs. At this point your just trying to argue, which is pointless to do with someone who thinks drugs should be widely available to children(obviously you picked the right avatar, just as freud proclaimed the health benefits of coke and how everyone should be on it)

I don't have an issue with a mild stimulant, such as caffeine being available. I believe caffeine and nicotine to be relatively equivalent.

 

[AndriaD]

So, because "society" thinks it's wrong, even if they're incorrect, it's wrong. You're not open to the notion that society is wrong, so there's no point going over the actual facts, plus, they've been presented multiple times, all you'd have to do is go back through the thread.

All I can can say is.. thank god for the Ignore feature.

Andria

 

[TamiVapes]

again like i said before you cant cite absence of research to support a hypothesis. "F+ck it, why not?" is not a good enough reason to grant children access to a drug. look i will fully admit I might be wrong about low levels of nicotine being addictive to someone that has never been exposed to cigarette smoke or tobacco products but letting children use drugs whose effects have never actually been known in the developing body is not something that the public would take well, especially something that is a chemical found in whats generally known in the public as one of the most addictive substances known to man(whether that is actually true or not). If that was actually proposed to a wide public by a proponent of electronic cigarettes, do you really think everyone would just be like "ok yeah i guess hes right". If anyone here can actually even just convince the general public that nicotine is not addictive to neversmokers then i would forever respect that person but even that, if it is possible, is such a long ways off that its pointless to talk about the ethics of granting children access to nicotine. again why would a child need any drug? if its not for a disease they will surely die from, cant they just find a way to work through whatever they want the drug for instead of going to the instant gratification magic pill solution? would that not make them better suited to handle lifes problems in the future? If you look at alot of successful people that get questions alot from others one of the most frequently asked questions is "how do you stay motivated?' do you think their answer is "drugs"?

and looking for a study on the effects of a drug that is accepted in the public as dangerous in children is pointless, such a study would be extremely unethical (as viewed in the eye of the general public, which is the only view that matters to any large institution)

Coffee is more of a stimulant. Teens drink coffee. Should we ban that, too?

 

[Jack H]

I don't see the harm if children want to use nicotine. If they are informed of the possible potential risks it should be on them to decide.

 

[DC2]

I finally decided to read this thread.
I have been at it, off and on, for about five days now.

I'm caught up.
And I'm ready to go!!

What do you do if Fighting for a Very Small percentage the Population will have Extremely Damaging and Permanent Effects on the Vastly Larger percentage of the Vaping Population?

That's a good question.


Queue further discussion about...
--Are non-smokers really using nicotine when they start vaping
--Is nicotine really harmful or even addictive outside of tobacco smoke
--Are flavors and such potential issues
--The developing brain

Damn, I wish I had never read this thread.

 

[DC2]

I am in the camp of those that believe that non-smokers taking up vaping nicotine will not get addicted.
And if any do get "addicted" it might be more to the habit than nicotine, if they are even using nicotine.

If there is any harm to be found from flavors or nicotine, they can probably just stop.
Something that many smokers have had a historically hard time doing.

Other than that, hell if I know.
The habit and ritual might still be tough to break.
:shrug:

As for the poll question, I continue to refuse to answer it.
It doesn't have the answer I want to give.

 

[caramel]

As for the poll question, I continue to refuse to answer it.
It doesn't have the answer I want to give.

I'm afraid that the proper answer would show up as asterisks anyway

 

[zoiDman]

I finally decided to read this thread.
I have been at it, off and on, for about five days now.

I'm caught up.
And I'm ready to go!!

Good. Because there will be a Test.

It will be sent to your Mailing Address. Please be sure to use a #2 Leaded Pencil.

 

[DC2]

Good. Because there will be a Test.

It will be sent to your Mailing Address. Please be sure to use a #2 Leaded Pencil.

Test?
Really.


I could have probably written the test myself without looking at this thread.
I won't even need a cheat sheet.


A few new faces I don't recognize though.
No fair including them.