No, it leaves it up to the parents of the 5 year old to actually parent their 5 year old, as it should be.
Sent from my zombie defense stronghold using Tapatalk - now Free
Should Children be Allowed to Buy e-Liquids that contain Nicotine?
- Thread starter zoiDman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
No, it leaves it up to the parents of the 5 year old to actually parent their 5 year old, as it should be.
Sent from my zombie defense stronghold using Tapatalk - now Free
don't get me wrong cuz I know exactly what you're saying but the fact is is that society has made tobacco and nicotine an 18 or older age limit and I necessarily wouldn't put it into the tobacco category but since others do it kind of has to stay the same way as it is sadly
You kinda make it Hard for any Parent when their Kids can ride their bikes down to the Local 7-11 and plunk down their Allowance Money for 36mg e-Liquids.
or even worse, buy matches and set the house on fire. big smoke heh.
Kid buying e liquid most likely curiosity rebelling peer pressure
Kid starting house fires = first symptoms of a psychopath..
You kinda make it Hard for any Parent when their Kids can ride their bikes down to the Party supply and plunk down their Allowance Money for a helium tank.
Sent from my zombie defense stronghold using Tapatalk - now Free
I'm sorry. I must have Misunderstood your Previous Post. I thought you were Against 5 year Olds using Nicotine.
I guess I was Wrong.
I wouldn't let my 5yo use an ecig, nicotine or not, because she'd probably hurt herself. If you wanted to let yours use one, that's up to you.
I'm not FOR kids using nicotine, I'm AGAINST a legal age restriction. I'm also not FOR kids playing football and getting concussions, but I'm not going to ask for a legal age limit to play.
Sent from my zombie defense stronghold using Tapatalk - now Free
In all honesty, the rate of teens experimenting with ecigs would probably be the same whether they can legally purchase them or not, I just think forcing them to use alternative methods of obtaining them is less safe than letting them purchase from a reputable store.
I bet some people also think that having condoms available promotes teen sex, and that all teens would be chaste if they just weren't taught about sex in school.
Sent from my zombie defense stronghold using Tapatalk - now Free
I bet some people also think that having condoms available promotes teen sex, and that all teens would be chaste if they just weren't taught about sex in school.
Sent from my zombie defense stronghold using Tapatalk - now Free
This matches my position.
I don't know if there is anyone that is for anyone using nicotine. In the case(s) of NRT, perhaps we could say there are people that are for that. In this thread, there is already (the rather significant) concession that if a minor is engaged in NRT, then suddenly it is a different story for the person who responded "yes, there should be an age limit."
But the NRT position aside, it becomes an issue of morality, really.
I would say the overriding moral issue is whether or not you consider minors incapable of making decisions. Another way of phrasing this is whether or not you consider people (at particular ages) incapable of making fully informed decisions. If it is the first one, then it is likely going to be met with significant disagreement and, as it stands right now, is just an arbitrary number that is rather discriminatory. Here on a vaping forum where most people are ex-smokers and vast majority of those are people who started smoking before 18, it doesn't seem like it ought to be hard to establish that *you* have historically demonstrated yourself as a minor capable of making the decision to smoke. At same time, there's so much historical revisionism around that for each person that it becomes challenging to hold a reasonable discussion on this. Try as we might. And eventually it comes back to the idea that many ex-smoking, minor starting smokers feel they were not capable of making a fully informed decision when they did start smoking. And it might surprise some, but if it were strictly based on "fully informed decision," then if there was going to be an age invoked for it to work well for everyone, I would go past 30, and as high as 40. I do not think there is an 18 year old alive that is able to make "fully" informed decisions about most things. But I really really do not think we base this under a strict standard of "fully informed." Instead, it is more like, "do you have any idea or awareness about what the decision entails?" And even then, it isn't like there is a test of sorts. But far more like, "hopefully you do, and if you don't well best wishes with the consequences of your chosen actions."
Literally everything that a minor chooses to do would be subject to this "informed decision" standard, but instead it seems like we reserve superior (adult) judgment with the items that carry a very visible stigma. No child likely has a (fully) informed decision around the foods they ingest and particularly the foods they like and/or taste good. Kids aren't aware of what sugar can do, or how addictive it will be for them, or so on and so forth. Easily way more addictive than nicotine (IMO, not even close in comparison). And even adults don't have fully informed decision as the data is constantly in flux. Wine is good for you this year. Last year it was not good for you. Next year, it'll be hazardous. The year after that, who knows? Same goes with lots and lots of foods, and arguably with all foods. Thus the "fully informed" standard, even for adults, and even for something as simple as food, is completely impractical criteria. But due to social stigmas, and ANTZ propaganda, we all feel confident than a child taking up a nicotine habit is highly detrimental to their life. Except, there are many reading this sentence who have made it pretty far in life, advanced in many ways, and were able to minimize, if not eliminate the addiction (at least to smoking) even while they started at say age 15, possibly less. Thus, the stigma sounds quaint as a sound bite, but when considered with actual experience, there will (of course) be horror stories and then there will be positive stories. We tend not to share the positive stories with kids, which I believe is mostly to solely because we think the stigmatization is best message to pass along. Why? No one really knows for sure, and even while it is clearly NOT WORKING, we still tend to go there.
The second moral issue is the one that we on a vaping forum are constantly debating, and that is the stigmatization around nicotine. Like the wine thing I mentioned before. In this NRT product (that is available to 12 year olds), it is a good thing. In that product that's been around for over a hundred years it has been seen as a healthy thing, but then a questionable thing and now is treated as something is dreadfully wrong with you to take nicotine in that way. With vaping, it seems the majority want to say it is a bad thing. But many who've gone beyond sound bites have found it actually has benefits, that the medical community recognizes. But is downplayed because of the popular product, known for its nicotine component, and the one where there must be something dreadfully wrong with you if you like your nicotine in that fashion.
All this plays in to the GRAND DECEPTION that we pass along to kids. We are essentially telling kids, "nothing good can come from using nicotine" and yet, there is percentage of the population that really really enjoys using nicotine. So much so that if they had a choice of stopping it or continuing to use it (forever), most would likely choose to use it forever. Most will claim it relaxes them, takes the edge off, helps them focus, and perhaps other things. When smoking is removed from the picture, the negatives aren't really all that negative, other than "might lead to life long use."
In a thread like this (and many others), we count on that stigma of "nicotine is pretty bad" to help make sense of the position of "why minors should never be allowed to purchase / use." It's as if we need to remember that nicotine is inherently bad (moral judgment) for the thread's main argument to make any sense. If the substance in question was replaced with other 'lifelong addiction' - such as sugar - the perception wouldn't likely be that it (sugar) is inherently bad.
And all this plays into the fact that a kid is then set up to learn on their own just how both bad is it, and why do so many enjoy it. No really, why? Cause as long as that is being underplayed, then how the heck is anyone (of any age) expected to make an informed decision. If all nicotine has going for it, in terms of information, is that it is "highly addictive," then the circle of perpetual deception is guaranteed for yet another generation.
Also doesn't help the moral argument that almost all the current adult nicotine users all started when they were under the age of 18. Kinda looks and quacks like hypocrisy. Especially if they can be found in other threads speaking about how much they enjoy eLiquid (with nicotine).
Anyway, thanks for reading this wall of text and for considering the position beyond the sound bite position.
The reason I (strongly) believe a minor should be allowed is because I believe they, or we, are capable of making the decision and because I do not believe nicotine is inherently harmful, nor bad. I also think what we have been doing up to now with age restrictions has visibly been shown to not be working in the way we keep hoping it might. I think the age is set very arbitrarily. And I think if it was set to age zero, that parents wouldn't stop being parents and that kids would receive far more information about pros and cons than the lies we insist on telling about nicotine usage in vain attempt to have people not use. Knowing that at least 10% will use, will do so when they are a minor, and will likely enjoy using for many years to come, while trying to discover just why is this considered so bad for "me."
Morally I do agree with Jman8 and do believe that parents probably would inform and help their kids better if the stigma never existed in the first place but that's the way it is and will probably be for many years to come if not forever so morally I think the individual should be able to decide and like everything else to live and learn and deal with their own consequences but with the way that society stands today and all the age restrictions I'd still have to say that there should be an age restriction for buying e liquid sorry for the kinda confusing stand point..I hope you guys can understand
Hey Jman8 I forgot to ask you said that nicotine has some sort of medicinal benefit can you elaborate?
OK then.
So what it all Boils Down to is you Don't want Kids using Nicotine. But you want Kids to be Able to Buy Nicotine.
This is a great fairly recent article: Nicotine, the Wonder Drug? | DiscoverMagazine.com
Also, I think I understand your standpoint as, you agree with what jman and I are saying, at least to some extent, but you know that an age limit will be in effect, due to socio/political reasons. Is that right?
OK then.
So what it all Boils Down to is you Don't want Kids using Nicotine. But you want Kids to be Able to Buy Nicotine.
No, what it all boils down to is, I don't care if any particular child/teen(except my own) uses nicotine, but if they do, I don't want to restrict their access legally. When my child is old enough to make a case for using nicotine, I will listen and decide then if I think she should, but only for her. The rest of you can parent your own children. I just don't want the government tying your or their hands.
Do you see how one case lets parents actually be involved and help their children make decisions, and the other makes a blanket infringement based on an arbitrary number?
ETA: let me put it another way, I want to Protect the Children from potential Black Market scenarios, by Not Limiting their Legal Access to Nicotine.
Last edited:
This is confusing, but is also the norm. I heard you saying:
- morally I think the individual should be able to decide
- but with the way that society stands today and all the age restrictions ... there should be an age restriction for buying e liquid
I don't find this readily defensible, but also think it is very normal. Just kinda comes across as immoral. I don't think you are advocating for immorality per se, but the "should be an age restriction" is in that domain. Could just as well remain neutral on the issue and not contribute to the "should forbid" crowd.
- there are many threads on ECF where this will come up
- google search will reveal studies that convey medical benefits of nicotine
- from what I recall of the the above 2, the benefits include:
1 - appetite suppressant (addressing hunger / obesity issues)
2 - increased focus (addressing ADHD issues)
3 - plausible treatment for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or other brain issues
4 - plausible treatment (supplement) for depression
I also just want to add that PG continues to strike me as beneficial in reducing how often one may get a cold or even making the onset of a cold short lived. I keep wanting to start a thread for this as it keeps coming up for me. I think in my 3 years of vaping, I've had one cold. 15 years ago, as non-smoker, I averaged about 3 colds a year.
These age restrictions have no real purpose other then absolving BT and BG of liability. Sold to adults only, with graphic warnings on cancerstuff, we told you so, it was your informed / adult choice, no lawsuit allowed thank you, shut up there while we split the bounty. Same for pushing smokers in isolated "designated places". Got cancer and thought it would be a great idea to sue someone for side stream smoke? Can't have that. Nah Nah Nah.
"The Plan" was based on the assumption that smokers are hooked line and sinker and they can abuse them as they wish. That's why you haven't seen any fake charity or think tank or lobbying or any organization fighting for smokers rights. It was part of the plan that they would be abused to no end. And it pretty much worked.
Until vape happened.
"The Plan" was based on the assumption that smokers are hooked line and sinker and they can abuse them as they wish. That's why you haven't seen any fake charity or think tank or lobbying or any organization fighting for smokers rights. It was part of the plan that they would be abused to no end. And it pretty much worked.
Until vape happened.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
