Ya know.
It is Difficult to have an Adult discussion with someone who has to Constantly Inject Snide Remarks and Accusations.
Have a Good Day.
Should the government parent your child?
- Thread starter Lessifer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Ya know.
It is Difficult to have an Adult discussion with someone who has to Constantly Inject Snide Remarks and Accusations.
Have a Good Day.
I apologize if I've misrepresented your opinion.
Feel free to clarify it.
ETA: I will edit the post in question to remove the personal remark.
Last edited:
I simply do not agree that the government has to assist you, by outlawing sales to your child.
Lessifer, honey, are you somebody's parent? Lemme tell ya - when my 10 yr old son came home with a used version of Grand Theft Auto, I was
As a parent, I didn't feel killing hookers and car-jacking in order to score points was appropriate for a ten year old. But it was perfectly legal for my son to purchase that game!
My son and I went to the store, returned the game, and that store manager got an earful. Put a note in his customer file - if you EVER sell him a game like this again and I'm not with him, you're gonna have a problem on your hands! Never piss off a mother of Italian descent! ;-/
Parents can't be everywhere. It's reassuring to know that stores CAN'T sell some items to children.
Lessifer, honey, are you somebody's parent? Lemme tell ya - when my 10 yr old son came home with a used version of Grand Theft Auto, I was
As a parent, I didn't feel killing hookers and car-jacking in order to score points was appropriate for a ten year old. But it was perfectly legal for my son to purchase that game!
My son and I went to the store, returned the game, and that store manager got an earful. Put a note in his customer file - if you EVER sell him a game like this again and I'm not with him, you're gonna have a problem on your hands! Never piss off a mother of Italian descent! ;-/
Parents can't be everywhere. It's reassuring to know that stores CAN'T sell some items to children.
Last edited:
I don't know if vaping is inherently bad for us. I do know that my body has less signs of damage (shortness of breath, chest pains - those are gone now) than it did when I smoked. But that, in itself, isn't proof that vaping has no hazards at all.
Am I safer with a 2.4 ohm coil and a Spinner at 4.3 volts than I am with a .6 ohm build at 28 watts on my IPV mini?
Nobody knows. It's a new industry and the numbers aren't in yet. But as adults, we do our homework, come to our own conclusions, and make the choice to vape instead of smoke. Children don't have the capacity to do that.
So, I guess my final answer to this thread is "Yes, I want the government to parent my child when it comes to this particular issue."
Am I safer with a 2.4 ohm coil and a Spinner at 4.3 volts than I am with a .6 ohm build at 28 watts on my IPV mini?
Nobody knows. It's a new industry and the numbers aren't in yet. But as adults, we do our homework, come to our own conclusions, and make the choice to vape instead of smoke. Children don't have the capacity to do that.
So, I guess my final answer to this thread is "Yes, I want the government to parent my child when it comes to this particular issue."
Last edited:
I think this is a Key Point. And a Reason that Many People feel that a Child should Not have the Ability to Buy e-Liquids that Contain Nicotine.
It's not just the nicotine, Zoidman. I'm more worried about the flavorings, and the effect that high temps have on their chemical composition, than I am about the nicotine.
THANK YOU.
It is Refreshing to hear from someone who is Considering e-Liquids in Totality. And Not just looking at Nicotine in Isolation.
lol..love your avatar, .Zoidman!
"I have the mind of a child. I keep it in a jar on my desk." - Stephen King
"I have the mind of a child. I keep it in a jar on my desk." - Stephen King
I simply do not agree that the government has to assist you, by outlawing sales to your child.
Lessifer, honey, are you somebody's parent? Lemme tell ya - when my 10 yr old son came home with a used version of Grand Theft Auto, I was
As a parent, I didn't feel killing hookers and car-jacking in order to score points was appropriate for a ten year old. But it was perfectly legal for my son to purchase that game!
My son and I went to the store, returned the game, and that store manager got an earful. Put a note in his customer file - if you EVER sell him a game like this again and I'm not with him, you're gonna have a problem on your hands! Never piss off a mother of Italian descent! ;-/
Parents can't be everywhere. It's reassuring to know that stores CAN'T sell some items to children.
I am a parent, and I personally wouldn't want my child to start vaping without some valid reason, which I would discuss with her if it came up.
Thank you for telling a story of how a PARENT can monitor what their child does, in the event that the government hasn't banned it.
This debate is about more than just kids being able to buy vape gear on their own, I see it as fundamental to what we're fighting every day. Yes, there are unknowns in vaping, I am as concerned about them as anyone else, that's why I'm on here every day learning about every new development that pops up. I simply do not believe in a government ban, without evidence of harm. Once you accept the "there's no evidence it doesn't harm" argument, our cause is lost. At that point all anyone ever has to say to move their anti vaping agenda forward is: "we don't know if it does this, yet, but we believe it will."
For now the only manifestation that is pretty much nationwide is the minor sales ban, there are a few states that do not have a minor sales ban in place and that is because the "public health" groups have been lobbying AGAINST them. Why would they lobby against them? Because they don't go FAR ENOUGH. The pro-vaping side concedes/agrees to a minor sales ban, which tells the government "yes, it's bad enough we don't want kids doing it." Then the public health officials say, wait, we need more than a sales ban, we need to reclassify vaping as a tobacco product, so it can be added to public smoking bans, and while we're at it we can add on a tax, because we should discourage use, because we don't KNOW that it's harmless... and we've already conceded that point and said that that is enough of a reason to pass legislation.
I simply do not agree that the government has to assist you, by outlawing sales to your child.
Lessifer, honey, are you somebody's parent? Lemme tell ya - when my 10 yr old son came home with a used version of Grand Theft Auto, I was
As a parent, I didn't feel killing hookers and car-jacking in order to score points was appropriate for a ten year old. But it was perfectly legal for my son to purchase that game!
My son and I went to the store, returned the game, and that store manager got an earful. Put a note in his customer file - if you EVER sell him a game like this again and I'm not with him, you're gonna have a problem on your hands! Never piss off a mother of Italian descent! ;-/
Parents can't be everywhere. It's reassuring to know that stores CAN'T sell some items to children.
1,000 times this ^^^
Okay. I'm actualy enjoying this lol..let's do this one point at a time.
Once you accept the "there's no evidence it doesn't harm" argument, our cause is lost. I respectfully disagree, Lessifer.
I'm guessing that somewhere in the neighborhood of hundreds of thousands of people have successfully quit smoking by using electronic cigarettes. It's one of the reasons the FDA is having trouble coming out with strict legislation against vaping. The FDA knows that 1) there are too many people who were able to give up cigarettes when they switched to vaping 2) most of these people are of voting age 3) these people will vehemently vote against any candidate who takes a stand against electronic cigarettes. The "No evidence vaping doesn't harm" argument has nothing to do with the FDA's reluctance to make a move.
...there are a few states that do not have a minor sales ban in place and that is because the "public health" groups have been lobbying AGAINST them. Why would they lobby against them? Because they don't go FAR ENOUGH... That I have not read. Could you cite your references on this?
Bottom line, there are two major groups, IMHO, that want to severely restrict vaping. 1) Big Pharma. Chantrix is a best seller, Nicorette has been flying off the shelves during the first week of January, every year, for years. Don't think for a minute that Pfizer and Alza are going to let their products go quietly into the big night. 2) The American Cancer Society and other so-called "non-profits" who risk seeing their numbers and clout dwindle as lung cancer and emphysema go the way of polio and typhoid.
Then, you line up governments who are crying to replace the revenue generated by cigarette sin taxes (that's starting to seriously fly out the window!), put them in bed with #1 and #2 up there (who are busy promising UNLIMITED campaign contributions) and you get the ANTZ who would pry my Nemesis from my cold, dead hand.
But the best defense we have against these ________ is staying united. We can't afford non-starters, quibbling about whether our kids can/should vape. They can't, and until they're older, they shouldn't. We need to stand strong, and admit that there MAY be harmful effects from long-term vaping that are as of now, unsubstantiated. We need to be as fair and objective as we (kinda) expect them to be.
I don't know if we can trust the FDA to be objective; an unpaid, un-affiliated board of chemical experts studying the effects of temperatures on varying flavor solutions would be ideal. (And no fair, cheating and vaping a dry CE4 at fifty watts!)
Once that's finished and the results are made public, THEN, the decisions can be made about where vape legislation can go.
Once you accept the "there's no evidence it doesn't harm" argument, our cause is lost. I respectfully disagree, Lessifer.
I'm guessing that somewhere in the neighborhood of hundreds of thousands of people have successfully quit smoking by using electronic cigarettes. It's one of the reasons the FDA is having trouble coming out with strict legislation against vaping. The FDA knows that 1) there are too many people who were able to give up cigarettes when they switched to vaping 2) most of these people are of voting age 3) these people will vehemently vote against any candidate who takes a stand against electronic cigarettes. The "No evidence vaping doesn't harm" argument has nothing to do with the FDA's reluctance to make a move.
...there are a few states that do not have a minor sales ban in place and that is because the "public health" groups have been lobbying AGAINST them. Why would they lobby against them? Because they don't go FAR ENOUGH... That I have not read. Could you cite your references on this?
Bottom line, there are two major groups, IMHO, that want to severely restrict vaping. 1) Big Pharma. Chantrix is a best seller, Nicorette has been flying off the shelves during the first week of January, every year, for years. Don't think for a minute that Pfizer and Alza are going to let their products go quietly into the big night. 2) The American Cancer Society and other so-called "non-profits" who risk seeing their numbers and clout dwindle as lung cancer and emphysema go the way of polio and typhoid.
Then, you line up governments who are crying to replace the revenue generated by cigarette sin taxes (that's starting to seriously fly out the window!), put them in bed with #1 and #2 up there (who are busy promising UNLIMITED campaign contributions) and you get the ANTZ who would pry my Nemesis from my cold, dead hand.
But the best defense we have against these ________ is staying united. We can't afford non-starters, quibbling about whether our kids can/should vape. They can't, and until they're older, they shouldn't. We need to stand strong, and admit that there MAY be harmful effects from long-term vaping that are as of now, unsubstantiated. We need to be as fair and objective as we (kinda) expect them to be.
I don't know if we can trust the FDA to be objective; an unpaid, un-affiliated board of chemical experts studying the effects of temperatures on varying flavor solutions would be ideal. (And no fair, cheating and vaping a dry CE4 at fifty watts!)
Once that's finished and the results are made public, THEN, the decisions can be made about where vape legislation can go.
I'll come back and post more, with references later when I'm not on the road.
As to the quoted part here, this is what I want, to wait to pass any legislation/restrictions until there is evidence that they are necessary.
Sent from my zombie defense stronghold using Tapatalk - now Free
If the FDA were the only thing we had to worry about, I might agree. The FDA is at least supposed to make decisions based on science. Unfortunately, state and local politicians have no such mandate. I suppose it depends on what you're willing to accept. If you're just worried about an outright ban, that's probably not going to happen. If you want to be able to vape in a park without getting a ticket, then you probably have something to worry about.
States racing to regulate e-cigarettes
A few interesting quotes(the whole article is definitely worth a read):
"But banning e-cigarette sales to kids only makes teens want them more, says Stanton Glantz, a professor of tobacco control at the University of California-San Francisco. "
"The American Cancer Society has found itself in a surprising position: opposing state proposals to make it illegal to sell e-cigarettes to minors."
"Kids have have many ways to get cigarettes, research shows, and there are more effective ways of keeping cigarettes away from teens than just prohibiting sales, Sward says.
Raising taxes – something specifically forbidden by a new Missouri law – does far more to cut youth smoking by making cigarettes too expensive for teens with limited incomes, Sward says."
Bottom line, there are two major groups, IMHO, that want to severely restrict vaping. 1) Big Pharma. Chantrix is a best seller, Nicorette has been flying off the shelves during the first week of January, every year, for years. Don't think for a minute that Pfizer and Alza are going to let their products go quietly into the big night. 2) The American Cancer Society and other so-called "non-profits" who risk seeing their numbers and clout dwindle as lung cancer and emphysema go the way of polio and typhoid.
Then, you line up governments who are crying to replace the revenue generated by cigarette sin taxes (that's starting to seriously fly out the window!), put them in bed with #1 and #2 up there (who are busy promising UNLIMITED campaign contributions) and you get the ANTZ who would pry my Nemesis from my cold, dead hand.
But the best defense we have against these ________ is staying united. We can't afford non-starters, quibbling about whether our kids can/should vape. They can't, and until they're older, they shouldn't. We need to stand strong, and admit that there MAY be harmful effects from long-term vaping that are as of now, unsubstantiated. We need to be as fair and objective as we (kinda) expect them to be.
I don't know if we can trust the FDA to be objective; an unpaid, un-affiliated board of chemical experts studying the effects of temperatures on varying flavor solutions would be ideal. (And no fair, cheating and vaping a dry CE4 at fifty watts!)
Once that's finished and the results are made public, THEN, the decisions can be made about where vape legislation can go.
The only justification I've ever seen, that can't be easily refuted, for a minor sales ban is "We just don't know enough, we have to protect the children." or some variant, and really this can't be refuted. We don't know that vaping is harmless, we will probably never KNOW if it is, but that is not a good justification for regulation. This reason is also the only one provided by "public health" for all other regulation, that we again can't refute. If you're willing to accept this as a justification for a minor sales ban, why wouldn't you be willing to accept it as justification for an indoor vaping ban, or an outdoor public spaces ban, or a ban on flavors, or a ban on anything higher than 3mg/ml nicotine, or just an outright ban?
I believe your response actually falls under: I'm still undecided, but ban it until I am. (at least where minors are concerned.)
Sounds fair. Any other ways I could contribute to the government's parenting of some other guy's "The Children"?
Wouldn't a tax on "The Children" be more appropriate?
Well I guess that they could do what Ryan Smith did in Ohio and just tell the Truth?
I don't think we should accept unfair taxes, whether they are "for the children" or not. If he were really being honest, he would propose a statewide sales tax increase, or a property tax increase, or raising the state income tax, instead of trying to squeeze a minority group for absolutely no reason.
I firmly believe in raising my own child. I do not want any gubberment interference and I've spent the past 18 years paying very close attention to what my child is or isn't being taught in school and I have interfered when I saw fit. She is my responsibility until she turns 18 (way too soon) and I believe I have done whatever was necessary to be a role model and teach her right from wrong. All without the gubberment's help whether it be financially or otherwise. She doesn't smoke, no drugs, no booze, no "ugh, all sorts of other stuff".
Having said that, I do not want to see cigarettes, alcohol, nicotine or drugs being advertised and/or sold to minors and I don't see age restriction for those purchases as the gubberment interfering with me raising my child or raising my child on my behalf. There's a ton of other crap that concerns me a lot more when it comes to how our kids are growing up than preventing them from purchasing e-juice illegally.
Having said that, I do not want to see cigarettes, alcohol, nicotine or drugs being advertised and/or sold to minors and I don't see age restriction for those purchases as the gubberment interfering with me raising my child or raising my child on my behalf. There's a ton of other crap that concerns me a lot more when it comes to how our kids are growing up than preventing them from purchasing e-juice illegally.
I respect your opinion, can I ask why you lump nicotine in with cigarettes, alcohol, other drugs? Also, a secondary question, do you also lump caffeine and sugar into that category?
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is allowed to consume caffeine should be allowed to consume nicotine.
As far as vaping nicotine goes, it's the flavors that concern me, not the nicotine.
So my answer is....
Hell if I know.
As far as vaping nicotine goes, it's the flavors that concern me, not the nicotine.
So my answer is....
Hell if I know.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
