There's a difference between a consumer asking for (and considering it a 'right') to be informed vs. what the gov't can do, esp. when they enact regulations that usually intervene into the market. And BuGlen points out how that doesn't always work - citing CA 65. There is no end to 'correcting legislation' that should not have been passed in the first place. That's, as I stated, how the solution becomes greater than the problem. As far as products that cause harm (not junk science or what some 'organic foodies' think harm is) that's a different story, obviously. Those selling harmful products should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
I wanted to like this post, but the part I bolded makes it too challenging.
My response to this quote isn't directed solely at Kent C, but is intended as discussion for this thread.
Cause this issue comes down to "preventing perceived harm." Yet, on the back end is "should be prosecuted to the fullest extent" if selling harmful products.
Who determines what is actually harmful and what is not? Won't there always be detractors in any industry who will be able to point out some degree of harm for any product on the market? Can you name a product that carries with it right now no degree of harm? So, when harm does occur within an industry, these detractors can manipulate things to make it appear like this is not junk science at work, this is not biased opinion at work, but is consumer protection preventing others from being harmed (again) by these products.
With vaping and an under regulated market, there exists a faction (even on this thread) that claims no one knows for sure what happens to vapers over the long term. Therefore, to prevent harm, perhaps we ought to be prosecuting to the fullest extent at this time. And except for one person in this thread, I don't think anyone wants to prosecute in a way that equals shutting businesses down right now based on perceived harms (in conjunction of lack of knowledge for long term effects). Instead, the prosecution of businesses to prevent them from harming means they ought to disclose everything.
I guess I don't see it as a different story. I think what you were saying is a business sells their products, people get harmed, and then government steps in to prosecute. But if a business is seen as not regulated (like let's take any substance sold on black market), and they sell something that is poisonous (leading to immediate harm), then how would we best address this? I think we'd prosecute the individual business operator(s) who sold the poison, and do what we can to prevent anyone else from selling that.
But this thread is essentially saying diacetyl is the poison, and thus saying it is righteous for we the people to shut them down. It can be challenging to argue against that, but not so challenging when you put the diacetyl issues in a perspective that matches all other substances on the planet, all of which carry with them a degree of harm. Arguably all businesses ought to be shut down if we are being extreme (or even consistent) with this position.
To some looking at the vaping industry, nicotine (in any dose) is a poison and therefore "we" should prevent all businesses from selling it. I'm pretty sure the diacetyl-free crowd disagrees with that notion, and yet, IMO, they are making that position stronger by some of what they are suggesting.
I do think there are answers to all of this, but admittedly can be challenging to explain in short order. I also just think neglecting existence of black market and ANTZ within context of what is we are discussing is cherry-picking how to frame this whole discussion. For if we don't go with "should disclose" ANTZ surely will, and if we all went with "should disclose" and companies that didn't went out of business and yet there was still a market for their products, they will appear on a black market.
