Sleazy propaganda re diacetyl in e-cigs

Status
Not open for further replies.
A buddy of mine who vapes had no idea the potential dangers of buttery, creamy and custard flavors until the other day. Why? His vendors don't have a warning label...

A buddy of mine had a mod blow up on him and he had no idea the potential dangers of that happening until the other day when it blew up in his face. Why? His vendors didn't have a warning label...:laugh:
 

stevegmu

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 10, 2013
11,630
12,348
6992 kilometers from home...
A buddy of mine had a mod blow up on him and he had no idea the potential dangers of that happening until the other day when it blew up in his face. Why? His vendors didn't have a warning label...:laugh:

There are quite a few B&Ms suggesting sub ohm and sketchy setups to new vapers who don't know better. Hopefully they will be shut down soon...
 

Danie06

Full Member
Jul 24, 2014
53
80
Rights provide a guide to what can't be done - no harm, no theft, etc., but when you're concept of a right requires action (rather than no action) on another individual, it isn't a right. You can't force another individual to provide you with information, an education, health care, a 'livable wage', affordable housing, etc. etc. Those are 'wishes' not 'rights'.
Actually (though I agree with a lot you write here) the vital exception here is consumers protection, which often does require action on other people, including laws of disclosure.
A government can (and often does) require businesses to disclose detailed information what is in products they sell, when people's health are at stake (for example in food).
And no that is most certainly not a wish, but is closely linked to consumer rights, namely that consumers have a right to know what ingredients are used in the products they buy.
Although I most certainly at this point dont think its a very good idea to solve this particular problem by asking the government to step in.;)

And no one has the obligation to provide that to you. You can ask, of course. And if it is important to you, you should. But then the answer might not be truthful, so the best insurance that something doesn't contain something that one doesn't want, would be to test it yourself or have a lab that you trust to do so. And avoid vendors who don't provide information, and go to those who do. There's certainly many that do now.
I agree, but when I described exactly that a few posts ago (basically: talk with your wallet) I was attacked for it in all kinds of ways, as if I had just suggested something really horrible.
Thats one of the reasons why the completel lack of interest in consumers rights of some on this mb strikes me as very odd.

Fighting for the right to vape against antz/ government etc is imo exactly the same as fighting for the right to know what is in our liquids .
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
Actually (though I agree with a lot you write here) the vital exception here is consumers protection, which often does require action on other people, including laws of disclosure.
A government can (and often does) require businesses to disclose detailed information what is in products they sell, when people's health are at stake (for example in food).
And no that is most certainly not a wish, but is closely linked to consumer rights, namely that consumers have a right to know what ingredients are used in the products they buy.
Although I most certainly at this point dont think its a very good idea to solve this particular problem by asking the government to step in.;)

I anticipated a cherry pick and a different context. I was going to add that when a crime is committed or there is a court case, the gov't can demand information, etc. but didn't think it was necessary. I should know better by now :facepalm: :laugh:

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'd also point out that after the mandatory 15 labels that are on ladders (that no one reads), people still fall off ladders and there's always a trial lawyer available - one result of which would be another label. :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
If you read thru enough of these topics you will see people who believe the consumer should test their own eliquids. That consumers should also pay for the scientific studies. On top of paying for the products. :)

There appears to be the concept of vaper's rights (to vape) but no rights that include consumer rights. i.e. the right to be informed about the products they are using and which go into their bodies.

As soon as you mention that you will be told that it's a free market, and if you don't like it, shop with somebody else....or don't vape at all.



And for other reasons, so are many here who have more than enough information.

I'm starting to believe that there is no way you can really have a logical, honest discussion with people who are in the throes of depedency because, as a former smoker, I've been there myself, and I remember all the justifications and muddled arguments I had around the topic of smoking because the idea of not being able to do it was accompanied by a certain desperation.

Its one of the reasons I don't handicap horse races with desperate gambler types....their ability to see essential things is remarkably distorted.

That said, some of the most enlightening conversations I've had about smoking and now, vaping, are with friends who don't smoke or vape, but who are not at all anti- about either. They seem to have the most logical and reasonable ideas about how this industry should go forward. Perhaps that is because they really have no side.....they can be truly objective, and are not judgemental types to begin with.....nor are they desperately attached to a specific outcome.

I fully expect lots of tomatoes thrown at me for saying this. But it is something I've been observing lately, having an opportunity to discuss these issues off the premises of a vaping forum.

Have you talked to your non vaping objective friends about this topic? I'd be interested to know what they think.
 
There are quite a few B&Ms suggesting sub ohm and sketchy setups to new vapers who don't know better. Hopefully they will be shut down soon...

Yep seems to be all the rage now. Its ridiculous. I was actually looking online at eleaf's istick and it said it would be paired nicely with their MELO atomizer. So I wanted to see what it was all about and found out it's sub ohm and I thought it was pretty funny and stupid. I was talking to my husband about it and how they're suggestively selling it with the istick. And all those new to vaping who buy them cuz they're pretty popular probably won't even realize it until they actually have it in there hands. Even some at that point may not know a reg coil from a sub ohm. And before you know it they're drawing on their eyebrows cuz they had an accident or worse..
 

caramel

Vaping Master
Dec 23, 2014
3,492
10,735
I'd also point out that after the mandatory 15 labels that are on ladders (that no one reads), people still fall off ladders and there's always a trial lawyer available - one result of which would be another label. :facepalm:

The solution is obviously a tax increase to pay for more government that would design more labels and enforce their proper affixing on the ladder. :laugh:
 

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,807
64
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
I would only ask: If the liquid manufacturers are not to be trusted, where is that trust better placed?
There are only three choices here: the manufacturers, the consumers, or the government.

I would trust more in a label that said "this may contain diacetyl and/or other diketones" than a label that said "diketone-free". Because the latter would tend to encourage me to buy it, therefore the person/entity selling it has a good reason to lie to me about it; whereas telling me it's in there, or even MAY be in there, would definitely discourage me from buying it. No vendor in his right mind wants to discourage sales, so if I'm told by the vendor that something contains diketones, I feel I can probably trust that... and NOT buy it.

Andria
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,254
USA midwest
And no one has the obligation to provide that to you.

One might think from the perspective of being self-serving, that they would consider it their obligation.

To do otherwise exposes them to a huge amount of lost business, as well as liability.


Next, you guys will have us doing our own testing on automobile brake systems and hydraulics, etc. before we buy. :)

By the way, all this talk about being lied to brings to mind precisely why consumer protection laws and advocacy was put into practice in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,254
USA midwest
Have you talked to your non vaping objective friends about this topic? I'd be interested to know what they think.

Yes erik, I have. That is why I said
some of the most enlightening conversations I've had about smoking and now, vaping, are with friends who don't smoke or vape, but who are not at all anti- about either. They seem to have the most logical and reasonable ideas about how this industry should go forward. Perhaps that is because they really have no side.....they can be truly objective, and are not judgemental types to begin with.....nor are they desperately attached to a specific outcome.

True objectivity is a highly valuable commodity. People who have nothing to gain or lose by a certain outcome often provide the best opinion.

this is why the use of idependent labs, and why reasearch from within an industry as well as research by those who are against a certain industry is often looked at as somewhat "suspect". Its why independent commissions, test results and studies came into being.....and most people who want good information are going to look there.

What they said is the topic for another conversation, and I will either summarize their thoughts or ask them to come on and speak one day if they will agree. :)
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,254
USA midwest
I'd also point out that after the mandatory 15 labels that are on ladders (that no one reads), people still fall off ladders

I fail to see any comparison between ladders and step stools, and substances that are manufactured for consumption into the human body.

The latter category requires far higher level of standards.

Consumer protection laws are why, when you buy a bottle of hair dye, and while rinsing it out, all your hair falls off your head, there is actually a remedy under the law available to you.

Those reactionary types who wish to revert back to the era of the Industrial Revolution may do so, but I have no desire to go back there myself. :)
 
Last edited:

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,254
USA midwest
By the way, anybody seen all those photos of Fit Bit rash? I was looking at photos of people's wrists and it was ghastly. "Fitbit told the CPSC that there were 9,900 reports of “skin irritation” and 250 more of “blistering.” Those figures don’t quite add up with the company’s original statement that 1.7% of users reported a problem..."

I was sort of suprised myself when I saw that the back of it was made of nickel....on something made to be worn all the time.......that is like the #1 implicated metal for contact dermatitis in the human population, and why it is not used in dental prostheses. I was talking to my dermatologist and immunologist recently about nickel, its quite problematic to a large % of the population, moreso than most every other metal besides chromium.
 

Danie06

Full Member
Jul 24, 2014
53
80
I anticipated a cherry pick and a different context. I was going to add that when a crime is committed or there is a court case, the gov't can demand information, etc. but didn't think it was necessary. I should know better by now :facepalm: :laugh:
It wasnt a cherrypick. Your definition of rights is incomplete and only an opinion as you well know.
You started about Locke and natural rights, not me.
You cant isolate negative rights and then claim positive rights dont exist.
Well, you can (because you obviously tried it) but there are so many exceptions then to your theory it simply isnt valid anymore.
For the second time in this thread you fail to distinguish between opinion and facts.
You apparently believe that positive rights shouldnt exist, which is part of your way of looking at the world.,
That's perfectly fine, but it is obviously not my way of looking at the world and its also not the way the big consumer organisations worldwide look at things..

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.
All the above is your opinion, and just that.
I see we have a very deep difference of opinion about society and consumer rights. Thats perfectly fine.
I rather have those correcting regulations than the wild west economy/ society we had ages ago. In fact if we had been a bit more aggresive with correcting regulations we wouldnt have had this economic/ banking crisis we have had.
Take away any positieve rights consumers have , take away correcting regulations and voila, 7 years of economic misery.
Oh thats right, we dont regulate,we bail out.:facepalm:
And I'd rather not wait passively as a consumer without rights, buy something harmful, use it, die and then have my next of kin prosecute to the fullest extent if you dont mind.:p
There are consumer rights and they are positive rights in that they do demand actions.
I'd also point out that after the mandatory 15 labels that are on ladders (that no one reads), people still fall off ladders and there's always a trial lawyer available - one result of which would be another label. :facepalm:
Damn right, lets get rid of those labels then shall we. Lets go back 100 years in time, throw away all progress and be at the mercy of
producers and sellers, who dont give a rat's ... about our health and safety.
Maybe we should ask them politely if we can please be allowed to buy from them?
No thanks.
Btw, Im still not asking for government regulation. Consumer rights dont have to be enforced by a government. They're also a way of thinking/ acting from individuals or groups of consumers.
Its a mentality (which is sorely lacking from some posters on this mb): we buy, we have power.
There's also something called consumer activism in which consumers try to enforce their rights.
Hey kinda like how vapers are standing up for vaping.:p
 
Last edited:

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
Btw, Im still not asking for government regulation.

If this is true then our differences in 'rights' is not a problem with me. But I'd point out that my view on rights is not just 'my opinion' but as stated, the classical definition of rights as delineated by John Locke (and others during the Age of Reason) as well as the Founders views as pointed out by Obama in his quote. You can certainly disagree with those views, but it is not 'just my opinion'. It is part of a well reasoned view by those in history where their rights meant more than one's right to vape.
 
Last edited:

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
I fail to see any comparison between ladders and step stools, and substances that are manufactured for consumption into the human body.

The latter category requires far higher level of standards.

Consumer protection laws are why, when you buy a bottle of hair dye, and while rinsing it out, all your hair falls off your head, there is actually a remedy under the law available to you.

Those reactionary types who wish to revert back to the era of the Industrial Revolution may do so, but I have no desire to go back there myself. :)

Basically about ladders, I was pointing out the ineffectiveness of labels in general. As far as hair falling out - that would be a harm that could and would be handled by the courts where if true, that manufacture would be prevented from selling such a product.

I don't want to go back to the Industrial Revolution, just the Constitution. And I don't care to live in a socialistic of fascist country that overregulates every aspect of one's life.
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,254
USA midwest
that could and would be handled by the courts where if true, that manufacture would be prevented from selling such a product.

A lawsuit doesn't put hair back on your head. In the case of people who have experienced worse, such as death or chronic illness.........

I am not in favor of regulation. It is certainly avoidable.

However, historically, I"ve seen how regulation comes about: when industries, who have been given ample opportunity to police themselves, fail in achieving that.

Saying your ejuice doesn't contain diketones, when it does, is fraudulent. It's a false statement of material fact, which influenced someone's buying decision. It doesn't matter if you don't know......the entire supply chain can be held accountable. You are mixing it, you are selling it, take some responsiblity for what you put in the bottle that you sell. At the very least, be cognizant of what you are selling, so that your consumer can be informed.

It's about accountablity...something that seems to be going away and that everyone complains about......yet when asked to step up, resort to the same type of cowardice and finger pointing that has become all too prevalent.
 
Last edited:

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,254
USA midwest
Just looked up the fitbit rash. That's bad. Most PRC attys and drip tips are made of nickel, aren't they?

My answer to that is who knows? :laugh: That's why it's called mystery metal.

I only know that nickel sensitivity is very high in the general population, and cause burning, burns, rashes, blisters, itching and other generally uncomfortable symptoms. As do some glues, etc.


By the way, in the early discussions about the fitbit bracelets, some were trying to claim that the people wearing them didn't practice good hygiene. :facepalm: But there were so many cases that the company was forced to investigate the source of the allergy and components like methacrylates and nickel.

NONE of these things are a problem if disclosed, so that the person experiencing the medical problems can actually get help. It is a problem when you have to spend thousands of $$ and see 10 specialists because you have no idea why you are experiencing negative health effects. and can't get relief until you do know.

That is precisely why we need to know what is in stuff and what it is made of.
 

ST Dog

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 23, 2013
928
1,662
Rocket City

The most concerning aspect, to me, is presented in this quote
the International Respiratory Societies wrote in a July 2014 position paper on e-cigarettes.

"The safety ... has not been demonstrated," wrote the group, which includes the American Thoracic Society. Therefore, the devices "should be restricted or banned until more information about their safety is available."


When did we, as a nation, or as humans, decide that things need to be "proven safe" to market as opposed to being proven dangerous to be banned?

We would not have any modern conveniences if each (and their predecessors) had to be proven safe first.

No one proved electrical power safe before it was marketed. Edison fought for DC power and talked of the dangers of AC power for years before AC won out (for economic reasons regarding distribution).

But what if neither had been allowed until proven safe? Would that ever have happened? When did we finally get grounded systems in general users? Or polarized systems? GFCI? All those were developed to make electrical power safer, but even now it's not "100% safe" and people die of electrocutions daily. But where would we be now if electrical power distribution was delayed until all the modern safety features were ready? Would we even have electricity in the home yet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread