Sleazy propaganda re diacetyl in e-cigs
- Thread starter CarolT
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It's already been explained in this thread (more than once). Do you truly care to understand or was this just sound bite rhetoric being put forth?
To help get you started, just answer these questions: who decides what an appropriate warning label is? And how long is a sufficient amount of time to consider that exact type of label to be deemed entirely appropriate?
Look up recent news regarding vapor product companies currently being attacked under California Prop 65. This is a prime example of how it can be abused and selectively applied to favor some businesses over others.
This is where I'm having trouble wrapping my head around these types of issues and any possible solutions. I would like to always have good information to make good choices, but mandating that information in a way that leads to state collected fines (yet another revenue stream), it's easy to see how it can be abused.
That's California. It's their law. If I sold vape products in that state, I would know the law and just put the warning label on the product. No big deal...
If people are so worried about it and can't put down their favorite butterscotch flavor find another vendor or choose not to vape those kinds of flavors. Is that not a simple solution to the problem? You can go ahead and attack the vendors if you really want to but like jman said they could just come up with some mumbo jumbo test results to make you happy when in fact they're lying to you. And even some of the other vendors that claim to be diacetyl free (not ALL vendors) may also not be so honest.. IMO if I am that worried about it (which I don't really care) I'd just drop the flavor instead of the idea of satisfaction of some lab tests that could've been falsified.
ETA: For all those in favor of regulating vendors and giving us proof that they're products are diacetyl-free makes you sound like you're building your own little FDA in the corner there but it's the V[apers]FDA.
ETA: For all those in favor of regulating vendors and giving us proof that they're products are diacetyl-free makes you sound like you're building your own little FDA in the corner there but it's the V[apers]FDA.
Last edited:
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...
It wouldn't matter to you what the label was required to say?
And would it matter to you if you started doing this say on day 2 of the requirement, and you were being threatened with lawsuits regardless of how you proceed because you missed it by 1 day? Would you just appease the regulators, welcome the lawsuits, and say "no big deal...?"
Or let's just add it to this discussion as I see it being pertinent to what is being advocated for.
It Had To Happen | ACSH
This issue is about nicotine and how extremely dangerous some consider it to be and how warning labels are the answer, to the perceived problem. Don't have a label on your product? Off with your head!
I didn't know til the other day either. So how many vendors do you think didn't know until recently... and while the government knew about it for years they decided it wasn't that important for any of us to know.
That doesn't excuse vendors from not disclosing it now. Halo has known about it since they opened shop...
E-liquid is not regulated...
We can. It's how it started with smoking. Just a label. Surgeon general's warning. Then it ended with legislating that smoking shelters have to be "open", i.e. in the case of rectangular ones they are to be L shaped (3 walls would be "enclosed" and illegal).
Yes?
I think thats exactly what just about every poster at the start of this thread stated.
If you read this entire thread I think only one poster asks for regulation.
Hmm? The strange thing is, that those that seem to argue there is no problem with diacetyl, at the same time assume vendors lie, may not be so honest etc.
I dont really have this problem tbh, I can see a growing group of active vendors trying to tackle the whole diacetyl problem in a responsible way, so I apparently seem to be less negatieve about the liquid market than you and others.
Again: only one person said he wanted the market to be regulated by some government agency or something.ETA: For all those in favor of regulating vendors and giving us proof that they're products are diacetyl-free makes you sound like you're building your own little FDA in the corner there but it's the V[apers]FDA.
For me, this is more about vapers responsibility and self-regulation.
And we DO have a responsibility as vapers/ consumers here.
To quote Dr. Farsalinos in an interview he gave on this very forum:
"Vapers should apply pressure to companies for tests. Vapers should base their choices on test results, not just how the products look or taste, because really its more important for them in the long run. It hasnt worked like that up until now, but eventually I think it will."
http://vaping.com/news/exclusive-ecf-interview-dr-konstantinos-farsalinos
At the moment there's a lot of movement in the right directiuon, so to me it does seem to be effective to be active about this issue.
You (and others) cant have it both ways. You cant tell people theyre not allowed to ask for regulation or even ask vendors to disclose, and then when they do anyway and get their answers, tell them the vendors lie anyway.
So to be sure Im not misunderstood: Im not asking for regulation by some government office/ agency. I do however have the opinion vendors should disclose whether or not their liquids contain diacetyl and/ or other diketones.
That way people can make their own informed decision whether or not they're willing to vape anything with diacetyl in it.
How can you reach that goal? Well by writing your vendor, asking them for tests, asking them to publish the test, and buy with those vendors which do all that and are active in this.
If enough people do this (and the reason why this leads to so much debate etc is because people know damn well there's a massive concern among vapers about diacetyl) the industry will solve this issue without any government/ regulation ever needed.
Hey Im a hopeless optimist.
Just again I'd like to note that the whole notion we are afterall consumers with certain rights seems hopelessly absent in the minds of some here.
We fight against the FDA, we fight against the Antz, we fight against any anti-vaping activist but when it comes to consumer rights some turn into little drooling puppies not allowed to think (at least...thats how it looks to me.
).
The horrors that warning label caused...you should see the warning labels on packs of cigarettes sold in other countries...
No idea what a smoking shelter is. Is it a home for abused smokers?
It has government's blessing to be used in about anything including tobacco. Apparently it's a problem only with vape.
Then you're obviously lacking sufficient information to sustain a discussion here.
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.
Last edited:
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.
There are only three choices here: the manufacturers, the consumers, or the government.
I trust the manufacturer will conform to regulations placed on it by the government, which will provide the consumer the information to decide whether or not to inhale a potentially dangerous substance...
We likely disagree on the concept of 'rights'. I use the natural right as established by Locke, and subsequently put forth by Jefferson, et al. Obama understands this concept, although he thought it should go further, which the Constitution (for good reason) doesn't:
Obama:
"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
[As an aside, I find it a bit amusing that some Republicans simply don't like the phrasing of 'negative liberties' where they seem to think that the two words are incompatible (Rush L. doesn't like it). But it is one of the better explanations of how rights work. People are refrained from acting against individuals' rights, but there are not 'positive rights' where one is forced to supply someone with something. To do so, that sometimes, when there's a cost involved, violates the 'supplier's' rights of property. ]
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'.
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 was going to suggest 'perceived liberties' rather than 'wishes'. But I like 'wishes'.
- Status
Similar threads
