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.
I too have only seen one overtly ask for regulation.
I would say there are at least 2 others who are indirectly begging for regulations, but claiming that they do not believe in governmental regulation. I take this to mean that they are opposed, in principle, to zealous regulations by the FDA. Yet, when you express, "should be disclosed," that resembles desire for regulation. You can call that "self regulation" and hope it occurs. But if it does not, then what?
And that "then what" question has responses that we are discussing, but I submit that the "should be disclosed" position is one of opinion (not fact) and is the basis for the error that leads to "then what?"
If you are truly choosing with your wallet and not having a requirement on vendors in the (false) name of self-regulation, then there is no need for "should disclose." But if you are only saying you choose with your wallet, and your hope is for more than (false) self-regulation, then your "should disclose" does carry with it the implication that you want to see something happen to those who do not disclose.
I honestly believe that if all the "will not disclose" vaping companies went out of business today, the diacetyl-free crowd would be happy. For a short while. Then it would become a matter of - this one discloses in the way that us who are more righteous feel is proper, and that one over there only does thus and so. They should be doing more. That they are not, means they ought to not be in business.
I see it as fact that the people saying "should disclose" are saying one of two things ought to happen. They should be made to disclose (however that may happen) or they should be shut down (however that may happen). The "should disclose" position, as seen in this discussion, doesn't stipulate with "or they could remain in business and not disclose." For if that was stipulated, then the "should" part would lose whatever muster it had. And in this conversation people want it at least two ways. "Should disclose" because I am saying so, but only in some false self regulation way that is trying to hide from overt desires for governmental regulation. Or "should disclose" because if they don't, they will inevitably get into some sort of business trouble, this will reflect badly on the whole industry, and the government will intervene to force all vendors to disclose.
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.
Opinon here, saying that there exists some arguing who say there is no problem with diacetyl. Can you back this claim up? Cause what I routinely observe (as if it is fact) is that there are many one one side saying diacetyl problem is not big enough to warrant statements that suggest industry should self regulate and get rid of this entirely; and there are many who say industry should self regulate and get rid of it. The first crowd is very okay with idea that industry may self regulate and thus provide a market where some do, some don't. Latter routinely appears like those that do not ought to continue to be pressured until they "self regulate."
Also, to be clear, it is the diacetyl-free position that has made the claim that the industry has lied. I dispute that take. In my dispute on that take, I may use that rhetoric to show that your further position holds very little grounds in facts going forward for YOU DO NOT KNOW what is in your liquids if you are relying on 3rd party information. Hence, you could be lied to.
To turn this around and claim the free market people are accusing the industry of lying is something that is deserving of this type of post calling that out. You are lying about the lie.
For me, this is more about vapers responsibility and self-regulation.
And by self regulation, you mean vendors regulating in a way to appease you.
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
Words by Dr. F. here are not scientific, but are opinion. I'd discuss this with Dr. F. if he were here and welcome him to such a discussion. I've participated in threads where he was present, and discussed in much the same way. I don't put him on a pedestal of holier than thou, even while I do have some respect for the contributions he does make to vaping science.
But can we be clear that when Dr. F. did his study to find 70% have diketones, that not even he disclosed which vendors. There was controversy about that. I understand both sides, and still favor the side that suggested disclosure of those vendors. I also observe that the reasons for not disclosing have actually not played out all that well in the way that was justified for not disclosing. But it is challenging to argue that what we have now isn't worse/better.
To be clear, I did bring up the point that while vendors doing tests has merit and is something to hope for, it is not the answer to the diketone issue for those who say this is a huge concern for them. I did say to Dr. F. that the answer is for those people to do their own tests if they want to know for sure. I believe this is what actual science demands (via scientific method), otherwise it comes down to a matter of faith.
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.
Our side isn't saying don't ask vendors, nor is our side the one that props up the notion that the industry has lied on the diacetyl issue. The side you are on has Dr. F. as your ultimate guide and he chose to not disclose. How's that feel within context of what you just got done saying?
Our side suggests you do ask, and do choose the vendors that you feel do best match what you say you desire in a vape. But our side says you are bringing trouble to the entire industry if you join the chorus of "should disclose." If that is truly in vein of "I hope they disclose" then not much of an issue really. But if it is in vein of "should disclose because if they don't they will be forced to disclose at some point," then you are doing ANTZ work for them, and here in this discussion are making clear that you don't just choose based on your wallet. Instead, it routinely appears like you feel these non-disclosing businesses ought to be pressured into disclosure and if they will not appease you, then they should be shut down.
Which leads me to think you want to have it two ways: self regulation (of the non-intervening, not pressuring kind) and self regulation that is really "we the people" will pressure you into disclosure.
And never mind that we consumers will not self regulate and do our own lab tests. That's too much work (for us), too expensive (for us) and too impractical (for us). But is something all businesses should do if they know what's good for them.
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.
I'm on board with all of this except for the opinion of "should disclose." If they choose not to disclose, given all that's been said in this single quote here, then what?
The only "should" in this whole ordeal that makes sense is if you are that concerned, you should be testing your own liquid. Everything else is not arguing for responsibility and honest self regulation.
I'm of the opinion that some consumers would like vendors to disclose and feel vendors may consider this to appease those consumers. If they choose not to disclose, I hope they stay in business for as long as other consumers are willing to purchase their products.
