The Diketone Debate: Which Position Do you Take?

[JayQC]

Jman818 is either slowly grinding his way to the godwin point or about to disclose something terrifying that only he knows for sure.

What you're saying is that in light of Antz simply defaulting to the "don't vape" motto, the evil evil government will just regulate anything to extinction if given the chance when in fact they could make billions on taxes, make the product safer, and if you're still not happy you will ALWAYS be able to order the products on your own anyway, order your flavors from the same vendors who are being government regulated through the other door and make your own juice anyway.

What do you think will kill vaping the quickest?

- Regulations?
- Future discoveries that companies knew they were poisoning us all along and the state knew but did nothing because they didn't want to piss us off or titillate an antz revolt when most of them actually don't really care that much and will not put any actual effort towards hurting the vaping community past posting ......ed comments on lousy news sites? When's the last time you have seen ANTZ picket a vaping convention?

Let's not get too crazy here.

Think back 25 years ago when we slowly all realized the tobacco industry shoved a thick one up everybody's rear for decades? Want that to happen again?

If you want to keep vaping hassle free on the long term you will have to think further than 5 minutes ahead.




You think they'll regulate and prohibit the private purchase of PG/VG/NIC/FLAVS too just because of vaping, which is something that 5% of the population does, and somehow impact everyone else who is using these products (minus the NIC) in the food industry? The world doesn't revolve around vaping, sorry to disappoint.

I wish I could see clear through what you are trying to say but your ultimate statement is obscured by far too much text and not enough point, and my tinfoil filter is out of comission at the moment.

So in a nutshell, what's your point and how is regulated e-juice in any way a problem if you can mix your own stuff like so many of us already do?

 

[Zelphie]

My position in regards to personal choice is that it should be mandatory to disclose the use of Diketones in your flavors, but from a public health perspective, it should not be used at all. I voted for the second option.

The reverse is also true, here are excerpts from an e-mail conversation that took place with a fairly well implanted canadian vendor advertising their juices as Diketones free in big bold red letters straight on the front page.

"Before when I smoked, I took about 600 different chemicals, now that I vape I take in about 4."

A classic, but ludicrous statement that is actually hurting the credibility of vaping. That's like saying cigarettes only have like 2 chemicals in them : Tobacco and Nicotine.


"I do not have the test results to put you at ease about the flavours so I can not guarantee that they are not in there. I truly believe that if I did have the results they could change from batch to batch. I really do not know the answers here."

- Jeeeezz........



"Until more testing is done, we won’t know. This is what I know"

- 8-o



They have changed their disclaimer since, but I still haven't found a way to completely wash off the ....ty taste those e-mails left in my mouth. I realized that all I can really do is stick to fruits and hope for the best.

I have checked out the study on the first few pages of this thread and it's about damn time someone took a serious look at this, even thought the results come back as being an "avoidable risk", vendors should be 100% able to back up any claim they make.

We switched to vapor BECAUSE of health concerns and tobacco industry shenanigans, so please leave those games to BT.

Wow! People are still saying that? Of course they are. That really shows how stupid they think we are.
Seems like most here when I first joined believed it too, uh,...wow.

 

[Zelphie]

"I know what the supposed issues are, but I don't care"

is how I voted.

Though my reasoning and interpretation of how that ought to be worded is, "I know what the supposed issues are, but I don't care for they hype around this topic that is playing into hands of ANTZ."

or

"I know what the supposed issues are, and I do care, because ANTZ very much will care that we are now on board with 'mandatory' regulations."

I've read about 6 pages of this thread before chiming in with this post. I'll likely read the other pages before I post anything again.

I so far haven't seen an answer to how mandatory disclosure would be enforced, and as we are in an era when enforceable regulations are clearly on the table, then I interpret those votes as, "yes FDA, please help us out with those vendors/manufacturers who refuse to get on board with the problem du jour, and please enforce them with your clear authority to make them conform to our wishes."

While I've seen many posts that are in vein of "I'd like that information disclosed" Or, "I'd like to know what's in my eLiquid." Yet, that can, and likely is already being, done within a free market, here in the information age, without need for mandatory disclosure. If you "want to know" then stick with vendors who are proud to disclose such info. But to say it must be mandatory, then you are clearly inviting a 3rd party into the mix that you may wish to place limits on, but the other vaper down the line may say that 3rd party isn't going far enough, and hence even more must be disclosed.

And fact is, you won't know for sure until / unless you test for yourself. You'll likely trust the vendor that tells you what you want to hear, but until you verify it with own lab testing done by you, then you are relying on faith / trust / credibility, which is reasonable, but is not knowledge. Why not make it mandatory that if you want to vape, you must pay for all your own lab testing, or even better must set up a lab of your own to test your own vape stuff? Cause the option of "you must pay for all your own lab testing" is precisely what the FDA is going for, and hoping you see that they are just looking out for your own safety, along with all those who realize that vaping, as it has been between 2009 to present, has been a rather dangerous gamble that "no one knows for sure" what is in this vapor stuff.

Then if not going along with mandatory, but claiming something that leads a person to believe what they are vaping is relatively safe, means to me that vaping is about to get its own Master Settlement Agreement. Because of this poll and this issue, I now see this as a likely scenario with vaping. I also see it as more possible than not that the political momentum that was recently gained for vaping (when Pubs took over Congress) could be for naught as 83% of vapers have huge concern over diketones and so it really doesn't matter what ANTZ is up to or what people in Congress they have bought off. Instead, we vapers haven't thought this through on the political level enough to realize we just served a political football up to ANTZ on a silver platter. With a pretty pink bow.

A so called sane vaper will say that this issue is avoidable by removing diketones. Never mind the umpteen other things that surely will come along to test this sort of thinking.

A sane person who doesn't vape and who outnumbers vapers by a 50 to 1 margin will say this issue is avoidable if you just stop vaping.

Hmmm, I wonder which of those two sides will win?

I appreciate your diatribe, though the point of the poll is simply to see what peoples various views are, not to come up with a master plan to enforce regulation. Though that does come up depending on an individuals opinion, it isn't the point of the query. I personally don't want to keep any amount of diketones from you whatsoever.

Because of this poll and this issue, I now see this as a likely scenario with vaping

. If you look at it that way, then the fact that this and countless other forums, blogs, and videos simply being allowed to exist ( while all talking about this issue) along with all the information and communication it provides can reflect you sentiment in which you stated

we just served a political football up to ANTZ on a silver platter. With a pretty pink bow

. You can use this forum for the opposite purpose if you wish.

This poll is not going to take your butter vape away, this is an OLD issue. So blame the foum itself

I am in awe of how the vaping mind works as well. This I have always been.

My tin foil hat is also out of commission. Shame on Mr. Mann that he didn't think of your particular position.

 

[Zelphie]

Jman818 is either slowly grinding his way to the godwin point or about to disclose something terrifying that only he knows for sure.

What you're saying is that in light of Antz simply defaulting to the "don't vape" motto, the evil evil government will just regulate anything to extinction if given the chance when in fact they could make billions on taxes, make the product safer, and if you're still not happy you will ALWAYS be able to order the products on your own anyway, order your flavors from the same vendors who are being government regulated through the other door and make your own juice anyway.

What do you think will kill vaping the quickest?

- Regulations?
- Future discoveries that companies knew they were poisoning us all along and the state knew but did nothing because they didn't want to piss us off or titillate an antz revolt when most of them actually don't really care that much and will not put any actual effort towards hurting the vaping community past posting ......ed comments on lousy news sites? When's the last time you have seen ANTZ picket a vaping convention?

Let's not get too crazy here.

Think back 25 years ago when we slowly all realized the tobacco industry shoved a thick one up everybody's rear for decades? Want that to happen again?

If you want to keep vaping hassle free on the long term you will have to think further than 5 minutes ahead.




You think they'll regulate and prohibit the private purchase of PG/VG/NIC/FLAVS too just because of vaping, which is something that 5% of the population does, and somehow impact everyone else who is using these products (minus the NIC) in the food industry? The world doesn't revolve around vaping, sorry to disappoint.

I wish I could see clear through what you are trying to say but your ultimate statement is obscured by far too much text and not enough point, and my tinfoil filter is out of comission at the moment.

So in a nutshell, what's your point and how is regulated e-juice in any way a problem if you can mix your own stuff like so many of us already do?

Haha! Well, if my "vaping mind" is working at all, I believe his point is that we should all be silenced on the matter as to not hand the "ANTZ" what they need to regulate it out of existence. Mandatorily silenced I dare?
Cause they never do anything for their own reasons without trolling the input of random humans. They don't care about our health anyway. I know I know just a front argument for the real plan.

Im way to snarky today, I gotta finally get some sleep.

 

[JayQC]

Just to clarify : I have profound disdain for the nanny-state philosophies that we have to deal with, but on the other hand, I also think that a very large majority of the population doesn't have the smarts or the financial means to do the lab job on their own, me included.

IMO the middle ground is government payed studies/lab tests and I guess we'll have to deal with taxation and regulation, and on the other hand FIRM, but reasonable stand-your-ground attitude from the vaping community.

We can DIY everything we vape, so it's not in their interest either to test our bullshizzz meters. Despite the paranoia, we are basically ahead. We just need to keep a cool head for a couple more years.

Overly confrontational rapports will not further the vaping cause in the least and ultimately will reduce it's spread and the help it can provide to those who need it but are afraid to jump in for whatever reason.

Consider the fact that some of these antz we like to antagonize might be smokers at the moment who are looking for a reassuring hand to jump in, and without going out of our way to educate people who don't care, we could be more welcoming and open minded towards official regulation because that will help a lot of people in the long run as well.

We are all someone else's ant, and in the end we managed to replace tobacco which is a very specific product with readily available chemicals that do a better and safer job as long as we know exactly what goes in the flavoring agents. On this front we hold them by the balls, everything we use to make juice can be bought almost anywhere. It's safe. They're not going to ban glycerin across the board because 5% of the population uses it for e-liquid.

But if we poke the bear and try to provoke everyone around because we think we're the ...., we WILL get crushed by public opinion and we all know what politicians need to rack up the votes.

We care, antz don't, so let's push for as much research and lab tests as we can because it's OUR responsibility to do it. If the government wants to ride shotgun and tip in then I say let's rock!

We're almost 10 years in the vaping boom. Long term stuff will start coming out in the next few years.

We're almost there.

 

[Jman8]

If I misunderstood then that is my fault. To me, it looks/looked like you are saying that we are doing them a favor by talking among ourselves about what some of us want. I don't see how any number of "votes" in this thread is anymore credible than counting 'likes' on Suicide Bunny's page or all the recipes and threads in the DIY forum that use diketone-based ingredients -- all of which trump this poll's participation.

I am saying that talking in favor of mandatory regulations is doing ANTZ work. I feel you misrepresented this by saying that in general whatever we talk about that we consider serious is us creating ANTZ. I realize ANTZ existed long before vaping (nicotine).

And I think referring to "83% of vapers" is a bit over-the-top. It's 83% of people (83% all of 195 vapers, hardly a large percentage of vapers) that voted on an ECF poll that was not balanced enough from the start. I've conceded that point early on.

I think you and I agree here. On another part of the forum where similar issue is being discussed, another (vocal) person in this thread keeps referencing things as around 90% of all vapers. I feel I worded this percentage to say people of this thread, and did see you mentioning this earlier in the thread. At same time, it is challenging to not extrapolate the 80+ percent to consider that a majority do actually favor this sort of mandatory regulation. I actually think it would be around 20% (maybe even less) of all vapers, especially if this issue were further explained. Possibly a lot less if an entity like CASAA weighed in.

As I've said before, I think (and I bet most other vapers do too) that it should be mandatory that vendors disclose nicotine content. Some may say that it is merely a courtesy offered by vendors, but I think in our industry it is mandatory to not use "proprietary" nicotine content where the vendor leaves it very unclear about how much is supposed to be in there. It's not federal law for eliquid (is it? LOL), but it is our own type of rule that says you must tell the customer approximately how much nic is in that liquid. That is not a rule shared by the supplement industry with regard to stims/alkaloids in their products.

But, I don't want the federal government, state governments or even any eliquid council to make sure all eliquid comes standard with certain things -- though I still want certain things to be across-the-board. I get why that may be contradictory or impossible without some type of enforcement, so I am stuck here trying to rationalize it. Oy.

I'd like certain things to be across-the-board as well. Yet, when it comes to market, I see it as across-the-board on some things and others are not. I'm okay with this while also wishing it could conform to how I'd like it all to be. With nic content, I really don't think I've ever seen a vendor not list nicotine content. Perhaps that exists, but across-the-board seems like the standard that the market has come to overwhelming conclusion of. With diketones, I don't see reason to pressure this as 'mandatory' when it is plausible vendors will move in that direction. And currently, I'm okay if they do not. So, a split in the market seems about right to me at this time, rather than trying to force the issue as if disclosure is the only proper way to frame the issue.

I have no problem with a vendor saying 1) we have no idea if our liquids have diketones 2) we do know our liquids have diketones and/or 3) here are our tests and testing protocols that prove how much/how little they do have. That type of disclosure is what I have said I want from all the liquids I buy. Is it possible? Yeah. Is it likely? Not really. Am I okay with that? Sure, but I will eventually have more options and that is good enough.

I have no problem with this either. I take issue with it being mandatory that a vendor must say something and must do so in way that everyone is notified about it, all the time (i.e. labels on their products, info on their site). I think some vendors will do just that, and if that is your cup of tea, then buy from those vendors and let the market do the talking.

If wanting mandatory regulations on vendors, then I would say best bet right now is to push for FDA regulations on the industry. Some other notion of disclosure at this time strikes as pie-in-sky thinking.

 

[Jman8]

J
Isn't you in another thread, that called docs Kistler and Faralinos Antz, because they recommended to rid diketones (dr. F.) or organic ingredients, (doc k) in e-liquids ?

Nope, not me. Feel free to quote what you think I said and perhaps we'll go from there.

You are now trying to silence this survey. You are saying Mr.Man is doing the devil's work by giving the voice of reason a chance to be heard, ( in your view this is the voice of the ANTZ).

I literally do not know how I could silence this survey. Never referenced "devil's work" in anything I have said. Have referenced ANTZ job by insisting on mandatory regulations. I stand by this.

Diketones are a known proven dangerous component found in of 70% of the e-juices tested. They are an AVOIDABLE risk. Everyone will be safer if we get rid of them, ( and the vendors that sell it to their unwary consumers).

And I disagree with this thinking. I'm glad to discuss this further. I don't care to silence this position when I'd much prefer to explore how this is arrived at and where it will actually take us.

What is you REAL agenda here ?

To preserve as much of the free market within the eCig industry as possible and hope that fellow vaping enthusiasts are on board with this approach.

Who are you protecting ? What are your intentions ? Why are you afraid of the truth ?

All fascinating questions. Let's see how much you are truly up for discussion or how much you will keep spouting your version of truth/science while downplaying anyone that disagrees with that, and denying that your version just so happens to align with ANTZ/FDA approach to regulating eCigs.

 

[Jman8]

What do you think will kill vaping the quickest?

- Regulations?
- Future discoveries that companies knew they were poisoning us all along and the state knew but did nothing because they didn't want to piss us off or titillate an antz revolt when most of them actually don't really care that much and will not put any actual effort towards hurting the vaping community past posting ......ed comments on lousy news sites? When's the last time you have seen ANTZ picket a vaping convention?

I don't think vaping will ever be killed off. I know it is here to stay. The market for vaping may change, and change drastically. Become a lot like market for (big) tobacco where shaming users is part of the game and regulations are there to control the players as much as humanly possible. But I see demand growing and thus feel that we are likely to go into a regulation-heavy market fairly soon. I thought before this thread that overwhelming majority of vapers didn't want mandatory regulations, but now that belief I have has been tested.

Let's not get too crazy here.

Think back 25 years ago when we slowly all realized the tobacco industry shoved a thick one up everybody's rear for decades? Want that to happen again?

If you want to keep vaping hassle free on the long term you will have to think further than 5 minutes ahead.

I see this call to mandatory regulations as the tobacco story replaying itself. I'd be glad to dispute your take on the BT aspect of things, or we could just stick to this topic and 'not get crazy here.' Let me know which direction you would rather go in. I'm game either way.

 

[Jman8]

Haha! Well, if my "vaping mind" is working at all, I believe his point is that we should all be silenced on the matter as to not hand the "ANTZ" what they need to regulate it out of existence. Mandatorily silenced I dare?

I definitely don't think anyone ought to be silenced. Not how I operate on any issue. My many worded (wall of text) posts are designed to think through an issue and hope others do the same. I'd love for ANTZ to expose their position with as many words as they deem appropriate, and to not hide what they are really after.

I don't think anyone on this thread is full blown ANTZ. It is possible they are, but doesn't really matter to me if they are undercover or whatever, because I'm still going to take them to task on what they are saying, not who they are or how long they've been on the forum or something like that.

I know there are plenty of ECF members that agree with where I'm coming from in this thread, and while I could send them a PM and make it so I don't feel so outnumbered here, I'm cool with going it alone right now.

I think there is a little ANTZ in all of us. As I've stated previously, when I quit smoking cold turkey for a good 8 years about 2 decades ago, I was a little ANTZ-like for a period of about 6 months. I think it is very challenging to live on this planet right now and not be influenced by ANTZ thinking / agenda. Yet, vaping politics has allowed me to filter things far differently than when I had quit smoking cold turkey.

So, when I say someone/anyone is "doing ANTZ job" I don't think of it as a huge stretch. If anything, it is a huge stretch to go the other way. At same time, there are things within politics of vaping that make it rather easy to identify 'full blown ANTZ.' I do not think Dr K. nor Dr. F. are full blown ANTZ. But I do think a scientist that would argue for mandatory regulations on vendors is doing ANTZ job, here in time period where regulations are on the table to rein the industry in. I'm not sure Dr K or Dr F are suggesting mandatory disclosure or absolute removal of diketones from all eLiquids. If they are doing the work of science, then clearly they are not. If doing the work of advocacy, then perhaps they are.

 

[Tangaroav]

I asked '' Isn't you in another thread, that called docs Kistler and Faralinos Antz, because they recommended to rid diketones (dr. F.) or organic ingredients, (doc k) in e-liquids ? ''

Nope, not me. Feel free to quote what you think I said and perhaps we'll go from there.

After I posted the last words of Dr. Faralinos study concerning Diketones: '' while the identification of a small but avoidable risk will alert the industry to resolve this issue permanently and effectively. '' (This literally means avoided and out of existence in e-liquids)

You answered;

I disagree and am up for this debate. The scientists on our side that are finding dangers in current vape stuff AND suggesting those items be avoided / regulated out of existence are doing ANTZ work.

You seem to consider yourself a vaping integrist bishop and others that do not agree are the voice of the devil. In this case the devil is hidden as Antz. I fully expect a long post explaining that this is not what you meant although it is what you wrote.

 

[JayQC]

I don't think vaping will ever be killed off. I know it is here to stay. The market for vaping may change, and change drastically. Become a lot like market for (big) tobacco where shaming users is part of the game and regulations are there to control the players as much as humanly possible. But I see demand growing and thus feel that we are likely to go into a regulation-heavy market fairly soon. I thought before this thread that overwhelming majority of vapers didn't want mandatory regulations, but now that belief I have has been tested.



I see this call to mandatory regulations as the tobacco story replaying itself. I'd be glad to dispute your take on the BT aspect of things, or we could just stick to this topic and 'not get crazy here.' Let me know which direction you would rather go in. I'm game either way.

Not a lot of people used to grow their own tobacco.

A LOT of vapers are into DIY.

That's why I think in the end we have a lot more leverage than smokers because if they try to go too far we'll just revert back to DIY and STILL benefit from the positive sides of these regulations without having to pay ridiculous taxes or be subject to stupid restrictions pushed on the bottle that's being sold over the counter.

But then, there are many different grades of PG and VG, and I would prefer only pharmaceutical-grade anything be used. The QC of e-juice leaves a bit to be desired at the moment but that's something we need to work on, not outright deny and hide away for fear that we will lose opportunities or rights because that's just not true IMO.

I think it's very plausible that some flavoring companies will comply to strict safety regulations and we will still be able to order these garanteed products from them, so we lose nothing.

Tentatively speaking, I like to think that with the right attitude we hold them by the balls at this point and the rate at which vaping is spreading is kicking their asses, that's why they went into "damage control" and will try to cram it in with tobacco laws for a while even though everyone knows it's a cop out that's poised to be corrected

Doesn't change the fact that we have the upper hand in this so far, so I don't see it as a "fight" per se.

We will see in the upcoming years.

 

[Jman8]

Not a lot of people used to grow their own tobacco.

A LOT of vapers are into DIY.

Are these same vapors growing their own products to produce nicotine?

I've met smokers who don't buy BT products, so are akin to DIY of vaping. I think DIY vaping is the minority. I'm not sure how much of a minority, but eLiquid companies appear to be doing pretty well even while I'm under impression current market is around 55% don't use closed systems (i.e. Vuse) and 45% do. So, those using open systems would be what we are talking about with DIY, and I'm saying they are the minority. If I were to estimate, let's say 1 million people use open system vaping gear. I would estimate that 200,000 then are DIY and the other 800,000 are not DIY type vapers. I am in the latter bunch. I realize I could be mistaken or way off. I do wish to be clear that the 1 million number was just me using that round number to make the split of other numbers easier.

That's why I think in the end we have a lot more leverage than smokers because if they try to go too far we'll just revert back to DIY and STILL benefit from the positive sides of these regulations without having to pay ridiculous taxes or be subject to stupid restrictions pushed on the bottle that's being sold over the counter.

But then, there are many different grades of PG and VG, and I would prefer only pharmaceutical-grade anything be used. The QC of e-juice leaves a bit to be desired at the moment but that's something we need to work on, not outright deny and hide away for fear that we will lose opportunities or rights because that's just not true IMO.

I think it's very plausible that some flavoring companies will comply to strict safety regulations and we will still be able to order these garanteed products from them, so we lose nothing.

Tentatively speaking, I like to think that with the right attitude we hold them by the balls at this point and the rate at which vaping is spreading is kicking their asses, that's why they went into "damage control" and will try to cram it in with tobacco laws for a while even though everyone knows it's a cop out that's poised to be corrected

Doesn't change the fact that we have the upper hand in this so far, so I don't see it as a "fight" per se.

We will see in the upcoming years.

I think DIY is going to survive if heavy regulations come forth. But I don't think a DIY crowd will be able to pull any strings with flavor companies who will have written off vaping as a legitimate business segment per heavy regulations. Would take DIY crowd pooling resources together to invest in own flavor company for that to play out well.

I understand vapers want reasonable regulations. I actually support this. And I'm one that sees current proposed regulations as mostly tame, though I would have to exclude the notion that FDA will seek to impose policies specifically designed to get rid of small players. That remains to be seen. Most politically aware vapers are certain that will happen. I'm not so much. If that does happen, then yeah, we are pretty much screwed, and/or what exists for BT will essentially be what exists for vaping. That, IMO, is at the very least 10 years away and with recent shift in political momentum, and us (enthusiasts) going on offensive, it could be made so it is several decades from now.

But if we are right now arguing for 'reasonable regulations' and that includes mandatory rules on all vendors, or they get shown their way out of the (legal) market, then I think we are helping ANTZ with their end game (to curtail the market and leave as few players as possible). I also think if we are in that direction, then it signals to ANTZ that we can bend and go along with other regulations, especially if they are tapered down right now. Like, we all agree (I hope) that adults like certain flavors. But ANTZ sees all sweet flavors as industry trying to get kids hooked on this product that entails lifelong addiction to nicotine. So, I like to think that none of us would go along with policy that says we get rid of all sweet flavors if it means we get to keep the other 8000 (or whatever number it is) flavors. On the surface, that would be 'reasonable' to ANTZ, but would also indicate to ANTZ that even we recognize something is wrong with inhaling certain flavors, so that would be us saying you could go further, even while some of us will fight tooth and nail with you (ANTZ) if you do. But don't worry, wink wink, we can rein those type of vapers in.

I heard diketones are in all sweet flavors.

 

[Zelphie]

I definitely don't think anyone ought to be silenced. Not how I operate on any issue. My many worded (wall of text) posts are designed to think through an issue and hope others do the same. I'd love for ANTZ to expose their position with as many words as they deem appropriate, and to not hide what they are really after.

I don't think anyone on this thread is full blown ANTZ. It is possible they are, but doesn't really matter to me if they are undercover or whatever, because I'm still going to take them to task on what they are saying, not who they are or how long they've been on the forum or something like that.

I know there are plenty of ECF members that agree with where I'm coming from in this thread, and while I could send them a PM and make it so I don't feel so outnumbered here, I'm cool with going it alone right now.

I think there is a little ANTZ in all of us. As I've stated previously, when I quit smoking cold turkey for a good 8 years about 2 decades ago, I was a little ANTZ-like for a period of about 6 months. I think it is very challenging to live on this planet right now and not be influenced by ANTZ thinking / agenda. Yet, vaping politics has allowed me to filter things far differently than when I had quit smoking cold turkey.

So, when I say someone/anyone is "doing ANTZ job" I don't think of it as a huge stretch. If anything, it is a huge stretch to go the other way. At same time, there are things within politics of vaping that make it rather easy to identify 'full blown ANTZ.' I do not think Dr K. nor Dr. F. are full blown ANTZ. But I do think a scientist that would argue for mandatory regulations on vendors is doing ANTZ job, here in time period where regulations are on the table to rein the industry in. I'm not sure Dr K or Dr F are suggesting mandatory disclosure or absolute removal of diketones from all eLiquids. If they are doing the work of science, then clearly they are not. If doing the work of advocacy, then perhaps they are.

Nobody is saying that vendors should be forced to comply with regulations or be shut down, frigg!

I get what your saying, really.

Your not saying that talking about wanting disclosure about things we think are potential dangers is giving more reason to ANTZ to come down harder? If not that, then what are you saying?

Dr F was suggesting disclosure I believe. And its true, if we actually looked at each and every chemical that makes up each flavoring, our eliquid contaminants, what heat and burning does to each and every single chemical, and what emissions come from the hardware in our atomizers wick and wire, and a million other things that we wont know to worry about until we know, I may just opt to vape my own urine instead. But I want us all to have that choice to vape whatever we want. That's the point.

You think theres a little ANTZ in everyone..the whole post??? k great. And I believe the average human life should be at least 1000 years. See 1st question. Tumblweeds.

I'm not talking about government regulation at all. It will happen, but I cant say I want that. I'm not sure who does since they cant be trusted to do it in a way that improves anything. And even if we lived in a magical world where humans weren't useless at best, what is considered "right" could not be agreed on.
What I want is the information/disclosure of all things that are currently known and updated as we fall further into the rabbit hole. I for one am not going down that rabbit hole blind, no matter how others may perceive my unwillingness. But, that doesn't mean I'm after someone to force all suppliers to comply. I would personally enjoy that but I cant do that, and your right, it would still be third hand info anyway.

 

[Jman8]

Your not saying that talking about wanting disclosure about things we think are potential dangers is giving more reason to ANTZ to come down harder? If not that, then what are you saying?

I'm saying that talking about wanting mandated disclosure aligns vapers with what ANTZ desires from vaping vendors. Though for ANTZ, I reckon that is low hanging fruit that they hope everyone would want. The poll option that is clearly the majority says:

"It should be madatorily disclosed to provide the customer with clear options."

If it said, "As a vaper, you would like vendors to disclose this" then I could understand why people may think I'm blowing things out of proportion. But it instead is saying "should be mandatorily disclosed." Who is making this mandate happen? Vapers? If a company doesn't do this, then what? Is there anything that the vaper that clicked that option thinks ought to happen to companies that rather not disclose? If nothing happens, then it is not a mandate.

If it is something ought to happen, then I'm guessing there is probably various opinions on what that ought to be. I'd think the people that selected, "It should not be in any liquid, no matter what!" would be okay with "force them out of business." Or perhaps given them a very stern warning and if they don't follow the mandate after that warning, then get them out of business. Others may be okay with just a fine. Perhaps a $25 fine. Some may say, no, no, no, way too lenient, it has to be at least a $10,000 fine. But again, if it is nothing happens, then it is not a mandate.

Dr F was suggesting disclosure I believe. And its true, if we actually looked at each and every chemical that makes up each flavoring, our eliquid contaminants, what heat and burning does to each and every single chemical, and what emissions come from the hardware in our atomizers wick and wire, and a million other things that we wont know to worry about until we know, I may just opt to vape my own urine instead. But I want us all to have that choice to vape whatever we want. That's the point.

I would suggest you vape your own urine instead.

I'm not talking about government regulation at all. It will happen, but I cant say I want that. I'm not sure who does since they cant be trusted to do it in a way that improves anything. And even if we lived in a magical world where humans weren't useless at best, what is considered "right" could not be agreed on.
What I want is the information/disclosure of all things that are currently known and updated as we fall further into the rabbit hole. I for one am not going down that rabbit hole blind, no matter how others may perceive my unwillingness. But, that doesn't mean I'm after someone to force all suppliers to comply. I would personally enjoy that but I cant do that, and your right, it would still be third hand info anyway.

Then you must be someone who didn't respond with "it should be mandatorily disclosed."

If I had a poll and an option was "all vendors must mandatorily sell cinnamon eLiquid." And then said I favor this, but I don't want someone to force all vendors to comply, would you not wonder why I added "mandatorily" in the wording of that option?

If all you who selected the 2nd option desire is disclosure from vendors, well we already have that. Some don't do it. The ones that don't do it, what do you think ought to happen to them?

 

[Tangaroav]

I head diketones are in all sweet flavors.

Diketones can be and are being replaced by ingredients that are NOT regulated as harmful for human inhaling. Do a search on diketones free e-liquids, you may be tempted to try some.

 

[Jman8]

I probably already have had some.

 

[Tangaroav]

...... and ?

 

[Mr.Mann]

I
Then you must be someone who didn't respond with "it should be mandatorily disclosed."

If I had a poll and an option was "all vendors must mandatorily sell cinnamon eLiquid." And then said I favor this, but I don't want someone to force all vendors to comply, would you not wonder why I added "mandatorily" in the wording of that option?

If all you who selected the 2nd option desire is disclosure from vendors, well we already have that. Some don't do it. The ones that don't do it, what do you think ought to happen to them?

Okay, point taken. And here is my point regarding the usage of that word:

Is it a federal law that says vape products -- nicotine vape products and non-nicotine vape products -- are not to be sold to anyone under the age of 18? I know in some states/cities this may have become the case, but I haven't seen any website that does not have an "age verification" attached to it, no matter the location. It's an industry-wide protocol, standard or practice -- however you want to call it, it's obligatory as far as I am concerned. In my mind, and this may be wrong-headed to think this way, I see the age verification process as mandatory for our industry, even when just buying something as goofy as cotton (from a designated vape site!). Who made it mandatory though? I'd say us, the industry itself. Others may say it is just a CYA, but I digress.

In this case here, to me at least, there is a clear distinction between a demand/command/order by the people (a 'people's mandate') vs. those same people literally asking for government intervention. I will use the case of nicotine again to illustrate this point: would most vapers be on board with saying that it should be mandatory for professional vendors that choose to work with nicotine to possess basic skills with diluting it -- like the ability to dilute from 100 mg/mL down to a target percentage -- before going into business? I am sure not all would agree, but I bet you'd still have a lot of vapers saying "hell yeah, that better be mandatory before trying to sell eliquid," and many would assume that it already is mandatory for a vendor to know how to properly dilute nicotine. Now, if they say it "better be," does that mean that they are going to call in the FDA if it ain't? That to me is being overly technical about semantics. I don't think that means those vapers would require a test of those vendors to pass before going into business, but they feel certain things have become non-negotiable from the places they will patronize. If they find out that vendor is not complying with certain rules the industry has set forth, they will take their dollars (re: enforcement) elsewhere. Some might still say, "well, then, you mean it would simply be a good idea to have those skills, not that you mean mandatory," to which I would say "no, I think it *should* be mandatory for professional eliquid mixers to have basic dilution skills with nicotine if they choose to work with it."

Now, some things are a little less elastic. Using words like policed, federal government, FDA or law are hard not define any other way but what they mean (and none of those words were in the options, though some may be okay with those strict ideas of mandates). But I just don't see mandate as that kinda term, though I do get that in today's political climate people see it as one thing -- it's almost mandatory for people to have knee-jerk reaction to the term. LOL. I kid. I kid.

 

[pbxbelmar]

Without getting into the politics of ANTZ/federal regulations or any other such arguments...

For the purposes of this poll I voted #2 with the caveat that I'd prefer the disclosure be 'voluntary' rather than 'mandatory.' Having the vape industry itself choosing to self-regulate in our own best interests (such as the age 18+ convention) would be ideal, imo.

I've not been vaping long, but since I have a brain (which I occasionally use) research and investigation is part of my usual operating procedure. So I read, I think, and I stay out of other people's business as much as possible. Make your own choices, I say. If you worry about diketones, avoid them. If a vendor doesn't disclose, avoid them if you choose. Or go DIY.

Just my two cents.

We now return you to your regular programming...

 

[Tangaroav]

Without getting into the politics of ANTZ/federal regulations or any other such arguments...

For the purposes of this poll I voted #2 with the caveat that I'd prefer the disclosure be 'voluntary' rather than 'mandatory.' Having the vape industry itself choosing to self-regulate in our own best interests (such as the age 18+ convention) would be ideal, imo.

I've not been vaping long, but since I have a brain (which I occasionally use) research and investigation is part of my usual operating procedure. So I read, I think, and I stay out of other people's business as much as possible. Make your own choices, I say. If you worry about diketones, avoid them. If a vendor doesn't disclose, avoid them if you choose. Or go DIY.

Just my two cents.

We now return you to your regular programming...

I agree . For the industry to self regulate, as it has done quite well up to now, we the consumers have to do our part. We need those conversations that sometimes 'rock the boat' a little although it may cause some light discomforts.

It sure looks that Dr. Faralinos recommendation to the vaping industry '' to resolve this issue permanently and effectively '' is slowly being acted on. Many vendors now make it a strong selling point to have only Diacetyl and Acetyl propionyl free e-liquids. The AEMSA has also made it part of theirs standards. As the consumers become better informed, the recalcitrant vendors will hopefully have no choice but to offer diketones free e-liquids to remain in business.