The Diketone Debate: Which Position Do you Take?
- Thread starter Mr.Mann
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
True and I've made that point before, but it doesn't have to come from an outside source necessarily. I already stated this in a previous post, but to put it out there again...
Disclosure that I feel is going to have to be mandatory is simple, the premade liquids should all come with disclosure that reads with one of the following:
-- This liquid has been tested to be diketone free. [With information about where the test results and methodology (limit of detection) can be found]
-- This liquid contains diketones. [This could be either left at that or with numbers (a better option), but no other opinionated words like "trace" or "a little bit" unless being accompanied by numbers]
-- This liquid has not been tested for diketone content.
All of those give the consumer a clear choice, even if with a couple it only allows the consumer to know when they may be gambling (as it pertains to these compounds). The whole "diacetyl free" non-sense has got to go. The issue is diketones, and unless there is proof provided to show the absence of, most of what we buy should be labeled as "this liquid has not been tested for diketone content" or "this liquid contains diketones." So, when I compared it to nicotine content, it wasn't on a tit for tat basis (as you are aware), but that it should be mandatory that the known or unknown information is provided -- with this, the information just has to be there, basically, in one of three ways. There is no dishonor in my opinion for stating that the liquids have not been tested, but saying "DA free" all the time is an unverified claim most of the time, where the others are about transparency.
Who would mandate it? The same type of people that wouldn't buy liquids with no specification on nicotine content. If enough people decide that they require such things to make the purchase, you just found your enforcers. It is 100% obligatory that any eliquid address nicotine content -- but why is that? The supplement industry can sell any number of proprietary blends fully equipped with caffeine (plus many other stimulants) and no way to tell how much is in a specific pill -- that continues becasue those that patronize that industry continue buying it that way (though that is changing somewhat). Why not just sell liquid in a proprietary blend of nicotine and flavor? Because customers aren't going to go for that. Again, not tit for tat, but the outcome of what can be obligatory in our industry shows that it need not be from government. Just like how there are hardly any vendors now that don't have "DA free" on their website -- and that whole awareness of the issue came from customers. Once enough customers call and agitate the hell out of enough vendors, trust me, you'll see change. Once enough vendors abide, the others will follow. This is a consumer-driven industry.
Does anyone remember liquids that were sold strictly as "high", "medium" and "low" nicotine? I always bought medium. LOL. Don't see that much anymore, if at all.
Last edited:
I think you misunderstood what I mean by that. I support mandatory disclosure for the sale of eliquids and of course the state government shouldn't have to do that. Why is it that a government entity like the FDA have to do that I ask? And no..the government takes care of nobody imo..Unless you are a pauper so poor you have to live off of government assistance.
ETA:
The only thing that would have to be done is for each state to have one regulation besides taxes, taxes will be a given and already are for eliquids in some states. It should have to be disclosed to the state before it can be sold just as alcoholic beverages has to have the percentage of alcohol before sales.
Last edited:
I would love to have others use the signature too (or just link to the thread whenever the subject comes up -- which it will). That's about as best of a way as I can think. Hell, maybe one day this can be in a yellow box at the top of ECF? LOL. Just kidding.
I also have it so the votes are public, at least until you vote (then you won't be able to see), becasue I felt like if a vendor votes in here for "I know the supposed issues, but I don't care," they should be able to be spotted.
p.s. It did get amended.
The cat that ate the canary speaks..The government didn't catch her in a lie..an independent lab did.
I chose the third option, not because I don't care at all, but because I was worried about the "mandatory" in the second. My opinion is actually that this is a topic that needs more research. The "popcorn lung" cases that I have read about were extreme exposures. So my full answer would be that:
Right now I'm seeing a lot of knee jerk reactions when there just is not enough information available. For myself, I DIY, and I use small amounts of butter and cream flavors in a small number of liquids. None of them are ones that I use all day, every day, and I'm not particularly worried. But then again, I ignored all of the butter and egg panic for years, and was vindicated in the end.
- There should be more research done, specific to the exposure levels likely in vaping.
- Suppliers ought to test, and make the results public. For it to be mandatory, we're back to who should enforce it.
- Vapers need to educate themselves about the topic, so that they can make their own informed decisions.
Right now I'm seeing a lot of knee jerk reactions when there just is not enough information available. For myself, I DIY, and I use small amounts of butter and cream flavors in a small number of liquids. None of them are ones that I use all day, every day, and I'm not particularly worried. But then again, I ignored all of the butter and egg panic for years, and was vindicated in the end.
Last edited:
And when you put it like that, I can't argue. Hell, that is where we are now and I have no problem navigating the terrain -- but I've been doing this awhile. With so many vendors popping up and doing what they can to have a competitive edge, I think the mandate will be self-imposed. At least that's my way of thinking and hoping about it.
And this isn't all about popcorn lung -- that part is kinda blown outta proportion. In my opinion (which may be wrong) there has been enough research on diketone inhalation, in small quantities, to warrant pause -- not just to warrant further study. This isn't about the absolute worst case scenario necessarily (which is an insanely bad scenario), but about scenarios that are altogether problematic and worth issuing some type of heads-up about -- even if just so the consumer can decide.
p.s. Damn you for pointing out one more option I could've done! LOL. Yeah, "I know the supposed issues, but more research should be done" would've been perfect. Well, you cant win 'em all. Good catch.
Last edited:
Is it true that all custards and buttery flavors contain diacetyl?
Diketones.
Kinda, but not really. Kinda becasue if it is truly buttery or truly custard-y it will have diketones, but there are some good attempts at mimicking it that don't have diketones. I used a diketone free custard tonight, and while I like it, I can't say it's really all that custard-y -- though it is technically a custard, even if just because it is called custard. LOL. Also, TPA is now using butryic acid and that is close, but it has some gaps in the profile with the liquids I've tried.
Originally Posted by hurricanegirl100 View Post
"If you support mandatory disclosure but you don't support government regulation, who provides the "mandate" in mandatory?
"Regulation takes care of nobody" Wow. Seriously? I'm getting out of here before my views about conservative Georgians makes me forget my Yankee manners."
Hahaha! I just saw this..She has to be a Liberal mistaking me a Libertarian for a Conservative ..Too damned funny!
"If you support mandatory disclosure but you don't support government regulation, who provides the "mandate" in mandatory?
"Regulation takes care of nobody" Wow. Seriously? I'm getting out of here before my views about conservative Georgians makes me forget my Yankee manners."
Hahaha! I just saw this..She has to be a Liberal mistaking me a Libertarian for a Conservative ..Too damned funny!
Last edited:
Oh okay Mr. Mann..I got that..I think? lol
Sirius, are you a DIYer (yet?). I add the "yet" part becasue I think we all should be DIYing, at least on some level, just in case -- and plus, it's really fun. I ask if you DIY because when you DIY you'll see just how easy it is to spot (dealing with concentrates truly opens up your nose, so to speak, to what diketones are and just how easy it is to spot 'em.) And the big issue, if one feels this is an issue, is that it is not only in custards/buttery flavors, but many more. When I first got heavy into DIY (which is fairly recently), I honestly just said the hell with it becasue it is truly a fascinating and beautiful tasting/smelling ingredient, but the thrill has worn off for me with what I want to vape. However, I will say though that if it was definitively discovered tomorrow that there is absolutely no risk associated with diketone inhalation, I would actually be giddy -- though maybe not exactly wanting it. I am not 100% convinced that it will harm anyone that vapes it in any quantity, but I feel this issue has been on too many vaper's minds for too long for it not to have reached a tipping point. That tipping point doens't have to be panic, but just simple disclosure about diketone content in a liquid -- whether it is known or unknown is enough for me.
Yes I did a stint with mixing Inawera flavors from Poland. Supposed to be diketone/diacetyl free. I really suck at DIY..Mine tastes nothing even close to internet buys..lol
I hear you. I no longer dis vendors that make liquids I don't like -- I have a hard time making my best better than their worst (sorta).
Well, just put some diketones in it and that'll fix it right up! (<---that's kinda true to sometimes.) Hell, I was vaping a liquid that has diketones in it today and it is damn good. I don't vape like that all day at all, but I feel better knowing that what I am vaping has it so I can make my own decision about when I should step away.
I hear you. I no longer dis vendors that make liquids I don't like -- I have a hard time making my best better than their worst (sorta).
I have one..ONE tobacco I can mix and it's damn good. the Inawera base TA Dark Tobacco 2% and Tobacco Darl Chocolate 3% on 10ml of 70 VG 30 PG.
It's damn close to a premium tobacco absolute eliquid. I have 20 other flavors sitting on the top shelf of my closet that havent been touched in a few months. I went to AHL after my stint with DIY and haven't revisited it since. That was around April/May I think..lol
Well, I'm gonna call it a night Mr. Mann..I sure enjoy this thread though.
I hear you. I no longer dis vendors that make liquids I don't like -- I have a hard time making my best better than their worst (sorta).
This sums up exactly how I feel, too.
I wish they had explained their vote because i want to know the reasoning behind the votes, regardless of how anyone voted. I could imagine some aren't convinced by the science, but that still doesn't explain why one would be against disclosure. Another reason could be that they just love the taste so much they are willing to take the risk. I get it, but again what's the harm in disclosure.
Btw, just realized options 2 and 3 don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. It's possible not to care personally, and still be in favor of disclosure.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
