The Diketone Debate: Which Position Do you Take?

[ST Dog]

I personally have no faith in any corporate entity (even my beloved e-juice vendors) being responsible for doing its own lab tests. I can also see how legally mandating such tests could put the "little guy" out of business. For this reason, IMHO (Duck! Here come the tomatoes!) the government should be responsible for testing e-liquids for their individual components. It would remove the onerous cost of these lab tests from the little guy and be more objective and reliable. Random testing of various e-juices by a government agency would ensure that, like our meat, (okay, that's a bad example lol..) what we see is what we get.

I have more faith in the average liquid manufacturer than any governemnt agency (and I work for one, reviewing test data).
Generally they just review data supplied but the manufacturer. Occasionally they send sample out for independent testing, but there is virtually no in-house testing.

There certainly don't have the personnel or facilities to do the research you proposed. Best they could do is fund a 3rd party to do it.

The FDA is not what most people think it is, and doesn't have the capabilities people tend to think.

Pick any product they regulate and look into what that really entails. A little research on that can be enlightening.

 

[Mr.Mann]

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.

I think the difference between 2 and 3 is 3 is okay with, as Tangarov has pointed out many times, the status quo. Now, that is not to say they necessarily would argue against disclosure, but that they don't care whether or not it is ever included nor do they care about the associated risks, likely becasue they don't feel they have any potential to be actually and truly harmful.

 

[nyiddle]

Yeaaaah~, I'm constantly informing friends who enjoy their "Creamy Apple Pie" e-juice about the potential danger of diketones. It bothers me that there's no notice on these bottles of juice/on the vendor websites about the presence of diketones in their juice. Often you'll see, on most juice vendor websites, a notice about diacetyl/acetoin/acetyl, and ONLY that. Rarely (with the exception of Nicoticket, from what I've seen) do they mention diketones and the other potential nasties that we don't really know enough about.

One of the local juice makers/vendors I go to has a pretty strict "no diketone" policy in his juice. All of his e-liquid is made to specifically exclude flavor profiles that could be attributed to the presence of diketones. I really, REALLY like this policy. It makes me feel safe, and confident, that I'm not vaping anything that could potentially be harmful to me. Worth mentioning, this B&M owner has ALL the chemicals ON DISPLAY in the store. He offers sniff/taste tests (because eating this stuff isn't harmful to you). He even has several mixed bottles of "POISON JUICE" as we affectionately call it. These are straight VG mixed with acetoin/acetyl/that nasty vanilla flavoring/other harmful flavorings. They exist so that customers who walk in with a bottle of diketone-y juice can be made aware of the flavorings in their juice. He'll offer tests (with a lengthy warning) of these poison juices so that you can notice the flavors that the chemicals impart on the e-liquid, so that you can go on to determine whether/not your juice has these chemicals in it.

Now, I don't expect to get away with saying this without getting flamed, but.. The presence of diketones is one of the reasons I think FDA regulation might actually be a good thing. If they can provide a standard for juice-manufacturers that limits the chemicals used in e-liquid flavoring to things that are known to be safe (or at least.. not harmful) and effectively enforce that standard, I'd say that's a very VERY good thing. As it is, any Joe Schmoe can throw some of that gnarly vanilla flavoring (forgot what it's called, but it's a nasty chemical and can give you kidney stones when vaporized) and open up his own e-juice website, selling his potential poison to the masses (and making a pretty good buck too). So.. The possibility of the FDA positively regulating e-juice would be a good thing, solely to get some of these "poison juices" off the market.

My parting words are.. "Why?" The custard/cream e-juice fans are plenty, and even the ones that acknowledge the presence of diketones are still on-board. Why? The risks are somewhat known, but the unknown risks are what really scares me. What if inhaling a SMALL amount of diketones can cause problems? If that turns out to be the case, say, 5 years from now, I'd say the custard-cream-vapers are pretty screwed. Among other things, I'd be worried about the second-hand vapor from these diketone-ridden e-liquids. I just don't think the risk is worth the reward. Some people agree, and others take the extreme of switching to unflavored e-liquid. Personally, I think you gotta take some risks in life, but I stick to fruit and NET e-liquids, because (as far as I'm aware) those are far less likely to contain diketones (at least in larger amounts). The choice of flavors is one of the major things that got me so interested in vaping (and off cigarettes), so giving that up entirely would be a major bummer.

Well. That's my long post on diketones. I'm expectin' a bit of hate for that FDA bit, but (in your angry response) try to avoid the argument that, "The FDA will get rid of e-cigarettes entirely!" because as it is, that's kind of yet to be seen. I support CASAA and all, but I am very on-the-fence about the FDA regulation thing. On the one hand, I think it'd be good for keeping crap products out of the market. On the other hand, it would certainly put some hard-working vendors/etc. out of business for good. So I mean.. It's a definite trade-off either way. Whatever.

 

[Mazinny]

I think the difference between 2 and 3 is 3 is okay with, as Tangarov has pointed out many times, the status quo. Now, that is not to say they necessarily would argue against disclosure, but that they don't care whether or not it is ever included nor do they care about the associated risks, likely becasue they don't feel they have any potential to be actually and truly harmful.

oh ok i get it, they don't care whether it is disclosed ! I read it as they don't care whether the juice they vape personally has diketones in it.

 

[Mr.Mann]

Yeaaaah~, I'm constantly informing friends who enjoy their "Creamy Apple Pie" e-juice about the potential danger of diketones. It bothers me that there's no notice on these bottles of juice/on the vendor websites about the presence of diketones in their juice. Often you'll see, on most juice vendor websites, a notice about diacetyl/acetoin/acetyl, and ONLY that. Rarely (with the exception of Nicoticket, from what I've seen) do they mention diketones and the other potential nasties that we don't really know enough about.

One of the local juice makers/vendors I go to has a pretty strict "no diketone" policy in his juice. All of his e-liquid is made to specifically exclude flavor profiles that could be attributed to the presence of diketones. I really, REALLY like this policy. It makes me feel safe, and confident, that I'm not vaping anything that could potentially be harmful to me. Worth mentioning, this B&M owner has ALL the chemicals ON DISPLAY in the store. He offers sniff/taste tests (because eating this stuff isn't harmful to you). He even has several mixed bottles of "POISON JUICE" as we affectionately call it. These are straight VG mixed with acetoin/acetyl/that nasty vanilla flavoring/other harmful flavorings. They exist so that customers who walk in with a bottle of diketone-y juice can be made aware of the flavorings in their juice. He'll offer tests (with a lengthy warning) of these poison juices so that you can notice the flavors that the chemicals impart on the e-liquid, so that you can go on to determine whether/not your juice has these chemicals in it.

Now, I don't expect to get away with saying this without getting flamed, but.. The presence of diketones is one of the reasons I think FDA regulation might actually be a good thing. If they can provide a standard for juice-manufacturers that limits the chemicals used in e-liquid flavoring to things that are known to be safe (or at least.. not harmful) and effectively enforce that standard, I'd say that's a very VERY good thing. As it is, any Joe Schmoe can throw some of that gnarly vanilla flavoring (forgot what it's called, but it's a nasty chemical and can give you kidney stones when vaporized) and open up his own e-juice website, selling his potential poison to the masses (and making a pretty good buck too). So.. The possibility of the FDA positively regulating e-juice would be a good thing, solely to get some of these "poison juices" off the market.

My parting words are.. "Why?" The custard/cream e-juice fans are plenty, and even the ones that acknowledge the presence of diketones are still on-board. Why? The risks are somewhat known, but the unknown risks are what really scares me. What if inhaling a SMALL amount of diketones can cause problems? If that turns out to be the case, say, 5 years from now, I'd say the custard-cream-vapers are pretty screwed. Among other things, I'd be worried about the second-hand vapor from these diketone-ridden e-liquids. I just don't think the risk is worth the reward. Some people agree, and others take the extreme of switching to unflavored e-liquid. Personally, I think you gotta take some risks in life, but I stick to fruit and NET e-liquids, because (as far as I'm aware) those are far less likely to contain diketones (at least in larger amounts). The choice of flavors is one of the major things that got me so interested in vaping (and off cigarettes), so giving that up entirely would be a major bummer.

Well. That's my long post on diketones. I'm expectin' a bit of hate for that FDA bit, but (in your angry response) try to avoid the argument that, "The FDA will get rid of e-cigarettes entirely!" because as it is, that's kind of yet to be seen. I support CASAA and all, but I am very on-the-fence about the FDA regulation thing. On the one hand, I think it'd be good for keeping crap products out of the market. On the other hand, it would certainly put some hard-working vendors/etc. out of business for good. So I mean.. It's a definite trade-off either way. Whatever.

I get all of what you are saying but, and not to nitpick your stance about second-hand vapor, I must repeat something I said in another thread. This is part of it:

"..if no one (at least no one that has made headlines) has gotten desperately sick from custard ingredients in vapor, but someone did get sick (from excessive use) from diketone-fume inhalation from popcorn, why does popcorn not come with a warning to not inhale the fumes? First of all, how the hell would that happen anyway? You pop it. You breath it. You eat it.

I don't doubt that maybe there is reason to pause with diketone inhalation, but shouldn't this be diketones in general, not just in ecigs? I wonder what the levels of diketones in the air would be like from a custard "cloud" vs. microwaving a couple bags of popcorn vs.frying with buter. Second-hand butter-fume inhalation!

Emission of diacetyl (2,3 butanedione) from natural butter, microwave popcorn butter flavor powder, paste, and liquid products. (Pubmed)

"Diacetyl (2,3 butanedione), a butter-flavored diketone, has been linked to a severe lung disease, bronchiolitis obliterans. We tested a total of three natural butters and artificial microwave popcorn butter flavorings (three powders, two pastes, and one liquid) for bulk diacetyl concentration and diacetyl emissions when heated. Pastes and liquid butter flavors contained the highest amount (6% to 10.6%) while natural butter possessed up to 7500 times less diacetyl. All artificial butter flavors studied emitted diacetyl. Dry powders emitted up to 1.62 ppm diacetyl; wetted powders up to 54.7 ppm diacetyl; and pastes emitted up to 34.9 ppm diacetyl. The liquid butter flavor emitted up to 17.2 ppm diacetyl. Microwave popcorn flavoring mixtures emitted up to 11.4 ppm diacetyl. At least 93% of the dry powder particles were inhalable. These studies show that microwave butter flavoring products generate concentrations of diacetyl in the air great enough to endanger those exposed."

If someone that knows a bit about the numbers can help me out with that, I'd appreciate it. I think I get the amounts, but I won't speak on it until a more qualified (smarter, LOL) person can interpret it.

I point that out to say there are a lot of people out there in the world are exposed to diketone inhalation on a regular basis -- and have been for a long time, but as far as I can tell, there isn't a wave of sickness associated with it until you talk about super high concentrations (working around huge vats). Different from direct inhalation of small quantities like a vaper would experience when vaping, yes, but those commonplace exposures sure would be akin to second-hand vaper, and the levels in the fumes from cooking, working in a movie theater, popping popcorn or even just going to a movie theater where the smell permeates the entire building is likely much higher than being around a vaper expelling vapor from a custard liquid. So, if you don't fear going to a movie theater when artifical butter flavoring is being heated and piped into the atmosphere, I don't see how it should be feared to be around a vaper with some unknown liquid being exhaled.

 

[nyiddle]

I think it's safe to say that you're inhaling FAR more diketone when you're vaporizing and directly inhaling it into your lungs, compared to just breathing in a movie theater. While it is still in the PPM range, I'd be baffled if I learned that long-term diketone inhalation was "okay" for you.

So when I see people who vape custardy flavors all day, all year, it makes me worried.

 

[ST Dog]

I just don't think the risk is worth the reward. Some people agree, and others take the extreme of switching to unflavored e-liquid. Personally, I think you gotta take some risks in life, but I stick to fruit and NET e-liquids, because (as far as I'm aware) those are far less likely to contain diketones (at least in larger amounts).

Compared with all the other known risks you and everyone else deals with daily?

You think it's more dangerous than the chemicals under the sink?
(ever seen amonia and bleach mixed?)

Or the 15-20 gallons of highly flamable liquid under your car?
Have you ever seen the protective gear the people in the fuel industry wear when working with them?
(The guys loading/unloading the tanker trucks)

Then look at what you were when filing you tank or the mower. How about regulations that we all have to weare PPE when filling the tank like they wear?

 

[Mr.Mann]

I think it's safe to say that you're inhaling FAR more diketone when you're vaporizing and directly inhaling it into your lungs, compared to just breathing in a movie theater. While it is still in the PPM range, I'd be baffled if I learned that long-term diketone inhalation was "okay" for you.

So when I see people who vape custardy flavors all day, all year, it makes me worried.

Yep, that's why I said, "[d]ifferent from direct inhalation of small quantities like a vaper would experience when vaping, yes, but those commonplace exposures sure would be akin to second-hand vaper". And that was in response to you saying, "[a]mong other things, I'd be worried about the second-hand vapor from these diketone-ridden e-liquids."

I am still hoping someone like Kurt can tell me more about those numbers (or anyone that knows about it) from the fumes from real world substances. I do not dispute that the issue is with first hand inhalation, especially for those that completely throw caution to the wind and vape it in excess (I've said before that there is not much real world parallels to that), just that I will not extend that concern to second-hand vapor, unless we are talking about every instance when it can happen.

I hope this post is not seen as arguing, but merely clarifying points and at worst, just having a debate about views.

 

[AndriaD]

Yeaaaah~, I'm constantly informing friends who enjoy their "Creamy Apple Pie" e-juice about the potential danger of diketones. It bothers me that there's no notice on these bottles of juice/on the vendor websites about the presence of diketones in their juice. Often you'll see, on most juice vendor websites, a notice about diacetyl/acetoin/acetyl, and ONLY that. Rarely (with the exception of Nicoticket, from what I've seen) do they mention diketones and the other potential nasties that we don't really know enough about.

One of the local juice makers/vendors I go to has a pretty strict "no diketone" policy in his juice. All of his e-liquid is made to specifically exclude flavor profiles that could be attributed to the presence of diketones. I really, REALLY like this policy. It makes me feel safe, and confident, that I'm not vaping anything that could potentially be harmful to me. Worth mentioning, this B&M owner has ALL the chemicals ON DISPLAY in the store. He offers sniff/taste tests (because eating this stuff isn't harmful to you). He even has several mixed bottles of "POISON JUICE" as we affectionately call it. These are straight VG mixed with acetoin/acetyl/that nasty vanilla flavoring/other harmful flavorings. They exist so that customers who walk in with a bottle of diketone-y juice can be made aware of the flavorings in their juice. He'll offer tests (with a lengthy warning) of these poison juices so that you can notice the flavors that the chemicals impart on the e-liquid, so that you can go on to determine whether/not your juice has these chemicals in it.

Now, I don't expect to get away with saying this without getting flamed, but.. The presence of diketones is one of the reasons I think FDA regulation might actually be a good thing. If they can provide a standard for juice-manufacturers that limits the chemicals used in e-liquid flavoring to things that are known to be safe (or at least.. not harmful) and effectively enforce that standard, I'd say that's a very VERY good thing. As it is, any Joe Schmoe can throw some of that gnarly vanilla flavoring (forgot what it's called, but it's a nasty chemical and can give you kidney stones when vaporized) and open up his own e-juice website, selling his potential poison to the masses (and making a pretty good buck too). So.. The possibility of the FDA positively regulating e-juice would be a good thing, solely to get some of these "poison juices" off the market.

My parting words are.. "Why?" The custard/cream e-juice fans are plenty, and even the ones that acknowledge the presence of diketones are still on-board. Why? The risks are somewhat known, but the unknown risks are what really scares me. What if inhaling a SMALL amount of diketones can cause problems? If that turns out to be the case, say, 5 years from now, I'd say the custard-cream-vapers are pretty screwed. Among other things, I'd be worried about the second-hand vapor from these diketone-ridden e-liquids. I just don't think the risk is worth the reward. Some people agree, and others take the extreme of switching to unflavored e-liquid. Personally, I think you gotta take some risks in life, but I stick to fruit and NET e-liquids, because (as far as I'm aware) those are far less likely to contain diketones (at least in larger amounts). The choice of flavors is one of the major things that got me so interested in vaping (and off cigarettes), so giving that up entirely would be a major bummer.

Well. That's my long post on diketones. I'm expectin' a bit of hate for that FDA bit, but (in your angry response) try to avoid the argument that, "The FDA will get rid of e-cigarettes entirely!" because as it is, that's kind of yet to be seen. I support CASAA and all, but I am very on-the-fence about the FDA regulation thing. On the one hand, I think it'd be good for keeping crap products out of the market. On the other hand, it would certainly put some hard-working vendors/etc. out of business for good. So I mean.. It's a definite trade-off either way. Whatever.

I agree with you, about the potential for unknown harms down the road... so I'm boycotting diketones myself, given that I already have airway obstruction (asthma). But I love the bakery flavors; I looked up butyric acid, an alternate some of them are switching to; it has a lot to say about irritation, but nothing (so far?) about permanent damage.

Andria

 

[nyiddle]

Compared with all the other known risks you and everyone else deals with daily?

You think it's more dangerous than the chemicals under the sink?
(ever seen amonia and bleach mixed?)

Or the 15-20 gallons of highly flamable liquid under your car?
Have you ever seen the protective gear the people in the fuel industry wear when working with them?
(The guys loading/unloading the tanker trucks)

Then look at what you were when filing you tank or the mower. How about regulations that we all have to weare PPE when filling the tank like they wear?

Yeah. I breathe those things, but I don't drip them in my atomizer. I think people have to stop comparing "the fumes from a bus" to "directly inhaling something that might be harmful". If you hooked up your car exhaust to a hose and inhaled it, yep, you'd do some damage. If you walked around for a day in New York City, nope. The damage is probably negligible. It's not even a close comparison.

 

[ST Dog]

Yeah. I breathe those things, but I don't drip them in my atomizer. I think people have to stop comparing "the fumes from a bus" to "directly inhaling something that might be harmful". If you hooked up your car exhaust to a hose and inhaled it, yep, you'd do some damage. If you walked around for a day in New York City, nope. The damage is probably negligible. It's not even a close comparison.

I wasn't talking about breathing the fumes. I was taking about the risk from various substances we are around all the time.
We generally don't think twice about them and they are far more dangerous.

 

[AndriaD]

I wasn't talking about breathing the fumes. I was taking about the risk from various substances we are around all the time.
We generally don't think twice about them and they are far more dangerous.

People with normal lungs don't think twice about them -- people with asthma have a hard time avoiding thinking about them, since there are any number of chemicals and smells and substances that are irritating enough to bring on an immediate asthma attack, just from traces -- perfume, hairspray, aerosol deodorant, disinfectants, ammonia, pesticides, car exhaust, bus (diesel) exhaust, the "PAM" you spray on cookware, plain old dust, fresh cut grass, the lawnmower you cut it with, chainsaws, motorcycles, smoke of ANY kind (hence why I had adapt my smoking technique to take in very little!), gasoline fumes, non-latex paint fumes (especially enamels)... it's gotten to be a really REALLY bad world for asthmatics to live in, and all that poison in the air is creating more and more asthmatics all the time.

I remember from before I had asthma, an 'asthma attack' was usually considered by many people to be nothing but a plea for attention, a spoiled-child's reaction to anything it doesn't like -- to those people, I say, put a plastic bag over your head, and leave it there for 5 to 15 minutes; you might begin to understand what a real asthma attack feels like.

Andria

 

[nyiddle]

I wasn't talking about breathing the fumes. I was taking about the risk from various substances we are around all the time.
We generally don't think twice about them and they are far more dangerous.

We also don't have any control over them.

This is something I do have control over. Your argument is still comparing apples and oranges. Intentionally inhaling vapor (harmful or not) cannot be rationally compared to unintentionally inhaling bus fumes, car fumes, the crap that we inhale every day.

 

[ST Dog]

We also don't have any control over them.

This is something I do have control over. Your argument is still comparing apples and oranges. Intentionally inhaling vapor (harmful or not) cannot be rationally compared to unintentionally inhaling bus fumes, car fumes, the crap that we inhale every day.

But YOU are the only one talking about inhaling those things.
I was talking about general exposure to hazardous substances, whether inhaled or not.

And I never mentioned engine exhaust, that was all you.

I was talking about gasoline/diesel getting on your skin. That's the PPE I refered to.
See, it's such a non issue to most that they don't even know what the PPE for fuel handlers is.

So, again, banning things from all e-liquids is not the move. Disclosue so we know it's there and can make the determination is more appropriate. That's the same course taken with 100s/1000s of hazardous substances we are exposed to every day.

To single out diketones and such is logically inconsistant unless you also want to ban most household cleaners and start mandating the wear of PPE when handling other hazardous materials that are used all the time instead of relying on individual judgement/responsibility.

 

[nyiddle]

To single out diketones and such is logically inconsistant unless you also want to ban most household cleaners and start mandating the wear of PPE when handling other hazardous materials that are used all the time instad of relying on individual judgement/responsibility.

Wha-?

When I handle other hazardous substances, it's not because I'm putting them in my vaporizer to inhale. If I accidentally dump gasoline on my skin, it's a completely different thing from enjoying a potentially harmful action (ie: vaping a custard flavor).

If I vape a bunch of potentially-harmful diketone-y juice, that's a completely different thing. Maybe I don't know that there's diketones present, but even if I do, we don't know the long term (even shorter-long term, like a year or two) effects of directly inhaling diketones, even in teeny-tiny quantities.

I don't really understand your argument. Vaping a custard flavor =/= spilling gasoline on oneself?

 

[AndriaD]

Yeah, I've kinda lost the thread here, who is arguing what... I'm mainly in favor of disclosure being mandatory, for those who definitely don't want the stuff to be able to avoid it. In general, I'm against fascist big nanny tactics. I think the only way it should be completely mandatory for the stuff to be removed, would maybe be if a flavor manufacturer came out with a special line of flavors just for vape use -- because the diketones are only dangerous if inhaled, they're GRAS for dietary consumption, and that's what all these flavors are really made for, which is why the stuff is in there in the first place -- for eating/drinking.

Andria

 

[Mr.Mann]

I spoke with a friend of mine last night, a friend who happens to be a vendor (but he asked me to not name him), and although his liquids are not tested, he told me he knows that some of them do have diketones (any vendor worth his salt will know which flavors do, and which flavors probably do). He said he is *thinking* about coming out with v2 flavors for those that do have it, but he said he is currently in the process of labeling the flavors that do have them with a disclaimer.

My reason for saying this is simply that I didn't bring it up to him, but he told me that the consumer base is flooding him and other vendors with questions and outright demands. He spoke on behalf of other vendors that he knows when he said, "we've got to let them (the customers) know." As I alluded to before, if a enough vendors that give the customer a clear choice start taking business away from others that don't, you'll see the bulk of vendors get on board. Not a top down kind deal, but bottom up.

 

[ST Dog]

Yeah, I've kinda lost the thread here, who is arguing what...

nyiddle supports the FDA regulating eliquid contents to get "poison juices" off the market.
Oh, and he's concerned about 2nd hand effects should they remain.

The presence of diketones is one of the reasons I think FDA regulation might actually be a good thing. If they can provide a standard for juice-manufacturers that limits the chemicals used in e-liquid flavoring to things that are known to be safe (or at least.. not harmful) and effectively enforce that standard, I'd say that's a very VERY good thing.
...
The possibility of the FDA positively regulating e-juice would be a good thing, solely to get some of these "poison juices" off the market.
...
Among other things, I'd be worried about the second-hand vapor from these diketone-ridden e-liquids. I just don't think the risk is worth the reward.

 

[ST Dog]

When I handle other hazardous substances, it's not because I'm putting them in my vaporizer to inhale. If I accidentally dump gasoline on my skin, it's a completely different thing from enjoying a potentially harmful action (ie: vaping a custard flavor).

So don't vape them if you don't want to.
You don't need the FDA to ban them just because you don't want them.

Keeping with ingestion, that's like banning sweets because somepoeple eat too much.
No one forcers them to eat 3 chocolate bars a day, and just because they do shouldn't prevent me form having one each week.

Since somepople drink large amounts of alcohol that destroys their liver, should we ignore that most can drink smaller amounts less often and not cause liver damage? Just ban alcoholic beverages instead?

Peannut alergies can be deadly to some. Should we ban all peanut products? They've already done so in many schools. Why not a nation wide ban?

I don't really understand your argument. Vaping a custard flavor =/= spilling gasoline on oneself?

Banning flavoring compounds because you don't want to take the risk == requirent PPE for all fuel transfers because a few people can't pump gass without spilling it on themselves OR == banning bleach and/or amonia because some dufus might mix them together


I already can't buy cold medicine beacuse some idiots like to make .... out of it.
In many areas you have to show ID to buy spray paint, or spray cans that might be used as inhalants (again by idiots).

Sorry, I don't want some government agency banning stuff just because it can be harmful when used improperly/in excess.

 

[clnire]

Since somepople drink large amounts of alcohol that destroys their liver, should we ignore that most can drink smaller amounts less often and not cause liver damage? Just ban alcoholic beverages instead?

And we all know how successful Prohibition was...