I'm sorry Plastic Shaman, I just had to laugh when I read "rational basis".
Carry on.....
The Elephant in the Room
- Thread starter Plastic Shaman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I'm sorry Plastic Shaman, I just had to laugh when I read "rational basis".
Carry on.....
Legally, I doubt they need any justification, but think about the history of governments proposing taxes "just because." Smokers took the sin tax because we knew what we were doing was bad for us. vaping isn't the same. If, sometime down the road, it's shown that vaping is even remotely close to as harmful as smoking, then we can talk about restrictions and possible taxes. Until then, I consider vaping akin to coffee drinking.
I'm sorry Plastic Shaman, I just had to laugh when I read "rational basis".
Carry on.....
What funny about that? Rational basis is a standard of review that courts employ when measuring the constitutionally of certain government actions.
For the government "rational basis" plays ZERO part in new taxes. What is sickening is how many politicians claim to be against "greedy corporations" (who make money by trading goods and services for cash), while at the same time creating new taxes and raising existing tax rates (which are in essence legalized THEFT).
Do you mean that I'm incorrect about the standard? Or are you just trying to say that the government is irrational?
Sure it is irrational (at best). It helped to create al qaeda and isis, now it is creating something else in Syria that will proudly kill Americans in near future.
Let's keep it to the topic at hand and not get into the byproduct of political discussion. Yes, the laws/regulations of vaping is political in a large sense.
We do not need to take it out further in this section of the forum. The OUTSIDE is the place for that.
We do not need to take it out further in this section of the forum. The OUTSIDE is the place for that.
I'm not saying that vaping is horrible for us. I'm not even saying that it's a significant risk. I don't know. But don't you think the whole coffee thing is a little hyperbolic? I mean, we are inhaling chemicals and additives that no one has inhaled on a regular basis in the past. Well, except all those people who got sick working in those factories, not that this situation is analogous.
I'm sorry, but I can't believe that taking the attitude that something is safe until proven otherwise is good policy. Just ask veterans who were told that Agent Orange and Depleted Uranium were fine and there were no immediate effects.
Are you referring to diacetyl and the other related chemicals? I don't vape liquids that contain those, to my knowledge, not all liquids do. So other than that we have nicotine which people have been inhaling for years and even the BP research into nicotine inhalation says it is GRAS. Then there is PG and VG which have been inhaled for years and are GRAS. The flavorings are the sticking point, but if I vaped unflavored, what would your argument be then?
Coffee is far from harmless, caffeine, fat, sugar, whatever artificial flavorings are in those flavor shots people add to their drinks, they're all about as unknown for long term harm as vaping.
Yes, I was talking about diacetyls. It's good that you try to avoid them, but do you know you're actually avoiding them? The whole Mother's Milk thing illustrates my point and shows that we need to know what is going into these things.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have heard a lot of researchers and medical professions who say that e-cigs appear to have no apparent short term effects, but they are still worried about long term effects.
Finally, coffee has had a lot of research. From my understanding, coffee itself has never shown any long terms effects since it is a pretty simple stimulant, much like nicotine. Obviously all the cream and sugar we put in it are going to be bad, but that's common sense.
Coffee and Health | The Nutrition Source | Harvard School of Public Health
This study followed people for 18 to 24 years. I'd say that's long term.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have heard a lot of researchers and medical professions who say that e-cigs appear to have no apparent short term effects, but they are still worried about long term effects.
Finally, coffee has had a lot of research. From my understanding, coffee itself has never shown any long terms effects since it is a pretty simple stimulant, much like nicotine. Obviously all the cream and sugar we put in it are going to be bad, but that's common sense.
Coffee and Health | The Nutrition Source | Harvard School of Public Health
This study followed people for 18 to 24 years. I'd say that's long term.
Last edited:
Right, so you agree with me that VG, PG and nicotine are all relatively harmless, and it's the flavors that we MAY need to worry about, just like with coffee drinks it's not the caffeine that will do you harm, it's the fat and other stuff you put in it. Where are the people screaming to regulate the "pumpkin spice" industry? So, if I vape unflavored, what's the issue? I'm not saying that the effects of flavorings should not be studied. I'm saying that if you take them out of the picture now, via regulation, they won't be studied.
I do my best to keep myself informed of possible health effects. We're learning more every day. I like having the choice. Just like I can choose to buy "butter" flavored microwave popcorn, because I believe the benefit of having tasty popcorn outweighs the minimal exposure I will have to potentially harmful chemicals, I can choose what goes into my e-liquid. I do think disclosure is important, but the industry is already self regulating in that direction.
I didn't say vg and pg. I've heard researchers and doctors say that they don't know the long term effects of inhaling those as well as the flavors.
A lot of people are screaming about artificial flavors and additives in foods. We don't know the long term effects and I'm sure that there are studies being conducted.
No one is talking about banning flavors right now. In fact, the FDA stated that they cannot ban them on the same grounds that they banned flavored cigarettes, since that was statutory. The FDA knows that they would need solid research that flavors have serious health risks, otherwise the courts would just throw it out.
I hear a lot of people talking about the industry self-regulating. This is my own personal opinion, but self-regulation does not work. There is no oversight. It relies on individuals to always do what's right and ethical. I don't see this as realistic. Ever read The Jungle? Yeah, that's what happens in an unregulated industry.
Thinking out loud..... In this unregulated industry that we have now.... we are conscious of the diacetyl and have taken steps to get the word out and have people make their own decision on whether or not they are willing to take the risk for themselves if they want to vape it or not.
Unsafe devices have been called out and gotten removed, in this unregulated industry. Look up Box Elder on this forum. Again a vendor with unsafe practices....called out and removed. That was years ago, before I ever found the forum and vaping.
Unsafe devices have been called out and gotten removed, in this unregulated industry. Look up Box Elder on this forum. Again a vendor with unsafe practices....called out and removed. That was years ago, before I ever found the forum and vaping.
So give the entire industry over to BT and create a labeling system that allows them to put anything that synthesizes into deadly compounds into packages that boldly state on the cover that the contents lack those compounds?
Or do you not realize that's only part of what you posted?
Sent from my device.
VG and PG have been used in inhalants for a very long time, there is long term data available.
People may be screaming to know what's in their food, but they're not asking for it all to be removed from the market until they know. That's the difference.
Actually, the FDA said they cannot ban flavors now because they don't as of yet have jurisdiction over electronic cigarettes as tobacco products. That is why they have proposed to deem electronic cigarettes as tobacco products, so they can apply the same or similar regulations. This has not stopped local governments from proposing bans on flavored e-liquid, and their justification never even touches on the health aspect of the flavorings, it's always about "marketing to children."
Self regulation of the industry is not only about the vendors/manufacturers. If it were, I would agree with you. In this age of technology, if a vendor does something that people find questionable, that information will spread through the web/facebook/twittersphere and hopefully the vendor will correct their mistakes.
People may be screaming to know what's in their food, but they're not asking for it all to be removed from the market until they know. That's the difference.
Actually, the FDA said they cannot ban flavors now because they don't as of yet have jurisdiction over electronic cigarettes as tobacco products. That is why they have proposed to deem electronic cigarettes as tobacco products, so they can apply the same or similar regulations. This has not stopped local governments from proposing bans on flavored e-liquid, and their justification never even touches on the health aspect of the flavorings, it's always about "marketing to children."
Self regulation of the industry is not only about the vendors/manufacturers. If it were, I would agree with you. In this age of technology, if a vendor does something that people find questionable, that information will spread through the web/facebook/twittersphere and hopefully the vendor will correct their mistakes.
Those are great. However, this self-regulation is by no means comprehensive. It's always good to see people helping each other out, but without any oversight and methods of collecting data, there is no way to stop products from slipping through the cracks.
And, what about products that seem safe, but there may be other risks. When we talk about unsafe hardware, we think of things blowing up in people's faces. Is that the only standard one has to meet to be safe? In other words, is it safe because there is no catastrophic failure? I have a mod in front of me that can handle resistances as low as .1 and go up to 150 watts. Is that safe just because it doesn't blow up? Supposedly there is a 250 watt box coming out soon that can go to .05, which sounds absurd to me. I don't know if it's safe, but I think that there should be some research done.
Furthermore, regulating creates a certain amount of accountability. If something blows up in your face, do you think it will be easy to take legal action to pay for your medical bills? This is dependent on the size of the manufacturer and whether you can actually track it down, or an entity that can be legitimately linked to the manufacturer. When a mod blows up in your face and the manufacturer is some company in China that sold it through a third party who then imported it and sold it to an American retailer who sold it to you, it's going to be awfully hard to bring a successful suit. On the other hand, regulation has standards for items from other countries. Not saying you'll always get recourse, but you will have a better chance.
Food industry dominated by BT? May be you wanted to say by McDonald's? I am loosing your logic.
I'd actually love to see the data, just out of curiosity.
A lot of people have called for banning or imposing strict regulations, such as consumer groups. Just because it has not happened does not mean that there are not those asking for it. Again, there is no proposal, as of right now, that would ban flavors until research is done.
The FDA did say that they cannot regulate it under statute. It's in the proposed rules, but I'm going to quote the SFATA comments instead, primarily because it's just easier to find:
Again, SFATA’s position is that FDA lacks authority to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products. In addition, SFATA strongly agrees with FDA that an e-cigarette is not a “cigarette,” as defined in § 900(3) of the Act.50 Therefore, as acknowledged in the Proposed Rule, the prohibition against flavors would not apply to e-cigarettes even if they were deemed to be tobacco products in a final rule.
I don't disagree that self-regulation is more efficent, but I stand by my response to Robino1.
- Status
Similar threads
