I'm sorry. I don't know what your one simple question is. Is it whether or not I have children?
In all fairness, you did not answer my question.
The Elephant in the Room
- Thread starter Plastic Shaman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I'm sorry. I don't know what your one simple question is. Is it whether or not I have children?
In all fairness, you did not answer my question.
Hahaha, or even a "I love Provari" thread....either way, it will get silly pretty quick.
I dropped the A. I am no longer qualified for this discussion.
Seriously, I have better things to do.
No, my question was why my status as a parent is important. I wanted to know that before I gave an answer. I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask the purpose or reasoning of a question that delves into one's private life as an apparent assessment of whether or not they are qualified to give an opinion.
Bring out the Holy Hand Grenade of St. Antioch!
Call me cynical, but I really believe this is the authentic chain of "reasoning" that leads to discussions like this:
America still suffers from its Puritan roots and views any vices as an affront to God. Therefore, anything that benefits sinners or the "morally weak" by mitigating the negative impact of those vices must be a bad thing. By allowing sinners to avoid the risk of cancer without suffering, we are helping them to avoid their just punishment at the hands of an angry God. Vaping allows the sinner to avoid the risk of cancer without suffering the pains of withdrawal, therefore vaping is wrong and must be outlawed. In order to do this, we need to pretend to have a rational reason (separation of church and state, you know), so we'll dig up or manufacture any cockamamie set of "facts" we can find to support the decision that we already believe is the morally correct one. Then, we can do exactly what we were planning to do all along, in the "scientifically proven best interests" of the people.
Currently, we're in the "fact finding" phase, because the FDA hasn't been able to dig up enough cockamamie facts to support the decision they want us to come to yet. But, it's only a matter of time.
The fact that poor people smoke more than rich people, and that vaping therefore helps poor people more than it helps rich people is just gravy. After all, if God loves someone, they wouldn't be poor in the first place.
Call me cynical, but I really believe this is the authentic chain of "reasoning" that leads to discussions like this:
America still suffers from its Puritan roots and views any vices as an affront to God. Therefore, anything that benefits sinners or the "morally weak" by mitigating the negative impact of those vices must be a bad thing. By allowing sinners to avoid the risk of cancer without suffering, we are helping them to avoid their just punishment at the hands of an angry God. Vaping allows the sinner to avoid the risk of cancer without suffering the pains of withdrawal, therefore vaping is wrong and must be outlawed. In order to do this, we need to pretend to have a rational reason (separation of church and state, you know), so we'll dig up or manufacture any cockamamie set of "facts" we can find to support the decision that we already believe is the morally correct one. Then, we can do exactly what we were planning to do all along, in the "scientifically proven best interests" of the people.
Currently, we're in the "fact finding" phase, because the FDA hasn't been able to dig up enough cockamamie facts to support the decision they want us to come to yet. But, it's only a matter of time.
The fact that poor people smoke more than rich people, and that vaping therefore helps poor people more than it helps rich people is just gravy. After all, if God loves someone, they wouldn't be poor in the first place.
Last edited:
Bring out the Holy Hand Grenade of St. Antioch!
Call me cynical, but I really believe this is the authentic chain of "reasoning" that leads to discussions like this:
America still suffers from its Puritan roots and views any vices as an affront to God. Therefore, anything that benefits sinners or the "morally weak" by mitigating the negative impact of those vices must be a bad thing. By allowing sinners to avoid the risk of cancer without suffering, we are helping them to avoid their just punishment at the hands of an angry God. Vaping allows the sinner to avoid the risk of cancer without suffering the pains of withdrawal, therefore vaping is wrong and must be outlawed. In order to do this, we need to pretend to have a rational reason (separation of church and state, you know), so we'll dig up or manufacture any cockamamie set of "facts" we can find to support the decision that we already believe is the morally correct one. Then, we can do exactly what we were planning to do all along, in the "scientifically proven best interests" of the people.
Currently, we're in the "fact finding" phase, because the FDA hasn't been able to dig up enough cockamamie facts to support the decision they want us to come to yet. But, it's only a matter of time.
The fact that poor people smoke more than rich people, and that vaping therefore helps poor people more than it helps rich people is just gravy. After all, if God loves someone, they wouldn't be poor in the first place.
Damn do I love Monty!
Just adding unto:
A Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20:
Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
Bring out the Holy Hand Grenade of St. Antioch!
Call me cynical, but I really believe this is the authentic chain of "reasoning" that leads to discussions like this:
America still suffers from its Puritan roots and views any vices as an affront to God. Therefore, anything that benefits sinners or the "morally weak" by mitigating the negative impact of those vices must be a bad thing. By allowing sinners to avoid the risk of cancer without suffering, we are helping them to avoid their just punishment at the hands of an angry God. Vaping allows the sinner to avoid the risk of cancer without suffering the pains of withdrawal, therefore vaping is wrong and must be outlawed. In order to do this, we need to pretend to have a rational reason (separation of church and state, you know), so we'll dig up or manufacture any cockamamie set of "facts" we can find to support the decision that we already believe is the morally correct one. Then, we can do exactly what we were planning to do all along, in the "scientifically proven best interests" of the people.
Currently, we're in the "fact finding" phase, because the FDA hasn't been able to dig up enough cockamamie facts to support the decision they want us to come to yet. But, it's only a matter of time.
The fact that poor people smoke more than rich people, and that vaping therefore helps poor people more than it helps rich people is just gravy. After all, if God loves someone, they wouldn't be poor in the first place.
Kudos for the Monty Python Holy Grail reference. I love that movie.
Unfortunately there is so much wrong with the rest of it that it far outweighs the reference. First and foremost "Separation of Church and State" DOES NOT EXIST in any law on the books. The Constitution only says that Congress cannot pass any law that instantiate a national religion or hinders the freedom to practice any religion. it does not say anything about no prayer in schools, no crosses in court houses, etc. Second, the religious "puritan" types are generally on the RIGHT side of the political spectrum but it predominately the LEFT side of the political spectrum that is against the eCig industry therefore invalidating your entire theory that this is coming from some some place of misplaced placed moral superiority.
Separation of Church and State may not be on the lawbooks, but if Big Brother felt that they could pass a law that vaping was illegal because it was morally wrong, they'd do it in a minute. As far as the RIGHT and LEFT sides of the political spectrum goes, I think most politicians worship Mammon on both sides of the aisle. Though I did have an unusual experience today. I watched a video that Rush Limbaugh made about eCigarettes, and for the first time in my life, I actually agreed with something he had to say. Made me question my entire belief system. Next thing you know, I'll be listening to Glen Beck on the radio and voting Republican. I guess eCigs really are a gateway drug!
DOH!
Food and
Drug
Administration
FOOD AND DRUG...
And so many people want the same useless labels and regulations that gave food to big business for vaping?
Where do you think that's going? Pretty sure I've given some solid hints...
Sent from my device.
I'd be interested in seeing what regulation the vaping community is willing to accept....and who they propose should have oversight? If the answer is no regulation and no oversight, well good luck with that. Idealism on both sides will get us nowhere, in my opinion.
Labels and regulations might be useless but at least I can see the ingredients in my food and the %. Now I can make an informed decision about what's in my food. I can't say the same for the e liquid I am purchasing.
No regulation ...no oversight, not my preference. Let's put something tangible on the table and discuss what we are willing to accept.
Labels and regulations might be useless but at least I can see the ingredients in my food and the %. Now I can make an informed decision about what's in my food. I can't say the same for the e liquid I am purchasing.
No regulation ...no oversight, not my preference. Let's put something tangible on the table and discuss what we are willing to accept.
We can vote and whine and plead, but let's be realistic. Regulation is coming. To what extent, we don't really know. We can only hope regulation doesn't serve to fatten the pockets of BT and we can hope the little guys aren't put out of business. But we will all have to embrace regulation whether we like it or not. If it makes vaping safer for us, it won't be a bad thing.
Sure, regulation is inevitable. But the more we fight them, the less they'll try to grab. So, even though you know you'll eventually lose, it's still worth the effort. And, who knows, you might be surprised. I never thought the herb that cannot be named on ECF would ever be legal, and now I live in a state where recreational use is legal. If you live long enough, you get to see everything.
OK, Some common sense things I can sussgest, but I will not hold my breath.
No sales to minors. Felony for any adult supplying ecig materials of any kind to a minor. Second offence means manditory sentencing.
No possession of any ecig materials by minors, first offence misdemeanor and second offence a Felony.
No regulation of devices, you don`t regulate flashlights or space heaters, and both can burn your house down. Where`s the FDA on this?
No regulation of juice, period. Let the lawyers and free market deal with it. You buy fresh beef at the counter? At Burger King? Jack in the Box? Thousands of people die every year from bad beef, bad cabbage (being a vegan ai`nt totally safe), bad whatever. The FDA is a BIG FAIL, no need to give more money to a big failure. Everything gets taxed at the currant consumer goods tax rate, No sin taxes or other hidden fees. Go sin tax pastries. Pastries are a bigger problem for more people right now than Nicotine. On second thought, stop taxing us, period.
We are TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!!
Simple. Make that which is criminal, Criminal. Leave the rest to the lawyers and free market.
Uh, no. I will not "embrace" regulations that limit my choices. I might tolerate 'em if they're not too onerous, otherwise I'll simply ignore 'em. But "embrace"? Sadly this forum's rules prevent me from using the colorful language I'd like to express my sentiments with. So I'll just say, "No, not me, not in this lifetime!"
Sadly, I think you're correct.
Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion but I have to wonder how anyone can justify allowing minors (as defined by the law, 'under 18 years of age') to vape. Of course it's better than cigarettes but that's the weakest justification I've ever heard and is no substitute for good parenting or grandparenting. I don't know what's happened to the concept of parenting in this country where people would rather pick a 'lesser of 2 evils' than exert their authority as parents to insure that their loved ones don't start habits any earlier than necessary. It's like a parent saying their going to by sterile scalpels for their kid who cuts themselves because "it's better than letting them use a pocketknife." Is there ANYONE who's going to try and argue that vaping is better than not inhaling anything at all? Why then not do everything within your power to stop them from vaping?
Sure, some kids will find a way - there are always those. But, as a parent, I would rather know that I did EVERYTHING I could to stop them from picking up habits than always wonder if I couldn't have done something different. 18 years isn't that long to wait to start vaping - they have a lifetime to partake, if they so choose. But why encourage ANY bad habits before they're old enough to have any hope of making an informed decision?
It blows my mind that any adult could support vaping under the age of 18. Not my kids. SO glad we live in extremely small town USA where we know what's going on and can still practice old school parenting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Status
Similar threads
