This is why I don't think it will cost juice makers $millions to get their flavors approved. They already are; the work has already been done...
The Elephant in the Room
- Thread starter Plastic Shaman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
This is why I don't think it will cost juice makers $millions to get their flavors approved. They already are; the work has already been done...
You came up with that all by yourself. Congratulations.
But we realize that.
Hence why my panel would be interested in what other doctors and scientists could come up with. Instead of an FDA or gooberment panel thinking how can we get our grubby mitts on it or shut it down.
Again... for your own good, son. Please comprehend first. It's okay to read it a few times before it sinks in.
Sent from my device.
P.S. I've never been really good at passive. Nice try though.
Last edited:
1. If you want properly labeled juice complete with ingredients, warning label, and child proof caps, just order from Mt Baker Vapor. Problem solved.
2. They can't ban flavors because I can buy unflavored and then the flavoring from the grocery store separately and add it myself.
3. If they ban juice itself, the black market will stock it 15 minutes later. Prices will be stupid high, quality will be worse but it will be available.
4. The absence of proof is not proof. Legislation and regulation without proof is essentially tyranny.
2. They can't ban flavors because I can buy unflavored and then the flavoring from the grocery store separately and add it myself.
3. If they ban juice itself, the black market will stock it 15 minutes later. Prices will be stupid high, quality will be worse but it will be available.
4. The absence of proof is not proof. Legislation and regulation without proof is essentially tyranny.
I'm just going to throw this out there. I don't find all of these discussions about whether vaping is totally safe or not to be particularly relevant. I'm totally, 100% convinced that vaping is safer than smoking, based entirely on the physiological affects I've observed since I quit smoking and started vaping instead. I don't believe that vaping is completely safe, compared to the alternative of not vaping at all, but for me this isn't relevant because for me, the choice isn't between vaping or not vaping, the choice is between vaping or smoking. I would definitely, 100% likelihood, go back to smoking cigarettes if vaping wasn't an available alternative. I've quit smoking in the past at least three or four times, once for a good 6-8 months, and I always ended up smoking again. So, if I told myself I could quit smoking forever, I just know that would be self-delusional.
I'm interested in ways to minimize the risk, so it's useful to me to know that diacetyls are a proven hazard. I can avoid those in my DIY juices. On the other hand, I know that one of my favorite cinnamon flavors contains cinnamaldehyde, which isn't entirely safe, but I choose to put up with that risk. YMMV. But, beyond that, it's not hugely relevant because what I'm not getting with my vape (tars, CO, and about a zillion other miscellaneous chemicals) is a clear net benefit over smoking. So, if you all want to go on arguing about how many scientists need to agree that vaping is 100% totally safe before you let the common uneducated masses have access to these chemicals, then go ahead. I'll be down here in my office happily vaping away on my DIY eliquid in the meantime.
I'm interested in ways to minimize the risk, so it's useful to me to know that diacetyls are a proven hazard. I can avoid those in my DIY juices. On the other hand, I know that one of my favorite cinnamon flavors contains cinnamaldehyde, which isn't entirely safe, but I choose to put up with that risk. YMMV. But, beyond that, it's not hugely relevant because what I'm not getting with my vape (tars, CO, and about a zillion other miscellaneous chemicals) is a clear net benefit over smoking. So, if you all want to go on arguing about how many scientists need to agree that vaping is 100% totally safe before you let the common uneducated masses have access to these chemicals, then go ahead. I'll be down here in my office happily vaping away on my DIY eliquid in the meantime.
Passive was me being polite to you and suggesting you back off with your insults. Your remarks are actually quite rude. Since I don't agree with your sqewed logic you insult me which is childish behavior which I've come to expect from you and is the very reason you will never be taken seriously.
Sorry, your reasoning doesn't align with my personal interests. You can't possibly be right.
That's so funny I really like your sarcastic why of putting things although some will be very confused by it, lol.
Unfortunately, this is exactly the reasoning that's being used by the decision makers in Washington right now. There are studies that indicate that under certain conditions, vaping is unsafe. There are other studies that indicate that under other conditions, vaping is safe. So, do they apply a critical eye to determining what the conditions are, and which ones apply? No, they pick the ones they agree with and then issue pronouncements like this:
“E-cigarettes are guilty until proven innocent," said Erika Sward the assistant vice president of the American Lung Association said, adding that regulation can’t come soon enough.
Maybe you should go talk to those folks for a while, Plastic Shaman. Try tossing a little sarcasm their way, and see if it has any effect.
Are you familiar with the work of Lord viscount ridley, doctor konstantino Farsalinos and rolygate?
The comment suggests possibly not.
Rolygate was the first one who turned me on to the possible threat of vg extracted from the jatropha plant.
Dr Farsalinos looked into possible harmful compounds in flavorings such that they can be recorded and possibly avoided.
Lord ridley is an incredibly logical mouthpiece in office in the uk.
I think you might come to admire some of their work.
Sent from my device.
I wonder how a consumer would avoid a harmful substance when they have no idea of what's in the liquid?? Maybe we should just take their word for it, lol, SB tells lies we know that as fact. Do you think maybe other sellers lie also??
Except the ones they say they pay attention to are the ones NOT representative of the devices and juices that most of us use. They also pay attention to studies that do not disclose what methods were used, raw data, or what levels of "toxic substances" were found. Now before anyone says "see toxic substances were found" let me point out that if we don't know what specifically it was found in or at what levels the information is useless. The FDA allows certain levels of organic and non-organic contaminates in everyday food items.
Congress borrows lawful money in the form of bonds it conjures up and deposits at the Fed, the Fed loans an equal amount of its notes which are legal tender as decreed by Congress, back to Congress...mostly in a computer as credits. One is legal and one is lawful.
I am merely suggesting we figure out what "money" is and fix that problem as it is central to basically every problem.
Private interests pay, politicians vote biased, the problem right? Why won't they just do like college football and donate something other than ** "money"?
**"money of account" 31 U.S. Code § 5101 - Decimal system | LII / Legal Information Institute in the notes section.
Point is this: without elastic currency politicians would not have the time or resources to even consider things like how to regulate vaping or how to invade that country without declaring war ect..much less how to waste more time and "money" trying to figure out how to appease corruption in the form of campaign contributions.
Are you a law student? That redemption part is a doozy
So, are you suggesting that Congress and the Fed are in an elaborate scheme where Congress authorizes the creation of money which the Fed gives back to Congress? I'm sorry, I'm just confused about what you're saying. I would ask you this. What's the point? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by your distinction between legal and lawful.
I think you answered your question when you cited the note in that statute. It's a system of keeping financial accounts. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're getting at here.
On to your point, are you suggesting that if we deprive Congress of legal currency that it would not be corrupt because it wouldn't be able to do things?
I am a law student, but I don't know what you mean referring to redemption!
Last edited:
Do you realize that if cigarettes were required to list all ingredients, a pack would need to be three times the size they are now? I guess you trust what Big Tobacco puts into those?
Last edited:
Another insult? Passive maybe?
Or lack of comprehension?
Objective thinkers. Intelligent people with the interest and we'll being of the people in their best interests.
Or do you not recognize what a panel of people in this situation would be tasked to do?
Sent from my device.
- Status
Similar threads
