The Elephant in the Room

[Plastic Shaman]

You are missing the point. I am not against laws to restrict sales to minors. Although I do believe that perhaps coffee should be similarly restricted since caffeine and nicotine have more in common than not, but that is a side issue we should not go down.

The point I *AM* making is that we should not restrict these products when sold to adults, The "Elephant" argument is not about restricting sales to minors. It is about restricting sales to adults in order to prevent incidental use by minors evading the laws restricting sales to them.

Well, the original point that I was trying to get at, and I don't know if I did it well, is that the incidental laws that would affect adults are not going to be passed simply by virtue of children using something that they shouldn't. That's just a symptom. The real issue is that vaping might, and I think it will, increase the overall use of tobacco, starting with children that will go with them throughout life. This is one of the reasons we passed so many laws against cigarettes. This is one of the issues that the FDA is looking at when they are thinking about regulation. Because there is an increase in tobacco use due to vaping, as evidenced by how children are attracted to vaping, there is more justification to regulate. If the issue was simply that children do it, the best remedy, besides making it illegal, would be to restrict sales with age limits.

 

[towelie]

I've got to disagree. There is a rationale to the argument. The average human's prefrontal cortext, the part of the brain that controls decision making, doesn't fully develop until around 25. Now, there is a huge problem with how we decide to apply laws and which things to keep away from children, but we do need to make some laws when the act or product is dangerous enough that we don't want a child deciding that for themselves. It would be nice if all parents were responsible or if they were all able to control their children, but that isn't the case.

anyone that knows what a prefrontal cortex I presume has the smarts to know the difference in a law and a statute ie statutory lowercase law.

i would support any such law of your society provided your society alone foots the bill for such...even if it were so, how effective will it be? about as effective as that law that says you cant shoot people? at least there is an actual injured party with that law.

 

[ScottP]

This thread should be renamed to "The straw dog in the room". First the FDA now classifies nicotine as GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) for long term use, the same goes for all other ejuice ingredients AND caffeine. Nicotine by itself is no more addicting than caffeine, although smoking is more addictive due to all of the other addictive chemicals in them. "COULD" there be long term negative effects? Sure Then again there ARE long term negative effects from caffeine, fast food, sugary treats, high fructose corn syrup, processed meats, and possibly GMO food. So do we pass laws for all of that too?

Passing laws does very little to deter behavior. For instance it is illegal to buy, sell, or possess a long list of drugs yet they are bought, sold, and used in every city, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It is not legal for minors to buy cigarettes, alcohol, etc, yet millions do it every year. Passing a law to ban sales to minors will be no more effective than the laws banning sales of cigarettes to them. By the same token, any law banning guns will fail just as miserably. Yeah, I opened that can of worms.

Finally, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE has ever or will ever start on an eCig vaping tasty flavors and then switch to smoking something that tastes like cleaning the fireplace with your tongue. That is just not going to happen. IF by some crazy chance someone is born with no taste buds it might, but passing a law for that 1 in a billion person is utter stupidity. I have a 14 yr old, and I don't want her to start vaping, nor do i want her to have a Starbucks addiction like her Aunts but I don't want the nanny government to force that issue either way. Why do so many people think the government should be involved in every aspect of our lives trying to force or coerce behavior? Learn to self govern and manage your own household and stay out of mine.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

anyone that knows what a prefrontal cortex I presume has the smarts to know the difference in a law and a statute ie statutory lowercase law.

i would support any such law of your society provided your society alone foots the bill for such...even if it were so, how effective will it be? about as effective as that law that says you cant shoot people? at least there is an actual injured party with that law.

I'm sorry, I'm confused by your statement about statutory law. There are two sources from which we derive our law, statutory law, which is codified, and common law, which is made by courts.

 

[ScottP]

By the way when my daughter wanted to start drinking sodas I sent this to her and allowed her to make an informed decision herself:

Dangers of drinking Sodas:
The Real Dangers of Soda to You and Your Children 7/9/03

• Phosphoric Acid: May interfere with the body's ability to use calcium, which can lead to osteoporosis or softening of the teeth and bones. Phosphoric acid also neutralizes the hydrochloric acid in your stomach, which can interfere with digestion, making it difficult to utilize nutrients.
  
• Sugar: Soft drink manufacturers are the largest single user of refined sugar in the United States. It is a proven fact that sugar increases insulin levels, which can lead to high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, weight gain, premature aging and many more negative side effects. Most sodas include over 100 percent of the RDA of sugar.
  
• Aspartame: This chemical is used as a sugar substitute in diet soda. There are over 92 different health side effects associated with aspartame consumption including brain tumors, birth defects, diabetes, emotional disorders and epilispsy/seizures. Further, when aspartame is stored for long periods of time or kept in warm areas it changes to methanol, an alcohol that converts to formaldehyde and formic acid, which are known carcinogens.
  
• Caffeine: Caffeinated drinks cause jitters, insomnia, high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, elevated blood cholesterol levels, vitamin and mineral depletion, breast lumps, birth defects, and perhaps some forms of cancer.

 

[Ryedan]

The real issue is that 1) vaping might, and I think it will, increase the overall use of tobacco, starting with children that will go with them throughout life. This is one of the reasons we passed so many laws against cigarettes. This is one of the issues that the FDA is looking at when they are thinking about regulation. 2) Because there is an increase in tobacco use due to vaping, as evidenced by how children are attracted to vaping, there is more justification to regulate. If the issue was simply that children do it, the best remedy, besides making it illegal, would be to restrict sales with age limits.

1) Vaping 'might' and you 'think it will' and you think children will take that through their lives. I don't 'think' so, so which one of us is correct?

2) Show me data that points to an increase in tobacco use. 'as evidenced by how children are attracted to vaping' is not any kind of proof and frankly brings your credibility into question for me.

I'm up for discussing this Plastic Shaman and if you want to play devil's advocate that's fine if you state it, but your points are coming across as how you see the facts and those facts are not in my opinion credible.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

This thread should be renamed to "The straw dog in the room". First the FDA now classifies nicotine as GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) for long term use, the same goes for all other ejuice ingredients AND caffeine. Nicotine by itself is no more addicting than caffeine, although smoking is more addictive due to all of the other addictive chemicals in them. "COULD" there be long term negative effects? Sure Then again there ARE long term negative effects from caffeine, fast food, sugary treats, high fructose corn syrup, processed meats, and possibly GMO food. So do we pass laws for all of that too?

Passing laws does very little to deter behavior. For instance it is illegal to buy, sell, or possess a long list of drugs yet they are bought, sold, and used in every city, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It is not legal for minors to buy cigarettes, alcohol, etc, yet millions do it every year. Passing a law to ban sales to minors will be no more effective than the laws banning sales of cigarettes to them. By the same token, any law banning guns will fail just as miserably. Yeah, I opened that can of worms.

Finally, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE has ever or will ever start on an eCig vaping tasty flavors and then switch to smoking something that tastes like cleaning the fireplace with your tongue. That is just not going to happen. IF by some crazy chance someone is born with no taste buds it might, but passing a law for that 1 in a billion person is utter stupidity. I have a 14 yr old, and I don't want her to start vaping, nor do i want her to have a Starbucks addiction like her Aunts but I don't want the nanny government to force that issue either way. Why do so many people think the government should be involved in every aspect of our lives trying to force or coerce behavior? Learn to self govern and manage your own household and stay out of mine.

I don't disagree that laws do not entirely stop behavior altogether, but they do have some effect. If alcohol were legal for children, a lot more children would drink alcohol and they would drink it more frequently. The issue with smoking is people start and get addicted. The policy theory behind tobacco control is that if you minimize the number of children who will try cigarettes, you will reduce the overall number of smokers. Think about the part of the Tobacco Control Act that banned the sale of flavored cigarettes. It wasn't because they didn't want adults to smoke flavored cigarettes, those people were already smoking. The concern was that it would lure in children would who become addicted and smoke throughout life.

Also, I find the idea of e-cigs being a gateway cigarette pretty absurd too. I can't imagine people wanting to smoke after vaping, but I'm sure there will be a few cases. The question there will be, how many?

 

[FlamingoTutu]

By the way when my daughter wanted to start drinking sodas I sent this to her and allowed her to make an informed decision herself:

Dangers of drinking Sodas:
The Real Dangers of Soda to You and Your Children 7/9/03

• Phosphoric Acid: May interfere with the body's ability to use calcium, which can lead to osteoporosis or softening of the teeth and bones. Phosphoric acid also neutralizes the hydrochloric acid in your stomach, which can interfere with digestion, making it difficult to utilize nutrients.
  
• Sugar: Soft drink manufacturers are the largest single user of refined sugar in the United States. It is a proven fact that sugar increases insulin levels, which can lead to high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, weight gain, premature aging and many more negative side effects. Most sodas include over 100 percent of the RDA of sugar.
  
• Aspartame: This chemical is used as a sugar substitute in diet soda. There are over 92 different health side effects associated with aspartame consumption including brain tumors, birth defects, diabetes, emotional disorders and epilispsy/seizures. Further, when aspartame is stored for long periods of time or kept in warm areas it changes to methanol, an alcohol that converts to formaldehyde and formic acid, which are known carcinogens.
  
• Caffeine: Caffeinated drinks cause jitters, insomnia, high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, elevated blood cholesterol levels, vitamin and mineral depletion, breast lumps, birth defects, and perhaps some forms of cancer.

Don't leave us in suspense, what did she choose to do and did she stick to it?

 

[ScottP]

Don't leave us in suspense, what did she choose to do and did she stick to it?

That conversation happened today so I am in just as much suspense as you. That is also why that article was fresh on my mind to post. My honest guess is that she will drink them occasionally but not become a full time soda drinker.

 

[towelie]

I'm sorry, I'm confused by your statement about statutory law. There are two sources from which we derive our law, statutory law, which is codified, and common law, which is made by courts.

a third would be the Constitution.
as for whats codified we have the UCC adopted by all 50 states now, CFR (executive regs) and UScode which is codified presumably pertanent congressional statutes and acts...the rest remain at large.

case law, meh arguably Law since law and equity were blended in the article III courts which I assume you were referencing.

sorry to get hung up on the details it was by no means the meat of the discussion.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

1) Vaping 'might' and you 'think it will' and you think children will take that through their lives. I don't 'think' so, so which one of us is correct?

2) Show me data that points to an increase in tobacco use. 'as evidenced by how children are attracted to vaping' is not any kind of proof and frankly brings your credibility into question for me.

I'm up for discussing this Plastic Shaman and if you want to play devil's advocate that's fine if you state it, but your points are coming across as how you see the facts and those facts are not in my opinion credible.

Obviously, neither of us have the evidence at the current point of time. However, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The FDA is concerned about it and there have been some surveys done that are showing that more and more children are trying e-cigs. Now, I know that a lot of people out there think these are biased, but they will be conducted. I personally believe that they will show a rise in use because I have seen it, I can imagine why children would want to try it, and I don't think that these surveys are entirely fabricated. I could be proven wrong.

As for the second point, I should have clarified that by saying that if there is an increase instead of because. In other words, part of the policy reasoning and goals of tobacco control was to reduce tobacco use in society. Since most smokers start when they are young, it should be possible to reduce use if you can stop youth from trying cigarettes. Due to this, Congress passed laws that allowed the FDA to take actions that would prevent youth from smoking, among other things (you can see this in the post I just made where I mentioned the flavored cigarettes). IF there is evidence that more young people are picking up e-cigs, then the FDA will have more reasons to strictly regulate, especially with things like flavors.

As for playing devil's advocate, I do like to think and talk about these things, but I'm not advocating for regulation. Sorry if I was confusing in that sense. I just think that people should look at all sides of the issue. The fact is that this is something that the FDA takes into account and it is currently collecting data about vaping among youth. It's in the proposed rules and it's one of the major policy concerns. It will be taken into consideration when they make their rules and and in any future regulations and legislation. If the only concern was whether or not children were using e-cigs, it would be sufficient to simply pass laws that outlawed sales to minors.

 

[towelie]

if alcohol were legal for children then more children would drink more frequently.

really? thats not a fact at all but an assumption society already passed statutes allowing children unlimited credit with which to purchase said alcohol.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

a third would be the Constitution.
as for whats codified we have the UCC adopted by all 50 states now, CFR (executive regs) and UScode which is codified presumably pertanent congressional statutes and acts...the rest remain at large.

case law, meh arguably Law since law and equity were blended in the article III courts which I assume you were referencing.

sorry to get hung up on the details it was by no means the meat of the discussion.

I'll acknowledge the Constitution even though I think that it's more of the framework for the legal system as a whole. I would argue that statutes are passed with the authority of the Constitution, as is common law, but I can see what you're saying. I just think of it more as the source of the source.

One thing I would point out is that things like the UCC have only recently been adopted in all states and were based off of common law anyways. Also, we still use common law all the time. In some cases it's used to fill in the gaps created by statutes, such as the numerous tests and factors that courts use. We also based a lot of the inner workings of our courts off of common law, think Daubert motions, as well as stare decisis. Finally, there are still a lot of actions that are based in common law, especially in fields that are still rooted in the English system, like property law. For example, some states may not have statutes for things like adverse possession, but you can still bring an action for them in court.

Now, I'm going way off topic. You totally derailed me in my own thread!

 

[Plastic Shaman]

if alcohol were legal for children then more children would drink more frequently.

really? thats not a fact at all but an assumption society already passed statutes allowing children unlimited credit with which to purchase said alcohol.

Yes, really. I don't think that that's an unreasonable statement. The NIH says that teen drinking rates declined after the age was raised to 21 and I don't have any reason to disagree.

NIH Fact Sheets - Underage Drinking

 

[WharfRat1976]

I think we've been going about this all wrong. The bigger picture is the opportunity is to get kids addicted to vaping by getting a ton of cool celebrities to endorse the bad boy or flashy sophisticated woman image of vaping. We start the tweeners out with cool sounding zero nic liquids. We make it a closed system and then get the government to only allow closed systems so that very few people can compete with us while giving the quid pro quo restoration to a reliable tax stream to those who voted for our closed system idea. Slowly, over time we add more and more addictive chemicals to the liquid until they are hooked and we can charge more, make more money. It's a win win for everyone.......oh wait.....

And we tell them that heating up a juiced wick to 430 degrees is really not "burning" anything...it is simply "atomizing" the juice and if you put your tongue on that red hot coil it won't burn, it will only be atomized[emoji12]

 

[Big Me]

Ok, slightly off topic but relevant to the discussion...

Why do people automatically assume that if someone vapes, they'll be using liquid that contains nicotine?

Smokers who are trying to stop smoking cigarettes are likely to use nic liquid, but why would anyone else? Tobacco smoke affects the brain within seconds (thanks to the additional chemicals added to tobacco to quicken/enhance the sensation/buzz). How long does it take to get the same "buzz" when you vape? Anyone got a non-nicotine using adult friend that's willing to be experimented upon so we can find out? lol (And yes, I do believe the buzz from cigarettes is why we kept going back to them, at least to begin with. It sure as heck wasn't because they tasted fantastic!)

Also, why all the hoo-ha about children drinking coffee? Is coffee considered an "adult only" beverage in the US? Coke and Pepsi are advertised to children and no-one seems to object to that. Both they and coffee usually contain caffeine - so what's the difference?

 

[GinnyTx]

there were laws when I smoked those Benson Hedges on my front porch in the middle of the night when I was 15 when I was underage, and there were for when I drank alcohol too.

js.

there was a kiddo, age 17 a smoker, who wanted to get a new vape setup and juice at our local B&M, who once carded was sent away...I told him go home and get a parent to get it for him. Hell if didn't have a nursing license I'd have done it...beats smoking ciggies.

do I think minors should be able to buy smoking /vaping products? no. I think they should not.

is there an answer? not really. any of y'all actually had a teenager? or remember when you were one?

 

[Tranquility Base]

there were laws when I smoked those Benson Hedges on my front porch in the middle of the night when I was 15 when I was underage, and there were for when I drank alcohol too.

js.

there was a kiddo, age 17 a smoker, who wanted to get a new vape setup and juice at our local B&M, who once carded was sent away...I told him go home and get a parent to get it for him. Hell if didn't have a nursing license I'd have done it...beats smoking ciggies.

do I think minors should be able to buy smoking /vaping products? no. I think they should not.

is there an answer? not really. any of y'all actually had a teenager? or remember when you were one?

Wow, a reasonable person who admits to not having all the answers. What the hell are you doing on the internet?

 

[Rule62]

there were laws when I smoked those Benson Hedges on my front porch in the middle of the night when I was 15 when I was underage, and there were for when I drank alcohol too.

js.

there was a kiddo, age 17 a smoker, who wanted to get a new vape setup and juice at our local B&M, who once carded was sent away...I told him go home and get a parent to get it for him. Hell if didn't have a nursing license I'd have done it...beats smoking ciggies.

do I think minors should be able to buy smoking /vaping products? no. I think they should not.

is there an answer? not really. any of y'all actually had a teenager? or remember when you were one?

It's been a long time since I was an underage kid. But as I recall, there was always a way to get cigs, booze, or whatever. We could always find either someone who would buy it for us; or someone willing to sell it to us.

 

[Big Me]

The law in the UK when I started smoking back in '82 was that no-one under the age of 16 could buy them but there was no law against smoking them! It wasn't until the law was changed to raise the age for buying them to 18 that a minimum age was brought in. I think it also became illegal to buy them for someone under 18. (Beforehand, all the shopkeeper had to say was that the purchaser looked over 16 years of age)