The Elephant in the Room

[Bored2Tears]

They will actually, if a doctor prescribes it, which places it in a whole other realm of substance.

I'm not saying there won't be age restrictions, that would be a pipe dream. I'm just saying let's not kid ourselves as to why there is an age restriction. It's because people, even vapers apparently, equate vaping to smoking. Even though it's not.

Absolutely correct. The framework is already in place. This particular battle was fought and lost by BT. The vast majority of society sees e cigs in the same light.

 

[Lessifer]

I guess maybe I'll just go on record as saying that society has done such an outstanding job of demonizing tobacco (and by proxy, nicotine) that it's unlikely you are going to shake the bad stigma nicotine has.

It is my belief that a nicotine addiction is about as harmless as a caffeine habit. The majority of people in our society are so thoroughly brainwashed on the subject of tobacco that they cannot separate the difference between nicotine and tobacco, and smoke or vapor.

E cigs have been on the scene for a while, but most people have no clue what vaping is.

The science does not matter to the general public. It matters to us, but it does not matter one bit to them. If they weren't former smokers or vapers, they are not going to understand why we would continue either habit? Get what I am saying? They don't care that we are addicted to killing ourselves with tobacco. They think we are weak, and simple minded for smoking.....and I don't think they are going to see vaping in a different light.

So why would the majority of people vote for legislation that would allow vaping to kids under 18? We can have this debate all day long. I would wager my last dollar that selling nicotine to anyone under the age of 18 is not going to be part of the forthcoming legislation.

I think you and I are on the same page. I wouldn't actually push for no age restriction anywhere other than here, in a discussion, simply because I know it would lose. I think it's important to recognize why it is being included though, and it has nothing to do with vaping.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Whatever.

If your a lawyer then I must be Gandhi.

What a cogent counterpoint.

I'm not a lawyer, nor did I claim to be. Also, what does that analogy mean? How does the condition of me being or not being a lawyer relate to you being on the level of Gandhi?

 

[Bored2Tears]

I think you and I are on the same page. I wouldn't actually push for no age restriction anywhere other than here, in a discussion, simply because I know it would lose. I think it's important to recognize why it is being included though, and it has nothing to do with vaping.

I think we're on the same page as well.

 

[rbrylawski]

Have you tasted a cigarette since you started vaping?

At first yes. I was s dual user for a long time. It's been over 2 years since I last had one. I won't allow myself to have one because for me they are SO addictive. But what's your point?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lessifer]

At first yes. I was s dual user for a long time. It's been over 2 years since I last had one. I won't allow myself to have one because for me they are SO addictive. But what's your point?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My point is that it would be an incredibly rare occurrence for a person to go from nothing, to vaping, to smoking. The benefits of vaping, the taste, the smell, the reduced harm are just so great. But, even if some users were to go that route, there would have to be as many people doing that as there would be people going from smoking to vaping for there to be any net harm.

ETA: in your original scenario, I'd argue that you were already a potential smoker to begin with, so you wouldn't actually count as a never smoker.

 

[rbrylawski]

But you don't know if for a young person Vaping could lead to smoking. Especially if a kid vaped juice with nicotine and ran out. That teen would need a nic-fix just like you and all the rest of us do.

To be honest I don't know why we're even debating letting kids Vape. We'd be demonized in the worst ways if we do let kids Vape. And we'd deserve it too.

Finally how is a potential smoker defined????

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VHRB2014]

What a cogent counterpoint.

I'm not a lawyer, nor did I claim to be. Also, what does that analogy mean? How does the condition of me being or not being a lawyer relate to you being on the level of Gandhi?

Nope, no more. I don`t do insanity very well and try to avoid it at all cost, even to my ego.

Have a great day.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Nope, no more. I don`t do insanity very well and try to avoid it at all cost, even to my ego.

Have a great day.

I have no idea what that means. Anyways, you have a great day too!

 

[Lessifer]

But you don't know if for a young person Vaping could lead to smoking. Especially if a kid vaped juice with nicotine and ran out. That teen would need a nic-fix just like you and all the rest of us do.

To be honest I don't know why we're even debating letting kids Vape. We'd be demonized in the worst ways if we do let kids Vape. And we'd deserve it too.

Finally how is a potential smoker defined????

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The scientific evidence would suggest otherwise.
FAQ: Nicotine (tobaccoharmreduction.org)

I'm debating because I'm hoping people will understand that the real issue is societal, not scientific.

I define a potential smoker as someone who, if handed a cigarette, would smoke it. There are some who would not, they may pick up vaping if they believe it to be less harmful than smoking, but they still wouldn't smoke. If you're willing to smoke, you just haven't yet, you're a potential smoker.

 

[sonicdsl]

 

[Lessifer]

We're being good today, mostly.

 

[KenD]

Also, all of my nicotine comes from potatoes, not tobacco. I grow them myself in the backyard, and harvest the nicotine myself using a secret proprietary process. So, while the rest of you chumps are all worried about the FDA regulating tobacco products, I'll be vaping away on my potato ejuice.

I'm wondering if it's possible to make batteries of what's left of those potatoes?

 

[Jman8]

So, in your reality kids are going to vape. Aren't they going to drink also?
Then, with the same reasoning, alcohol should be sold to kids.

Never said vaping should be sold to kids, but allowed to be sold to kids.

Perhaps a fine line there, but needs to be drawn.

And no, you won't find me arguing the other point you are making. Why would I?

 

[Bored2Tears]

I'm wondering if it's possible to make batteries of what's left of those potatoes?

If he can get nicotine from a potato, I wonder if he can also get blood from a turnip?

 

[Jman8]

Oh it doesn't upset me in the least. I just don't think we as responsible adults should just be resigned to kids doing whatever they want to do. Nor should we support that mentality. I don't object to a teenager vaping. I do object to little Jimmy or Mary being able to go online or walk in a store and buy a system, without parental consent.

And I ask why do you object to these people vaping 0 nic juice? Do you object to these same people buying anything without parental consent?

 

[Plastic Shaman]

And I ask why do you object to these people vaping 0 nic juice? Do you object to these same people buying anything without parental consent?

Just out of curiosity, would you object to children to buying alcohol free beer?

 

[danfinger]

I think minors should be able to vape if they please. They risk their lives extracting coal and raw materials from the earth to keep our industries going! You wouldn't have that steel dripper if it hadn't been for some minor risking his life to extract the iron ore to make it.

Thank you minors! Thank you for your service!

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Well, let's examine this. Looking at a few things with age restrictions.

Driving - age 16
Smoking - age 18
Voting - age 18
Drinking - age 21

What are the reasons for these age restrictions?
Driving, ok you need to be developed enough for the motor skills and hopefully have some sense of responsibility. Arguable at 16, but sure, why not?
Smoking, is harmful to your health, addictive, need to be old enough to make that decision for yourself.
Voting, hopefully you are old enough to make rational informed decisions that supposedly effect the population in general.
Drinking, mind altering, potentially harmful to your health, hopefully old enough to drink "responsibly."

Now let's take vaping. The science is still being done, but for the sake of argument I'm going to make these assumptions as I think they should be made until we know otherwise:
Marginally harmful to your health, similar to walking through a parking lot or living in a large city, as far as lung health.
Addictive, well, in the absence of other additives, some researchers say it is similar to caffeine on it's own, so marginally.
Physical safety, kids can blow just about anything up if they try hard enough.

So, why the age restriction?

The voting age was lower from 21 to 18 in 1971. The movement to lower it began in WWII and surged during the Vietnam War. Nothing like being drafted into war but not allowed to vote for your candidate. That's just how that age thing came about.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

You won't see squat looking off to the sides there, Sonic.