The Elephant in the Room

[Racehorse]

It really depends on the teen. Some do research stuff, but in reality, the ones that do tend to not be smokers

That is a good observation and probably true.

I'm seriously torn with this issue.

I would be "less torn" if the industry took all the diketones and such out of eliquids. I read Dr. F's stuff, then re-read (many times) Kurt's post (#304) here, who co-authored the study-----

and I read it thinking about children, who have more delicate and developing lungs than adults, and really are not old enough to make truly good decisions on their own..........and I just can't help but err on the side of caution:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo.../517858-donate-dr-farsalinos-new-study-8.html

"The bottom line is DA and AP can be removed or not included, verified by testing, and are thus avoidable. It might reduce the number of flavors, their richness or general creaminess, but this is the prudent thing to do until we know more about the actual toxicity to humans."

"DA and AP are safe for ingestion. We were always in uncharted territory, with our only real fallback being "Well its probably not as bad as smoking." In truth, we only know that DA and AP are present, and while we suspect they may be toxic in vaping, perhaps cumulatively, until studies are done specifically measuring this, we do not know the actual risks"

"It seems that the only treatment available currently is lung transplant...but recent studies are showing that even the new lung can develop BO, after the surgery. This is not irritation we are trying to avoid, it is potentially lung necrosis, lung death, and perhaps with a resulting physiology that no matter the treatment, insists on lung death, including with a new lung and no further DA exposure. And as Dr F points out, it could be that BO is just one lung problem caused by DA, that COPD might also be a result, or BO could be being misdiagnosed as COPD. With smoking, DA and AP are combustion products, and cannot be avoided. Not so with e-liquids."


This is why I oppose children vaping, these are just not acceptable risks for children, and putting warning labels on elqiuid isn't good enough. So, I would pursue every and any behavior modification, and yes, even the nic patch, before I would let my child vape.

I might reconsider lowering the age to purchase IF some of the KNOWN RISKS were eliminated. This is within our power to do, so until it happens, I can't support the industry on that level when it comes to minors.

I am taking my advice from scientists, who are on the side of vaping, not a bunch of fellow vapers with no medical or scientific training.......why? because I feel that people like Dr. F and Kurt are "the best we got" right now.

 

[smacuser]

I let my kids hit it.

That might seem irresponsible, but what is nicotine?

My daughter has a cup of coffee every morning before school.
My son can practice his Snoop tricks.

 

[smacuser]

True study.

I might be helping my kids out.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Tossing this out there. The beginning of this video, “A PBusardo Interview - Meet Geoff from NJOY…” they discuss the FDA tussle at the beginning, a bit of what is going on now and how they are helping currently, etc. At about the 29:30 mark, he starts talking about the testing of their juices. It's interesting and he makes some good points.

 

[smacuser]

What?

Testing them on VaporSharks and Nautilus'?

 

[towelie]

how is the current "unregulated" state of vaping not a perfect example of succesful independant self (tax free) regulation and free market principles(unregulated) such as job(wealth) creation and consumer beneficial competition?

cellphones cause cancer yet your kid has one. is verizon not selling little timmy that droid turbo due to known cancer risks? hell no, but your bm vape shop and online juice retailer sure arent going to sell little tina any nic juice despite zero evidence of harm.

self regulation wins and the karma police lose.

application fees are taxes btw ppl
atrificially inflating elastic currency is also a tax confirmed by the chairman a few years ago.

my god plastic says "even if the 10% hypothetical minority tax base pays more than is consumed it doesnt matter who is in the minority or majority" and then confronted on the simple fact that hasnt happened in many, many generations deflects to import export fluctuations? weirdest thread ever.

of course a law student wants regulation...of course any lawyer (black robes included) pretend not to know the difference in "legal" and "lawful" but its literally as silly as a butcher not knowing the difference in beef and pork.

irony its whats for dinner.

 

[smacuser]

correct.

Saving money by...

 

[Plastic Shaman]

how is the current "unregulated" state of vaping not a perfect example of succesful independant self (tax free) regulation and free market principles(unregulated) such as job(wealth) creation and consumer beneficial competition?

cellphones cause cancer yet your kid has one. is verizon not selling little timmy that droid turbo due to known cancer risks? hell no, but your bm vape shop and online juice retailer sure arent going to sell little tina any nic juice despite zero evidence of harm.

self regulation wins and the karma police lose.

application fees are taxes btw ppl
atrificially inflating elastic currency is also a tax confirmed by the chairman a few years ago.

my god plastic says "even if the 10% hypothetical minority tax base pays more than is consumed it doesnt matter who is in the minority or majority" and then confronted on the simple fact that hasnt happened in many, many generations deflects to import export fluctuations? weirdest thread ever.

of course a law student wants regulation...of course any lawyer (black robes included) pretend not to know the difference in "legal" and "lawful" but its literally as silly as a butcher not knowing the difference in beef and pork.

irony its whats for dinner.

Nice personal attack. Classy.

I'm going to act a little more mature and not comment on your positions.

Why would that make me want regulation?

I've got a hint for you... If you ask a lawyer or a judge about the difference between something legal and lawful and they can't figure out what you're talking about, maybe you should rethink your theory. Obviously, something legal is something relating to the law. Something lawful is something that abides by the law. That still still doesn't help me piece together what you're talking about.

 

[classwife]

So...looks like this thread has about run it's course ?

Cut out the personal attacks...cut out the snark and cut out the references to (OTHER STUFF)

 

[Jman8]

I would be "less torn" if the industry took all the diketones and such out of eliquids. I read Dr. F's stuff, then re-read (many times) Kurt's post (#304) here, who co-authored the study-----

and I read it thinking about children, who have more delicate and developing lungs than adults, and really are not old enough to make truly good decisions on their own..........and I just can't help but err on the side of caution:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo.../517858-donate-dr-farsalinos-new-study-8.html

"The bottom line is DA and AP can be removed or not included, verified by testing, and are thus avoidable. It might reduce the number of flavors, their richness or general creaminess, but this is the prudent thing to do until we know more about the actual toxicity to humans."

"DA and AP are safe for ingestion. We were always in uncharted territory, with our only real fallback being "Well its probably not as bad as smoking." In truth, we only know that DA and AP are present, and while we suspect they may be toxic in vaping, perhaps cumulatively, until studies are done specifically measuring this, we do not know the actual risks"

"It seems that the only treatment available currently is lung transplant...but recent studies are showing that even the new lung can develop BO, after the surgery. This is not irritation we are trying to avoid, it is potentially lung necrosis, lung death, and perhaps with a resulting physiology that no matter the treatment, insists on lung death, including with a new lung and no further DA exposure. And as Dr F points out, it could be that BO is just one lung problem caused by DA, that COPD might also be a result, or BO could be being misdiagnosed as COPD. With smoking, DA and AP are combustion products, and cannot be avoided. Not so with e-liquids."


This is why I oppose children vaping, these are just not acceptable risks for children, and putting warning labels on elqiuid isn't good enough. So, I would pursue every and any behavior modification, and yes, even the nic patch, before I would let my child vape.

I might reconsider lowering the age to purchase IF some of the KNOWN RISKS were eliminated. This is within our power to do, so until it happens, I can't support the industry on that level when it comes to minors.

I am taking my advice from scientists, who are on the side of vaping, not a bunch of fellow vapers with no medical or scientific training.......why? because I feel that people like Dr. F and Kurt are "the best we got" right now.

This is rationale for why NO ONE should be allowed to vape right now, if you follow the logic. No where in Kurt's words does the word "children" (or a derivative) come up, but you were only thinking of kids and concluded from that, that risk is unacceptable for all persons under 18.

Kids are vaping right now.

If Dr F and Kurt were living as learned scientists 50 years ago, the same thing would be said about smoking. And yet, children then (and now) smoke(d). Some went on to live to be centenarians, some didn't make it past 30.

ANTZ, some of who are scientists are strongly suggesting every other behavior modification for smokers, other than vaping. With the stated rationale that we do have some idea, via long term testing, that these items are effective with lower risks than what we know / have observed via vaping. And yet, vapers with no medical or scientific training are vaping instead to modify own behavior. Some of these vapers are people under 18.

But this line of reasoning will, inevitably, come back to the blatant prejudicial assertion that kids simply are not capable, or are under developed, or less informed, and so on and so forth, and is why they must be disallowed to vape. I've already spoken to this numerous times, and called it out.

The reality of what Dr. F. came up with, and reality of what ANTZ scientists are saying is that we, as a human civilization, are not fully capable, fully informed, fully developed yet to make the decision to allow free roam of this activity in any human society. There's no adult alive right now that knows the long term effect of vaping. None that can claim, with certainty, to know the appropriate level of risk involved.

So, while compelled to throw kids under the proverbial bus, I congratulate you on making the case that ANTZ is making for vaping, yet thinking that you are not.

 

[skoony]

Nicotine is an addictive substance. Where is the proof that vaping is not harmful?

So, you're ok with a five year old voting and driving? What about getting a credit card?

nicotine has never been tested for its addictive qualities alone.
only in its tobacco form. this is being done now.
it is now believed the act of combustion and the mix of chemicals
in the smoke enhances any addictive quality nicotine may have
and possibly are addictive in and of themselves.
interestingly when nicotine has been used in clinical trials to
determine its possible use as a therapeutic drug no addictive
qualities if any were observed.
regards
mike

 

[skoony]

And rightly so. That is because children, until they are old enough to protect themselves (via delopmental milestones that include muscle, brain, writing, decision-making, judgement, critical thinking skills, voting, ability to self-defend, etc.) are to be protected. That is the job of parents and the adult society.

Anyone who doesn't understand this is like the ignorant people (that I deal with in animal rescue) who think that after a mother dog is run over by the road repair crew, that they will "survive" on their own, at 2-3 weeks old, with no way to feed themselves and no knowledge of how to hunt, self-protect, etc. I've had many of these kind of people laugh at the idea that these animals "need" to be rescued and/or protected by our group. Yes, it's true, hard to believe, huh? They think mother nature somehow automatically imbues these "learned skills" to infant puppies.

its the parents responsibility to rear their children,not adult societies.
gratefully most parent do a good job of it.
i for one couldn't care less if someone with poor parenting skills
is not up to the task. it galls me to no end that do-gooders are
more than willing to step in and give those children advantages
that mine or others will ever get.

regards
mike

 

[Bored2Tears]

Tossing this out there. The beginning of this video, “A PBusardo Interview - Meet Geoff from NJOY…” they discuss the FDA tussle at the beginning, a bit of what is going on now and how they are helping currently, etc. At about the 29:30 mark, he starts talking about the testing of their juices. It's interesting and he makes some good points.

I sincerely hope everyone watches this video. I for one now have a deep appreciation and newfound respect for NJOY. They are forward thinkers. I think they can help this community survive the coming regulations....and a LOT can be learned by listening to this video with an open mind. I want to stress watching with an OPEN mind. Thanks for posting this. Pbusardo continues to impress me as well.

 

[skoony]

Then, they should also have the possibility to quit alcohol, and be able to purchase Antabuse, Naltrexone, Campral.

Right?

CHILDREN do not have the maturity, awareness, or behavioral milestones to manage alcohol, nicotine, overeating dependencies/addictions. Anymore than they can treat themselves for ADHD.

That is precisely why minors are not given access to these things....because they are not mature enough to manage and/or treat themselves for addictions/dependencies.


And that is why they should not be allowed to buy substances that treat addictions/dependencies.

this where you need the good parenting part.
a good parent would steer the child in the right direction.
mike

 

[Plastic Shaman]

What about kids who have neglectful parents? Should we just give up on them? I always love it how people want to say that kids just need good parents and there's no need for society to intervene, even though they know there are a lot of horrible parents out there. Then, they blame the children when they act horribly.

People who say that we just need good parenting need to look at the reality of things.

 

[WattWick]

What about kids who have neglectful parents? Should we just give up on them? I always love it how people want to say that kids just need good parents and there's no need for society to intervene, even though they know there are a lot of horrible parents out there. Then, they blame the children when they act horribly.

People who say that we just need good parenting need to look at the reality of things.

You realize that we can't design our system of civilization around what a lone child with no parental guidance might decide to do?

I never realized strawmen multiplied this quickly. Never even heard of a straw woman.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

A single child? This isn't one child.

Anything that absolves us of any additional responsibilities or burdens, no matter how small they are, eh?

Let me ask you something. Would you do away with child protective services? Why should we base our society around protecting children from abusive parents?

 

[Lessifer]

I sincerely hope everyone watches this video. I for one now have a deep appreciation and newfound respect for NJOY. They are forward thinkers. I think they can help this community survive the coming regulations....and a LOT can be learned by listening to this video with an open mind. I want to stress watching with an OPEN mind. Thanks for posting this. Pbusardo continues to impress me as well.

NJOY actually had a lobbyist out here in CA helping with our most recent state level battles, and while I didn't always agree with what they wanted, it was obvious they were more on the side of vaping as an industry than BT. I'm glad there's a big player moving out of the cigalike/prefilled/closed system realm. I may even try their new line if any shops nearby carry it.

 

[WattWick]

A single child? This isn't one child.

Anything that absolves us of any additional responsibilities or burdens, no matter how small they are, eh?

Let me ask you something. Would you do away with child protective services? Why should we base our society around protecting children from abusive parents?

This discussion is about as interesting as chasing a headless chicken. Just flapping around with no other agenda than getting away.

If you got a point - make it. You realize that if we built our society solely around making children safe, we'd still be in the stone age, trying to smash rocks in to safe sand? We'd still be left with one last stone with no other stone to smash it with. Still not 100% safe.

Child abuse and neglect has nothing whatsoever do to with e-cigarette politics. The result of neglect may be that a child vapes. Vaping is not the problem here. If vaping is the worst result possible, I'd be fine with that.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Good argument. You proved your point.

We, as a society, have long protected children and the disabled. It's a matter of degree. I think most people on here are opposed because it conflicts with their agenda. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone on here who would admit that they never think that societies should help children.