The Elephant in the Room

[Lessifer]

So believing that there is no scientific rationale to restrict vaping to "adults" means you are pro child abuse?

When arguments devolve into character attacks, it usually means someone has run out of facts to support their opinion.

 

[WattWick]

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.

Protecting children and disabled is actually quite a new notion on a societal level.

This may be a language barrier, but I completely fail to see the point you're trying to make. Can you help me out?

Am I either pro vaping or pro children?

 

[Lessifer]

Racehorse made some good points as to why they don't feel minors should vape. I don't agree, but I can at least see the thought process and accept it as a meaningful argument for them.

I don't think we're going to change anyone's mind here who has already decided what they believe, but I hope that others who read this take the time to at least examine why they feel the way that they do.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

What I'm trying to say is that most everyone agrees that children should have a certain level of protection.

If you don't think we should protect them on the issue of vaping, fine. However, it's a totally different issue to say that we have no obligation to children.

 

[Rossum]

What I'm trying to say is that most everyone agrees that children should have a certain level of protection.

If you don't think we should protect them on the issue of vaping, fine. However, it's a totally different issue to say that we have no obligation to children.

Who is this "We" you speak of, Shaman?

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Society is the we.

 

[WattWick]

What I'm trying to say is that most everyone agrees that children should have a certain level of protection.

If you don't think we should protect them on the issue of vaping, fine. However, it's a totally different issue to say that we have no obligation to children.

Still, am I either pro vaping or pro children?

Or are we discussing how to close Pandoras box?

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Never said you are pro vaping or pro children... talk about a straw man...

I'm just saying, if you don't believe we should protect children from vaping, say that. Don't act like it's absurd that someone would want to protect a child.

 

[pamdis]

Well, nicotine is not GRAS and it interacts with body chemistry. I never said that nicotine is evil, my thinking is not that polarized.

Also, the rest of the components may be GRAS, but that doesn't mean that they thought it was safe to use them in ways that they never imagined. That's why the FDA is asking questions about inhaling these things. I'm sure that there are lots of things that are GRAS, but doctors would want to know more before we used them as a suppository.

That's why we need government. To tell us which end is up.

 

[WattWick]

Never said you are pro vaping or pro children... talk about a straw man...

I'm just saying, if you don't believe we should protect children from vaping, say that. Don't act like it's absurd that someone would want to protect a child.

Then we're discussing how to close Pandoras box.

First of all we should define whether we're discussing an utopian society or if we're still dealing with realism.

 

[Lessifer]

Never said you are pro vaping or pro children... talk about a straw man...

I'm just saying, if you don't believe we should protect children from vaping, say that. Don't act like it's absurd that someone would want to protect a child.

I think all of us who think vaping is not something we need to "protect" children from have said that, usually with reasoning and evidence to back it up. I don't think anyone has said that children shouldn't be protected from anything. Some of us don't feel it's the governments place to do all of the protecting. Obviously in some areas, the government has to step in, like when the parent is doing something illegal or actively harmful to the child, just like they do when adults do something illegal and harmful to each other.

 

[Rossum]

Society is the we.

Fallacies: The Ambiguous Collective

 

[towelie]

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.

I did not personally attack you and apologize if you feel I did, nor am I theorizing anything just as I wasn't earlier when you suggested tax revenue exceeds tax obligations.

A good hint for you is if the law society is as simplistic and honest as you pose above with the statement "judge can't figure out what you're talking about" then why not say the lawful age? Why is everything illegal and not unlawful? Why do we hear those term together still, just slang of the law society? How about huge definitions pages preceding regulations and statutory legislation, just slang?

A lawyer needs statutes like a landscaper needs rain. If not for statutes lawyers literally would have nothing to do. No injured party=no crime, that's law. This or that substance is forbidden or regulated, that's statutory law; law pertaining only to the statute. I tied all of this together for you with a statutory link for proof earlier, it was 12USC411.

Something simply cannot be what it is redeemable for. If I have a coupon for 30mL if ejuice the coupon is not 30 mL of ejuice.

Redemption is removal of obligation. Removal of obligation would remove elasticity and potential corruption and restore transparency. Directly related to the campaign contributions you referenced 500 pages back.

If it eludes you then please address any of the other points and I will drop that which eludes you, meh I will regardless, see ya on the Outside for this one, cheers.

 

[towelie]

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.

IDK, but I know if you feel you shouldn't give up on them then you should be more charitable towards that cause. Because charity is voluntary.

 

[towelie]

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?

Why not base it around RESULTS?

Good argument. You proved your point.

We, as a society, have long protected children and the disabled. It's a matter of decree. 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.

Fixed that typo for ya

 

[PapaSloth]

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.

Only one problem with this video. NJOY is testing down between 1 and 5ppm. However, the recommended safe exposure levels to diacetyl in the article I posted earlier is under 1ppb. That's parts-per-billion, not parts-per-million. So, NJOY would need tests that are over 1,000 times as sensitive as they currently employ to meet any regulation based on that guideline.

 

[Lessifer]

Only one problem with this video. NJOY is testing down between 1 and 5ppm. However, the recommended safe exposure levels to diacetyl in the article I posted earlier is under 1ppb. That's parts-per-billion, not parts-per-million. So, NJOY would need tests that are over 1,000 times as sensitive as they currently employ to meet any regulation based on that guideline.

You are right, but those exposure levels are based on 8 hours a day, 5 days a week of exposure in a workplace setting. I also don't know for a fact, but seriously doubt that the exposure level is set at the cusp of when something potentially becomes harmful. So I don't think it's 1ppb you're ok, 2ppb you're dead. That being said, the subject deserves investigation.

 

[PapaSloth]

You are right, but those exposure levels are based on 8 hours a day, 5 days a week of exposure in a workplace setting. I also don't know for a fact, but seriously doubt that the exposure level is set at the cusp of when something potentially becomes harmful. So I don't think it's 1ppb you're ok, 2ppb you're dead. That being said, the subject deserves investigation.

I think the whole discussion is moot, because when you heat VG it produces acetoin, which reacts with other chemicals to produce diacetyl. So, even if you test the liquid and it contains under 1pbb of diacetyl, it still produces diacetyl when it's heated. Now, the actual temperature at which the reaction from VG to acetoin occurs is above where most of us consider a good vape, so as a practical consideration, this is not a major health consideration. However, the early studies that FDA is working from heated the VG to over 400C, and found significant quantities of acetoin, aldehydes, and lots of other nasty stuff. Based on that data, it is flat-out unsafe to vape pure VG, let alone VG plus the other stuff we mix with it. So, flat out, the FDA believes that all vaping is a health hazard.

Now some of you seem to be operating under the mistaken belief that the FDA's job is to only let through chemicals that are 'mostly safe.' That hasn't been true since at least the 60's, when large-scale testing of thalidomide led to over a dozen infants being born with birth defects. Since at least that time, the FDA's charter has been to only let chemicals through that are completely safe. And, vaping VG is not completely safe.

 

[Lessifer]

I think the whole discussion is moot, because when you heat VG it produces acetoin, which reacts with other chemicals to produce diacetyl. So, even if you test the liquid and it contains under 1pbb of diacetyl, it still produces diacetyl when it's heated. Now, the actual temperature at which the reaction from VG to acetoin occurs is above where most of us consider a good vape, so as a practical consideration, this is not a major health consideration. However, the early studies that FDA is working from heated the VG to over 400C, and found significant quantities of acetoin, aldehydes, and lots of other nasty stuff. Based on that data, it is flat-out unsafe to vape pure VG, let alone VG plus the other stuff we mix with it. So, flat out, the FDA believes that all vaping is a health hazard.

Now some of you seem to be operating under the mistaken belief that the FDA's job is to only let through chemicals that are 'mostly safe.' That hasn't been true since at least the 60's, when large-scale testing of thalidomide led to over a dozen infants being born with birth defects. Since at least that time, the FDA's charter has been to only let chemicals through that are completely safe. And, vaping VG is not completely safe.

The FDA approves products every day with "acceptable" risk levels. Otherwise we would not have medications with listed possible side effects, like death.

 

[towelie]

The FDA approves products every day with "acceptable" risk levels. Otherwise we would not have medications with listed possible side effects, like death.

Mission statements and reality are rarely reflective. Another example is Food Stamps: to provide healthy food and adequate nutrition.