The Elephant in the Room

[samturdo]

I personally don't have a problem with minors vaping. Especially since surveys show that the vast majority of them were already smokers. Good for them, following the adults example of finding a better option. For the tiny percentage of them that have never smoked, good for them too, hope the vaping stops you from ever picking up a cigarette.

i agree, but i think only 0 nic liquid should be sold to minors because theyre not old enough to decide whether or not they want to give themselves an addiction. unless they can get a doctors note stating that they are already smokers/already addicted to nicotine

 

[towelie]

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

At no point was I trying to imply that vaping would lead to children smoking. I think I even said that that concept was absurd.

Now I am confused lol

 

[KenD]

Correlation does not equal causation, no doubt. Still, I think that people attribute the declining rates to legislation and education. I'm not sure we can know, but I think that we can say that these were possibly responsible.

If the trend was set before the laws, how is it a reasonable assumption that the laws set the trend?

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Now I am confused lol

I'm not sure why. e-cigs contain addictive substances. If people become addicted to them, tobacco use increases. We are very concerned with their use among children because we have a similar situation with cigarettes.

Cigarettes are also addictive. We know that many users started when they were children. Laws were passed with the goal of reducing the number of children from trying cigarettes.

Let me state again, I don't think that e-cigarettes lead to smoking. It will lead to increased tobacco use because I am considering e-cigarettes as a form of tobacco. If you have a semantic disagreement, that's fair. I'm just framing this in the terms that are being used.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

If the trend was set before the laws, how is it a reasonable assumption that the laws set the trend?

The same argument works both ways. Even if it was a trend before the laws, how is it reasonable to assume that the laws did not intervene, increase, or continue a trend that might have trickled off? I'm just saying that it's possible that they had some effect.

 

[Alto101]

I'm not sure why. e-cigs contain addictive substances. If people become addicted to them, tobacco use increases. We are very concerned with their use among children because we have a similar situation with cigarettes.

Cigarettes are also addictive. We know that many users started when they were children. Laws were passed with the goal of reducing the number of children from trying cigarettes.

Let me state again, I don't think that e-cigarettes lead to smoking. It will lead to increased tobacco use because I am considering e-cigarettes as a form of tobacco. If you have a semantic disagreement, that's fair. I'm just framing this in the terms that are being used.

E-liquid is not a form of tobacco. While the regulations might eventually state otherwise, that does not make it correct. Nicotine is found in cigarettes and is found in some e-liquid; however nicotine is also found in patches, gum and vegetables. Are vegetables tobacco products? Are patches tobacco products? I think not. E-liquid is a vaping product not a tobacco product.

 

[jcaruso415]

This may have been covered here, but I'd like to know why people assume flavors are being marketed towards kids.

I'm 28 and still like fruity COPYRIGHTDMCA, cocoa puffs, koolaid, cheesecake, toffee, coffee, butterscotch. I also like the adult flavors like mint mojito, plumb brandy, vanilla Cavendish tobacco, etc.

Who said colors and flavors are for kids only? I'd that's the case I guess I never grew up.

I do agree that vaping should be limited to 18+ with valid i.d. only, though. Not because of the "think of the children" campaigners, but because of the potential for addiction to nicotine.

"But there is nicotine-less e-juice!" Yes, there is. But they don't need to be inhaling anything but air anywho.

 

[towelie]

E-liquid is not tobacco. Thus, even if more teens/children start vaping that does not equal a rise in tobacco use (unless they move from vaping to smoking - or something like snus, which I believe you agreed is an absurd assumption). It appears to me that you're confusing those two.

Well now RJR certainly disagrees...."Vuse is a tobacco product because the nicotine used in this product is extracted from the tobacco plant."

 

[stevegmu]

E-liquid is not a form of tobacco. While the regulations might eventually state otherwise, that does not make it correct. Nicotine is found in cigarettes and is found in some e-liquid; however nicotine is also found in patches, gum and vegetables. Are vegetables tobacco products? Are patches tobacco products? I think not. E-liquid is a vaping product not a tobacco product.

Nicotine used in e-liquid is extracted from tobacco, which makes it a tobacco product- both legally and is generally accepted as such by the public at large... Nic patches and gum are both regulated.

 

[Alto101]

Well now RJR certainly disagrees...."Vuse is a tobacco product because the nicotine used in this product is extracted from the tobacco plant."

RJR is being motivated by their own self-interests to make this statement. I highly doubt that they actually believe it. They want vaping severely regulated and open container systems banned because their products cannot compete and they want to maintain their profits.

 

[Alto101]

Nicotine used in e-liquid is extracted from tobacco, which makes it a tobacco product- both legally and is generally accepted as such by the public at large... Nic patches and gum are both regulated.

Just because the regulations say one thing, doesn't make it right. I hope some day soon there will be cost effective nicotine synthesized in a lab. Will it be a tobacco product then?

 

[stevegmu]

Just because the regulations say one thing, doesn't make it right. I hope some day soon there will be cost effective nicotine synthesized in a lab. Will it be a tobacco product then?

No, but then it would probably be regulated as a controlled substance... What is right or wrong or logical doesn't make a bit of difference when the government is involved. At the end of the day, however, I don't think much of anything will come out of regulations...

 

[Alto101]

No, but then it would probably be regulated as a controlled substance...

Again, that doesn't make it right. Is caffeine a controlled substance?

 

[stevegmu]

Again, that doesn't make it right. Is caffeine a controlled substance?

Not yet, but the way the country is going...

 

[mattiem]

I'm not sure why. e-cigs contain addictive substances. If people become addicted to them, tobacco use increases. We are very concerned with their use among children because we have a similar situation with cigarettes.

Cigarettes are also addictive. We know that many users started when they were children. Laws were passed with the goal of reducing the number of children from trying cigarettes.

Let me state again, I don't think that e-cigarettes lead to smoking. It will lead to increased tobacco use because I am considering e-cigarettes as a form of tobacco. If you have a semantic disagreement, that's fair. I'm just framing this in the terms that are being used.

A very interesting article that debunks the addictive properties of nicotine. I agree smoking cigarettes creates dependence. I'm not convinced that vaping does. Just my personal opinion.

Nicotine Propaganda

 

[towelie]

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that, but the Article II grants Congress the power to legislate under the it's tax and spend powers, interstate commerce powers, ect. These law are valid as long as there is nothing unconstitutional about them. I don't really see anything with that law that would interfere with due process, search and seizure, free exercise, ect.

Tax and spend powers are limited to Constitutional Money, which we don't have. Nothing about the Constitution however, prevents us individually contracting and agreeing to use limited liability debt as currency which is what we are doing...once contracted to do so the scope has changed and definitions ect have changed. We all know rights cannot be privileges and that noone can charge "money" for example for a right. I can't charge you money to speak your mind. I can create a forum that charges money to join and not allow you to speak on my forum however and this does not limit your right in any way.

An example of this is travel. That is a right, yet we think of "driving" as a privilege, subject to fines and buy-ins like licenses and registrations.

So, are you saying that the government doesn't care if children smoke as long as there is tax money? I would point back to my earlier argument about flavored cigarettes. I think that shows that Congress was genuinely concerned about children being lured into smoking, not taxes. I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I believe the point of heavy taxes on cigarettes was twofold. One, the government was trying to make up for healthcare costs from the long terms effects of smoking. Two, the government sees raising the prices as a method of deterrence. In other words, if the price goes beyond a certain point, people will quit. Whether that works is another question, but I don't think that lawmakers see it as just another revenue source.

No, government does not care if children smoke unless you mind your framework and assume you are government. Which you are. It is important to differentiate the hierarchy of government here.

There is a reason the federal government must file paperwork through your state, county ect to seize property for example thus demonstrating the correct hierarchy placing you and your local on top and the federal at the bottom.

Federal government is only interested in self sustenance imho which is natural. Example is that methods of social deterrence and being concerned with costs of goods and services such as healthcare are squarely outside the scope of the "framework" that is Law. Especially since we know that inflation is responsible for the rising cost of everything and what is the source of inflation?

Look at the war on drugs. Do the results prove that government is concerned with anything but spending and regulating? Arguably the results prove they don't care if your 5 year old is addicted to ....... or at least there is nothing they can truly do about it but yet the costs increase and the regulation expands. Win-win for self preservation, miserable fail on mission statement.

 

[DC2]

I just found this thread so I'm late to the party.
I only got through 10 posts before I had to chime in on this.

I am not sure I can make it through this whole thread to see if these issues have been addressed, so I have to post this now...

I do agree with your original post for the most part.
Although so far the evidence seems to show your concerns are not significant.

Perhaps the percent of young people who will start using tobacco products will be greater with the advent of vaping.

But this part just doesn't make any sense at all to me.

If tobacco usage grows at a faster rate following e-cigs, I think that it will be seen as a major point against it and a major reason to strongly regulate it.

Except the studies by the CDC themselves show that the opposite is what is really happening.

Well, I would assume that a minor, in this sense, is someone under 18. As with most ages, such as the age to join the military, age of consent, age to drive/drink/run for president, the number is largely arbitrary. I don't think that the concern is that young people are doing it because they are young. I think that the concern is that it's an addictive habit that people struggle with throughout their life and people don't want to see the number growing, especially in the younger generation. Since most people start smoking when they are young, I believe people focus on the age. The real issue, imo, is that people don't want to see the population of tobacco users growing.

You might want to take a look at these links...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...le-health-benefits-nicotine.html#post14462288

 

[towelie]

It will lead to increased tobacco use because I am considering e-cigarettes as a form of tobacco. If you have a semantic disagreement, that's fair. I'm just framing this in the terms that are being used.

Ah now I see. Are you also inclined to believe that RJR is also genuinely concerned about the children?

 

[skoony]

Nicotine used in e-liquid is extracted from tobacco, which makes it a tobacco product- both legally and is generally accepted as such by the public at large... Nic patches and gum are both regulated.

plastic is derived from oil.plastic is not oil
regards
mike

 

[DC2]

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.

Vaping does NOT rise to that standard, assuming one even agrees that is a valid standard.
I make no arguments on the latter question, only the former.