The Elephant in the Room
- Thread starter Plastic Shaman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I really don't care what kids do, as long as they aren't mine- and I don't have any, as far as I know, but just wait and see what happens when a local news channel does an investigative report showing middle school kids vaping...
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.
Great link. Thanks! I'll have to go through it all when I have time.
As you pointed out, the rate of those who never smoked went from .4 to .8 and then .9. While some of those might have eventually started smoking, I doubt we have a way to distinguish those from the ones who would have never picked up a cigarette.
However, those numbers do show an increase in youth trying e-cigs. We don't know if this increase will continue or if those who try it will continue to use at this point. However, I do think it raises a valid question. How much is too much?
This is a really interesting statistic since the market is exploding. I don't think a lot of people even knew about about e-cigs, but as they have become more widespread, we are seeing a real increase in those who have tried e-cigs. I'll be really interested to see the 2014 numbers.
The entire problem is that this is a big 'if' and a big 'and'. I simply do not believe that laws should be passed or regulations created based on scary 'what if' propositions.
(And I'm sorry you are intrepeting the opposition here as hate. I actually think it has been a very civil open discussion of differing points of view, much better than a lot of discussions I have seen on this topic in the past.)
Not confusing the two. I agree that they are not the same. However, no two types of tobacco are the same and they have different health risks. Smoking has much higher death rates than something like cigars, for a number of reasons.
However, when the FDA and a lot of lawmakers look at these products, the lump them all together as tobacco products, for simplicity if nothing else. The law does treat them differently, but they are called tobacco products as a whole and I think a lot of people look only at the net usage, not the individual type, to determine the over all demographic of those who are using. I believe that the vast majority of those who try e-cigs will stay with them. I also doubt that e-cigs will be shown to be as dangerous as cigarettes. Still, we are probably going to see them referred to as tobacco products for a while.
It's excellent that this is going better than most discussions! Although one person said they had trouble typing because they were angry. Still, I really do thank everyone for sharing their thoughts and criticisms of what I'm saying.
I don't disagree that they are these questions are big hypotheticals. This was also the case when Congress took action against cigarettes. They didn't know the future or how effective their laws would be in the future. Granted, Congress had more historical data on that topic. Regardless, anytime you are trying to pass laws that are prospective, you have no idea if they will actually work. With cigarettes, the number of smokers decreased over time, so I would say that they were effective. Despite the inherent logical fallacy in comparing cigarettes and e-cigs, I have no doubt that lawmakers will look at the success of smoking reduction and assume that it will also apply to e-cigs.
^^^^ This
I've seen you post a few times that it leads to increased tobacco use. I don't consider vaping tobacco use, even if the liquid contains nicotine.
My Dr. Pepper contains high fructose corn syrup, but I don't consider drinking a soda the same as eating an ear of corn. From the recent studies, nicotine use, by itself and in the absence of combustible tobacco leaf, has not been shown to be harmful and in some cases even has beneficial properties. Also, the surveys that report increased e-cig use by youth are pretty flawed in their methodology. Some neglect to ask(or report) whether the subject had smoked previously, and others consider ANY use(even trying once) in the past 12 months as "use."
I started smoking at age 12, and I continued for 20 years until I found vaping. I don't know what damage I've done to my body because of this, but if I could have started with vaping instead of smoking, I feel I'd be better off.
While it's true that we don't know all of the potential effects of vaping, that's also true of most things we do every day. Even in the absence of federal regulation, the industry is pretty quick to self regulate. Just search the forum for diacetyl to see examples of that.
Kids just love e-cigs! Really, wouldn't you, if you were a kid? Ya got yer electronics and yer drugs and yer status symbol all in one. And they smell like Teen Spirit to boot.
Old enough to remember the Apollo Program in great detail, that's pretty old, but as for the kids, all I can say is if I were one today... I couldn't wait for new vape toys from Kenner, Mattel and Hasbro. I mean Innokin, ProVape and Kanger.
Teens naturally gravitate towards small electronic crap items these days, cellphones, games, shiny things with batteries and buttons and pretty lights. If you can "smoke" it, add another layer of fun, danger, and rebellion. Kids might call it "vaping" but I bet they think of it in their punk hearts as smoking. I would. I was one of those little punks, smoking at 11 or 12 years old. Sure wish we had vaping back then. And of course like everything, kids turn it into a big status symbol. Guess there are plenty of reasons kids might get involved with vaping. Good luck stopping kids from being kids. Good luck stopping many adults from being kids for that matter.
Old enough to remember the Apollo Program in great detail, that's pretty old, but as for the kids, all I can say is if I were one today... I couldn't wait for new vape toys from Kenner, Mattel and Hasbro. I mean Innokin, ProVape and Kanger.
Teens naturally gravitate towards small electronic crap items these days, cellphones, games, shiny things with batteries and buttons and pretty lights. If you can "smoke" it, add another layer of fun, danger, and rebellion. Kids might call it "vaping" but I bet they think of it in their punk hearts as smoking. I would. I was one of those little punks, smoking at 11 or 12 years old. Sure wish we had vaping back then. And of course like everything, kids turn it into a big status symbol. Guess there are plenty of reasons kids might get involved with vaping. Good luck stopping kids from being kids. Good luck stopping many adults from being kids for that matter.
Smoking rates have been steadily declining for decades prior to the laws. The rate of decline is similar before and after the laws, so I personally would not attribute the 'success' to the laws.
I don't think there needs to be a reduction in use. However, I don't see that a large growth in the use of e-cigs among people who would never have started smoking as a good thing. The primary reason for this is that we don't know any of the long term consequences of vaping. If it turned out there were none, then great. I wouldn't care if e-cigs became the next accessory or gum. My fear is that we are being short sighted. It would be a bad thing if there were serious or moderate long term effects from vaping and a large number of the population had been doing it for years.
The same can be said for any number of activities though. Soda, trans fats, skinny jeans, cell phones, ritalin, adderall, xanax, modified corn, etc.
You will never have a number for those who started vaping but would otherwise have never started smoking, it's impossible. BUT if someone starts vaping and NEVER starts smoking, I call that a win.
In fact, if a teenager starts vaping, instead of bumming a ritalin off their friend when they need to concentrate for a test, I'd call that a win too.\
ETA: I know the jury is still out, but the studies I've read so far all point to vaping being 90-99% safer than smoking. There could be some unforeseen circumstance that makes vaping bad too, but that looks less likely every day.
Last edited:
I see statutes as separate from Law and they can even be in conflict. A very literal example of a statute is if you work at Starbucks you must wear a name tag. The Constitution does not say you must wear a name tag at Starbucks but the written agreement the employee made to work at Starbucks is consent to abide by the statute and any consequences of not doing so. Imagine a Starbucks manager asking me where my name tag is if I am there ordering coffee on my way to grandmas house lol.
I am sure we will end up discussing this in another thread.
So lets discuss tobacco and alcohol age limits. Ever wonder why you could never purchase a pack of Chinese ciggy's for a dollar at the gas station here in the States? Kids smoking and drinking is bad imo, no doubt. If I collected huge tax revenue from both and there was an outcry for underage mandates I prolly would act on those "authoritatively". It is a win-win for me the government. I get to impose authority AND still collect tax revenue. Even if the regulations barely work or don't work at all.
Last edited:
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.
I fail to see the problem. It is apparent to me that many people will start to vape and some of those people will be people who never smoked. Vaping is highly enjoyable and causes very few short-term effects (and none for many people). While the true long-term effects will take decades to understand, it is likely that they will be negligible and similar to many other legal activities that adults engage in. I do see a point in trying to keep kids who are under 18 who do not currently smoke from taking up vaping however kids will do what kids want to do. I know I did not give a second thought to the age limit for buying cigarettes when I was under 18. For kids that currently smoke, I fully support them vaping and they should be able to do so legally.
Vaping is not smoking and it amazes me that so many people on this forum still believe that they are the same or similar. It is simply wrong to try to take society's handling of smoking and try to apply it to vaping.
Vaping is not smoking and it amazes me that so many people on this forum still believe that they are the same or similar. It is simply wrong to try to take society's handling of smoking and try to apply it to vaping.
I am confused as to why vaping would lead to tobacco use since there is no tobacco in most e-liquids?
Did you mean nicotine?
Or are you saying that you think vaping leads to smoking analogs?
I'd respond by saying that we looking at those things differently. We aren't concerned with skinny jeans, but we are with xanax, so we pass laws regarding xanax. I don't really see the two as comparable.
I agree, we can't know how many would have not have started if not for e-cigs. On the other hand, we can see trends. If there is an abnormal disparity in those who had never tried a cigarette, but now use e-cigs, and the normal rates of new smokers in the past, you have grounds for an argument that e-cigs are causing an increase in use among those who would never have smoked.
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
