The Elephant in the Room

[Jman8]

If I choose to smoke despite the known risks, after being warned by a label and well known fact, well...I lost the right to claim I wasn't informed.

What well known fact are you referencing here?

And what about the woman awarded 23 billion due to lawsuit regarding her husband's death?

 

[Jman8]

Like e liquid vendors claiming to be diacetyl free till they actually got their liquids tested? We might be referring to different things, I dunno.

The claim that we are in a war against vaping. You say this cannot be or is not substantiated. I believe I can substantiate this via a reasonable discussion with you. Are you up for that discussion?

 

[Bored2Tears]

Can you substantiate this claim of fact?

Sure can. But, since it's widely accepted history and science...you look up some sources if you feel the need.

 

[Bored2Tears]

Can you substantiate this claim of fact?

Sure can. But, since it's widely accepted history and science...you look up some sources if you feel the need.

 

[Jman8]

Sure can. But, since it's widely accepted history and science...you look up some sources if you feel the need.

No, I'd rather you do it, and provide that here. You are the one that has claimed it is fact. Until you do, it is an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Bored2Tears]

The claim that we are in a war against vaping. You say this cannot be or is not substantiated. I believe I can substantiate this via a reasonable discussion with you. Are you up for that discussion?

Sure. Given the widely accepted definition of war, I think the use of that term is more than a little bit overblown.

 

[skoony]

Why did they begin widely pasteurizing milk from cows and the like?

before modern refrigeration it was discovered that by heating the milk and
quickly cooling it prevented spoilage due to microbial action for an extended period.
killing pathogens that may have been harmful to humans was a side benefit.
circa 19th century.
mike

 

[Jman8]

Sure. Given the widely accepted definition of war, I think the use of that term is more than a little bit overblown.

Please provide the accepted definition of war. I will tell you if I find it acceptable. I'm comfortable going with dictionary definition and using perhaps 3rd or 4th instance (or meaning) that a dictionary provides. Are you?

 

[Bored2Tears]

No, I'd rather you do it, and provide that here. You are the one that has claimed it is fact. Until you do, it is an unsubstantiated claim.

Here's one: Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Safer and Healthier Foods

Charts near the bottom show the rapidly declining rates of foodborne illness. It's just childish that we can't at least agree on some pretty well accepted facts. Instead, I have to prove well accepted science that's got long history.

 

[Bored2Tears]

Should I explain why washing your hands before performing surgery is a good idea, too? Or because I have a minority opinion are all of you going to rake me over the coals for every possible assertion I make? Cause honestly, I think this is a bit silly.

 

[firerat]

It's just childish that we can't at least agree on some pretty well accepted facts. Instead, I have to prove well accepted science that's got long history.

That's generally a sign that the argument has reached it's stalemate.....

 

[Bored2Tears]

Dictionary.com War (1st definition): a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

 

[Jman8]

Here's one: Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Safer and Healthier Foods

Charts near the bottom show the rapidly declining rates of foodborne illness. It's just childish that we can't at least agree on some pretty well accepted facts. Instead, I have to prove well accepted science that's got long history.

I'd appreciate you quoting directly that which you feel backs up your claim. Again, you said: People were getting food borne illnesses at much higher rates prior to regulations than after them.

So, the regulations you speak of in relation to the tables suggest that around 1950 these regulations went into effect. Is that accurate or align with what you were claiming?

As childish as it may seem, I think the point is worthy of debate, because you are saying regulations and not say standards or human knowledge was the turn around. In this thread, we have knowledge on vaping and we have organizations that engage with its members about standards. But you, and I observe at least one other say this is not enough and that regulations will be the answer.

I have put forth a bet that says more people will be harmed by vaping when regulations are in effect than prior to them. Let me know if you (or anyone) cares to enter into that wager.

 

[WattWick]

Here's one: Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Safer and Healthier Foods

Charts near the bottom show the rapidly declining rates of foodborne illness. It's just childish that we can't at least agree on some pretty well accepted facts. Instead, I have to prove well accepted science that's got long history.

Key word: Sanitation. <insert additive of your choosing> don't stop you from getting cholera.

There has to be a middle ground between cholera and morbidly obese walking blood clots.

 

[Jman8]

Dictionary.com War (1st definition): a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Dictionary.com - War (5th definition): active hostility or contention; conflict; contest; and 7th definition: a struggle to achieve a goal: the war on cancer; a war against poverty

According to Dictionary.com, my use of the word "war" was used appropriately.

 

[Robino1]

Is the FDA that would regulate these things the same FDA that says food from McDonald's and Taco Bell is ok for human consumption and that ......... and psychedelic mushrooms have no medicinal value and are dangerous while things like oxycontin and xanax are perfectly fine with a script?

If so, then I'm sure they have our best interests in mind.

EDIT:

Wow, you can't type {Other stuff} on here huh? Weird.

No you can not. Please read as to why we don't allow this: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ation/255864-why-we-dont-allow-drug-talk.html

I sure hope that vaping is every bit as safe as we all currently believe that it is. Since it's clearly safer than smoking cigarettes, we shouldn't need any regulation I guess. Hope we are all right and that we're all solid in our interpretation of this science.

I don't have a PHD in anything, especially not chemistry. I'm an average citizen trying to make sense of the available facts. Frankly, I consider myself to be at least of average intelligence and higher than average education level.

It has not been easy weeding out the fact from the fiction. There's certainly a lot of speculation and assumption about the long term.

I hope we are all correct, and that the government just leaves us alone to do our thing. You've all been researching this a lot longer than I, and have a much more informed opinion.....and the conclusion is that we as a community don't need any outside help to regulate. We've been doing a fine job thank you.

In response to the original purpose of this post though..... I will say that if I can't interpret the known science to a high degree of comfort, then no I won't support letting minors make the decision to vape for themselves.

We, as vapers, are going to be the current long range study. There aren't too many around that have been vaping for 10+ years. Strides have been made since vaping started becoming main stream. Liquids have gotten better and as these come out, people are studying them to make sure there are no problems. The popcorn lung chemical didn't show it face in e-liquid, it became an issue for people that have been in the manufacturing stage for POPCORN. Not e-liquid. When the crap hit the fan with the workers around that "flavoring", someone thought they should look into how it relates to "flavoring" in the e-liquid.

There will always be scientists that are curious and some of them are actual vapers. There is one that has been a member of ECF for years. Kurt. (can't remember his last name) He, along with a few other members, found there was unsafe practices with a vendor in regards to the percentage of nic in the liquids. That was discovered fairly quickly, before anyone was seriously harmed.



We need to keep this thread on track now. Try to stay as close to the main subject as possible. I know how things tend to wander, that is how conversation works. Things are starting to take a very sharp turn. Time to return it back to the main topic.

Thanks.


Oh, you guys have been great at keeping it civil. Thanks

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Thanks, Mum.

I don't have time to catch up right now. Have to leave soon but it looks like a new study was released today by the CDC. Tough to find an article that didn't slant it the wrong way. This one will do Youth smoking rates hit historic low, study finds - News-Record.com: News

 

[Plastic Shaman]

It is. As is smoking, drinking, or whatever other way you choose to pursue your happiness, provided you don't hurt or infringe on the rights of others by doing so.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Smoking is not a right, nor is drinking. Remember prohibition?

It's nice that The Declaration of Independence say that, but that does not establish our rights. The Constitution does and there is nothing in the Constitution about being able to vape or being immune to regulation because we don't like it.

 

[Auntie Mame]

So, I see a lot of vapers pointing out the flaws in the reasoning and misperceptions of those opposed to e-cigarettes. However, I really don’t see people talking about the issue that a lot of critics bring up; minors and vaping. I spend a lot of time in shops and checking places out. I have seen many people under 18 vaping and trying to buy e-cigs. Most of the shops in my area are fairly ethical and won’t sell to minors without ID. Even so, I have seen parents who are willing to make these purchases.

I think that the opponents of vaping may have some legitimate points in this matter. My evidence is anecdotal, but I’m willing to wager that there will be studies that show that a number of children are starting to vape. Now, I don’t believe that these products are marketed towards children. Also, I don’t believe that e-cigs are the root of the issue. The fact is that none of us started smoking by accident. We all started smoking for our own reasons, no matter how misguided (I thought that it would make me look cool). The coming generations will continue to do these things for their own reasons, regardless of the existence of e-cigs.

Still, there is going to be a growing population of children vaping. Perhaps the percent of young people who will start using tobacco products will be greater with the advent of vaping. Additionally, there is growing population of adults who have started vaping who never smoked, so I don’t doubt that there is a certain allure to vaping. I’m just curious how other people feel about this. Any comments, thoughts, or death threats are greatly appreciated (I’m kidding about the death threats).

So here we are. The question started out about children (I think defined by "those under the age of 18") and whether there IS a growing population of kids vaping and if so, what if anything, we can/want/should do about it.

I thinks kids are going to be kids. They will do things that amuse us, make us proud, make us angry and yes, do downright stupid and/or dangerous things. Is vaping any different than when we were young and tried smoking?

 

[towelie]

ZOMG how many children used computers in 1982 compared to now? Its an epidemic and must be regulated for the children, according to the interstate commerce playbook: the internet can be very addictive, bam! its a drug and under fda jurisdiction!

What was the last innovation to smoking, was it the filter?

Good news though ppl: Progressives won in 1933 when the bank charter was up and it didn't close, despite everyone trying to withdraw all deposits. So you guys in the room, the Progressives; congrats. As a result net tax consumers vs net tax contributors is about 49/51 and contributors will very soon be the minority.

So as you ponder yet another moral regulation also ponder abusing the minority.