The "Well its gotta be bad for you!" Mentality

Status
Not open for further replies.

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,633
1
84,766
So-Cal
I was Unaware that DOW sold PG, PEG400 and VG to Dekang?

2. What does Dekang e-liquid contain and what are the safety standards?
Answer:
Safety Standard:

GMP , HACCP , ISO , KFDA ,SGS MSDS formular :
1.Propylene Glycol (Dow Chemical), Nicotine , flavors
2.Polyethylene glycol (PEG 400) (Dow Chemical), Nicotine, flavors
3.Vegetable Glycerin(Dow Chemical), Nicotine, flavors

All ingredients meet USP, see our SGS report

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ly-propylene-glycol-e-cigarette-industry.html

---


People love to Bash the FDA as being Corrupt and Bending to the Will of Big Money and Agenda driven Politics. I wonder what the CFDA is like? An how well they Enforce their Standards with regard to things like Purity?

China Food and Drug Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

stevegmu

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 10, 2013
11,630
12,348
6992 kilometers from home...
Tar sounds like something akin to a tobacco extract, like NET. It isn't broken out in their FAQ. In fact, they specifically state that all ingredients are USP. The truth may depend on their honesty. I'd like to see the FDA require proof of ecig ingredient purity and safety. That would cost slightly more to the consumer, but I'd feel better about my future health.

Dekang juice purity FAQ
FAQ

I really wouldn't trust what manufactures in certain countries claim their ingredients are. You have the stainless steel and fiberglass controversies... There was also the pet food fiasco...
 

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,986
Sacramento, California
Didn't say it was. Didn't say it Wasn't.

But wouldn't it be Nice to Know that a Flavor has been shown to be GRAS for Direct Inhalation in the Amounts that are seen Daily by Vapers?

If you would like to wait the 10-20 years it will take the FDA/BT/BP scientists to get around to labeling certain "tobacco" and "menthol" e-liquid ingredients as GRAS for repeated daily inhalation, then by all means, wait.

I would rather not put the industry on hold for that long, or turn it over to those groups.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,633
1
84,766
So-Cal
If you would like to wait the 10-20 years it will take the FDA/BT/BP scientists to get around to labeling certain "tobacco" and "menthol" e-liquid ingredients as GRAS for repeated daily inhalation, then by all means, wait.

I would rather not put the industry on hold for that long, or turn it over to those groups.

Then I would Strongly Suggest that Somebody start doing Something. Because it Doesn't look like Much is Going On.

Just People Talking about things on Forums. And No seemingly Organized Effort to effect what the FDA might Do.
 

skoony

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2013
5,692
9,953
70
saint paul,mn,usa
Not sure where this Definition came from?

As to putting Odd things in e-Liquids? Do you consider Titanium Dioxide a Odd Thing.

Don't get me wrong. I don't see Most Retailers Intentionally using something that is Known to be a Problem. The Vast Majority I believe want to put out a "Safe" product.

But the Vast Majority of Retailers do not have In-House Chemist or do Outside Verification of the Ingredients they use. They just rely on what their Vendors say in (or Not In) a 55 Gallon Drum of PG, VG or Nicotine Base.

if its in an FDA approved food grade flavoring yes.
i have used titanium dioxide in 50 pound bags
in the making of pre-mixed ceiling and wall textures
and paint. all that was required was the use of
a dust mask for safety.
its also used in its pure state as those white markings
on playing fields.
i was required by OSHA to wear a mask in the factory.
grounds keepers are not.
there's a reason for that. i'll get back to you when i
think of it.
regards
mike
 
Last edited:

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
If given 2 Black and White Choices, Vendors can put ANYTHING they want in an e-Liquid and not have to Disclose Anything, verses Government Regulations as to what Ingredients are considered GRAS, I would have to go with the Later.


With the latter, vendors can put ANYTHING they want in an eLiquid. What is to prevent them on the front end from doing this? I would argue nothing.

And as this poster has already made this thread partially about not responding to my posts, then I put forth this point for discussion as I see it as highly pertinent to this thread. Again, I have a very public wager put forth for anyone reading this saying that there will be more harm (that will be noted) coming to vapers in a the government regulated market verse what we have now. If you disagree with this, thinking government regulations will mean more safety/less potential for harm, then take me up on this wager. Thus far, after writing this wager about 10 times now, I have zero people interested. I take that as implied agreement with the point I am harping on or people not confident enough to win a bet knowing it might not be accurate to say things will be safer/better with regulations in place. But here in this post, I would also argue that it is because people do realize that a vendor can, at any time, put ANYTHING they want in an eLiquid.

What this really comes down to is if anyone does put anything in eLiquid, are they willing to deal with whatever backlash may ensue.

We currently aren't experiencing a vaping market where there are many known incidences of harm coming to vapers because of something put into eLiquid intended to lead to immediate harm for the user of that eLiquid. That there are a few incidences of harm in this way, strikes me as ABSOLUTELY NORMAL, for this surely happens in the food industry all the time (as in every year for perhaps the last 4000 years).

In the heavily regulated market, a vendor could put something in that isn't of the immediate dangerous variety, and likely get away with it indefinitely. Who would know? Tell the FDA one thing, do another, and if there is no one looking in huge bureaucracy, then it won't be found. Hence, the reason the FDA is banking on idea that the industry will be whittled down to say 20 or fewer players in the industry so they can keep up with all the possible variations, in all the possible batches of all the possible flavors that will be allowed on the eLiquid market. But even under a scenario where there are say 3 legal companies, that have say 20 flavor choices (total), it won't be possible to keep up with every single batch, from the FDA's perspective.

It will be possible that if any company is selling something they thought was good, but turned out to be bad (according to public health advocate du jour), then on the backend, the vendor would be reprimanded. No doubt that any vendor will be reprimanded (in some fashion), if they put substances in that are intended to lead to immediate harm of their user. But only after the fact. Would take a whistleblower from within that company to prevent it from happening on the front end.

This would be the long winded explanation that explains half of the reason why I am okay with anything being put in, because I can't see how being not okay would possibly work out. That's just superficial ideology and wishful thinking. And to the degree that is debated, I can invoke the other half of rationale that would further this point and make it more clear as to how you are actually very okay with how this is all set up, even while you may try to claim otherwise. Becomes a bit more philosophical at that point, but isn't like it can't be explained or discussed. Just that we think by saying, "I'm not okay with anything being put in," means we will somehow change things to a world where it conforms to everything we think we want. Instead, I would argue that by stating what you are not okay with, would likely attract to you an experience of that particular situation, that will not be at a time of your conscious choosing.

It is nice knowing that the people who read all this, are open to thinking deeper than the superficial take on matters.
And also nice knowing that the ones who claim to not read my words, did actually read this post, but will never openly admit it.
I find that humorous.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,633
1
84,766
So-Cal
...

This would be the long winded explanation that explains half of the reason why I am okay with anything being put in, because I can't see how being not okay would possibly work out. That's just superficial ideology and wishful thinking.

...

Hey that's Cool Jman8. You are Entitled to your Opinion.

I just happen to Not Agree with it.
 

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,986
Sacramento, California
Then I would Strongly Suggest that Somebody start doing Something. Because it Doesn't look like Much is Going On.

Just People Talking about things on Forums. And No seemingly Organized Effort to effect what the FDA might Do.

I participate in every CTA I can, I write my legislators, I contribute where I can. I also try my best to get vapers to stop feeding the fire of misinformation.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,633
1
84,766
So-Cal
I'm okay with agreeing to disagree on this one. Just cause I still don't see how one can possibly argue for not being okay with it without coming off as wishful thinker.

Whatever you say Jman8.

Guess we'll all just have to Sit Back and see what will Happen.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,633
1
84,766
So-Cal
I participate in every CTA I can, I write my legislators, I contribute where I can. I also try my best to get vapers to stop feeding the fire of misinformation.

Right on Lessifer.

If more people did what you do, we would have a Better Chance of coming out of this with Some of the things we have Today.
 

OlderNDirt

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Nov 8, 2014
2,488
6,142
Nebraska
I feel very confident is saying...........

Every vaper who dies in the next 10 years will automatically have the "vaping contributed to his/her death" explanation attached to the cause of death.

Solution to the overwhelming statistics? Prohibit anyone over the age of 40 from vaping.....except the guy that came up with this solution.



Note: This post only for the intent of injecting a little levity into the serious discussion. Carry on.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
I participate in every CTA I can, I write my legislators, I contribute where I can. I also try my best to get vapers to stop feeding the fire of misinformation.
There are many things that people can do, and some are more willing or able to do some things than other things.
It is pretty much impossible for anyone to do everything they could, even if they are retired.
:)

I do have a problem when people do absolutely nothing though.
Because then they are part of the problem as well.

And even worse is when people actively urge others not to do anything either.
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
There are many things that people can do, and some are more willing or able to do some things than other things.
It is pretty much impossible for anyone to do everything they could, even if they are retired.
:)

I do have a problem when people do absolutely nothing though.
Because then they are part of the problem as well.

And even worse is when people actively urge others not to do anything either.

I have never seen anyone (on ECF) advocate for doing nothing.

A popular example that comes to mind is TB (now banned from ECF) and I distinctly recall him saying numerous times that state issues is where we ought to be fighting. So, while it could said that he wasn't hip on doing anything at the federal level, I would say it is entirely inaccurate to paint him as someone who advocated for doing nothing.

I do think we sometimes have different ideas of what equals good advocacy such that if you disagree with a position, it can appear like doing nothing.

An example of this is I think it would be in our best interests to vape at public hearings. Not in any obnoxious, in your face, sort of way, but very much in a respectful way. But we are told to refrain from that, which amounts to me of "doing nothing (vape related)" while advocating for vaping. I observe that has rarely worked out for us. If it is situation like Wisconsin where they were seeking to exempt it from anti-type policies, I could go along with it. But if it is going the other way, then I would want to vape (very passionately wanting to), or not attend. My lack of attendance could be seen as advocating for doing nothing when in fact it is my disagreement with the way in which we've been called upon to advocate.

I could bring up other examples (easily, and kind of want to), but these two serve as good starting points for whatever discussion there is to be had.

I think you could've been referring to the people on ECF (and elsewhere) who seem to enjoy vaping, but don't seem to ever enter into any political discussion threads. Though possible they are very interested, passionate, but just don't make it known on a discussion forum. And possible that they are turned off by how we discuss these things.

Sometimes I think people (read as general population) need to have a black market experience before they are truly willing to fight for something. If one looks at controlled substances and understands that at one time they were not controlled, then it shows in case of at least one substance (most popular one) that it needed to be banned for people to really fight for it's legalization. In some ways the politics are easier under a black market because right now our adversaries are on a war path and arguably realize they could lose, or are losing right now with fact that it is legal/allowed. If black market was only way to obtain, they'd feel like they won, and might rest on their laurels, attend to other issues. Thus, all or most communications from our side to our side would be less impeded and more likely to be heard by those who are really in it to win it. I'd really really really rather not go the black market route, but also think it does not end things if you are truly passionate about what we are fighting for, and in it for the long haul. IMO, black market is very bad strategizing from the anti crowd. It suddenly puts minors and adults on the same footing, thus our messages to our side would be heard equally by kids as if they are now that which we are advocating with. But reality is, if it were ever legalized again, kids would be thrown under the bus even while they would fully realize, oh so it's not as bad as they were saying it was for x amount of years.
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin

Still don't see them advocating for doing nothing, though they would be pretty darn close.

What they are arguing for (or against) does seem to fit in well with this thread. I think they either believe "it's got to be bad for you" (at some level) and is why they won't do much in say way of fighting local use bans, or they realize that the general population has that ideology at work (it's got to be bad for you to do that around me) and is why they won't fight local use bans.

I don't think that is precisely what this thread is about, but is close enough IMO. It is kinda where it is all leading to. Or what I would call vaper's guilt.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
A popular example that comes to mind is TB (now banned from ECF) and I distinctly recall him saying numerous times that state issues is where we ought to be fighting. So, while it could said that he wasn't hip on doing anything at the federal level, I would say it is entirely inaccurate to paint him as someone who advocated for doing nothing.
No, not Tom Baker. I never said he was advocating for doing nothing.

I do think we sometimes have different ideas of what equals good advocacy such that if you disagree with a position, it can appear like doing nothing.
When I say "advocating for doing nothing" I am referring to people who pop into discussions about doing something, and instead talk about...
--How they're not worried
--How nothing is going to happen
--How there is nothing we can do about it

When people exhibit a pattern of behavior like that, it becomes advocating for doing nothing as far as I'm concerned.
And it's pretty damn offensive to people who ARE trying to do something, and especially to those who have SUCCEEDED in doing something.
 
Last edited:

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,986
Sacramento, California
Still don't see them advocating for doing nothing, though they would be pretty darn close.

What they are arguing for (or against) does seem to fit in well with this thread. I think they either believe "it's got to be bad for you" (at some level) and is why they won't do much in say way of fighting local use bans, or they realize that the general population has that ideology at work (it's got to be bad for you to do that around me) and is why they won't fight local use bans.

I don't think that is precisely what this thread is about, but is close enough IMO. It is kinda where it is all leading to. Or what I would call vaper's guilt.

well, I've seen a number of arguments against doing something/anything made by some posters, the two quoted included, which is about as close to advocating doing nothing as you can get. Especially in the absence of any constructive alternatives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread