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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
yes,i actually read it.
it pretty much leaves them the discretion to do
anything and everything they can come up with.
regards
mike

But not so much in round 1.

To me, the most legitimate concern that does seem like it has a chance to be changed before final rule, is how much are we (the people) interested in charging vendors to pay FDA to study what could possibly be wrong with their products. That not being a question so much as the current price tag is seemingly around $330,000 per item. Yet, that's not found in the actual proposal and arguably makes all the difference in the entire proposal.

It's also that part of the process, when well underway, will establish for some, "see! I told you its gotta be bad for you."
 

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,986
Sacramento, California
Cold hands and feet. I had been hoping that that effect was caused by the CO in cigarette smoke, but that doesn't seem to be the case; my hands and feet are just as cold this winter as they have been for 30+ yrs.

Last winter when I first started vaping, I started at 6mg... and I did get a little relief, but now that I'm at 10mg, that's gone. This is about the only reason I can personally find for eventually reducing my nic level, possibly to about 5mg, though nic reduction will have to wait until the WTA is gone.

Andria

IIRC you're still vaping pretty heavily right? Perhaps if you get to the point where you are able to stop vaping 30-60 minutes prior to going outside, it will help?* I've read that the vasoconstrictor properties of nicotine are pretty temporary. I don't notice this as I live in a pretty warm area, even in winter.

*not a dig by the way, I just seem to recall that you're still in the vape constantly phase, apologies if I'm wrong about that.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
Hey, wait a second, I resemble those remarks.
And you know it.
No. I do not see you as advocating for doing nothing.
You may resemble those remarks to some extent, but you're a bit of a different case.
:)

The people who my remarks apply to, they know who they are.
It's the kind of thing where you know when the shoe fits.
 

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,807
64
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
Pure oxygen is deadly under pressure, greater than maybe 2-3 1.6 atmospheres. Usually only of concern to scuba divers using it to off gas nitrogen during decompressions from very deep dives. Even slightly elevated percentages of oxygen are dangerous at the low end of recreational scuba depths ("Nitrox" mixes). The point being that even something as basic as O2 can be hazardous under certain conditions. Nothing is always non-toxic in all conditions.

ETA: That should read 1.6 ATA's, not 2-3. So beyond 19 feet depth you may find out O2 is not so safe.

It really is weird, this stuff that's so dangerous, corrosive, explosive... without which, we die.

I've always considered us to be rocket-fuel powered... hydrogen and oxygen send rockets into space; without H2O, we also die. :D

Andria
 

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,807
64
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
IIRC you're still vaping pretty heavily right? Perhaps if you get to the point where you are able to stop vaping 30-60 minutes prior to going outside, it will help?* I've read that the vasoconstrictor properties of nicotine are pretty temporary. I don't notice this as I live in a pretty warm area, even in winter.

*not a dig by the way, I just seem to recall that you're still in the vape constantly phase, apologies if I'm wrong about that.

I hardly ever go outside, actually -- in the winter especially! My hands and feet are cold all the time, from October to March. All I can say is, thank god for blow dryers; I go in my bathroom and blowdry my hands and feet several times a day.

But I dunno if I'll ever reach a point where I'm not vaping pretty much all the time -- before I had to take my smoke outdoors, I was a total chain-smoker, even to lighting new ones off the old one before I put it out. I don't think I'm really a "chain-vaper" -- I don't take puff after puff after puff all the time. Usually I'll take a couple puffs and set it down. 5-10 mins later, repeat, throughout the day, unless I'm doing something with my hands -- cooking, laundry, dishes, etc.

But, once I'm done with the WTA, hopefully before the next winter, I seriously may try to reduce my nic level to about 5mg, at least thru the winter; when I was using 6mg, last February, I did notice that my hands and feet didn't seem as cold, and last winter was much colder than this one has been. Just another great thing to love about vaping -- being able to customize it so finely.

Andria
 

beckdg

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Oct 1, 2013
11,018
35,706
TN
Where do I buy Diacety Free e-Liquids if I don't Know if what the vendor Claims is True?

This is where Independent Testing May Help.
Ur barking up the wrong tree.

There's more juice mfr's popping up daily than there are flavor mfr's.

If Ur gonna go after something, go after the ingredients. Then forward the certs down the line.

Minimize cost and damage. Maximize efficacy.

Tapatyped
 

beckdg

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Oct 1, 2013
11,018
35,706
TN
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.
Dead nutz accurate. Being one that managed a few restaurants, I've seen the unimaginable overlooked under the farce of protection in these very same manners countless times.

Bravo!

Tapatyped
 

beckdg

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Oct 1, 2013
11,018
35,706
TN
And if in the end vaping survives those folks will come back here and say, hey we told you it would all be OK and we didn't need to worry or do anything. We'll tell them that the reason it turned out OK was that thousands of people worked really hard to get to that outcome. And they won't believe us.

Or if vaping gets banned they will show up and say, hey, we told you there was nothing we could do.

You just have to do what is right for you, and not worry about what other people think of your choices.
And expose them for who they are so they get themselves banned. Then the signal to noise ratio becomes one where the adults can once again converse.

Tapatyped
 

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,807
64
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
Depends on how you define "us" and "all".

On a forum full of "we", I look around and see a whole Lotta "they" amongst "us".

And They don't see the obvious regardless their individual intelligences.

Yeah... The ones who aren't politically active, or active in the political threads, or just can't be bothered to "do" anything RE vaping, I can understand; I was politically apathetic for much of my life, until fairly recently.

But the ones who insist we should ALWAYS only vape where smoking is permitted (which is nowhere at all!)... the ones who 'won't do it in front of children' as if vaping is somehow obscene or will somehow "infect" those precious darlings... or the ones who won't vape in public because they're too self-conscious... I don't get any of that, AT ALL. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

I *started* vaping so I could do it where I wouldn't smoke: my home, indoors, my parents' home, my aunt's home, the truck with my husband in it.

Children have seen smoking for years; seeing someone vape, or even being in the same room with a vaper, is not going to injure the precious darlings -- one's own children should be proud and delighted that mommy/daddy is doing something so much more healthy and less stinky than smoking. Babies don't know and don't care, and will not be injured -- if they were born in a hospital, they've already breathed a gracious plenty of PG. Keeping children in any sort of bubble, biological or philosophical, is not beneficial for them.

Those who won't vape in public because they're too self-conscious... well... I don't think vaping is the problem. But there are shrinks for that. :D

I'm sure someone will be offended by some or all of this and will tell me off. Don't care. My opinions. So far, there is no such thing as Thought Police.

Andria
 

beckdg

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Oct 1, 2013
11,018
35,706
TN
Yeah... The ones who aren't politically active, or active in the political threads, or just can't be bothered to "do" anything RE vaping, I can understand; I was politically apathetic for much of my life, until fairly recently.

But the ones who insist we should ALWAYS only vape where smoking is permitted (which is nowhere at all!)... the ones who 'won't do it in front of children' as if vaping is somehow obscene or will somehow "infect" those precious darlings... or the ones who won't vape in public because they're too self-conscious... I don't get any of that, AT ALL. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

I *started* vaping so I could do it where I wouldn't smoke: my home, indoors, my parents' home, my aunt's home, the truck with my husband in it.

Children have seen smoking for years; seeing someone vape, or even being in the same room with a vaper, is not going to injure the precious darlings -- one's own children should be proud and delighted that mommy/daddy is doing something so much more healthy and less stinky than smoking. Babies don't know and don't care, and will not be injured -- if they were born in a hospital, they've already breathed a gracious plenty of PG. Keeping children in any sort of bubble, biological or philosophical, is not beneficial for them.

Those who won't vape in public because they're too self-conscious... well... I don't think vaping is the problem. But there are shrinks for that. :D

I'm sure someone will be offended by some or all of this and will tell me off. Don't care. My opinions. So far, there is no such thing as Thought Police.

Andria

i define the "they" a little simpler. but it also opens up the group for extra members.

apathy makes you a platinum member by default.

they... those who disassociate current negative and/or ludicrous realities afforded by those government agencies in favor of allowing any opinion of said already established agencies to possibly change our current reality as vapers under the disillusion there's a possibility for a net positive outcome.

and anything equal or further negative to our cause as people interested in maintaining and growing the current possibilities and availability of our preferred harm reduction strategy for smokers not yet turned vapers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread