Not Sure? Haven't seen any Studies on Brilliant Blue FCF in Foods.
But I don't think ANY added Colorant should be in e-liquids.
The "Well its gotta be bad for you!" Mentality
- Thread starter nyiddle
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Not Sure? Haven't seen any Studies on Brilliant Blue FCF in Foods.
But I don't think ANY added Colorant should be in e-liquids.
If it is something they are concerned about, they don't buy from vendors who don't disclose. It's not a very difficult concept. If you don't want coloring in your liquid, don't buy liquid with coloring added. If a vendor doesn't say whether or not they add coloring, ask, or don't buy it. I have no problem with you(the general you) not buying liquid that you don't think is "safe." I do have a problem with you telling me that you feel, without evidence, a liquid could be unsafe, and therefore I shouldn't be able to buy it.
Now you'll say, how can someone make an informed choice if vendors aren't disclosing this information? To which I say, they inform themselves, or they choose not to, just like with every other product out there.
To circle back to the OP, if we don't know, we don't know. In the absence of knowledge, we make assumptions, and my assumptions should not restrict your behavior, and your assumptions should not restrict mine.
If in doubt ask if you get no answer buy somewhere else it's not difficult but this modern thing that some groups feel they have the right to make decisions for everyone is getting old fast and just because there is a small minority out there too stupid to use their brains doesn't mean everything has to descend to their level and be constantly regulated to death.
1 - I would say in reality that the incidents of lung cancer in (some) smokers is due to many variables. I would see it as (true) cause and effect if all smokers who smoked x amount had lung cancer. Short of that, I cannot call it cause/effect, but can understand the association or correlation factors. I would hope with that understanding would come understanding that other variables likely play a role in incidences observed. Not maybe / possibly, but likely.
2 - My take on the effects associated with lung issues and smoking is that there are variables at work besides smoking and that abusive smoking (heavy use) would appear to be a significant factor in most, if not all, known cases of a smoker who has been diagnosed with some sort of reduction in lung functioning. But not the only factor and ought not be presented as only factor, ever. To establish that, I would require hard science to do such testing. If deemed unethical, then we will never know and can never then assert that we know based on statistical analysis. But again, the abusive factor must be clearly stipulated in what's being presented as to how one arrived at point of reduced lung function. Thus not (mere) smoking, but more accurately abusive smoking, as in smoking too much.
3 - Prior to my vaping experiences and being one that had experienced abusive smoking (for around 10 years) and then cold turkey (for around 10 years), I noticed that it is possible to regain lung function. Perhaps not at 100%, but for sure better than whatever it is abusive smoking does. My opinions then were smoking is very bad for you. I even had some (albeit small) hatred reserved for BT. Since vaping, and becoming aware of political stuff, I no longer see it as BT issue. The politics over the years had BT playing a game that they willingly participated in and did manipulate things, but is challenging to see them as pulling the strings / outright lying. I won't deny they probably did at some point, but will dispute that they have been lying to their consumer base. For me, though the main point of this 3rd item is that I have now become moderate smoker. I would say that 20 years ago, I saw no way of how that could be done (given how cigarettes seem so highly addictive). I had seen others who did smoke moderately, but never understood how that was possible. Up to 3 years ago, it was a mystery to me. Within the last year, I have become that, and thus the mystery is gone. With vaping in the picture (for all to partake in), I'm now not sure how abusive smoking is entirely likely. I think moderate smoking is now available to anyone who wishes to go that route, and I respect those who either don't wish to smoke ever again or rather only smoke, as is their recreational choice. But my bias is that recreational, moderate smoking does not kill and I'm very much wondering if it even harms. That it might harm a little bit, I won't dispute or if I do, it'll amount to me claiming at some point that tap water will harm a person, a teeny tiny amount. Why debate the small stuff? I believe moderate smoking is now able to turn the whole "smoking kills" meme on its ear and send it to the place where gross lies go to die.
Given what I wrote above, and given your stipulation of "very heavy smoking" for 4+ decades, I see no disagreement that we might have.
I would just note the fact that vapers (now ex-smokers) can recover aspects of their health, in a way that is meaningful to them, in such a short period of time, strikes me as very encouraging news. When you go cold turkey, there is the psychology involved that will at times doubt the path you are on (and think a cigarette will somehow magically make things all better). With vaping, those doubts go way down and the alternative path doesn't make you want a cigarette or think it will make things all better. I think that matters in the scheme of things, or in reality. But looking at things strictly from clinical perspective and in theory of "what is best," the cold turkey route does strike me as most promising path (toward better health). Yet, psychological factors being what they are, I'm not so certain about that.
So it keeps getting back to a Vendor can put ANYTHING they want in an e-Liquid. And it is up to the Consumer to Choose if they want to Inhale it. Knowing or Not Knowing what they are Inhaling.
Not going to Debate Right or Wrong on this. But in the USA that we live in Today, I don't think this is Going to Fly.
Diffinately Doesn't sound like something I want in My e-Liquids.
IT FLIES EVERY DAY WITH ANY NUMBER OF PRODUCTS!
I'm looking at a "concentrated room spray" made by Yankee Candle. It has no listing of it's components.
Looking at a bag of M&M's I see "artificial flavorings, coloring"
Antibacterial Hand Wipes, "fragrance"
I could go on, but I don't think I need to.
No, you Don't need to go On and On. Because I'll Rephrase that for you.
"Not going to Debate Right or Wrong on this. But in the USA that we live in Today, I don't think this is Going to Fly for e-Liquids."
Why would it not be okay to put anything in an eLiquid? Why not let the consumer decide?
If there is zero disclosure, then arguably there is no information (though that is disputable).
I have 4 different vendor bottles of eLiquid sitting next to me. All of them contain some level of disclosure. Some more than others, but none have zero disclosure. I would think the only place I would see zero disclosure is if I went to DIYer that shared and/or black market. Both of which are currently places that kids may go, just for the record.
Even with full disclosure, I wonder what adult is able to make an informed choice. IOW, I find that proposition disputable. For they would have to know a whole lot about a whole lot to know exactly how say titanium oxide will impact them at the percentage that they are ingesting it. Let's say Dr. Oz told them that inhaling any amount of titanium oxide is deadly. Does this equal to "informed decision" because a doctor told them? There are so many questions (really endless amount) that could be posed here which would likely at some point expose that overwhelming majority (I would argue everyone) would show up as not fully knowing what will happen if they vape (or eat or drink or whatever) a substance even if they had absolutely full disclosure. So, perhaps "informed choice" is a bit of a farce?
In every place that I've eaten food (includes own home), I am yet to receive full disclosure on what I am eating. And yet, I eat every single day. Same goes with all beverages. And for all I know in all cases, other than where I prepare the item myself, I really do not know with 100% certainty that the preparer wasn't just putting ANYTHING in there that they thought would be interesting. In most cases, how would I know? The labels could say one thing, but labels have been shown to not be all the time 100% accurate, therefore the 1 to 99% of the time they are inaccurate means that every item I have next, could be the one time that it was inaccurate. And yet, I will likely eat, drink, vape and enjoy whatever it is that I decided to obtain, or purchased, all based on the illusion of safety, via the illusion of informed choice.
Put that in your tank and vape it.
If it was anyone else but you Jman8, I would think that they were Joking.
But Knowing you as I do. I know you are Serious.
But they are plugging in to, and even funding at times, the zealots and their demonization efforts.
If there was no demonization, they would have a much harder time taxing electronic cigarettes with a sin tax that should not even apply.
Looks like Jman8 thinks it is Cool to put Brilliant Blue FCF in e-Liquids.
I like how you both a) made your response about the poster and b) didn't address the response provided.
Nice job!
Why is this not okay for you? Do you think a consumer will not make an informed decision to buy?
Yea, just like the way it is with cigarettes! Do you know exactly what was in the cigs you smoked?
There is No Real Reason to Reply to your Entire Post. Because I only read the First Line.
If you think that a Person should be Able to put ANYTHING they want in an e-Liquid and then have people Inhale it, there Isn't much more to Say.
I think you are going to have a Tuff Time convincing the General Public that this will work for Adult Vapers. Let alone convincing them that we should be Doing this and then Selling it to Children. Which I know you are in Favor of Doingt.
- Status
Similar threads
