FDA What happens if/when
- Thread starter PuffTheMagicKanthal
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If a Parent wants to give Their Children e-Cigarettes to use, that is a Parents Choice.
Considering selling e-Cigarettes to Minors would be the PR Suicide for any Policy or Law Maker. And I can't think of Anything that is Going to Turn More People Off to the Benefits of e-Cigarettes for Adults.
BTW - If a Minor is getting their hands on Cigarettes right now by having an Adult buy them for Him/Her, why won't they just have an Adult buy them an e-Cigarette?
Last edited:
BTW2 - If you sell e-Cigarettes to Minors (which is Crazy even Considering it), who do you think will buy More e-Cigarettes?
Minors who Already Smoke?
Minors who Do Not Smoke?
"Thankfully, there are VERY Few People" ....who think about that. Their 'caring' only goes so far.
"Thankfully, there are VERY Few People" ....who think about that. Their 'caring' only goes so far.
If you think there is Opposition to e-Cigarettes Now. And all those "Save the Children" Silly Arguments that the Boxer and Diane F are Spewing.
Think what would happen if Someone with Some Credibility came out and said that e-Cigarettes should be Sold to Minors?
"Thankfully, there are VERY Few People" ....who think about that. Their 'caring' only goes so far.
Exactly -- and if minors are getting cigarettes, there's an excellent chance their parents aren't buying them -- they're stealing them, getting them from friends, etc. But e-cigs cost a bit more, on initial investment... and money is one thing it's very hard for minors to get.
But, as I've already described in another of my long-winded posts, smoking is FAR WORSE for minors than it is for adults. Their brains are still growing and developing, and as in my case, if minors are consuming the tobacco MAOIs, then their brains are going to develop in such fashion that they're going to need some type of anti-depressants or other psychoactive medication FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES -- and make quitting smoking EXTREMELY challenging, as I have always found it, till I finally got some WTA.
If e-cigs are are 95%-99% less harmful than smoking, then they should be available to ANYONE to smokes, REGARDLESS of their age. Because smoking by a growing, developing person may be 95%-99% MORE harmful than smoking by an adult.
Andria
I'm sure you're right about that. So the argument is essentially "it will complicate things even more for us grownups, so nevermind the kids who smoke, even if their brains are permanently altered (damaged) by smoking, who cares; they can vape when they get old enough."
Pretty cold, even if true.
Andria
Clive Bates: "There is no evidence that these products appeal to children - but even if they did, they may be used as an alternative to smoking and in any case cause minimal harm."
... and all the Democrats that voted against ecig bans on minors in multiple state and local proposals.
And Oh... so you think bad things could happen if someone with some credibility would come out with ideas, or say studies, that could put ecigs in a bad light? Interesting.
So the Answer for these Poor Under Aged Smokers is to Allow Anyone who is Underage to Buy and Use e-Cigarettes?
Sorry. But I can't go that Route.
Children. Not sure what age a Child is Defined by?
But e-Cigarettes Definitely Appeal to Many Minors 12 ~ 17 Years Old. Just Like Smoking does. I Can't put Much Credibility into someone who does not Acknowledge this.
You want to argue that Minors should be Allowed to Buy e-Liquids that contain Nicotine. Great, Go for it.
But my View on it are Not Going to Change. I Do Not Believe that Anyone Under 18 Years Old should be able to Buy e-Liquids that Contain Nicotine in the US.
So at last we have the confirmation of something I think we all suspected: you are far more firmly in the camp of the ANTZ, who deal in "should" and "should not," rather than in the camp of vapers, who deal in the reality of Harm Reduction -- in effect: "the precious cheeeeldren SHOULD NOT be able to buy nicotine (which won't cause them excessive harm), even if they're already partaking of smoking cigarettes (which contain MAOIs which DEFINITELY WILL harm their so-precious brains), because they SHOULD NOT be smoking in the first place."
Glad we finally cleared that up.
Andria
So at last we have the confirmation of something I think we all suspected: you are far more firmly in the camp of the ANTZ, who deal in "should" and "should not," rather than in the camp of vapers, who deal in the reality of Harm Reduction -- in effect: "the precious cheeeeldren SHOULD NOT be able to buy nicotine (which won't cause them excessive harm), even if they're already partaking of smoking cigarettes (which contain MAOIs which DEFINITELY WILL harm their so-precious brains), because they SHOULD NOT be smoking in the first place."
Glad we finally cleared that up.
Andria
ANTZ Confirmation? LOL
I've Stated Many Times on this Board that I am an Ardent Believer in 18 Year Old Age Limits for buying e-Liquids that Contain Nicotine. Many Times.
Is that what an ANTZ is to you? Someone who Doesn't Believe that Minors should Buy e-Liquids that Contain Nicotine?
ETA:
BTW - Here is Something I Support also.
http://sfata.org/agetovape/
Last edited:
For me, the main difference is two fold. The one pertinent to this thread is that I see that what we've done gives reason to be hopeful and that by staying active, we will not face doomsday, whereby 99% of products will be eliminated. To me, the reasonable consideration if that scenario were to arise is that a black market would also arise. Both strike me as 5 years away, or (much) longer.
Correct. But it also includes the minors thing as that is significant aspect of TCA. I don't expect to overturn that as I'm fairly certain I'm in a very small minority on that issue here in vaping land. It is what it is IMO, and it is the real hurdle we are up against. As long as vaping is legal for adults, kids will be vaping, and will be participating in a black market. I'm feeling fairly confident that most people reading this sentence started using tobacco products when they were minors. I feel like it is the elephant in the room, and ANTZ have their take on how to address that, and our take, thus far, is in harmony with them. I observe that so far, this is not working out very well. But, oh well.
I think the basis of such bans is a myriad of concerns that varies from individual to individual. I believe what I see as ultimate basis wouldn't necessarily serve as ultimate basis for another person looking at the issue. I think from the ANTZ perspective, the basis is that tobacco products / nicotine is inherently harmful, habit forming and leads to premature death. Now, the reality is, from ANTZ perspective, this applies to everyone, and I think every politically aware vaper knows this (that ANTZ wishes to apply this to everyone). But ANTZ knows that a political game is being played and that to go for prohibition, you have to start somewhere. So, if you can just convince kids that tobacco products / nicotine is bad (leads to premature death, is highly addictive), then it is plausible that the next generation may be the one that says now is the time to get rid of this product that 'everyone' knows is bad for them.
Thing is, ANTZ will never convince all kids, and so they literally are just pawns toward the end game of prohibition. They serve as a way to get their message out, because who's going to argue for allowing kids to be harmed?
And yet, I observe that the policies in place are precisely allowing kids to be harmed, but downplayed as not done by us (adults) and scapegoated as done by those adults over there that disagree with us.
Kids are clearly going to vape. Already occurring and as noted before most adults that use nicotine products started using them when it was likely against the law for them to be using them.
I don't think kids "should be" vaping, but also don't think they should be subject to a prohibition that in both my observation and experience only raises the cool factor of what these products are all about. I would vote to lower the legal age limit to somewhere in the neighborhood of 13. But I really really do not see this happening anytime soon, and so I do advocate that we remain neutral on all such bans, and neither support or vote against such bans. And instead focus on how is the message of these products being conveyed to everyone, including kids. So, for me, education of everyone would include kids. I'm pretty sure we are all doing this anyway, but my hope is we are not subscribing to ANTZ rhetoric in our messaging to kids, as in:
- don't use this because it is highly addictive
- you shouldn't do as I do, but you must absolutely do as I say
- this product will kill you
Then we agree. When someone states a ban would be a good thing, it would behoove us to let them know a black market will arise and that this ban may not be such a good thing. Or if another person says that should this legislation pass, it will eliminate 99% of all products, we can remind them that a black market will arise should it get to the point of that much product being removed from the legal market.
I do believe black market is not inherently dangerous, and also believe that an underground market does become a political entity to essentially tell prohibitionists that their ultimate aims are highly impractical and rather easy to overcome. That they had zero chance of eliminating this product from consumer purchases, and that kids are very much part of this underground market.
Then we disagree on this point. I have concerns with regulations, but see worry as a result of hopelessness that stems from hyperbolic speculation of what will result from certain proposals. If those proposals are very harsh (i.e. ban all eCig flavors in a highly populated jurisdiction) and politically aware vapers neglect the fact that a black market will most definitely result from that, then not sure what those vapers want to hear, other than we are dooomed. Doomed, I tell you.
So at last we have the confirmation of something I think we all suspected: you are far more firmly in the camp of the ANTZ, who deal in "should" and "should not," rather than in the camp of vapers, who deal in the reality of Harm Reduction -- in effect: "the precious cheeeeldren SHOULD NOT be able to buy nicotine (which won't cause them excessive harm), even if they're already partaking of smoking cigarettes (which contain MAOIs which DEFINITELY WILL harm their so-precious brains), because they SHOULD NOT be smoking in the first place."
Glad we finally cleared that up.
Andria
Wow... ok, I really feel the need to jump in the middle of this and say...
That I do support banning sales to minors. I don't believe children have the intellectual capacity to make a wise choice about whether or not to consume nicotine, and so they shouldn't have free and easy access.
Does this mean I think a child who smokes should not be able to vape to cut back or quit? No, it does not - if a parent feels it is in their child's best interest, he or she can still purchase these products on their behalf. What I think is needed is a ban on sales to minors, not a usage ban - there is a huge difference.
And if that makes me an ANTZ, then just call me the next Glantz!
Wow... ok, I really feel the need to jump in the middle of this and say...
That I do support banning sales to minors. I don't believe children have the intellectual capacity to make a wise choice about whether or not to consume nicotine, and so they shouldn't have free and easy access.
Does this mean I think a child who smokes should not be able to vape to cut back or quit? No, it does not - if a parent feels it is in their child's best interest, he or she can still purchase these products on their behalf. What I think is needed is a ban on sales to minors, not a usage ban - there is a huge difference.
And if that makes me an ANTZ, then just call me the next Glantz!
I Agree Dragon
I had to deploy overseas, but I am back and working on a bunker...somewhere close to my house. I have identified room 7 for PG, room 8 for VG, and room 14 for nicotine. Room 14 will be under one of the above ground defensive positions. Yep, I'll be prepared.
Well put Mr. Glantz.
Would you be okay if this policy was put in place for those adults that government feels doesn't have the intellectual capacity to make the purchasing decision for themselves? Cause, you know, some adults don't seem to realize that nicotine is highly addictive and will become visibly temperamental when someone conveys that notion to them. Therefore, for (some) adults we could say it is okay for you to use this product, but never okay to buy it.
At least we'd be consistent with what you've put forth.
Wow... ok, I really feel the need to jump in the middle of this and say...
That I do support banning sales to minors. I don't believe children have the intellectual capacity to make a wise choice about whether or not to consume nicotine, and so they shouldn't have free and easy access.
Does this mean I think a child who smokes should not be able to vape to cut back or quit? No, it does not - if a parent feels it is in their child's best interest, he or she can still purchase these products on their behalf. What I think is needed is a ban on sales to minors, not a usage ban - there is a huge difference.
And if that makes me an ANTZ, then just call me the next Glantz!
Ok, I guess I can go along with that; kids that have vape gear or are seen vaping should not be treated as criminals, because maybe if they weren't vaping, they'd be smoking, which is so much worse I'm not sure it can even be quantified.
I agree that kids don't have good judgement, or why would they have been smokers?
I'm just really concerned about the very real damage that smoking does to young brains, and I think that no effort to prevent that damage is too much. Because if they have ever smoked, then some of the damage of the MAOIs is already done; if perhaps they were *inclined* to try smoking, but decided to vape instead because hey, it's way cooler and doesn't stink, then I see that as a real win, for that child's brain and later life, no matter the ridiculous cool factor that a child might use to make that choice.
Andria
To me, the "ANTZ" are those who believe far more in the fantasies of ideology, of hard and fast arbitrary rules, of black and white, right or wrong, with zero shades of gray. They think their way is the only way, the only right way, the only sane way, and do not make allowances for anything. They are The Forbidders, and nothing and no one may challenge their hard and fast arbitrary rules.
The opposite of those insane people are those who feel that harm should be reduced whenever and how ever possible. Kids DO smoke, even though it's been against the law for a VERY long time, and the fact that it's against the law is just one of their motivations for wanting to do it -- it's a rebellion, and yes, an assertion of someone so cool they don't care if their habit kills them -- only the young can truly feel that way. To put arbitrary obstacles between those judgement-challenged people and harm reduction is criminal.
Andria
- Status
Similar threads
