FDA What happens if/when

[Kent C]

The problem with the definition above is that there is no evidence of "adverse consequences" for vaping.

And the beneficial consequences are usually dismissed.

 

[AndriaD]

The problem with the definition above is that there is no evidence of "adverse consequences" for vaping.

My point exactly -- nicotine wouldn't hurt the little darlings any worse than caffeine would, and any 'adverse effects' are short-term and very minor -- jitters, headache -- even the barfing which is entirely likely from someone not accustomed to nicotine. No permanent damage -- UNLIKE MAOIs! And as research has shown, those not ALREADY addicted to tobacco smoking develop very little if any "dependence" and certainly not any addiction!

AND the fact that vaping can be done with ZERO nicotine, which would be optimal for those not accustomed to it, because indeed there might very well be barfing, and that's certainly not COOL.

What I'm saying is that this predisposition of kids to want "cool" might be used to steer them from something which is in fact EXTREMELY damaging, to something that really isn't.

But I guess a whole bunch of folks REALLY WANT kids to damage their brains forever with tobacco smoking, since they're adamant that kids shouldn't vape unless they're using it as smoking cessation -- when the damage might very well already be done! PERMANENT damage! This is the very definition of closing the barn door after the horse is already galloping down the road!

Andria

PS: I meant to add -- I actually misspoke last night, it was late, I was tired... actually it's "upwards of 35 years" rather than 40. I may or may not have already been depressed at the age of 13, but if I was, that was genetic/environmental (toxic home environment) rather than due to any MAOIs, since I started smoking just about 39 yrs ago. But pretty sure that by the time I was 18, I was in full-on clinical depression, I just didn't know what to call what was wrong with me.

 

[Tangaroav]

The problem with the definition above is that there is no evidence of "adverse consequences" for vaping.

I agree and vaping is still much better than smoking. On the other hand anyone vaping 10x the NIOSH recommended daily dosage of acetyl propiony for a few years is asking for potentialy serious 'adverse consequences' IMO.

 

[AndriaD]

You know, it just occurred to me... OF COURSE BP wants kids to damage their brains forever! That's the next generation of SSRI consumers! So, they can play off all the "for the cheeeldren" BS to their own benefit! or maybe that should be :headsmack:

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

I agree and vaping is still much better than smoking. On the other hand anyone vaping 10x the NIOSH recommended daily dosage of acetyl propiony for a few years is asking for potentialy serious 'adverse consequences' IMO.

You do realize you just moved the goalposts, and re-directed the entire conversation from the ostensible hazards of nicotine, to the hazards of something we hadn't even been talking about?

Andria

 

[Tangaroav]

I am talking about vaping, e-cigs and e-liquids, and saying that there should be an age limit to those products. The REAL potential dangers is breathing all those ingredients that are mixed into e-liquids. Doc. Kristler's warning about organic compounds that can rot in one's lungs should be taken seriously.
.
Adults can make decisions about accepting the risks to their their health if the benefits surpasses those risks in their opinions, ( but only if they are aware of WHAT they are vaping). The majority of underage teens are not informed enough to make such a decision. I am not talking about deciding to smoke or to vape, both should be forbidden below 18.

 

[Tangaroav]

You know, it just occurred to me... OF COURSE BP wants kids to damage their brains forever! That's the next generation of SSRI consumers! So, they can play off all the "for the cheeeldren" BS to their own benefit! or maybe that should be :headsmack:

Andria

I agree that the ANTZ '' for the cheeeldreen'' as you say, if complete BS.

 

[DrMA]

<snip>Doc. Kristler's warning about organic compounds that can rot in one's lungs should be taken seriously.

Unsubstantiated fear mongering based on ridiculously implausible hypothetical risks and alarmist language being passed off as fact does not constitute evidence of adverse effects.

To reiterate: according to the most up-to-date research electronic cigarettes use has been growing rapidly in the past few years and no proof of serious health risks has emerged.

See also: Stop demonising a potentially useful product for smokers | Comment | Pharmaceutical Journal

 

[DC2]

I don't know the rules so well, but it seems like for drugs you prove it works for what you say it does - and thats pretty loose like works better than a placebo then prove that it doesn't do more harm than good for a very limited set of people. For tobacco you now have to prove it is good for public health including will people use it other than intended and psych/social junk like is your product sufficiently unattractive that nobody will use it? So who will spend a million to get permission to sell a product that repels customers? For herbal stuff its completely different as you can't claim it works since they won't let you claim it does anything meaningful, and lots of them are dangerous if misused so they just let you get by with a 'safe dosage' and a warning to discontinue use if it makes you feel bad.

But the legal aspects of vapor are more. Their deeming broke a lot of rules for new regulations that go beyond public health like not considering the impact on small business, or is there a less onerous means of regulating them, the effect of creating black markets and defining the good to come of the regulation vs the cost. It somehow got past the regulators of regulations - OMB and another? to get this far, but has to pass them again. It could be completely different the next time we see it, but I expect it will still be full of problems that are challengeable in a court.

Congress is our first chance to derail the coming regulations.
Courts will be our last chance, if it gets that far.

So yeah, what you said.

 

[DC2]

For me, the main difference is two fold...

I do not intend to ignore this post.

In fact, you have answered my questions in the way I expected you to.
And I have a response I do wish to provide.

But today is not a good day for me, given my hangover after the Chargers game yesterday.
And given that work is hitting me hard today at the same time.

So I hope I will remember to come back and incorporate your views into a good summary form.
And then respond to that summary.

It seems that in my absence, a lot has been said about "underage" vaping.
And that will be part of my response as well.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position.
I hope to do the same soon enough.


REMINDER TO ME: Respond to post #213

 

[AndriaD]

I am talking about vaping, e-cigs and e-liquids, and saying that there should be an age limit to those products. The REAL potential dangers is breathing all those ingredients that are mixed into e-liquids. Doc. Kristler's warning about organic compounds that can rot in one's lungs should be taken seriously.
.
Adults can make decisions about accepting the risks to their their health if the benefits surpasses those risks in their opinions, ( but only if they are aware of WHAT they are vaping). The majority of underage teens are not informed enough to make such a decision. I am not talking about deciding to smoke or to vape, both should be forbidden below 18.

And of course, forbidding things to minors works perfectly.

You did in fact move the goalposts. We were having a perfectly civil conversation regarding the ostensible dangers of nicotine, the actual dangers of MAOIs to immature brains, and the fact that vaping is cooler to kids who could easily vape 0mg, and you injected this non sequitur about some dangerous component which may or may not be present in flavors, and finally ended with the repetition of the arbitrary statement that no one under 18 should either smoke OR vape, though I have offered a very logical, medical argument for why kids should be encouraged to vape instead of smoke. I guess you think that arbitrary rules and repetition trump logic or physiological facts?

Andria

 

[dragonpuff]

Andria,

I hate to say this, but it is hard for me to support your position when you have no proof of your assumption. Yes, it is true that people who have a genetic tendency towards mood disorders often begin showing symptoms in their early teens, and may take up smoking to mediate the symptoms. It is also possible that teenagers who take antidepressants will develop a more severe mood disorder in the future, as has been demonstrated in recent years.

However, it is a stretch to say that someone with depression who smokes will develop a worse mood disorder because of the MAOIs in cigarette smoke. The worsening effect of mood disorders has been primarily demonstrated with SSRIs, such as prozac, paxil, zoloft, etc., and it is almost always seen in patients with a family history of bipolar disorder, a relatively small subset of the population. These patients, however, would likely have developed a more severe mood disorder anyway, the onset of which was merely hastened by antidepressant use, not caused by it. Those with no family history of mood disorders who develop a worsening of mood symptoms from antidepressants usually recover fully after the drugs are withdrawn for a period of time.

Unless you can demonstrate that (a) MAOI use (not just smoking) in teenage years leads to a more severe lifelong mood disorder in the future, and (b) that this effect is seen in patients with no family history of severe depression or bipolar disorder, you will have a hard time convincing me that this is, in fact, a real danger.

(Source: Me. Due to my personal and family history, I have been forced to learn and research these things over the course of my life in order to take care of myself and loved ones.)

 

[Tangaroav]

Unsubstantiated fear mongering based on ridiculously implausible hypothetical risks and alarmist language being passed off as fact does not constitute evidence of adverse effects.

To reiterate: according to the most up-to-date research electronic cigarettes use has been growing rapidly in the past few years and no proof of serious health risks has emerged.

See also: Stop demonising a potentially useful product for smokers | Comment | Pharmaceutical Journal

Maybe YOU think that Doc Kristler is a ridiculously implausible alarmist scientist, ( very pro-vape btw ), when he warns us about organic compounds in e-liquids.

Maybe YOU think that saying that we should NOT vape 10x the NIOSH recommended daily dosage of acetyl propionyl is fear mongering by Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos as he explains: '' We expect to see appropriate action taken by the e-cigarette industry to remove this small but unnecessary risk, making the products even safer than they currently are”.

I don't think we should ignore the scientific data. Potential adverse effects, at this time still remain ONLY a potential risk . But IMO, this risk warrants prudence and NOT allowing underage access.

 

[Tangaroav]

And of course, perfectly.

You did in fact move the goalposts. We were having a perfectly civil conversation regarding the ostensible dangers of nicotine, the actual dangers of MAOIs to immature brains, and the fact that vaping is cooler to kids who could easily vape 0mg, and you injected this about some dangerous component which may or may not be present in flavors, and finally ended with the repetition of the arbitrary statement that no one under 18 should either smoke OR vape, though I have offered a very logical, medical argument for why kids should be encouraged to vape instead of smoke. I guess you think that arbitrary rules and repetition trump logic or physiological facts?

Andria

Everyone here agrees that vaping is way safer than smoking.

I think to bring about the argument that vaping has some risks that warrant an age limit is a very sequitur argument while saying that forbidding things to minors does not work is a non sequitur in this discussion.

 

[Jman8]

Adults can make decisions about accepting the risks to their their health if the benefits surpasses those risks in their opinions, ( but only if they are aware of WHAT they are vaping). The majority of underage teens are not informed enough to make such a decision. I am not talking about deciding to smoke or to vape, both should be forbidden below 18.

Perhaps we could have some sort of test that a person has to take to indicate that they are informed enough to make the decision. IMO, it would only be fair for adults to take this test as well. 70 year old person that fails the test is disallowed to vape (or to make purchases). Oh well, dem da breaks.

IOW, your premise is based on (blatant) ageism. Plain and simple.

 

[Jman8]

I don't think we should ignore the scientific data. Potential adverse effects, at this time still remain ONLY a potential risk . But IMO, this risk warrants prudence and NOT allowing underage access.

This risk arguably warrants prudence to not allow ANYONE access.

Your ageism is sufficient reason to disallow a segment of the population just because you think they are underinformed. Again, a test would likely suffice in testing how informed they actually are, but methinks if a 15 year old passed the test (and thus was quite informed) while 40 year old failed the test, you'd still resort to ageist 'logic' as the sensible way to approach the issue.

 

[AndriaD]

It seems to me that no one really cares what the REAL risks of smoking are, for young people, somehow assigning all those risks to nicotine, which is in both smoking and vaping and has been shown to be a good deal less harmful than the ANTZ would have us believe, rather than to the substances that are always present in actual tobacco but have to be purposely added to eliquid. And I agree with Jman that the general trend seems to be ageism, rather than any logical reasoning, or even a considering of dangerous possibilities. So I'm done trying to inject reason into the discussion. I don't have any young children, so it doesn't hurt me or mine at all. I would think that if there is ANY merit to the points I've raised, that the children everyone claims to care so much for stood ANY risk of being harmed in the way I've described by MAOIs, sensible people would care enough to at least consider the possibility, rather than pooh-poohing and dismissing it and insisting that no one under the arbitrary age of 18 should ever vape unless perhaps they've already smoked (and the damage is potentially already done).

I agree, Jman; in all these discussions, "cheeeeeldren" serve only as political pawns. Let's not rock the boat with any consideration of *actual* harm to the kids, just enforce an arbitrary age limit so the kids have no sensible options, or the ANTZ might take vaping away from all of us.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

It seems to me that no one really cares what the REAL risks of smoking are, for young people, somehow assigning all those risks to nicotine, which is in both smoking and vaping and has been shown to be a good deal less harmful than the ANTZ would have us believe, rather than to the substances that are always present in actual tobacco but have to be purposely added to eliquid. And I agree with Jman that the general trend seems to be ageism, rather than any logical reasoning, or even a considering of dangerous possibilities. So I'm done trying to inject reason into the discussion. I don't have any young children, so it doesn't hurt me or mine at all. I would think that if there is ANY merit to the points I've raised, that the children everyone claims to care so much for stood ANY risk of being harmed in the way I've described by MAOIs, sensible people would care enough to at least consider the possibility, rather than pooh-poohing and dismissing it and insisting that no one under the arbitrary age of 18 should ever vape unless perhaps they've already smoked (and the damage is potentially already done).

I agree, Jman; in all these discussions, "cheeeeeldren" serve only as political pawns. Let's not rock the boat with any consideration of *actual* harm to the kids, just enforce an arbitrary age limit so the kids have no sensible options, or the ANTZ might take vaping away from all of us.

Andria

Plus the "consensus" is way overstated. They think it's their best argument, when many times it's their only one We hear it on every issue. It's a logical fallacy but most of them don't know that and the joke's on them

 

[Tangaroav]

You people that want to allow underage kids easy access to cigarettes and e-cig are living in a fantasy world. Your arguments do not make any sense at all.

Why don't you put a bit more energy into making e-liquid vendors label their mixes properly ?

Why don't you put a bit of your energy into making e-liquid vendors remove the unnecessary and avoidable risk of identified dangerous substances and making the products even safer than they currently are.

Why don't you become part of the solution ?

Do you have a vested interest or an hidden agenda ?

Why else such a stupid proposition ?

 

[HgA1C]

You people that want to allow underage kids easy access to cigarettes and e-cig are living in a fantasy world. Your arguments do not make any sense at all.

Why don't you put a bit more energy into making e-liquid vendors label their mixes properly ?

Why don't you put a bit of your energy into making e-liquid vendors remove the unnecessary and avoidable risk of identified dangerous substances and making the products even safer than they currently are.

Why don't you become part of the solution ?

Do you have a vested interest or an hidden agenda ?

Why else such a stupid proposition ?

Personal freedom vs governmental intervention is a fundamental ideological debate.

Utilizing your logic I take it you are against energy drinks, caffeinated beverages, and junk food being sold to kids under 18 and view it as criminal of those that provide these items to children? All of these products carry the same or worse inherent risks as vaporized nicotine.

I am not picking a dog in this fight. I am pointing out the position you are presenting as an objective observer. Bringing in the other components that do not constitute e-liquid is obfuscating this debate. VG/PG/Nicotine are the main constituents of e-liquid. Flavoring is another debate. These components have shown very little dangers in the vaporized form. I personally prefer to view the world in colors instead of black and white. How about you?