FDA What happens if/when
- Thread starter PuffTheMagicKanthal
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
HgA1C,
I feel YOU obfuscate this debate with your post. Personnal freedom implies some responsibilities, one of which is not to poison and lie to your customers.
It is obvious to all reading e-cigs forums that it is only a small minority who vape unflavored. Most vapers use flavored e-liquids. Flavors are thus an integral part of e-liquids and MUST be part of the debate when it comes to its dangerousness to one's health when vaping. As a matter of fact it has been identified by independent researchers as the prime risk in vaping.
Furthermore,( and luckily for vapers), it is also the easiest risk to remove from the mixes as is mentionned by Doc. F in his latest findings that 70 % of the e-liquid tested contained dangerous ingredients, ( some of them much more than conventional cigarettes).
I also see the world in color but I am not color blind.
I feel YOU obfuscate this debate with your post. Personnal freedom implies some responsibilities, one of which is not to poison and lie to your customers.
It is obvious to all reading e-cigs forums that it is only a small minority who vape unflavored. Most vapers use flavored e-liquids. Flavors are thus an integral part of e-liquids and MUST be part of the debate when it comes to its dangerousness to one's health when vaping. As a matter of fact it has been identified by independent researchers as the prime risk in vaping.
Furthermore,( and luckily for vapers), it is also the easiest risk to remove from the mixes as is mentionned by Doc. F in his latest findings that 70 % of the e-liquid tested contained dangerous ingredients, ( some of them much more than conventional cigarettes).
I also see the world in color but I am not color blind.
Last edited:
Let's try to have the debate without such high emotion or defensiveness folks. Thanks 
Clearly your opinion that they don't make sense (to you) when you do zero to actually refute them through reasoning.
I see the prohibition to kids making it far cooler, and also leading to a reality where kids do use, and do demonstrate that they can survive and live to be 100 years old while being nicotine users from as young of an age as 10. Prohibition, as I see it, is trying to create a fantasy world, and failing.
For me, the gateway was prohibition without any explanation, genuine guidance, and based mostly, to solely, on deceptive propaganda. Once I knew they were lying about this, I was very curious what else they were lying about and what my peers were getting into while being popular, getting solid grades, playing in sports. In the olden days (or so I've heard), a shaman type person would've guided a youngin through rites of passage and substance initiation. Now it is, in reality, peers that provide the most informative, practical guidance. That is what we've set up as reality. Peers that sneak around because the costs are treated as super duper high, while in reality no adult reading this cares, even a little bit, that right now a 15 year old kid is smoking her first cigarette. Especially as most adults reading this had the same experience of having their own first cigarette at age 15.
When it was absolutely forbidden to do so.
If you sell a Product that has the Potential to cause Health Problems with a Warning Label on it saying so, how does this Work when the Person that is Buying it is as an 11 Year Old Child?
With an Adult, you could Argue that you took Reasonable Precautions to warn the Buyer that Using the Product Might Cause Health Problems. And that an Adult has the Ability to make an Informed Decision if they Choose to do so.
Can the Same Argument be made when the Buyer is 11 Years Old?
I would say yes, you could argue that you took reasonable precautions to warn the buyer that using the product might cause health problems, when selling to an 11 year old. I'd also say the 11 year old would possibly be more receptive to the warning whereas adult may be like "I don't have time for this. Are you going to give me what I paid for not? Either do so now, or I'll take my business elsewhere."
Some will Argue that an 11 Year Old does Not Have the Ability to make such an Informed Decision.
I wonder how many 11 Year Olds can Read/Comprehend something like the Drexel Study?
I'd truly love to know how you get that *I* want kids to have access to CIGARETTES... the ENTIRE point of everything I posted is so that kids have an OPTION that is NOT CIGARETTES!
*Reading is FUNdamental*
Andria
- Nicotine and the other factors of smoking have been conflated by mere association for decades by anti-smoking zealots.
- Ecigarettes have, more than any NRT, belied that connection.
- The benefits of nicotine have been highlighted - to the consternation of those zealots.
- The zealots - and their 'we know what's good for you' civilian comrades - have to find a way to 're-conflate' smoking, nicotine and vaping.
- In the same manner that they use junk science to 'prove' how harmful other stuff is - oil, trans fats, second-hand smoke, etc. they use junk science to find how nicotine effects minors, for the main purpose to put restrictions on vaping for adults (and minors) - in order to continue their ANTZealotry.
- the best statistics we have (as well as the CDC's own) say that never smoked minors are not using ecigs, and that 30 day users from around 14 yrs old are smoking less but have tried ecigs.
- 18 years old is an arbitrarily designated age in order to impose gov't restrictions - let them learn early on, how the gov't knows best and how it can control behavior even when it causes no harm to others.
- Ecigarettes have, more than any NRT, belied that connection.
- The benefits of nicotine have been highlighted - to the consternation of those zealots.
- The zealots - and their 'we know what's good for you' civilian comrades - have to find a way to 're-conflate' smoking, nicotine and vaping.
- In the same manner that they use junk science to 'prove' how harmful other stuff is - oil, trans fats, second-hand smoke, etc. they use junk science to find how nicotine effects minors, for the main purpose to put restrictions on vaping for adults (and minors) - in order to continue their ANTZealotry.
- the best statistics we have (as well as the CDC's own) say that never smoked minors are not using ecigs, and that 30 day users from around 14 yrs old are smoking less but have tried ecigs.
- 18 years old is an arbitrarily designated age in order to impose gov't restrictions - let them learn early on, how the gov't knows best and how it can control behavior even when it causes no harm to others.
Last edited:
And I say that some who argue that 11 year olds don't have the ability are ageist. Again, I would think we could have a test in place to determine whether any person is able to make such an informed decision. If you are 7 years old and pass the test, then who would be arguing that they lack the ability? (Hint: an ageist.)
I wonder how may 35 year olds can read/comprehend something like the Drexel study?
From the CDC's own stats - the 11 year old vaping is a problem that doesn't exist. And this is typical - people searching out problems that don't exist, yet the solution is always more government control. They can't just come out and say they want gov't controlling people's lives - that's too outright fascist or socialist - they have to have a "problem" to solve in order to sell it. If you dumb down the population with gov't schools, a lapdog media and Hollywood - it's almost a certain sale.
So the Answer is to have Comprehension Tests to Read e-Cigarette/e-Liquid Warning Labels? LOL
Just who is Going to Make-Up/Administer/Grade these Tests? The FDA? You Local School Board? ECF Members?
Are we Starting to Diverge into Unrealistic Avenues with All This?
The thing is that no such test could be devised.
What if someone doesn't give a crap whether they live or die?
They should be able to do whatever they want as long as it harms no one else.
No, wait, maybe we need to include a test for their mental stability?
Perhaps their religious beliefs as well?
Now I know you weren't really advocating for such a test, and I just used your post as a jumping off point...
But IF there were such a test, maybe it should look at whether or not you still believe you are invincible.
Because that would be the litmus test to me regarding whether one is making informed and considered value judgments.
Problem with that is, I thought I was invincible all the way up until I was about 35 years old when I had a skiing accident.
The thing is that no such test could be devised.
What if someone doesn't give a crap whether they live or die?
They should be able to do whatever they want as long as it harms no one else.
No, wait, maybe we need to include a test for their mental stability?
Perhaps their religious beliefs as well?
Now I know you weren't really advocating for such a test, and I just used your post as a jumping off point...
But IF there were such a test, maybe it should look at whether or not you still believe you are invincible.
Because that would be the litmus test to me regarding whether one is making informed and considered value judgments.
Problem with that is, I thought I was invincible all the way up until I was about 35 years old when I had a skiing accident.
Ban skiing!
So to summarize,we agree with on pretty much everything, except for a few crucial details...
I agree that smoking and second-hand smoke lies are a huge thorn in our sides.
And I even agree that the lies used in various arguments against underage people using nicotine is a thorn in our sides.
And if we had a long time to deal with these issues, and clarify what is true and what is not...
What is a real concern and what is not...
Then I would agree that we should utilize energy, time, and resources to confront those issues.
But we disagree in the critical aspects of what the coming regulations will mean, how much time we have, and what it would take to confront those issues.
And that critical difference is where I can't agree with your additional suggestions regarding what actions vapers should be taking.
And my concern is that trying to address those issues now will in some respects push us backwards in terms of credibility.
But since you asked me this question already, and I provided my answer...
Maybe you could clarify what resources YOU think it would take to combat those issues?
I think it would certainly be more dangerous than any other alternative.
Except that they don't care. Not the ANTZ, not the legislators, and most likely not the public either.
What is the result of arguing that a black market will provide a solution?
Other than the fact that I don't think it is a valid solution, but assuming it would be...
To the extent that some people feel it is a valid solution, such a feeling would lead to inaction.
So while you're worried about "doom and gloomers" essentially telling people there is no hope, which would lead to inaction...
I feel that trying to assuage their concerns by letting them know there will be a thriving black market would also lead to inaction...
And then of course there is the fact, again, that I don't think a black market is a valid solution.
And that I don't believe any black market that develops will thrive to any meaningful extent.
Perhaps a discussion of what kind of black market would develop would be an interesting discussion though.
I have previously noted the reasons I think a black market would not be as fruitful as some might be expecting it to be...
--Many experienced vapers are already stocked up, or will stock up when the time comes
--Many experienced vapers will just switch to zero nicotine
--Many vapers that are caught off guard will just go back to cigarettes
--Many vapers that are caught off guard will just go ahead and use the cigalikes that remain on the market
--People that are still smoking will not be likely to use a black market to try vaping
They'll probably never ban it, but I can imagine a time when they will find a way to charge more for your insurance.
Unless of course WE find a way to stop all this escalating nonsense, and it's inevitable conclusion.
I understood your posts. You propose free access for all vaping equipment and e-liquids to all regardless of age. Because in your opinion it is not dangerous or less dangerous for kids.
You must give the same treatment to cigarettes vendors too. ... (and a lot of other things btw). I am certain that you don't really think You are to decide what should NOT be given free access based on your opinion.
Last edited:
I'd have to agree. I've used asthma inhalers for longer than my son has been alive; when he was seven years old, he grabbed the insert that comes in the boxes, the one that lists all the potential side effects and contraindications, along with the molecular makeup and chemical action of the drug, and then started asking me "mommy, what's __________?" Some 14-syllable word or other. Then he started telling me what side effects I should watch out for -- pretty dire stuff, especially I guess to a 7-yr-old who's mother is taking this medicine -- but he was pronouncing every word correctly, and seemed to know exactly what the side effect really meant, in human-body terms.
I will take issue with ANYONE who thinks that "kids" are just short ......ed people. I suppose if you RAISE them as if they're short ......ed people, and expect them to act that way, then they might, just to fulfill your expectations. I started talking to my son as if he was an intelligent human being with a brain and feelings from the moment he was able to speak back to me, and he has always acted like an intelligent human being with feelings and the understanding that other people have feelings too, even when he was an obstinate hormonal 15 yr old. It's all in how you raise them, and what you expect of them. If you expect them to be idiots just because they're young, then they'll probably act that way.
Andria
I don't see why cigarette vendors should be given that latitude, given that cigarettes are already PROVEN to be deadly to ANY age group, and are particularly dangerous to the young, because of the MAOIs. E-cigs have not been proven to be dangerous to ANYONE, including the young.
But you're right; I really don't think that my opinions are worth a hill of beans in this debate, which is why I finally shut up. You cannot convince people of things they don't want to know, so why bother? It's like trying to teach a pig to sing... utterly useless, and it annoys the pig.
Andria
First, a simplification of an argument is not obfuscation, so your feeling is wrong. Adding in other variables, and talking about chemicals that the industry is attempting to eliminate is obfuscation. I removed variables that you keep wanting to put into the argument.Quit moving the goal posts and engage in debate. Just answer these simple questions.
Should caffeine, energy drinks, and junk food be sold to minors?
I would assume by your posts, you have a problem with scented candles, perfumes, colognes, and air fresheners being sold to minors as well? Those products use the same chemicals as in flavored e-liquid and are sold for human inhalation purposes.
You have a problem with dangerous additives in products being sold to minors, COOL. I assume you take issue with other growing public health issues as well. Your posts indicate a high concern over child welfare, and that is admirable. I am attempting to fact check your logical construct to insure it is sound. Many individuals that hold your apparent belief agree that all of the above products should not be sold to minors. I am not attempting to belittle you or your argument. I will call you out, if your logic is not consistent. Obesity, and diabetes are more prevalent issues facing American minors and future public health. American minors have obesity issues, and not nicotine issues. Watching a 600 pound person that cannot move lay in their hospital bed and shove food down their mouths; while they are in the hospital due to failing organ systems related to their obesity, is just as tragic as seeing the warnings about mouth cancer.
Thus, arguments based on emotion have no room in public health debates.
- Status
Similar threads
