FDA What happens if/when

[AndriaD]

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.

I agree with everything you said, ESPECIALLY about diabetes -- my diabetic mom spends many weeks each year in the hospital because she REFUSES to police her own consumption of sugar and salt, then has the everloving nerve to get depressed because her body won't work right -- as if that medicine she takes each day is supposed to take the place of good sense.

But, you're wasting your time trying to get him to argue logically. I was attempting the same, and got the flavor additives thrown at me, which had exactly NOTHING to do with the discussion up to that point -- talk about obfuscation! I give up; you cannot argue logically with the non-logical. I admit, I don't know for a FACT that juvenile consumption of MAOIs does the type of damage I've outlined -- but it is at least hypothetically a great deal more likely than that nicotine will harm the little darlings that everyone seems so concerned about; my own feeling is that all that "concern" is a sham, since those same 'concerned' people don't seem to give a rat's patootie if my hypothesis about MAOI consumption is correct or not -- they just dismiss, and stand on their arbitrary line-drawing and claim to be so concerned about these young people who may be damaging their brains with cigarettes -- but it's only ok for them to vape if they've ALREADY done the damage, which is, as I said, exactly like closing the barn door when the horse is far down the road.

It's clear that logic has exactly ZERO place in these people's minds.

Andria

 

[dragonpuff]

... I admit, I don't know for a FACT that juvenile consumption of MAOIs does the type of damage I've outlined -- but it is at least hypothetically a great deal more likely than that nicotine will harm the little darlings that everyone seems so concerned about; my own feeling is that all that "concern" is a sham, since those same 'concerned' people don't seem to give a rat's patootie if my hypothesis about MAOI consumption is correct or not -- they just dismiss, and stand on their arbitrary line-drawing and claim to be so concerned about these young people who may be damaging their brains with cigarettes -- but it's only ok for them to vape if they've ALREADY done the damage, which is, as I said, exactly like closing the barn door when the horse is far down the road.

It's clear that logic has exactly ZERO place in these people's minds.

Andria

I understand that your post is not in response to me directly. However, as to your concern with MAOIs in cigarette smoke - I outlined a logical counterargument heavily based in scientific evidence (on page 30 of this thread) as to why your hypothesis is likely false. Yet, you seem to have overlooked it completely and continue to press the MAOI issue.

If you have sound reason to believe I am wrong, then feel free to share. Otherwise, the logical basis for your argument has vanished, and you need more solid reasoning for your argument that e-cigarettes should be sold to minors than just the idea that smoking causes brain damage to youth.

If you continue to press this issue with no basis, then your argument is the one that is illogical. (I mean this with the utmost sincerity - I am not trying to be nasty, I just think it's unfair to accuse others of not basing their argument in logic while at the same time you seem to be refusing to do so.)

 

[sandersj80]

I currently vape at the lowest mg possible which is 3mg. Honestly, it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all. However, I don't feel as though there should be any regulation on what or how vaping products are manufactured or distributed. Say what you will but vaping has opened up a whole new world for me and I am not about to stop and start back in my old habits just because someone wants to take my right away to do as I wish. I enjoy vaping over smoking and wouldn't revert back for anything.

 

[Jman8]

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?

I see no reason to diverge onto the avenue at all unless bigoted adults are claiming that a segment of the population is incapable of making an informed decision. I'd start with testing those individuals first as they are likely candidates for lacking basic understanding. Then test all the rest of the adults. Then the kids. Or bypass testing altogether and stop assuming that kids are little idiots. One and all.

 

[Jman8]

...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.

I quote this part as just a reminder that this tangent started p. 10 and for me mentioning that black market operators are for sure stocking up and then this lead to the doom and gloomers rant by me, which spun into 'what might Jman do that is so different.'

So, again, I believe that not bringing up black market as viable solution to harsh regulations (before those regulations go into effect) is sign of lacking credibility on this issue. It is intellectually dishonest. I see the other items I brought up as addressing the core aspect of what we are really up against. I recognize that here in the transition period of waiting for FDA to come up with final rule that it is a little late in the game to make that push, but also still feel that those items are at the core and will be the day after the final rule comes out, and a year after that and 25 years after that.

Instead, we are constantly playing defense with what's currently being dealt to us by ANTZ. Them on offense, with anti-smoking battle virtually won, and going full steam ahead (pun intended) on vaping battle. Us on defense, and yet us having science on our side, a decent amount of political momentum, technological advancements, black market to deal with their zealotry run amok and court battles that could favor us, and a rather tame FDA first round of regulations that just so happened to make ANTZ feel like FDA is siding with vaping enthusiasts (read as ANTZ very upset by this).

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?

For me, it starts with communications / education of fellow vapers. If I can't persuade fellow vapers, many of who are ex-smokers, then not sure what much can be done with other parts of population where these types of discussions are few and far between. I know DC2 gets this understanding and I feel there are a number of longtime ECF'ers who came way before me that have this understanding, but that the majority are entrenched in ANTZ dogma. I feel this is as good of a starting point as any. Costs very little money, and helps to possibly build a base to fight back on the core issue. I don't think it is only step to be taking, but I do see it as one of the more important steps to be taking. If I write to a politician with regards to a CTA, or discuss vaping with vaping shopper, or add comments to an article, I'm coming from this perspective and if need be, I will go there in my discourse because I do believe the point is that critical to what vaping is really up against.

I think it would certainly be more dangerous than any other alternative.

This quote by you with regards to black market. I'll grant you this, and still stick to claim that black market is not inherently dangerous. And the actual alternative per this discussion is no market from which to buy any products cause, according to doom and gloomers, more than 99% have been eliminated. So, the actual choice is do you as a vaping enthusiast / shopper wish to have self limiting choice of no longer being able to obtain 99% of what you currently do, or do you wish to go to the not inherently dangerous black market to get arguably 100% of everything you are currently able to get?

Except that they don't care. Not the ANTZ, not the legislators, and most likely not the public either.

I disagree. Black market is something people will care about. Not all the time, and likely not even a significant amount of time. For die-hard vaping enthusiast that could be a great thing. The less attention on the black market that delivers 100% of the products that were available in mid 2014, the better. But, I reckon the black market will have people that highlight it from time to time, and who make claims that it is wildly dangerous, exposing our kids to great harm(s), and that something needs to happen. Vaping enthusiasts will say yes, something like reasonable regulations instead of those that were ANTZ driven and lead to the black market needs to happen. ANTZ will argue that more enforcement or more government intervention is necessary, or whatever ANTZ does in response to black market. Something along lines of further propaganda to convince parents that it is very dangerous and hmmmm, I dunno, like the wild west.

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.

Other than organized criminal types, I don't see anyone planning for a black market. It would not benefit anyone for it to come about, but once it came about, it would serve as option for vapers who felt certain regulations were going to eliminate all of their available choices. This is the 'solution' part that you disagree with and IMO, is neither here nor there, as people will cross that bridge when it comes or they will learn to do without. Here in the information age and with a good 5 years lead time, I don't see it being something that is unknown to vapers, but admittedly there will be some that have no clue where to go once regulations are truly being enforced (and long after they are implemented).

The point of bringing it up now is for vapers to realize this is where harsh penalties could lead us (not the only place, but something to be honest about) and to let general public know that we vapers will find a way to get our products. Just like there is black market for legally existing combustibles, there will be a market for vaping stuff and it could have dire consequences for safety and protection that the open market has. It may not, and well if general public / ANTZ really wants to go there, then vapers will adapt.

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...

I'm not saying either side is leading to inaction. I don't see inaction as possible. I see doom and gloomers trying to motivate through fear and often conveying hopelessness in the defensive game that we are playing with ANTZ cause the larger/core issues are 'too big to take on at this time.' So, I call it like I see it and say that ANTZ's absolutely worst case scenario would lead to a black market, and that vapers will still win. But black market, IMO, is nowhere near ideal and I assume keep the open market wide open. But, as long as it is open and core issue isn't being addressed, I fully expect ANTZ to believe that they already won on the smoking battle and it will be much easier to win on the vaping front if they just keep applying say propaganda to those who seemed to eat up the smoking lies with little to no argument.

 

[zoiDman]

I see no reason to diverge onto the avenue at all unless bigoted adults are claiming that a segment of the population is incapable of making an informed decision. I'd start with testing those individuals first as they are likely candidates for lacking basic understanding. Then test all the rest of the adults. Then the kids. Or bypass testing altogether and stop assuming that kids are little idiots. One and all.

If you think that Children of Any Age can make Educated Decisions about what they Should or Shouldn't put in their Bodies then that is your Prerogative.

 

[Jman8]

If you think that Children of Any Age can make Educated Decisions about what they Should or Shouldn't put in their Bodies then that is your Prerogative.

I don't believe people of any age can make these alleged educated decisions. And yet, we allow it.

 

[zoiDman]

I don't believe people of any age can make these alleged educated decisions. And yet, we allow it.

No One said there Weren't Inequities in the World Jman8.

Sometimes it More about Minimizing the Inequities to the Small Percentage for the Benefit of the Large Percentage.

And when you find a Solution to a Problem (Any Problem) that Fits Every Person, in Every Age Group, in Every Place in the USA, Please let me know. I would be Interested in Hearing It.

 

[AndriaD]

I understand that your post is not in response to me directly. However, as to your concern with MAOIs in cigarette smoke - I outlined a logical counterargument heavily based in scientific evidence (on page 30 of this thread) as to why your hypothesis is likely false. Yet, you seem to have overlooked it completely and continue to press the MAOI issue.

If you have sound reason to believe I am wrong, then feel free to share. Otherwise, the logical basis for your argument has vanished, and you need more solid reasoning for your argument that e-cigarettes should be sold to minors than just the idea that smoking causes brain damage to youth.

If you continue to press this issue with no basis, then your argument is the one that is illogical. (I mean this with the utmost sincerity - I am not trying to be nasty, I just think it's unfair to accuse others of not basing their argument in logic while at the same time you seem to be refusing to do so.)

You're right, I was not responding to you at all; your post to me was at least logical, and I have no real idea if either of us is right -- but we both made logical if not fully-educated arguments. I know this: many people think that one is either an alcoholic or one is not, that there is no "gray area." however many others have advanced arguments that alcoholism may be something like a "thermostat" -- one may be genetically disposed via this "thermostat" to become an alcoholic with very little alcohol use, while with others, they may not ever consume enough alcohol to reach that "thermostat" if theirs is genetically very high -- little genetic predisposition to alcoholism. I don't know which school of thought is more "right;" likewise, I don't know if depressive disorders work in the same way, but it's certainly possible.

But as I said, I don't really know for sure -- so I will not argue my point any further.

Andria

 

[DC2]

I see the other items I brought up as addressing the core aspect of what we are really up against. I recognize that here in the transition period of waiting for FDA to come up with final rule that it is a little late in the game to make that push, but also still feel that those items are at the core and will be the day after the final rule comes out, and a year after that and 25 years after that.

Instead, we are constantly playing defense with what's currently being dealt to us by ANTZ. Them on offense, with anti-smoking battle virtually won, and going full steam ahead (pun intended) on vaping battle.

Agree with all of that.

But as you said, their battle is already won on the anti-smoking front.
It will take, as you said, very many years (if not decades) to fully confront that.

It's time I don't think we have right now.

And if you think it will take that long to address those issues, then it seems you agree.
Even if you think we have a 5 year window to work on this.

Us on defense, and yet us having science on our side, a decent amount of political momentum, technological advancements, black market to deal with their zealotry run amok and court battles that could favor us...

And again I agree, but this is the very reason I think we should focus on vaping in the short term, and move on to the other issues once we have exposed them as liars.
And exposing them as liars SHOULD be immensely easier to do on the vaping front, for the reasons you noted.

...and a rather tame FDA first round of regulations...

And of course, this is again a very significant point of contention between your theoretical approach and mine.

For me, it starts with communications / education of fellow vapers. If I can't persuade fellow vapers, many of who are ex-smokers, then not sure what much can be done with other parts of population where these types of discussions are few and far between. I know DC2 gets this understanding and I feel there are a number of longtime ECF'ers who came way before me that have this understanding, but that the majority are entrenched in ANTZ dogma. I feel this is as good of a starting point as any. Costs very little money, and helps to possibly build a base to fight back on the core issue. I don't think it is only step to be taking, but I do see it as one of the more important steps to be taking.

And I can agree with all of that too, and think they are good points that help me understand why you advocate so strongly for your approach.
But if you want to educate new vapers who are brainwashed by decades of anti-smoking propaganda, as I do, you'll find it is a never-ending and slow process.

I've been doing it myself for years now.
And it really does never end.

If I write to a politician with regards to a CTA, or discuss vaping with vaping shopper, or add comments to an article, I'm coming from this perspective and if need be, I will go there in my discourse because I do believe the point is that critical to what vaping is really up against.

But this worries me a bit, because I'm afraid if you "go there" you arguments will be summarily dismissed in the current anti-smoking climate.

I disagree. Black market is something people will care about. Not all the time, and likely not even a significant amount of time. For die-hard vaping enthusiast that could be a great thing. The less attention on the black market that delivers 100% of the products that were available in mid 2014, the better. But, I reckon the black market will have people that highlight it from time to time, and who make claims that it is wildly dangerous, exposing our kids to great harm(s), and that something needs to happen. Vaping enthusiasts will say yes, something like reasonable regulations instead of those that were ANTZ driven and lead to the black market needs to happen. ANTZ will argue that more enforcement or more government intervention is necessary, or whatever ANTZ does in response to black market. Something along lines of further propaganda to convince parents that it is very dangerous and hmmmm, I dunno, like the wild west.

Fair points.

And it's why I agree that vaping advocates SHOULD point out that a black market will likely form.
But I think that most of them already do that.

Other than organized criminal types, I don't see anyone planning for a black market.

My comment about "leading to inaction" was intended to apply to vapers taking up arms and getting involved and taking action.
Or not doing so, if they feel that everything will be just fine for "me" because I'll just use the black market.

The point of bringing it up now is for vapers to realize this is where harsh penalties could lead us (not the only place, but something to be honest about) and to let general public know that we vapers will find a way to get our products. Just like there is black market for legally existing combustibles, there will be a market for vaping stuff and it could have dire consequences for safety and protection that the open market has. It may not, and well if general public / ANTZ really wants to go there, then vapers will adapt.

When you bring it up you never make those points as far as I can remember.
Which is why I took a different take on your "black market" comments than the ones you are making now.

I can agree to an extent if it were presented as you have above, rather than sounding like "don't worry, we got this no matter what" kind of solution.
Which, when you present it, is how it always has sounded to my ears.

 

[DC2]

And it's why I agree that vaping advocates SHOULD point out that a black market will likely form.
But I think that most of them already do that.

I guess I'd like to expand on that a bit...

I was talking about vaping advocates that get media time.
I believe you may have been talking more about vaping advocates on this forum.

In that case, maybe you are right that most of them don't really mention a black market all that often.

As for myself, I don't find "black market" to be any kind of solution, although I do agree it is a political card that should be played.
But playing such a card here on the forum does not address the political figures, it only seems to serve to placate those who might otherwise join the fight.