What is kid friendly ???

[Jman8]

I really don't get your point or see any correlation to my comments. Possible "de-facto" bans based on the FDA's past and current actions on vaping is a valid topic for the vaping community. Kids being encouraged to vape or vaping being a danger to kids is baseless fear mongering with no supporting evidence for concern and thus no need to start threads on it.

I was talking about outright bans, or petitions/threads that claim bans, but don't spell out the 'de facto' part. AKA, the fear mongering you referenced.

My point, put quite simply, is if you/anyone is on board for kids being disallowed, even at 0 mg, then you are on the other side. The ANTZ side. You may claim otherwise, but you have suddenly shown that 'reasonable regulations' aren't really what you're after. More like political compromises that may work for you this year, but once the dust settles, from FDA regulations, your position will be that which works against all vapers. Ya know, cause you already admitted that to certain humans, the products are dangerous and must always be discouraged.

But hey, if you think you can have it both ways. Good luck with that. Just don't expect 10,000 people to join your club with confusing messages.

 

[Fulgurant]

I was talking about outright bans, or petitions/threads that claim bans, but don't spell out the 'de facto' part. AKA, the fear mongering you referenced.

My point, put quite simply, is if you/anyone is on board for kids being disallowed, even at 0 mg, then you are on the other side. The ANTZ side. You may claim otherwise, but you have suddenly shown that 'reasonable regulations' aren't really what you're after. More like political compromises that may work for you this year, but once the dust settles, from FDA regulations, your position will be that which works against all vapers. Ya know, cause you already admitted that to certain humans, the products are dangerous and must always be discouraged.

But hey, if you think you can have it both ways. Good luck with that. Just don't expect 10,000 people to join your club with confusing messages.

I'm having a hard time grasping your purpose here. Would you prefer that we all support the sale of vaping products to minors for the sake of ideological consistency? Are you saying that in order to convince the public that vaping is safe for adults, we must campaign to give 4-year-olds the right to vape?

It seems you've engaged in a peculiar brand of contrarian and anti-pragmatic sophistry. Of course we must make allowances that the bulk of the population would regard as reasonable if we're to have any hope of convincing them of anything. Your post, quoted above, seems to delight in the prospect that we would go out of our way to marginalize ourselves to appease your questionable logic.

 

[Blkwdw86]

While I never underestimate what a kid will do with sufficient motivation (peer pressure), I don't see any running down to the local vape shop and dropping $70 on a starter kit to blow cool clouds.

Of course, kids blow money on the goofiest things for even goofier reasons.

But so what? If that's what a kid wants to spend his money on, who cares? As long as he's vaping 0-nic juice, he's not hurting himself or anyone else, let him do as he likes. It's what liberty's all about.

I could go on for days about the philosophical fear of death that drives busybody peoples' crusades. Crusades to interfere with other peoples' lives and liberty, of course.

Who asked you? Mind your own business and stay out of mine.

Maybe I value quality of life over quantity. Maybe I don't want to live 100 years. Maybe I'm not willing to trade essential liberty for maybe (no guarantees) an extra year or two. Maybe I recognize that life is short and want to sample as much as it has to offer unmolested before I'm done.

Maybe other people feel the same way, and don't appreciate the interference from busybodies who fulfill their empty lives by...interfering in others' lives.

If it comes down to a choice between a long life spent following the expectations of others to achieve a long life, or a short one spent on whatever I choose to do with it...

I'll take the short one.

Why should our kids be treated any different? Leave 'em alone, especially if they're not yours, I say.

 

[blondeambition3]

I'm totally with you!!!

I'm totally with both of you!!!

 

[Jman8]

I'm having a hard time grasping your purpose here. Would you prefer that we all support the sale of vaping products to minors for the sake of ideological consistency? Are you saying that in order to convince the public that vaping is safe for adults, we must campaign to give 4-year-olds the right to vape?

No and no.

I would prefer, at this time, a neutral stance on the issue of kids vaping. Neither encourage nor discourage.

By taking a hard line stance to discourage kids, I think in the immediate term we send out, a fairly clear, message that 'we' recognize vaping is actually harmful/dangerous in the hands of certain people, i.e. minors. I believe ANTZ will have a field day with that, that even vapers know their products and activity is dangerous.

To campaign for the rights of 4 year olds to vape is obvious attempt to misrepresent my position.

I have a very tough time, even in today's political climate around eCigs understanding the harm to minors vaping nicotine, especially considering the reality that the vast majority of people reading this sentence started smoking logs well below 18 and are alive today to tell about it, some claiming their health is very good to great. I find it incredulous to hold the position that a minor vaping 0 mg nicotine is engaging in a dangerous activity. But, I am open to hearing reports / studies that would update my thinking on this.

I think by "minors," in pragmatic terms, we are speaking about people 13 and up, and most likely 15 and up.

 

[Fulgurant]

No and no.

I would prefer, at this time, a neutral stance on the issue of kids vaping. Neither encourage nor discourage.

"Our" stance, as far as I've seen it, is fairly neutral. We prefer not to mention kids too prominently here, because ANTZ have a field day every time the subject even comes up. As far as legal-age restrictions go, that battle's already lost; notice that pretty much every vapor-goods retailer requires buyers to attest that they're at least 18 years old.

To concede that battle is not to concede the war. There are plenty of instances in which children are disallowed from buying products that aren't intrinsically harmful to adults. In any case, the main benefit of e-cigs, and the main reason that the e-cig industry should be allowed to thrive, is that e-cigs offer us a safe alternative to smoking cigarettes. We are fighting to preserve the right of addicted adults to exhaust every possible safe option to save their own lives.

To focus on the non-right of non-addicted children to vape 0-mg juices is to bury the headline, which is that opposition forces are, for a host of reasons both conscious and unconscious, encouraging adults to die prematurely. That is by far our best argument. Everything else is noise.

I have a very tough time, even in today's political climate around eCigs understanding the harm to minors vaping nicotine, especially considering the reality that the vast majority of people reading this sentence started smoking logs well below 18 and are alive today to tell about it, some claiming their health is very good to great. I find it incredulous to hold the position that a minor vaping 0 mg nicotine is engaging in a dangerous activity. But, I am open to hearing reports / studies that would update my thinking on this.

Personally I don't believe that ecigs are harmful to children. The albeit scant scientific evidence we have at our disposal tends to suggest that I'm right on that. But if we pour time and energy into fighting a policy that all e-cig vendors have already accepted, even without duress, seems not just wasteful; it seems counterproductive. There are countless people out there who have no stake in our fight, one way or another, who could be swayed to our side of things, and who -- I believe -- will be swayed to our side eventually, but only if we don't scare them away at the outset.

So far, many if not most of the media's attacks on e-cigs have come from a think-of-the-children angle. That's not an accident. Parents tend towards caution; what they otherwise may accept as reasonable suddenly becomes a non-starter if there's any hint of danger to their children.

 

[Jman8]

"Our" stance, as far as I've seen it, is fairly neutral.

You may not want to join CASAA then. Just saying.

To concede that battle is not to concede the war.

I truly see this as the heart of the larger war. That any of us have conceded on that battle means the other war is likely to be lost. Vaping will go the way of smoking. Get used to it.

There are plenty of instances in which children are disallowed from buying products that aren't intrinsically harmful to adults.

I honestly can't think of any. Do you have some in mind? Alcohol comes to mind as one you could mention but that is intrinsically harmful to adults. Smoking would be another (intrinsically harmful).

In any case, the main benefit of e-cigs, and the main reason that the e-cig industry should be allowed to thrive, is that e-cigs offer us a safe alternative to smoking cigarettes. We are fighting to preserve the right of addicted adults to exhaust every possible safe option to save their own lives.

You do mean safer option, yes? I get that is the fight for the majority, but once FDA regulations settle into the war that will inevitably decimate them down to equal rights of smokers, I'm thinking just before the decimation we might think of the other vapers who don't have history of addiction to smoking. You know, the people who enjoy vaping because they enjoy vaping.

Personally I don't believe that ecigs are harmful to children. The albeit scant scientific evidence we have at our disposal tends to suggest that I'm right on that. But if we pour time and energy into fighting a policy that all e-cig vendors have already accepted, even without duress, seems not just wasteful; it seems counterproductive.

At this time, I agree it would be wasteful to suddenly do an about shift and campaign for kids vaping here in 2013, but I'm fairly certain this war will be going on for another 10+ years, and that the kids thing will be at the heart of the matter. If the belief/evidence is that vaping is not harmful to children, then we need many many more who are willing to stand up for that. Otherwise, or really until the pendulum shifts, we will be dealing with a whole bunch who are convinced vaping is harmful/dangerous to kids and the only reasonable regulation is to never ever vape where a child might be present. If you vape in your own home and a kid might one day live there, you are endangering their health, or some nonsense like that.

So far, many if not most of the media's attacks on e-cigs have come from a think-of-the-children angle. That's not an accident. Parents tend towards caution; what they otherwise may accept as reasonable suddenly becomes a non-starter if there's any hint of danger to their children.

Hence the 'danger to children' thing must be dealt with squarely. Again, perhaps not here in 2013, but then again, possibly a bit now. Because it is at the heart of current regulations (by cities / states). Shy away from this now and concede the idea that 'for all we know it is probably dangerous to kids' and the larger battle is virtually conceded.

If I were head of ANTZ, I'd first try to convince vapers that it is dangerous to kids and hopefully get vapers to admit that. Once that task was done, I'd realize the war is over. Just a matter of time and 'reasonable regulations' to further protect the kids.

 

[Anjaffm]

I'm having a hard time grasping your purpose here.
...

It seems you've engaged in a peculiar brand of contrarian and anti-pragmatic sophistry. Of course we must make allowances that the bulk of the population would regard as reasonable if we're to have any hope of convincing them of anything. Your post, quoted above, seems to delight in the prospect that we would go out of our way to marginalize ourselves to appease your questionable logic.

I do not have a hard time grasping his purpose at all.
"Divide and conquer" - that is how the British ruled their empire for a long, long time.
This is not the only vapers forum where such methods have been attempted.
And there is always the chance that anything you say will be used against you.
It would not be the first time.

Enough said.

 

[BuGlen]

You may not want to join CASAA then. Just saying. [snip...]

I just wanted to address this part of your post, because the rest is mainly point of view and that's fine. However, when you claim to speak for a group of people (CASAA) with a widely diverse background and even more diverse spectrum of political views, you're basically out of line. Please try to refrain from using statements like the one above. Thanks!

I do not have a hard time grasping his purpose at all.
"Divide and conquer" - that is how the British ruled their empire for a long, long time.
This is not the only vapers forum where such methods have been attempted.
And there is always the chance that anything you say will be used against you.
It would not be the first time.

Enough said.

I've seen many posts by Jman8 before, and I don't believe there's anything malicious there. He generally likes to stir up conversation with opposing views and engage in the conversation at that level. I've never seen him do the hit-and-run type posting that generally indicate some other intention.

That's my experience in any case.

 

[Anjaffm]

@BuGlen:

thank you very much for the explanation.
Myself, I prefer to err on the side of caution. Especially as the attempts with "some other intention" in my home forum were by no means hit and run.

 

[Fulgurant]

I apologize for cutting your post down, Jman, but I find these point-by-point affairs inevitably lead to tiresome and needlessly contentious brawls as each side increasingly picks at wording or minutiae. So instead I'm just going to focus on what I believe to be the most important part of this discussion, and then I will cede the floor to you to say whatever you will.

You do mean safer option, yes?

No, I mean "safe." There is no reason to believe that e-cigs present anything more than trivial risk to the user. (Please read this for an interesting discussion of the notion of meaningful health risks.)

More to the point, we have solid data to suggest that second-hand vaping is safe -- and that speaks to the bulk of your objections; by failing to oppose legal restrictions on the sale of vaping products to minors, we do not concede that second-hand vapor harms minors (or anyone), just as the age restriction on the sale of alcohol doesn't correspond to a fear that children must suffer if adults drink in their presence.

Age restrictions are about responsibility and discretion, not about presumed harm.

 

[wv2win]

...........................................

 

[wv2win]

"Our" stance, as far as I've seen it, is fairly neutral. We prefer not to mention kids too prominently here, because ANTZ have a field day every time the subject even comes up. As far as legal-age restrictions go, that battle's already lost; notice that pretty much every vapor-goods retailer requires buyers to attest that they're at least 18 years old.

To concede that battle is not to concede the war. There are plenty of instances in which children are disallowed from buying products that aren't intrinsically harmful to adults. In any case, the main benefit of e-cigs, and the main reason that the e-cig industry should be allowed to thrive, is that e-cigs offer us a safe alternative to smoking cigarettes. We are fighting to preserve the right of addicted adults to exhaust every possible safe option to save their own lives.

To focus on the non-right of non-addicted children to vape 0-mg juices is to bury the headline, which is that opposition forces are, for a host of reasons both conscious and unconscious, encouraging adults to die prematurely. That is by far our best argument. Everything else is noise.



Personally I don't believe that ecigs are harmful to children. The albeit scant scientific evidence we have at our disposal tends to suggest that I'm right on that. But if we pour time and energy into fighting a policy that all e-cig vendors have already accepted, even without duress, seems not just wasteful; it seems counterproductive. There are countless people out there who have no stake in our fight, one way or another, who could be swayed to our side of things, and who -- I believe -- will be swayed to our side eventually, but only if we don't scare them away at the outset.

So far, many if not most of the media's attacks on e-cigs have come from a think-of-the-children angle. That's not an accident. Parents tend towards caution; what they otherwise may accept as reasonable suddenly becomes a non-starter if there's any hint of danger to their children.

You may not want to join CASAA then. Just saying.




I truly see this as the heart of the larger war. That any of us have conceded on that battle means the other war is likely to be lost. Vaping will go the way of smoking. Get used to it.



I honestly can't think of any. Do you have some in mind? Alcohol comes to mind as one you could mention but that is intrinsically harmful to adults. Smoking would be another (intrinsically harmful).



You do mean safer option, yes? I get that is the fight for the majority, but once FDA regulations settle into the war that will inevitably decimate them down to equal rights of smokers, I'm thinking just before the decimation we might think of the other vapers who don't have history of addiction to smoking. You know, the people who enjoy vaping because they enjoy vaping.



At this time, I agree it would be wasteful to suddenly do an about shift and campaign for kids vaping here in 2013, but I'm fairly certain this war will be going on for another 10+ years, and that the kids thing will be at the heart of the matter. If the belief/evidence is that vaping is not harmful to children, then we need many many more who are willing to stand up for that. Otherwise, or really until the pendulum shifts, we will be dealing with a whole bunch who are convinced vaping is harmful/dangerous to kids and the only reasonable regulation is to never ever vape where a child might be present. If you vape in your own home and a kid might one day live there, you are endangering their health, or some nonsense like that.



Hence the 'danger to children' thing must be dealt with squarely. Again, perhaps not here in 2013, but then again, possibly a bit now. Because it is at the heart of current regulations (by cities / states). Shy away from this now and concede the idea that 'for all we know it is probably dangerous to kids' and the larger battle is virtually conceded.

If I were head of ANTZ, I'd first try to convince vapers that it is dangerous to kids and hopefully get vapers to admit that. Once that task was done, I'd realize the war is over. Just a matter of time and 'reasonable regulations' to further protect the kids.

These are two well reasoned and articulate positions. From a practical standpoint, I have to side with Fulgurant. We vapers (and "we" is CASAA) need to focus on the battles we have some hope of winning. There is no practical reason in today's societal and political environment to oppose restrictions when it comes to legal minors when there are bigger problems from a "restrictions" standpoint that must be fought or it won't matter one way or the other. But to defend our position that vaping is not harmful to the user or others, it would be wise to have reasoned arguments established when our support for restrictions for minors is thrown in our face. I can think of several.

Addition: I posted this in another thread in response to a post to me by Jman. I think it actually has more relevancy in this thread when it comes to the "practical" position vs the "purest" position on vaping and how it is best defended publically:

I would suggest (if you haven't already) see the movie: Lincoln or read the book it is based on by the eminent Historian, Doris Kerns Goodwin. There is a part (actually happened, in fact) where the epitome of the Abolitionist movement, Representative Stevens must address Congress on the 13th Amendment. He knows that if he states his true belief that all men are created equal, in all things, that the amendment will be defeated. Instead, he states that all men ought to be equal "under the law". He modified his public opinion for the good of the "practical" need to pass the amendment. I believe that there is significant "reason" and "logic" in what he did.

We are facing a political and perception issue when it comes to vaping. A practical "reasoned" approach to supporting our position is the only option.

We need one, reasoned, practical voice. CASAA is the only option available and a pretty good one.

 

[Jman8]

I just wanted to address this part of your post, because the rest is mainly point of view and that's fine. However, when you claim to speak for a group of people (CASAA) with a widely diverse background and even more diverse spectrum of political views, you're basically out of line. Please try to refrain from using statements like the one above. Thanks!

I understand what you are conveying, and don't believe I'll be referencing CASAA in that way, or will give off impression that I speak on their behalf. Yet, to claim that vapers have a neutral stance on kids vaping is challenging to believe. I believe the majority tow the line and pronounce the position that minors must not be allowed. When explored beyond the sound bite logic, I find many will admit that it probably isn't all that harmful to minors, but would rather not be on the political side of the larger debate that appears to encourage minors to vape.

In my recent visit to CASAA website, I saw at least 2 CTA's that favored prohibiting sales to minors. Hence, my comment.

 

[Jman8]

No, I mean "safe." There is no reason to believe that e-cigs present anything more than trivial risk to the user. (Please read this for an interesting discussion of the notion of meaningful health risks.)

More to the point, we have solid data to suggest that second-hand vaping is safe -- and that speaks to the bulk of your objections; by failing to oppose legal restrictions on the sale of vaping products to minors, we do not concede that second-hand vapor harms minors (or anyone), just as the age restriction on the sale of alcohol doesn't correspond to a fear that children must suffer if adults drink in their presence.

Age restrictions are about responsibility and discretion, not about presumed harm.

Not even I can get on board with "safe" but as I'm fairly close to that position, I wish not to quibble on that point.

I would like it if you elaborated on the last point, regarding age restrictions. I understand the terms you are using, but don't understand how you arrived at whatever point you are making.

If I do research on "national laws for minimum drinking age" it is response to studies/reports showing an increase in motor vehicle fatalities attributable to the decreased minimum age (circa 1970's). As I think we all know, alcohol alters mind/judgment, and as prohibition was shown not to work (banning alcohol for everyone), the 'reasonable regulation' was then to keep, or move back, the minimum age at/to 21. Thus, it really has to do with harm, even while one could say it is about responsibility and discretion. But same problem (fatalities from drunk driving) affects adults and we all know a ban on alcohol is very very unlikely in America. So the responsibility and discretion thing is a superficial rationale, though rather easy to pass as the majority of voters are over 21 and thus don't mind selling minors down the river so that alcohol can be available, even while it is regulated, to adults.

As alcohol does known harm to the human body, being a toxin and all, I'm not sure if it is a good thing to compare to liquid nicotine/vaping.

 

[BuGlen]

I understand what you are conveying, and don't believe I'll be referencing CASAA in that way, or will give off impression that I speak on their behalf. Yet, to claim that vapers have a neutral stance on kids vaping is challenging to believe. I believe the majority tow the line and pronounce the position that minors must not be allowed. When explored beyond the sound bite logic, I find many will admit that it probably isn't all that harmful to minors, but would rather not be on the political side of the larger debate that appears to encourage minors to vape.

In my recent visit to CASAA website, I saw at least 2 CTA's that favored prohibiting sales to minors. Hence, my comment.

I can see where you might come up with that conclusion. However, there is such a thing as playing any particular issue as "politically smart" instead of just taking a hard-line stance. In the issue if state laws banning the sale of e-cigs to minors, it's a political concession that is necessary to take the wind out of one of key arguments by ANTZ. Personally, I happen to believe that the sale to minors should be banned, but the possession / use should not be penalized. If a minor needs vape gear (to give up a smoking habit), then their parents should be allowed to get it for them without fear of legal recourse.

 

[jfountain2]

What is kid friendly ???
would I give or sale an e-cig to a kid ? For me No
what do you think ???

Kid friendly, to me, is all these kiosks in malls where teen's stand there vaping 0 nic juice looking cool while trying to sell ecig supplys to anyone that walks by. These places don't care if your a smoker wanting to quit, a non-smoker wanting to look cool to your friends or anything about your age, all that matters to them is you buy their over priced crap.

When I see legislation or media reports about "kid friendly" vaping I think of those mall kiosks, and I would love to see every one of them closed if they don't check ID's

 

[Uma]

I can see where you might come up with that conclusion. However, there is such a thing as playing any particular issue as "politically smart" instead of just taking a hard-line stance. In the issue if state laws banning the sale of e-cigs to minors, it's a political concession that is necessary to take the wind out of one of key arguments by ANTZ. Personally, I happen to believe that the sale to minors should be banned, but the possession / use should not be penalized. If a minor needs vape gear (to give up a smoking habit), then their parents should be allowed to get it for them without fear of legal recourse.

+1000000000000

 

[Jman8]

I can see where you might come up with that conclusion. However, there is such a thing as playing any particular issue as "politically smart" instead of just taking a hard-line stance. In the issue if state laws banning the sale of e-cigs to minors, it's a political concession that is necessary to take the wind out of one of key arguments by ANTZ. Personally, I happen to believe that the sale to minors should be banned, but the possession / use should not be penalized. If a minor needs vape gear (to give up a smoking habit), then their parents should be allowed to get it for them without fear of legal recourse.

That's a good point, and one I mostly agree with. As long as there would be no fine or anything for possession / use, I can see then why to ban sales. I personally don't think it ought to be only for giving up smoking, and could see a kid getting it for enjoyment / cool factor. Or the reason why at least some of us adults choose to vape.

Still think vapers who aren't sellers ought to have a neutral stance on the sales issue, as it very likely would come off to ANTZ that vapers take a stand against sales to minors cause of perceived harm to youngsters vaping. Pretty darn sure ANTZ would love to ban possession / use by minors and then work to ban or regulate the heck out of eCigs for all adults. If kids ought not be around vaping, then adults who vape ought not to do so anywhere a kid is present, or someday could be... is how I see the eventual argument going.

Oh and another thought is this reasoning (to ban sales) doesn't make a lot of sense with 0 mg nicotine and kids vaping. I wonder how many vapers believe that kids vaping 0 mg is a gateway to them vaping nicotine? I'm guessing a bunch do, but eh, who knows?

 

[Ranic85]

Kid friendly means that they should be rounded up and vaporized! Children are the cause of the world's problems! The government cannot seem to let the parents rule their own children, so the only logical thing to do is to vaporize the children! Perhaps grind them into a juice and steep them for a week for better flavor!