Why certain regulations and bans make perfect sense
- Thread starter Jman8
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I can see your point with regards to the fact that government bans/regulations are due to the public health hazard. And I suppose I also did not specify when it came to government instated as opposed to property/business owners.
But the fact of the matter is Nicotine IS a chemical that affects our bodies, and is present in a lot of our vapor. I am aware that many people vape 0nic but from a regulatory point of view it is virtually impossible to differentiate who is vaping 0nic as opposed to 24nic. And although it is a negligible amount, you can believe the people who are pushing regulations will have a field day with that.
I'm not supporting more regulations, just trying to look at more than one perspective. Playing the devil's advocate if you will.
*edit* And I do agree on the perfume matter, there are many perfumes that I find offensive and would rather not smell but that does not mean it should be deemed illegal lol.
I guess I don't understand the need to ban / regulate ecigs to those under age 18.. Isn't it already illegal to sell them to minors? If so, then it's a moot point discussing a ban on an already illegal activity? That's like trying to decide whether or not to "ban/regulate" armed robbery, murder...or any other already illegal action.
While browsing through another thread I found this post to be relevant and well written.
Here's where the argument falls apart: there is barely trace levels of nicotine resident in second hand vapor. This has been proven in multiple studies, those studies I've even read here in the ECF library. So again, the vapor clouds may be annoying, but not a public health hazard - at which point it boils down to etiquette.
<edit> To elaborate and articulate exactly what "trace levels" are, in science everything is generally measured, however there are times that the presence of something is so small that it is not measurable. These are what are referred to as trace levels; they can tell it's there, but it's so small an amount that it cant be properly measured. If I remember correctly, this is less than 100ppm (parts per million) I vape 6mg liquid, which equates out to 6006ppm of nicotine in solution. I'd have to re-read the studies and find them again, but I believe they were testing either 18mg or 24mg ejuice which is what left "trace levels" of nicotine. You get a higher than trace level dosage eating a plate of french fries.
</edit>
BTW: I do value your opinion, and Im just sharing where I think some of the flawed arguments are coming from.
jnnfrlsw: as of right now, nicotine e-juice is not regulated; meaning in most jurisdictions it is not a "tobacco product" and vape gear is most definitely not a tobacco product. So in legal terms, that means that anyone can buy these over the counter. That being said though, there are numerous local ordinances that have classified them as such - but as of yet, there's no state-wide or federal regulations that define the vape gear or ejuice. So, in jurisdictions that don't have local ordinances targeting ejuice and pv's, ethics and self regulation is the only thing preventing kids from getting their hands on the stuff - that and ignorance and no desire to do so
Last edited:
Actually in many places there is no law that they cannot be sold to minors. So no it is NOT illegal. Many shops CHOOSE not to sell to minors but they darn sure could if they wanted to.
Here's where the argument falls apart: there is barely trace levels of nicotine resident in second hand vapor. This has been proven in multiple studies, those studies I've even read here in the ECF library. So again, the vapor clouds may be annoying, but not a public health hazard - at which point it boils down to etiquette.
<edit> To elaborate and articulate exactly what "trace levels" are, in science everything is generally measured, however there are times that the presence of something is so small that it is not measurable. These are what are referred to as trace levels; they can tell it's there, but it's so small an amount that it cant be properly measured. If I remember correctly, this is less than 100ppm (parts per million) I vape 6mg liquid, which equates out to 6006ppm of nicotine in solution. I'd have to re-read the studies and find them again, but I believe they were testing either 18mg or 24mg ejuice which is what left "trace levels" of nicotine. You get a higher than trace level dosage eating a plate of french fries.
</edit>
BTW: I do value your opinion, and Im just sharing where I think some of the flawed arguments are coming from.
jnnfrlsw: as of right now, nicotine e-juice is not regulated; meaning in most jurisdictions it is not a "tobacco product" and vape gear is most definitely not a tobacco product. So in legal terms, that means that anyone can buy these over the counter. That being said though, there are numerous local ordinances that have classified them as such - but as of yet, there's no state-wide or federal regulations that define the vape gear or ejuice. So, in jurisdictions that don't have local ordinances targeting ejuice and pv's, ethics and self regulation is the only thing preventing kids from getting their hands on the stuff - that and ignorance and no desire to do so
I agree wholeheartedly. I was just pointing out the fact that nicotine is present is enough for these politicians, with their own agendas, to use as ammo even if they are just firing blanks. The fact that it is in there is undeniable. The amount being trace, which you provided a great definition and source, is also factual. But the amount of nicotine needed to be present in order to classify it as a public health hazard seems to be a subjective issue. And politicians tend to be very fluent in rhetoric. Although with a little common sense its easy to see that politicians speak an awful lot without actually saying anything (if you get what i mean). The sad fact is that there are too many people who are too easily influenced mostly because of ignorance of the subject and common sense seems to be more of a rarity nowadays. I believe that anti-vaping advocates tend to harp on the subjective issues using exaggerated or partial truths. Which i believe stems from the greater problem with society of the people who are supposed to represent the majority seem to represent their personal agendas a bit more. Apart from the handful of uneducated zealots who need something to be riled up about and vaping just so happens to be the unlucky victim because it is a controversial issue at the moment
.And to the value opinion part,
. I love having a good discussion and even learning things in the process. Like i said i am not an advocate of these bans, just trying to bring up some points from all sides for more discussion.
Well yeah, other than the health aspects, and the smell, and the fact that there really isn't any smoke, it's exactly the same thing as smoking. All you have to do is ignore all the differences and there you are.
Most vape shops will not sell to people under 18, but that is voluntary. In most places in the US, there are no laws against it. If (and I suspect that means "when") laws are passed, they can go several ways. One would be "you can't sell to people under 18". Another would be "if you are under 18 and you vape, we can charge you". Both of them, IMO, are more likely to drive kids to cigs. Kids have always smoked cigs, and it seems silly to me to try and keep them off of vaping when you know the alternative. If it were my kid, I would rather they didn't do either one. But if they are going to do one or the other, I would *much* rather them vape than smoke.
I guess i can only speak for myself, but I quit smoking so easily because vaping so closely resembled the act of smoking. When i say the act of smoking I suppose i didn't clarify but I meant the act of bringing the pv to my mouth, inhaling, feeling a throat hit, exhaling a cloud (albeit of vapor instead of smoke lacking the carcinogens and other chemicals) that gave me the visual i was used to from smoking, and also in my case calmed my nic craving. I never intended to imply that vaping IS smoking, only that it resembled it. Which is why it has helped myself, and im sure many others, swap the medium to a healthier one, not so much kicking the habit for me but making it a healthier habit. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
:'( Such a sad thread. Lets all hope and pray and meditate on the survival of e-cigarettes, they will save millions of lives to come. Lets not forget that. We all stand together because we're all gonna make it to the retiree buffet, and have a vape afterwards.
Congratulations Chicagoans! Anyways, how do you regulate e cigs now, they can get to the ones sold in stores, but what about DIY? Mods? I see they made their way onto Eb**! They can just be called something different, that's all. I said it before, they made a bad mistake calling them electronic cigarettes on introduction, but without that, nobody would have caught on, I guess.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
One of the things I really like about ECF is that differing opinions and ideas are expressed. I also know that people tend to be passionate about their individual viewpoints. My hope is that nobody ends up feeling attacked just because their post suggests something that another member disagrees with, as that may make others more reluctant to speak up.
Now, lets all join hands and sing Kumbaya!
Now, lets all join hands and sing Kumbaya!
definitely... kids should not be exposed to wanton acts of simulated sex.... and milk should be banned too
drinking milk is a gateway to eating ice cream that leads to obesity that leads to diabeties that leads to other health issues that leads to increased overall healthcare expenditures that lead to over taxed workers that leads to civil unrest that leads to ..... you get the point
so its pretty much the same as I drink beer cuz Im thirsty is the same as I drink water cuz im thirsty
so when the kids get thirsty give em beer its the same as water
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
