Why shouldn't the FDA interfere?

[Nuck]

And your buying from and supporting these child killing suppliers? Sorry, but if I truely felt that way I would run as far away from this site and e-juice as I could get.

I couldn't agree more. I have 300ml of unflavored 36mg on order and will no longer buy any juice from suppliers that don't package it properly. Both TW in the UK and JC in NA have safe packaging.

I could go on and on about what "might" kill a child this year. over 300 children die every year in swimming pool related accidents, but people still buy them (have one myself).

Life is filled with hazards. There are no absolutes or guarantees that come with it...but when there are simple, inexpensive precautions that can be taken, it makes no sense to ignore them.

The thing is, it is inevitable that our governments will force child safe packaging so it makes sense to jump the gun a bit and possibly avoid some needless tragedy (and some horrendous press).

It really is in all our best interest to avert any issue. Even the vapers without children.

 

[Grody]

I think a big difference in e-liquid and other dangerous liquids and medicines around the house is the way e-liquid is used. People will be keeping e-liquid on their coffee tables to top off their e-cigs. They will carry it around in their pockets, leave it in their cars, babysitters will bring it with them, etc, etc.

It's not like a bottle of floor cleaner that gets pulled out once a week. It's something that's going to be used every day, all day, and maybe everywhere you go. It also comes in a lot of tasty flavours. (People say the stuff tastes nasty, but I actually like the taste when it leaks out.)

Children, pets, and some adults will die from this product, I have no doubt about that.

I thought about selling this stuff, but I don't want to be held liable. Not only because of the financial penalty, but I just couldn't live with myself if I contributed to a child's death.

Even with proper labeling and child proof lids, the liquid will be left on tables with the cap off, and deaths will occur. Not providing proper packaging only increases that risk 1000+ times, and I don't know how anybody could life with that fact in order to save a few bucks.

 

[DisMan]

Every time you give up freedom for security, you have given into fear.

Never think you are not living in fear. We all are.

I'll say it in the words of Yoda....

"Land of the Brave, we are not."

 

[DisMan]

Even with proper labeling and child proof lids, the liquid will be left on tables with the cap off, and deaths will occur. Not providing proper packaging only increases that risk 1000+ times, and I don't know how anybody could life with that fact in order to save a few bucks.

Which is the same for Clorox bleach under the kitchen sink without a child lock. Or a knife in the silverware drawer. Or everybody's stoves, which children can turn the dials on. Or the refrigerator a child can open, climb into, and not be seen again for 3 hours. Or the curling iron, clothes iron, flat iron, and whatever other device we have to make ourselves look better.

Or, a more easy example, what about that tube of toothpaste that says "Do not swallow" but we teach our kids to brush their teeth every day?

Yes, these are all simple examples...however, we have to remember every day that we cannot prevent stupidity or irresponsibility in our neighbors. The more we think we can prevent such things from happening, the more we give up our freedoms. The more we try to save the "stupid people", the more we make our greater population less intelligent.

It's a sad thing to think about...sure. But I will say this...My kid and my pets won't be the ones falling to a scenario of eating e-liquid. Why? Because I am responsible. And I wouldn't have a problem selling the liquid either, just like I wouldn't have a hard time selling a gun or car....all these items we deal with every single day *can* kill somebody.

But why the heck would I ever feel I was responsible for somebody's death when they could have followed the labels and been fine?

That sounds a lot like an overly guilty conscience...and, as I said in my post above, you cannot fall to such fear. People will die because they are stupid or irresponsible....just don't be the stupid or irresponsible one to let the ones you care about die.

Read and follow the labels.

Next thing we know, we'll see a label on a gun saying "Do not point at self when pulling trigger."

 

[tpboles]

The thing is, it is inevitable that our governments will force child safe packaging so it makes sense to jump the gun a bit and possibly avoid some needless tragedy (and some horrendous press).

Bingo! I totally agree with this statement.

Nuck - Grody I agree with the idea of using labeling and child proof caps. I think most people have more sense than to leave this stuff where a small child could possibly get hurt. If they don't then they probably have other .... laying around that the said small child could be injured with. I can tell you now my 8 year old daughter and 10 year old son know that the liquid is dangerous and not to touch my stuff. I guess we are talking about younger children (damn I feel old now). My daughter uses fingernail polish remover all the time and I have yet to see her turn the bottle up and take a swig.

I don't see how beating the death drum about a product that we use will ever help our cause? It would be like working for Ford, driving a Ford vehicle, and goin' around telling people how dangerous it is to drive a Ford. Please enlighten me

One other question. Are TW and JC's caps still child proof after opening? When you put the lid back on is it child proof again (like a asprin bottle)?

I love a healthy debate eh! <----Alabama guy trying to be Canadian hehe

 

[Grody]

Disman,

I don't have a "overly guilty consience", I just don't want to sell something that might kill someone's child. Would it be my fault? No. But that wouldn't make me feel a whole lot better. If you want to sell e-liquid, go to town, but I personally am choosing not to.

And the examples you're using are not the same. The odds of this stuff killing kids is probably far greater then things like bleach. Imagine if every household that uses Bleach, also used e-liquid. I guarantee you that the death toll would be at least 1000:1 for e-liquid. People aren't pulling out the bleach dozens of times a day, and playing with it while they watch TV.

I'm a white, heterosexual, conservative, christian, male smoker. I've been on the wrong side of the "progressive" movement and the nanny state for as long as I can remember. I'd like to see government slashed by at least 50%, and I wish they'd leave me the hell alone.

But I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. I think that if you're selling stuff meant for human consumption in my country, then it makes sense that you should have to meet certain standards. Starting with listing all the ingredients, dangers, and trying your best to make sure nobody dies from your product.

Obviously there are always going to be stupid people who will do stupid things and kill themselves or their children. But that doesn't mean that some precautions shouldn't be taken.



tpboles,

I'm not saying that the liquid should be banned, although I'm pretty sure that it will be, I just think that some precautions should be taken such as proper labeling and child proof packaging.

And my son won't be drinking my e-juice. He's 13, and I've alredy warned him of the dangers of even touching it. I'm more worried about the dog snagging a bottle off the table and chewing on it. So I put my bottle in a case on the table when I get up, and keep my supply downstairs in the fridge.

But I'm aware of the dangers, and I'm a bit paranoid. Some people aren't, and will easily forget to take their bottle off the table when they go have a shower, and maybe the dog chews on it, or God forbid a young child drinks out of it.

And I don't think talking about these dangers will hurt our cause. I'm sure the FDA, or whoever else, can come up with these scenarios themselves. I think it'd help our cause if the suppliers take as many precautions as neccesary in order to prevent tragedy, and prevent an all out ban. Because once someone dies from this stuff, that's it, you can't unring the bell. The public will just hear that the dirty smokers are buying squeeze bottles of poison that taste like Peppermint, and a little bottle can kill the entire neighbourhood.

Now I hope e-liquid isn't banned, but I know what society I'm living in, and I know that kicking smokers around has become a life long obsession for some people. I just don't see this glorious juice being available for long. So I'm loading up, and I'd suggest everyone else do the same.

 

[JJames68]

all they have to prove is e-smoking is less harmful to the one vaping and those around them then smoking - once that is done, then they have no right to ban them - from personal experience that seems to be the case, if they find pg is bad for you then people that work around fog machines day in and day out will no longer be allowed to use those fog machines again, have any of them ever had any issues?

 

[nealglover]

The consumer has a lot of power to steer change.

If we as the people who buy the liquids, only bought from the companies who currently use childproof packaging and clear labelling (TW UK and JC NA etc) then the other will need to shape up or ship out ??

Also these companies are showing more responsibility, and not just trying to cash in the easy way, so they are the companies that we want to be fighting our corner when legislation is being discussed.

The companies that have good labelling and packaging have already started to show a commitment to us, how about we do the same and force the rest to either follow suit or go out of business ?

 

[Nuck]

I'd write a response for the debate but Grody managed to cover ever point I would make far more eloquently than I ever could.

I feel a bit obsolete...

 

[TropicalBob]

Grody made an excellent post.

I'd add this: Intelligent people look for solutions in tragedies. They do not live "in fear". They attempt to find solutions so tragedies do not repeat. That's the purpose of reporting a mother pushing a stroller being struck and killed while crossing an intersection. The report demands that we think about how to prevent another person dying that way in the future. How can we prevent tragedy? You probably don't know the person who died tragically, but it could be you if solutions are not found and implemented. We search all tragedies for ways to prevent repeats.

It's the smart thing to do. It's the right thing to do. It's a "human" thing to do. Sheep flee in fear; people use intelligent reasoning and resolve to make the world safer and better.

I left Right to Vape because what I do is my choice, but I cannot encourage others to e-smoke with all its unknowns. I wrote on my leaving, "If I kill myself, my bad. If I'm responsible for killing others, my eternal shame." I will not be party to that until today's untenable practices are resolved.

I still feel that way. If we apply intelligent solutions to the many problems e-smoking now has, we might live to see it become a truly intelligent alternative to tobacco smoking. If we ignore them, the entire practice will surely be banned. That would be the intelligent thing to do.

 

[Caesarea]

Agree with Tropical Bob - right to vape + duty to remove the dubious.

 

[Kate]

I can't remember the exact quote but I read this years ago:

'The difference between a tragedy and a comedy is that in a comedy the characters work out the plot before it's too late.'

Working out scenarios and making plans to avoid potential tragic events (risk assessment) is the best way to end up having a laugh.

http://www.creativity-engineering.com/comtrag.html

 

[TropicalBob]

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry!

I am sure you're not arguing for continuing a lack of knowledge. Is this a test, teacher? I choose comedy.

 

[Kate]

Oh, sorry TBob.

I'm not really arguing about anything to be honest. Reading this thread made me feel a bit philosophical and reminded me of that quote I read long ago.

It seems to me that we go back and forth between comedy and tragedy with our discussions and I guess I'd rather we end up laughing.

Maybe in a way I'm agreeing with the points made to reduce risks by improving packaging and safety measures.

Sorry I was a bit obscure

 

[HK45]

Where in the Constitution of the United States does it state that it is the government's responsibility to protect us from ourselves? The American people have been slowly giving up their rights for the past few decades that they are used to it. They want a Big Brother to take care of them.
Examples: Although I use these devices by choice, are seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, etc.. Situations where I am endangering only myself, no one else!
In matters like these you have a choice; go back to analogs, chew some Nicorette, put on a patch, but don't infringe on my rights!
Benjamin Franklin said it best, I think:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[Nuck]

You confuse your right to risk your own health with a suppliers right to risk the health of children. Not even a parent has that right. Safe packaging just isn't a constitutional issue.

Edit: You also assume that suppliers don't ship outside of the US which isn't the case.

 

[vape4life]

If a supplier is MISLEADING by their claims, then it is the government's authority to step in (on a strictly philosophical level). Otherwise, it's nobodies business but my own.

Via J.S. Mill, the foundational philosopher of all modern-day democratic systems.

 

[HK45]

You confuse your right to risk your own health with a suppliers right to risk the health of children. Not even a parent has that right. Safe packaging just isn't a constitutional issue.

Edit: You also assume that suppliers don't ship outside of the US which isn't the case.

Nuck,

Did you read only half of the post and miss where I stated "in situations where I am endangering only myself, no one else"?

 

[Nuck]

If a supplier is MISLEADING by their claims, then it is the government's authority to step in (on a strictly philosophical level). Otherwise, it's nobodies business but my own.

On a strictly philosophical you are probably right. In the real world, governments enact laws to protect society. Traffic lights, product testing, product packaging, warning labels, etc can all be argued that they infringe on individual liberty. Absolute freedom in a society doesn't exist, never has and never will.

The only real debate is how far a government can and should go in it's effort to protect. Arguing against safe packaging and labeling on a highly poisonous liquid that is bottled with candy flavorings is a bit silly. You can argue it, but I promise you, the governments are not going to agree.

 

[Nuck]

Nuck,

Did you read only half of the post and miss where I stated "in situations where I am endangering only myself, no one else"?

I assumed you were referring to living alone with your liquid. Unfortunately, suppliers (which is the debate we are having) ship to a wide variety of people. If you want to take the liquid out of the safe packaging and have a bath in it, go for it. Nobody is trying to take that right away from you. We're just arguing the inevitability of safe packaging for the juice at a supplier level.