4 ms·

> My preference would be for vape liquids containing nicotine to be prescription only for recovering smokers But what if adults just want to vape? Plenty of th

> My preference would be for vape liquids containing nicotine to be prescription only for recovering smokers But what if adults just want to vape? Plenty of things are addictive. Sugar, video games, Facebook... if you want to take away somebody freedom to do something I think you’d need a pretty compelling reason. Otherwise why not just have the government tell you when to go to bed, wake up, go to the gym, what to eat, etc.

aaomidi 7y ago
It's also stupid because if vaping is difficult would you rather I smoke?
adjkant 7y ago
How about requiring companies to produce non-nicotine versions of equal quality? The addictive part is optional, unlike with sugar for example. Video games and Facebook are more of a grey area but removing the addictive elements is more complex to say the least. Let's remove it when we literally know it's one non-essential ingredient.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  Where did you get the idea from that you or anybody else should get to make people’s decisions for them? With smoking, the government decided that the affects were so grievously harmful that they should put serious restrictions in place regulating their sale. You can agree with that or not, but at least there’s some logic to it. Nicotine is not the harmful part of the cigarette, and unless some new information comes to light, vaping isn’t anywhere as harmful as smoking. Where’s your justification for trying to remove people freedom to do it? Because following your line of reasoning to it’s logical conclusion, we’d end up with government mandated lifestyles.
  - adjkant 7y ago
    > Where did you get the idea from that you or anybody else should get to make people’s decisions for them? Where did you get the idea that I made anyone else's decision? I am literally just asking for the option of vaping without nicotine to exist. My theory is only that many people (especially kids without a history of smoking) would choose vaping without nicotine on their own if they had the option. Juul et al know that would drastically shrink their revenue, so they, the profit seeking company they are, made sure their product had an addictive substance in it, and then marketed it to people not already exposed to the addiction. Requiring them to make an equal product without nicotine is at worst market regulation that basically all consumable products go through and at best a public safety mandate.
    - antpol 7y ago
      Juul is making the vapor device though. The user is free to charge it with whatever liquid he/she desires
      - adjkant 7y ago
        Availability is key though. Juul brand pods are simply the default, and for people on here we should know the power of sane defaults. Especially when we are talking underage users who are not really able to take advantage of the full market. I did some googling and even promising links advertising no nicotine alternatives didn't even seem to have any in stock to order. Also noticed some disturbing trends with hiding the nicotine levels by mixing grams and percentage strengths and referring to it as "nic" which the skeptic in me says this is to divert attention from it being nicotine and people doing research on its addictive properties for those young enough not to know from anti-smoking campaigns. Edit: Did a bit more digging and found some, but still likely harder to get if under 21.
EdwardDiego 7y ago
> But what if adults just want to vape? Why would you willingly take a highly addictive substance for shits and giggles? You don't even get properly high on it. I got addicted to tobacco because I was young and an idiot. But you're right, adults should be free to be idiots if they like. I just feel repelled by large tobacco corporations profiting by pivoting nicotine addiction from tobacco to vaping products. In my country, British American Tobacco is focusing a large amount of their marketing on selling nicotine vapes to young people. So perhaps treat vape products the same as we treat tobacco products - plain packaging, no marketing allowed.
- apta 7y ago
  > But you're right, adults should be free to be idiots if they like. This is the mentality that ended up getting society down the drain. No, "adults" (many of whom aren't mentally) shouldn't be allowed to be idiots, especially if it puts other people at risk.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    You put yourself at risk countless times every single day, in ways that would mostly be unnecessary. Why should you even be allowed to leave your house without permit? Especially if you’re just doing it for something like entertainment, leisure or your own enjoyment.
    - apta 7y ago
      Your argument has a fallacy. Smoking is not only bad for whoever smokes, but is also bad for anyone near him/her, as well as the environment. There is literally zero benefit from it, let's stop with this "adults can do anything they want" mentality.
      - AmericanChopper 7y ago
        Well we’re actually talking about vaping, but I’d still like you to answer my question. Also, you are constantly putting other people at risk as well. Taking any form of transport, cooking, living in a house that has either electricity or natural gas, playing any form of sport, living in a house made from flammable material. If you want to include emotional or psychological harm, then add the very act of existence to the list. All of that and countless other things you do every day puts other people at risk. So again, why should you have the right to do anything at all that put yourself or anybody else at risk of harm?
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
Vaping has the potential to be qualitatively more harmful than any of the things you mention. Video games/facebook are just addictive mental feedback loops, added sugars are fairly simple compounds used in excess, cigarettes are fairly simple with not much room for technological optimization. Vaping, or unregulated vaping in the future, can consist of thousands of carefully optimized and artificially engineered chemicals delivered to the human lungs/bloodstream through an optimized hardware device. The addictive properties of such devices can surpass anything we have seen short of directly injecting similar chemicals into the bloodstream. In simple words, vaping once optimized over a few device generations has the potential to be at least as harmful as hard drugs (heroin/coke/etc), while masquerading as safe and socially acceptable. Therefore, they need to be regulated. An outright ban might not be advisable, but banning certain chemicals or device designs might be preferable.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  > vaping once optimized over a few device generations has the potential to be at least as harmful as hard drugs (heroin/coke/etc) Vaping itself doesn’t have any proven harmful affects. I’m not saying it definitely won’t turn out to have any at all, but nicotine is not carcinogenic, and doesn’t have anywhere near the same potential to harm as the narcotics you mentioned. This is really just speculation. > An outright ban might not be advisable, but banning certain chemicals or device designs might be preferable. Sounds good to me. I’ve got no issue with the FDA making sure my food is safe to consume, nor any with this suggestion. It’s a sin tax or other ridiculous restrictions that seem unjustified to me. I expect the truth behind a lot of the regulation talk is really that the government doesn’t want to lose tobacco tax revenue. Which really just makes the whole thing even more tyrannical.
  - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
    I am not at all concerned about the medical harms of vaping in my post. Facebook also doesn't have any medical harms, but its addictive nature is why it is slowly being more and more regulated. The potential super-addictive nature of vaping (much greater than cigarettes or facebook), I argue, is why it needs to be regulated.

aaomidi 7y ago

It's also stupid because if vaping is difficult would you rather I smoke?

adjkant 7y ago

How about requiring companies to produce non-nicotine versions of equal quality? The addictive part is optional, unlike with sugar for example. Video games and Facebook are more of a grey area but removing the addictive elements is more complex to say the least. Let's remove it when we literally know it's one non-essential ingredient.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
Where did you get the idea from that you or anybody else should get to make people’s decisions for them? With smoking, the government decided that the affects were so grievously harmful that they should put serious restrictions in place regulating their sale. You can agree with that or not, but at least there’s some logic to it. Nicotine is not the harmful part of the cigarette, and unless some new information comes to light, vaping isn’t anywhere as harmful as smoking. Where’s your justification for trying to remove people freedom to do it? Because following your line of reasoning to it’s logical conclusion, we’d end up with government mandated lifestyles.
- adjkant 7y ago
  > Where did you get the idea from that you or anybody else should get to make people’s decisions for them? Where did you get the idea that I made anyone else's decision? I am literally just asking for the option of vaping without nicotine to exist. My theory is only that many people (especially kids without a history of smoking) would choose vaping without nicotine on their own if they had the option. Juul et al know that would drastically shrink their revenue, so they, the profit seeking company they are, made sure their product had an addictive substance in it, and then marketed it to people not already exposed to the addiction. Requiring them to make an equal product without nicotine is at worst market regulation that basically all consumable products go through and at best a public safety mandate.
  - antpol 7y ago
    Juul is making the vapor device though. The user is free to charge it with whatever liquid he/she desires
    - adjkant 7y ago
      Availability is key though. Juul brand pods are simply the default, and for people on here we should know the power of sane defaults. Especially when we are talking underage users who are not really able to take advantage of the full market. I did some googling and even promising links advertising no nicotine alternatives didn't even seem to have any in stock to order. Also noticed some disturbing trends with hiding the nicotine levels by mixing grams and percentage strengths and referring to it as "nic" which the skeptic in me says this is to divert attention from it being nicotine and people doing research on its addictive properties for those young enough not to know from anti-smoking campaigns. Edit: Did a bit more digging and found some, but still likely harder to get if under 21.

EdwardDiego 7y ago

> But what if adults just want to vape? Why would you willingly take a highly addictive substance for shits and giggles? You don't even get properly high on it. I got addicted to tobacco because I was young and an idiot. But you're right, adults should be free to be idiots if they like. I just feel repelled by large tobacco corporations profiting by pivoting nicotine addiction from tobacco to vaping products. In my country, British American Tobacco is focusing a large amount of their marketing on selling nicotine vapes to young people. So perhaps treat vape products the same as we treat tobacco products - plain packaging, no marketing allowed.

apta 7y ago
> But you're right, adults should be free to be idiots if they like. This is the mentality that ended up getting society down the drain. No, "adults" (many of whom aren't mentally) shouldn't be allowed to be idiots, especially if it puts other people at risk.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  You put yourself at risk countless times every single day, in ways that would mostly be unnecessary. Why should you even be allowed to leave your house without permit? Especially if you’re just doing it for something like entertainment, leisure or your own enjoyment.
  - apta 7y ago
    Your argument has a fallacy. Smoking is not only bad for whoever smokes, but is also bad for anyone near him/her, as well as the environment. There is literally zero benefit from it, let's stop with this "adults can do anything they want" mentality.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      Well we’re actually talking about vaping, but I’d still like you to answer my question. Also, you are constantly putting other people at risk as well. Taking any form of transport, cooking, living in a house that has either electricity or natural gas, playing any form of sport, living in a house made from flammable material. If you want to include emotional or psychological harm, then add the very act of existence to the list. All of that and countless other things you do every day puts other people at risk. So again, why should you have the right to do anything at all that put yourself or anybody else at risk of harm?

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

Vaping has the potential to be qualitatively more harmful than any of the things you mention. Video games/facebook are just addictive mental feedback loops, added sugars are fairly simple compounds used in excess, cigarettes are fairly simple with not much room for technological optimization. Vaping, or unregulated vaping in the future, can consist of thousands of carefully optimized and artificially engineered chemicals delivered to the human lungs/bloodstream through an optimized hardware device. The addictive properties of such devices can surpass anything we have seen short of directly injecting similar chemicals into the bloodstream. In simple words, vaping once optimized over a few device generations has the potential to be at least as harmful as hard drugs (heroin/coke/etc), while masquerading as safe and socially acceptable. Therefore, they need to be regulated. An outright ban might not be advisable, but banning certain chemicals or device designs might be preferable.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
> vaping once optimized over a few device generations has the potential to be at least as harmful as hard drugs (heroin/coke/etc) Vaping itself doesn’t have any proven harmful affects. I’m not saying it definitely won’t turn out to have any at all, but nicotine is not carcinogenic, and doesn’t have anywhere near the same potential to harm as the narcotics you mentioned. This is really just speculation. > An outright ban might not be advisable, but banning certain chemicals or device designs might be preferable. Sounds good to me. I’ve got no issue with the FDA making sure my food is safe to consume, nor any with this suggestion. It’s a sin tax or other ridiculous restrictions that seem unjustified to me. I expect the truth behind a lot of the regulation talk is really that the government doesn’t want to lose tobacco tax revenue. Which really just makes the whole thing even more tyrannical.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  I am not at all concerned about the medical harms of vaping in my post. Facebook also doesn't have any medical harms, but its addictive nature is why it is slowly being more and more regulated. The potential super-addictive nature of vaping (much greater than cigarettes or facebook), I argue, is why it needs to be regulated.