4 ms·

It shouldn't be. The "think of the children" rhetoric has been used many a time now around e-cigarettes/vaping, to effectively restrict the rights of everybody.

It shouldn't be. The "think of the children" rhetoric has been used many a time now around e-cigarettes/vaping, to effectively restrict the rights of everybody. E.g. the PACT act amendment (Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, not the other one) means USPS - and therefore effectively all other carriers - can't ship vaping products from businesses to individuals, effectively ending online sales. "Law-making" at it's worst, especially because it was bundled into a massive COVID-19 relief bill. They literally called it the "Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act", although it's just the "Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes Act".

millzlane 4y ago
I remember my first purchase of e-cigarettes online involved a picture of my id and a selfie to confirm my ID. I remember I thought it was great that developers were quickly able to spin up a solution. So it was a shock to hear they were banning online sales outright.
mywittyname 4y ago
> he "think of the children" rhetoric has been used many a time now around e-cigarettes/vaping Probably due to historical precedent set by RJ Reynolds where they overtly and intentionally marketed cigarettes to kids because their research found that getting people addicted young was the best way to gain market share. This is basic common sense legislation. We know exactly what these companies are going to do, we already know it's going to be bad, and we already have a solution in place.
- guitarbill 4y ago
  > We know exactly what these companies are going to do What companies would that be? They are companies like Juul. And then there were plenty of small vape shops run by individuals who mixed their own e-liquids, or who curated a selection of e-liquids from other manufacturers. > This is basic common sense legislation. No, it isn't. Requiring age verification? Sure, even if it wasn't the law previously, all places I used did that already. Banning USPS from shipping nicotine? Maybe, but questionable. But the 2020 PACT Act amendment goes even further. It covers Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, a very broad term that includes "any component, liquid, part, or accessory of a device described [above], without regard to whether the component, liquid, part, or accessory is sold separately from the device." (!) Think about this for a second. This potentially means lithium ion batteries, coils, wire, cotton, nicotine-free/0% e-liquids, etc. How exactly does that help? I would even be fine with other solutions, e.g. banning shipping anything containing nicotine. This is how it works in some other countries; you could still buy e-liquids and components, to which you could add nicotine. The mix-in nicotine could be more controlled. I'm quite frankly sick of these bad faith arguments. It's a ridiculously broad law, and it's awful.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  > Probably due to historical precedent set by RJ Reynolds where they overtly and intentionally marketed cigarettes to kids because their research found that getting people addicted young was the best way to gain market share. But they still didn't ban actual cigarettes

millzlane 4y ago

I remember my first purchase of e-cigarettes online involved a picture of my id and a selfie to confirm my ID. I remember I thought it was great that developers were quickly able to spin up a solution. So it was a shock to hear they were banning online sales outright.

mywittyname 4y ago

> he "think of the children" rhetoric has been used many a time now around e-cigarettes/vaping Probably due to historical precedent set by RJ Reynolds where they overtly and intentionally marketed cigarettes to kids because their research found that getting people addicted young was the best way to gain market share. This is basic common sense legislation. We know exactly what these companies are going to do, we already know it's going to be bad, and we already have a solution in place.

guitarbill 4y ago
> We know exactly what these companies are going to do What companies would that be? They are companies like Juul. And then there were plenty of small vape shops run by individuals who mixed their own e-liquids, or who curated a selection of e-liquids from other manufacturers. > This is basic common sense legislation. No, it isn't. Requiring age verification? Sure, even if it wasn't the law previously, all places I used did that already. Banning USPS from shipping nicotine? Maybe, but questionable. But the 2020 PACT Act amendment goes even further. It covers Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, a very broad term that includes "any component, liquid, part, or accessory of a device described [above], without regard to whether the component, liquid, part, or accessory is sold separately from the device." (!) Think about this for a second. This potentially means lithium ion batteries, coils, wire, cotton, nicotine-free/0% e-liquids, etc. How exactly does that help? I would even be fine with other solutions, e.g. banning shipping anything containing nicotine. This is how it works in some other countries; you could still buy e-liquids and components, to which you could add nicotine. The mix-in nicotine could be more controlled. I'm quite frankly sick of these bad faith arguments. It's a ridiculously broad law, and it's awful.
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
> Probably due to historical precedent set by RJ Reynolds where they overtly and intentionally marketed cigarettes to kids because their research found that getting people addicted young was the best way to gain market share. But they still didn't ban actual cigarettes