San Francisco is set to restrict e-cigarette sales in 2020, devices will require FDA approval

cliffordcooley

TS Redneck
I'm not, but yours triggered my sarcasm, though I directed it to wiyosaya for his blind trust of the government.
So you are called out on a false statement and that triggers sarcasm. OK, nice to know.

By the way there is no shades of grey in context of contamination. When you state "ZERO contaminants". That is an extreme statement, especially when you bolded "zero" for emphasis.

Every one of your comments have been a marketing ploy for vaping. Not once does it seem that you have considered the legal aspects of making products legal or illegal. Someone has to draw a line. And that agency is the FDA. Step back and let them do their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya and ZedRM

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
I'm not, but yours triggered my sarcasm, though I directed it to wiyosaya for his blind trust of the government.
Now see, here you are trolling. Blind trust of the gubernment. Right. I trust the science behind it, and science is something you do not seem to get.

From your posts, you seem to think that an observed association is definitive proof of the cause. It's not - not in this case and not at all in any reasonable scientific investigation on any subject.

In fact, the CDC is not the only entity investigating this.

A quick search reveals

And I am sure there are more.

And for there to be a valid result, there will will have to be a consensus on the cause or causes of the problem.

Now for your assessment that there is a conspiracy, every one of these agencies would have to be involved - which makes your argument full of logical fallacy.

You are quick to say that those against vaping are conspiring and only in it for the money; yet you seem to completely discount that those endorsing vaping may also only be in it for the money.

Your foibles reminde me of stories of trickster figures - and in those stories, trickster sometimes tricks himself.
 

MaXtor

TS Evangelist
Platinum
So you are called out on a false statement and that triggers sarcasm. OK, nice to know.

By the way there is no shades of grey in context of contamination. When you state "ZERO contaminants". That is an extreme statement, especially when you bolded "zero" for emphasis.

Every one of your comments have been a marketing ploy for vaping. Not once does it seem that you have considered the legal aspects of making products legal or illegal. Someone has to draw a line. And that agency is the FDA. Step back and let them do their job.
My statement was in context of products which did or did not contain contaminants responsible for lung-illnesses. You took the broader definition of the word contaminant to contest my response.

As for stepping back and allowing the FDA to do their job. Well I apologize if I don't trust that they aren't once again in bed with a corporation like Johnson and Johnson (direct competitor to e-cigarettes).

Taking everything that is going on into account, it certainly seems that way.

1. Claiming a youth epidemic since 2016 without releasing the data. It's finally released and it shows they based the "epidemic" on youth experimentation [vaped within 30 days] rather than actual daily users.

2. Disregarding JUUL's extremely high nicotine levels with neutral PH (to remove the normal harshness) which lets teens get a head rush from vaping. Instead they blame flavors as the problem all while ignoring the vast array of flavors available in other adult products (check your local liquor store and see how many kinds of dessert, candy and fruit flavored vodka you can buy).

Politicians acknowledging that vaping is better than smoking, but still moving forward with bans. *cough* Governor Andrew Cuomo *cough*

And then you see constant ridiculous legislation state to state. Just the other day Governor Jim Justice of West Virginia proposed legislation to ban flavored vape products because teens put heroin into a vape. That's like banning flavored water because teens put alcohol into a water bottle.

The tell tale sign is every ban or proposed ban has been the states losing the most money from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, some even at risk of defaulting on their bonds.
 

MaXtor

TS Evangelist
Platinum
From your posts, you seem to think that an observed association is definitive proof of the cause. It's not - not in this case and not at all in any reasonable scientific investigation on any subject.
Look at every other incident outside of vaping. Lettuce contaminated with e coli, do they tell everyone to stop eating all vegetables? No, they do tests, find the culprit, the specific brand and single it out. Why has it been nearly 9 months since the first lung-illness reports, and they continue to point to all vaping rather than narrowing it to what their tests have shown?

Now for your assessment that there is a conspiracy, every one of these agencies would have to be involved - which makes your argument full of logical fallacy.
I doubt it's a coordinated effort. More in that banning vaping and a resulting increase in smoking is mutually beneficial, at least until vaping products can be taxed like cigarettes. The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement gives each state millions of dollars from tobacco sales, and that's not counting sin taxes. Smokers switching to vaping is cutting that money down exponentially.

You are quick to say that those against vaping are conspiring and only in it for the money; yet you seem to completely discount that those endorsing vaping may also only be in it for the money.
Out of 33 countries, the UK was ranked 1st at resisting tobacco industry influence on government policy. The US was ranked 26th, behind third world countries.

The UK stands strong in support of vaping for harm reduction to smokers.


Prediction: In a few years once the industry is officially handed to Big Tobacco and Big Pharma (and taxed accordingly), we'll see the government change their stance.