Leaderboard

Ooohhh...I think you're on to something there... FDA Flavored eLiquid A savory mix of Bull**** and Bologna Sandwich. Reviews: **** "Whenever I start craving freedom and individuality, I take a vape from this and the cravings are gone!" Alan from Texas ***** "This is the only eLiquid deemed legal for sale by the FDA. All proceeds go to benefit Big Pharma." -FDA Bureaucrat ***** "Mmmm...tastes like hypocrisy!" -Tony from Montana

Ugh, lemme go eat some MRSA and see if the FDA says its enriched with Vitamin C

I dropped an eGo battery 2 months after I got it and it stopped working. The 2nd battery it came along with started losing juice and charge after 6 months.

Stringdancer, that was one of the BEST, if not THE best posts Ive read since being a member here. I have read it twice now, and cant find one point I dont agree with. The governments justification for banning these products IS ridiculous, and is based on greed not need. There was a thing on Fox news today about a product coming out that helps parents "monitor" where theier teenage children are, to help them keep an eye on them. Right there is a problem. We DONT need products to do the parenting for us, we need PARENTS to take responsibility. My father knew where I was damn near all the time, and I knew the thundering hand of God was coming down if I stepped out of line. Not in an abusive way, in an authoritative way. The man LOVED me and i loved him back and I NEVER got what I didnt deserve. Im getting a little off track here, but it starts somewhere, and this is one area. The spare the rod mentality. The "It takes a village to raise a child" mentality. It doesnt take a village, it takes a parent. And we need to stop infringing on everyones rights in essence to make it easier for someone else to cope with parenthood. Flavors and bells and whistles dont make akid go astray. Non supervision does.

A great thread here. Now, I'm all for safety, and feel the FDA should get off its butt and begin scientific, non-biased studies of ecigs. I'm not interested in the typical "study" paid for by corporate interests on either side of the ecig fence... I'd like to see real research NOT driven by market agendas. Packaging can be managed, as Chris has done with the child-proof caps. But there is only so much a manufacturer can do to ensure safety when dealing with a potentially toxic product. Just because e-juice holds the potential of poisoning a person or pet does not mean it shouldn't be sold, and is no justification for keeping it off the market. Were that the case, then we shouldn't have access to many household, garage and industrial products either, which is clearly absurd and way too "nanny-state" for me. As for nicotine itself... well, I'm on the side of personal liberty here. Adults are responsible for their choices, and if they want to smoke, it's their funeral. If vapers want to continue vaping and NOT use ecigs as a cessation path, it's their choice as well. Nicotine is often likened to caffeine in terms of negative health effects. Simply changing the delivery system for nicotine from burning leaves to something as benign (we assume) as vaping is a giant step forward in and of itself (based on all available data and vaper testimonials). Common sense tells us (well... me, anyway) that vaping is less harmful by orders of magnitude. Unless and until real data surfaces to suggest otherwise, I personally have no problem with substituting vaping for smoking and feeling pretty good about it. Coffee drinkers, alcohol drinkers, drug users, food addicts (addicts of every stripe, for that matter) make their choices and must deal with the consequences, and I would argue that the government should have no say in those choices. Prohibition should have taught us that personal behavior can only be encouraged, not mandated and controlled by legislation (no matter how well-intended), because such hard-fisted attempts at social control simply don't work, and is counter to the concept of personal liberty and subsequent responsibility. We are constantly being told what to do, but much less emphasis is placed on why we should do it. If but a fraction of the money spent on the so-called "war on drugs" had been spent on comprehensive, un-biased education of our youth on the science and traditional uses of various substances, on the cultural backdrop of the peoples who have used substances (I'm thinking specifically of Native American substance use and the accompanying spiritual ceremony here), we would have much less of a drug problem today. Native Americans used substances for specific reasons, at specified times, with specific ceremony and meaning infused into the practice. Such conscious and purposeful use of substances has all but disappeared. Back in the 60s and early 70s, the reasons behind why hippies used various drugs were entirely different than the what-the-hell party atmosphere we see today. There's such a thing as responsible, purposeful substance use, and then there's drug abuse. I may take some flack for that stand, but I was there, and I've seen the degrading cultural milieu surrounding the use of substances over the years first-hand. It didn't have to be that way, but the government's "do what we say but we won't educate you as to why you should do it" approach has only led to further inappropriate use of substances. Again... education is the answer, not legislation. Perhaps that rant seems a bit off-topic, but I'm inclined to say it isn't. What is true of our dysfunctional approach to substance use is certainly true of our similarly bone-headed approach to cigarettes and tobacco use generally. That's enough for now. I'm spent. lol

Possibly? Perhaps even...*ahem* infections on both parties?