Am I nuts for thinking this?

[Mitz]

Mods existed before vaping, with 18650 batteries for firing torches. The 510 connector identifies a mod as a vaping device, but torch heads now exist with 510 connectors.

Should an electrical supplier that sells no vape gear have to label his mods "May contain nicotine"?

Try convincing the regulation guys you wanna buy a mod made by a vape company to power up your torch!
Who makes the equipment is relevant.

We're a long way away from using torches to vape!

No, sell no vape gear = No vape related warnings. IMHO.

 

[Ment]

Try convincing the regulation guys you wanna buy a mod made by a vape company to power up your torch!

I'm just pointing out a grey area and the stupidity of the rules.

An electrical supplier may not even know a mod is designed for vaping and could be selling mods with compatible torch heads.

If they have to be labelled "May contain nicotine" just in case someone buys one for vaping, then surely all Tupperware should be labelled "Danger of salmonella poisoning", as many people will use them for storing raw chicken.

The list is endless and I believe there are many aspects of the TPD that wouldn't survive a rigorous challenge in a high court.

 

[Sparky87]

Red bull, coke cola and lemonade are used as mixers for alcohol but they don't have any warnings for alcohol so why should none nicotine liquids and vape devices carry the same warning?

 

[Sparky87]

Or for bread "may contain meat" for vegans

 

[Sparky87]

Craziest thing off all though you can buy a bong for decoration use, pipes for decoration use and everything inbetween all for decoration use and they are all for "potential ILLEGAL use" but our government and trading standards are happy for that

 

[Ment]

Or for bread "may contain meat" for vegans

I love this, genuine lol.

Can anyone come up with a sillier one?

I'll kick off with "BMW's may contain @3dj".

 

[Sparky87]

I love this, genuine lol.

Can anyone come up with a sillier one?

I'll kick off with "BMW's may contain @3dj".

"Pubs may contain pissheads"

 

[Mitz]

I'm just pointing out a grey area and the stupidity of the rules.

An electrical supplier may not even know a mod is designed for vaping and could be selling mods with compatible torch heads.

If they have to be labelled "May contain nicotine" just in case someone buys one for vaping, then surely all Tupperware should be labelled "Danger of salmonella poisoning", as many people will use them for storing raw chicken.

The list is endless and I believe there are many aspects of the TPD that wouldn't survive a rigorous challenge in a high court.

To be totally honest, bud, I think the entire TPD is total BS. Busy-bodies with nothing better to do than mollycoddle the population at large who they believe are stupid and need protecting from themselves. As far as I can see there is no sane rationale behind it. Just politicians who have too much time on their hands. I was just pointing out that I don't think these arguments will wash with anybody dumb enough to dream up TPD in the first place!

 

[Sparky87]

At the end of the day everyone can see vaping has been the biggest and the best and the most common AND the most guaranteed way to quit smoking and to give up the addiction.

 

[zouzounaki]

Only if said liquid was created for the sole purpose of being vaped.

I was commenting on the logic of the statement though. You could add nicotine to any liquid you like, no? It is absurd to label a product that doesn't contain nicotine, as containing nicotine. Especially if it also says 0% nicotine on it.