FDA To Regulate E-Cigarettes Like Tobacco (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have been all the rage lately, as many claim they are healthier than traditional tobacco cigarettes. Since they are so relatively new to the market, the government hasn't been able to effectively study them and determine whether or not they should be regulated like traditional cigarettes and smokeless tobacco -- until now. The FDA has released their final rule Thursday, broadening the definition of tobacco products to include e-cigarettes, hookahs, pipe tobacco, premium cigars, little cigars and other products. "Going forward, the FDA will be able to review new tobacco products not yet on the market, help prevent misleading claims by tobacco product manufacturers, evaluate the ingredients of tobacco products and how they are made, and communicate the potential risks of tobacco products," the agency said. The new rule will go into effect immediately. According to CDC data from 2014, e-cigarette use among adults has gone up about 12.6%. People under the age of 18 will no longer be able to buy these products with the new regulations, and the products will be required to be sold in child-resistant packaging. In addition, the government will now be able to have a say in what goes into the products. Previously, there was no law mandating that manufacturers tell you what you are inhaling when trying their products.

Comments

Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should tobacco or any form of cigarette be legal at all? There are no redeeming benefits of smoking.

Re:Simple question

[whoozwah]

that's a matter of perception.

Re:Simple question

[zlives]

ummm, are you aware of the profits?

Re:Simple question

[Luthair]

That argument could be made for a pretty wide variety of stuff from sugar to alcohol. The biggest argument against smoking & e-cigarettes is that one person forces their choice upon others.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Automobiles cause a lot of fatalities, let's make those illegal. Ladders lead to a lot of height related injuries and deaths, why are they still legal?

So many things to make illegal, or maybe make stupidity illegal (but then we wouldn't have dumbass AC posts on /. then would we)

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Some studies show nicotine staves off dementia or Alzheimer's, IIRC. I suppose you have nothing but contempt for the people who enjoy it, though, so you don't really want answers, just everyone to bow to your will.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no redeeming benefits of smoking.

Yeah well, maybe you haven't been around people who need a cigarette. The apparent lack of benefits to you do not give the right to deny it to them. Cost/benefit ratios shouldn't be dictated by only one side of the argument. Just stay upwind and all is good.

Re:Simple question

[sims 2]

So where is this upwind? They have been regulated into standing right outside the door under the drip so everyone gets to walk through a nice smoke wall when entering or leaving the building.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed! I have no problem with people choosing to smoke, only them choosing to take my choice of not smoking away from me when they pollute the air I'm breathing.

If they can guarantee that the only pollution to my airspace from e-cigs is simply normal atmospheric ingredients then I say let them smoke!

Re:Simple question

[PopeRatzo]

that's a matter of perception.

You're right. If you're a tobacco industry executive, I imagine your perception of the benefits of smoking might be different from say, the surviving loved one of someone who died from emphysema.

Re:Simple question

[slinches]

Why should tobacco or any form of cigarette be legal at all? There are no redeeming benefits of smoking.

You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking why it should be illegal. And if you find reasons that it should, any laws written should try to address those aspects with minimal interference in the personal choices of individuals.

Banning things just because you don't like them is not okay.

Re:Simple question

[Daetrin]

Because it has been repeatedly shown that trying to outlaw any kind of drug only leads to even worse health problems, violence, crime, loss of citizen's rights, loss of revenue, increased government spending, and just all around misery.

Tax it, sure. Regulate it, sure. Especially when it comes down to forcing manufacturers to accurately inform their customers of the contents of the product and any potential risks. Or putting restrictions on where and when people can imbibe the drug in question. (One can argue about what exactly those limits should be, but at least some things like "don't smoke in indoor public spaces" and "don't drink while driving" are perfectly reasonable.)

But outlawing tobacco (or any other popular drug) would just be a disaster for everyone.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

How about they just use patches? They can get the supposed health benefits without smelling literally like an ash-tray, and avoid the cancers too!

Re:Simple question

[GLMDesigns]

How about personal freedom. How about you have a right to your own body. If you can abort a fetus certainly you can decide whether or not to smoke a cigarette.

Re:Simple question

[dgatwood]

That argument could be made for a pretty wide variety of stuff from sugar to alcohol.

Not really. Sugar plays a vital role in sports drinks, and moderate consumption of some alcoholic beverages has been shown to have a number of health benefits, including lower risk of heart disease.

Re:Simple question

[Archangel Michael]

You want the government to tell you what you can and cannot do with your body?

How do you feel about pot?

"Redeeming benefits" is your opinion. Some people actually enjoy smoking, just because you don't doesn't make your opinion the only one that counts.

And this is part of the whole "the state can regulate what you do in your private home" thing that I hate about both leftwing and rightwing statists.

Re: Simple question

[TheReaperD]

Yes, because the war on drugs has gone so well and drug use has been eliminated. *eye roll*

Re:Simple question

[Archangel Michael]

I know someone who died of Emphysema who enjoyed every last cigarette they smoked, to their dying day. It is a matter of perception, and why should you push your perception on other people who do not share it? If you're able to do that with cigarettes, can I do it with something you might like, like porn or bacon or ...??

Basically, who "perception" (aka Opinion) counts more, yours or mine?

Re:Simple question

[superwiz]

What do you mean? Nicotine is a mild cognitive stimulant -- just like caffeine. The only harmful part of cigarettes is the actual delivery mechanism (the smoke). Since e-cigarettes don't have tobacco smoke (they use water vapor), they are effectively a new form of nicotine gum or nicotine patch. The only reason they are being treated with suspicion is the believe that they will de-stigmatize smoking of actual cigarettes. This is literally trying to use a healthcare agency (FDA) to regulate an element of cultural perception.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does there have to be a redeeming benefit? And who decides that, you?

I don't smoke and I don't vape, but enough already. There was a time when the dangers of inhaling burnt byproducts was little known. That time is long passed. Also, despite precisely zero evidence that casual occasional exposure to 'secondhand smoke' causes any problems whatsoever, the hysterical control freaks have managed to ban smoking from, in some cases, outdoor places. Indoor band in public buildings make some sense, but what smokers have to put up with now is just harassment.

So now we want to treat a class of product that has not even been proven harmful to the primary user and not even suspected harmful to anoyne else the same as real cigarette use just because it comes in a stick with a glowing light on the end (mostly). All because the hysterical crybabies have to control everything around them.

You do know that a good lot of eCigarettes have no tobacco products in them at all, right? So what are you regulating? Oh, right, you just want your feelings respected or something.

I predicted this years ago. The reaction of anti smoking zealots to these things was gonna be the same as the reaction of puriticanical religious zealots to birth control, or the anti drinking crowd to self driving cars. The behavior they hate so much (people enjoying themselves) now doesn't have as many automatic natural consequences and the notion drives them crazy.

Re:Simple question

[war4peace]

Wasn't this tried before with Alcohol? I think it was called "The Prohibition" or something. I wonder how that turned out...

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Automobiles and ladders solve several common and real problems (mostly related to things being far away form other things).

What similarly real and prevalent problem does smoking tobacco solve?

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd. I would have to assume that the millions of people who smoke would also have a perception of the benefits of smoking, or maybe they wouldn't be smokers.

You authoritarians crack me up. Durr, why do you need guns! Why do you need tobacco!

Because fuck you, that's why.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Women have a right to their body... Abortion

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

E-cigs are vapor. There is no flame, there is no burning of tobacco, there is literally no smell at all, aside from the Juice Flavor you use (the one I'm hitting on right now is Blueberry, so anyone around would smell that, if anything at all).

Sitting in a European Hotel room right now that charges £100 fine if you smoke in it -- and I'm using my e-cig in confidence because there is absolutely zero chance that I can be detected.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck does e-cigarettes have to do with smelling like an ash tray? You're probably one of those people that complains about the smell of a brewery or dispensary. Get over it!

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't it be? Soda has no redeeming benefits either, should that be made illegal? Sugary sweets perhaps? Do you really want to live in a country where anything without an explicit, "redeeming benefit" is made a priori illegal? I sure as hell don't.

Re:Simple question

[nintendoeats]

Smoking his dumb.

People should have the right to be dumb.

Re:Simple question

[kheldan]

Basic personal freedom to choose how you live your life, that's what. If you or someone else can legislate that tobacco products are illegal, then who's to say that they can't take something that you enjoy that isn't 'necessary' for you to do, and say that's 'too risky' and make that illegal? People like you always forget: 'What's good for the goose, is good for the gander'.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if the requirement is that there's a real and prevalent problem to be solved, then do we get to determine if there's a real and prevalent need for the ladder or automobile? Do you really NEED that television mounted to the wall? Do you NEED that satellite dish on the roof? Is that trip to the movies really worth the risk to a pedestrian's life and limb?

The pragmatist understands completely the need to restrict rights on behalf of those for which there is no choice, smoking indoors or around young children as an example. Beyond that? You will not legislate people from themselves. Education and treatment are the best solutions.

Re:Simple question

[ganjadude]

because we dont outlaw things simply because they are bad for you (or shouldnt anyway) personal choice an all

Re:Simple question

[ArchieBunker]

People were too fucking dumb and chain smoking with their children in the car so the government had to step in and become the babysitter.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Automobiles cause a lot of fatalities, let's make those illegal. Ladders lead to a lot of height related injuries and deaths, why are they still legal?

So many things to make illegal, or maybe make stupidity illegal (but then we wouldn't have dumbass AC posts on /. then would we)

We would have 4 or 5 posts per topic because posts from people like narcc and 110010001000 would be really hard to make from prison. Heck it is arguable that a lot of the moderators would be locked up and the key thrown away!

Re:Simple question

[UnknownSoldier]

While you and I both agree that drugs aren't healthy, trying to micro-manage how other people use plants (tobacco, marijuana, etc.) with their body is just a little too Orwellian for my tastes.

i.e. One could attempt to make the same argument over alcohol ...

Why should alcohol or any form of liqueur be legal at all? There are no redeeming benefits of drinking.

... although I imagine the wine-drinkers would be out in pitchforks.

This quickly turns into a slippery slope argument. If history teaches us anything, Prohibition is NOT the answer, self control is.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should sugar be legal at all?

Why should salt be legal at all?

Why should fat be legal at all?

Why should any form of house cleaner be legal at all?

Why should anything but safety scissors be legal at all?

Why should antifreeze be legal at all?

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest argument against smoking & e-cigarettes is that one person forces their choice upon others.

So does driving.

The fuck should I have to inhale smog just because your dumb ass can't telecommute?

Ban cars now.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I lost my mom when she was 49. Fuck cigs, fuck cancer

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

De-stigmatize nothing.... nicotine gum and patches have no potential effect on people around you. The same can't be said for people who feel entitled to vape any and everywhere because "it isn't smoking". I shouldn't be forced to breath someones secondhand nebulized nicotine patch any more than I should their secondhand cigarette smoke. If more people who vape had the common courtesy to have treated it like cigarette and been respectful of others it probably would have taken longer to have gotten to this point.

Tho I do feel it is a good thing that it will force companies to disclose what is in their products because the people using them at the very least deserve to know what's in them.

Re:Simple question

[Razed By TV]

The only harmful part of cigarettes is the actual delivery mechanism (the smoke).

You do realize that people who use chewing tobacco get all sorts of oral cancers, right?

Since e-cigarettes don't have tobacco smoke (they use water vapor)

The hell they do. Most e-cig's use propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin as solvents to disolve and deliver the nicotine. Liquid for e-cig's rarely contains water, and even when it does it is still mixed with the other two solvents. Then there are the flavorings. And the artificial sweeteners to make the flavorings taste sweeter. And then you heat all that up and inhale it, and no one really knows for sure if it is safe or not.

The only reason they are being treated with suspicion is the believe that they will de-stigmatize smoking of actual cigarettes.

Two or three reasons, actually. One is concern that e-cigs will destigmatize nicotine addiction, especially among young people. Two, you don't think Big Tobacco has any stakes in knocking a competing product down a few pegs? Tobacco executives are shitting themselves over this supposedly safer, less stigmatized, less offensive product that directly threatens their livelihood. And three, if you count concerns about inhaling products that haven't been studied for long term health effects. You know, like cigarettes used to be.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Bacon, though really really good, isn't addictive. Of course people who smoke enjoy their cigarettes, especially given the alternative. I smoke for the flavor is like I read hustler for the articles.

Re:Simple question

[ShanghaiBill]

Also if you have schizophrenia. Nicotine is an anti-psychotic, and can reduce the tremors caused by some other anti-psychotic meds. About 80% of people with schizophrenia smoke, compared to about 20% of the rest of the population.

Re:Simple question

[Mr D from 63]

The only reason they are being treated with suspicion is the believe that they will de-stigmatize smoking of actual cigarettes.

I have no problem with regulating them, as they have been shown to be quite habit forming for the under-age. Allowing legal purchase only over a certain age makes complete sense to me. They are not being banned.

Of course, with regulation comes a good excuse to levy new taxes to pay for it.

Re:Simple question

[Mr D from 63]

How about personal freedom. How about you have a right to your own body. If you can abort a fetus certainly you can decide whether or not to smoke a cigarette.

Its not like they are going to ban them, so you will be able to exercise that right. They simply will put in a age limit, which makes sense, and require warning labels.

Re:Simple question

[ShanghaiBill]

I would have to assume that the millions of people who smoke would also have a perception of the benefits of smoking

That would be a bad assumption. Most smokers start when they are minors, trying to fit in or look cool. By the time they realize that it is stupid, they are addicted. Most smokers do not like smoking and wish they had never started. If we can stop the tobacco industry from preying on shortsighted underage children, their business model will collapse.

Re:Simple question

[superwiz]

I shouldn't be forced to breath someones secondhand nebulized nicotine patch any more than I should their secondhand cigarette smoke.

Why not? Once again, nicotine in extremely small doses has no harmful effects. In large doses it may overstimulate the heart (just as coffee in large doses can). But in small doses, which you inhale from second-hand vaping, nicotine (without the tobacco) does no more harm to you than let's say people farting. Should farting be illegal? I agree on the point of common courtesy, but is that really what FDA should be regulating?

Re:Simple question

[ShanghaiBill]

They have been regulated into standing right outside the door under the drip

In California, smokers are required to stay at least 20 feet from the entrance. The last place I worked had had a yellow line painted on the sidewalk. You smoke inside that line, you got a written warning. On the second offence, you were fired. My current employer avoids the problem by refusing to hire smokers, which is totally legal. Smokers have no employment rights.

Re:Simple question

[suupaabaka]

Absolutely! I'm all about personal freedom.

I'd love the freedom to walk down the street without some douchebag walking in front of me and creating chemical clouds in my path. I'd love the freedom to enjoy the outdoors seating area at a cafe without having cigarette smoke mingling with my coffee. And I'd love the freedom to take a break every hour at work to do nothing.

I'm all for one's personal freedom to ravage one's own body with 7000 chemicals condensed into a single, burning stick. But I'd like the freedom from that being inflicted on me in public spaces, too.

Re:Simple question

[Darinbob]

Then go smoke in a hermetically sealed room.

Re:Simple question

[PopeRatzo]

You authoritarians

Hey! How do you get "authoritarian" from my comment? I don't want smoking to be illegal. I think cigarettes make a person look cool and sophisticated.

My comment was strictly about the fact that the benefits of smoking vary based upon perception.

Re:Simple question

[110010001000]

Mine. Because I am partially paying the health care costs of the guy who died of emphysema.

Re:Simple question

[PopeRatzo]

I know someone who died of Emphysema who enjoyed every last cigarette they smoked, to their dying day.

I hope your mom also enjoyed every dollar of taxpayer money it took for her end of life medical care as she sucked down those cigarettes.

And my original comment didn't mention smokers, did it? All I did was compare the perceptions of the benefits of smoking to a tobacco industry executive as opposed to the loved one of someone who choked to death from emphysema.

Re:Simple question

[thegarbz]

Your freedom ends where mine starts. I should have the ability to go about my life without having people blowing clouds of smoke in my face while I eat, work, or walk down the street.

Having recently moved from a country that very nearly to abolished smoking to Europe, all I can say is this place stinks. Literally. And thats before I look at the mountain of butts smokers leave behind.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, you have it backwards. We don't NEED any freedoms. There are no redeeming benefits of many rights, especially at the outside end of the spectrum in how they are used. Unless you are an Orwellian fetishist control freak, the presumption is not that there has to be a benefit to a freedom, but that there has to be social problems so great and massive that there are dire national consequences to not removing that freedom and no other ways to solve the problem besides removing that freedom.

For example, art, alcohol, excess education, knowing history, free speech, video games, radio stations, television programs, unhealthy foods, virtually most of what makes your life enjoyable could be replaced by minimum cost generic grey products that provide no excess of your fundamental caloric requirements for a baseline of survival and production for the machine of our markets that feeds the wealthy.

The attitude you portray here is so disgusting I honestly hope you live a miserable life and burn in hell for all eternity, and I don't say that about many people.

But I personally smoke. i didn't start early, I started quite late with cigars. They are relaxing, enjoyable, they relieve stress and tension and help conversation flow. They've aided me in meeting a lot of great people I consider good friends and made my life substantially better. The same is true of pipe tobacco I discovered later. I also vape, the nicotine is a great stimulant and helps me wake up early and keep attentive during the early hours of the day despite my delayed phase sleep disorder, and without them I'd be suffering very serious health consequences from even worse lack of sleep, I'd likely lose my job, and have a lot of trouble holding down any other job.

So go die in a fire you totalitarian fucknugget.

Re:Simple question

[superwiz]

You do realize that people who use chewing tobacco get all sorts of oral cancers, right?

From the tobacco content. Not from nicotine. Otherwise, nicotine patches and nicotine gum would be just as likely to give you cancer. I am not aware of any study linking nicotine itself to cancer. If you are, I would like to see it. And I don't mean this in the obnoxious "citation-needed" kind of way. It would really give me a perspective. But to be clear, the study has to link nicotine itself, and exclude any link to tobacco or the study would not establish what I am trying to learn.

And the artificial sweeteners to make the flavorings taste sweeter.

Which are present in unregulated soft drinks.

Tobacco executives are shitting themselves over this supposedly safer, less stigmatized, less offensive product that directly threatens their livelihood.

I very highly doubt it. Given the small market share of e-cig producers, the tobacco companies have the ability to buy them out right if they thought they were a good future market.

And three, if you count concerns about inhaling products that haven't been studied for long term health effects. You know, like cigarettes used to be.

Nicotine has been extensively studied. Regardless of how it's extracted from tobacco (through what chemical process), if the end product doesn't contain nicotine attached to unstudied molecules, then your concern is about as valid as concern about long-term effects of touching plastic bags. Unnatural does not mean harmful. In fact, it's likely that it's been more studied.

Re:Simple question

[PopeRatzo]

How about personal freedom.

I'm all for your personal freedom to smoke. I've got no problem. I was addressing the relative perceptions of tobacco executives and the loved ones of those who died from smoking.

By all means, light up.

Re:Simple question

[superwiz]

Coffee and chocolate are also addictive. The question is whether they are harmful. If they are not, I would say let the parents be aware (just as they should be aware that allowing kids to drink coffee can stunt growth and interfere with natural sleep), but having FDA regulate it is too much.

Re:Simple question

[PopeRatzo]

Nicotine is an anti-psychotic

There are much better delivery systems for nicotine than smoking.

I can't imagine ending up on a ventilator is good for psychosis.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicotine is a mild cognitive stimulant -- just like caffeine.

It's also extremely addictive, comparable to heroin or cocaine. Caffeine is only mildly addictive.
Luckily it poses a much lower health risk (difficult to OD, no tissue damage), except for fetuses where it can affect the development of the autonomous nervous system.
Unlike caffeine, it can also reduce anxiety and induce a calming effect.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, that's what the E-cigs are for. I know one user who explicitly uses E-cigs because he is a better human with nicotine in his system. He's not diagnosed as schizophrenic, but he's got his issues.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicotine itself is carcinogenic to a portion of the population, by nature of the Cytochrome P450 variants they carry that metabolize nicotine into compounds that actively damage DNA. yay, science.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

then cross the street.

Re:Simple question

[PopeRatzo]

Yep, that's what the E-cigs are for. I know one user who explicitly uses E-cigs because he is a better human with nicotine in his system.

You bet. Nicotine is actually a pretty cool drug. Smoking is the part that stinks.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like the freedom to open the windows in my own home at night to let the cool air in. Can't do it because the smokers that live on both sides of me want to smoke outside, next to my open windows.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nice theory, but most smokers I know choose to smoke. They know it's bad for them, but they don't even bother try quitting because they enjoy it. I don't see a problem with people wanting to enjoy their lives even if it is somewhat destructive to themselves. It's when destructive behavior harms society that it becomes a problem. And before you go off spouting second hand smoke, as a non-smoker myself, I don't have a problem with people smoking outside, and I feel the people who bitch about it are unreasonable whiners.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Not hiring smokers has more to do with insurance costs for the employee health insurance than anything else.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I never hear someone ask of a pregnant woman "So how is your body?"

Instead, I only ever hear "So how is the baby?"

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, it's not water vapor, 'superwiz'.

Re:Simple question

[Razed By TV]

From the tobacco content. Not from nicotine.

You had said cigarettes, so I assumed you had meant tobacco. I've found nothing conclusive one way or another about nicotine being a carcinogen, but it looks like it probably isn't.

Which are present in unregulated soft drinks.

But they aren't heated up, and I don't know what they decompose into.

I very highly doubt it. Given the small market share of e-cig producers, the tobacco companies have the ability to buy them out right if they thought they were a good future market.

They could buy out Blu and everyone else, but unless tobacco companies come up with a competing product, someone else will just make a new product line to fill the void. Nicotine can be sourced from labs. The rest of the market is dominated by product shipped out of China, which can't really be combated. Except by pulling strings to get g e-cig's and e-juice regulated like other tobacco products, which works to level the playing ground.

Unnatural does not mean harmful

Right, but unstudied doesn't mean safe. There isn't enough evidence on the safety of vaping, especially long term.
I didn't feel comfortable vaping artifical flavors and sweeteners, so I used flavorless. I don't know about long term use for PG and VG. It seems some medicine delivery devices use propylene glycol. But I would feel more comfortable seeing a study about it. Unfortunately, vaping pure water is about as comfortable as vaping steam.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate pot due to the people next door who grow it, smoke it all day long and cause me not to be able to enjoy my own backyard due to the stench.

Re:Simple question

[Optic7]

Which are present in unregulated soft drinks.

The main health concern with e-cigarettes appears to be, from what I've heard, that we don't know anything about the long-term effects of inhaling the substances that were listed, and in particular after they've been heated to X temperature. While I agree it does appear that e-cigarettes are a lot safer than regular cigarettes, I think it's a good idea to be cautious on things like this.

Given the small market share of e-cig producers, the tobacco companies have the ability to buy them out right if they thought they were a good future market.

Yes, they've been doing so for some time now: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/to...

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of an old sea-story. . . .

Back in the day, when the Navy was in an allowin mood, the smokers had a room aboard where they could gather and smoke themselves into blissful clouds of coughing fits.

I eventually learned the ventilation system that mixed enough fresh air with the cloud of death was tied into the same system that fed me own space.

So out of curiousity, I picked a maintenance routine that required me to shut off yon fresh air delivery for several hours.

Let me tell you, smokers love to smoke as long as they don't take in too much smoke. Twas a funny sight. The lot of em turning various shades of green, yet refusing to give up the cancer stick.

They got a chance to walk in the shoes of a non-smoker for a bit as even the smallest clouds of it tend to wreak havoc with me asthma.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no they will put the serious effort to quit in, once they have a heart attack, stroke or lung cancer diagnosis.

About the time they figure out how bad that shit is, it's far too late.

I wonder, sometimes, if my smoked-like-a-chimney parents were a contributing factor in the asthma I'm currently enjoying :|

Re:Simple question

[Llamalarity]

Um there are many reasons all of which boil down to money. The deeming is designed so that no one except large tobacco companies can afford the estimated 1500 hours and one million dollars (per SKU) to get there products approved. The large open tank systems and multitude of flavors will all go away. Only the sealed 'cig alikes' will remain. Which are far less effective at helping people quit smoking combustible cigarettes than the larger second and third generation devices. Second is lost revenue from both direct taxes and the Master Settlement Agreement. Which is a hidden tax that a hand full of states including California spent before they even received it by selling bonds. So many people have quit smoking in recent years that several states are at risk of default on these bonds. Third is that the rabid anti smoking zealots would be out of a job if the truth was told about how harmless vaping is compared to smoking. The Royal College of Physicians released a report just a week ago which confirms what us mere mortals have been saying for years. At least 95% less harmful, not a gate way, etc.

Re: Simple question

[dnaumov]

Because you shouldn't get to decide what other people can or can't do to themselves.

Re:Simple question

[superwiz]

Which are present in unregulated soft drinks.

But they aren't heated up, and I don't know what they decompose into.

But you do inhale caffeine when you pass by the coffee aisle in a supermarket. So do little children. You most likely get some of it when you smell the coffee someone next to you is drinking. Since we seem to be agreeing on the premise that nicotine itself is not known to be harmful (and nicotine has been extensively studied), second hand vaping would be as harmful as smelling hot coffee when a lot of people sitting next to you are drinking it. As for the solvents, there are other unregulated applications of it (in larger doses) and it's been in use since before vaping became a thing, so long-term exposure can be studied if there is any such inclination.

They could buy out Blu and everyone else, but unless tobacco companies come up with a competing product, someone else will just make a new product line to fill the void.

It wouldn't be a void. They would keep the product on the market. Mildly addictive stimulants do quite well and, as businesses, last for centuries.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck your mother for being a smoker?

Re:Simple question

[superwiz]

I think it's a good idea to be cautious on things like this.

Why? Isn't that the very definition of hypochondria? If all the harmful elements (I am using the word in plain-English sense rather than chemical sense) have been removed from the process and all the present elements have been studied were never shown to be harmful in these small concentrations, what justifies FDA regulation of the product?

Re:Simple question

[shaitand]

E-cigs actually do not involve tobacco or smoking they just have cig in the name so potential buyers will see them as an alternative to such.

They are electronic devices that vaporize a liquid containing low concentrations of nicotine at low temperatures. The result is a fog of particles. In normal e-juice vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol are used as a base, these mostly convert to water with a small amount of heat and the water vapor carries small amounts of them along with the nicotine and some variety of food grade flavoring directly into the lungs of the user. VG and PG are already used in drug delivery devices for people with severe lung conditions (which operate in exactly the same manner as ecigs), asthma, and fog machines (clubs, theaters, etc). This is why the FDA originally tried to regulate them as drug delivery devices.

Everything in the liquid is water soluble and therefore is very efficiently absorbed by the lungs of the user. There are trace particles in the exhaled vapor of nicotine, vg and pg, along with whatever flavoring was used. If there is any odor at all it comes from the imagination of the person smelling it or the flavoring.

Some valid critics of these devices:

1. They leak, when filling and services the devices or when they break down they can leak and some increased absorbtion of nicotine through the skin can occur. The levels are higher than you would get from vaporizing the juice but not dangerous.
2. PG can cause minor temporary irritation of the through and lungs. These substances are used for drug delivery already and are well studied there is no damage.
3. The resulting water vapor can cause irritation of the lungs. Again, this is temporary. The amount of water vapor is tiny, comparable to being in real fog and breathing the moist air. The body simply absorbs the water.
4. VG buildup. The body can and will absorb VG, unlike the tar from tobacco but it is possible to inhale it faster than the body can remove it. This is especially a risk with new sub-ohm vaporizers which are promoted by vendors as providing more flavor and having a fun subjective feeling because you are blowing large plumes of vapor out. Simply stopping for a period of time will allow the body to catch up and fully absorb the VG.
5. Odor. Most e-juice is odorless but flavorings are by definition volatile compounds which can have an odor component. Obviously we choose these odors because people typically find them pleasant. For example vanilla but others might disagree. This would seem to present roughly the same impact as flowers, baking, or fresh baked goods but some can find the smell of such things offensive.
6. Dangerous compounds in the vapor. Most of these claims come from testing the direct vapor output of devices produced by the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry has a long history of using unsafe additives to their products. However it is worth mentioning that even in the case of those devices the concentrations found are in parts per million, the partial absorption into the lungs may or may not be enough to be dangerous but those concentrations spread into the volume of air in a small private office for example would be too small to even measure and several orders of magnitude lower than the level of arsenic in typical drinking water.

Invalid claims

1. PG is present in the vapor and toxic. Technically everything is toxic, including water. The concentration is the key here, pg is not concentrated enough or quantitative enough in the vapor absorbed by the lungs to be dangerous to the user and certainly not to third parties.
2. Smoke is dangerous. Smoke is the byproduct of combustion. When a substance undergoes combustion the resulting byproducts that form the particulate of smoke are often dangerous oxides (since burning is essentially rapid oxidation with a byproduct of heat and light). Even thought he vapor in an e-cig looks similar to smoke it is not smoke, no combustion has occurred and none of the dangerous byproducts of combustion occur in

Re:Simple question

[viperidaenz]

The FDA should totally regulate farting.

Re:Simple question

[shaitand]

They are going to put in costs and overhead so these materials will no longer be produced by small shops using food grade flavorings and will instead be produced by the tobacco industry. The e-cigs used in studies where harmful output was found in the vapor have all only contained the brands produced by the tobacco companies which is a very very tiny portion of those in use. Almost all users end up using local shops producing their own juice because it is superior and you know what is in it and the devices are far superior as well.

Additionally this further likens e-cig vaporizers to tobacco use. There is no smoke, nothing is combusted so there are no dangerous oxides as found in smoke, most of the flavorings have no odor. Even the nicotine (which has health benefits as well as negatives including mental function and concentration) is only found in parts per million in exhaled vapor directly captured from the mouth of a user. If you spread that into the volume of a small half bathroom and hang out in the room chain vaping for hours it is still not even enough to be able to measure it and there are higher concentrations in safe drinking water. Unlike tar from tobacco vegetable glycerin is readily absorbed by the lungs and leaves no lasting damage. The only way you'll build it up faster than you absorb it is to chain vape one of the new sub ohm rigs popularized by vendors because they go through the liquid faster and simply stopping for a day or two would allow the body to catch up.

The VG/PG used for the bases for the liquid are substances approved by the FDA to treat people with severe lung conditions and in asthma inhalers by the FDA. The devices themselves operate in the same manner as the FDA approved vaporizers used to deliver those drugs (although they are far superior with modern electronics since they don't have a FDA granted monopoly with FDA approval costs barring entry to competition).

I would be fine with independent consumer safety testing being required as in automobiles and toys. After all, who is to say we can trust the Chinese companies producing the atomizers and heating elements used in these devices not to be deviating from the specifications and using dangerous chemicals that aren't properly cleaned in the their manufacture. But this kind of regulation is going to make the irrational and uninformed fear mongering being spread now a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Re:Simple question

[Razed By TV]

second hand vaping would be as harmful as smelling hot coffee when a lot of people sitting next to you are drinking it. As for the solvents, there are other unregulated applications of it (in larger doses) and it's been in use since before vaping became a thing, so long-term exposure can be studied if there is any such inclination.

I think getting nicotine second hand is probably harmless enough, but what about decomposing artificial sweeteners and flavorings on the heating element, and then inhaling those?

Re:Simple question

[ortholattice]

Cigarette smokers are about 30% less likely to develop Parkinson's disease. It hasn't been studied for pure nicotine, but that would be the likely source of the neuroprotection.

This interests me because my father has Parkinson's, his brother had Parkinson's, and a member of my mother's family has Parkinson's. None of them have ever smoked.

I had my whole genome sequenced, and out of 10 or so known markers related to Parkinson's (according to my promethease.com full genome analysis), I have all but one (for early onset familial Parkinson's). So I'm probably screwed. Interestingly, I also have a marker that indicates my chances of developing Parkinson's is lower if I consume caffeine regularly (which I do). This might be the same one as for nicotine, although apparently that hasn't been studied genetically.

In any case, I'm hoping to reduce my chances of Parkinson's or at least delay it, so I have started chewing nicotine gum. I couldn't find any negative consequences of nicotine gum in the literature. As a bonus it seems to help me think better.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break it to you, but you're already walking around in a chemical cloud. The hell do you think the atmosphere is?

Re:Simple question

[dj245]

What do you mean? Nicotine is a mild cognitive stimulant -- just like caffeine. The only harmful part of cigarettes is the actual delivery mechanism (the smoke). Since e-cigarettes don't have tobacco smoke (they use water vapor), they are effectively a new form of nicotine gum or nicotine patch. The only reason they are being treated with suspicion is the believe that they will de-stigmatize smoking of actual cigarettes. This is literally trying to use a healthcare agency (FDA) to regulate an element of cultural perception.

Some of these products are actually nasty things like Spice/K2 and other related synthetic compounds. They are really bad stuff made in a chinese lab. Accidentally getting a dose of K2 is not an experience I would like to repeat. A little regulation and product testing is not a bad thing.

Re:Simple question

[Bartles]

Why should I have to inhale smog because your electricity consuming ass can't telecommute by pigeon?

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck, and I hope you make it through life without suffering that disease.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

the pope has spoken

Re:Simple question

[BlueStrat]

I think getting nicotine second hand is probably harmless enough, but what about decomposing artificial sweeteners and flavorings on the heating element, and then inhaling those?

The vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol, along withthe flavorings, are all approved food ingredients are and have been approved for and used across a wide range of foods, caramelized candies in particular, where these ingredients are heated beyond the temperature range of e-cigs. Ever smelled candy odor wafting down the concourse at the mall? I don't think that's ever harmed anyone.

I believe the fear mongering is more about loss of tobacco tax revenues and there being an area that government hasn't yet stuck it's nose into 'for the children'. There's also big money in the medical industry related to the treatment of smoking-related illnesses and hospice care that could possibly be threatened by a sudden large reduction in tobacco sales and use, along with reduced tobacco tax revenues.

Strat

Re:Simple question

[arth1]

In normal e-juice vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol are used as a base, these mostly convert to water with a small amount of heat and the water vapor carries small amounts of them along with the nicotine and some variety of food grade flavoring directly into the lungs of the user.

Propylene Glycol (PG) and Glycerine (VG) both have the chemical formula C3H8O2.
Pray tell how heat can convert C3H8O2 to H2O.

Everything in the liquid is water soluble and therefore is very efficiently absorbed by the lungs of the user.

This is patently false. The flavors used are mostly alcohol soluble, and propylene glycol is a sugar alcohol which the flavors readily dissolve in. Glycerine is less good at dissolving flavors.

I use an electronic aerosol nicotine delivery device myself, and think that the worst that you can do for the cause is disinformation like your post. Be honest about it.

Re:Simple question

[suupaabaka]

Some idiot's driving 200 km/h down a residential street? Then get out of the way!

Junkies are dropping syringes all over the beach? Then don't go to the beach!

All the grocers in your city block are importing contaminated food? Then grow your own!

Arguments like that are always quite stupid, and as a fellow Slashdotter (despite your ACing), I hope you don't need further explanation as to why.

Re:Simple question

[Sir Holo]

ummm, are you aware of the profits?

Do you mean profits to lung-cancer surgeons, most of whom treat patients who are old enough to be on Medicare?

You really know how to spend those tax dollars effectively, don't you?

Re:Simple question

[Sir Holo]

Because it has been repeatedly shown that trying to outlaw any kind of drug only leads to even worse health problems, violence, crime, loss of citizen's rights, loss of revenue, increased government spending, and just all around misery.

You are cherry-picking.

Desomorphine (krokodil in Russia) was discovered about 80 years ago, in the search for a "more effective but less addictive painkiller". It turned out to be wa-a-a-ay more addicting, with about the same pain relief. Drug makers abandoned it, and soon-enough, it was outlawed for the good reasons I described.

And how many decades was until a single American died from this horrible drug? ANSWER: Many. At least 60 years, if not more.

Desomorphine is just one single example among many, many others. It is a bad-bad thing. Outlawing it did NOT lead to a ton of people desperately seeking it. On the contrary---It was not until the recent 'Krokodil' epidemic in Russia that any American even had knowledge of the drug. No one was clamouring for it just because it was illegal.

BTW – Russia got the problem under control by making codeine a prescription-only drug. Oh, hey, that's another example of a prohibition of a drug actually curtailing a problem – this case in Russia, not the US!

Golly, I thought that the US ruled the world, but apparently that is not the case. . .

Re:Simple question

[Sir Holo]

Junkies are dropping syringes all over the beach? Then don't go to the beach!

Where else am I going to find FREE syringes?

I harvest them, clean them up, and then re-sell them as "like-new" to the junkies on Venice Beach.

NOTE: Sarcasm lies above.

Re:Simple question

[alantus]

Tobacco is addictive, like heroin, meth and other drugs.
Most smokers would quit if they could.
I personally know many that wish they had never tried it in the first place.

Re:Simple question

[Sir Holo]

Your freedom ends where mine starts. I should have the ability to go about my life without having people blowing clouds of smoke in my face while I eat, work, or walk down the street.

Having recently moved from a country that very nearly to abolished smoking to Europe, all I can say is this place stinks. Literally. And thats before I look at the mountain of butts smokers leave behind.

Yes, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."

But to your main point about the US stinking of cigarettes. . .

I spent a year in Germany around 2000. It was impossible to enjoy any food, drink, or dance at all. Every place was choked with smoke, and most of them had no central air-exchange system, only a couple of tiny windows.

Then, back to the USA, where laws banning smoking in restaurants had started catching on. I could finally go out and enjoy an evening again! Smokers had to go outside, and in some cities, more than 40 feet from the entrance of any building.

So, get off of your high-horse. The US got the restaurant-and-bar-scene smoking bans underway long before the EU. You guys are finally catching up. And, at last, I can return to Europe and not have to bear the infamous chain-smoking and un-ventilated spaces!

I'm not all gung-ho "USA USA USA!". Nope. Not at all. But the US did indeed lead on being THE FIRST to institute bans on cigarette smoking in dining and socializing establishments. And, in some cities (like mine), on your balcony or out your window, because everybody knows that smoke drifts with the wind.

Re:Simple question

[alantus]

Its all about the balance of risks vs. benefits:

TV / sat dish / other stupid examples you posted:
Risks: 0.001$ injury.
Benefits: plenty

Cigarettes:
Risks: detrimental to individual's health and society.
Benefits: looks cool!

Re:Simple question

[Sir Holo]

I hope your mom also enjoyed every dollar of taxpayer money it took for her end of life medical care as she sucked down those cigarettes.

Yes. This is exactly the point. Thank you for making it.

PS – I note that you are a foe of a friend and that you have a FIVE-digit /. ID #. None of that matters to me. You made the point that strikes to the heart of the ethical question about which this whole thread revolves. Again, thanks.

Re:Simple question

[Bing Tsher E]

Which simply shows that stupidity doesn't need to be genetic to be hereditary.

Re:Simple question

[Bing Tsher E]

And I'd love the freedom to take a break every hour at work to do nothing.

We only have a few smokers where I work, and yes, they feel entitled to wander off to smoke every hour or so during the day. I've proposed a few times that there should be a drinking area out in the parking lot, and perhaps a little shed where people can go to take breaks to pick their nose.

People laugh like I'm just kidding.

Re:Simple question

[Bing Tsher E]

I clean and save some of the syringes for things like injecting lubricants and solvents in my workshop.

But I'm still a nerd, though Slashdot has changed significantly in the last decade.

Re:Simple question

[Bing Tsher E]

When we went to my sister's wedding, in the Midway district in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, we were at the church when my wife discovered she had forgotten to bring along a cigarette lighter or matches. My car also doesn't have a working cigarette lighter, so she went into a kind of a panic.

Right across the street from the church was a neighborhood corner grocery marketplace. We walked over there to get her a lighter so she could escape out of her panic state of nicotine withdrawal.

They didn't have any tobacco products for sale in the store, nor any matches or means of cigarette ignition. An entire neighborhood of mostly non-smokers. It was a major cultural shock for my wife, a lifelong Indiana native.

Re:Simple question

[Bing Tsher E]

That means that other people, who partially pay your health care cost, can prohibit you from having a soldering iron in your house, and can prohibit you from skiing, rock climbing, or riding a bicycle.

Re: Simple question

[Sir Holo]

E-cigs are vapor. There is no flame, there is no burning of tobacco, ... blah blah blah.

Vapor, at least partially. But also a suspension of liquid particles in a gaseous medium---That is why one sees "vape clouds" coming out of e-cigs and their users' mouths.

More importantly, you should study a bit of organic chemistry. Just because there is "no fire" does not in any way indicate that chemical reactions are not going on. Actually, it is quite the opposite. Ask any organic chemist, "When you do chemical synthesis experiments, do you burn stuff, or do you heat it under specific conditions to ensure that you obtain a high-purity synthesis?"

I will save you the time---E-cigs use PEG and whatever else is at-hand, and is cheap as the solvent for the nicotine solution. Many, many scientific studies have found all of the usual baddies in the 'vape' from an array of vendors of the little nicotine cells, in combination with various models of vaping devices – which vary wildly in the actual temperature they apply to produce your delicious nicotine vapor.

What baddies? The same as those found in cigarette smoke, generally. . . in some cases more. Hexanes, benzene, hydroxylated benzene derivatives, and all the rest of your other favorite carcinogens that are found in cigarette smoke. In some cases, more than an equivalent nicotine-dose drag of a "real" cigarette.

Vaping sticks are still cancer sticks.

Nicotine does have legitimate medical uses – indisputably. But vaping in a movie theater is not among them.

Re:Simple question

[Sir Holo]

Women have a right to their body... Abortion

... said no Republican, ever.

Re:Simple question

[Bing Tsher E]

Most smokers do not like smoking and wish they had never started.

This is always stated as a truism, as if it doesn't need to be backed up with any evidence.

I can't stand cigarette smoke, and have family members who engage in it.

But I don't pretend my smoking wife is an addict on the level with a heroin or meth addict. She's quit smoking in the past and chose to start smoking again.

I smoke a tobacco pipe several times a week. I notice and acknowledge the nicotine craving that results from this, but I enjoy the little buzz that I get from the crave, mostly by not smoking very often at all.

Furthermore, the people who (mostly non-smokers) treat smoking like a harrowing and unbreakable habit on the same level as a heroin addiction do smokers a big misfavor: spreading the notion that it's near-impossible to quit smoking just reinforces people who would like to quit but for whatever reason lack the will-power to do it on their own. I guess spreading that notion is a profitable business for 'quit smoking' service and product providers, but it doesn't do any of the rest of us a favor to pretend it's harder than it really is to quit smoking.

Re:Simple question

[Sir Holo]

Smoking his dumb.

People should have the right to be dumb.

Not if their dumb choices lead to the spend-out of the taxes that I happily pay. That is, Medicare, as well as Soc. Sec. Disability Benefits for having self-induced emphysema.

In those cases, they are not only dumb, but they are also stealing money from me when the Social Safety Net provides them health and/or hospice care while they wheeze themselves to death. Or, FSM-forbid, get a fucking lung transplant on my taxpayer dime, only to take up smoking again once they get out of the hospital.

Again, YOUR freedom ends where MY nose begins.

Re: Simple question

[narcc]

Many, many scientific studies have found all of the usual baddies in the 'vape' from an array of vendors of the little nicotine cells [...] In some cases, more than an equivalent nicotine-dose drag of a "real" cigarette.

From my, admittedly, limited knowledge of the subject (I looked at a few, 10 or so, of the oft-cited studies a few years ago, and it's not my field) these claims are completely false. Unless something dramatic has happened in the past couple years, I can't possibly believe your claim.

Please, post at least a few studies which support your strange assertions.

Re:Simple question

[narcc]

It was a rousing success. That's why no one drinks any more. The war on drugs equally so. Sure, Nixon struggled a bit, but Nancy Regan put an end to the drug problem once and for all, with zero negative social consequences.

With those out of the way, we're free to work on slightly more trivial, though still important, issues. I move we ban Axe body spray, floral perfumes, and Indian food. Some of those perfumes send me in to quite the sneezing fit, so the danger to public health is obvious.

After all, your freedom ends where my nose begins.

Re:Simple question

[narcc]

And three, if you count concerns about inhaling products that haven't been studied for long term health effects.

Indeed. Which is why you need to fight against the free sale of scented candles/wax and the dangerously untested "plug in" air fresheners. (The electronic aspect of the latter makes them super-appealing to kids!) To top it off, I've seen parents openly, in public, smelling these things in front of other people's children and commenting on how 'good' those quick chemical-huffs felt.

Don't get me started on sublimating air "fresheners" people stick, without a second thought, in enclosed spaces like cars. The same cars millions of careless parents use to transport their, often very young, children. Do we really know what's in them? Have you ever seen even so much as an ingredient label? What unimaginable harm could those made-in-mystery-factory-in-China air pollution sticks be causing? We don't know because they're completely unregulated and untested!

Re:Simple question

[thegarbz]

But to your main point about the US stinking of cigarettes. . .

Now that you're done being defensive:
1. I never mentioned the US anywhere.
2. I was addressing the GP, you you can count yourself lucky is likely not a member of public otherwise you would not be able to be in your nice smelling comfortable defensive position you are now.

For everything in the world we make better, someone somewhere is trying to make it worse. This isn't about USA USA USA. This is about us commonly standing up against the "ZOMG MY FREEDOMS!!11!" meme in the name of living in a nice world.

Re:Simple question

[Richard_at_work]

I hope your mom also enjoyed every dollar of taxpayer money it took for her end of life medical care as she sucked down those cigarettes.

In the UK one of the constant complaints about smoking is the cost to the taxpayer via the NHS of care for smoking related illness.

The problem with that is that cigarettes and tobacco are taxed to the hilt, with treasury income through taxation coming in at three to four times that of the typical direct costs to the NHS for treating smoking related illness.

So the government actually make a direct profit - I'm sure they would like the NHS costs to simply go away, but the common argument that smoking related illnesses costs taxpayers is essentially a fallacy.

Re:Simple question

[stealth_finger]

Why should tobacco or any form of cigarette be legal at all? There are no redeeming benefits of smoking.

Ask yourself the same question about Alcohol.

Re:Simple question

[stealth_finger]

Some idiot's driving 200 km/h down a residential street? Then get out of the way!

Junkies are dropping syringes all over the beach? Then don't go to the beach!

All the grocers in your city block are importing contaminated food? Then grow your own!

Arguments like that are always quite stupid, and as a fellow Slashdotter (despite your ACing), I hope you don't need further explanation as to why.

At least that's suggestions to do something about problems. Someones driving 200mph down the road? Just cross anyway, someone else will deal with it. Beach covered in needles? Just walk barefoot, they shouldn't be there anyway etc etc

Re:Simple question

[PopeRatzo]

In the UK

It's hard to compare the UK and the US in regard to health issues, because the UK has a health system that actually works for people instead of insurance companies.

Re:Simple question

[stealth_finger]

Your freedom ends where mine starts.

That works the other way around too you know. By the way the exaggeration police are on their way.

Re:Simple question

[stealth_finger]

I spent a year in Germany around 2000. It was impossible to enjoy any food, drink, or dance at all. Every place was choked with smoke, and most of them had no central air-exchange system, only a couple of tiny windows.

Bull shit of the highest order. There was nothing stopping placing declaring themselves non smoking and plenty did. See, before the nanny states started taking over and there was at least the illusion of freedoms. You had the choice to go places where smoking was allowed and where it wasn't. Now that choice has been taken away and you now have to put up with every smoker, smoking outside all the time, usually in the entrance way of where you want to go. So well done. The moaning non smokers brought this on themselves and you have no right to demand other people don't smoke regardless of your opinions on it.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can smoke without exhaling, then i'll support your right to do it.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, really. How inconsiderate of her not to die in some other, equally expensive, way!

Re:Simple question

[stealth_finger]

Mine. Because I am partially paying the health care costs of the guy who died of emphysema.

And he's probably partially payed the health care costs of whatever you'll die from. Probably more than you too because of the massive tax on cigarettes.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Your freedom ends where mine starts. I should have the ability to go about my life without having people blowing clouds of smoke in my face while I eat, work, or walk down the street.

The same goes for car exhaust. I can't walk outside without drivers blowing toxic fume in my face. Ban all ICE vehicle!

Now that it's affecting something you like, you don't support ban on freedom any more?

City smog is more toxic then any amount of smokers you could possible pass by in the street.

Re:Simple question

[stealth_finger]

I hope your mom also enjoyed every dollar of taxpayer money it took for her end of life medical care as she sucked down those cigarettes.

I hope you enjoy the benefits of all the tax money smokers put in when they buy their cigarettes. Which is a lot, how short would the government be if everyone stopped smoking overnight I wonder? The other thing to consider is smoking related diseases usually kill you pretty quick minimising the actual health care costs compared with drinkers or fatties that can require longer and more expensive periods of care and is just as much down to themselves as smokers.

Re:Simple question

[stealth_finger]

I hope your mom also enjoyed every dollar of taxpayer money it took for her end of life medical care as she sucked down those cigarettes.

Yes. This is exactly the point. Thank you for making it.

PS – I note that you are a foe of a friend and that you have a FIVE-digit /. ID #. None of that matters to me. You made the point that strikes to the heart of the ethical question about which this whole thread revolves. Again, thanks.

Again only considering what is taken out ignoring completely what is being put in.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

The people that give me the worst looks when I jump outside to smoke are the guys sitting in the break room as I leave and are still there when I get back. Everyone should feel safe to take a five minute fresh air break or what ever if they need it. The idea that people are unable to leave their desk to pace, drink coffee, pick their nose, what ever the fuck it is they do... That's not laughable, that's just fucking sad.

Re:Simple question

[guruevi]

Why illegal? If people want to ruin their health, have them do it and pay for it into a special fund for health care. If all were legal the taxes levied on alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, heroin etc could go and pay for full universal health care for all.

Re:Simple question

[PopeRatzo]

The other thing to consider is smoking related diseases usually kill you pretty quick

Yes, and the people around them, too.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/c...

Re:Simple question

[dywolf]

Sure.
But wouldn't you like to know if inhaled that as yet untested e-cig has any health problems associated with it?

Re:Simple question

[stealth_finger]

Oh please, there a just as many studies saying second hand smoke is harmless. I'm not saying you should smoke around kids and blow smoke in their face all the time because you shouldn't, it's not good. People should be responsible in how they smoke but you aren't going to get cancer from walking past a smoker in the street or going to smoky places. My bottom line is places should be free to declare themselves a smoking or non smoking place rather than have it mandated from on high with the think of the children line attached. If literally everywhere decides to say no smoking then that's fair enough. Otherwise they might as well just ban smoking outright, but that's not going to happen. Worked really well for alcohol and that's a lot more harmful to the individual and to society but no one seems too bothered about that these days. Nope, smoking is todays bogeyman so hop on the bandwagon before it leaves without you to it's next target.

Re:Simple question

[kqs]

You don't seem to understand that "harmful" is not a binary switch. Things can be mostly safe to ingest but terrible to inhale, or vice versa. Something can be perfectly safe to inhale occasionally but not repeatedly. Something can be mostly safe for adults but terrible for kids. Hell, we used materials with lots of lead in them for millennia until we just recently realized that even small amounts of lead cause big problems for kids.

And we know that lungs are sensitive things that are really hard to fix when they break; that lung problems are gradual, hard-to-notice, and poorly studied; and that the vendors of products are terrible at recognizing and admitting flaws which would affect their profit. So some caution seems reasonable in this case.

Re:Simple question

[kqs]

My current employer avoids the problem by refusing to hire smokers, which is totally legal. Smokers have no employment rights.

Huh. I dislike smoking a lot, but this doesn't seem reasonable.

Though I'd have more sympathy if I hadn't been forced to endure cigarette smoke in public places for many many years. I love being able to stop for dinner or a pint and not have my coat smell like an ashtray for the next week.

Re:Simple question

[GLMDesigns]

Yes I'm not in favor of caveat emptor. I'm responding to the idea that cigarettes can be banned because someone doesn't like them. If that's the case lets ban alcohol, gay s3x, p0rn, and whatever else someone, somewhere finds offensive or bad for you.

Re:Simple question

[shaitand]

"Propylene Glycol (PG) and Glycerine (VG) both have the chemical formula C3H8O2."

Notice how they both have three carbon atoms in the "backbone" and either one or none O−H groups (called hydroxyls or alcohols) attached to each one. Oxygen can react with any one of those carbons and will try to form CO2 and water, the most thermodynamically stable products that are possible.

"The flavors used are mostly alcohol soluble"

The flavors are mostly extracted into an alcohol and water base before and sold that way. They are generally fat and/or water soluable. Neither PG nor VG are water so how you get something to dissolve in them isn't particularly important the question is whether or not the body can absorb them which it certainly can. If you don't believe me feel free to grab any random e-liquid touch your finger to it and spread it in a thin line down your arm. Check back in a bit and you will find it is gone. That is more liquid than you would be getting using a vaporizer and far far less surface area than you'd find in your lungs.

Re:Simple question

[PopeRatzo]

Oh please, there a just as many studies saying second hand smoke is harmless.

Shame you didn't link to any. And if you do, please link to the actual articles instead of right-wing news sites who claim such studies exist. Do it like this:

http://thorax.bmj.com/content/...

http://www.jabfm.org/content/2...

http://ash.org.uk/files/docume...

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/dat...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...

See, the thing is, when you dig a little into those claims about "studies that show no risks from second-hand smoke", you find that they don't really exist except in the minds of "skeptic" sources like Reason or the Cato Institute.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely! The tobacco industry knows that the e-cigarette industry is threatening theis so they propose a BS scientific study to make the public perception believe that e-cigarette are just as bad if not worse than conventional cigarettes so that they can get back the revenue/profits they will lose in the long run, and they'll use the FDA to make their point..

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's Exactly what the government does! The soccer moms with pull either from being a government official /Senator's wife will damn make sure of this, because, we have to think of the kids!

Re:Simple question

[stealth_finger]

Again your missing my point. No I'm not going digging for them, but you show me one person who's death certificate says second hand smoke. And again I'm not trying to say that second hand smoke has no effect on developing children or can affect people, it does and it's arrogant to pretend otherwise but there are probably just as many carcinogens in the air due to vehicle exhaust than second hand smoke. We ignore those though because cares are really useful, not to mention the myriad of other sources. But I digress, why does that mean people can't smoke anywhere? If a place wants to offer a smoke free environment, fucking more power to them but next door should be able to cater to people who want to smoke if they so wish and a person should be able to choose which they go to, that's all I'm saying.

Re:Simple question

[stealth_finger]

you're

Re:Simple question

[flink]

I would be fine with independent consumer safety testing being required as in automobiles and toys. After all, who is to say we can trust the Chinese companies producing the atomizers and heating elements used in these devices not to be deviating from the specifications and using dangerous chemicals that aren't properly cleaned in the their manufacture. But this kind of regulation is going to make the irrational and uninformed fear mongering being spread now a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We don't necessarily know what the long term effect of inhaling the odorants and flavorings contained in these vape juices are. See "Popcorn Lung" for an example of the potential unanticipated side effects of chronic inhalation of a food grade flavor compound.

I think it makes sense to regulate these products in such a way that sale of tobacco-containing products is age restricted. Also safety testing should be conducted to be sure that: 1) The compounds are relatively harmless not only when taken orally, but when aspirated, 2) the chemicals don't break down into something more dangerous when heated, and 3) the various compounds don't combine in the presence of heat to form new dangerous compounds.

Yes, your local mom and pop vape shop may not be up for doing the chemical engineering necessary to perform these kinds of tests, but maybe that is a signal they shouldn't have been in the business of compounding drugs in the first place.

Re:Simple question

[flink]

I would be fine with independent consumer safety testing being required as in automobiles and toys. After all, who is to say we can trust the Chinese companies producing the atomizers and heating elements used in these devices not to be deviating from the specifications and using dangerous chemicals that aren't properly cleaned in the their manufacture. But this kind of regulation is going to make the irrational and uninformed fear mongering being spread now a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We don't necessarily know what the long term effect of inhaling the odorants and flavorings contained in these vape juices are. See "Popcorn Lung" for an example of the potential unanticipated side effects of chronic inhalation of a food grade flavor compound.

I think it makes sense to regulate these products in such a way that sale of tobacco-containing products is age restricted. Also safety testing should be conducted to be sure that: 1) The compounds are relatively harmless not only when taken orally, but when aspirated, 2) the chemicals don't break down into something more dangerous when heated, and 3) the various compounds don't combine in the presence of heat to form new dangerous compounds.

Yes, your local mom and pop vape shop may not be up for doing the chemical engineering necessary to perform these kinds of tests, but maybe that is a signal they shouldn't have been in the business of compounding drugs in the first place.

Re:Simple question

[shaitand]

Age restriction is not an issue, I've never seen a shop that will sell to minors so the impact there is nil assuming they don't make it difficult or cost anything to be in compliance.

"Also safety testing should be conducted to be sure that: 1) The compounds are relatively harmless not only when taken orally, but when aspirated, 2) the chemicals don't break down into something more dangerous when heated, and 3) the various compounds don't combine in the presence of heat to form new dangerous compounds."

How is that not solved by a consumer testing agency doing the testing and the mom and pop shops mixing their juices with compounds that have been approved?

Re:Simple question

[Daetrin]

I did specify later in the post that i was talking about the ineffectiveness of outlawing popular drugs, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you're just didn't read the entire thing before responding.

Even so, i don't think your example really supports the case you want to build.

" Drug makers abandoned it, and soon-enough, it was outlawed for the good reasons I described."

From wikipedia: "Desomorphine was first synthesised in the U.S. in 1932 and patented on November 13, 1934. In Russia, desomorphine was declared an illegal narcotic analgesic in 1998."

So is wikipedia totally wrong about this, or do you think 66 years between being created and being declared illegal in Russia is "soon-enough"?

"Outlawing it did NOT lead to a ton of people desperately seeking it. On the contrary---It was not until the recent 'Krokodil' epidemic in Russia that any American even had knowledge of the drug."

So you're saying that outlawing it prevented an epidemic... until there was an epidemic? Sounds more like a failed anti-tiger rock.

"No one was clamouring for it just because it was illegal."

I never said that. I said that making a drug that people already want illegal doesn't work. But apparently there were eventually a million people clamoring for it despite it being illegal. So either making it illegal didn't prevent that, in which case your argument is wrong, or making it illegal actually encouraged that, in which case your argument _very_ wrong.

"Russia got the problem under control by making codeine a prescription-only drug. Oh, hey, that's another example of a prohibition of a drug actually curtailing a problem"

I think you need to check the definition of "prohibition". And that's great, they managed to curtail the problem of some people doing stupid things with a bad drug by making it more difficult for everyone else to get a good and useful drug.

And finally, it's impossible to gather hard evidence on this one way or the other, but i strongly suspect there wouldn't be very many people interested in what clearly sounds like a crappy drug if they had easy and legal access to safer, and possibly more rewarding, alternative drugs.

"Golly, I thought that the US ruled the world, but apparently that is not the case. . ."

Holy non-sequitur Batman?

Re:Simple question

[kaybee]

Why should skydiving, rock climbing, going to the movies, drinking, or eating deserts be legal at all?

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

second hand smoke harmless, you would have to be a complete idiot to believe that.

Re:Simple question

[jjbenz]

Agree, I have never met a smoker that is happy that they started smoking.

Re:Simple question

[Archangel Michael]

We need to ban McDonalds because people get Heart disease. We should ban all process foods because they cause cancer (maybe). We need to ban milk, because someone is allergic to lactose. We need to ban meat because PETA says so. And one of the greatest killers of all are cars, which cause death and injury at greater rates that just about everything else combined. I think Everyone knows someone who's been injured in car accident, we NEED TO BAN THEM!

Further, we should not help anyone over the age of 60 with their long term disease management, since that is the greatest drain on our Health Care system. Our health care costs would be a fraction of what it is now, if we simply reserved heath care for those people who are young.

And now, you can understand the logic of statist healthcare systems.

Re:Simple question

[PopeRatzo]

next door should be able to cater to people who want to smoke if they so wish and a person should be able to choose which they go to, that's all I'm saying.

I have no problem with that, but your previous point said there was research that showed second-hand smoke is not dangerous. That's the part that's simply not true.

Re:Simple question

[Archangel Michael]

My mom is 84 years old, and sucking the Health Care system dry. But not because she smoked, but because she was in a car accident 14 years ago, and has needed constant medical attention ever since. And my Father, who died at age 84 ten years ago, spent the last six months of his life in a hospital, also sucking the medical system dry. He didn't smoke either.

In fact, your average dying (ex) smoker probably cost less than either one of my parents (heath care wise).

And who are you to decide what the "benefits" are worthy, and which ones are not?

By the way, this is why I am opposed to rationed medical care via compulsory health care insurance. Because the result is, no matter how you slice it, still unfair. You cannot make something fair for all, by making it unfair for some. The ONLY rational choice is that we recognize that Life is not fair, and quit trying to make it fair. Some people are born with good genes, others with genes that aren't so good. Life is not fair. And it sucks when it isn't. But trying to fix it with flawed human logic is just as unfair and IMHO worse, because the lack of fairness is intentional, rather than random acts of nature.

Re:Simple question

[Archangel Michael]

actually works

If you like long lines and rationing. All you have to do to believe what you said is ignore the problems in the system

https://www.google.com/search?...

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for smokers there is a persistent issue for most of these products: second hand smoke. This takes your decision to smoke despite the health risks and inflicts the health risks on everyone around you as well.

This can be mitigated by smokers controlling how they smoke (or having how they smoke controlled for them), but pretending tobacco products are just your choice and it only affects you is pretty disingenuous since most tobacco products are harmful to others as well.

That said the law is currently in a nice middle ground where regulation and taxation informs you of the health issues involved while disincentivizing it via taxation, the only thing this change addresses are new products that were bypassing these measures simply by being new, and it is unlikely we will get to a point proposed by AC, since pushing yet another drug into the black market to join marijuana and cocaine and crack in needlessly inflating violence and destroying communities by criminalizing a relatively harmless behavior is clearly a losing fight.

Re:Simple question

[shaitand]

"Yes, your local mom and pop vape shop may not be up for doing the chemical engineering necessary to perform these kinds of tests, but maybe that is a signal they shouldn't have been in the business of compounding drugs in the first place."

Additionally, I'd also point out that you could say the same about local restaurants. Food is not just consumed orally but also exposed to heat and inhaled. Not just the food you ordered but all the food being prepared in the space of the restaurant. We certainly do have regulation and safety surrounding the production of food and testing of the ingredients for safety in food use but we do not require certification of each individual recipe.

Re:Simple question

[zlives]

meant corporate profits and lobbyist dollars, at least those surgeons work to get their money.

Re:Simple question

[Optic7]

The thing is that without regulation you just have no idea and no guarantee of what is in the fluid. FDA regulation will at least ensure that they report or label what is in the fluid appropriately, and that what they say is in there is what is actually in there. That is a good starting point.

Studying how the new delivery mechanism (vaporizing through heating) affects the substances in the fluid can come at a later stage, and that is also important because the health effects of a substance can vary depending on how it is treated or delivered. For instance, from what I recall titanium dioxide is safe to ingest but harmful to inhale.

Re:Simple question

[PopeRatzo]

And who are you to decide what the "benefits" are worthy, and which ones are not?

Brother, if your mom needs health care, I'm glad she can get it.

Just tell her to stop smoking, OK? Teach her how to vape. Suffocating is a shitty way to die.

Re:Simple question

[el_gordo101]

Ya, but the guy that died of emphysema took himself out of the pool early. If he didn't smoke, he may have died of Alzheimer's disease or Diabetes or CHF and hung on for much, much longer, costing more money in health-care costs. Plus, he paid the onerous taxes on every pack of smoke he bought, actually putting money back into the pool. See, his smoking may have actually saved you money!

Re:Simple question

[Archangel Michael]

My mom doesn't smoke. I'm sorry that wasn't more clear.

Smoker's end of life tends to be fairly quick. Sudden heart attack, cancer that kills you in six months. My mom's car accident was years ago, and she can live for many many more years at her current rate. But she sees Doctors nearly every other day, just to slow the inevitable.

Personally, I've vowed to never put my family through anything like that. We all are going to die. Life is supposed to be lived, not just waiting to die, while prolonging it. That is just misery, for the sake of living.

Re:Simple question

[el_gordo101]

Another reason is that many states cannot afford to have the tobacco companies lose too much revenue. After the Master Settlement Agreement between the tobacco companies, the FDA, and the states was agreed upon, many states underwent a securitization process of the anticipated future revenue from the settlement. They issues bonds that were backed by the future payments from the tobacco companies, which are determined a some percentage of those companies' revenue. The emergence of e-cigs has put a much larger dent in tobacco company profits than expected, hence the required amount of their payments under the MSA has dropped. This means the states are now on the hook to pay the interest to the bond-holders to the tune of billions of dollars. The states are actually rooting for the tobacco companies to be more profitable so that they can get off of the hook.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't taxed that badly in the US.
I can buy a pack of Camel Crush for $3 here (~ £2).

The federal tax went from 0.39/pack to $1/pack only within in the past 5 years or so.

Re:Simple question

[torkus]

Actually no. You're not about personal freedom - you're about the exact opposite.

You're talking about taking away freedoms. You're talking about prohibiting people from doing what they want. You're wording it backwards to make it sound like it's your freedom, but it's not the case at all.

What you really mean is you want to control everything that happens in your surrounding environment to suit you, personally, at the expense of others.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of an old sea-story. . . . Back in the day, when the Navy ...
..same system that fed me own space.
... to wreak havoc with me asthma.

Is this Popeye the sailor?

Re:Simple question

[superwiz]

You don't seem to understand that "harmful" is not a binary switch.

There may have been two or three times in my life that someone said that to me, before I admitted it first, and it was true. This is not one of those times. What you are "explaining" is trivial. So, please, don't preface by insulting my intelligence. I am underlining a clear distinction between "harmful", "dangerous" and "unstudied". Your example of lead only proves the point that you can't assess all risks of daily activities before going about living. We know much less about many substances which we use on daily basis than we do about every substance used in vaping. And yet, there is an urge to regulate vaping. This is nothing but an attempt to exert control over tobacco companies which have entered the public perception as a boogie-man de jour. This kind of thinking is why we don't have free dental treatment that comes from fluoride added to drinking water (which causes no harm) because we supposedly have products we can buy to get the same treatment. Tobacco companies which extract nicotine and eliminate all known harmful substances from vaping fluids are no different from coffee companies. But you don't see a huge scare campaign against coffee companies (not at the moment anyway... it can start without a warning). We "don't know" is not a statement that proves or even suggests that something is dangerous. It's an admission of own ignorance. And it is a subtle suggestion to others to join the cult of fear of the people who know more. I decline.

Re:Simple question

[Richard_at_work]

Every system has problems, and even with its problems the NHS is light years ahead of free healthcare in countries like the US. Id rather have it as it is now than switch to the US system.

Re:Simple question

[KGIII]

Hi. My name is David. I didn't smoke as a kid or anything - not cigarettes or anything. I still don't smoke cigarettes. I smoke cigars. Worse, I inhale them - I love it. I smoke like five big ol' fat cigars every day - probably to the 3/4 mark. They go out, I light 'em again. I've been doing this for years now. I'm happy I started. I don't want to live past 75. I don't care for those years at the other end of life and these don't appear to be killing me.

I go to a doctor, fairly often, because I like to know the state of affairs. My lungs are fine. I'm certainly addicted. I have the health of a kid less than half my age. I'm fit and energetic. Each cigar would be similar to about a half pack so that's 2.5 packs or 3/4 of 2.5 packs of cigarettes per day - slightly less as you get more of the junk stuff near the end of the smoke. Still, it's a lot.

I've never been a cigarette fan but I'll smoke 'em if I don't have a cigar handy. (That's seldom - I'm fairly well stocked and have plenty of money to buy the nicer varieties - I try to keep them at less than $15 each.)

Now you've met one. You're welcome.

And no, you'd probably not know I smoke unless you were in my house. There is also zero chance that you'll ever pay a dime for my medical care.

Re:Simple question

[KGIII]

I got into vaping for a while, way way back when it was fairly underground and we all had box mods and things like that. I worked with 100% nicotine a couple of times but often just 98%. It was kind of fun. It wasn't a means to quit smoking, it was just for enjoyment and something different. After I spent way too much on the toys, I stopped. But, yeah, I was able to source and buy five gallon buckets of 98% and 2 gallon buckets of 100% nicotine.

I have no idea if you can still do that but you don't need to smoke it. You can just take a mL of 98% and drop it on the back of your hand. You *will* feel like you smoked a half pack of smokes at once. :D

I have an interesting basement. Full of hobbies gone by. I really should find one and stick with it.

Re:Simple question

[KGIII]

What scares me is the line about, "It hasn't been proven safe!" No, nothing can ever be proven safe. Ever. Never, ever, ever. Someone does something that someone doesn't approve of. Fuck their ability to choose, ban it! *sighs*

This is the world we live in and look at all the advocates in just this thread. It is disheartening.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's about choice. There are many things we allow people to do that are detrimental to their health. Climbing Everest as an example. And as for the cost to society, after the age of 54, the cost is actually LESS than a healthy adult. So again, aside from personal moral objections to self-harm, what is your argument?

Source: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

What scares me is the line about, "It hasn't been proven safe!" No, nothing can ever be proven safe. Ever. Never, ever, ever. Someone does something that someone doesn't approve of. Fuck their ability to choose, ban it! *sighs*

It's not merely someone doing something. It's when you involve other people, and in cases like this, make a lot of profit off it.

You can blame Elixir sulfanilamide if you want. A hundred deaths, because they didn't test out their product.

DEG has been proven dangerous. DEG was reasonably known to be dangerous. Proven safe? Well, it was proven unsafe.

Pardon us for addressing problems like that.

This is the world we live in and look at all the advocates in just this thread. It is disheartening.

You'd have more legitimacy to your position if not for all the prior bad actors, let alone the current bad actors.

As I mentioned, the profit above. Combine that with an unwillingness even when caught dead to rights, so much evasion of responsibility goes on that what should upset you is that.

Because that's what bothers other people. That's what drives action.

Do you not grasp this? Are you unaware of the world we live in?

Re:Simple question

[peawormsworth]

Why should tobacco or any form of cigarette be legal at all? There are no redeeming benefits of smoking.

Spoken like a bigot.

"I can't see the purpose, so there must not be one". And I said this so it is fact.

Re:Simple question

[beastofburdon]

Preferably with no source of oxygen.

Re:Simple question

[beastofburdon]

Dude, don't do that. That much nicotine at at time can give a healthy person a heart attack.

Re:Simple question

[beastofburdon]

Hi, I'm Chad. I rather enjoy the cigars and pipe tobacco which I smoke. I also have no intentions of quitting. Cigarettes on the other hand taste nasty.

Re: Simple question

[beastofburdon]

Vapor, at least partially. But also a suspension of liquid particles in a gaseous medium---That is why one sees "vape clouds" coming out of e-cigs and their users' mouths.

What the fuck do you think vapor is? It is not partially a suspension of liquid particles, it is entirely a suspension of liquid particles. How about you go find yourself a dictionary before you decide that it is a smart idea to post comments on /.

I will save you the time---E-cigs use PEG and whatever else is at-hand, and is cheap as the solvent for the nicotine solution. Many, many scientific studies have found all of the usual baddies in the 'vape' from an array of vendors of the little nicotine cells, in combination with various models of vaping devices – which vary wildly in the actual temperature they apply to produce your delicious nicotine vapor.

--Citation needed

Re:Simple question

[KGIII]

Yes, yes it can. LOL I actually did it with mixed down stuff though I'm told the 98% stuff will screw you right up. But no, as I recall, I'd mixed mine down to be at 36 (still strong) mg strength - I think. I've always worn gloves and a shield when working with the higher stuff. It's yet another hobby gone by. I've got some neat stuff from it though. I still have a bunch of custom "box mods" and all that. Good times.

Re: Simple question

[Sir Holo]

Vapor, at least partially. But also a suspension of liquid particles in a gaseous medium---That is why one sees "vape clouds" coming out of e-cigs and their users' mouths.

What the fuck do you think vapor is? It is not partially a suspension of liquid particles, it is entirely a suspension of liquid particles. How about you go find yourself a dictionary before you decide that it is a smart idea to post comments on /.

Hello to my first foe!

It took me 10 years to earn a foe on /.—But, alas, it is a stupid one.

You state that vapor is "... not partially a suspension of liquid particles, it is entirely a suspension of liquid particles." YOU ARE ENTIRELY AND STUPIDLY WRONG.

The three basic phases of matter are solid, liquid, and gas. "Vapor" is a synonym for "gas". In 'vaping', some of the solvent is evaporated, while other bits of the solvent, containing the solute, are also nebulized (made into tiny liquid droplets that are suspended in the carrier gas). The carrier gas (vapor) carries the tiny droplets of nicotine-containing PEG + who-knows-what. (CITATION: A /. article two months ago, referencing a paper in the journal Science.)

Almost any gas (== vapor) is colorless and transparent, as it comprises free molecules of the chemical – UN-AGGLOMERATED and UN-NUCLEATED. A few gases do have color (chlorine, bromine, H2NO4), but most are colorless and transparent.

I ask you, what is this suspension of liquid droplets suspended within? The luminiferous aether? Vacuum? Your magic brain farts?

I will provide you with no citation, as any High School Chemistry Textbook will explain it clearly for you.

NOTE: Your history of inflammatory but misinformed posts has been duly noted. You are one of those willfully-ignorant people that cannot be reasoned with. Nor taught. You are a lost cause.

Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

If it weren't for the government regulating things who knows how much mischief I'd get up to. Thank goodness they care enough about me to control every facet of my life.

Re:Thank goodness

[Captain Splendid]

That's true actually. You can't get any enjoyment out of being a rebel and rule-breaker unless there are rules to break.

The feds have zero authority to do this...

[SonicSpike]

The federal government has ZERO authority to do this. Nowhere in the US Constitution are "substances" allowed to be regulated at the federal level. And because of that, the 9th and 10th Amendment prohibit such regulation.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

F DRUG A

It's a drug. And besides, you are stupid for sucking on one. That, unfortunately, cannot be regulated. You are free to be as stupid as you are. Me, I'd rather it just be taxed at rates only stupid people would pay.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal government has ZERO authority to do this. Nowhere in the US Constitution are "substances" allowed to be regulated at the federal level. And because of that, the 9th and 10th Amendment prohibit such regulation.

Sure they do. They can sikk the ATF on you and they have the guns and the guys that carry said guns as well as the heavy tactical armor that gives them the authority. I'm sure someone has already worked out the legal bits allowing them to do their work.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[sims 2]

I quite like my paint being lead free.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[downright]

Um.... not all laws are in the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution about murder or manufacturing pipe bombs in your garage either but yet somehow the federal government found the authority to create laws about those.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible to sell them by mail order and mail them across state lines. According to the Supreme Court, that's good enough to invoke the Commerce Clause.

And, yeah, that's true of any product.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government doesn't need your permission to run your life. You're a small man. Hillary may need a strap-on but regardless of who you vote for next election you're going to get a dick in the ass.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[zlives]

wonder where the Fed is on water and lead
“That represents nearly 20% of the water systems nationally testing above the agency’s ‘action level’ of 15 parts per billion,” according to the story"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/17/its-not-just-flint-lead-taints-water-across-the-u-s-the-epa-says/

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[fustakrakich]

I do believe you can file a grievance. The constitution spells out the entire procedure. Ultimately your vote is an offer they cannot refuse.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Orgasmatron]

Ahh, yes, the "We didn't mean any of these other words, let the Federal government run amok" clause.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[pr0fessor]

e-cigarettes come in the no nicotine variety also being mainly just flavored and scented water vapor. It's still stupid to inhale it over and over but does not necessarily mean that it's drugs.

Re: The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Their legal arguments amount to "We have the guns. We can do what we want."

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Archangel Michael]

Then buy only certified lead free paint. But then again, importing Paint from China you might be getting lead in it again, but that's okay, since RACISM! (or profit, free trade or ....)

BTW, when you moved into your older home, you did test the paint for lead, right? If not, you really don't care about being lead free (lots of older homes have lead paint in them, legacy) I tested my home, not so newer one, and it had lead in it. Made the cleanup part of the escrow. The realtor was shocked, and the house became unsellable until the lead was removed.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Archangel Michael]

Federal Government shouldn't be trying people for murder, since that is a local jurisdiction thing. IMHO. I could see exceptions for Federal land in rare occasions.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because the only laws in the US are the ones in the constitution.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[EvilSS]

The federal government has ZERO authority to do this

Would you care to place a wager on that?

Re: The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Hognoxious]

You can't get more American than that.

Unless you add "We're fat and shit at geography".

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lead paint is only a problem if you chew on it. Good one dischead for screwing over the vendor

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Executive branch can't legislate. FDA is in that branch. They are to enforce the laws made by the legislature, not come up with new ones.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are full of hooey. Pretty much every house built in the early 70s has got lead paint. They sell just fine.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

That still fails the "tip of my nose" test.

You don't get to spew substances into public air and pretend the issue is what you do with your body or the specific nature of the siubstances.
It doesn't actually matter what's in the smoke/mist, you're as ass if you use that delivery system in any but a small number of special cases (closed room all present gave informed consent). And for addictive substances like nicotine it absolutely should be illegal (seems like it's fit many definitions of assault or at least criminal negligence)

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[sims 2]

My current home was built in 2009 so I haven't thought about getting it tested.

And the one before that was more or less a prefab. I was told it was lead free but I never had it tested.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[jklovanc]

You might have a case if this substance was not sold or sold only within one state. As it stands the Commerce Clause applies.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that the Federal Government has used the Interstate Commerce Clause to make some rather questionable power grabs, regulating how (e.g.) a company from Virginia which manufactures their product in Texas is able to sell it to a consumer in California via advertisements in a New York publication is probably *not* the best example to use.

Once you ship a product across state line, (or produce advertising or promotional material that's intended to cross state lines) it's definitely interstate commerce. Regulating under what conditions a company in one state is able to ship product to and sell to a consumer in another state is *exactly* the sort of thing the Interstate Commerce Clause was intended for.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lead paint use in homes has been banned in the United States since 1978. Your house was built significantly after that point, so there's no need to worry. Even so, a good coat of paint over the old one reduces your exposure risk. The problem is the rugrats who like to chew on anything, though mine never chewed on the windowsills.

It's like the asbestos backing in your vinyl linoleum floor; yes it's there, but as long as it's coated by something else, you are safe. Most refabs throw down new linoleum over the old layer, or seal it in epoxy. It's actually in the dust that flakes off the backing if the flooring cracks, so as long as it's contained, you're ok.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal government has ZERO authority to do this. Nowhere in the US Constitution are "substances" allowed to be regulated at the federal level. And because of that, the 9th and 10th Amendment prohibit such regulation.

You honestly don't think this falls under the interstate commerce clause? I realize that clause has been abused a bit, but clearly these e-cigarettes are being shipped between states.

Re: The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lead paint was banned in 1978. If your house was built in 2009, I wouldn't worry about it.

Re: The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Murder isn't a federal crime. It is a state crime.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

The ignorance is great in this one. Very rarely is anybody prosecuted on a federal crime. I dare say you'd have a hard time finding somebody prosecuted under federal law for murder. Beyond a couple very big names, I can't, and even those few I'm not actually sure they were tried for murder, but instead for terrorism acts. Like, even Ted Bundy wasn't tried at the federal level. Most federal prosecutions come under the area of tax evasion, an area that the constitution actually does spell out.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

The one about interstate commerce? Yeah, the one that most sane people say has been abused and stretched so far beyond what it could have possibly originally meant that no sane person could say how it's being used to defend certain actions can be what was meant when it was written and is often used as an example of abuse of powers by the federal government with rulings that only a lawyer could support and if many of what it's been used to defend were put in front of a jury no jury would agree? That one?

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Seriously, why? The Consitution is, or should be, a document where we, among other things, collect the core values of our society. If not murdering people isn't one of those then I weep for America's future.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[sjames]

I vape in my living room. I assure you, it is not a public space. How do you justify regulating something I use in my own home? Something, BTW that has never been shown to be harmful.

And as for addictive, nicotine without the MAOIs found in cigarettes is a lot less addictive (closer to caffeine). Did you know that just walking past a coffee pot exposes you to a tiny amount of a mildly addictive substance?

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're one of those idiots selling snake oil in a city, aren't you?

Please. There are so many things to complain about, and you managed to pick the one that makes you look like a drooler. Grats.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[sjames]

No, nicotine has never been shown to cause cancer. If you actually read the reports that say otherwise, you'll invariably find them talking about nicotine consumed by smoking or chewing tobacco directly. NOT studies where purified nicotine was consumed.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[GrumpySteen]

I have some canned baby formula from China that may or may not contain enough melamine to destroy your kidneys. If you're willing to chug a case of it, I'll be willing to listen to your arguments that the FDA is prohibited by the constitution.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[bingoUV]

While your living room is the problem of its inhabitants at any point in time, and Nicotine-Cancer hasn't been found very related, but ...

Nicotine's effect on pregnant women and foetus is somewhat known and harmful. So the leakage from your living room, if any - and your open-air-smoking brethren : are definitely problems

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[sjames]

There are no pregnant women in my home. If there were, I would go outside to vape. If you are concerned about the minute amount of nicotine emitted by me in my own yard, you will definitely want to see all fossil fuels banned immediately as well as all neonicotinoid pesticides. Also, perfumes and air fresheners. You'll want to consider warning labels on tomatoes. If you're concerned about your neighbor vaping in his yard, you'll definitely want to avoid tomatoes.

As for your link, read carefully and see how much of their data on "nicotine exposure" is actually data on smoking. I still wouldn't recommend that pregnant women vape unless the alternative is smoking.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Archangel Michael]

Because it isn't the perview of the Federal Government to manage crimes at that level. There is no need for the Federal Government to deal with murder at all, with the exception of perhaps (perhaps) Federal Land. But still, murder should be against the law, prosecuted at the County/City/Municipality/Town(ship) level. The only reason to have Feds involved should be if there is some sort of uncontrolled abuse at the local level.

I'm not sure why you're weeping to keep law enforcement local. Using your logic, why even bother having local laws at all. Should everything be a Federal Case?

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[bingoUV]

I didn't say I am concerned, and I am actually not.

I did read the link, and the data is not complete to guarantee a nicotine cause of the ill-effects of tobacco - but their educated guess is that it is. At least, nicotine is not absolved of this, and can be said to may have participated in the ill effects.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[sjames]

The data is highly suspect given the poor quality control. This is a very common problem with research into "nicotine" There are thousands of studies purporting to find harm from nicotine that upon careful reading turn out to be about consuming nicotine by smoking cigarettes. It's not uncommon for that important bit of information to be buried in a footnote! How much credence would you give to a report claiming harm from consumption of bananas when it turns out that they mean smoking bananas, cyanide injected bananas, or being drowned in banana pudding? How much credence would you give to a report that presumes bananas have been proven deadly based on such a report?

Personally, I would say the former is evidence of a hidden agenda and the latter indicative of sloppy research at best. Neither inspires confidence. Though, as I said, I don't think pregnant women should vape.

In any event, the study confined itself to fetal harm. There are a wide variety of substances that are perfectly safe for adults and even children that are harmful to a fetus.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Agripa]

That battle was lost long ago. Not only can the Feds regulate individual products within any state, but now they may regulate behaviors as well. Sometimes an inkblot is just an inkblot.

Re:The feds have zero authority to do this...

[Agripa]

The nexus is not even that great. The only requirement is that they *affect* interstate commerce whether that commerce exists or not.

E-Cigs

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with these per se, but please, if you smoke these, please, PLEASE don't blow the vapor on or around other people.

I "get" that it's not tobacco smoke. That really doesn't matter to someone who doesn't smoke. Don't blow it on other people and we're cool. K?

Re:E-Cigs

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon because already modded...

I vape, and I agree with you. People who blow clouds on other people are just rude and stupid.

Re:E-Cigs

[bughunter]

I'm a smoker, but I only smoke outdoors, even at home, and wash my hands and face afterwards because I can't stand that "ashtray" smell.

But the flavors of vape my coworkers use don't smell offensive at all. At worst it smells faintly of burnt sugar.

Forcing out smaller players?

[Larry_Dillon]

E-cigarettes should be regulated, but I've read that the new regulations require that manufacturers go through a testing procedure that will cost over one million dollars. Right now, there's a lot of competition by smaller companies. This may force out all of the smaller players.

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a feature, not a bug.

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[sims 2]

Sounds like standard practice to me.

No way should the barriers actually be that high however i don't like the idea of them being able to sell just anything they mixed up in their basement either.

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[war4peace]

There's a huge gap between "selling something that's mixed up in their basement" and "mandatory testing which costs 1 million dollars".

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[sims 2]

Yes proper regulation would be somewhere in between.

But still pretty far away from million dollar testing.

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[jklovanc]

I've read that the new regulations require that manufacturers go through...

Citation please. They may only need to list the ingredients in order of content to comply.

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[sjames]

Then definitely don't buy it. But I can tell you they aren't making "bathtub ejuice". The only business I've heard of that was alleged to be doing that is long gone.

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[sims 2]

Its not something I would buy anyway. But I still don't want an otherwise relatively safe product being made hazardous because people happen to like the way diethelene glycol tastes...again.

That's good. There needs to be some regulation.

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[sjames]

The industry has been entirely unregulated for years. In spite of that, there have been very few incidents and none of them because of bad ejuice vendors. The reputable vendors have never been willing to sell to minors. There have been a very few potentially dangerous designs that have been fixed through customer feedback and voluntary recalls.

Even the Chinese e-juice has proven reasonably safe.

The ecigs teens have gotten their hands on have been mostly the couple of brands sold in gas stations (made by (drumroll please) R.J. Reynolds) or bought using their parent's credit cards (where the itemized charges make it fairly clear what was bought if the parents are paying any attention at all).

I'm not saying no regulation is in order, but requiring each individual item to go through a byzantine pre-martket approval that costs about a million dollars a pop is a tremendous overreach. As long as the vendors stick to already safety regulated ingredients (the U.S. ones do), that's most of the ground already covered.

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[kqs]

I'm not saying no regulation is in order, but requiring each individual item to go through a byzantine pre-martket approval that costs about a million dollars a pop is a tremendous overreach. As long as the vendors stick to already safety regulated ingredients (the U.S. ones do), that's most of the ground already covered.

I wonder how accurate the "1 million dollars" (queue Dr Evil) estimate is; I've seen folks produce... hilariously inaccurate estimates when they feel strongly about something.

And "already safety regulated ingredients" is a relative thing; many ingredients are regulated for ingestion safety, for example, but not regulated or tested at all for inhalation. You say there have been "very few incidents"; we used leaded materials for pottery and water containment for literally millennia before we very recently realized how terrible it is for kids to ingest even tiny amounts. Asbestos is an extremely useful material, and we used it "safely" for years, until we realized that inhaling it caused a few minor side effects. And hey, I'm not quite young enough to remember doctors extolling the health benefits of tobacco, but I know folks who do.

I'm not claiming that the new rules are perfect or even a good idea. But I do think that there are some very reasonable concerns. We know that the lungs are very sensitive, that problems can take a long time to appear, and that kids are more sensitive than adults to many toxins. And we know that folks who make money on products are often the last ones to see or admit faults in their profit stream. Some caution seems okay to me.

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[sjames]

Millions of people have been vaping for years, that's a pretty good safety study. The PG used in e-juice has been used in theatrical fog machines for years. Hospitals are considering installing atomizers to take advantage of it's antiseptic properties.

Do you *REALLY* want to risk driving millions back to smoking cigarettes? It would represent the biggest setback in the history of the effort to reduce smoking. As for kids, I agree that they shouldn't be vaping, but given the choice between smoking or vaping, which would you rather see? (NOTE, it's been illegal to sell cigarettes to minors for decades, it hasn't stopped them)

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many safely regulated ingredients that are approved for human consumption, are hazardous when heated and inhaled. (Popcorn flavour: Safe to eat, deadly to inhale)
Direct inhalation is not part of the testing protocol.

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[sjames]

Many? Try 2 so far. That would be diacetyl and a related flavoring. Both are butter flavoring (not popcorn). Most vendors (read, not Chinese) got rid of it fast or sharply reduced the amount used. Years before OSHA reacted BTW. Note that one consumer was affected due to his extreme love of microwave popcorn (another case where it is heated to the point that it vaporizes). I haven't heard of any vapers affected.

The part that wasn't blared over the media in 40 foot tall letters is that cigarettes give you 18 times the amount found in the most risky ecig flavors, so it still represents a substantially reduced risk vs. cigarettes. Cigarettes contain 600 times the amount found in the most risky flavors after the warning went out. All of those are lower level exposures compared to what the popcorn workers got.

It does go to show that nothing is absolutely without risk. It was a surprise to everyone involved including the regulators. However, the e-cig industry was the fastest responder to the bad news even though it was entirely unregulated. The next fastest was a food flavorings manufacturer's association.

You may find these references interesting: Popcorn Lung Coming to Your Kitchen? The FDA Doesn’t Want to Know, New Study Finds that Average Diacetyl Exposure from Vaping is 750 Times Lower than from Smoking, Media Bias Exposed: ‘Popcorn Lung’ Chemical 750 Times Greater In Tobacco Vs. E-Cigarettes

Re:Forcing out smaller players?

[KGIII]

Heh, I still get email ads for sales from Gourmet Vapor.

Child-resistant packages helps the medical cartel

[Anonymous Coward]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrap_rage :

"The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimated that attempts to open packaging caused about 6,500 emergency room visits in the U.S. in 2004. A 2009 study conducted by the Institute for Good Medicine found that 17 percent of adults over the age of 21 were either injured at least once or know of someone who was injured while opening a holiday or birthday gift."

This is just a cheap profit move by the AMA. They want to create more profit for their doctors.

Better Link

[bughunter]

Vox has a better rundown of the FDA's announced regulations.

The good news is that it's not armageddon for vapers and sellers:

the FDA is allowing companies to continue to sell their products for up to two years while they submit their applications to the agency — and for another year during the approval process.

When I smoke, I still smoke cigs. But I have lots of friends who vape. Personally, I find the propylene glycol vapor more irritating than tobacco smoke.

Re: Better Link

[TheReaperD]

You can use a pure vegetable glycerin base instead. It's not as popular as it's a little thicker and doesn't create great clouds of visible smoke but, it's a lot easier on the lungs.

Re: Better Link

[wtfamidoinghere]

Posting anon because mod.

Sorry, you're wrong. It's the other way around. VG makes much more vapor, and it is preety much popular nowadays. Three years ago liquids were mainly PG or 50/50 mix, nowadays most liquids are much higher VG.

So, VG: more vapor, softer; PG: better flavouring, more ''throat-hit''

Re: Better Link

[wtfamidoinghere]

Doh ... I WANTED to post anon, but didn't ... there goes the moderation :D

Re:Better Link

[Anonymous Coward]

At a conservative cost of $300k per application and being required to submit an application for every furmulation of flavor, nicotine level and pg/vg ratio, this is essentially a ban for all but the tobacco industry and whatever crap product they foist upon nicotine addicts. The only likely result from this is more people smoking tobacco.

Re: Better Link

[Anonymous Coward]

I would disagree on the better flavoring part as well. Just about the only reason PG is used (instead of pure VG) is that VG is quite viscous and the PG thins it out, so you can use it in cheaper rigs.

Re:Better Link

[Anonymous Coward]

It is armageddon both both producers and consumers. The "approval process" is designed to be so costly as to drive producers out of business... it involves tens of millions of dollars in product testing. Only the large tobacco companies will be able to afford to stay in business... and they'll push the approval costs right on to the consumer.

That's dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that they don't have to and don't always contain nicotine. Where do you draw the line when its so entirely broad a market now?

Re: That's dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I vape without nicotine, I also wonder this.

Re:That's dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't about nicotine, it's a puritan anti-smoking fetish that's existed since the 1700s, just on steriods from years of indoctrination young children and pushing extreme anti-smoking propaganda. The people that hate smoking don't just hate the smell, they hate the sight of it. Even if you were just blowing water vapor they would want to end you with the same ferocity. They are not people, they are the lowest of scum.

Re:That's dumb

[sjames]

According to the FDA, they want to regulate the BATTERIES as well. The batteries in question are industry standard LiIon cells like you find in laptop batteries, RC cars, and some flashlights. That will prove interesting. It tells me that the FDA hasn't bothered to think this through.

Re:That's dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." --Ronald Reagan

-PCP

There is only one reason they are doing this

[hsmith]

So they can tax the fuck out of it. Can't have something stealing tax dollars from uncle sugar now can we?

Re:There is only one reason they are doing this

[luther349]

you can also not smoke i quit myself.

Re:There is only one reason they are doing this

[Qzukk]

That's strange, they can tax the fuck out of it without forcing the companies to prove that their mix doesn't make formaldehyde when vaporized.

Re:There is only one reason they are doing this

[zlives]

death fixes all taxes (for you atleast)

Re:There is only one reason they are doing this

[EvilSS]

So they can tax the fuck out of it. Can't have something stealing tax dollars from uncle sugar now can we?

What makes you think they couldn't do that before? The FDA has nothing to do with that. Hell the feds or any state could tax butternut squash 10000% tomorrow with the passing of a single law, no FDA required.

Re:There is only one reason they are doing this

[Anonymous Coward]

and then the death taxes kick in for your family thanks to Democrats.

Re: There is only one reason they are doing this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but they would have to have reason why to tax it that vegetable that damn high, but then again, the government of this country can do ANYTHING it wants to, so that point is moot..

Net effect

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Thus does the FDA demonstrate with the occasional bad rule the ability to cost more lives than it saves.

Go after charlatans, sure. But this needing permission to move slows thing down, which means more deaths as alternatives are delayed.

Re:Net effect

[jklovanc]

the FDA is allowing companies to continue to sell their products for up to two years while they submit their applications to the agency — and for another year during the approval process.

They are not slowing down anything.

Re:Net effect

[_Sharp'r_]

I don't vape (or smoke, for that matter), but you're crazy if you don't think this will negatively impact alternatives to smoking.

From the very article you're citing:

Meanwhile, there's a separate contingent of doctors and health advocates who see vaping as a good way to move people off regular cigarettes and think the new regulations might go too far. They have worried that if e-cigarettes are regulated too heavily, or become too expensive because of the cost of regulatory compliance, the public could miss out on a device that might save lives.

Some experts also think heavy (and expensive) regulation could halt innovation, deterring manufacturers from creating more advanced devices with better nicotine delivery systems that could help reduce smoking.

and your local shop is going to spend how much applying for approval on each style of vaping they create?

Jeff Stier, an e-cigarette advocate with the National Center for Public Policy, estimated that each FDA application will cost upwards of $1-million, according to USA today.

Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, had a more modest estimate. He says the cost of compliance to the new rule should run into the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" per application.

This is literally a power grab by the FDA which will end up rewarding large companies at the expense of small companies and people who want to be healthier by transitioning their nicotine addiction to something else are the ones who will ultimately pay. But it's "for the children", right?

Now explain again how the Obama Administration is in favor of personal freedom again, as opposed to crony capitalism for companies who kill people....

Re:Net effect

[jklovanc]

and your local shop is going to spend how much applying for approval on each style of vaping they create?

The manufacturer and not the local shop would make the application.

Do you really think it is wise to allow anyone to mix any chemicals they desire into a liquid and market it as a safe alternative to smoking? There are many cheap chemicals that are detrimantal to heath that are already being used in in juice. Diacetal which can cause popcorn lung is one of them. Who do you think should regulate vaping?

Re:Net effect

[_Sharp'r_]

People should regulate what they buy for themselves, under whatever arrangements they prefer and leave everyone else alone to do the same. We could call it being an adult and responsible for yourself, or something like that.

Re:Net effect

[jklovanc]

When no one has the ingredients on the label or puts false ingredients on the label that is just fine. Everyone does not have a lab to analyze the contents of what they purchase. I am sure you are an expert in the chemistry of everything you buy.

Regulations are there to protect people from companies putting people's health at risk just to lower costs and raise profits.

So you would basically prefer unregulated capitalism that kills people. I don't. Libertarians are against government regulation until something goes wrong and then complain that the government did not do enough.

Re:Net effect

[_Sharp'r_]

When no one has the ingredients on the label or puts false ingredients on the label that is just fine.

If you care about the ingredients, it's a simple matter to only purchase from stores who label the ingredients on their products. If you're really worried about stores attempting to kill their customers by lying about the ingredients and hoping no one notices (not exactly something anyone with any business sense would do), its a simple matter to only shop at stores who have a 3rd party you trust validate and sign-off on the fact that their list is accurate. In what world is the FDA best equipped to know what's being sold? Are they going to visit stores and test the products before you actually purchase them? No, they'll just create a big show in the name of "doing something" and process paperwork submitted to them with fees while making it impractical for anyone except someone with deep pockets and big enough to own a centralized facility to be able to do business in the industry.

Regulations are there to protect people from companies putting people's health at risk just to lower costs and raise profits.

In this specific case, its obvious the regulations are there to ensure large companies (likely established tobacco companies) can create/maintain their hold on the industry they were losing to local shops, because they're the only ones who will be able to afford the lawyers and fees to go through the red tape.

So you would basically prefer unregulated capitalism that kills people.

No, we'd prefer unregulated capitalism which allows people to be responsible for their own choices and succeed rather than "crony" capitalism/fascism/socialist nationalism which the left appears to decry, but magically suddenly becomes in favor of when it actually comes down to supporting it or not, as long as the politicians or bureaucrats involved pretend to have a "good reason" for it. See also baptists and bootleggers.

Re:Net effect

[jklovanc]

shop at stores who have a 3rd party you trust validate and sign-off on the fact that their list is accurate

So basically you want a private company to do the testing rather than the government. There is no such thing as an independent 3rd party. To get such a certification done money will have to change hands. Once money changes hands there is an incentive to skew results. What is to say that the big companies can not pay these certification companies to keep out the competition? I trust the government much more than I trust a private profit motivated company.

In what world is the FDA best equipped to know what's being sold?

In the same world where the FDA regulates all other foods and drugs.

Are they going to visit stores and test the products before you actually purchase them?

You have no Idea how regulations work. The FDA will set out rules for ingredients and approvals that must be followed before a product is put on the market.

In this specific case, its obvious the regulations are there to ensure large companies

BS. There are already cases of Chinese companies putting dangerous chemicals into juice.

You also have a major issue in that local shops generally do not make their own juice. They sell juice made by much larger companies.

No, we'd prefer unregulated capitalism which allows people to be responsible for their own choices

So basically do away with the FDA completely. Sorry but that is not going to happen. It is hard to be responsible for one's own choice when you don't know the science and/or are being fed false information by the manufacturers. Not everyone has multiple PHD's, access to state of the art labs and money to do studies. The FDA has all that.

Re:Net effect

[_Sharp'r_]

Here are the answers to your concerns:

Underwriter's Laboratory.

Liability Insurance and tort law creates incentives for the insurer to make sure the store doesn't poison its customers and does it much more efficiently and effectively.

Re:Net effect

[jklovanc]

You have to pay to be certified by UL and the only people who do are the ones required to by regulations.

Liability insurance comes into effect after the fact. It does not stop people from being harmed by bad products. It also only helps if the manufacturer have insurance. Many are off shore and will just change their name if sued. Insurance is not a solution.

Re:Net effect

[_Sharp'r_]

UL started privately without regulations. You're missing the history. It's still private.

Someone who is massively on the hook if you harm your customers has a big incentive to make sure you don't harm them. That's one way liability insurance prevents harm in the first place. Read the previously linked studies rather than ignoring the science behind it.

The point is that if you care about the risk and you are a consumer, you don't have to have your own test lab, all you have to do is have a small minority of customers/activists see that a product has been UL certified for safety or not and if the store has legit liability coverage or not and then publicize that fact accordingly. Stores themselves, in order to gain a market advantage, have a huge incentive to publicize the proof they are safe and their competitor down the street isn't if consumers are worried at all about it.

Compared to all that, the FDA is ineffective at best, harmful at worst. In this specific case, they're a gift to big tobacco and could actually harm public health. I thought people stopped believing the lies from big tobacco 30-40 years ago. Why are you so insistent on helping them now? They don't need your crony capitalism/fascism, despite having apparently "influenced" the D's in power to assist them against their competition offering healthier alternatives for a nicotine addiction.

Re:Net effect

[jklovanc]

UL started privately without regulations. You're missing the history. It's still private.

That is true but what I am talking about are regulations that require things to be UL certified before they can be sold. UL certification would be nowhere near as used is regulations were not in place to require it. Have you even looked into how much UL certification costs? Do they even have standards for juice?

thought people stopped believing the lies from big tobacco 30-40 years ago.

So to compensate for the FDA under regulating decades ago you accuse the FDA of over regulating now.

Re:Net effect

[_Sharp'r_]

So to compensate for the FDA under regulating decades ago you accuse the FDA of over regulating now.

No, I accuse the FDA of doing the same thing now they did then, when large tobacco companies ultimately benefit from their actions at the expense of others. Ever heard of regulatory capture?

This idea that somehow government regulators are pure-minded defenders of the public and that they know better than everyone else what needs to happen is addressed in public choice economics.

Re:Net effect

[jklovanc]

Just because it has a term does not mean it always happens.

I realize you are a libertarian but I do not agree with your philosophy. There were libertarians before the FDA and also many dangerous things on the market. The free market is not the solution. For example the FDA bans making medical claims without studies backing them up. If yoy think the free market will solve evereything then why didn't it before regulation?

Re:Net effect

[_Sharp'r_]

What's makes you think the FDA is a net benefit by regulating medical claims? How many people have to die for lack of FDA approval before you're willing to allow them to make their own decisions about their health? Why don't you want to allow customized medicine for things like cancer by making them prohibitively expensive via the FDA?

You don't have to be a libertarian to be willing to consider the results of empirical studies about what FDA delays cost. Can you at least be a utilitarian and go with the libertarian solution when it's the most effective based on the available evidence?

The FDA delay in approving beta blockers, by the FDA's own numbers, cost about 100,000 lives. Three years of delay on interleukin-2 after it was available in Europe? 3,000 lives. Every year of the approval process, every millions of dollars spent on approval fees to the FDA, equals lives lost and people who could have benefited who don't. Even Thalidomide, the one big claim people always have for the FDA, wasn't blocked by the FDA because of it's impact on embryos. They weren't even investigating that, it took news reports. Total Thalidomide affected children in the U.S.? 17. The rest of the world, 5-10K. Does that help the 10x as many people who died from lack of beta blocker approvals? Does anyone notice that currently Thalidomide is approved by the FDA to treat leprosy and cancer?

Yes, health choices can be risky, but rather than add information and give advice on them, you seem to want to tell adults what they can and can't decide to do, despite them knowing their own situation better than you do and despite their ability to consult with a knowledgeable specialist in the area of their medical issue before making an informed decision. There's no empirical evidence the FDA saves lives, the evidence points to them costing lives overall. But that doesn't seem to be the point of their existence. The point seems to be control and having the power to tell people what they must do. Which is where this conversation started.

You want pre-FDA history? Insulin was invented as a treatment and came to the market to treat diabetes in a couple of years when the FDA wasn't around. If the FDA was around, it would have taken at least 3-5 more years and might even have never made it to the market (or much, much later) because of the expense involved!

Re:Net effect

[jklovanc]

You neglect the number of useless and harmful drugs that are kept off the market by the FDA. There are no numbers on how many saved because the FDA stopped them before they could do harm.

Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Nanny-state communism. Expect more if the stupid wetbacks and feckless poor elect Hillernie
--
roman_mir

What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[Jonah Hex]

My vape uses medical grade nicotine in the liquid, I wouldn't call that a tobacco product. Even then the nicotine is completely optional, I've been decreasing how much is added to my liquid slowly and expect to completely wean myself off nicotine eventually. Vaping is how I quit smoking tobacco products (cigarettes) and thanks to a locally owned vape shop chain I now spend hundreds less on my nicotine addiction with much less danger to my health. (yes there is still the danger of the flavor additives and nicotine itself) So are they now going to regulate vapes and liquids? It sure looks like it...

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[superwiz]

it's no more tobacco than a can of coke is a cup of coffee.

Re: What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The nicotine comes from tobacco, so it is very much a tobacco product

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just stop buying and smoking cigarettes like I did. It sucks at first, but then you move on. No matter how the government regulates this shit, you're dealing with a self-made problem.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[Anonymous Coward]

They will regulate it to the point where they'll ascertain that there's no lead or cyanide in your flavorings without denoting that in an ingredient list and that when your nicotine says "Pharmaceutical Grade" that it's certified, rather than some dude buying everything from a Chinese toxic waste dump and slapping a sticker on it that says it's certified.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[EvilSS]

My vape uses medical grade nicotine in the liquid, I wouldn't call that a tobacco product. Even then the nicotine is completely optional, I've been decreasing how much is added to my liquid slowly and expect to completely wean myself off nicotine eventually. Vaping is how I quit smoking tobacco products (cigarettes) and thanks to a locally owned vape shop chain I now spend hundreds less on my nicotine addiction with much less danger to my health. (yes there is still the danger of the flavor additives and nicotine itself) So are they now going to regulate vapes and liquids? It sure looks like it...

Well then they could just regulate it as a drug then I guess, since it's not a product of naturally grown tobacco. That's what they do with a lot of other drugs that have natural as well as synthetic sources.

I agree with the FDA there needs to be regulation so that the public knows what they are buying and that it's safe (particularly when it comes to the flavor ingredients which, while GRAS for ingestion does not mean they are safe to inhale). But they really need to not make it so financially burdensome to these companies. It should be "We have these approved ingredients in these amounts, and here is a quarterly lab test from a random batch to prove it." should be enough.

If they don't have one, the vape producers REALLY need to create an industry group.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[BigBuckHunter]

I was a committed smoker like you that flipped to vaping. I find the entire fuckbrah vape/hoverboard culture to be pretty amusing, kids who have never smoked before having cloud blowing contests... Haha! I personally welcome the FDA's regulatory entry into the eCig world. I agree that they should not be treated as a tobacco product though.

I pay the FDA to make sure the food and drugs I consume are safe. I pay them to do periodic inspections on that "medical grade" nicotine, PG, VG and flavors to make certain I'm getting what I've paid for in the doses I've paid for. I'm paying them to prevent idiots from using popcorn butter-flavor or formaldehyde in their juice. I'm paying them to make certain that coils aren't releasing metals into the vapor or slowly burning the poly/cotton wick. I'm paying them to make certain that the battery that's an inch from my face doesn't explode. I'm a libertarian FFS and the FDA's one of the few social institutions that I believe is necessary.

I'd ask what everyone's been smoking, but the honest truth is that they don't actually know.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit smoking to fuck up the government badly. Remember, they need the money we (were) spending due to nicotine addiction.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[SvnLyrBrto]

So, how do you know your nicotine liquid is "medical grade". Is it certified as such? By who? I'll bet that it's not dispensed by a licensed pharmacy.

And your "vape pen" or "e-cig" or whatever is just as problematic, and also in need of real regulation. Durable medical equipment, these are not. Since it's still a grey-market semi-legit industry, they're mostly built in the darkest pits of China, of the cheapest... and not medical grade... parts and similarly subpar batteries... lithium batteries. There've already been a number of cases of them exploding, sometimes while charging, sometimes while in use, and sometimes just randomly. Basically, they're "hoverboards" in miniature.

Actually, I don't especially begrudge anyone their drug of choice. In the case of smoking or "vaping", it's just the method of ingestion that I find obnoxious. But I have an inherent distrust of the claims of head shops about their wares. Even in tolerant states like California, they're still unregulated and fairly sketchy outfits.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[sjames]

The flavorings are already food grade and are made primarily as food additives. That should cover the whole cyanide thing. Plenty of food, BTW is imported from China and the FDA hasn't seen fit to get involved there.

The nicotine I buy comes from the U.S. and includes the analysis sheet for the batch.

Meanwhile, god only knows what's in an air freshener, even the ones that are misted into the air.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[Anonymous Coward]

There've already been a number of cases of them exploding, sometimes while charging, sometimes while in use, and sometimes just randomly. Basically, they're any product manufactured that uses a lithium ion cell.

Fixed that for you. Laptops, power banks, etc. You'll find cases of venting/exploding cells for any popular product that uses them.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[catmistake]

The FDA is making a mistake only in this regard. FDA seems to only care about nicotine regulation. Nicotine is pretty dangerous stuff, but the fact of the matter is it is simply not the most dangerous element of vaping. How many nicotine poisonings or deaths have there been since the industry's birth? Probably none. Yet FDA absolutely should be stepping in to hold manufacturers in line, but FDA need to see where the very real danger lies: lithium batteries. Lithium cells need understanding and care to be used safely. The one line warning that lithium cells may have, without any benefit of instruction or best practices, is clearly insufficient. It is kind of nuts what modders think they are clever doing with sub-ohm coils and 100W vapes... rest assured more children will be maimed, and apparently FDA is currently blinded to this fact because nicotine is a drug and all drugs are bad. For all the good intentions of the nanny state, it rolls right over the actual real dangers from which they should be protecting consumers.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[Bing Tsher E]

You would do better with a UL-style (privately run organization) regulatory body than a Federal Government Agency. Then you can choose to look for the label on the product you choose to buy. This gives you the oversight you want with the freedom you prize.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Batteries.. and FDA.... aren't really food or drugs... I suppose there are medical devices that use batteries that the FDA regulares. Nevermind.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, troll. If you have something to say, say it. Don't put words in other peoples' mouths.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The nicotine used in eliquids is still extracted from tobacco plant. Even pharma grade.

Re:What about non-"tobacco product" vapes?

[drinkypoo]

Meanwhile, god only knows what's in an air freshener, even the ones that are misted into the air.

If the FDA actually wants to increase my air quality, they should crack down on perfumes. Perfumes contain toxics and musk in the same package. Just about anyone wearing perfume which you can smell is subjecting you to a chemical attack, since the genuinely harmless kind (made solely out of essential oils... and not even all of those are harmless!) is the rarest kind.

Wasting their time dicking around with vapes while they could have been working on perfumes and body sprays for years (I'm looking at you, Axe) proves conclusively that they don't give a fuck about this issue.

California

[Anonymous Coward]

California just announced e-smoking regs. And raised smoking age to 21 from 18.

I'm not sure I'm ok

[rsilvergun]

With a company selling a substance whose main appeal is being addictive. Anything else remember the "cycle of consumption" from The Space Merchants?

Re: I'm not sure I'm ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh....a lot of vaping products have no tobacco or nicotine or anything like that. So what's addictive?

Besides, what's wrong with selling addictive products? The wrong is making them physically addictive and hiding it. We solved that problem with regular cigarettes years ago. The only thing the government should do with substances people want is make sure they're not poison and that there's no deception. Otherwise stay out of other people's lives.

Re:I'm not sure I'm ok

[sjames]

So you're out to get Folger's?

Re:I'm not sure I'm ok

[Bing Tsher E]

The main appeal of Folgers isn't to get addicted.

People don't say "I think I will start drinking coffee so I can become addicted."

One of the worst aspects of the prohibition culture we live within is the refusal of prohibitionists to acknowledge that people enjoy imbibing in the things the prohibitionists want to ban. Smoking for example, is a practice people enjoy, one that brings them pleasure in their daily life.

Re:I'm not sure I'm ok

[sjames]

Nor is that the main attraction for nicotine. People also don't say "I think I will start using nicotine so I can be addicted".

Re:I'm not sure I'm ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you point to a single double-blind study about the addictiveness of e-cigs? I'll make it easier - can you point to a double blind study independently showing the that nicotine is addictive to any serious level, say at or above that of caffeine?

I'll help - no, you can't. There aren't any. The reason cigarettes are addictive has little if anything to do with nicotine, despite what people will tell you. It's about ritual and psychological addition. It's not about nicotine. Nicotine is a straw man people use to excuse themselves from responsibility for choosing to smoke. Same as fat people (myself included) use all sorts of excuses to claim that being fat isn't about will-power when it absolutely provably is.

I think they should do a study once and for all with e-cigs. Double blind select people to smoke e-cigs with nicotine and without and measure "addiction" after 6 months. Hint: It will be nearly 0 difference.

most states where doing this.

[luther349]

pretty much every state was treating it as a Tabacco product anyways. eg not selling to those under 18.

Re:most states where doing this.

[superwiz]

there is no more tobacco in them than there is in a nicotine gum.

Re: most states where doing this.

[dugancent]

Nicotine gum and patches are 18+ in almost every state.

Re: most states where doing this.

[superwiz]

Nicotine gum and patches are 18+ in almost every state.

Which is weird in itself. As stimulants go, nicotine is somewhere around caffeine. But coffee and caffeinated drinks are not regulated... well, at least not for caffeine content (some are for sugar content).

regulate == tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Uncle Sam isn't going to let you get away with anything...

I wonder....

[gatfirls]

Who has a lot to gain from making a prohibitively costly barrier to entry for small vendors?

Maybe the same ones who benefited form the outlawing of "flavored" type cigarettes that were sold by niche retailers.

Big tobacco is alive and well, the pitiful thing is that now they are doing their bidding with full public support.

BIG Vape

[turkeydance]

is the bad guy now

Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they can tax them like cigarettes. Got to cover those high paying government salaries some how.

well

[superwiz]

I guess the producers of e-cigs couldn't ask for a better way to promote their business. In fact, their lobbyists could have spent their entire budget on getting this done and it still wouldn't be enough money spent on it. First, it will popularize e-cigs today because of the current climate of general distrust for the government. And then it will eliminate competition in the future by producing huge regulatory barriers to entry for new producers after the patents expire.

Tobaccoless?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't smoke or vape, but my friends that do mostly use custom e-cigs that they fill with their own liquids that often contain no nicotine at all..

What exactly are they regulating here? The ones that are prefilled & single use? The liquids? From reading the link, it doesn't seem to be the device (e-cig). So I guess it must be the liquid. But again, what if it is tobaccoless and has no nicotine?

What about those who mix their own liquids?

I guess more red tape to save us all is the motto of Govt these days.

Re:Tobaccoless?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't smoke or vape, but my friends that do mostly use custom e-cigs that they fill with their own liquids that often contain no nicotine at all..

What exactly are they regulating here? The ones that are prefilled & single use? The liquids? From reading the link, it doesn't seem to be the device (e-cig). So I guess it must be the liquid. But again, what if it is tobaccoless and has no nicotine?

What about those who mix their own liquids?

I guess more red tape to save us all is the motto of Govt these days.

I think the point is that the FDA wants to regulate what goes in the vapes. It takes nothing to say that a liquid is "Pharmaceutical grade" x or y or z when in truth it is urine and mouse turds.

Its the money. It's always the money.

[Cobratek]

Tobacco sales are down.  They wanted people to quit right?  Oh yeah all that tax money tho, for the kids? Not raking it in like they are used to.

Vaping is a multi billion dollar industry now.

2 + 2 = ?

Oh good, more taxes

[bretts]

What will they spend the money on? Oh: the same things they have failed at in the past. Government is a parasite, like a leech, mosquito or flea.

Re: Oh good, more taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

They spend money on making sure the drugs you *should* be taking are what they say they are.

Re:Oh good, more taxes

[TomR teh Pirate]

There's actually strong evidence that with each tax increase on cigarettes, consumption subsequently drops. The taxes in question are used for smoking cessation programs and other public health interests. Hardly parasitic, but also antithetical to a truly free society. On the other hand, society's shared costs don't occur in a vacuum. If my neighbor smokes, there's a statistical cost his neighbors will incur at some point in the future that involved supporting his healthcare. Given that the burdens are being shared in one way or another, I'm ok with not being "truly free".

Water?

[ArchieBunker]

Not exactly water vapor...

Re:Water?

[pr0fessor]

glycerol and other stuff used for scent and flavor also and I seriously doubt it's any better for you than a cigarette if not actually worse nicotine added or not or even if it was only water.

Re: Child-resistant packages helps the medical car

[Anonymous Coward]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrap_rage :

"The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimated that attempts to open packaging caused about 6,500 emergency room visits in the U.S. in 2004. A 2009 study conducted by the Institute for Good Medicine found that 17 percent of adults over the age of 21 were either injured at least once or know of someone who was injured while opening a holiday or birthday gift."

This is just a cheap profit move by the AMA. They want to create more profit for their doctors.

No, just no they are not taking away my birthday presents.. I will open my birthday presents in a "Birthday Present Opening Area" outside and away from other people. I just wonder will the family have to go into the present opening area together on Christmas? (ITs F-ing cold outside on Christmas!) I think the family that breaks the law together, stays together!

Step 1: regulate it

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 2: Tax it.

You have to regulate E-cigarettes before you can tax them.

Lies and Damn Lies

[transami]

Basically big corporations are using this legislation to take over the e-cig market. If you have to pay the FDA $2 million to approve a device, then that's the end of everyone but a few big players. And that's how our government works. This has absolutely nothing to do with the actual health of people. It's all lies.

It's a bit more complicated than that

[rsilvergun]

because you aren't 100% in control, even if you like to think you are. Nicotine is an addictive substance. And it's not hard to make other addictive substances. If we let companies add addictive substances without regulation they will. Why wouldn't they? They'll be smart enough to draw the line somewhere, but they'll always be pushing up against that line and the boundaries of human decency.

Go read Fred Pohl's "The Space Merchants" and learn about "The Cycle of Consumption" and then think a little about what responsibility really means.

Re:It's a bit more complicated than that

[Anonymous Coward]

That, and the right to swing your arms around stops at my nose. Personal freedom has always had limits and will always have limits, because you simply cannot have a working society where everyone can do everything they want.

Re:It's a bit more complicated than that

[GLMDesigns]

Well. Either you own your own body or you don't. Either the government can tell you what you can do with it or they can't.

Anyone who is pro-choice on abortion but not on cigarettes, weed, cocaine and heroin are hypocrites.

I think I own my own body. Therefore I can smoke if I so chose. (And I did as a teenager because I was so fu&&ing cool.)

Re:It's a bit more complicated than that

[kqs]

My freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose. And choice is only free if it is informed; otherwise it's just another form of coercion.

I have no problem with you putting anything you want into your body. But you should know the consequences. The problem is that nobody has any idea what the consequences are. If you have lung problems, them my insurance premiums will pay for your treatment (and vice versa) so we're kinda in this together.

We know that lungs are sensitive; we know that substances behave very differently when ingested or inhaled. If you want to mix the vape liquid into a dirty martini and swallow it five times a day, you have a good idea what it will do to you after 10 years. If you heat and inhale it, not so much. Asbestos is a fine example of "this seemed so safe that we never even though of testing inhalation".

So you absolutely own your own body. But if a vendor says "this fireproof-vape is perfectly safe" and doesn't tell you that it contains 30% asbestos, well, the vendor is manipulating your choice.

Re:It's a bit more complicated than that

[GLMDesigns]

If you have lung problems, them my insurance premiums will pay for your treatment (and vice versa) so we're kinda in this together.

Now you know why I'm against universal health care. (and yes there's a problem with private health care as well). It means that people like you will use this stop whatever behavior you find distasteful.

Let's ban an@l sex as it leads to more diseases and will raise health insurance rates.
Let's ban eating meat, or drinking coffee or whatever crosses your mind as you enhance government oppression and squash individual liberty under the guise of being helpful and reasonable.

Tyranny only leads to civil war. Think about how that will affect your insurance premiums.

I'm treating them with suspicion

[rsilvergun]

because we've got a company selling an addictive substance with little to no actual medical benefit. These guys are _not_ selling nicotine patches. You're not suppose to quit vaping like you quit the patch. It's got nothing to do with culture. The potential for abuse here is staggering. Nicotine is just the most obvious addictive substance. Give a chemist some time and a budge and he'll give you something that's just addictive enough to make the addicts life miserable without breaking them down enough to raise the public ire. That's a horrible thought but damn good business.

A better option

[bretts]

there's a statistical cost his neighbors will incur at some point in the future that involved supporting his healthcare.

Or, we could just not support his healthcare. I trust granular choices more than universal ones.

Re:A better option

[Bing Tsher E]

The actuaries at private health insurers use the customers smoking/nonsmoking status as a factor in determining their insurance rate. At least the smarter insurers, the ones with the most competitive rates do.

What am I missing here?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but the ruling appears to be directed at tobacco and tobacco derived products. What prevents the vaping industry from a full end-run by creating and selling "not approved for nicotine delivery" vaping devices and flavored NON-nicotine liquids, which are both clearly outside the scope of the ruling? If desired, one could certainly add their own nicotine from an "approved" vendor and use the device in an unapproved way. I have worked my way down to vaping PV/PG juice with NO nicotine a regular basis. I also mix my own concentration using 0% (no) nicotine + enough to yield a concentration that is 1/2 what is available over-the-counter (just pour a small bottle with 0.03% into a larger bottle of 0.00%). I'd be perfectly happy to mix a few drops of 0.12% or 0.24% "approved" nicotine liquid (unflavored) into a "not approved for nicotine delivery" flavored juice and vape away until the day I'm 100% nicotine free.

Re:What am I missing here?

[Anonymous Coward]

pp 23 of the report says: " E-liquids that do not contain tobacco or nicotine or are not derived from tobacco or nicotine do not meet the definition of "covered tobacco product," as described throughout this final rule, and will not be required to carry an addiction warning or to submit a self-certification."

Tobacco user for 30 years switching to vaping

[ofprimes]

I have been on one form of tobacco or another since I was 14 years old, and am now 49. I gave vaping a try about two months ago because even knowing no science, one can deduce that inhaling water (glycerine) vapor must be healthier than inhaling the fumes produced by the combustion of once-living dried plant matter. Upon further research, I could find NO evidence proving that any of the chemicals in (most brands of) vape e-liquids are harmful. Glycerine/glycol, nicotine and flavor, and that's it. So it started to seem, hypothetically, that I need not give up the chemical I have been addicted to and have enjoyed since my teens, but I can give up ALL of the bad crap in tobacco (I used chewing tobacco for 10 years as well), and all of the carcinogens and smoke and ashtrays and constant burns and lighters and coughing and smell and ash etc,, and then even save a butt-ton of money as well?? Too good to be true!! I thought if this were truly the case it would be all over the news and immediately show the potential to curb, if not eliminate, the two leading causes of death in the US, right?? Weird...

So I before I switched to vaping about two months ago I smoked 2-4 full-size premium cigars a day. Since I switched I have not had a single cigar or even a hit off of one. My lungs definitely feel better and I can breathe deeper, I have more energy, and have lost weight. No kidding. In every aspect I feel as though I have quit smoking. No more smell at home or ashes all over the car. Yes, I'm still getting the addictive chemical, but I feel as though my end-of-life clock is jumping ahead by days and months since I switched to vaping. But guess what, I'm still a smoker according to this ruling. My e-liquid nicotine levels have been reduced to 1/3 what they were when I started, and I'm about ready to go down another notch. Eventually I may be just be inhaling flavored steam. Still a smoker?

I agree about restricting access to anything with nicotine, and even the hardware (just like head-shops), but I think it will need to change soon enough once the science comes out about the difference in health risk data when comparing the two. Otherwise I have a feeling big insurance will twist this in a way to maximize profits while reducing claims, just like Uncle Sam. Just a hunch.

FDA regulating batteries and lights and software

[Anonymous Coward]

From pp 8 of the report: Components and parts of the newly deemed tobacco products [...] are included in the scope of this final rule. The following is a nonexhaustive list of examples of components and parts used with electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) (including e cigarettes): e-liquids; atomizers; batteries (with or without variable voltage); cartomizers (atomizer plus replaceable fluid-filled cartridge); digital display/lights to adjust settings; clearomisers, tank systems, flavors, vials that contain e-liquids, and programmable software.

Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

After careful study of the responses to this article, I've come to the conclusion that smokers (including vapers) are idiots.

cancer is incompatible vs brain degenerations

[bingoUV]

There has been found a genetic negative correlation between cancer and most brain degenerative diseases - see https://www.ted.com/talks/greg....

Maybe you are not thankful enough for your genes which protect you from cancer?

Anyway, I have a slight family history of Parkinson's too - though not as much as yours. Any idea of the cancer incidence in the Parkinson's afflicted branch of your family?

thanks

Popcorn lung

[HalAtWork]

Look it up: here and here. Not really water vapor.

They must form consortiums to survive

[PeterM from Berkeley]

If the little vendors want to survive, they will have to form consortiums of little vendors to get stuff approved. Either that or only and solely sell stuff that's already made it through approval.

It's going to narrow the options for consumers at the least.

But if they form the consortiums they need, then Big Tobacco might have shot themselves in the foot: they will have created competition that can not only organize to get their products approved, but lobby congress and form an opposition power to Big Tobacco's interests.

In fact, I hope that is just what happens, and the quicker the better. Odds are that vaping is far less harmful than traditional tobacco, and the sooner traditional tobacco is abandoned by the consumer the better!

Just more big business

[kaybee]

By dramatically increasing regulations and charging $1 million to review new products before they can be advertised the FDA is giving the industry to big business. Anybody else think that is a horrible idea? We need lots of small businesses to foster innovation and competition in any market.

Here is why big tobacco lobbied to enact this law

[Anonymous Coward]

Big tobacco is losing business over e-cigarettes from smaller competitors who are putting out better products. This is nothing but a front to put these companies out of business. If you look at the legislation you'll notice it makes an exemption for product leaving the United States. In other words large multi-national corporations don't have to comply except where its going to hurt there small competitors.

The FDA is incompetent and useless

[ToddInSF]

The stupid drug ads, the constant stream of fines for drug companies breaking the law, the constant lawsuits because drug companies keep lying about just how dangerous and useless their products are...

The FDA is bought off just like most of the USA government.

Just let the idiots using e-ciggs fuck up their lungs, I swear most of them deserve it with their inane insistence that breathing in that shit is "safe".

Put together a registry for people that use e-ciggs and make them pay out of pocket for their own medical care.

political

[Anonymous Coward]

The FDA reigns in industries that donate to the opposing party of the current White House.

More news at 11 ...

Insurance is a terrible idea

[bretts]

The house always wins, and insurance companies always profit. Better to leave medicine mostly unregulated and reduce costs. If someone comes in at age 79, having smoked his whole life, with lung cancer and emphysema, it might be time to allow successively increasing doses of morphine so the patient can pass on peacefully without costing himself or others $1.5 million in a final miserable year of care before death.

Vaping is one of the highest form of douchebaggery

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me, we non-vapers love this. I wish we could require vapers to sew black cloud patches onto all of their clothing, so that the rest of us could know which servers not to tip and which applicants not to hire...