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

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...

[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: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

[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

[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

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

[superwiz]

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

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.

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.

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

[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.