Slashdot Mirror
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.
that's a matter of perception.
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.
ummm, are you aware of the profits?
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.
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.
Libertas in infinitum
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.
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.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
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.
I can see the fnords!
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?
So they can tax the fuck out of it. Can't have something stealing tax dollars from uncle sugar now can we?
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.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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...
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
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.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Knowledge Brings Fear
With a company selling a substance whose main appeal is being addictive. Anything else remember the "cycle of consumption" from The Space Merchants?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
pretty much every state was treating it as a Tabacco product anyways. eg not selling to those under 18.
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.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
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.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
is the bad guy now
Yes, because the war on drugs has gone so well and drug use has been eliminated. *eye roll*
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
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?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
Wasn't this tried before with Alcohol? I think it was called "The Prohibition" or something. I wonder how that turned out...
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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 = ?
DONT TREAD ON ME MOÎΩN ÎABÃ
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.
Smoking his dumb.
People should have the right to be dumb.
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'.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
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.
because we dont outlaw things simply because they are bad for you (or shouldnt anyway) personal choice an all
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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 ...
This quickly turns into a slippery slope argument. If history teaches us anything, Prohibition is NOT the answer, self control is.
Not exactly water vapor...
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
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.
Then go smoke in a hermetically sealed room.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Mine. Because I am partially paying the health care costs of the guy who died of emphysema.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
There are much better delivery systems for nicotine than smoking.
I can't imagine ending up on a ventilator is good for psychosis.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You bet. Nicotine is actually a pretty cool drug. Smoking is the part that stinks.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
I can see the fnords!
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.
:T:R:A:N:S:
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.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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...
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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.
Because you shouldn't get to decide what other people can or can't do to themselves.
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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
The FDA should totally regulate farting.
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.
Or, we could just not support his healthcare. I trust granular choices more than universal ones.
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?
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.
Hate to break it to you, but you're already walking around in a chemical cloud. The hell do you think the atmosphere is?
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.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Why should I have to inhale smog because your electricity consuming ass can't telecommute by pigeon?
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
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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.
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.
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?
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. . .
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Which simply shows that stupidity doesn't need to be genetic to be hereditary.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Women have a right to their body... Abortion
... said no Republican, ever.
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.
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.
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.
Required reading for internet skeptics
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.
Required reading for internet skeptics
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!
Required reading for internet skeptics
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.
He who gets the last laugh, laughs last.
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.
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.
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.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
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
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
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.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Yes, and the people around them, too.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/c...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sure.
But wouldn't you like to know if inhaled that as yet untested e-cig has any health problems associated with it?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Look it up: here and here. Not really water vapor.
Twinstiq, game news
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.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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!
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.
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.
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.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
"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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
you're
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
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.
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?
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?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Why should skydiving, rock climbing, going to the movies, drinking, or eating deserts be legal at all?
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.
Agree, I have never met a smoker that is happy that they started smoking.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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?...
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"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.
meant corporate profits and lobbyist dollars, at least those surgeons work to get their money.
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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!
TODO: Insert witty sig
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
TODO: Insert witty sig
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.
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.
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.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
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.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
Preferably with no source of oxygen.
Dude, don't do that. That much nicotine at at time can give a healthy person a heart attack.
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.
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 /.
--Citation needed
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.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.