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: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.

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: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: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

[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

[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

[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

[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.