Slashdot Mirror
FDA Chief Considers Ban of All Flavored E-Cigarettes (wsj.com)
Calling a surge in teen use of e-cigarettes an epidemic, the head of the Food and Drug Administration says he is considering pulling all flavored e-cigarettes from the U.S. market. From a report: After years of declining U.S. smoking rates, sales of e-cigarettes have jumped in the past year, fueled in part by online startups selling vaporizers and nicotine-laced liquids. The most popular brand, Juul, sells refills with mango, cucumber and creme flavors. Each $4 pod contains as much nicotine as a pack of cigarettes. "The number of teenagers we believe are now using these products... has reached an epidemic proportion," said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who is expected to announce new measures Wednesday to curb underage use. Dr. Gottlieb said he believes that certain flavors make the products appealing to teens. "The availability of e-cigarettes cannot come at the expense of addicting a new generation of youth onto nicotine, and it won't," he said in an interview. Alternative source, and official announcement.
Ban cigarettes while your at it dipshit.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
No one wants to walk though your cloud of second-hand blueberry fumes!
The FDA has no authority to regulate if the juice contains no nicotine and teens who don't already spoke don't use the nicotine juice. You can make any flavor with or without it, the nicotine is an add on.
Ban it!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Sure, you can regulate pre-made juice and disposable e-cigs but refillable e-cigs allows me the option to purchase the individual components to make my own e-juice.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
What flavors are they banning, and how are they determining that.
Mine is a sweetish tobacco flavor with vanilla in it. Will that be banned?
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
It's really baffling that these e-cigarettes have nicotine in the first place. Isn't it obvious that including that ingredient is specifically done to create addiction? With tobacco at least one could argue that it's a natural part of the product, but by adding it to e-cigs CLEARLY shows the intention of the manufacturers to get people addicted. If you want e-cigs to help smokers stop smoking, that's one thing, but to have it generally available to everyone is just crazy.
You need the nicotine, not the peach. He's not (currently) talking about banning e-cigarettes, just the sweet flavored ones.
The flavoring is part of the issue
Some of these taste exactly like candy, so idiot kids don't know any better.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
Personally, I will sue the FDA if they do this.
No you won't.
Otherwise, who would ever pick up smoking?
Simply because they're morons who:
1). Are sheep (submit to peer pressure).
2). Think it makes them look cool.
3). Think it is a sign of rebelling against authority.
4). Do not have a forward-thinking mentality.
5). Fail to do a simple cost/benefit analysis.
I really doubt ANY non-smoker looks at a cigarette and thinks, "Oh, hey, I should smoke that so I can get me some nicotine."
They do seem to be milking this situation in the most hypocritical way.
On the one hand, restrict, preach, shame.
On the other, tax, tax, tax.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I have to say I agree with this.
There's nothing worse than smelling donuts or cotton candy, and you turn the corner thinking "Mmmm I'm gonna treat myself to something tasty!"
But no... It's just Brad and his cloud of LIES.
Here here. This move completely ignores the fact that sales are only for those over 18, and the science on the issue: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review
Nicotine on its own is much like caffeine: highly addictive, but not that harmful. It's the other crap in cigarettes that kills you. Vaping has no carcinogens.
But don't let science get in the way of some good political FUD, eh?
Shouldn't this only apply to ones containing nicotine?
Just a thought.
Just like kids gravitate to the wide assortment of Pinnacle Vodka flavors right? The "think of teh kids" argument is the standard cop out when some group wants to go nannystate. There does need to be enforcement of IP in ejuice branding, but an outright flavor ban is purely kneejerk, and harmful for the people trying to transition into a less harmful option.
Pretty sure the kids know exactly what they are doing. Kids smoke actual cigarettes too- and those taste like shit.
Do we have to ban all flavoured alcohol as well? Caffeinated drinks? Unhealthy foods?
Nicotine on its own is much like caffeine: highly addictive, but not that harmful. It's the other crap in cigarettes that kills you. Vaping has no carcinogens.
That is a lie. Vape smoke has less carcinogens than tobacco smoke, but not none.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But don't let science get in the way of some good political FUD, eh?
Then how do you explain new results that show vaping to be nearly as harmful as smoking, just in very different ways?
So, uhm, I'd consider looking whether either of the studies got some kind donations from nice guys so interested in making people healthier...
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Okay, you have 2million kids now using e-cigs.
How does that compare to before e-cigs were available? How many kids were cig smokers in the past?
For point 1 and 2, the advantage to vaping over smoking is you can get nictone free liquids and no one is the wiser.
Obviously the better solution is for kids to not care about social pressure but I agree that's easier said than done.
Vaping might not be as harmful as cigarettes, but I don't know if it's harmless, or at least as close to it as anything could be. You're still inhaling something other than air into your lungs and that's going to have some side effects. They might be so small or require such repeated exposure that the health issues are essentially non-existent for the average person in otherwise good health, but I think the jury is still out on if there are any significant long term effects from prolonged use.
I'd put it as a "least concern" type of item, but I wouldn't want to tell anyone that it's perfectly safe to vape all day long for their entire life.
Camel had flavored cigarettes well into the mid 2000s. My friend started smoking after I left a tin of Camel Cremas in his car. They had other ones like Dark Chocolate Mint, Izmir Stingers (sweet and sour), High Ball (whiskey flavored), one that was Orange and Chocolate.
They were in some weird line that only came in tins - It was this line
Wow, you don't seem to be able to handle disagreement very well.
Cigarettes are not legal for kids. Not anywhere civilised.
Nor should e-cigarettes with addictive components be but the law was slow to catch up.
Nicotine dependence isn't something to encourage in children especially if they are being given the message "this stuff doesn't harm you" which is what e-cigarettes are claiming (though give it 30 years and that might turn out to be a mistake).
I don't think you can argue that children shouldn't be consuming something known to be highly addictive, which shouldn't be available to them, even if the end-result isn't directly damaging to their lungs.
And, no, sugar etc. isn't addictive, and even alcohol isn't nearly as addictive and is regulated for minors just as tough.
Caffeine addiction is nowhere near as severe as nicotine addiction.
Literally, grown adults will be reduced to neurotic, screaming, shaking wrecks because they don't get their fix of nicotine. I've never ONCE met a smoker who "could give it up any time" who then actually does. Even ones where they were told it was killing them, where they had bits of their body REMOVED because it had killed them (lung cancer, etc.) and still they kept smoking.
Caffeine? You get a headache and a bit cranky. You know how I know? I'm addicted to caffeine. I drink 2 litres of caffeinated drink almost every day and have done for... almost 20 years? Caffeine literally has no effect on me any more - I can drink litres of Coke and then just nod off to sleep no problem. It doesn't ever make me alert or hyper, and lack of it even for extended periods (months) doesn't make me grumpy or tired.
Guess what the first thing to go is when I am low on cash? The caffeine. Guess what the LAST thing a smoker will give up when they're low on cash? Nicotine. Difference being I literally would not notice if I went without caffeine for a month, or stop drinking it. (I drink it because I don't like water, don't enjoy tea/coffee, etc. and Coke/Pepsi is good enough throughout the world to be fairly consistent and always be available).
I speak as someone who lived with a smoker for my entire childhood, who has lived with smokers as young as 18 (just last year in fact), who has worked closely with smokers in their early twenties, etc. They all say "I could give it up". And then I say "You can't." And then they say "Give up your caffeine then". And I guarantee you that every time they challenge me to give up caffeine for as long as they give up nicotine, I win. Every time. Hands down. Sometimes I double, triple, quadruple the time they gave up just to prove the point.
The 18-year-old and my work-colleague were POTLESS, they had no money at all. Totally skint. One was on minimum wage, the other was trying to fund his first ever rented apartment with his also-20, also-smoker girlfriend. They endlessly complained about money, they did tricks on the McDonald's kiosks that gave them a full adult meal (in about 10 parts from children's meals!) for ridiculously low prices just so they could eat.
And yet when I added up their smoking habits it was their largest expenditure of all, with the only exception being rent. More than they spend on food, clothes, their car, or anything else.
The reason for that is addiction. They can't do without it. Both "tried" in a challenge with me. One lasted literally one day (but then pretended to last two weeks because she was so ashamed, but I'd already seen her smoking and confronted her with it when she tried to collect on the bet!), the other a few weeks on a nicotine patch - literally ripping it off his arm in front of me and throwing a strop in work (a school!) to storm off and have a cigarette.
Nicotine addiction is powerful, more powerful than anything else normal people do in daily life. It's not on the same scale. And it makes teenagers with no money go without food or clothes or a house so they can burn it into their lungs.
There has been no studies showing that vaping is 'nearly as harmful' as smoking. Please cite your sources.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Breathing PG vapor is a health concern. Much safer than smoke, but not a good daily habit with no long-term studies to know just how bad.
Then how do you explain new results that show vaping to be nearly as harmful as smoking, just in very different ways?
Without perusing the 'new results' I'd say any explanation for them is premature.
Unlike the GP, who did provide a link to his sources, you don't say which 'new results' you're referring to though, or where you read them.
Care to share?
Cigarettes are not legal for kids. Not anywhere civilised.
And neither is vaping, not where I live in the UK, nor in the USA.
Nor should e-cigarettes with addictive components be but the law was slow to catch up.
Unfortunately true: it took until 2016 'til the FDA started regulating them. This article is surprisingly balanced and informative when it comes to the benefits and downsides in the vaping / smoking debate.
Nicotine dependence isn't something to encourage in children especially if they are being given the message "this stuff doesn't harm you" which is what e-cigarettes are claiming (though give it 30 years and that might turn out to be a mistake).
While I completely agree with the first part of this statement the second part is only partially true. And, despite what the manufacturers might claim, most governments and health professionals are distinctly more circumspect when discussing vaping: Vaping can be an effective method in cessation of smoking; vaping is less harmful than smoking cigarettes.
I don't think you can argue that children shouldn't be consuming something known to be highly addictive, which shouldn't be available to them, even if the end-result isn't directly damaging to their lungs.
And, no, sugar etc. isn't addictive, and even alcohol isn't nearly as addictive and is regulated for minors just as tough.
People can argue all sorts of shit that's clearly wrong. It's one of the great wonders of the social world in which we live. As to whether sugar is addictive I guess that would somewhat depend on how one defines addiction - tbh I couldn't care less one way or another. It is, or perhaps I should say more than small quantities are, harmful to us however. For all that though I prefer the gentle nudge of taxation to a heavy handed ban for any of these things - I just wish more companies had the stomach to continue to manufacture their soft drinks with sugar and charge the higher price: in the UK now virtually every 'soda' is, for me, undrinkable, as they all contain vile tasting artificial sweeteners rather than sugar. I'd have happily (ok, that's a lie - I'd have grudgingly) paid the extra price, instead I've just stopped buying them - not that the loss of sales of one to two dozen cans a year is going to put anyone out of business. Ah well, at least I will be able to point to this as an example of a government nudge that had the 'desired' effect despite the personal annoyance. </end digression>
That is — or should be — between you and the health insurance company.
This is exactly why society must never accept the responsibility of taking care of you. Because, as you demonstrate, with the "taking care" comes the control. If Donald Trump is responsible for your health care, he should, of course, be able to tell you to stop eating red meat and fine you for not exercising.
In other words, yes, Collectivism is detrimental to personal freedoms — and why I refer to Collectivisim-proponents (Socialists, Communists, and Fascists alike) as Illiberals.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Personally, I will sue the FDA if they do this.
No you won't.
You can sue anybody and the judge can just toss your lawsuit to the curb... You might be able to get an attorney to file the lawsuit for you if you pay them enough, but suing the FDA will get it tossed out before it ever reaches trial.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Pretty sure the kids know exactly what they are doing. Kids smoke actual cigarettes too- and those taste like shit.
Do we have to ban all flavoured alcohol as well? Caffeinated drinks? Unhealthy foods?
Well, there have been bans on soda cups over 24 oz. in some places.... It's not like I've never heard arguments to ban all these things from those with a specific political persuasion.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Nicotine on its own is much like caffeine: highly addictive, but not that harmful. It's the other crap in cigarettes that kills you. Vaping has no carcinogens.
That is a lie. Vape smoke has less carcinogens than tobacco smoke, but not none.
[citation needed]
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
But don't let science get in the way of some good political FUD, eh?
Then how do you explain new results that show vaping to be nearly as harmful as smoking, just in very different ways?
Propaganda, from sources that prefer people to smoke cigarettes because that benefits them.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
That is a lie. Vape smoke has less carcinogens than tobacco smoke, but not none.
[citation needed]
No, citations abound. Google "vape smoke carcinogens", and learn to internet already. What year is it that you don't know how to search the web?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Anecdotes are not science.
Here is some science for you, which refutes your opinion.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
That is a lie. Vape smoke has less carcinogens than tobacco smoke, but not none.
[citation needed]
No, citations abound. Google "vape smoke carcinogens",
I asked you, because you seemed to know something Google doesn't, as all the links returned simply talk about how much safer vape is from the cigarette smoke, which contains a large number of known carcinogens that are either non-existent or insignificant (non-cancer causing) in vapor.
That, and a lot of propaganda and misreported information.
and learn to internet already. What year is it that you don't know how to search the web?
You don't seem to have learned anything about it yourself, since you think vape produces smoke.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Cigarettes are not legal for kids. Not anywhere civilised. Nor should e-cigarettes with addictive components be but the law was slow to catch up.
I think it's you that has some catching-up to do. From August of 2016: "Vape shops cannot give free samples to customers or sell to people younger than 18, under the new regulations. Merchants will be required to ask for identification from customers who appear to be under the age of 27."
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Humans will always find drugs appealing as long as we have a dopamine reward system, which I'd guess exists precisely because it aids in preserving the species -- rewarding reproduction, eating, etc.
The problem with humans is we've figured out how to trigger a dopamine response without the "necessary, species-preserving" actions but I guess it's part of the price you pay for cognitive self-awareness.
Could have installed a useless puppet at the head of FDA too.
Hilarious. You should try for a career in standup comedy.
Your vices, on the other hand are God given rights, amireight?
Just the same, propylene glycol has no desirable effect so I prefer to get cartridges that don't have it. Unfortunately, the ones that do have it are much easier to take big rips from, as they solve the problem of THC and CBD both having rather high viscosity.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Other animals figure out how to get high (like eating fermenting fruit), they just aren't particularly good at producing their own supplies on demand. They also aren't as good at passing along the knowledge of what they're doing and why.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
All those lovely tax dollars rolling in and the wonderful side effect of mainly poorer people dying earlier, before they become a burden on the state! No wonder govts have never banned cigarettes!
No, citations abound. Google "vape smoke carcinogens",
I asked you, because you seemed to know something Google doesn't, as all the links returned simply talk about how much safer vape is from the cigarette smoke,
Your logical fallacy is moving the goalposts. The question wasn't whether it was safer. Learn to read. The question was whether vaping produces carcinogens.
You don't seem to have learned anything about it yourself, since you think vape produces smoke.
It's a colloquialism. Again, learn to read.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My son attends a public high school in Murfreesboro Tennessee. Of his circle of friends 2/3s have tried a Juul, and 1/3 are current users.
Quoting him, "They say it looks like a USB stick, so if your parents see it you don't get in trouble."
Congratulations Nicotine industry, you've figured out a way to hook another generation. Well done.
No, citations abound. Google "vape smoke carcinogens",
I asked you, because you seemed to know something Google doesn't, as all the links returned simply talk about how much safer vape is from the cigarette smoke,
Your logical fallacy is moving the goalposts. The question wasn't whether it was safer. Learn to read. The question was whether vaping produces carcinogens.
You don't seem to have learned anything about it yourself, since you think vape produces smoke.
It's a colloquialism. Again, learn to read.
Claiming imprecision on the part of someone else is "moving the goalposts," but the same on your own behalf is "a colloquialism" is the height of hypocrisy. Besides which, you're wrong, as, again, there are no carcinogens in vape at levels that are actually carcinogenic.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
It suggests that everything harmful is banned, I.e. everything not banned is not...
People, including. parents and teachers educating and raising children, should take their own responsibility. Teens should start with taking responsibility for their own future and health as they grow older. Trusting the government to ban all harmful things is hopeless and counterproductive.