Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco Moves To Ban E-Cigarettes Until Health Effects Known (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Officials in San Francisco have proposed a new law to ban e-cigarette sales until their health effects are evaluated by the U.S. government. The law appears to be the first of its kind in the U.S. and seeks to curb a rising usage by young people. Critics, however, say it will make it harder for people to kick addiction. A second city law would bar making, selling or distributing tobacco on city property and is aimed at an e-cigarette firm renting on Pier 70. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released its proposed guidelines, giving companies until 2021 to apply to have their e-cigarette products evaluated. A deadline had initially been set for August 2018, but the agency later said more preparation time was needed. San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera, one of the co-authors of the bill, which is yet to be approved, said reviews should have been done before they were sold. Juul, one of the most popular U.S. e-cigarette firms, rents space on Pier 70. It said in a statement: "This proposed legislation begs the question -- why would the city be comfortable with combustible cigarettes being on shelves when we know they kill more than 480,000 Americans per year?"
Repeat after me kiddies: Legal, Taxed and Regulated.
Also, is this just the old school tobacco lobby at work? I know SF is full of some dumb wannabe lefties (the sort that are all about Gay Marriage and not so much about anything that might result in their taxes going up like a living wage or affordable housing), but this is a bit much. It stinks of general corruption.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So...have the health effects of pot been fully researched by the government? Does anyone else find it interesting that the cities and states that are the most friendly to legalized pot also seem to be the most hostile to cigarettes (and e-cigs now)? I'm pretty sure that intentionally sucking the smoke from burned plants of any kind isn't very good for you. The libertarian in me doesn't give a crap about either. One might come to the conclusion that they are OK legalizing things that they personally like, and have no problem curtailing the rights of any that they disagree with or simply dislike.
Well, would you like your drug addicts to have HIV and HPC? While you might feel insulated from the concerns of the poor, theyâ(TM)re on the fringes of a biological network you live in called society and drug addiction causes unexpected connections across social strata.
So the flavored vodkas and other candy flavored booze should be immediately removed from the shelves so no one of legal age can enjoy them? No? I thought so. Your argument is weak and so is theirs.
Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
I don't smoke at all, but my 24-year-old son did, until e-cigarettes became popular.
First, no tar. And no stench.
I'd a lot rather he puff on those candy things than the old-fashioned smoky ones.
Would it be better if he didn't do any of them? Yes. But if I had to choose, I'd choose the e-cigs any day.
How does that make sense?
Ban it first, test it later. Now THAT is typical California politics.
Considering there actually is an online map now that tells you which SF streets are currently covered in human feces and they are having to spend half their street cleaning budget just to deal with all the shit and needles covering their sidewalks? Frankly I'd say whether someone puffing some blueberry ecig is gonna get cancer 20 years from now should be the LEAST of their worries.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
> And smoking cannabis does cause cancer
What studies are you basing that on? Yes, combustion increases cancer in everything from cooking meat to petrol, but talking about levels to singularly cause cancer...I haven't seen the evidence regarding cannabis. I don't use cannaboid anything, but I'm interested.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
...everything in California causes cancer, read the labels.... exceptions are the things that probably will kill you and many of these things don't have labels. Can you name any of these?
Even more than that though why are they banning e-cigarettes, whose health effects are not well known, without banning ordinary cigarette sales where the health effects are well known and are extremely bad? Banning e-cigarette sales makes no sense unless you ban the sale of all smoked tobacco products first.
please... gota learn to shut up lol...
[($)]
Lots of emotion over e-cigarets, not many facts. Look around the web and you find groups who say they are necessary and others that say they are deadly--but where are their facts? Are hospitals filled with vapers? Are they dropping dead in the streets? Are they robbing banks to pay for their habit? Are children vaping in hopes of becoming smokers some day?
It seems that it is mostly the morality police that are determined to crush this product without bothering to find evidence to support their campaign.
Nowhere in this chaos do I see any mention of the benefits of nicotine. Benefits? It's a well-kept secret. Many smart people take a choline supplement (very much like nicotine) that makes them, well, smarter. Nicotine can do that and more but the morality police don't want you to know about that.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Maybe installing some public toilets would ameliorate the situation?
Anti-smoking groups, who saw $Billions of expected sin tax revenues evaporate in a scented cloud of steam when cigarette smokers converted to vapes. are the real pushers here.
So what are these prohibitionists pushing now? Deprive adults of a massively safer way to consume nicotine... for the sake of the children.
And here you are claiming that only "children" like flavored vape juice when adults are the primary market.
I want to protect children, just like you, so limiting minors from purchasing them would seem to be a much more rational approach than throwing around blanket bans, like you should with smoked tobacco which is the primary source of many diseases here in America.
But, let's get back to your astro-turfy hyperbole, because it's for the children.
So the flavored vodkas and other candy flavored booze should be immediately removed from the shelves so no one of legal age can enjoy them?
Nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol, and there are scientific studies connecting e-cig availability to higher nicotine addiction among young people. No such connection has been shown between addiction and candy flavored booze. So they are not comparable.
That's a new one. "lefties" want to restrict the supply of doctors? It is the republicans that cut educational and health programs. Or is your idea of restricting the supply of doctor mean you are juat mad that snake handling faith healers aren't allowed to get Medicare dollars?
Part of the psychological kick of being a leftist is enjoying the imagined applause as you regurgitate the memetic talking points, and believing them, the way Picard was to believe there were 5 lights.
You have to believe vaping is worse than smoking because the truth ads lie to you, prompted by the tobacco lobby that is using regulation to drive vaping to be costly, so only their giant corporations can afford to adhere to it.
So the deciding point is not a perfect situation, but rather a less sub-optimal one.
Got it.
Vaping should thus be legal.
Hmmmm. Maybe it's all about the asinine memes that take hold in an us vs. them manner.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Besides, once pot becomes legal, people will forget all about tobacco based products.
Nothing lefty in sight, the right is even more likely to go for low hanging fruit.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Do you know all the "health effects" of these things? Should we believe they're harmless because the same companies who lobbied for decades saying tobacco was harmless are telling us these things are harmless too?
Fool you once, shame on them.
Fool you twice...?
No sig today...
Its most likely just cronyism --- that's part of why it might not seem to "make sense" - members of both Left and Right parties are cronies of (different) corporations. Some business(es) or special interests that are harmed by the e-cigs industry, are no doubt lobbying and/or pushing their bought and paid for politicians (Or friends/relatives in politics) for this sort of ban.
...and yet smoking, particularly in bed, has caused numerous fires leading to far more fatalities than the one attributed to e-cigarettes plus lighters can fail and explode or catch fire just like batteries. So even if you consider this, cigarettes are still far more dangerous so it makes no sense to sell these and yet ban e-cigarettes. In fact, if you are concerned about batteries then you'd probably want to ban mobile phones too!
Except in California evidently. I mean I haven't looked it up, but I presume then that in Colorado, Washington, et al there's basically no interest in tobacco products at all anymore? Or is it that it must become legal nationally in order for that magical moment to happen? I guess tobacco consumers in those states where marijuana is legal are just protesting for federal legalisation.
Besides, once pot becomes legal, people will forget all about tobacco based products.
Well, you still need cigs to roll your joints.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
https://www.vapes.com/blogs/news/vaping-news-harvard-study-shows-nicotine-is-not-addictive
Actually the left has been quite supportive of e-cigs and other mild drugs such as cannabis and alcohol. Obviously housing is a major issue for the left too, with solutions like rent controls and social house building being popular. Healthcare is another major issue that the left wants to socialize, you just happen to have a different supply/demand based solution.
We can work together to find solutions to these problems if you are willing to understand the other side's position. There is a lot of misinformation about there I'm afraid.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Why would you want to ruin you joint by adding tobacco?
Some moron said
Deprive adults of a massively safer way to consume nicotine.
Hardly "massively safer"...
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/first...
From the CDC:
E-cigarettes have the potential to benefit adult smokers who are not pregnant if used as a complete substitute for regular cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products.
E-cigarettes are not safe for youth, young adults, pregnant women, or adults who do not currently use tobacco products.
While e-cigarettes have the potential to benefit some people and harm others, scientists still have a lot to learn about whether e-cigarettes are effective for quitting smoking.
If you’ve never smoked or used other tobacco products or e-cigarettes, don’t start.
Additional research can help understand long-term health effects.
Just another day in Paradise
Besides, once pot becomes legal, people will forget all about tobacco based products.
Well, you still need cigs to roll your joints.
You can vape weed if you want to avoid combustion products, such as tar, which is cancerous the same way it is in cigarettes. Additionally you can cook the vape products into food, making THC/CBD more effective. Great for painkillers, much better than opiates. I had an Achilles tendon surgery and the doctor suggested this was a better option than from liver failure from too many other types of pain killers. Same with spinal surgery recovery.
As for nicotine a legitimate reason for ingesting it is to relieve schizophrenia symptoms. Vaping seem to be the safest method however my only concern is that when glycol isn't heated properly it produces compounds like formaldehyde and acetaldehyde instead of carbon dioxide and water. Maybe this just means making sure the battery is properly charged before using the device.
I wonder how much nicotine consumption is driven by an unconscious desire to relieve schizophrenic symptoms?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
California already has the 2nd lowest rate of tobacco smoking, behind only Utah.
Colorado and Washington are well below average.
West Virginia and Kentucky are the worst.
Cigarette smoking by state
I was quite surprised that I couldn't find any proof that nicotine is harmful. The harm in addiction could be little more than economical. I always assumed that a large component of what makes smoking cigarettes directly harmful was the nicotine.
Of course if the nicotine keeps you inhaling all the other combustion chemicals then that makes it quite harmful in an indirect manner.
I was even more surprised to find that there is a good argument to say the same about heroin :https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalcohol.socialsciences
Thats apparently a UK/Europe thing and apparently they do it in Canada also. One of the guys that works for me told me he mixes tobacco with his weed.. Which I thought was crazy. And when I was younger I knew some people from the UK that did the same.
I think this is mostly right. From the 1970s on, the anti-smoking industry only grew in political influence and overall resources. I bet in the beginning they saw this as a never-ending battle. When they largely "won" with the tobacco settlements, it was like suddenly gaining access to a perpetual annuity -- limitless funding combined with political and moral authority.
The problem is, changes in smoking laws actually reduced smoking. A lot. Around here, smoking was limited early on (mid-70s) and in the late 90s/early 2000s got even more restrictive to the point where you couldn't really smoke in any public place (no bars, restaurants, etc), and many hotels, apartments, etc., followed suit. The people who didn't quit outright (still smoked in their homes or cars) certainly cut their consumption and a lot of people just kind of gave it up when there was nowhere but outside (and even that was restricted).
At this point, I think a lot of people were starting to question the resources and authority given to non-smoking and it presented an existential risk to organizations whose reason for being was going up in smoke. The introduction of vaping was a gift from heaven to the anti-smoking industry. A new lease on life. An activity that was so similar to smoking that they could easily conflate it in the minds of the public and trade on unknown risks as equivalent to known risks. Most people think they're the same thing, and there are educated adults who can't be convinced that vaping isn't smoking even when presented with the basic facts.
What's so ironic about this is the success of marijuana legalizaiton at the same time. While its possible to consume it without smoking, it's very much a smoking-centered activity and the arguments for not banning vaping are *at least* as compelling as the arguments for legalizing marijuana (if you're for legalizing marijuana because prohibition doesn't work).
It's come down to what the basic reality of what anti-smoking is -- a form of *moral advocacy*. It's about smoking being unhealthy but it's also about opposing a pleasure-inducing activity that has no moral justification. Anti-smoking forces going after vaping are either just gaming to keep their revenue and influence going, or they're pursuing a morality goal that's only shrouded in health concerns.
It's typical leftie nonsense. They want to ban or regulate or tax everything. They don't want to solve problems like the chronic lack of housing. Or lower healthcare costs by expanding the supply of doctors. And they ignore science when it suits them too. E-cigarettes are less harmful that regular ones. Even more off - they are pro cannabis. And smoking cannabis does cause cancer. So who knows what they actually believe.
Lefty nonsense? More like prohibitionist nonsense. Which I understand to be a "conservative" trait, if anything.
They don't fuck up my throat like secondhand smoke from a real cig does. That's what I care about the most.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
That's great, and I hope it works out for you, but doesn't make them massively safer.
Just another day in Paradise
While Nicotine maybe addictive. Unless they are taking extremely high doses it has no other negative effects. So if it keeps them from trying Tobacco products then I'm all for letting teens vape. When they wise up they can work their selves off the Nicotine by moving to progressively lower concentration juices until they aren't getting any nicotine.
This is a bad move. Vaping has helped many long time smokers finally escape tobacco. And many have eventually weaned their self off the nicotine as well.
I wonder how much vaping is cutting into SF's tobacco Sin Tax Revenues?
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
There's another solution to this: don't ask a fucking Englishman how to roll a joint..
You can vape weed if you want to avoid combustion products, such as tar, which is cancerous the same way it is in cigarettes.
While the vast majority of potent carcinogens in tobacco smoke are caused by the hundreds of fucked-up additives, the "tar" from burning weed has been shown to have beneficial properties. Perhaps it's not best administered through the lungs... but there's still no comparison.
I always assumed that a large component of what makes smoking cigarettes directly harmful was the nicotine.
The nicotine is bad; the additives are far worse.
So marijuana must be legal in Utah then? My point being it's likely some other cause such as California having anti-smoking laws for far longer than many other places and also a huge tobacco tax. If tobacco were on the same playing field as what is in Kentucky, I can't imagine California would be 2nd lowest.
That was certainly true up until fairly recently but It's flipped: get the fucking Neocons and Fundies out of the Republican Party and you're left with a far more enlightened approach to ensuring personal freedom than the "Left" (i. e. "the other right").
Banning E-cigarettes because of health effects? Umm, San Francisco? You have bigger health concerns to worry about.
thus
It's a stupid, insidious habit; doesn't mean it should be illegal - thus or no thus.
If most users report significantly decreased negative health effects, then yes that does make them safer. I'll leave discussion of the threshold for 'massively' to someone else.
Not really. It was led by the progressives and most Protestants on the left back then. The Catholics and Lutherans didn't want anything to do with Prohibition.
30 seconds of googling revealed this. To save you the reading,
Several lines of evidence indicate that nicotine may contribute to the development of cancer. Evidence from experimental in vitro studies on cell cultures, in vivo studies on rodents as well as studies on humans inclusive of epidemiological studies indicate that nicotine itself, independent of other tobacco constituents, may stimulate a number of effects of importance in cancer development (5, 6).
BTW, I was a smoker for 20 years and loved every second of it. If I thought for a minute that any form of nicotine wasn't terrible for my health, I would be on it again in a heartbeat.
I did mean 'significantly'. Lots of things have unhealthy effects depending on dosage and we find our way through them. Smoking is the main cause of lung cancer and it plays a large role in heart disease. If nicotine by itself is 20 times less dangerous then that still means something but it doesn't stand out in the crowd anymore and then you have to be really health conscious to start avoiding it (like me I guess). My assumption was that the burning products of tobacco caused lung cancer and the nicotine destroyed the veins. But that was wrong.
Glycerin and propylene glycol are irritants. They're bigger irritants than tobacco smoke.
They're also well-known low-toxicity. They don't cause the damage that smoke causes. These compounds can absorb through the lungs into the blood without producing cytotoxicity in the doses consumed.
PG is actually less-toxic than VG, but VG is less-irritating. VG is natural, and PG is an organic compound.
I think the health effects are pretty well expected to be less-damaging than the health effects of huffing charred plant aerosol.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
This is just dumb.
The current trend is to cry "but we have to keep it away from the kids!"
If anyone really cared about keeping away from the kids, they'd start with enforcement. I can't speak to California laws and regulations, but here in NY, every single place that sells e-cigs/vapes/etc. has signage prohibiting sales to minors - enforce that, if that's what you really care about.
Until then, I will continue to believe that the lawmakers are using "but we have to keep it away from the kids!" as an excuse to push their own agenda against things they don't like.
For the record, this goes for alcohol and combustible tobacco also. Let's get serious about actual enforcement of the laws and regulations prohibiting sales of all these products to minors, if that's what we really care about.
Cost of telling retailers they can't sell e-cigs for the time being: essentially zero.
Cost of dealing with a long-standing and ever-worsening homelessness problem that results in a literal public health crisis: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..$$$
Gee whiz mister, any chance you're using an e-cig right now or vaping? Thought so.
Effects of alcohol: KNOWN. Also, requires ID to show you're >=21 years of age to purchase.
Effects of E-cigarrettes: NOT CURRENTLY KNOWN. Also, you only need to be 18 -- and 18 year olds are even dumber than 21 year olds.
There, was that so hard to understand?
Also: There's already been studies showing that e-cigs and vaping serve as easy 'gateways' to smoking tobacco.
Maybe you'd get those panties of yours out of the bunch you've got them in and focus on your own personal problems instead?
There is still a lot we don't know. Like what's coming off the wicks when they inevitably overheat due to most of the devices being built very cheaply/disposable.
That said, there is zero reason to ban these things. The odds off them being worse than combustion are very low.
Research could lead to less harmful products.
We definitely need the research done. It's fine to warn against using vapes and educate the public, but we don't need bans in the meantime.
It's sad to see the abstinence-only-anti-tobacco lobby making things worse. But it's been like that for decades now... they dissemble so much in their ads they spoil any trust they might have initially had with their target audience.
(BTW as a smoker I had no problem with the ad with the tiny "bully" guy in tan pants and a white wifebeater... I laughed and liked that ad. One of the only ads that didn't make me get out of my chair to go have a puff. But everything by "the Truth" campaign endangers the longevity of my TV if there are throwable abjects nearby because all their ads are deceptive.)
Someone had to do it.
Lefty nonsense? More like prohibitionist nonsense. Which I understand to be a "conservative" trait, if anything.
Not a big historian, I see.
https://www.visitthecapitol.go...
"The movement grew in the Progressive Era..."
Do you have ESP?
Show me a result of impact of isolated nicotine which is anywhere near the effect of smoking
San Francisco along with the rest of CA is heavily invested in their citizens smoking. Back in 2003 CA used future payments from cigarette sales to issue bonds.
Vaping products are not covered under the MSA, so these bonds are floundering due to drops in smoking rates. SF needs people to keep smoking.
They knew this was a bad idea back in 2000: https://www.sfgate.com/busines...
https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/c...
So the flavored vodkas and other candy flavored booze should be immediately removed from the shelves so no one of legal age can enjoy them?
Yes.
Oh, you were talking about marketing and targeting minors. Never mind then.
> And smoking cannabis does cause cancer
What studies are you basing that on? Yes, combustion increases cancer in everything from cooking meat to petrol, but talking about levels to singularly cause cancer...I haven't seen the evidence regarding cannabis. I don't use cannaboid anything, but I'm interested.
My semi-educated guess is that smoking marijuana increases cancer risk by about the same amount that smoking regular cigarettes does. The difference is that most marijuana users aren't smoking 10 full joints every day for a couple decades. And for people that smoke one regular cigarette per week, the increase in risk is probably too small to be measurable.
I have seen neither disposable lighters nor e-cigarettes go off in normal storage. So if we are going on what I have seen then both appear to be safe. However, doing a quick search only reveals one fatality and 195 'incidents' leading to 133 injuries between 2009-2016 for e-cigarettes.
For cigarettes the picture looks much, much worse. The average ANNUAL rate of house fires caused by smoking is 18,100 each year in the US which causes on average 590 deaths each year and 1,130 injuries. So the annual rate of injuries is about 60 times the rate of injuries from e-cigarettes and the death rate is about a thousand times higher (with a significant margin of error due to there only being one recorded incidence of death from an e-cigarette. Worse the domestic fires likely killed and injured people who were not smoking. At least with e-cigarettes the risk seems to be mainly confined to the person choosing to use the device.
If governments are passing laws then they need to look at hard, objective evidence when deciding to ban things not anecdotal stories. When it comes to banning things we have to use solid, objective arguments and not go on what we "feel" because I don't want things I enjoy doing to get banned simply because someone else "feels" that they are bad. The objective evidence is that e-cigarettes are far, far safer than regular smoking from an accidental death standpoint (the toxicology picture is not yet clear it seems) so banning them while allowing regular cigarettes is completely unwarranted.
Banning is not the answer. Steer people in the direction you want by making it hurt a little. And at the same time make them pay the bulk of the consequences by collecting the tax and using those funds accordingly.
Stupid government doesn't learn from the past so they jump to "no" and just drive it underground so crooks can profit. Then government faces the burden of cost fighting crime and the consequences of product X.
I refuse to sign
the idea is that e-cigs, being so new, could have health risks that nobody knows. Or that poor regulation of them might lead to contaminates that are worse for you then regular cigs or pot.
I still think it's a terrible idea, but I oppose prohibition across the board. Legal, taxed and regulated.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I mean, instead of banning them.
I think it's more likely that the entrenched tobacco companies are pushing this behind the scenes while they rev up their own e-cig products. I know for a fact they've attacked small tobacco producers before (a buddy of mine smokes a pipe and he's pretty pissed at recent regulations).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The key point is right there: "if used as a complete substitute for regular cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products."
Nobody is saying that they are completely safe. Or if they do, they're lying. From everything I've read, they *are* substantially safer than cigarettes.
That in no way says that if you don't currently smoke, you now have the green light to start. If someone IS saying that, they should be appropriately charged with false advertising.
A doubled risk of heart attacks (see link I provided) would argue that they aren't "massively safer", and there's plenty more study to be accomplished.
Just another day in Paradise
Just one question... who would pay for the research? There aren't many big players and this thing would take years. Plus, how do you prove safety? Safer than not smoking? Obviously not. But better than the alternative, which is carrying on that 20 a day habit
This is bullshit. I am trying to distinguish nicotine from smoking. All the proof of health hazard which I found were done by testing with smoke. That is entirely sensible by itself in a time when nicotine is inhaled as smoke. But it also means there aren't necessarily any serious tests for health effects of nicotine without the smoke . And that was what I was searching for, and you aren't. Search results for damaging effect of nicotine will generally yield the results for smoking.
This doesn't mean nicotine by itself poses no health hazard. Strictly speaking it only means there is a lack of testdata. My deduction was that nicotine by itself is an order of magnitude less dangerous than smoking. Here is an article providing an overview:
http://cancerpreventionresearc... .
You can tell when you've burned a wick in about a second, it tastes awful. But under normal vaping conditions, the wick doesn't ever reach a temperature where it *can* burn. You have to run your vape dry to get it to burn.
As near as I can tell, the days of cheap, easy-to-burn vapes are mostly over. Most everyone has moved onto very-low/sub-ohm atomizers that are literally in a vape juice bath that keep the wick saturated and won't allow it to burn. The coils are stainless steel, and the wick is cotton.
Just like with all the other drugs, the moralizers are only making the problem worse by trying to ban it or run it underground. Unless they make nicotine a schedule I controlled substance, vaping will continue except people who want to vape will be using home-brew e-liquids where they add their own nicotine and blend in god knows what flavorizers, many of which could potentially be actually unhealthy (and not just "we're uncertain" unhealthy).
It would be SO MUCH more helpful if they would just stick to regulating it so that all vape juices sold had to meet strict lab quality tests and use ingredients generally recognized as safe. But making vaping safer isn't what they're after, they don't want anyone consuming any nicotine at all, and it's not a health concern, it's morality.
>"Nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol"
So? Even if the flavoring IS attractive to minors, it probably doesn't matter- Have you seen the statistics of how many people alcohol kills- both users AND innocents? It makes no difference if you remove everything else from an alcoholic drink, as long as it has alcohol, those statistics will stay the same- alcoholism, impaired judgement, impaired motor skills, drunk driving, fights, accidents, alcohol poisoning, drug interactions, etc.
I suspect nicotine, itself, would be ZERO, if it is just nicotine (not cigarettes). And even with flavorings and such, it is probably still close to zero with vaping. As a public policy, it is insane to target nicotine while ignoring alcohol. It is already illegal for minors to buy, anywhere. Anything further than that will do FAR MORE HARM to society as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, I think performing safety research on vaping is a very good thing. But banning or regulating the sale or adult use of the product without any evidence of significant harm is just foolish (flavored or not)... especially when there is apparently already a lot of evidence of its safety, and even more especially when the alternative for those users is something known to create great harm to the user (cigarettes), and really annoy non-users in the process.
>"Lefty nonsense? More like prohibitionist nonsense. Which I understand to be a "conservative" trait, if anything."
Actually it is either or both. They just take different approaches. The "Left" wants to ban because they believe they (and the government) know better than the "masses" and should take away responsibility in the name of collective health. The "Right" wants to ban because of "morality".
Ironically, Classic Liberals and Conservatives would both oppose banning personal consumption because they believe in personal freedom and responsibility.
"Left" isn't necessarily Liberal. And "Right" isn't necessarily Conservative. It is a confusing world we live in now.
The sample size for California was only 8717 people out of over 40 million.
That sample size is plenty big enough. The sample size needed for statistical significance is independent of the population size.
> Thats apparently a UK/Europe thing and apparently they do it in Canada also.
Yeah, people do that here in Australia as well, makes me wanna puke!
> I was quite surprised that I couldn't find any proof that nicotine is harmful.
You gotta be kidding me! Ever heard of LD50? That's Leathal Dose 50%, which means 50% of test subjects die.
Good ol' Wikipedia quote:
0.5–1.0 mg/kg can be a lethal dosage for adult humans, and 0.1 mg/kg for children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or http://www.inchem.org/document...
You can vape weed if you want to avoid combustion products, such as tar, which is cancerous the same way it is in cigarettes.
While the vast majority of potent carcinogens in tobacco smoke are caused by the hundreds of fucked-up additives,
Indeed.
the "tar" from burning weed has been shown to have beneficial properties. Perhaps it's not best administered through the lungs... but there's still no comparison.
I've heard that it opens up the bronchial tubes. I was a nurse that told me they see a lot of throat cancer patients who used to smoke weed. That was the main reason I went vape, to remove the biggest concern.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
How is this relevant for figuring out the health effects of getting your nicotine fix without inhaling burned tobacco?
That's insanity. I couldn't even imagine man. At least you got your head on strait lol. My canadian buddy said he does it to stretch it out? Idk how that works, and I was young when I knew the english couple and didn't think to ask. They would still smoke strait weed with the rest of us so I guess its just a cultural thing.