Say good bye E-Cigs

[woolfe9999]

The issue of restricting e-cigs from public places is a mere sideshow to what is really going on. The FDA is in litigation with the e-cig industry right now in the DC Circuit Appellate Court. The FDA wants to regulate e-cigs as a "drug or device" instead of as a tobacco product, because being able to regulate them as a drug allows for a total ban until full scale clinical trials have been conducted. Which in turn would mean that the several hundred thousand people in the U.S. who have quit cigarettes by substituting e-cigs would have little choice but to return to smoking.

All the big anti-tobacco organizations such as the American Lung Association, et al. are supporting the FDA, because the anti-tobacco bloc has become an entrenched lobby who treats the issue of smoking as a moral issue rather than as a health issue. Their philosophy is "quit or die." They are opposed to every form of harm reduction, no matter how effective it is. And they will go to any length, including overtly lying about the risks of harm reduced alternatives, to pursue their goal. Governmental organizations like the FDA are essentially in the pockets of these organizations due to cross-polination of personnel. The e-cigs also compete with FDA approved nicotine replacement products (e.g. patches, gum), and since big pharma, who manufactures these products, has considerable influence with the FDA, e-cigs are being targetted heavily at the moment.

The New York Assembly has already passed on e-cigs ban. Other states will follow if the FDA wins its court battle.

- wolf

 

[flexy]

Last I heard anything about these things it was a report that these supposedly 'healthier' e-cigs did in fact contain a cocktail of not particulary healthy chemicals, and for that reason I believe they're now banned in the EU, or on the way to be banned.

The reason for banning them was not as some of you potheads seem to think, collusion with big tobacco to protect profits, but rather because they were being marketed as being 'healthy', while in reality weren't.

Also, just because these e-thingys vaporize some fluid doesn't mean whatever shit the vapor contains disappears just because you can't see it anymore. Nothing just disappears. It's still there in the air, and somebody's going to breathe it in if they share that same air volume.

Personally I wouldn't mind if it became legal to apply baseball bats to any part of a person smoking (or "vaping") in your general vicinity. Perhaps then, nicotine addicts would finally understand that just because they are stuck in an addiction does not mean they have any right to force their vice on the rest of society.

Although some minor factual errors - its basically right what you are saying.

But here is the "truth", 'scuse the hypey term:

*) it is unmistakenly proven that TOBACCO SMOKE contains many, many hundreds of 100% proven toxic components. I really dont need to list them, everyone knows this. HOWEVER i dont have a problem to buy this shit in any grocers store or at the gas station.

*) the ban on e-cigs is simply based on the fact that THERE HAS NOT BEEN ENOUGH TESTING and that its unclear whether some components in it ARE actually harmful or not. There have been some preliminary tests which suggested that the fluids are actually far, far "healthier"...if i may use that word.

Also..your last sentence proves (AGAIN) that you are nothing than a emotional arguing non-smoker who wants it banned because you "personally dont like it" or are "annoyed" - NOT because you have facts you can base your arguments on.

Fluids are usually made of

*) GLYCERINE (assumed harmless component used in cosmetics etc)
*) Nicotine (which is 100% absorbed into the body by vaping)
*) Some aromas

Also..your quick conclusion about the un-healthyness of ecigs is astonishing (Grats Mr. Scientist, awaiting your toxicological report!) - even more so the fact that you see it as a good idea "to apply a baseball bat to everyone's head" - simply because of your personal dislikes.


I personally think it is a BIG SCANDAL that ecigs are getting banned without ANY FORM OF proper testing confirming they are actually harmful - while at the same time raking in millions of $$$ from real tobacco products.

Even the slight possibility that ecigs are indeed healthier would (OVERALL) mean massive (!) savings in terms of health and health care for a society.
I personally have seen many, many reports of former heavy smokers who vaped for some months. They went to their doctors and got attested SIGNIFICANT improvements of their lung functions, general health and so forth. People who were unable to do sports all of a sudden wre able to do things they couldnt do years before, like swimming, running etc.

Those are little random "stories" but nevertheless TRUE by real people who experienced real benefits simply by switching to vaping.

Big tobacco has gotten scared SHITLESS because they will lose millions and millions if it would become known there is a true, healthy "alternative" to smoking. And you continue supporting THEM because you trust THEM?


YES - some chinese companies (all that crap comes from china ) made the mistake to use worlds like "healthy" in their advertisements etc...but you dont see it as "odd" that there is a huge outrage because of FORMALITIES of the use of the word "healthy" - INSTEAD of investigating the very real possibility that this could be an alternative to smoking which is LIKELY/POSSIBLY far, far healthier? POSSIBLY (!) even not harmful at all.

But..yes..lets simply ban it....and continue the sale of tobacco where we know about the toxins in it...

/facepalm

 

[Double Trouble]

The issue of restricting e-cigs from public places is a mere sideshow to what is really going on. The FDA is in litigation with the e-cig industry right now in the DC Circuit Appellate Court. The FDA wants to regulate e-cigs as a "drug or device" instead of as a tobacco product, because being able to regulate them as a drug allows for a total ban until full scale clinical trials have been conducted. Which in turn would mean that the several hundred thousand people in the U.S. who have quit cigarettes by substituting e-cigs would have little choice but to return to smoking.

All the big anti-tobacco organizations such as the American Lung Association, et al. are supporting the FDA, because the anti-tobacco bloc has become an entrenched lobby who treats the issue of smoking as a moral issue rather than as a health issue. Their philosophy is "quit or die." They are opposed to every form of harm reduction, no matter how effective it is. And they will go to any length, including overtly lying about the risks of harm reduced alternatives, to pursue their goal. Governmental organizations like the FDA are essentially in the pockets of these organizations due to cross-polination of personnel. The e-cigs also compete with FDA approved nicotine replacement products (e.g. patches, gum), and since big pharma, who manufactures these products, has considerable influence with the FDA, e-cigs are being targetted heavily at the moment.

The New York Assembly has already passed on e-cigs ban. Other states will follow if the FDA wins its court battle.

- wolf

Interesting. I don't smoke so I don't know anything about these e-cigs. I understand your post and that makes complete sense as the real reason why they may be banned, but I wonder: what is the "think of the children!" screen that is being used against e-cigs? What is the supposed reason? Are they dangerous or something?

 

[woolfe9999]

Interesting. I don't smoke so I don't know anything about these e-cigs. I understand your post and that makes complete sense as the real reason why they may be banned, but I wonder: what is the "think of the children!" screen that is being used against e-cigs? What is the supposed reason? Are they dangerous or something?

The "think of the children" pitch is that because e-cigs use liquid that can be any flavor, and many vapors use sweet flavors, that this then will appeal to kids. There is, of course, no scientific data that any children, anywhere, are vaping. The unscientific data (large internets polls with 3000+ respondents), show that minors account for far less than 1% of vapors. The big deterrent for minors is the up front cost of buying the hardware. That, and there is no "cool factor" like there is with cigarettes. Nonetheless, we are in the process of being told that potentially millions of adults must die from cigarette smoking because it is remotely possible that some child may some day start vaping and then smoke cigarettes as a result.

- wolf

 

[flexy]

Well being a smoker myself, BUT i think that the times where smoking was assumed "cool" are long over.

As for kids/vaping:

One problem is that the fluids (the nicotine) are actually EXTREMELY toxic. If you order from China there is hardly any "child safety" on the bottles, and so forth.

This alone would be a reason to sell the stuff in tobacco stores only PLUS whatever other regulations for safety and quality control.

The "pitch" with the flavors and kids actually vaping seems VERY far fetched. I think somy candy would be much more attractive to kids than an ecig.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well being a smoker myself, BUT i think that the times where smoking was assumed "cool" are long over.

As for kids/vaping:

One problem is that the fluids (the nicotine) are actually EXTREMELY toxic. If you order from China there is hardly any "child safety" on the bottles, and so forth.

This alone would be a reason to sell the stuff in tobacco stores only PLUS whatever other regulations for safety and quality control.

The "pitch" with the flavors and kids actually vaping seems VERY far fetched. I think somy candy would be much more attractive to kids than an ecig.

Cigarettes have lost their cool factor with adults. Not so with some adolescents. Because the adult establishment is so opposed to minors smoking, it is "cool" as a form of rebellion.

So far as nicotine toxicity, that is true, in theory. The trouble is that e-cigs have been around in Asia for about 6 years, Europe for about 4, and the U.S. for about 2. So far there are no known deaths from nicotine poisoning. If the government and NGO's who want to ban these things want to use this as an argument (which they do), they are going to have to produce some mortality data to back it up. So far, there isn't even a single, anecdotal account.

Anyway, in the U.S. most users now buy their liquid from U.S. companies these days. And vapers don't mind some quality control regulations to promote safety.

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

The liquid is not alcohol based. Otherwise, what you're saying is correct.

- wolf

Oops, I thought it was, but minor point.

 

[sandorski]

The issue of restricting e-cigs from public places is a mere sideshow to what is really going on. The FDA is in litigation with the e-cig industry right now in the DC Circuit Appellate Court. The FDA wants to regulate e-cigs as a "drug or device" instead of as a tobacco product, because being able to regulate them as a drug allows for a total ban until full scale clinical trials have been conducted. Which in turn would mean that the several hundred thousand people in the U.S. who have quit cigarettes by substituting e-cigs would have little choice but to return to smoking.

All the big anti-tobacco organizations such as the American Lung Association, et al. are supporting the FDA, because the anti-tobacco bloc has become an entrenched lobby who treats the issue of smoking as a moral issue rather than as a health issue. Their philosophy is "quit or die." They are opposed to every form of harm reduction, no matter how effective it is. And they will go to any length, including overtly lying about the risks of harm reduced alternatives, to pursue their goal. Governmental organizations like the FDA are essentially in the pockets of these organizations due to cross-polination of personnel. The e-cigs also compete with FDA approved nicotine replacement products (e.g. patches, gum), and since big pharma, who manufactures these products, has considerable influence with the FDA, e-cigs are being targetted heavily at the moment.

The New York Assembly has already passed on e-cigs ban. Other states will follow if the FDA wins its court battle.

- wolf

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand it's good to know any side effects and have effective Quality control. OTOH, that puts another layer of control between Smokers like myself and those would likely Price or limit access out of many peoples reach. Seems to me the Public Good should outweigh established Industry, but who am I kidding, Industry has become the Public Good and any attempt to help the Man on the Street is "Socialism", an evil so vile that even half the People on the Street fear it.

 

[woolfe9999]

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand it's good to know any side effects and have effective Quality control. OTOH, that puts another layer of control between Smokers like myself and those would likely Price or limit access out of many peoples reach. Seems to me the Public Good should outweigh established Industry, but who am I kidding, Industry has become the Public Good and any attempt to help the Man on the Street is "Socialism", an evil so vile that even half the People on the Street fear it.

The real question is whether the government ought to even remotely consider banning something by default, before knowing it is dangerous. I think when there is a question of the government restricting personal choices about what people put in their bodies, the presumption should always be to not restrict until a burden of proof is met that there is a very strong reason to do so, and even then, it's highly questionable. In this case, it is of course particularly absurd, as the limited amount of research already done suggests that this vapor is at most 1% as harmful as cigarette smoke, and, the real kicker: cigarettes themselves are legal.

Sometimes the libertarians do have a point about the nanny state mentality, and this is defintely one of those times.

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

The real question is whether the government ought to even remotely consider banning something by default, before knowing it is dangerous. I think when there is a question of the government restricting personal choices about what people put in their bodies, the presumption should always be to not restrict until a burden of proof is met that there is a very strong reason to do so, and even then, it's highly questionable. In this case, it is of course particularly absurd, as the limited amount of research already done suggests that this vapor is at most 1% as harmful as cigarette smoke, and, the real kicker: cigarettes themselves are legal.

Sometimes the libertarians do have a point about the nanny state mentality, and this is defintely one of those times.

- wolf

Not Ban, but Suspend sale of would be fine by me. Just until relative safety can be determined. The problem is really the intermixing of Industry with Government. Doctors/Medical Professionals should be making these determinations, not people weighing the concerns of Industry. Government should be more Technocratic, not Capitalistic.