Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Vaping saves lives - regulation should keep that in mind (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=839269)

Budget Player Cadet 10-18-2017 02:12 AM

Vaping saves lives - regulation should keep that in mind
 
http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...ves-lives.html
E-cigarettes are less dangerous than cigarettes but are equally effective at delivering nicotine. Levy et al. estimate that if smokers switched to e-cigarettes millions of life-years would be saved, even taking into account plausible rates of non-smokers who start to vape. (It抯 worth noting that the authors are all cancer researchers, statisticians and epidemiologists concerned with reducing cancer deaths.)
A Status Quo Scenario, developed to project smoking rates and health outcomes in the absence of vaping, is compared with Substitution models, whereby cigarette use is largely replaced by vaping over a 10-year period. We test an Optimistic and a Pessimistic Scenario, differing in terms of the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared with cigarettes and the impact on overall initiation, cessation and switching. Projected mortality outcomes by age and sex under the Status Quo and E-Cigarette Substitution Scenarios are compared from 2016 to 2100 to determine public health impacts.

Compared with the Status Quo, replacement of cigarette by e-cigarette use over a 10-year period yields 6.6 million fewer premature deaths with 86.7 million fewer life years lost in the Optimistic Scenario. Under the Pessimistic Scenario, 1.6 million premature deaths are averted with 20.8 million fewer life years lost. The largest gains are among younger cohorts, with a 0.5 gain in average life expectancy projected for the age 15 years cohort in 2016.
Now, obviously vaping is not preferable to not smoking or vaping. It's still bad for you. But it's a lot less bad than smoking, and regulations to make vaping less attractive will, naturally, make it less attractive for smokers as well:
Our results have important policy implications for flavor bans. According to our predictions, a ban on flavored e-cigarettes would drive smokers to combustible cigarettes, which have been found to be the more harmful way of getting nicotine (Goniewicz et al., 2017; Shahab et al., 2017). In addition, such a ban reduces the appeal of e-cigarettes to those who are seeking to quit; ecigarettes have proven useful as a cessation device for these individuals (Hartmann-Boyce et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2017), and we find that quitters have a preference for flavored e-cigarettes.
It seems like bad policy to impose regulations to make vaping less attractive, in no small part because in doing so, you don't just stop people from picking up vaping, you also stop people from quitting the (far more harmful) smoking.

Thoughts?

Latro 10-18-2017 03:22 AM

People in charge of setting policies are often dimwits. That's my thoughts

Babale 10-18-2017 08:14 AM

The problem is that like you said, vaping is just as addictive. We have made very good progress working to eliminate smoking in the US. Within a generation or two, we might have it successfully eradicated. That's good for society -- lower Healthcare costs, leas lung cancer, etc. If vaping makes it so easy and culturally "safe" to smoke, you are effectively lowering the "barriers of entry" for new people to start smoking. Like you yourself said, vaping is still addictive and dangerous -- just less so. Obviously we want current smokers to vape instead if there is no will or way for them to quit otherwise, but we don't want new people (especially young ones) to take up either smoking or vaping. I think regulation should take that into account, too.

Bryan Ekers 10-18-2017 08:27 AM

I have zero tolerance for bad regulation!

Darren Garrison 10-18-2017 09:00 AM

All the money spent on regulating vaping could instead be spent on developing a more virulent tobacco mosaic virus, which could potentially save even more lives!

Covfefe 10-18-2017 09:02 AM

In and of itself, I don't see how vaping is any worse than drinking coffee other than some of the unknowns of the risk might still be undecided.

carnivorousplant 10-18-2017 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren Garrison (Post 20546814)
All the money spent on regulating vaping could instead be spent on developing a more virulent tobacco mosaic virus, which could potentially save even more lives!

Where shall I send my money instead of E-Bay?

Budget Player Cadet 10-18-2017 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 20546734)
The problem is that like you said, vaping is just as addictive. We have made very good progress working to eliminate smoking in the US. Within a generation or two, we might have it successfully eradicated.

Cite? That seems super optimistic.

Some Call Me... Tim 10-18-2017 09:34 AM

Strangely, the OP seems to completely ignore the elephant in the room. E-cigarettes are being used to entice non-smoking children to vape. Here's a cite- note that nicotine use among middle and high schoolers had been declining for years, but that trend reversed and the percentage has started to increase- and many of our youngest addicts are e-cigarette only.

RivkahChaya 10-18-2017 09:42 AM

Second-hand smoke chokes me. I even react to the residue in a room full of used ashtrays even if no one is smoking in it. I once brushed up against a tobacco plant, and had a red rash on my arm (that looked like prickly heat) for about an hour. I have not been tested by a doctor, but I am pretty sure I am allergic to tobacco. I am allergic to flowers and grasses, so tobacco wouldn't surprise me.

I know lots of other people who have trouble being around cigarette smoke; asthmatics, for one. I have no problem with e-vape. No asthmatic I know does either. So, even if vape were just as bad for you as cigarette smoke, the fact that second-hand vape seems to be a lot less harmful that second-hand smoke is still a big deal.

Gyrate 10-18-2017 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim (Post 20546882)
Strangely, the OP seems to completely ignore the elephant in the room. E-cigarettes are being used to entice non-smoking children to vape. Here's a cite- note that nicotine use among middle and high schoolers had been declining for years, but that trend reversed and the percentage has started to increase- and many of our youngest addicts are e-cigarette only.

Weirdly, this is not the case in the UK - studies show that the movement from "non-smoking" to "vaping" is negligible (in children and adults alike), while the movement from "smoking" to "vaping" is significant (in adults, at least).

Vaping remains banned in the same places smoking is banned (and rightly so IMO) but the general view is that there is a net societal benefit.

Some Call Me... Tim 10-18-2017 12:59 PM

Well, a quick web search revealed this study of UK youth. "Ever use of e-cigarettes was robustly associated with initiation but more modestly related to escalation of cigarette use." The science does not appear to align with the general view.

Tom Tildrum 10-18-2017 08:39 PM

Are there significant health effects associated simply with nicotine ingestion, absent the various by-products in tobacco smoke?

carnivorousplant 10-18-2017 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum (Post 20548277)
Are there significant health effects associated simply with nicotine ingestion, absent the various by-products in tobacco smoke?

I believe that California law says so. BTW, My physician is delighted that I use ecigs instead of smoking.

RivkahChaya 10-18-2017 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum (Post 20548277)
Are there significant health effects associated simply with nicotine ingestion, absent the various by-products in tobacco smoke?

Yeah. You can die from nicotine poisoning. Toddlers have gotten very sick from eating cigarettes. Like, to the point that, had they not gotten medical attention, they would have died, and I'm sure some have died.

Tabby_Cat 10-18-2017 09:10 PM

We want to allow companies to make money off creating and exploiting addicts because... why?

running coach 10-18-2017 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers (Post 20546753)
I have zero tolerance for bad regulation!

Bad regulations should be against the law.

pabstist 10-18-2017 09:34 PM

You can get e-juice with different levels of nicotine. To quit smoking, I started at a higher amount, and ended up with 0 nicotine. And then I just got bored with that and stopped vaping.

AI Proofreader 10-18-2017 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim (Post 20547397)
Well, a quick web search revealed this study of UK youth. "Ever use of e-cigarettes was robustly associated with initiation but more modestly related to escalation of cigarette use." The science does not appear to align with the general view.

(bolding mine above)

I can add some anecdotal evidence to this; I tried switching to e-cigarettes, and failed, the first time. I ended up smoking *more. I've heard many similar stories from friends and vapers online.

The problem is e-cigarettes, IE, cigarette look-alikes. The devices are simply too small to effectively deliver a dose of nicotine equivalent to what a smoker was getting while smoking. So the smoker ends up with a period where he's getting a low dose of nicotine, isn't satisfied, then lights up a regular cigarette, so he's just taken some nicotine from the e-cig, plus more from his regular cigarette.

While both smoking and vaping you take in more nicotine, your body gets used to it, you realize the e-cigarettes aren't doing the trick, then you switch back to just smoking; but now your body is accustomed to a higher level of nicotine you were getting via smoking + vaping, so you smoke more than you did before.

The solution is not bothering with cigarette lookalikes; at a minimum, the vape pens / cigar-sized vapor devices should be recommended to smokers trying to switch/quit, and preferably high battery, subOhm capable tanks using high-nicotine juice (12mg or higher) for heavy smokers.

The hard part for most people switching is finding the right device for them, and the right milligram level for the nicotine they vape. From there, it's relatively easy to gradually decrease the dosage for those who want to minimize their usage, all the way down to 0 for those who want to quit entirely instead of just switching.

Budget Player Cadet 10-19-2017 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabby_Cat (Post 20548336)
We want to allow companies to make money off creating and exploiting addicts because... why?

Okay, then let's ban smoking. (And drinking.)

...

...

...

Oh wait that's not going to happen. This is a really simplistic and not very helpful attitude towards smoking and harm reduction. If everyone who smoked vaped, we'd be a lot better off.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim (Post 20546882)
Strangely, the OP seems to completely ignore the elephant in the room. E-cigarettes are being used to entice non-smoking children to vape. Here's a cite- note that nicotine use among middle and high schoolers had been declining for years, but that trend reversed and the percentage has started to increase- and many of our youngest addicts are e-cigarette only.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim (Post 20547397)
Well, a quick web search revealed this study of UK youth. "Ever use of e-cigarettes was robustly associated with initiation but more modestly related to escalation of cigarette use." The science does not appear to align with the general view.

This is a much better response. Perhaps a more effective strategy would be trying harder to keep e-cigarettes out of the hands of the youth?

Gyrate 10-19-2017 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim (Post 20547397)
Well, a quick web search revealed this study of UK youth. "Ever use of e-cigarettes was robustly associated with initiation but more modestly related to escalation of cigarette use." The science does not appear to align with the general view.

Whereas this study of young people's use of e-cigarettes says "surveys across the UK show a consistent pattern: most e-cigarette experimentation does not turn into regular use, and levels of regular use in young people who have never smoked remain very low."

Some Call Me... Tim 10-19-2017 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 20548661)
Whereas this study of young people's use of e-cigarettes says "surveys across the UK show a consistent pattern: most e-cigarette experimentation does not turn into regular use, and levels of regular use in young people who have never smoked remain very low."

The two papers don't contradict one another, as they're measuring different things. The claim that only a minority of the e-cigarette experimenters become regular users does not reassure me that it's not at all a problem, nor do usage levels that are currently low for a product that was introduced fairly recently and for which we have another study that indicates the usage is increasing.

Oakminster 10-19-2017 09:41 AM

For me, vaping was an effective "stop smoking" aid. I started with the highest nicotine dose available, and then stepped down each month. After about 6 months, I noticed that I'd left the house without my e-cig device. Decided not to go back for it, and realized at that moment I was done. No more tobacco. No more vaping. Thirty seven years as a two pack+/day man, and now I haven't smoked or vaped in about 3 years.

Gyrate 10-19-2017 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim (Post 20548972)
The two papers don't contradict one another, as they're measuring different things. The claim that only a minority of the e-cigarette experimenters become regular users does not reassure me that it's not at all a problem, nor do usage levels that are currently low for a product that was introduced fairly recently and for which we have another study that indicates the usage is increasing.

Fair point.

What Exit? 10-19-2017 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Some Call Me... Tim (Post 20546882)
Strangely, the OP seems to completely ignore the elephant in the room. E-cigarettes are being used to entice non-smoking children to vape. Here's a cite- note that nicotine use among middle and high schoolers had been declining for years, but that trend reversed and the percentage has started to increase- and many of our youngest addicts are e-cigarette only.

Bolding by me.

This is the issue. Using E-cigs to help those already addicted is good as is eliminating the smoke.

It is outweighed by getting additional new teens addicted to Nicotine. The regulations should be heavy on this part of the business.

DSYoungEsq 10-19-2017 11:42 AM

If someone can posit a way to make vaping attractive to smokers, without making it attractive to those who would never have smoked, then it might be worthwhile trying to ease the regulation of vaping.

I've yet to see that be the case.

Ovdeyevich 10-19-2017 02:20 PM

Some people have concerns that the interest tobacco companies have for vaping is nothing but a front to get the products so strict regulations are placed so that only they can have the wealth to comply with all the required tests. Unfortunately, this may be the outcome in America, where the new drug administration rules will make it nigh impossible for small vaping companies to continue to trade. In the UK, there is a chance to avoid this monopoly by using Brexit to reject the planned European regulations.

Added to this entire debate are the more subtle psychological issues that surround decision-making in health. There are some public health leaders who feel vaping only brings harm, so they seek to remove it in any form. They deny there are any benefits but most people, particularly pleasure vapers, would disagree.

up_the_junction 10-19-2017 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 20546506)

It seems like bad policy to impose regulations to make vaping less attractive, in no small part because in doing so, you don't just stop people from picking up vaping, you also stop people from quitting the (far more harmful) smoking.

Thoughts?

Data point: In February, the NHS came to the same conclusion:

https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lu...andmark-study/


The NHS offers e-cigarettes on a prescription basis.

k9bfriender 10-19-2017 02:33 PM

It's not big tobacco that is getting epope addicted. It is tobacco itself, or rather the nicotene in the tobacco.

If there were no tobacco companies at all, people would still be addicted. People were addicted to meth, heroin, cocaine, and anything else without the help of any company, why do we feel that the only reason that people use tobacco products is because the companies made them do so?

I'm certainly a nicotine addict, and when I smoked cigarettes, I kinda hated myself for it. I knew it was killing me, I knew it was not a socially acceptable activity anymore. Tobacco companies didn't get me addicted, my parents did, by chain smoking in the house 24/7. I had tried quitting several times, once going a year without a cigarette, but it didn't matter, I was always thinking about cigarettes. When I woke up, I'd want a smoke. When I took a dump, I'd want a smoke. While I drove to work, I'd want a smoke. While I was at work, I'd want a smoke. After I ate lunch, I'd want a smoke... I'm sure you can see where this goes.

Now that I vape, I have far more control over my nicotine intake, and find it far more pleasurable. I even smoke the occasional cigarette every couple of weeks, and get a good deal of enjoyment out of that (not something I could do when I was "quitting" smoking). I can go up a flight of steps without wheezing, so that's a nice improvement.

I'm all for having laws that keep both cigarettes and vapes out of the hands of kids, but there are going to be those who get ahold of them anyway. I started smoking on my own at 14, and the lengths I would go through to get a cigarette were pretty extensive, so I can think of no way to absolutely prevent kids from getting ahold of it, if it is what they really want.

Jackmannii 10-19-2017 04:21 PM

1) We still have a paucity of evidence that vaping is a long-term successful intervention for quitting with significantly more effectiveness than "conventional" methods for quitting.

2) As the OP indicates, there's a lot of angst from users about how regulators should keep hands off vaping because Lives Are At Stake. Regulation should take into account known and potential hazards of vaping, both for vapers and those who breathe their secondhand nicotine and additives.

"...don抰 be fooled into thinking that e-cigs are without risks or that you should now be able to vape to your heart抯 content. Or that they抮e plain healthy.

First of all, nicotine is a drug and a powerfully habit-forming one at that, and a 2013 studysuggests that even inhaling the drug via either conventional cigarettes or e-cigs may contribute to heart disease.

Also there is evidence that e-cigs deliver some toxic stuff of their own such as formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), nitrosamines (linked to cancer) and lead (a neurotoxin). Though the toxicant levels of e-cigs may be 𜃊50 times lower than in cigarette smoke, as this study suggests, levels of formaldehyde andmetalshave been found to be comparable to or higher than those found in conventional cigarettes.*Silicate particles, which are a cause of lung disease, have also been found in e-cigarette vapors."


https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-hand-vaping/

The statement that vaping isn't as bad as smoking does seem to be true, but shouldn't preclude prudent regulation to protect consumers of the product and the rest of us.

k9bfriender 10-19-2017 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 20550068)
1) We still have a paucity of evidence that vaping is a long-term successful intervention for quitting with significantly more effectiveness than "conventional" methods for quitting.

2) As the OP indicates, there's a lot of angst from users about how regulators should keep hands off vaping because Lives Are At Stake. Regulation should take into account known and potential hazards of vaping, both for vapers and those who breathe their secondhand nicotine and additives.

"...don抰 be fooled into thinking that e-cigs are without risks or that you should now be able to vape to your heart抯 content. Or that they抮e plain healthy.

First of all, nicotine is a drug and a powerfully habit-forming one at that, and a 2013 studysuggests that even inhaling the drug via either conventional cigarettes or e-cigs may contribute to heart disease.

Also there is evidence that e-cigs deliver some toxic stuff of their own such as formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), nitrosamines (linked to cancer) and lead (a neurotoxin). Though the toxicant levels of e-cigs may be 𜃊50 times lower than in cigarette smoke, as this study suggests, levels of formaldehyde andmetalshave been found to be comparable to or higher than those found in conventional cigarettes.*Silicate particles, which are a cause of lung disease, have also been found in e-cigarette vapors."


https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...d-hand-vaping/

The statement that vaping isn't as bad as smoking does seem to be true, but shouldn't preclude prudent regulation to protect consumers of the product and the rest of us.

I'm all for regulations to make the vapes as safe as they can be while delivering their intended product, which does obviously limit their safety to that of inhaling nicotine. I'm sure it does contribute to heart disease to some extent, it raises my blood pressure and makes my heart beat faster, I'm sure that's not all that good for me long term. But it does it to a much lower extent than a cigarette did. If nothing else, if I smoke a cigarette, I'm invested in that thing, I'm going to smoke it all the way down, even if my nicotine craving is fixed with the first hit. With my vape, I hit it a couple times, and put it away for a few hours before I feel another craving coming on. I vape less than I used to smoke.

Now, they want to remove the lead and silicate from my vape juice, awesome. Even if it raises the price a bit, it's still cheaper than smoking. Limiting the other chemicals coming out would be nice too, depending on how possible that is. If some are just an inevitable by-product of the vape process, then it should be limited, but if it's less than or comparable to a cigarette, then that seems good enough.

The same rules that keep tobacco out of the hands of kids can work as well or vapes, which is to say, it discourages them, but there's nothing that can be done to completely prevent it. If some kid wants to start using a nicotine product, it is better that they vape than smoke, and some number of kids will take up nicotine, it's a drug that is quite enticing on its own.

If they banned or restricted vapes to where it was harder or more expensive to vape than to smoke, I'd probably go back to cigarettes. If they manged to completely ban cigarettes, well, it's not like it's all that hard to get ahold of illegal drugs right now, tobacco would just become another black market item.

carnivorousplant 10-19-2017 08:16 PM

My physician is delighted that I vape instead of smoke, and my blood pressure is fine.
I wonder if the studies about vapor content use a fresh device each time. Lead and some of the other contaminants might come from the solder joint and lessen with use.

Tabby_Cat 10-19-2017 08:45 PM

I would be all for vaping if it were solely a device to help people quit smoking. But it's not. It's a tool to get more people, youth in particular, addicted to nicotine. Even if nicotine was 100% safe, allowing companies to profit of getting people addicted is bad for society and should be regulated if not outright banned. You wouldn't say "methadone saves lives - regulators should take that into account".

There are 2 common legal substances which can cause addiction (the clinical definition of addiction, not just a literary device), nicotine and alcohol. Alcohol, by its nature as a product of fermentation, cannot be significantly restricted. Tobacco, however, can. The distilled version of nicotine used in vaping, even more so. Yes, people can make vape juice if they have the equipment to do so. People can also cook meth, and government is used to control meth and crack.

To expand on this, we as a society must find ways of making up for our animal weaknesses. Our physical bodies have the flaw of being able to be addicted. Addicting causes us to act in irrational ways, which can and are used to exploit the addicted. Legally, you can sell an addict as many cigarettes and alcohol as he wants, until he dies. You can get kids addicted, and continue your revenue stream by parasiting off him as he becomes an adult. This is somehow acceptable. I do not think it ought to be acceptable.

In fact, we (as the human race) appear to be winning on nicotine. The number of smokers is dropping https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5844a2.htm, no doubt in part due to the regulations around locations where people can smoke, advertising around smoking, how smoking is presented in the media, the packaging of smoking, etc. Vaping appears to have reversed all this progress, and particularly if they circumvent the above regulations. The easy explanation is tobacco companies, who now need to make up revenue in other ways since their market is shrinking.

After the regulations on vaping, the trend seems to be reversing. This is good, and should continue https://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-va...garette-trend/.

AI Proofreader 10-20-2017 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabby_Cat (Post 20550584)
I would be all for vaping if it were solely a device to help people quit smoking. But it's not. It's a tool to get more people, youth in particular, addicted to nicotine. Even if nicotine was 100% safe, allowing companies to profit of getting people addicted is bad for society and should be regulated if not outright banned. You wouldn't say "methadone saves lives - regulators should take that into account".

Actually, I would say that. I'd be content if methadone were available in every corner drugstore. IMHO, the most destructive element in this debate isn't the drugs themselves; it's the measures taken to outlaw those drugs.

Outlawing or heavily restricting drugs such as morphine, amphetamines, and opioids doesn't lead to decreased usage. It just drives those addicted to it into the black market where they will be forced to find unsafe alternatives such as heroine and methamphetamine, and away from doctors who, by and large, care about their patients and will do what they can to limit their dosages to amounts which at least won't kill the patient.

Prohibition never works. It didn't work with alcohol, it didn't work with cocaine, it's not working with meth. All it does is create a black market where dangerous criminal empires are empowered, violence becomes the norm, the price is higher, and the product far deadlier than it would be if left legal.

When was the last time you heard of someone dying because they drank a bad batch of bathtub hooch? Or shot to death trying to buy beer or cigarettes? Or shooting up a rival bar to try to corner the alcohol market?

Not to mention the effect drug prohibition has in destroying families by thrown in prison for years for victim-less crimes; after which their felony record provides severe handicaps in finding employment and housing for the rest of their lives. The war on drugs has been an abject failure, with a trillion dollars spent and millions incarcerated; but usage is higher than ever.

The only way to lessen the impact of drug usage is to legalize, tax, and regulate them like any other product, holding them to high safety standards and making the manufacturers accountable. Going after the end-users isn't a war on drugs - it's a war on people.

Tabby_Cat 10-20-2017 02:13 AM

Getting people addicted is absolutely not victimless. If you "can't live without coffee" you're being a drama queen, but if you "can't live without methadone", or any other opiate, you're being literal. And say what you want about illegal drugs, they have a far lower footprint than alcohol and cigarettes, and a far lower death toll. I'll give you all illegal drugs. Overdose deaths around 64,000 per annum, double it to account for crime deaths, and this also includes overdosing on prescription drugs, which there is a major scandal about. https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-to...se-death-rates

Cigarettes alone. 480,000 deaths. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_sta...acts/index.htm

Alcohol, I tolerate only due to logistical reasons - bathtub hooch is a thing. But not nicotine.

The libertarians tend to be all about how taxation is theft. How about getting someone physically addicted to something? Just because a person is nominally deciding to buy cigarettes (mental state - addict), it's ok? If I could get someone addicted to "clean cocaine", as long as there are no health issues that's ok? That's terrible! Cigarettes is today where opium used to be. Opium was eradicated as a casual drug, and nicotine can be too. Not in this generation, perhaps, but certainly in the generation of our grandchildren, IF we are vigilant.

AI Proofreader 10-20-2017 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabby_Cat (Post 20550909)
Getting people addicted is absolutely not victimless. If you "can't live without coffee" you're being a drama queen, but if you "can't live without methadone", or any other opiate, you're being literal. And say what you want about illegal drugs, they have a far lower footprint than alcohol and cigarettes, and a far lower death toll. I'll give you all illegal drugs. Overdose deaths around 64,000 per annum, double it to account for crime deaths, and this also includes overdosing on prescription drugs, which there is a major scandal about. https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-to...se-death-rates

Cigarettes alone. 480,000 deaths. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_sta...acts/index.htm

Alcohol, I tolerate only due to logistical reasons - bathtub hooch is a thing. But not nicotine.

The libertarians tend to be all about how taxation is theft. How about getting someone physically addicted to something? Just because a person is nominally deciding to buy cigarettes (mental state - addict), it's ok? If I could get someone addicted to "clean cocaine", as long as there are no health issues that's ok? That's terrible! Cigarettes is today where opium used to be. Opium was eradicated as a casual drug, and nicotine can be too. Not in this generation, perhaps, but certainly in the generation of our grandchildren, IF we are vigilant.

Victim-less was in reference to drug users; they don't meet the definition of "crime," in which there someone else other than the "criminal" must have their property damaged or stolen. Their only victim is *themselves. But they get thrown in prison anyway.

I completely agree that tobacco is by far the most dangerous drug that can be taken, in terms of long-term fatalities. I still don't think it should be illegal; for the same reason you give for not making alcohol illegal. It's simply not practical.

If we lived in that same world where opium had to be transported from the other side of the world via boats costing enormous time and expense.. maybe. But if you outlawed tobacco, some would quit; many others would simply begin growing it hydroponically, or ordering it from The Silk Road, or getting it from their street dealer who got it from a distributor who smuggled it over the border.

It would be more expensive, it would be more dangerous. It would involve possible legal consequences as disastrous to their lives as the health problems they'll probably suffer later in life. But people will still do it. And those who grow it will still profit from it, arguably much more than they did while it was legal.

I agree, it's horrible to profit from addicting people to a substance, whether it's harmless or potentially harmful. I don't agree with making such substances illegal. Ultimately, you are only punishing the users of the substance, and rewarding those who manufacture it by making it far more lucrative.

Since you mentioned libertarianism; I don't disagree with taxing and regulating the substances. I'm all for it; inspect, provide as many safety measures as possible, punish those intentionally cutting corners. If regulation had stepped in at any point during the last century, cigarettes wouldn't have ended up with thousands of carcinogenic chemicals making them more deadly simply to increase their addictive nature.

This doesn't mean you *outlaw them though; then those regulations can never happen, and any entrepreneurial scumbag can make it in his basement with no oversight and throw in anything he wants without ever telling the customer and probably never get held accountable if people immediately die using it. It's why people OD on cocaine cut with drano.

carnivorousplant 10-20-2017 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabby_Cat (Post 20550584)
To expand on this, we as a society must find ways of making up for our animal weaknesses. Our physical bodies have the flaw of being able to be addicted.

Praise Jesus!

igor frankensteen 10-21-2017 08:55 PM

I disagree with the proposed reasoning that because something might be LESS harmful than something else it resembles, that it should avoid scrutiny and regulation for how it IS dangerous.

Establishing a legal principle like that would lead to all sorts of absurdly bad law.

carnivorousplant 10-21-2017 09:10 PM

Arkansas enacted a law that I cannot order vaping fluid on the web; I must actually call to order on the telephone. :)

I have no problem with treating e-cigs the same as tobacco for those who are underage.

Odesio 10-21-2017 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabby_Cat (Post 20548336)
We want to allow companies to make money off creating and exploiting addicts because... why?

Because we want Blizzard to continue to make quality games.

Some Call Me... Tim 10-21-2017 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabby_Cat (Post 20548336)
We want to allow companies to make money off creating and exploiting addicts because... why?

Because it's the lesser evil to have regulated companies do it than to have underground criminal organizations do it? The drugs won the drug war.

SamuelA 10-21-2017 11:40 PM

Do the math. Let's call the dangers of vaping 1/100 the danger of cigarettes. That's probably a good first order estimate.

In the USA, 16% of the population are smokers. Let's assume the absolute worst case scenario. Let's say that vaping temps everyone alive in the united states to pick up the habit.

So roughly 6 times as many people would be smoking as are smoking now. Or 6 * 0.01 = 6% of the deaths and illness caused by cigarettes now.

The solution here is a no-brainer. Manufactured cigarettes should be gradually made completely illegal. I can't distribute batteries in the store that are rigged to explode if you use them day in and day out, can I? So why should I be able to wrap nicotine containing leaves in carcinogenic paper and sell them?

I'm ok with the sale of rolling paper and loose tobacco continuing. If people are rolling their own cigarettes, it makes them liable for the damage they are doing to themselves.

Tabby_Cat 10-22-2017 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odesio (Post 20554301)
Because we want Blizzard to continue to make quality games.

You jest, but this is actually an interesting point. Should loot boxes be regulated in the same way as gambling? They are very similar from an addiction point of view, and countries all over the world are already looking into them. China in particular has been very concerned about loot boxes, or gatchapon type mobile games in particular. I have not made up my mind, but I’ve been very interested in the studies.

Budget Player Cadet 10-22-2017 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by igor frankensteen (Post 20554259)
I disagree with the proposed reasoning that because something might be LESS harmful than something else it resembles, that it should avoid scrutiny and regulation for how it IS dangerous.

Establishing a legal principle like that would lead to all sorts of absurdly bad law.

It's not really that it's less harmful than something it resembles, and more that it's considerably less harmful than something it replaces.

Tabby_Cat 10-22-2017 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant (Post 20551165)
Praise Jesus!

I mean, the Enlightment has been a thing. Just because America has been regressing, doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

Jackmannii 10-22-2017 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by igor frankensteen (Post 20554259)
I disagree with the proposed reasoning that because something might be LESS harmful than something else it resembles, that it should avoid scrutiny and regulation for how it IS dangerous.

Establishing a legal principle like that would lead to all sorts of absurdly bad law.

We could also decide that other activities far less harmful than smoking should be minimally or not at all regulated.

Why inflict workplace safety regulations on private industry, when the number of workers killed each year in the U.S. is less than one-hundredth the death toll from smoking? Those regulations are job killers!
Only a tiny number of people are harmed every year by accidents on amusement park rides. Stop regulating them too. Contaminated foods, adulterated supplement pills, Ikea dressers - we could go on and on. They're all way less harmful than smoking, and regulating them results in increased costs and inconvenience for consumers.

Or maybe we can craft reasonable rules in each instance to protect the public without giving in to special pleading.

k9bfriender 10-22-2017 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 20554951)
We could also decide that other activities far less harmful than smoking should be minimally or not at all regulated.

Why inflict workplace safety regulations on private industry, when the number of workers killed each year in the U.S. is less than one-hundredth the death toll from smoking? Those regulations are job killers!
Only a tiny number of people are harmed every year by accidents on amusement park rides. Stop regulating them too. Contaminated foods, adulterated supplement pills, Ikea dressers - we could go on and on. They're all way less harmful than smoking, and regulating them results in increased costs and inconvenience for consumers.

Or maybe we can craft reasonable rules in each instance to protect the public without giving in to special pleading.

Is anyone making the argument that there should be no regulations on vapes? If so, please quote.

The point of the OP was that vaping does have a public benefit, and that should be taken into account in the regulations, so as to not reduce the effectiveness of that public benefit. It would not be difficult to regulate the vaping industry to essentially put it out of business, and that is the sort of thing that is being cautioned about.

In your analogies, it is not putting into place regulations at workplaces or amusement parks that is being opposed, but the shutting down of workplaces and amusement parks because they cannot meet unrealistic regulations that were put in place specifically to make those places close down.

ETA: re-reading your post, I may have been wooshed a bit. If so, my post is directed at the poster you were responding to.

AI Proofreader 10-22-2017 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9bfriender (Post 20555108)
In your analogies, it is not putting into place regulations at workplaces or amusement parks that is being opposed, but the shutting down of workplaces and amusement parks because they cannot meet unrealistic regulations that were put in place specifically to make those places close down.

^ This. There's a pretty big difference between regulating for safety, and intentionally over-regulating for the specific purpose of making a business impossible and illegal in practice because so many regulations are placed on it.

Just look at abortion clinic laws in Texas. Ceiling 8" high? What a coincidence.. we just passed a law that requires all abortion clinics to have 10" high ceilings.

Don't have an operating room because you don't perform surgeries, you just provide morning-after pills? Sorry, all clinics have to have an operating room. Oh, look, the zoning just came up for review - I'm sorry, it looks like your clinic is in a residential-only zone now. Looks like you'll have to build a new location.

And on and on..the irony being that the party that so often rails against burdensome regulations (IE, not being able to rape and pillage the environment sufficiently and exploit workers) are the ones that are enacting all of these regulations intended to make something illegal without all the pesky democracy stuff.

igor frankensteen 10-22-2017 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 20554531)
It's not really that it's less harmful than something it resembles, and more that it's considerably less harmful than something it replaces.

You are ignoring the point I made, not answering it.

DrDeth 10-22-2017 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 20546734)
The problem is that like you said, vaping is just as addictive. We have made very good progress working to eliminate smoking in the US. Within a generation or two, we might have it successfully eradicated. That's good for society -- lower Healthcare costs, leas lung cancer, etc. If vaping makes it so easy and culturally "safe" to smoke, you are effectively lowering the "barriers of entry" for new people to start smoking. Like you yourself said, vaping is still addictive and dangerous -- just less so. Obviously we want current smokers to vape instead if there is no will or way for them to quit otherwise, but we don't want new people (especially young ones) to take up either smoking or vaping. I think regulation should take that into account, too.

Yesbut, I have know quite a few people who have quit smoking to turn to vaping. I dont know anyone who just started to vape.

Vapeing is far less dangerous and "second hand smoke" which kills 50000 Americans a year is no longer a threat.

Restricting vaping is just plain stupid and will slow down the end of smoking.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.