I pit those fighting to ban e-cigs.

[Morgenstern]

@andros

The who on the what now? The EPA does not regulate cigarette smoke. Nor my farts, which are arguably contributing to global warming.

No, they regulate air quality in the United States.

[XT]

@Kimstu

Tobacco companies manufacture e-cigs. They have nothing to be scared of as long as lots of people want to consume tobacco in some form or other.

As far as restrictions go, I’m stridently on record as declaring that smoking anywhere under any circumstances would be just fine with me if smokers could come up with some way to keep their smoke and smell to themselves. The same applies to vaping, as far as I’m concerned.

They have nothing to be scared of because the FDA is helping them out. And yeah, I’ve used this in several of the other e-cig threads. To me, it shows the game that’s afoot and why people fighting to ban or over-regulate e-cigs are just playing into Big Tobacco’s hands. YMMV of course.

(CNN) – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering how to best regulate electronic cigarettes as tobacco products. While some regulation is needed, the current proposal entails a huge paperwork burden that will create a barrier to entry into the market for all but the biggest players – namely, Big Tobacco.

Specifically, the FDA has indicated that it may require e-cigarette manufacturers to complete a long paperwork process before it will consider a product for approval.

Many industry watchers believe that only very large manufacturers (i.e., Big Tobacco companies) would have the financial resources to meet the requirements, which could demand an estimated 5,000 hours per application, with every product combination requiring a new application. According to the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, only 25 products among thousands currently available would eventually be licensed.

The tobacco industry will then be able to buy the small e-cigarette makers that are unable to meet the FDA’s requirements.

Big Tobacco will then get to decide which products are sold such that it can manage its own transition from cigarettes to e-cigarettes, or end e-cigarettes as a product category entirely, whichever better serves its financial interests.

Since the surgeon general issued its landmark 1964 report on the dangers of smoking, public health officials have tried to combat it. However, high-profile researchers believe that e-cigarettes have the potential to save millions of lives among populations of tobacco smokers.

All consumer products are regulated, and e-cigarettes should not be an exception. Consumers need to feel confident that they are purchasing safe, high-quality items. But the regulation of e-cigarettes needs to be proportionate and not discriminatory, especially considering the potential they offer for eliminating the scourge of tobacco-related diseases. In the United States, e-cigarettes have become a top choice for smoking cessation according to a survey.

Meanwhile, Big Tobacco is muddling along, rolling out its vapor products with their underpowered batteries and limited capacity for e-liquid. Yet, almost unbelievably, their one salvation has arrived in the form of the FDA.

[Jackmannii]

This argument is reminiscent of the one that claims FDA drug regulations are designed to benefit Big Pharma, and that only a few companies can afford to develop drugs because the regulations are supposedly too onerous.

Except numerous relatively small players have successfully developed new drugs (Z-Mapp for example, plus many cancer drugs) despite the costs involved.

Another conspiracy theory down the drain.

[slaphead]

@Morgenstern

Does one group of people have a right to release possibly harmful substances into the air other people breath? The EPA said no they don’t when they legislate emission requirements for every other thing that makes smoke on the planet.

Actually, the EPA said yes they most certainly do. That’s why the US is still full of cars and power stations, cement works, BBQs, airliners, woodstoves, mines and lots of other things emitting gases and aerosols that are known to cause large numbers of deaths every year. They emit less than they would do without the EPA setting limits, but much more than if they were just banned outright.

So if the EPA is fine with e.g. replacing plain woodstoves with catalyst woodstoves in order to cut down the carcinogenic particles in woodsmoke, why wouldn’t they apply the exact same logic in replacing coffin nails with e-cigs?

[XT]

@Jackmannii

This argument is reminiscent of the one that claims FDA drug regulations are designed to benefit Big Pharma, and that only a few companies can afford to develop drugs because the regulations are supposedly too onerous.

Except numerous relatively small players have successfully developed new drugs (Z-Mapp for example, plus many cancer drugs) despite the costs involved.

Another conspiracy theory down the drain.

Yeah, I should have checked the source there. CNN is notorious for spreading unfounded CTs and loopy stuff.

[andros]

@Morgenstern

No, they regulate air quality in the United States.

I’m sorry. Maybe it’s just not enough coffee. I honestly cannot tell if I’m being whooshed.

[GrumpyBunny]

My only problem with e-cigs is the claim that only harmless water vapor is given off. That’s not the case, as studies have demonstrated.

I don’t think they should be banned, though. I don’t care if you smoke in your home or car. I don’t care if you vape. I don’t care if you shoot heroin between your toes while watching Jeopardy and with a gnome statue on your head.

We do need better studies to figure out WTH e-cigs are actually releasing into the atmosphere, and how/if it will affect others. And the current advertising is deceptive and should be addressed.

But banned? No.

[carnivorousplant]

@GrumpyBunny

My only problem with e-cigs is the claim that only harmless water vapor is given off. That’s not the case, as studies have demonstrated.

What did the studies find?

[Jackmannii]

@XT

Yeah, I should have checked the source there. CNN is notorious for spreading unfounded CTs and loopy stuff.

It wouldn’t be a bad idea to check your source, which is not “CNN”. It’s an opinion piece by a guy named Oliver Kershaw.

“Oliver Kershaw is the founder and CEO of E-cigarette Forum. He is also a co-founder of Vapingdotcom and the E-Cigarette Summit”

A Kershaw profile on another site claims the E-cigarette Forum is the “largest and most important” social network devoted to e-cigarettes and a “top 8,000” website.

So it might just be possible that Kershaw is not the most objective source of information on what potential e-cigarette regulation entails.

[XT]

@Jackmannii

It wouldn’t be a bad idea to check your source, which is not “CNN”. It’s an opinion piece by a guy named Oliver Kershaw.

“Oliver Kershaw is the founder and CEO of E-cigarette Forum. He is also a co-founder of Vapingdotcom and the E-Cigarette Summit”

A Kershaw profile on another site claims the E-cigarette Forum is the “largest and most important” social network devoted to e-cigarettes and a “top 8,000” website.

So it might just be possible that Kershaw is not the most objective source of information on what potential e-cigarette regulation entails.

:smack: Well, hoist on my own petard. I DIDN’T in fact check the source, so I’ll go grab a slice of that humble pie stuff with a side of crow…

[carnivorousplant]

@XT

:smack: Well, hoist on my own petard. I DIDN’T in fact check the source, so I’ll go grab a slice of that humble pie stuff with a side of crow…

A noble, honest man!

[RivkahChaya]

@carnivorousplant

A noble, honest man!

Hoist with his own petard.

ducks and runs

[carnivorousplant]

@RivkahChaya

Hoist with his own petard.

ducks and runs

I’ll chase your ass for dissing an honest man!
You’d better duck, and run quickly!

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Here’s a more recent study addressing mostly the health impact compared to regular cancer sticks:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/19/1972.full

[andros]

Awesome study, and thank you! (As a point of order, it’s a lit review rather than any new research, but I love having everything in one place.)
.

[nachtmusick]

@Patty_O_Furniture

Here’s a more recent study addressing mostly the health impact compared to regular cancer sticks:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/19/1972.full

This study only concludes that “vapor” is not water:

Although data are limited, it is clear that e-cigarette emissions are not merely “harmless water vapor,” as is frequently claimed, and can be a source of indoor air pollution. Smoke-free policies protect nonsmokers from exposure to toxins and encourage smoking cessation. One hundred percent smoke-free policies have larger effects on consumption and smoking prevalence.

“can be a source of indoor air pollution” Good chili can have the same malicious effect.

The statements that follow signal that this is not a scientific study. What do “smoke-free” policies have to do with the fact that the authors haven’t identified a toxin? This “study” is a policy statement.

[Leaper]

I think e-cigarettes should be banned for the sole reason that I think the term “vaping” is annoying and dumb.

[DrFidelius]

@Leaper

I think e-cigarettes should be banned for the sole reason that I think the term “vaping” is annoying and dumb.

Now that you mention it, it sounds like a portmanteau word combining “vacant” and “gaping.”

[carnivorousplant]

@Leaper

I think e-cigarettes should be banned for the sole reason that I think the term “vaping” is annoying and dumb.

There seemed to be some need to distance e-cigarettes from tobacco use.
You are correct, it is a silly sounding term.

[RivkahChaya]

@carnivorousplant

There seemed to be some need to distance e-cigarettes from tobacco use.
You are correct, it is a silly sounding term.

It sounds like someone was searching for a verb form of “vapid.”