Undue regulation could stifle an industry that clearly offers a healthier alternative to tobacco use.
[/quote]
This “undue regulation” could on the other hand forestall the “very high VNP use rates (that) could result in net harms”, according to the theoretical modeling that is the basis of the study’s conclusions.
Models and projections aside, we are still left with major questions about long term e-cigarette safety, and the knowledge that many young people have taken up e-cig usage even as youth smoking continues to decline.
Are you talking about patches and chewing gum? Made and developed by the big pharmaceutical companies and supported by their well rewarded and powerful lobbies?
Nah, there couldn’t possibly be a connection between tobacco growers and big tobacco companies both supported by well rewarded and powerful lobbies and the nicotine you’re vaping, right?
Nicotine distilled from the purest unicorn urine gathered daily by leprechauns and fairies!
Do you know offhand if the nicotine is collected from plant material, or is the molecule synthesized in a lab? Just curious on what wil eventually happen to tobacco farmers.
ETA: heh.
In the time it took to type the question, I coulda looked it up.
That’s vaping for you. (The other kind)
I’m not quite up to speed, but I understand other states are following Colorado’s lead, so there maybe opportuities to cultivate a different leafy cash crop.
Our opinions may differ on what regulation is due and what is undue.
Nicotine, when not associated with tobacco use, isn’t particularly dangerous in itself. The only harm that has come from nicotine addiction is the use of tobacco to get the nicotine.
Ecigs should be regulated, but regulating them as “tobacco products” is ridiculous, and I consider it undue regulation. They don’t carry the same risks and public health costs that tobacco products do and the makers and sellers of such products shouldn’t be subject to the enormously expensive regulations and taxes that have been levied against tobacco products. If anything with so much evidence that they are likely to greatly reduce the number of smoking related illnesses overall the government should be subsidizing them not taxing them at the same rate they do a known mass killer like tobacco.
Synthesis of nicotine is possible and more and more vaping product companies are moving to synthetic nicotine. One ejuice maker has moved entirely to synthetic nicotine since their customers are willing to pay for it and say it tastes a lot better. The cost of synthesis will get lower as more people do it and that cost, even as it stands now, is probably less than the taxes for tobacco products, which synthetic nicotine e-juice clearly is not.
I don’t smoke or vape, but know plenty of vapers and have no problem with them being able to enjoy the pursuit.
However, the “E-cigs help you quit smoking thing” is a social acceptability smokescreen (heh); it’s easier to persuade people that I Can’t Believe It’s Not Smoking is somehow “beneficial” rather than trying to sell them on the “You know what? I like doing it, it tastes nice/feels good; I’m a grown-up and it’s not harming anyone else” angle.
Helping people stop doing something bad = socially acceptable. Enabling people to do something frowned on, but in a different way = not socially acceptable, as a general rule…
Also worth noting that roughly 98% of all vapers are current or ex-smokers and that there appears to be a significant number of people who have either stopped smoking and switched to vaping entirely, or who smoke less because they also vape. So I don’t know whether it’s different in the US, but in the UK there’s little evidence of vaping having a significant take-up by non-smokers of any age (although there are obviously some) nor that it is acting as a gateway to cigarettes. And given that there are very real benefits to switching from cigarettes to ecigs, even accepting that quitting fully would be even better it’s still definitely a win for society.
Yes, but Big Tobacco is an industry that has lots of regulations, government scrutiny, and private hostility. If Big Tobacco had jumped into vaping, I think it’s likely that the industry would have been restricted much more from the beginning and would already be as heavily taxed and regulated as tobacco is now. And the people touting studies from the vape industry about how harmless and even helpful vaping is would probably not be as eager to accept results from big tobacco, who have a well-known history of comissioning ‘studies’ that show their products are harmless or even beneficial.
You admit that you do not know what the dangers are but: 1) you know it has to be dangerous, and 2)it needs banned because you can smell it?
This hysteria needs to stop. Nanny state busy bodies had thought that they had eradicated nicotine use and e-cigs were a threat to that. Now they are banning e-cigs so that everyone falls into line like we were supposed to do.
Parks have been no smoking here for a while… but now we have Vapor Creepers spewing larger clouds than Steam Boat Engines of their crap (And Fogging 6 square feet around themselves) and it seems the laws don’t cover it.
Trenton, get up off your ass and make “Smoking” = “Vaping” in all laws, will ya???
I know my posts are invisible, but why should any legislative body making smoking laws equal vaping laws? The two are not the same.
For a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, I expect better debating styles from the side that advocates treating e-cigarettes like regular cigarettes.
The only argument I have heard is that since they look the same, and we really don’t know how dangerous they are (even though we really do know that they are not dangerous, at least second hand) they need banned even in outdoor areas.
Plenty of vapers around here and I’ve yet to face any sort of impenetrable vaping fog. Frankly it’s considerably less obnoxious than cigarettes unless blown directly into one’s face.
Also vapers don’t leave butts everywhere, which is another plus.
