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.
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.
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.
^ 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.
Yes, the tough restriction on having to “grow your own” has clearly stopped the marijuana industry dead in it’s tracks, so it makes perfect sense that no one would grow tobacco either.
I was unaware people are actually growing tobacco indoors under lights, but they’re out there.
I saw an estimate from an LED lights seller that one can derive a carton’s worth of cigarettes from just four tobacco plants. :dubious: Even if that’s so, I’d bear in mind that these plants get big (got eight foot ceilings in your basement?), there are curing/aging steps that might require special facilities, and you’d have to maintain a pretty large area under continuous cultivation in order to feed your nicotine habit.
I’ve grown tobacco (on an ornamental basis) outdoors, but it sounds like a potential mess in a basement grow setup, not to mention expensive.
My eperience differs, as I know dozens of people who grow pot for personal use, and only a couple of industrial growers. My point was that having to grow a plant does not seem to be a sufficient barrier to entry to stop people from doing drugs. Hell, advanced chemistry that can blow up in your face and kill you does not seem to be a sufficient barrier to entry to stop people from doing drugs.
You don’t have to outlaw or severely restrict sales of something to cut heavily into its use (although that can be effective - Prohibition for all its faults did cause Americans to significantly reduce drinking). Just raise taxes enough on it.
*"…the evidence…strongly supports increasing cigarette prices through tobacco taxation as a powerful strategy for achieving major reductions in smoking behavior among some, but not all, high-risk populations.
For instance, increasing the price of cigarettes is a very effective policy tool for reducing smoking participation and consumption among youth, young adults and persons of low socioeconomic status."*
Make vaping expensive enough and that’ll discourage young people from doing it. They’ll stick to healthier alternatives, like churchgoing and pot smoking.
The explosion of popularity of vaping in High Schoolers and even Middle Schoolers has perplexed me. The numbers are scary high and it is a disconnect from other behavior choices they are making. Overall they are a group that has excelled at making healthier choices than those before them had made. Feedback from kids, not a scientific sampling, is a perception of safety and the flavors, along with low risk of getting caught, are major factors.
My personal opinion is that regulating the marketing that appeals to kids (inclusive of the flavors) and better education on the potential risks, is a minimum required.