Controversy Swirls Around E-Cigarettes

[SOCALHUSKER]

Why even the "best of intentions" regulation instantly requires the need for more and more regulation.

 

Controversy Swirls Around E-Cigarettes

 

(Also check out this article for a more clear understanding of what this really means. The Bizarre World of Regulation)

 

Federal regulators and antismoking groups are taking steps that could snuff out electronic cigarettes, the smokeless nicotine products embraced by a growing number of people trying to kick the habit or avoid bans on smoking in public.

 

Electronic cigarettes typically consist of a metal tube containing an atomizer, a battery and a cartridge filled with liquid nicotine. When a user sucks on an e-cigarette, a light-emitting diode causes the tip to glow and the atomizer turns the liquid nicotine into a vapor -- thus it is called vaping instead of smoking. The vapor can be inhaled and then exhaled, creating a cloud that resembles cigarette smoke but dissipates more quickly and doesn't have the lingering odor.

 

The American Lung Association, along with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, recently called for e-cigarettes to be removed from the market. The groups say e-cigarettes have yet to be proven safe and that kids may be attracted to the products, some of which come in flavors like chocolate and strawberry. "Nobody knows what the consumers are actually inhaling," says Erika Sward, director of national advocacy at the American Lung Association.

 

But e-cigarette companies say their product is a better alternative to cigarettes because there is no smoke or combustion involved. "Anybody who doesn't think this product without any smoke attached to it is orders of magnitude less harmful than cigarettes just has no concept of basic science," says Jack Leadbeater, president and chief executive of Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Sottera Inc., which sells the Njoy brand of electronic cigarettes.

 

There are three large U.S. companies and dozens of smaller ones selling electronic cigarettes, most of which are made in China. Sales of the products, which barely registered in the U.S. just two years ago, have more than doubled over the past 12 months to an estimated $100 million, according to the Washington-based Electronic Cigarette Association, an industry association formed this spring.

 

A startup kit, which typically includes the e-cigarette device, a set of nicotine cartridges and batteries, costs between $60 and $120. Companies say that using e-cigarettes is cheaper than regular cigarettes in the long run on a cost-per-puff basis.

 

Regulators have acted quickly to quell the rising popularity of e-cigarettes, saying e-cigarettes are drug devices that need regulatory approval before being legally sold and marketed in the U.S. The Food and Drug Administration says that as of March 1 it "has refused 17 shipments of various brands of these 'electronic' cigarettes, cigars, and pipes, and their components." The agency added that it will continue to evaluate the products on a case-by-case basis "to determine the appropriate action to take."

 

The FDA has the power to regulate smoking-cessation products but not tobacco. It says it has examined electronic cigarettes and determined that they meet the "definition of both a drug and device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act," according to legal filings. Drugs and delivery devices must receive FDA approval before being marketed.

 

Some e-cigarette companies have sued the FDA in federal court, saying the agency has no jurisdiction over the products because they are an alternative to smoking, not a drug device aimed at helping people quit.

 

"If everybody in the U.S. were to switch to the electronic cigarette tomorrow, you will have removed secondhand smoke, you will have removed combustion products" from the market, says Walt Linscott, lead counsel for Smoking Everywhere Inc., an e-cigarette company in Sunrise, Fla.

 

Still, some smokers swear by e-cigarettes as a tool for quitting. "I'm a nervous wreck" over a possible halt to e-cigarette sales, says Carolyn Smeaton, 48 years old, of Fall River, Mass. Ms. Smeaton used to smoke three packs of cigarettes a day and now mainly uses e-cigarettes, which she says have helped her get rid of her smoker's cough.

 

Although not all companies clearly label their ingredients, e-cigarettes typically include water, nicotine, scents or flavorings and propylene glycol, a common ingredient used in hand sanitizers. Nicotine, while addictive, is generally thought to be non-carcinogenic, but it has been linked to high blood pressure.

 

Electronic cigarettes have become increasingly popular in the U.S. as more states and localities ban indoor smoking and boost taxes on cigarettes. Users have had varied experiences vaping in public, ranging from indifference to odd glances.

 

On a recent day, Shai Shloush, 25, from Knoxville, Tenn., huddled in the back of a movie theater to watch the new Star Trek movie. He powered up his e-cigarette and puffed away. "I was covering the LED part so people wouldn't notice," said Mr. Shloush, a former smoker. "Every once in a while I'd be really sneaky about letting out the smoke."

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump

[HuskerExpat]

Cigarettes of any form, are just a method of delivering a drug. I suppose an e-cigarette is probably just a better way of delivering the drug. I've never understood why anyone would want to smoke cigarettes, since I've never found any enjoyment, but if that's your thing, more power to you. Just don't force me to be involved in it. Live and let live...

[SOCALHUSKER]

Cigarettes of any form, are just a method of delivering a drug. I suppose an e-cigarette is probably just a better way of delivering the drug. I've never understood why anyone would want to smoke cigarettes, since I've never found any enjoyment, but if that's your thing, more power to you. Just don't force me to be involved in it. Live and let live...

 

I don't even smoke. I just thought it odd, that the very reason government created smoking regulations was to stop smokers from spreading the dangers of second-hand smoke to others. And now that the free market has developed a new smoke-free cigarette, that only harms those who smoke it, the government is looking to regulate it too. If not to prevent the violation of others rights to clean air, what was the initial regulation for anyways?

[HuskerExpat]

Cigarettes of any form, are just a method of delivering a drug. I suppose an e-cigarette is probably just a better way of delivering the drug. I've never understood why anyone would want to smoke cigarettes, since I've never found any enjoyment, but if that's your thing, more power to you. Just don't force me to be involved in it. Live and let live...

 

I don't even smoke. I just thought it odd, that the very reason government created smoking regulations was to stop smokers from spreading the dangers of second-hand smoke to others. And now that the free market has developed a new smoke-free cigarette, that only harms those who smoke it, the government is looking to regulate it too. If not to prevent the violation of others rights to clean air, what was the initial regulation for anyways?

 

Who says it doesn't harm others? There is still a vapor emitted. Seems to me like the prudent thing to do is to protect me from the being exposed to the vapor unless and until it is proved to be harmless. Plus, the cigarette companies are probably throwing around money like crazy to try and stop the e-cigarette....

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

 

Who says it doesn't harm others? There is still a vapor emitted. Seems to me like the prudent thing to do is to protect me from the being exposed to the vapor unless and until it is proved to be harmless. Plus, the cigarette companies are probably throwing around money like crazy to try and stop the e-cigarette....

 

"-cigarettes typically include water, nicotine, scents or flavorings and propylene glycol, a common ingredient used in hand sanitizers."

 

You are correct, there is no proof they aren't harmful, but none of the above ingredients have been proven harmful as exhaled second hand smoke either. You are also quite correct about the cigarette companies throwing money around. Who do you think is behind the new round of regulations and legislation? It's not me, don't think you mentioned it to your legislator, and I'm pretty sure if I asked 100 people, I'd probably get the same 100 responses as you and I.

[carlfense]

Slate's take:

http://www.slate.com/id/2219690/

[SOCALHUSKER]

Slate's take:

http://www.slate.com/id/2219690/

 

Brings up the same question I've been asking. A quote directly from the article in reference to the position the government is taking by looking to regulate.

 

"That's a pretty awkward position. We restricted smoking, tobacco sales, and advertising based on decades of evidence that smoking was harmful to smokers and bystanders. Now we're treating electronic cigarettes the same way based on ... what? That "nobody knows" how bad they might be? The elements of smoking that justified our war on tobacco—carcinogens, combustion, secondhand smoke, even nicotine—have been removed or made optional. Is it really logical to ignore these differences?"

[carlfense]

Slate's take:

http://www.slate.com/id/2219690/

 

Brings up the same question I've been asking. A quote directly from the article in reference to the position the government is taking by looking to regulate.

 

"That's a pretty awkward position. We restricted smoking, tobacco sales, and advertising based on decades of evidence that smoking was harmful to smokers and bystanders. Now we're treating electronic cigarettes the same way based on ... what? That "nobody knows" how bad they might be? The elements of smoking that justified our war on tobacco—carcinogens, combustion, secondhand smoke, even nicotine—have been removed or made optional. Is it really logical to ignore these differences?"

 

That was one side . . . Slate also looked at the other side. I liked the quote at the end:

 

"Maybe what we need is a convergence of the tobacco debate with the marijuana debate. In each case, vaporization is dissolving the categories and grounds that warranted prohibition. Liberals can see this, but only in the case of pot. Conservatives can see it, but only in the case of tobacco. Go talk to one another. The engineering and re-engineering of drugs will only get more complicated as technology improves. We'd better start thinking rationally about it."

[sarge87]

Slate's take:

http://www.slate.com/id/2219690/

 

Brings up the same question I've been asking. A quote directly from the article in reference to the position the government is taking by looking to regulate.

 

"That's a pretty awkward position. We restricted smoking, tobacco sales, and advertising based on decades of evidence that smoking was harmful to smokers and bystanders. Now we're treating electronic cigarettes the same way based on ... what? That "nobody knows" how bad they might be? The elements of smoking that justified our war on tobacco—carcinogens, combustion, secondhand smoke, even nicotine—have been removed or made optional. Is it really logical to ignore these differences?"

 

That was one side . . . Slate also looked at the other side. I liked the quote at the end:

 

"Maybe what we need is a convergence of the tobacco debate with the marijuana debate. In each case, vaporization is dissolving the categories and grounds that warranted prohibition. Liberals can see this, but only in the case of pot. Conservatives can see it, but only in the case of tobacco. Go talk to one another. The engineering and re-engineering of drugs will only get more complicated as technology improves. We'd better start thinking rationally about it."

Actually small government Conservatives would go along with marijuana legalization as long as it can stay out of the hands of kids.

 

The cigarette companies do not have a whole lot of pull anymore in Congress as evidenced by the draconian taxation and their inclusion under FDA control. Cigarette companies have lost quite a bit of market share over the last 15 years and there are less and less tobacco growers every year.

 

Now as for the e-cigarettes, it's obvious the ALA, ACA, AHA are behind the lobbying efforts to have them outlawed or regulated out of existence. Their whole business models are contingent upon getting donations to curb smoking. Without cigarettes these charities are done. They are multi-million dollar operations with huge lobbying budgets and considerable amount of political capital with Congress.

[carlfense]

Slate's take:

http://www.slate.com/id/2219690/

 

Brings up the same question I've been asking. A quote directly from the article in reference to the position the government is taking by looking to regulate.

 

"That's a pretty awkward position. We restricted smoking, tobacco sales, and advertising based on decades of evidence that smoking was harmful to smokers and bystanders. Now we're treating electronic cigarettes the same way based on ... what? That "nobody knows" how bad they might be? The elements of smoking that justified our war on tobacco—carcinogens, combustion, secondhand smoke, even nicotine—have been removed or made optional. Is it really logical to ignore these differences?"

 

That was one side . . . Slate also looked at the other side. I liked the quote at the end:

 

"Maybe what we need is a convergence of the tobacco debate with the marijuana debate. In each case, vaporization is dissolving the categories and grounds that warranted prohibition. Liberals can see this, but only in the case of pot. Conservatives can see it, but only in the case of tobacco. Go talk to one another. The engineering and re-engineering of drugs will only get more complicated as technology improves. We'd better start thinking rationally about it."

Actually small government Conservatives would go along with marijuana legalization as long as it can stay out of the hands of kids.

 

The cigarette companies do not have a whole lot of pull anymore in Congress as evidenced by the draconian taxation and their inclusion under FDA control. Cigarette companies have lost quite a bit of market share over the last 15 years and there are less and less tobacco growers every year.

 

Now as for the e-cigarettes, it's obvious the ALA, ACA, AHA are behind the lobbying efforts to have them outlawed or regulated out of existence. Their whole business models are contingent upon getting donations to curb smoking. Without cigarettes these charities are done. They are multi-million dollar operations with huge lobbying budgets and considerable amount of political capital with Congress.

 

Perhaps. However, many small government conservatives that I know would oppose marijuana on moral grounds. Somehow they reconcile this with their support of tobacco.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Actually small government Conservatives would go along with marijuana legalization as long as it can stay out of the hands of kids.

 

The cigarette companies do not have a whole lot of pull anymore in Congress as evidenced by the draconian taxation and their inclusion under FDA control. Cigarette companies have lost quite a bit of market share over the last 15 years and there are less and less tobacco growers every year.

 

Now as for the e-cigarettes, it's obvious the ALA, ACA, AHA are behind the lobbying efforts to have them outlawed or regulated out of existence. Their whole business models are contingent upon getting donations to curb smoking. Without cigarettes these charities are done. They are multi-million dollar operations with huge lobbying budgets and considerable amount of political capital with Congress.

 

So we need government to keep weed from kids? Where do you come up with this? How much of your money are you going to allow the government to steal in order to keep feeding the unfilling appetite of the War on Drugs. When is enough, enough? It's time to hold individuals responsible for their own actions. And this means parents teaching their kids the ill-effects of drugs and then leading by example. If someone chooses to smoke and it doesn't harm you or me in anyway, what right do you or I have to stop them?

 

You are 100% correct about the money in Washington. Look at the mess government has created!!

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

That was one side . . . Slate also looked at the other side. I liked the quote at the end:

 

"Maybe what we need is a convergence of the tobacco debate with the marijuana debate. In each case, vaporization is dissolving the categories and grounds that warranted prohibition. Liberals can see this, but only in the case of pot. Conservatives can see it, but only in the case of tobacco. Go talk to one another. The engineering and re-engineering of drugs will only get more complicated as technology improves. We'd better start thinking rationally about it."

 

Where in the article did you see the arguments for the other side? The article briefly introduces the opposition and their points, but I would hardly state that it looked at both sides of the issue. In fact, the title, "Vapor War: Our irrational hostility toward electronic cigarettes," blatantly states the purpose of the article. Regardless of this point, the article is merely further proof of the irrational actions taken by government and gives us a better idea of what truly drives government, money!!

[carlfense]

 

That was one side . . . Slate also looked at the other side. I liked the quote at the end:

 

"Maybe what we need is a convergence of the tobacco debate with the marijuana debate. In each case, vaporization is dissolving the categories and grounds that warranted prohibition. Liberals can see this, but only in the case of pot. Conservatives can see it, but only in the case of tobacco. Go talk to one another. The engineering and re-engineering of drugs will only get more complicated as technology improves. We'd better start thinking rationally about it."

 

Where in the article did you see the arguments for the other side? The article briefly introduces the opposition and their points, but I would hardly state that it looked at both sides of the issue. In fact, the title, "Vapor War: Our irrational hostility toward electronic cigarettes," blatantly states the purpose of the article. Regardless of this point, the article is merely further proof of the irrational actions taken by government and gives us a better idea of what truly drives government, money!!

 

Sigh. Do you just skip the parts that don't fit with your opinion?

 

"The American Lung Association, along with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, recently called for e-cigarettes to be removed from the market. The groups say e-cigarettes have yet to be proven safe and that kids may be attracted to the products, some of which come in flavors like chocolate and strawberry. "Nobody knows what the consumers are actually inhaling," says Erika Sward, director of national advocacy at the American Lung Association.

 

Governments seem to be buying this view. The FDA has officially barred importation of e-cigarettes. "These appear to be unapproved drug device products," a spokeswoman tells the Times, "and as unapproved products they can't enter the United States." Australia and Hong Kong have also prohibited the devices."

 

Hint: focus specifically on the "yet to be proven safe" and the "unapproved drug device."

[sarge87]

 

Actually small government Conservatives would go along with marijuana legalization as long as it can stay out of the hands of kids.

 

The cigarette companies do not have a whole lot of pull anymore in Congress as evidenced by the draconian taxation and their inclusion under FDA control. Cigarette companies have lost quite a bit of market share over the last 15 years and there are less and less tobacco growers every year.

 

Now as for the e-cigarettes, it's obvious the ALA, ACA, AHA are behind the lobbying efforts to have them outlawed or regulated out of existence. Their whole business models are contingent upon getting donations to curb smoking. Without cigarettes these charities are done. They are multi-million dollar operations with huge lobbying budgets and considerable amount of political capital with Congress.

 

So we need government to keep weed from kids? Where do you come up with this? How much of your money are you going to allow the government to steal in order to keep feeding the unfilling appetite of the War on Drugs. When is enough, enough? It's time to hold individuals responsible for their own actions. And this means parents teaching their kids the ill-effects of drugs and then leading by example. If someone chooses to smoke and it doesn't harm you or me in anyway, what right do you or I have to stop them?

 

You are 100% correct about the money in Washington. Look at the mess government has created!!

I'm just applying the same standards that are used for alcohol and cigarettes in respect to minors. I don't care what adults do.