Controversy Swirls Around E-Cigarettes

[huskertim]

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.

 

 

I'm a small govt conservative, and I support MJ legalization. As for the kids, I would suggest to you that it is easier for our kids to get pot now than it is to get alcohol (barring the cost our course) because the distribution network is illegal, and thusly unregulated.

 

Congress is not about to give up an inch of it's power or a dime of it's money, so if this new product has any chance of success, it will hinge on what benefit it can provide big brother. Pre-emptive regulation is the surest way to see that they get their share of the pie.

[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!!

 

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."

 

Which is exactly what I stated. (See bold statement above from my post). I didn't skip over anything. I merely said the basis of the article was about the irrationality of regulation, which the title of the article clearly states.

[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."

 

Which is exactly what I stated. (See bold statement above from my post). I didn't skip over anything. I merely said the basis of the article was about the irrationality of regulation, which the title of the article clearly states.

 

I said Slate presented both sides of the argument. I never said that it did not take a stance. (It's a two page article, even 3 paragraphs devoted to an opposing view is a significant inclusion). Anyways. Back to the issue.