E-cigarettes inflame DC debate (The Hill)

[catlady60]

Washington is locked in a growing debate over what restrictions should be placed on the booming electronic cigarette industry.

The Food and Drug Administration is pushing ahead with a proposed rule that would ban the sale of e-cigarettes to people under the age of 18 and prohibit sales in vending machines.

But to the dismay of many health activists, the rule does not address online sales or television advertising for e-cigarettes, though the FDA has said future action is possible.
The proposed rule, which the agency released in April 2014, is a “deeming regulation” that gives the FDA the authority to regulate all tobacco products, including cigars, electronic cigarettes, pipe tobacco and certain dissolvable products like nicotine gels, among other things.

The lobbying around the proposed rule has been fierce, with much of the pressure centering on e-cigarettes.

E-cigarettes inflame DC debate | TheHill


My comment:
I'm sorry to say this as a Democrat, but the Democrats in Congresss and the executive branch are on the wrong side of the e-cig argument, due in part to their embracing the precautionary principle run amok.

I describe the push to overregulate vapor products, which have been proven to be 95% less harmful than traditional burned tobacco products, to a mentality of both falsely conflating less harmful vapor products (which contain no tobacco) with regular tobacco products, and a wrongheaded principle of "guilty by association until proven innocent."

The idea of youth taking up vaping is nothing but a pretext to make it difficult and expensive for adults to enjoy vapor products, thus protecting the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries from competition from the disruptive innovation known as personal vaporizers, which are nothing but miniaturized, battery-operated fog machines and function pretty much the same way.

I'm tired of the fearmongering, alarmist anti-vaping propaganda, outright lies, and willful ignorance from our representatives who seem to have shut their minds to the promise of tobacco harm reduction via e-cigs. Even more scandalous is that this narrow-mindedness is coming from allegedly liberal Democrats who are supposed to embrace harm reduction instead of prohibitionism.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

catlady - Thanks for linking to this article. I does provide some information about what may lay ahead.

I would think vapers might heave a big sigh of relief if the rules come out and don't do much more than restrict sales to underage persons and eliminate vending machine sales. However, as stated the FDA would have authority for continued rule making. I'd be concerned that a couple of episodes of highly publicized battery explosions or a poisonings might cause knee-jerk reactions that don't take into account the frequency of injuries in other realms. If tens or hundreds or persons might be injured in a given period, would e-cigs get the same consideration as other recreational activities where there are clearly higher rates of injury. If FDA authority is firm, we could only hope that hysteria not rule the day.

 

[BuGlen]

catlady - Thanks for linking to this article. I does provide some information about what may lay ahead.

I would think vapers might heave a big sigh of relief if the rules come out and don't do much more than restrict sales to underage persons and eliminate vending machine sales. However, as stated the FDA would have authority for continued rule making. I'd be concerned that a couple of episodes of highly publicized battery explosions or a poisonings might cause knee-jerk reactions that don't take into account the frequency of injuries in other realms. If tens or hundreds or persons might be injured in a given period, would e-cigs get the same consideration as other recreational activities where there are clearly higher rates of injury. If FDA authority is firm, we could only hope that hysteria not rule the day.

That would require 1) logical and scientific application of regulations, and 2) an truly unbiased concern for public health. Neither, I'm afraid, applies to the FDA when it comes to this particular product category.

 

[Painter_]

E-cigarettes are no more a tobacco product than maple syrup is a lumber product. Just because the sap of a plant is used that does not make the entire product that of parent. With the logic being used your car has steel in it and steel has carbon from coal in it therefore your car is a coal product.

 

[nicnik]

E-cigarettes inflame DC debate | TheHill

My comment:
I'm sorry to say this as a Democrat, but the Democrats in Congresss and the executive branch are on the wrong side of the e-cig argument, due in part to their embracing the precautionary principle run amok.

I describe the push to overregulate vapor products, which have been proven to be 95% less harmful than traditional burned tobacco products, to a mentality of both falsely conflating less harmful vapor products (which contain no tobacco) with regular tobacco products, and a wrongheaded principle of "guilty by association until proven innocent."

The idea of youth taking up vaping is nothing but a pretext to make it difficult and expensive for adults to enjoy vapor products, thus protecting the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries from competition from the disruptive innovation known as personal vaporizers, which are nothing but miniaturized, battery-operated fog machines and function pretty much the same way.

I'm tired of the fearmongering, alarmist anti-vaping propaganda, outright lies, and willful ignorance from our representatives who seem to have shut their minds to the promise of tobacco harm reduction via e-cigs. Even more scandalous is that this narrow-mindedness is coming from allegedly liberal Democrats who are supposed to embrace harm reduction instead of prohibitionism.

With vaping, the Democrats are anti-Harm Reduction, anti-science, and anti-progress. They preach abstinence-only, promote dishonest junk science, and stoke people's fears of new technology. Nothing progressive in any of that, but a hypocritical 180 for the Democratic Party.

I've often voted for Democrats, because I dislike the Republican Party even more. Some Republicans have been pushing anti-vaping, but the Democratic Party has been far worse.

 

[caramel]

E-cigarettes are no more a tobacco product than maple syrup is a lumber product. Just because the sap of a plant is used that does not make the entire product that of parent. With the logic being used your car has steel in it and steel has carbon from coal in it therefore your car is a coal product.

Oxygen is produced and released in the atmosphere by the tobacco plants through the photosynthesis process. I'm looking forward to see it regulated as all other tobacco products.

 

[guambred]

Oxygen is produced and released in the atmosphere by the tobacco plants through the photosynthesis process. I'm looking forward to see it regulated as all other tobacco products.

Oxygen is even more addictive than nicotine, it needs to be regulated now.......think of the children.

 

[catlady60]

With vaping, the Democrats are anti-Harm Reduction, anti-science, and anti-progress. They preach abstinence-only, promote dishonest junk science, and stoke people's fears of new technology. Nothing progressive in any of that, but a hypocritical 180 for the Democratic Party.

I've often voted for Democrats, because I dislike the Republican Party even more. Some Republicans have been pushing anti-vaping, but the Democratic Party has been far worse.

The secular "public health" left is to tobacco/nicotine policy as the religious right is to sexual behavior and the other issue we can't talk about on ECF: abstinence only or severe punishment. Both extremes are equally fanatical in their prohibitionism; they won't listen to anything that contradicts their entrenched beliefs. The only difference is the substance and/or behavior they're trying to prohibit: the left, vaping and THR; and the right, the other stuff.

 

[Vatigu]

Oxygen is even more addictive than nicotine, it needs to be regulated now.......think of the children.

I started smoking so I would only have one oxygen atom to worry about instead of two. (CO1 instead of O2) I gave up on that and started substituting PG and VG and nicotine... We really need to stop subjecting our children to the lifelong addiction that is oxygen. I mean the withdrawal symptoms are actually lethal. Never seen someone die from quitting smoking. Quitting oxygen however dead in like 5 minutes.

 

[Endor]

The secular "public health" left is to tobacco/nicotine policy as the religious right is to sexual behavior and the other issue we can't talk about on ECF: abstinence only or severe punishment. Both extremes are equally fanatical in their prohibitionism; they won't listen to anything that contradicts their entrenched beliefs. The only difference is the substance and/or behavior they're trying to prohibit: the left, vaping and THR; and the right, the other stuff.

...which is why I'd love to see more libertarian leanings in today's candidates/government.

 

[catlady60]

...which is why I'd love to see more libertarian leanings in today's candidates/government.

I'd like to see more candidates and government officials who take our civil liberties seriously, which includes the right not to be hounded, demonized, and ostracized for putting something in our bodies that don't do much harm to bystanders.

 

[Endor]

I'd like to see more candidates and government officials who take our civil liberties seriously, which includes the right not to be hounded, demonized, and ostracized for putting something in our bodies that don't do much harm to bystanders.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, it appears the pendulum of mass public opinion is swinging very much the other way as of late, especially in states like California, but at the Federal level too. Let's hope that people soon get fed up with the constant governmental intrusion in their personal lives, and that pendulum starts swinging back the other way.. more towards the tenets of what America was, a land of personal freedom to make decisions and the resolution to take responsibility for those decisions, good and bad. Let's also hope it won't be too late.

 

[Frenchfry1942]

My doctor, a simple GP, said that nicotine has similarities to caffeine; in and of itself. Then he counseled me on excessive use, etc.

Everything else, I am responsible.

As a Republican, I am happy with small government that doesn't tell me how to live. I am responsible. I just vote, sign petitions, write letters, etc.

I do my part. I am responsible.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

My doctor, a simple GP, said that nicotine has similarities to caffeine; in and of itself. Then he counseled me on excessive use, etc. ...

The caffeine-likeness is an aspect that needs to be played up as much as possible.

By the way, caffeine containing products are freely sold to children...

 

[Frenchfry1942]

It needs "formal" evaluation and reputable presentation. My General Practicioner may be a smart guy, but he is not an authority.

But, in my letters, I do mention my doctor, and my dentist for that matter. Gums are a lot stronger.

 

[Kent C]

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, it appears the pendulum of mass public opinion is swinging very much the other way as of late, especially in states like California, but at the Federal level too. Let's hope that people soon get fed up with the constant governmental intrusion in their personal lives, and that pendulum starts swinging back the other way.. more towards the tenets of what America was, a land of personal freedom to make decisions and the resolution to take responsibility for those decisions, good and bad. Let's also hope it won't be too late.

I think it's already too late without some serious rebellion. And even that is no guarantee - see France But there is a thread of commonality that goes through both major parties - altruism in it's philosophical definition - not just 'being nice and compassionate' but the sacrifice of oneself (and one's rights and liberties) for the public good, state or "others" in general - IOW, collectivism rather than individualism. On the Left they take that thread and make a quilt and on the Right, only a shawl, but it's still there in those who think they know best how 'we' should act or think.

That 'thread' doesn't exist in the libertarian camp. There's some stuff that might not be 'socially acceptable' but that's the point. In order for you to have true liberty, you have to give true liberty to others as well - so long as no one violates the actual rights (not made up rights) of others. So there will be some things you might not like 'seeing' but you aren't forced to join in (like most of the Left's policies) or prohibited from doing so (by some of the Right). You have to 'move along' with your own life rather than saying 'there ought to be a law against that' - since almost all legislation comes from that type of impulse - after going through some "community organizer" group to make it so, and politicians 'seeing' a 'voting block' Mind your own business as long as you're not being physically harmed or robbed. If your 'sensibilities' are being "assaulted" - move on and get over it.

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

Ayn Rand "Man's Rights"

 

[Cullin Kin]

Oxygen is produced and released in the atmosphere by the tobacco plants through the photosynthesis process. I'm looking forward to see it regulated as all other tobacco products.

Haven't you seen Dr. Suess' ''The Lorax?' Hypothetical situation for the future of our air!

 

[DC2]

So there will be some things you might not like 'seeing' but you aren't forced to join in (like most of the Left's policies) or prohibited from doing so (by some of the Right).

I've got an entire list of things I don't like "seeing" in public.
But I'm not about to post it, because I'd alienate most of the forum.


I would never suggest, however, that anyone should be prohibited from doing those things.
Nor would I ever suggest that people be "coerced" into tacit approval of them.

In other words, yeah, what you said.

 

[Kent C]

I've got an entire list of things I don't like "seeing" in public....
I would never suggest, however, that anyone should be prohibited from doing those things.
Nor would I ever suggest that people be "coerced" into tacit approval of them.

A few things... that you 'don't like seeing certain things' means to some (esp. on the Left) that you are then a 'hater'. But just because you wouldn't do something, don't mean you hate others doing it. It just means that you would allow someone to do that if that's what they want as long as it harms no one, esp. you.

I don't care to smoke cigarettes or smoke ..., although I've done both, I don't hate smokers. I wouldn't patronize brothels, but have no problem with those who do. I like and use guns but wouldn't force those who don't, to have any or keep them from having them, if they did.

Just because you do engage, doesn't mean you hate those who don't; and just because you don't engage, doesn't mean you hate those who do. But that is the way some people look at things and even promote things in that manner to demonize you or others.

If you don't like welfare, doesn't mean you 'hate the poor'. If you're against tax levies for school (but you support vouchers or tax credits for private schools) doesn't mean you 'hate children' or 'hate education'. If you don't like abortions or contraception, doesn't mean you are 'attacking women'. If you aren't gay, doesn't mean you hate gays, etc. etc.

And this is exactly the opposite type of thinking that has permeated the TC/ANTZ crowd and their media. And why it is just as 'on topic' as any scientific study that is politically driven.

 

[caramel]

Kent - in just one of your examples I would use the label "luddite". Now you'll have to figure out which one