bassnut, not sure whether you read some of the individual opinions-
"Martin Pion: With the increasing promotion of electronic cigarettes it is important to determine objectively if they are safer than regular cigarettes, and then require appropriate labeling. Even if the evidence concludes that they pose no health risk to exposed non-smokers, they should still not be allowed wherever smoking conventional cigarettes is prohibited. To do otherwise would create serious smoke-free air enforcement problems."
"James Repace: The most important new item for FDA to address (I have already submitted this comment to FDA) is E-Cigarette research and regulation. I have outlined a research program to investigate the claims that E-cigarettes can be smoked anywhere, including areas where tobacco smoking is currently banned, including aircraft cabins. It is obvious that E-cigarettes emit an aerosol when puffed. Aerosol in the outdoor air (PM2.5) is a regulated air pollutant with no known threshold for acute and chronic effects on the cardiovascular system. It may also contain ultrafine particles, and does contain VOCs of various sorts, including nicotine, which is a known toxin. It is also known that air pollution affects people differently depending upon their health status and sensitivity. The hypothesis being advanced by proponents is that there are no acute or chronic health effects or air pollution impacts if these devices are used in currently smoke-free areas. So a research program would start by collecting multiple samples of each of the 2 dozen or so brands currently being marketed and analyzing the E-liquids in them. Next, multiple tests would be run on the devices when they are smoked under controlled circumstances in an experimental chamber to determine emission factors for each of the components of toxicological interest, including carcinogenic potency. In this manner, the standard mass-balance model can be used to predict their concentrations in occupied spaces. Next, panels of healthy nonsmokers and sensitive nonsmokers would be employed to test the odor, irritation, and cardiorespiratory impacts of exposure to E-cigarette vapor, using standard butanol wheel, eye-blink, pulmonary function, and heart rate variability tests. This would allow public policy to be based on science, rather than speculation. Of course, such studies would involve multi-million dollar research grants and multidisciplinary researchers involved. Then the peer-reviewed and journal-published data would be reviewed by impartial expert panels of national and international agencies. I submit that this would be the intelligent way to make a public health policy decision involving exposure of infants, children, elderly persons, and those with cardiorespiratory conditions to products of currently unknown composition and unknown interaction with the hundreds of existing air pollutants in indoor air. Until this is done, it is only prudent to keep E-cigarettes out of smoke-free zones."
With smoking being the primary area of concern, these two are focused on the E-cig and I don't think it matters if they contain nicotine. Multi-million dollar scientific studies and years and years of research? BP or BT need only apply.
The other thing that bothers me from reading about this group is the continued use of taxes as a weapon against smokers which carries over to other forms of tobacco use. First, this is a discriminating action against a minority group, tobacco users. I'm sure it hasn't gone unnoticed that the moment they started talking about putting a small tax on sodas and unhealthy juice drinks there was outrage even though it is obvious that these products are promoting obesity, health risks and early death for many people. Could you imagine if they added a buck or two of taxes to that six pack of coke and bottles of caffeinated energy drink? A war might break out.
There is a point of diminishing return with cigarette taxes especially where you start pushing the limits of societies combined budgets. When do we start turning the majority of smokers into criminals buying black market smokes? Then as the cash cow starts disappearing from government's bottom line, they start throwing those nicotine "drug" users in jail for possession (and guess who pays to keep them there) and increasing the taxes on the 99% better alternative tobacco products.
How much more can the smoker pay? If smoking is most common among the lower economic classes, how much can they pay- $10 a pack or $20. Two hours work for a pack of cigs? You want science based regulations? Great use science to establish levels of risk and establish sin taxes based on that risk. If smoking is 95 or 99% more risky than using smokeless or E-cigs make smoking pay the tax freight and let people know why they're paying the freight. If that Big Mac or that soda or whatever has more society risk than smokeless, tax them at a higher rate. Just stop this discriminating attack on smokers. Excuse me, tobacco users and those that look like they're smoking.
