Why are Governments trying to BAN e-cigs when they are actually helping people!?
- Thread starter Smok3man
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
What's even more maddening is that those choices were made for you based on health risks that might have been unfounded.
Passive smoking – another of the Nanny State's big lies – Telegraph Blogs
I agree that the risks of "passive smoking" have been overstated. There are some technical issues with the study by Kabat and Enstrom that weaken its conclusions a bit, if I remember this rightly. I don't dismiss the study, I just take it with a grain of salt. I bet someone will follow up on this.
Good evening Edd
I don't think unregulated markets for things people put into their bodies work...
I think the supply chain is too convoluted, and the number of people who will always go for cheap or unknown options is too large. I think it's one of those situations where *to some extent* you really need to "save people from themselves".
The fact is, if you're a vendor who's buying from ingredient supplier A, and supplier B comes onto the scene selling the same ingredient cheaper, you have massive market pressure to make the switch. Even if you don't, other vendors will spring up who will, and will undercut you. What's supplier B's purity? Are you gonna test it yourself? Is every company? That isn't efficient - it makes more sense for the state to do it.
The Devil is in the detail, as always. Cloying regulation helps nobody. But we manage to eat a diverse range of food with a fairly good regulatory system, which manages to do things like check purity, and evaluate safety of novel products, without stifling inventiveness or competition.
I don't see why e-liquid is different, and has to be a 'Wild West' to work effectively.
Yeah, I'm completely bored with this argument at the moment, so this is all I'll say: you need to Google Enstrom and Kabat. They're paid industry hacks, and the study is wrong.
I'm not sure there are any unambiguous examples of 'gateway effects', personally. I don't think you can ever control for confounders. Anyway, we can't talk about that properly due to forum rules, so I'd say it's enough to say "hopefully the data will speak loud enough".
Who's this "they" who knows what's in e-liquid? Why aren't they telling us?
I think e-liquid sold *in the UK* has to be certified as having food standard ingredients, though I'm not 100% on that.
I think that's pretty much an adequate level of regulation, with the proviso that it'd be nice if there were a body tasked specifically with establishing which ingredients are inhalation safe, and I'm not seeing the industry do that, so I guess it has to be government. I'd like to see mandatory warnings on things with some health effects, like cinnamon.
But if you're telling me it's better if there's no regulation, I've got to disagree. This is big business, and people will start getting inventive with what they put in it, both to make the product more appealing and to cut corners. There will be some nasty scares, I am sure. We've already had diketones and a few incidents with mislabelling of nicotine strength. I hope it doesn't get much worse than that, but over enough time, accidents and profit motives happen...
the they is us.vaporisers have been used as medical devises for at least 20 years.
an ecig is just an inahaler with a coil to steam the liquid.
the raw ingredients are the same.
everything has allready been tested add infinum as being safe.
here in the usa we have vendors that certify they only use fda or pharmaceutical grade ingredients.
if there putting weird stuff in the juice over there i'd be concerned if i was you.
no reputable vendor would do that.
as for regulation,certification of ingredients yes. that should'nt mean flavorings and refillable devices.
mixing ejuice is not rocket science but i think a certification of the person actually doing the mixing
would be appropriate.
the problem as i see it is they have to find a way to make the whole industry look and the product
look so bad as to have a reason to tax the beejeebers out of it and kill all competition except bt.
regards
mike
p.s. just as an aside spell checker recommended beekeepers as the correct spelling of bejeebers.
Good evening Edd
I don't think unregulated markets for things people put into their bodies work...
I think the supply chain is too convoluted, and the number of people who will always go for cheap or unknown options is too large. I think it's one of those situations where *to some extent* you really need to "save people from themselves".
The fact is, if you're a vendor who's buying from ingredient supplier A, and supplier B comes onto the scene selling the same ingredient cheaper, you have massive market pressure to make the switch. Even if you don't, other vendors will spring up who will, and will undercut you. What's supplier B's purity? Are you gonna test it yourself? Is every company? That isn't efficient - it makes more sense for the state to do it.
The Devil is in the detail, as always. Cloying regulation helps nobody. But we manage to eat a diverse range of food with a fairly good regulatory system, which manages to do things like check purity, and evaluate safety of novel products, without stifling inventiveness or competition.
I don't see why e-liquid is different, and has to be a 'Wild West' to work effectively.
I knew I was gonna get some of your pro-regulatory propaganda...I should have fully retracted it. Now the barn door is open. I really find this topic to be very dull.
The FDA keeps our food safe? I dunno, I guess you can always say, "well sure some people get sick and eat feces, but if the FDA weren't there it would be much, much worse". In any case, the food testing is here to stay whether I like it or not. What we are talking about is e-liquid safety. Considering the size of the market and the amount of juice being sold, the safety record of the "Wild West" is quite impressive. I think there may be room for compromise on this one, but more importantly....
I am creating Edd's first law of the Wild West:
What do you think, GM?
Last edited:
Well, in fairness I did a bit of economics at uni, and 'Wild West capitalism' is a fairly commonly used idiom to describe unregulated expanding markets.
I realise we've done OK so far, but I think that's because the profits are so mind-meltingly high there's no incentive to undercut. You can sell as much as you can make.
Once the market saturates and matures, I suspect we'll begin having problems without some legal protections in place. Of course, I suspect the level of regulation will vary from country to country, and will be adjusted as needed over time as well.
I realise we've done OK so far, but I think that's because the profits are so mind-meltingly high there's no incentive to undercut. You can sell as much as you can make.
Once the market saturates and matures, I suspect we'll begin having problems without some legal protections in place. Of course, I suspect the level of regulation will vary from country to country, and will be adjusted as needed over time as well.
Economics...I know a bit myself, being educated in it (albeit some time ago). Allow me to retort!
Since vaping is a rapidly expanding market which could not fully "mature" until say 2025 or so...maybe it makes sense to hold of on regulation a bit longer, eh?
Anyone who has actually read or studied the constitution and the intent behind it should be as angry as I am every time they see a reference to the government "allowing" something. The government wasn't designed to allow us to do things, it was designed for us to allow the government to do things. And sadly, we've allowed ourselves to allow the government to be expected to allow us to do things.
James E Enstrom, researcher - School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles
Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor - Department of Preventive Medicine, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY
Unfortunately, from what I can see, their main detractor is: James L. Repace, Visiting Asst. Clinical Prof., Tufts Univ. School of Medicine, Dept. of Public Health - secondhand smoke consultant, who has testified in litigation involving injury from secondhand smoke exposure.
Any evidence they're hacks? (links?) 'cause I'm not seeing it - just a lot of ambulance-chasers trying to shoot them down
*meh* forget it - can't get a clear picture from either side - yes, they have some interests in shs research from BT sponsors but they're also being shot down by ANTZ - certainly there's evidence that anti-smoking studies on shs have omitted a great deal of important data.
Last edited:
It's a cost benefit analysis, as always, isn't it.
I personally think the additional cost of putting e-liquid under the umbrella of food-type regulations isn't that big, and does provide some peace of mind about contamination.
If there's one thing this forum proves, it's that consumers *do not do the research* before they purchase. How many posts do we get saying "I paid $178 for this 510 kit with a proprietary charger, and the cartridges only last 20 minutes. What am I doing wrong?"
Inhalation safety of ingredients is a *massively* complex subject, and needs huge amounts of cash thrown at it. It needs to happen, and I can't see any way of making it happen apart from taxing and regulating the liquid.
It's weakened by the fact that they were paid by Philip Morrison IMHO. Also, that Phillip Morrison also contributed money to groups like the Cato Institution. The same money trail that may weaken a scientific view if the study was funded by the government can also be applied to studies that are funded by one of the largest lobbying groups in America I would think...
...
Any evidence they're hacks? (links?) 'cause I'm not seeing it - just a lot of ambulance-chasers trying to shoot them down
Responding to the Enstrom and Kabat Study on Secondhand Smoke - no-smoke.org
http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_199.pdf
James E. Enstrom - SourceWatch
Document Site <- search for either, they both show up as heavily involved for decades
http://www.library.ucsf.edu/sites/all/files/ucsf_assets/uspm.pdf <- go to page 874 of this document. It's damning.
If I remember, it is a bit more complex than that. It was originally funded by ALA or some other anti-smoking group, it doesn't matter who. Let's call them <health group X>. Then there was some indication of where the study was going, and so <health group X> pulled its funding, forcing Engstrom and Kabat to get funding elsewhere. They turned to Phillip Morris and got some cash. They also did not attempt to allow for passive smoke at the work place, only at home, so the relationships were "blurred".
It is a decent study with some flaws in its methodology, regardless of funding sources. I don't classify the authors as hacks like GM does, but, he shoots from the hip sometimes. What do you expect, he's a CRAB!
Okay, those are technically lobsters....but you get the drift...
Last edited:
We cannot, nor should we, save fools from themselves. In any case, I think the cost greatly outweighs the benefit at this time.
Yes, I have tried their e-liquids. I am keen on one flavour in particular. I wasn't aware they were in ECITA; although I'm not a fan of ECITA, that is good news for them. No issues with them at all, apart from the 3rd party vendors shouldn't be making claims that are not true. There are no liquids and no ecigs in general approved by the government.
I'm pleased you like them.
I believe the ACS have stated that they were told from the start that it wasn't appropriate to use the data for that. I believe there was better (less confounded) data available, which they had access to, and deliberately ignored.
They have made no attempt to repeat their study without repeating the massive flaws, which indicates to me that the flaws are perfectly deliberate, because the flaws are what gets them the desired result.
It's really not like they couldn't get funds to repeat it...
And you trust the people at no-smoke and ASH not to have an agenda here? I read the PDF and yeah - their research has been sponsored by BT but then again, research debunking these guys has been done by Stanton Glantz who seems to me like a pathological liar for the ANTZ. There's nothing there that gives the anti-smokers any more credibility than the pro-smokers.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
