15 ms·

Right. But if the availability of these devices leads to lower levels of smoking (and my understanding is that it does), safer is what matters, no?

by itp 10y ago

scott_s 10y ago
Agreed. But I think they should still be regulated. (I'm not certain they should be regulated the same as cigarettes, though.)
- smokeyj 10y ago
  To make sure e-cigs properly induce cancer and life long addiction? Does regulation serve an actual purpose, or just a silly exercise in obedience directed by their corporate overlords..
  - scott_s 10y ago
    Nicotine is a drug, and should be regulated at least as other over-the-counter drugs are. It's also important to keep in mind that the liquid nicotine used by the e-cig is concentrated and toxic: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-by-the-barrel-liquid-nicotine-for-e-cigarettes.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-...
    - Zigurd 10y ago
      Should nicotine be more regulated than caffeine?
      - scott_s 10y ago
        I think on par with caffeine makes sense - but keep in mind that the relevant comparison here is not a can of Coke, but a bottle of caffeine pills. The latter has stricter standards than the former.
        Zigurd 10y ago
        For about $30 you can buy enough caffeine powder to kill a horse. Not highly regulated.
        joeyo 10y ago
        The regulation doesn't make it expensive; the regulation ensures that it is pure.
        scott_s 10y ago
        Yes, thank you. Regulation is why when you buy, say, ibuprofen from the drug store, you are confident that it is actually ibuprofen. Because it is a drug, it is held to different standards than, say, strawberries by the FDA. I think the problem here is that people use "regulation" as a synonym for "hard to get", but that's not what it means. Yes, part of regulation is in controlling consumer access, but regulation also applies to the manufacturing and distribution of the drug. It's also worth noting that in the future, the FDA may enact stricter controls on powdered caffeine: http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm460097.htm http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm460...
        pandaman 10y ago
        So instant coffee should be regulated by FDA? What about table salt? Also sold in deadly amounts everywhere. Vinegar? I am not even talking about toxic common household chemicals - just the food items, directly intended for consumption. I have no doubt FDA would love to regulate all of the above but it's specifically prevented from this. AFAIK it cannot regulate substances, which were in use when FDA was established. I hope somebody takes them to court since nicotine had been in use long before FDA.
        scott_s 10y ago
        Technically, all of that is regulated by the FDA, since food safety is part of their mandate. But they don't have extra regulations when caffeine is naturally occurring in a food. They do, however, have extra regulations when caffeine is added to a food (such as energy drinks), and part of that regulation says how much caffeine can be added. I think people are confusing "regulation" with "I need a doctor's prescription to buy". Caffeine is already regulated by the FDA.
    - ambulancechaser 10y ago
      It is a drug as is caffeine and dextromethorphan. The former is marketed (to children!) and shown to be enjoyed by characters in popular television shows; the latter is sold in general stores, not necessarily just pharmacies. It is the ingredient in dayquil. Nicotine is a mild stimulant just like caffeine. I'm trying to find studies that compare it but I can only find scientific american and sky news stories that just say that many argue that nicotine is no more bad for you than caffeine.
      - scott_s 10y ago
        I'm not clear on this point: do you think we are in disagreement? Both of the drugs you listed are regulated by the FDA. There is also a big difference between a can of Coke and a bottle of caffeine pills. The latter is similar to the vials of liquid nicotine (which are toxic, since they are are concentrations well above the standard dose).
  - dmethvin 10y ago
    I sympathize with the libertarian "I should be able to decide what I put in my body" but the fact is that right now anyone using e-cigs has no idea what's in that juice they fill their devices with. Studies have found some pretty nasty stuff in there (besides the nicotine) including diacetyl. If you want to encounter corporate overlords, try suing them after the fact for destroying your lungs. They will argue you knew it's dangerous and you decided to put it in your body.
    - smokeyj 10y ago
      The point is we have a drug that's known to be addictive and cancerous - and it's sold over the counter. Smokers don't know what's in a cigarette and they don't care. So in this grand equation - exactly how does regulation benefit anyone besides the tobacco industry and their crony bureaucrats? The word regulatory capture comes to mind.
    - mistermann 10y ago
      > the fact is that right now anyone using e-cigs has no idea what's in that juice they fill their devices with. The majority of mainstream manufacturers are very straightforward about EXACTLY is in their juice, and the industry has been very responsible with self-regulation, such as with diacetyl which seems to be a genuine possible risk and is now largely avoided.
chime 10y ago
I was at a theme park last month with my toddler, sitting on a bench in no-smoking area and this lady came over and started smoking an e-cig right next to us. When I pointed out to her the smoking area about 200 feet away from us, she said "Oh don't worry. These are totally safe for the little one!" I smiled politely, said "Have a good day" and walked away without making a fuss. As to your point, they may be safer than regular cigarettes but what's even safer is not smoking anything around me or my family. I don't how safe they are because there are no regulations [1]. If the vapers think they are safe enough to be used in close proximity to toddlers, then the e-cig companies have done a fantastic job of marketing. I'm totally ok with FDA regulating them. 1. http://www.babycentre.co.uk/x25008143/is-it-safe-to-use-e-cigarettes-around-my-baby http://www.babycentre.co.uk/x25008143/is-it-safe-to-use-e-ci...
- jacobolus 10y ago
  Worrying about e-cigarettes outdoors seems like an overreaction, compared to thousands of other more serious environmental toxins we all face every day. (Frankly worrying about regular cigarettes outdoors also is an overreaction, but smokers have been very effectively demonized in our culture.) I guess turning the issue into a black-and-white binary is easier than reasoning about dosage.
  - ubercore 10y ago
    I feel like the concern there would directly be secondhand nicotine in the vapor, which is particularly neurotoxic to developing brains [1]. Feels like a pretty reasonable concern to me, with a child around? [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746456/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746456/
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - dmix 10y ago
      Except the amount of nicotine indoors is far less than cigarettes. I'd imagine outside is almost nil. > The emissions discharge water, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nicotine into indoor air at levels far lower than found with tobacco cigarettes (Schripp et al., 2013). http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_528.php http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_528.php In addition, e-cigarettes dont always have nicotine and often have lower amounts than cigarettes. Further making the fear of momentarily sitting near someone smoking an e-cigarette outside almost irrational in terms of health risks. In terms of not wanting vapor being blown in your face, then I agree there is a social etiquette that should be respected.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> But if the availability of these devices leads to lower levels of smoking (and my understanding is that it does), safer is what matters, no? If safer is what matters, then it matters not only whether it leads to a lower volume of smoking but whether the (volume of smoking) × (harm from smoking) + (volume of vaping) × (harm from vaping) is lower under one regime than another. Its possible for the "no vaping" case to be safer in total than the "with vaping" case, even if the harm from vaping is lower and the volume of smoking is lower with vaping available.

Right. But if the availability of these devices leads to lower levels of smoking (and my understanding is that it does), safer is what matters, no?

by itp 10y ago

Right. But if the availability of these devices leads to lower levels of smoking (and my understanding is that it does), safer is what matters, no?

scott_s 10y ago

Agreed. But I think they should still be regulated. (I'm not certain they should be regulated the same as cigarettes, though.)

smokeyj 10y ago
To make sure e-cigs properly induce cancer and life long addiction? Does regulation serve an actual purpose, or just a silly exercise in obedience directed by their corporate overlords..
- scott_s 10y ago
  Nicotine is a drug, and should be regulated at least as other over-the-counter drugs are. It's also important to keep in mind that the liquid nicotine used by the e-cig is concentrated and toxic: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-by-the-barrel-liquid-nicotine-for-e-cigarettes.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-...
  - Zigurd 10y ago
    Should nicotine be more regulated than caffeine?
    - scott_s 10y ago
      I think on par with caffeine makes sense - but keep in mind that the relevant comparison here is not a can of Coke, but a bottle of caffeine pills. The latter has stricter standards than the former.
      - Zigurd 10y ago
        For about $30 you can buy enough caffeine powder to kill a horse. Not highly regulated.
        joeyo 10y ago
        The regulation doesn't make it expensive; the regulation ensures that it is pure.
        scott_s 10y ago
        Yes, thank you. Regulation is why when you buy, say, ibuprofen from the drug store, you are confident that it is actually ibuprofen. Because it is a drug, it is held to different standards than, say, strawberries by the FDA. I think the problem here is that people use "regulation" as a synonym for "hard to get", but that's not what it means. Yes, part of regulation is in controlling consumer access, but regulation also applies to the manufacturing and distribution of the drug. It's also worth noting that in the future, the FDA may enact stricter controls on powdered caffeine: http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm460097.htm http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm460...
      - pandaman 10y ago
        So instant coffee should be regulated by FDA? What about table salt? Also sold in deadly amounts everywhere. Vinegar? I am not even talking about toxic common household chemicals - just the food items, directly intended for consumption. I have no doubt FDA would love to regulate all of the above but it's specifically prevented from this. AFAIK it cannot regulate substances, which were in use when FDA was established. I hope somebody takes them to court since nicotine had been in use long before FDA.
        scott_s 10y ago
        Technically, all of that is regulated by the FDA, since food safety is part of their mandate. But they don't have extra regulations when caffeine is naturally occurring in a food. They do, however, have extra regulations when caffeine is added to a food (such as energy drinks), and part of that regulation says how much caffeine can be added. I think people are confusing "regulation" with "I need a doctor's prescription to buy". Caffeine is already regulated by the FDA.
  - ambulancechaser 10y ago
    It is a drug as is caffeine and dextromethorphan. The former is marketed (to children!) and shown to be enjoyed by characters in popular television shows; the latter is sold in general stores, not necessarily just pharmacies. It is the ingredient in dayquil. Nicotine is a mild stimulant just like caffeine. I'm trying to find studies that compare it but I can only find scientific american and sky news stories that just say that many argue that nicotine is no more bad for you than caffeine.
    - scott_s 10y ago
      I'm not clear on this point: do you think we are in disagreement? Both of the drugs you listed are regulated by the FDA. There is also a big difference between a can of Coke and a bottle of caffeine pills. The latter is similar to the vials of liquid nicotine (which are toxic, since they are are concentrations well above the standard dose).
- dmethvin 10y ago
  I sympathize with the libertarian "I should be able to decide what I put in my body" but the fact is that right now anyone using e-cigs has no idea what's in that juice they fill their devices with. Studies have found some pretty nasty stuff in there (besides the nicotine) including diacetyl. If you want to encounter corporate overlords, try suing them after the fact for destroying your lungs. They will argue you knew it's dangerous and you decided to put it in your body.
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    The point is we have a drug that's known to be addictive and cancerous - and it's sold over the counter. Smokers don't know what's in a cigarette and they don't care. So in this grand equation - exactly how does regulation benefit anyone besides the tobacco industry and their crony bureaucrats? The word regulatory capture comes to mind.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    > the fact is that right now anyone using e-cigs has no idea what's in that juice they fill their devices with. The majority of mainstream manufacturers are very straightforward about EXACTLY is in their juice, and the industry has been very responsible with self-regulation, such as with diacetyl which seems to be a genuine possible risk and is now largely avoided.

chime 10y ago

I was at a theme park last month with my toddler, sitting on a bench in no-smoking area and this lady came over and started smoking an e-cig right next to us. When I pointed out to her the smoking area about 200 feet away from us, she said "Oh don't worry. These are totally safe for the little one!" I smiled politely, said "Have a good day" and walked away without making a fuss. As to your point, they may be safer than regular cigarettes but what's even safer is not smoking anything around me or my family. I don't how safe they are because there are no regulations [1]. If the vapers think they are safe enough to be used in close proximity to toddlers, then the e-cig companies have done a fantastic job of marketing. I'm totally ok with FDA regulating them. 1. http://www.babycentre.co.uk/x25008143/is-it-safe-to-use-e-cigarettes-around-my-baby http://www.babycentre.co.uk/x25008143/is-it-safe-to-use-e-ci...

jacobolus 10y ago
Worrying about e-cigarettes outdoors seems like an overreaction, compared to thousands of other more serious environmental toxins we all face every day. (Frankly worrying about regular cigarettes outdoors also is an overreaction, but smokers have been very effectively demonized in our culture.) I guess turning the issue into a black-and-white binary is easier than reasoning about dosage.
- ubercore 10y ago
  I feel like the concern there would directly be secondhand nicotine in the vapor, which is particularly neurotoxic to developing brains [1]. Feels like a pretty reasonable concern to me, with a child around? [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746456/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746456/
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dmix 10y ago
    Except the amount of nicotine indoors is far less than cigarettes. I'd imagine outside is almost nil. > The emissions discharge water, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nicotine into indoor air at levels far lower than found with tobacco cigarettes (Schripp et al., 2013). http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_528.php http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_528.php In addition, e-cigarettes dont always have nicotine and often have lower amounts than cigarettes. Further making the fear of momentarily sitting near someone smoking an e-cigarette outside almost irrational in terms of health risks. In terms of not wanting vapor being blown in your face, then I agree there is a social etiquette that should be respected.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> But if the availability of these devices leads to lower levels of smoking (and my understanding is that it does), safer is what matters, no? If safer is what matters, then it matters not only whether it leads to a lower volume of smoking but whether the (volume of smoking) × (harm from smoking) + (volume of vaping) × (harm from vaping) is lower under one regime than another. Its possible for the "no vaping" case to be safer in total than the "with vaping" case, even if the harm from vaping is lower and the volume of smoking is lower with vaping available.