6 ms·

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 t

by 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.
        pandaman 10y ago
        I think you are confusing food safety and "I need to be paid $1M+ if you want to sell this" shakedown.
        scott_s 10y ago
        I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. My contention is that these nicotine vials should be at least as regulated as other over-the-counter drugs, such as ibuprofen. Do you disagree with that? Or maybe we should back up even further. Are you ideologically opposed to all kinds of regulation, including the kind of regulation the FDA already applies to existing over-the-counter and prescription drugs?
        pandaman 10y ago
        >I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. My contention is that these nicotine vials should be at least as regulated as other over-the-counter drugs, such as ibuprofen. Do you disagree with that? Yes I do. The regulation in OP has nothing to do with safety and everything with giving the monopoly to the right people. If you are concerned about safety then the generic food/household chemicals safety protocols are applicable here. Nobody needs to go through FDA approval for the new vintage of every wine on the market. You can even blend different grapes! FDA has no say in this. More - safety is not a problem now. There are no reports of people suffering en masse from unregulated e-juice or premium cigars. Then, why exactly do they need to be regulated?
- 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.

by 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.
      - pandaman 10y ago
        I think you are confusing food safety and "I need to be paid $1M+ if you want to sell this" shakedown.
        scott_s 10y ago
        I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. My contention is that these nicotine vials should be at least as regulated as other over-the-counter drugs, such as ibuprofen. Do you disagree with that? Or maybe we should back up even further. Are you ideologically opposed to all kinds of regulation, including the kind of regulation the FDA already applies to existing over-the-counter and prescription drugs?
        pandaman 10y ago
        >I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. My contention is that these nicotine vials should be at least as regulated as other over-the-counter drugs, such as ibuprofen. Do you disagree with that? Yes I do. The regulation in OP has nothing to do with safety and everything with giving the monopoly to the right people. If you are concerned about safety then the generic food/household chemicals safety protocols are applicable here. Nobody needs to go through FDA approval for the new vintage of every wine on the market. You can even blend different grapes! FDA has no say in this. More - safety is not a problem now. There are no reports of people suffering en masse from unregulated e-juice or premium cigars. Then, why exactly do they need to be regulated?
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.