7 ms·

While I'm both an avid user of e-cigarettes and I'm not eager to use them for harm minimization, their banning would be deeply concerning to me. It has not been

While I'm both an avid user of e-cigarettes and I'm not eager to use them for harm minimization, their banning would be deeply concerning to me. It has not been demonstrated that they are a health risk, and it is vanishingly unlikely their health profile is anywhere near that of combusted tobacco, so banning it would amount to a dogmatic fear of nicotine. Which again, might not be so terrible given how little is understood about the drug. It can certainly be life-destroying if you smoke to get it.

ehnto 10y ago
In the context of cigarrettes, it's easy to see why they banned it first. Cigarettes hadn't been demonstrated to do harm either. I hope though that the ban would be lifted if studies can show that they are not harmful. My intuition is on your side though, I imagine they are far less damaging than normal cigarettes.
- dublinben 10y ago
  >Cigarettes hadn't been demonstrated to do harm either Of course they have. There has been solid evidence of the harm of tobacco cigarettes for decades. Smoking bans are well supported by the evidence. Any restrictions on e-cigarettes is not.
  - ehnto 10y ago
    You missed the tense. When cigarettes became popular they weren't banned right away because we had no idea they would become harmful. Of course we know differently now. In this case, we are erring on the side of caution and banning e-cigs until they are further studied. Learning from our mistakes.
    - diamondlovesyou 10y ago
      Banning something is a good way to prevent such studies from ever happening. Also, they aren't banned. The FDA just made it so small businesses wouldn't be able to make the ecig products (basically). Big tabacco, however, is able to take the hit. Take it how you will.
    - Laforet 10y ago
      The physiological effect of nicotine use is pretty well established as in the case of alcohol and IMO it makes no sense to ban ecigs while allowing other forms of tobacco to be sold.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  The problem with banning ecigs are that there are people who are currently smoking, who now can't go to ecigs because you banned them and so they continue to smoke normal cigs. They typically don't quit.
  - dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago
    Yup. The recent vice (tobacco) tax laws that target e-cigarettes were (in many cases) a hit job by big tobacco to ensure continued cigarette profits. The only e-cigarette vendors that will continue to exist in two years are the ones you see in gas stations, a truly terrible product with massive profit margins typically owned by big tobacco.
  - ehnto 10y ago
    I understand that side of the issue for sure. If ecigs are really healthier I see no reason not to have them on the market. But I can understand why regulators are not in a hurry to let an untested and unregulated product roam free. Keep in mind this article is about Australia too. We have a much tighter and more strict food and consumables regulatory body which has typically served us well. It wouldn't make sense for us to strongly fight against cigarettes and then just let some new inhaled product on the market without studies showing they're okay. Another part of the regulation impetus was that they were uncertified electronic devices which no matter the purpose is fairly tightly regulated as well.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Certainly far less damaging than cigarettes. Nicotine itself does have problems. It is, after all, a pesticide.
- hug 10y ago
  The last line by itself is a non-argument: Caffeine is also a pesticide, and about as dangerous in and of itself as nicotine is -- and yet no one is rallying around a cry to ban coffee. Assuming that e-cigarettes result in a lowered level of cigarette smoking, banning e-cigarettes sounds a lot like perfect being the enemy of good.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  The dose is still the poison.
taneq 10y ago
> banning [e-cigs] would amount to a dogmatic fear of nicotine. And yet nicotine patches are widely and cheaply available and unstigmatized. I'd guess that it's more due to the fact that e-cigs look like normal cigarettes.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  No ecigs blow their garbage in my face. Use all the nicotine patches you want. Literally coat your body in them. I just don't have to inhale the vapors. I have 0 interest in inhaling your exit vapors.
  - zepolen 10y ago
    I could say the same thing about your vehicle exhaust, which unlike ecig vapor, is bad for your health.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Vehicle exhaust is regulated. If it's not strict enough for your liking, work to have the regulations strengthened.
      - nske 10y ago
        Vehicle exhaust is regulated only because it has been proven to be harmful. Why should something be regulated otherwise?
        grzm 10y ago
        We also regulate things that are only nuisances. Elsewhere in this thread are examples of where perfume and barbecue smoke are regulated. We have noise ordinances, too.
        nske 10y ago
        Noise ordinances to the measure that the noise becomes really disruptive, as in, people can't sleep or function because of it. That is reasonable and regulating is happening only to the extent necessary to prevent this. If it was handled the way Vaping is handled in Australia, there would be blanket ban on music at public places, for example. Vaping is primarily a nuisance to those that (correctly) learned to consider smoke (but also, unfortunately, whatever looks like smoke) as something negative, due to decades of anti-smoking campaigns. It looks like smoke so it's bound to be bad. Anti-smoking campaigns and legislation exist not because smoking is a nuisance, but because it causes real health issues. Perfume is not really regulated by legislation in public spaces (unless there is some edge-case that I'm missing), obviously it can be regulated internally, as part of a private work policy for example -the same way that dressing code does. Totally different matter. Barbeque smoke, like any smoke, is harmful, so I don't think we should compare it either. If vaping becomes a disturbance to the extent that it needs to be regulated, any regulating should be done completely independently of any superficial similarities to smoking, based solely on facts relevant to the actual disturbance. The fact that most arguments I see are based on the possibility of unknown health effects -even though there is no evidence for such- and not on the fact that it is otherwise disturbing, to me indicates that it's no more disturbing than dozens of other things that are allowed in public places but nobody dares propose that they should be banned by law.
vilmosi 10y ago
>>> It has not been demonstrated that they are a health risk It has not been demonstrated they are completely safe either. Some countries take your approach, others a more conservative one.
- dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago
  > It has not been demonstrated they are completely safe either This holds for any substance in existence. Yes, that's fairly pedantic, but I think it demonstrates the lack of any argument for banning it based on solid health research.
  - vilmosi 10y ago
    You're right, that is fairly pedantic. Nothing can be proven 100% safe (except maybe water?). That doesn't mean a more conservative approach shouldn't be taken when new products enter the market for user consumption.

ehnto 10y ago

In the context of cigarrettes, it's easy to see why they banned it first. Cigarettes hadn't been demonstrated to do harm either. I hope though that the ban would be lifted if studies can show that they are not harmful. My intuition is on your side though, I imagine they are far less damaging than normal cigarettes.

dublinben 10y ago
>Cigarettes hadn't been demonstrated to do harm either Of course they have. There has been solid evidence of the harm of tobacco cigarettes for decades. Smoking bans are well supported by the evidence. Any restrictions on e-cigarettes is not.
- ehnto 10y ago
  You missed the tense. When cigarettes became popular they weren't banned right away because we had no idea they would become harmful. Of course we know differently now. In this case, we are erring on the side of caution and banning e-cigs until they are further studied. Learning from our mistakes.
  - diamondlovesyou 10y ago
    Banning something is a good way to prevent such studies from ever happening. Also, they aren't banned. The FDA just made it so small businesses wouldn't be able to make the ecig products (basically). Big tabacco, however, is able to take the hit. Take it how you will.
  - Laforet 10y ago
    The physiological effect of nicotine use is pretty well established as in the case of alcohol and IMO it makes no sense to ban ecigs while allowing other forms of tobacco to be sold.
tomjen3 10y ago
The problem with banning ecigs are that there are people who are currently smoking, who now can't go to ecigs because you banned them and so they continue to smoke normal cigs. They typically don't quit.
- dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago
  Yup. The recent vice (tobacco) tax laws that target e-cigarettes were (in many cases) a hit job by big tobacco to ensure continued cigarette profits. The only e-cigarette vendors that will continue to exist in two years are the ones you see in gas stations, a truly terrible product with massive profit margins typically owned by big tobacco.
- ehnto 10y ago
  I understand that side of the issue for sure. If ecigs are really healthier I see no reason not to have them on the market. But I can understand why regulators are not in a hurry to let an untested and unregulated product roam free. Keep in mind this article is about Australia too. We have a much tighter and more strict food and consumables regulatory body which has typically served us well. It wouldn't make sense for us to strongly fight against cigarettes and then just let some new inhaled product on the market without studies showing they're okay. Another part of the regulation impetus was that they were uncertified electronic devices which no matter the purpose is fairly tightly regulated as well.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

Certainly far less damaging than cigarettes. Nicotine itself does have problems. It is, after all, a pesticide.

hug 10y ago
The last line by itself is a non-argument: Caffeine is also a pesticide, and about as dangerous in and of itself as nicotine is -- and yet no one is rallying around a cry to ban coffee. Assuming that e-cigarettes result in a lowered level of cigarette smoking, banning e-cigarettes sounds a lot like perfect being the enemy of good.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
The dose is still the poison.

taneq 10y ago

> banning [e-cigs] would amount to a dogmatic fear of nicotine. And yet nicotine patches are widely and cheaply available and unstigmatized. I'd guess that it's more due to the fact that e-cigs look like normal cigarettes.

brianwawok 10y ago
No ecigs blow their garbage in my face. Use all the nicotine patches you want. Literally coat your body in them. I just don't have to inhale the vapors. I have 0 interest in inhaling your exit vapors.
- zepolen 10y ago
  I could say the same thing about your vehicle exhaust, which unlike ecig vapor, is bad for your health.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Vehicle exhaust is regulated. If it's not strict enough for your liking, work to have the regulations strengthened.
    - nske 10y ago
      Vehicle exhaust is regulated only because it has been proven to be harmful. Why should something be regulated otherwise?
      - grzm 10y ago
        We also regulate things that are only nuisances. Elsewhere in this thread are examples of where perfume and barbecue smoke are regulated. We have noise ordinances, too.
        nske 10y ago
        Noise ordinances to the measure that the noise becomes really disruptive, as in, people can't sleep or function because of it. That is reasonable and regulating is happening only to the extent necessary to prevent this. If it was handled the way Vaping is handled in Australia, there would be blanket ban on music at public places, for example. Vaping is primarily a nuisance to those that (correctly) learned to consider smoke (but also, unfortunately, whatever looks like smoke) as something negative, due to decades of anti-smoking campaigns. It looks like smoke so it's bound to be bad. Anti-smoking campaigns and legislation exist not because smoking is a nuisance, but because it causes real health issues. Perfume is not really regulated by legislation in public spaces (unless there is some edge-case that I'm missing), obviously it can be regulated internally, as part of a private work policy for example -the same way that dressing code does. Totally different matter. Barbeque smoke, like any smoke, is harmful, so I don't think we should compare it either. If vaping becomes a disturbance to the extent that it needs to be regulated, any regulating should be done completely independently of any superficial similarities to smoking, based solely on facts relevant to the actual disturbance. The fact that most arguments I see are based on the possibility of unknown health effects -even though there is no evidence for such- and not on the fact that it is otherwise disturbing, to me indicates that it's no more disturbing than dozens of other things that are allowed in public places but nobody dares propose that they should be banned by law.

vilmosi 10y ago

>>> It has not been demonstrated that they are a health risk It has not been demonstrated they are completely safe either. Some countries take your approach, others a more conservative one.

dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago
> It has not been demonstrated they are completely safe either This holds for any substance in existence. Yes, that's fairly pedantic, but I think it demonstrates the lack of any argument for banning it based on solid health research.
- vilmosi 10y ago
  You're right, that is fairly pedantic. Nothing can be proven 100% safe (except maybe water?). That doesn't mean a more conservative approach shouldn't be taken when new products enter the market for user consumption.