5 ms·

I've been vaping for about 10 years and would be happy to see tighter regulation of juices. Some of the stuff available is scary, and the purity is always up fo

I've been vaping for about 10 years and would be happy to see tighter regulation of juices. Some of the stuff available is scary, and the purity is always up for question. There simply isn't any framework for this kind of thing yet. It's not all that surprising people are getting injured

dmix 7y ago
I'm fine with this as a long time vape user as well. Or at least have a food safety type agency looking at the products and fining bad actors to create disincentives for mislabelling and poor/unhealthy ingredients. Of course many people are rushing to ban it before we fully understand it and like any controversial topic FUD is everywhere. But that doesn't mean careful small steps cant be made today. Vaping vials of THC in Long Island, NY, as what happened in this article, isn't something sold through legal channels AFAIK though so I'm not sure how much an agency could help with this specific problem (other than to highlight them). Everyone loves to bash Juul (which is a garbage product I'd never touch) and the big tobacco company which owns it, but there's tons of small mom-and-pop style juice makers, shops, and device manufacturers which run a big part of the Vaping industry. These are the ones who will be impacted the most by the policies so we should keep them in mind when designing policy and not let Juul and their lobbyists write the legislation, in response to Juuls own bad behaviour (as always seems to happen), so we only end up with Juul type big companies.
- mumblemumble 7y ago
  > Or at least have a food safety type agency looking at the products and fining bad actors to create disincentives for mislabelling and poor/unhealthy ingredients. That seems like a tricky needle to thread, though. How do you formulate a rubric that somehow places nicotine on the "fine to put into consumer products" bucket, while placing everything else that might hurt you in the "dangerous and should be banned" bucket?
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    The purpose of the government is not to ban everything that might hurt you. It’s simply made the decision that smoking is so harmful that it should be regulated. Just about anything can be harmful depending on how you consume it. Eat too much sugar? You’ll become obese. Eat no sugar at all, you’ll die. Nicotine by itself is not particularly harmful. It can have acute effects if you overdose on it, but it doesn’t cause cancer. The harmful part of cigarettes is all the burnt plant matter you’re inhaling. You don’t see anybody discussing the risks of nicotine patches or gum. I used vaping to quit smoking (and then eventually quit vaping). I’m sure vaping is better for me than smoking, and I’m sure not vaping is better for me than vaping. I’m all for safety regulations and more research to be done. But regulating or taxing the hell out of it just because it looks like smoking seems incredibly short sighted to me. Id want any regulation to be based on sound safety practices, and a legitimate understanding of the health affects.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      > Nicotine by itself is not particularly harmful. ... if being a highly addictive drug isn't considered harmful. Or being a teratogen. Or messing with sleep cycles. Or harming brain development. In utero nicotine increases the likelihood of hypertension and diabetes. No medical study considers nicotine harmless. Yes, it won't cause cancer. But that's not synonymous with "not particularly harmful".
      - AmericanChopper 7y ago
        I should have specified, for a fully developed adult. The risks of nicotine consumption alone are very low. Poor diet, poor physical activity, consuming alcohol, riding a skate board, walking on an icy sidewalk all present risks to your health. The role of government isn’t to prohibit anything that may cause you harm, because that’s just about everything. The reason vaping gets so much scrutiny is simply because it looks so much like smoking. Like I said, I think some safety regulation is a good idea. But “does this have any potential at all to cause harm” is not a reasonable threshold for regulating imo, and certainly not to the extent that tobacco is.
phillipseamore 7y ago
The EU started work on that in 2014 with new regulations that "set requirements on purity of ingredients, require that the devices deliver consistent doses of vapor [and] require disclosure of ingredients and nicotine content". Sadly most of the other EU regulations seem to be focused on limiting use and access instead of safety.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

dmix 7y ago

I'm fine with this as a long time vape user as well. Or at least have a food safety type agency looking at the products and fining bad actors to create disincentives for mislabelling and poor/unhealthy ingredients. Of course many people are rushing to ban it before we fully understand it and like any controversial topic FUD is everywhere. But that doesn't mean careful small steps cant be made today. Vaping vials of THC in Long Island, NY, as what happened in this article, isn't something sold through legal channels AFAIK though so I'm not sure how much an agency could help with this specific problem (other than to highlight them). Everyone loves to bash Juul (which is a garbage product I'd never touch) and the big tobacco company which owns it, but there's tons of small mom-and-pop style juice makers, shops, and device manufacturers which run a big part of the Vaping industry. These are the ones who will be impacted the most by the policies so we should keep them in mind when designing policy and not let Juul and their lobbyists write the legislation, in response to Juuls own bad behaviour (as always seems to happen), so we only end up with Juul type big companies.

mumblemumble 7y ago
> Or at least have a food safety type agency looking at the products and fining bad actors to create disincentives for mislabelling and poor/unhealthy ingredients. That seems like a tricky needle to thread, though. How do you formulate a rubric that somehow places nicotine on the "fine to put into consumer products" bucket, while placing everything else that might hurt you in the "dangerous and should be banned" bucket?
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  The purpose of the government is not to ban everything that might hurt you. It’s simply made the decision that smoking is so harmful that it should be regulated. Just about anything can be harmful depending on how you consume it. Eat too much sugar? You’ll become obese. Eat no sugar at all, you’ll die. Nicotine by itself is not particularly harmful. It can have acute effects if you overdose on it, but it doesn’t cause cancer. The harmful part of cigarettes is all the burnt plant matter you’re inhaling. You don’t see anybody discussing the risks of nicotine patches or gum. I used vaping to quit smoking (and then eventually quit vaping). I’m sure vaping is better for me than smoking, and I’m sure not vaping is better for me than vaping. I’m all for safety regulations and more research to be done. But regulating or taxing the hell out of it just because it looks like smoking seems incredibly short sighted to me. Id want any regulation to be based on sound safety practices, and a legitimate understanding of the health affects.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > Nicotine by itself is not particularly harmful. ... if being a highly addictive drug isn't considered harmful. Or being a teratogen. Or messing with sleep cycles. Or harming brain development. In utero nicotine increases the likelihood of hypertension and diabetes. No medical study considers nicotine harmless. Yes, it won't cause cancer. But that's not synonymous with "not particularly harmful".
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      I should have specified, for a fully developed adult. The risks of nicotine consumption alone are very low. Poor diet, poor physical activity, consuming alcohol, riding a skate board, walking on an icy sidewalk all present risks to your health. The role of government isn’t to prohibit anything that may cause you harm, because that’s just about everything. The reason vaping gets so much scrutiny is simply because it looks so much like smoking. Like I said, I think some safety regulation is a good idea. But “does this have any potential at all to cause harm” is not a reasonable threshold for regulating imo, and certainly not to the extent that tobacco is.

phillipseamore 7y ago

The EU started work on that in 2014 with new regulations that "set requirements on purity of ingredients, require that the devices deliver consistent doses of vapor [and] require disclosure of ingredients and nicotine content". Sadly most of the other EU regulations seem to be focused on limiting use and access instead of safety.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]