3 ms·

When I was trying to quit smoking, I tried e-cigarettes and found the devices to be quite unsanitary and the liquids questionable. I was under the impression th

by mrtksn 4y ago

When I was trying to quit smoking, I tried e-cigarettes and found the devices to be quite unsanitary and the liquids questionable. I was under the impression that something like Juul would be solution to all that, I mean a proper large brand with end-to-end solution of the product chain. I'm kind of surprised that Juul is targeted, real cigarettes are so much more horrible. I guess it's not a good idea to start smoking with e-cigarettes but in a world of legal real tobacco cigarettes I expected to see regulation on marketing only. PS: later I quit by just not smoking anything and a happy ex-smoker ever since.

barbazoo 4y ago
Congrats on quitting smoking!
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Thanks! Starting smoking was the worst thing I did to myself and I'm very happy about successfully quitting.
otabdeveloper4 4y ago
The purpose of e-cigs is to get kids hooked on something that seems more "cute" and healthy, so they can graduate to real tobacco products when they grow up.
- pizza 4y ago
  Why do you think this?
  - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
    Because that's what tobacco marketers say. And it is, indeed, working - this generation is the first one that smokes more than the previous one. (Though it's true that they vape instead of burning plant matter.) Whether they will graduate to "real" cigarettes we don't know yet, because this demographic is not 21 years old yet. But it's likely to be true, because "real" cigarettes purportedly are more potent.
- johnisgood 4y ago
  To be honest, here somewhere in Europe the same laws apply to e-cigarettes as real cigarettes. You can only buy them at specific places if you are over 18.
  - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
    Same here, but that doesn't stop schoolkids from vaping in large quantities.
guitarbill 4y ago
It shouldn't be. The "think of the children" rhetoric has been used many a time now around e-cigarettes/vaping, to effectively restrict the rights of everybody. E.g. the PACT act amendment (Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, not the other one) means USPS - and therefore effectively all other carriers - can't ship vaping products from businesses to individuals, effectively ending online sales. "Law-making" at it's worst, especially because it was bundled into a massive COVID-19 relief bill. They literally called it the "Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act", although it's just the "Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes Act".
- millzlane 4y ago
  I remember my first purchase of e-cigarettes online involved a picture of my id and a selfie to confirm my ID. I remember I thought it was great that developers were quickly able to spin up a solution. So it was a shock to hear they were banning online sales outright.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  > he "think of the children" rhetoric has been used many a time now around e-cigarettes/vaping Probably due to historical precedent set by RJ Reynolds where they overtly and intentionally marketed cigarettes to kids because their research found that getting people addicted young was the best way to gain market share. This is basic common sense legislation. We know exactly what these companies are going to do, we already know it's going to be bad, and we already have a solution in place.
  - guitarbill 4y ago
    > We know exactly what these companies are going to do What companies would that be? They are companies like Juul. And then there were plenty of small vape shops run by individuals who mixed their own e-liquids, or who curated a selection of e-liquids from other manufacturers. > This is basic common sense legislation. No, it isn't. Requiring age verification? Sure, even if it wasn't the law previously, all places I used did that already. Banning USPS from shipping nicotine? Maybe, but questionable. But the 2020 PACT Act amendment goes even further. It covers Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, a very broad term that includes "any component, liquid, part, or accessory of a device described [above], without regard to whether the component, liquid, part, or accessory is sold separately from the device." (!) Think about this for a second. This potentially means lithium ion batteries, coils, wire, cotton, nicotine-free/0% e-liquids, etc. How exactly does that help? I would even be fine with other solutions, e.g. banning shipping anything containing nicotine. This is how it works in some other countries; you could still buy e-liquids and components, to which you could add nicotine. The mix-in nicotine could be more controlled. I'm quite frankly sick of these bad faith arguments. It's a ridiculously broad law, and it's awful.
lazide 4y ago
Real cigarettes are taxed by the state, e-cigarettes aren’t. Juul is the largest and highest profile. manufacturer If you follow the money, it makes more sense.
- function_seven 4y ago
  Sure they are. I pay about $6 in California taxes on each pack of Juul pods I buy. Other states have different rates.
causi 4y ago
in a world of legal real tobacco cigarettes I expected to see regulation on marketing only Regulators tend to only care about things which aren't already entrenched in the culture of the regulator. For example, if you tried to market a car that was as dangerous to drive as the safest motorcycle on the road the NHTSA would probably draw and quarter you.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >For example, if you tried to market a car that was as dangerous to drive as the safest motorcycle on the road the NHTSA would probably draw and quarter you. They'd be happy to ignore you. But the nanosecond you try and market such a car people who would never buy your car would read the spec and start screeching about it. Internet commenters would make a stink. Journalists would speculate. The Youtube talking heads would summarize. The MSM would report on the fervor. And all these screeching would alert the regulator to the fact that there are political brownie points to be earned regulating or brownie points to be earned crapping on them for not regulating and they know which one they'd prefer so they break out the ban hammer. See the whole self driving deal. Nobody cared to regulate it until it became a contentious issue over which virtue points could be earned or lost. You see this in all sorts of areas. Regulators sit around doing what they've always done until some Outraged(TM) subset of the public comes along. It's not that they go around regulating un-entrenched things. It's that by the time you're entrenched you've long since pissed off some special interest group and got yourself regulated.
  - InitialLastName 4y ago
    > See the whole self driving deal. Nobody cared to regulate it until it became a contentious issue over which virtue points could be earned or lost. How would you falsifiably distinguish this from "nobody cared to regulate it until it became a meaningful threat to the lives of road users"? Like, obviously before self-driving cars were being actively researched, nobody cared about their safety.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > Nobody cared to regulate it until it became a contentious issue over which virtue points could be earned or lost. ... and until people died in mind-blowing spectacular accidents [1] and Tesla in particular repeatedly lied in public or did other questionable maneuvers. If the self-driving car industry wants someone to blame for their misery aka stricter regulations, they should look at Tesla. All it takes to make stuff worse for everyone is one who is caught doing stuff that simply is not OK. [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073857310/tesla-autopilot-crash-charges https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073857310/tesla-autopilot-cr...

by mrtksn 4y ago

barbazoo 4y ago

Congrats on quitting smoking!

mrtksn 4y ago
Thanks! Starting smoking was the worst thing I did to myself and I'm very happy about successfully quitting.

otabdeveloper4 4y ago

The purpose of e-cigs is to get kids hooked on something that seems more "cute" and healthy, so they can graduate to real tobacco products when they grow up.

pizza 4y ago
Why do you think this?
- otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  Because that's what tobacco marketers say. And it is, indeed, working - this generation is the first one that smokes more than the previous one. (Though it's true that they vape instead of burning plant matter.) Whether they will graduate to "real" cigarettes we don't know yet, because this demographic is not 21 years old yet. But it's likely to be true, because "real" cigarettes purportedly are more potent.
johnisgood 4y ago
To be honest, here somewhere in Europe the same laws apply to e-cigarettes as real cigarettes. You can only buy them at specific places if you are over 18.
- otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  Same here, but that doesn't stop schoolkids from vaping in large quantities.

guitarbill 4y ago

It shouldn't be. The "think of the children" rhetoric has been used many a time now around e-cigarettes/vaping, to effectively restrict the rights of everybody. E.g. the PACT act amendment (Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, not the other one) means USPS - and therefore effectively all other carriers - can't ship vaping products from businesses to individuals, effectively ending online sales. "Law-making" at it's worst, especially because it was bundled into a massive COVID-19 relief bill. They literally called it the "Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act", although it's just the "Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes Act".

millzlane 4y ago
I remember my first purchase of e-cigarettes online involved a picture of my id and a selfie to confirm my ID. I remember I thought it was great that developers were quickly able to spin up a solution. So it was a shock to hear they were banning online sales outright.
mywittyname 4y ago
> he "think of the children" rhetoric has been used many a time now around e-cigarettes/vaping Probably due to historical precedent set by RJ Reynolds where they overtly and intentionally marketed cigarettes to kids because their research found that getting people addicted young was the best way to gain market share. This is basic common sense legislation. We know exactly what these companies are going to do, we already know it's going to be bad, and we already have a solution in place.
- guitarbill 4y ago
  > We know exactly what these companies are going to do What companies would that be? They are companies like Juul. And then there were plenty of small vape shops run by individuals who mixed their own e-liquids, or who curated a selection of e-liquids from other manufacturers. > This is basic common sense legislation. No, it isn't. Requiring age verification? Sure, even if it wasn't the law previously, all places I used did that already. Banning USPS from shipping nicotine? Maybe, but questionable. But the 2020 PACT Act amendment goes even further. It covers Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, a very broad term that includes "any component, liquid, part, or accessory of a device described [above], without regard to whether the component, liquid, part, or accessory is sold separately from the device." (!) Think about this for a second. This potentially means lithium ion batteries, coils, wire, cotton, nicotine-free/0% e-liquids, etc. How exactly does that help? I would even be fine with other solutions, e.g. banning shipping anything containing nicotine. This is how it works in some other countries; you could still buy e-liquids and components, to which you could add nicotine. The mix-in nicotine could be more controlled. I'm quite frankly sick of these bad faith arguments. It's a ridiculously broad law, and it's awful.

lazide 4y ago

Real cigarettes are taxed by the state, e-cigarettes aren’t. Juul is the largest and highest profile. manufacturer If you follow the money, it makes more sense.

function_seven 4y ago
Sure they are. I pay about $6 in California taxes on each pack of Juul pods I buy. Other states have different rates.

causi 4y ago

in a world of legal real tobacco cigarettes I expected to see regulation on marketing only Regulators tend to only care about things which aren't already entrenched in the culture of the regulator. For example, if you tried to market a car that was as dangerous to drive as the safest motorcycle on the road the NHTSA would probably draw and quarter you.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
>For example, if you tried to market a car that was as dangerous to drive as the safest motorcycle on the road the NHTSA would probably draw and quarter you. They'd be happy to ignore you. But the nanosecond you try and market such a car people who would never buy your car would read the spec and start screeching about it. Internet commenters would make a stink. Journalists would speculate. The Youtube talking heads would summarize. The MSM would report on the fervor. And all these screeching would alert the regulator to the fact that there are political brownie points to be earned regulating or brownie points to be earned crapping on them for not regulating and they know which one they'd prefer so they break out the ban hammer. See the whole self driving deal. Nobody cared to regulate it until it became a contentious issue over which virtue points could be earned or lost. You see this in all sorts of areas. Regulators sit around doing what they've always done until some Outraged(TM) subset of the public comes along. It's not that they go around regulating un-entrenched things. It's that by the time you're entrenched you've long since pissed off some special interest group and got yourself regulated.
- InitialLastName 4y ago
  > See the whole self driving deal. Nobody cared to regulate it until it became a contentious issue over which virtue points could be earned or lost. How would you falsifiably distinguish this from "nobody cared to regulate it until it became a meaningful threat to the lives of road users"? Like, obviously before self-driving cars were being actively researched, nobody cared about their safety.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > Nobody cared to regulate it until it became a contentious issue over which virtue points could be earned or lost. ... and until people died in mind-blowing spectacular accidents [1] and Tesla in particular repeatedly lied in public or did other questionable maneuvers. If the self-driving car industry wants someone to blame for their misery aka stricter regulations, they should look at Tesla. All it takes to make stuff worse for everyone is one who is caught doing stuff that simply is not OK. [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073857310/tesla-autopilot-crash-charges https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073857310/tesla-autopilot-cr...