7 ms·

"Local governments are already taking steps to limit e-smoking in places where traditional smoking is banned" For no health reason, but for governments to demo

by guylhem 13y ago

"Local governments are already taking steps to limit e-smoking in places where traditional smoking is banned" For no health reason, but for governments to demonstrate their power and how they are doing something - a bit like the pre-flight security theater. The fact that we have a technological replacement better than the original (ie no tars or carcinogens) while giving the sample pleasure (nicotine, inhaling) should be ground enough to change the laws in the other direction - ie allowing e-cigarattes wherever they are possible.. But this is not about logic. The new habitus sees tobacco as low class and bad http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/bourdieu-and-habitus/ http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/bourdieu-and-h... Why I am not surprised the government will fight against it, regardless of the scientific facts or the right to pursue happiness? EDIT: From the original article "The FDA has said that it plans to assert regulatory authority over electronic cigarettes" - just like every government agency looking for a piece of the cake, while consumers will suffer. There is another good article on e-cigarettes on http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573986-world-should-welcome-electronic-cigarette-no-smoke-why-fire http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573986-world-should-... "Smoking tobacco is the most dangerous voluntary activity in the world. More than 5m people die every year of the consequences. That is one death in ten." Want to save human lives? Don't regulate e-cigarettes- in fact, it might be a better idea to GIVE THEM AWAY in poor countries instead of spending the same amount to procure them with expansive drugs that may help at best a hundred people per year (cancer drugs are expansive, and except in specific cases their efficiency is limited. we still have a lot to learn). Since people will consume tobacco products anyway, we might as well give them the good stuff that won't give them cancer, our last technology - that's e-cigarettes, instead of exporting the old foul smelling plant. We are talking about the potential to save 5'000'000 humans every year. It should be about helping people, not just subsidizing the agricultural industry or making feel good but ultimately counter-productive actions. But reason won't prevail. It will be a sad thing to watch. EDIT2: I originally said "it is about", which is an incorrect formulation since it could be interpreted as a statement on how current systems work. It was ironic, and may not have been very clear.

nazgulnarsil 13y ago
>it's about helping people, not about feeling good about our own actions. sure, ideally. In reality going by the metric of dollars spent -> outcomes it is far and away about feeling good.
- guylhem 13y ago
  You are correct. While proofreading I realized my irony might cause confusion, so I edited it away. My apologies, I upvoted you since you present a solution. There are many things in the health system I find highly illogical, and sometimes I use irony instead of simply presenting the case and possible solutions. There are in fact various metrics to which programs should be judged against; while they differ by country trying to save the as much years of life at the lowest possible cost is usually well accepted.
  - nazgulnarsil 13y ago
    It is changing due to the wider dissemination of information, but it is a slow process uprooting entrenched organizations that serve as jobs programs more than accomplishing their stated goals.
icegreentea 13y ago
The FDA should most definitely regulate e-cigs in some way. If not the vaporizers, then certainly the fluid. At the very least, I would want my country's regulatory body (Canadian here) to at least enforce labeling and quality standards (if you claim your fluid is 95% propylene glycol, and 5% nicotine concentrate, then you better be selling that). As a customer, I do not have the expertise, equipment, nor funding to do this testing myself, just as I do not have the expertise, equipment, nor funding to determine if ibuprofen actually has the stated amount of active ingredient, that my free range chicken actually is free range chicken, that my nicotine patches contain nicotine, etc.
- uvdiv 13y ago
  I believe he means the FDA will impose restrictions that will reduce the use of e-cigarettes. Not precisely what "regulate" means, but a common connotation.
  - arrrg 13y ago
    Is there any indication that the FDA will actually do this?
    - uvdiv 13y ago
      There are already FDA regulations which severely restrict their advertising, FTA: "The companies are not allowed to market them as smoking cessation devices because that would put them in the category of other nicotine replacement products that are regulated by the FDA, such as nicotine gum or patches," Felberbaum says. Certianly this slows down their adoption. This is his point: FDA restricting something harmful without regard for harm reduction. This kills people, in the net.
      - arrrg 13y ago
        I think you are quite confused about the issue. This is not a restriction imposed by the FDA, this is a restriction manufacturers impose on themselves. There would be no problem marketing those cigarettes as smoking cessation devices, they would then just fall under the same rules as other such devices (nicotine patches, gum) and manufacturers don’t want that. That’s the issue. Surely, if those cigarettes are marketed as smoking cessation devices they should have to follow the same rules as other such devices have to follow. As to why those devices are more tightly regulated? Well, duh. They claim to have a medical effect. If you want to claim that you better, well … This seemed perfectly clear from this passage in the article. You seem to be quite confused about it.
eli 13y ago
Surely nicotine is a drug and within the purview of the FDA to regulate.
- pstuart 13y ago
  Regulate purity and accuracy of labeling. Then their job is (or should be) done.
  - ars 13y ago
    Not quite. E-smokers are drugging everyone near them. I'm not OK with that. Smoke is definitely worse, don't get me wrong. But it should be illegal for a 3rd party to force someone to take a drug.
    - Tenoke 13y ago
      Your deodorant is "drugging" me significantly more. Same for your car. If you use neither then something else you use is forcing more chemicals into my body than second hand e-smoke would.
      - Osmium 13y ago
        Car yes, deodorant no. Not all chemicals are created equally, and it doesn't help anyone to make unfair comparisons. I do sympathise with the smokers here, who see e-cigarettes as a compromise, but ultimately it's a compromise that non-smokers shouldn't have to make, because like everyone should have the right to do to their own body what they want, they also don't have the right to passively drug someone else and impose your own choices on other people. That's not okay.
        Tenoke 13y ago
        My comment was a response to "But it should be illegal for a 3rd party to force someone to take a drug." So my claim stands even if deodorant is less harmful in tiny amounts than vapor in tiny amounts. However, if you were wondering, it has not been proven that tiny amounts of vapor are more dangerous than tiny amounts of deodorant. In fact it seems likely that both have negligible effects on health.
hristov 13y ago
E-cigarettes are nicotine delivery devices and nicotine promotes cancer growth. And yes there is secondary inhalation with e-cigarettes. You probably would not call it secondary smoke, but whatever is being vaporized by the e-cigarette gets exhaled by the user and then inhaled by other non-users in the area. I worked closely with an e-cigarette smoker once and I could definitely feel it. E-cigarette proponents say that because e-cigarettes do not burn anything, they are safer than cigarettes. That is probably true, but safer does not mean safe. They are definitely not safe as the main substance they are intended to deliver -- nicotine -- is itself unsafe. So until there are studies that show that there is no danger to others in the environment all smoking bans should apply to e-cigarettes.
- pcrh 13y ago
  Nicotine is not a carcinogen, i.e. nicotine does not promote cancer growth. The carcinogen in cigarettes is the "tar", which is absent from E-cigarettes.
  - anonymous 13y ago
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Toxicology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Toxicology Indirectly, nicotine increases cholinergic signalling (and adrenergic signalling in the case of colon cancer[77]), thereby impeding apoptosis (programmed cell death), promoting tumor growth, and activating growth factors and cellular mitogenic factors such as 5-LOX, and EGF. Nicotine also promotes cancer growth by stimulating angiogenesis and neovascularization.[78][79] In one study, nicotine administered to mice with tumors caused increases in tumor size (twofold increase), metastasis (nine-fold increase), and tumor recurrence (threefold increase).[80] It may not cause cancer directly, but it does sound pretty toxic and does help cancer growth. There might be a "safe" upper limit at which inhaling secondary smoke from e-cigarettes would have an insignificant impact, but we need more studios.
    - haldujai 13y ago
      You'll be hard pressed to find anything stimulatory/anabolic that does not stimulate already existing cancers. The simplest example, protein consumption can also promote cancer growth (I can find a ref if pressed, I'm just lazy right now).
teeja 13y ago
Reliable statistics on the lung cancer danger of smoking have always been difficult to find ... particularly for second-hand smoke ... possibly because it's easier to blame cigs than to find real numbers for the hundreds of carcinogens we're all regularly exposed to, all day long, wherever. Society must have its scapegoats, and smokers are a (relatively powerless) minority. The lung cancer statistics I've seen usually for cig-smoking fall around 3 per 100,000 for second-hand smoke and about 50 per 100,000 for a half-pack-a-day smoker. Considering what's in E-cigs, the risks are, at worst, a very tiny fraction of these numbers. So yes, for E-cigs, "For no health reason, but for governments to demonstrate their power and how they are doing something" is a very likely explanation. But consider the insane response to global warming, and what more should we expect?
znowi 13y ago
I very much enjoy the trend of "tobacco as low class and bad". I can finally go places without inhaling crap and washing my smoked hair and clothes afterwards.
pessimizer 13y ago
Surely it should be regulated. What if somebody's e-cig juice formulation consisted of asbestos and ebola? The idea that e-cigs must be safe because they are not tobacco is far more hysterical about the possible dangers of smoking than the idea that the FDA should be regulating them. I want the FDA to regulate mascara, too, which is also not tobacco.
- mistermann 13y ago
  If a manufacturer wants to put "asbestos and ebola" into an e-liquid, how exactly is a regulation going to stop them? Is it a regulation that stops the restaurant down the street putting asbestos and ebola into my morning coffee and muffin?
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    Yes, through testing, followed by inspections, followed by endorsements or shutdowns as needed. Also, since the sequester, I wouldn't trust that they aren't putting asbestos into your muffin.

by guylhem 13y ago

nazgulnarsil 13y ago

>it's about helping people, not about feeling good about our own actions. sure, ideally. In reality going by the metric of dollars spent -> outcomes it is far and away about feeling good.

guylhem 13y ago
You are correct. While proofreading I realized my irony might cause confusion, so I edited it away. My apologies, I upvoted you since you present a solution. There are many things in the health system I find highly illogical, and sometimes I use irony instead of simply presenting the case and possible solutions. There are in fact various metrics to which programs should be judged against; while they differ by country trying to save the as much years of life at the lowest possible cost is usually well accepted.
- nazgulnarsil 13y ago
  It is changing due to the wider dissemination of information, but it is a slow process uprooting entrenched organizations that serve as jobs programs more than accomplishing their stated goals.

icegreentea 13y ago

The FDA should most definitely regulate e-cigs in some way. If not the vaporizers, then certainly the fluid. At the very least, I would want my country's regulatory body (Canadian here) to at least enforce labeling and quality standards (if you claim your fluid is 95% propylene glycol, and 5% nicotine concentrate, then you better be selling that). As a customer, I do not have the expertise, equipment, nor funding to do this testing myself, just as I do not have the expertise, equipment, nor funding to determine if ibuprofen actually has the stated amount of active ingredient, that my free range chicken actually is free range chicken, that my nicotine patches contain nicotine, etc.

uvdiv 13y ago
I believe he means the FDA will impose restrictions that will reduce the use of e-cigarettes. Not precisely what "regulate" means, but a common connotation.
- arrrg 13y ago
  Is there any indication that the FDA will actually do this?
  - uvdiv 13y ago
    There are already FDA regulations which severely restrict their advertising, FTA: "The companies are not allowed to market them as smoking cessation devices because that would put them in the category of other nicotine replacement products that are regulated by the FDA, such as nicotine gum or patches," Felberbaum says. Certianly this slows down their adoption. This is his point: FDA restricting something harmful without regard for harm reduction. This kills people, in the net.
    - arrrg 13y ago
      I think you are quite confused about the issue. This is not a restriction imposed by the FDA, this is a restriction manufacturers impose on themselves. There would be no problem marketing those cigarettes as smoking cessation devices, they would then just fall under the same rules as other such devices (nicotine patches, gum) and manufacturers don’t want that. That’s the issue. Surely, if those cigarettes are marketed as smoking cessation devices they should have to follow the same rules as other such devices have to follow. As to why those devices are more tightly regulated? Well, duh. They claim to have a medical effect. If you want to claim that you better, well … This seemed perfectly clear from this passage in the article. You seem to be quite confused about it.

eli 13y ago

Surely nicotine is a drug and within the purview of the FDA to regulate.

pstuart 13y ago
Regulate purity and accuracy of labeling. Then their job is (or should be) done.
- ars 13y ago
  Not quite. E-smokers are drugging everyone near them. I'm not OK with that. Smoke is definitely worse, don't get me wrong. But it should be illegal for a 3rd party to force someone to take a drug.
  - Tenoke 13y ago
    Your deodorant is "drugging" me significantly more. Same for your car. If you use neither then something else you use is forcing more chemicals into my body than second hand e-smoke would.
    - Osmium 13y ago
      Car yes, deodorant no. Not all chemicals are created equally, and it doesn't help anyone to make unfair comparisons. I do sympathise with the smokers here, who see e-cigarettes as a compromise, but ultimately it's a compromise that non-smokers shouldn't have to make, because like everyone should have the right to do to their own body what they want, they also don't have the right to passively drug someone else and impose your own choices on other people. That's not okay.
      - Tenoke 13y ago
        My comment was a response to "But it should be illegal for a 3rd party to force someone to take a drug." So my claim stands even if deodorant is less harmful in tiny amounts than vapor in tiny amounts. However, if you were wondering, it has not been proven that tiny amounts of vapor are more dangerous than tiny amounts of deodorant. In fact it seems likely that both have negligible effects on health.

hristov 13y ago

E-cigarettes are nicotine delivery devices and nicotine promotes cancer growth. And yes there is secondary inhalation with e-cigarettes. You probably would not call it secondary smoke, but whatever is being vaporized by the e-cigarette gets exhaled by the user and then inhaled by other non-users in the area. I worked closely with an e-cigarette smoker once and I could definitely feel it. E-cigarette proponents say that because e-cigarettes do not burn anything, they are safer than cigarettes. That is probably true, but safer does not mean safe. They are definitely not safe as the main substance they are intended to deliver -- nicotine -- is itself unsafe. So until there are studies that show that there is no danger to others in the environment all smoking bans should apply to e-cigarettes.

pcrh 13y ago
Nicotine is not a carcinogen, i.e. nicotine does not promote cancer growth. The carcinogen in cigarettes is the "tar", which is absent from E-cigarettes.
- anonymous 13y ago
  From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Toxicology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Toxicology Indirectly, nicotine increases cholinergic signalling (and adrenergic signalling in the case of colon cancer[77]), thereby impeding apoptosis (programmed cell death), promoting tumor growth, and activating growth factors and cellular mitogenic factors such as 5-LOX, and EGF. Nicotine also promotes cancer growth by stimulating angiogenesis and neovascularization.[78][79] In one study, nicotine administered to mice with tumors caused increases in tumor size (twofold increase), metastasis (nine-fold increase), and tumor recurrence (threefold increase).[80] It may not cause cancer directly, but it does sound pretty toxic and does help cancer growth. There might be a "safe" upper limit at which inhaling secondary smoke from e-cigarettes would have an insignificant impact, but we need more studios.
  - haldujai 13y ago
    You'll be hard pressed to find anything stimulatory/anabolic that does not stimulate already existing cancers. The simplest example, protein consumption can also promote cancer growth (I can find a ref if pressed, I'm just lazy right now).

teeja 13y ago

Reliable statistics on the lung cancer danger of smoking have always been difficult to find ... particularly for second-hand smoke ... possibly because it's easier to blame cigs than to find real numbers for the hundreds of carcinogens we're all regularly exposed to, all day long, wherever. Society must have its scapegoats, and smokers are a (relatively powerless) minority. The lung cancer statistics I've seen usually for cig-smoking fall around 3 per 100,000 for second-hand smoke and about 50 per 100,000 for a half-pack-a-day smoker. Considering what's in E-cigs, the risks are, at worst, a very tiny fraction of these numbers. So yes, for E-cigs, "For no health reason, but for governments to demonstrate their power and how they are doing something" is a very likely explanation. But consider the insane response to global warming, and what more should we expect?

znowi 13y ago

I very much enjoy the trend of "tobacco as low class and bad". I can finally go places without inhaling crap and washing my smoked hair and clothes afterwards.

pessimizer 13y ago

Surely it should be regulated. What if somebody's e-cig juice formulation consisted of asbestos and ebola? The idea that e-cigs must be safe because they are not tobacco is far more hysterical about the possible dangers of smoking than the idea that the FDA should be regulating them. I want the FDA to regulate mascara, too, which is also not tobacco.

mistermann 13y ago
If a manufacturer wants to put "asbestos and ebola" into an e-liquid, how exactly is a regulation going to stop them? Is it a regulation that stops the restaurant down the street putting asbestos and ebola into my morning coffee and muffin?
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Yes, through testing, followed by inspections, followed by endorsements or shutdowns as needed. Also, since the sequester, I wouldn't trust that they aren't putting asbestos into your muffin.