Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/05/08 20:32:49
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
I took up vaping to avoid returning to smoking when I felt the pull.
I did a lot of reading about the stuff, and I do feel that it should be widely tested. The only conclusion I could draw was it wouldn't hurt me as much as smoking regularly.
The difficulty with testing is that vaping is very very variable. The ingredients are usually two types of glycerin (vegetable and propylene) in different ratios, that in turn depend on the equipment used.
A vape that burns cooler couldn't handle a higher ratio of vegetable glycerin, which is arguably less harmful to the mouth and throat.
There is no one standard liquid, there is no one standard vape.
feeder wrote: Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.
2016/05/08 23:47:18
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
gorgon wrote: Yeah, I think there are good and obvious reasons why the medical community is very wary of the health effects of inhaling a bunch of vaporized chemicals on a regular basis. Especially when the companies manufacturing these things are the same companies who worked to cover up the health risks of their other products AND manipulated levels of the drug in said products to keep their customers addicted.
I'm also not in favor of giving points for "quitting" when people switch from cigs to e-cigs. If you want to quit and truly improve your health, you quit nicotine altogether.
Nicotine is not the main driver for lung cancer. Its tobacco and the processing of tobacco that goes with cigarettes.
Interesting that the UK is supporting it as a method to get of smoking.
On the other hand, it's quite common for there to be a ban on using e-cigarettes indoors, in addition to the legal ban on smoking tobacco indoors.
2016/05/09 06:58:59
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
Well I just read somewhere on the Internet that vaping causes cancer, so it should be banned! Rabble rabble rabble.
Now I just read somewhere else on the internet that it helps people to stop smoking and someone wants to ban it costing lots of people their jobs. That has to be stopped! Dey tuk ur jerbs!
...
I'm almost sure that's a fairly concise summary of the non-pornography side of internet today.
2016/05/09 07:45:24
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
Don't forget that vaping causes popcorn lung, because an info graphic on Facebook says so.
*For the sake of five minutes while I eat this sandwich, I'll explain that one.
Certain flavours of vape such as vanilla, buttery (sigh), caramel, etc, initially contained a flavouring similar to that used in microwave popcorn. The same chemical that when superheated, or worked with regularly in a factory would cause respiratory sickness called "popcorn lung".
The vast majority of liquids no longer contain it, and most bespoke companies have dropped it entirely.
TL;DR your aunt's cola bottle low % nicotine liquid isn't gonna cause popcorn lung. But old mix Vanilla Custard could if you chuff it constantly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/09 07:46:17
The popcorn lung thing as well comes from a court case that was debunked where the manufacturers of movie theater popcorn got sued by employees due to "lung issues" from the butter flavorings. It was proven that it was no the butter flavoring that did it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bran Dawri wrote: Well I just read somewhere on the Internet that vaping causes cancer, so it should be banned! Rabble rabble rabble.
Now I just read somewhere else on the internet that it helps people to stop smoking and someone wants to ban it costing lots of people their jobs. That has to be stopped! Dey tuk ur jerbs!
...
I'm almost sure that's a fairly concise summary of the non-pornography side of internet today.
Don't forget though that cigs also contain diacetyl ( the chemical implicated in pop corn lung ) at higher concentrations then found in e juice....I have not heard of any cases of popcorn lung in smokers....
I vape a bit, not a heavy user, and am for some regulation, however it does feel that these regulations are overly stringent and put the vape market in the hands of big business as they are the only ones that can afford the fees.
The royal college of physicians states that
" the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."
also :
"There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers."
It seems then that the advice given with the information we currently have is that e cigs should be supported along with quit programmes, whilst regulations to ensure minimum standards are enforced. It seems that these overly harsh regulations are a backwards step and will effectively stifle the market (and hand it to big tobacco in the process) and as such promote more usage of traditional analogues .
The cynical view is that many countries are trying to protect revenues from smoking ( such as tobacco bonds and tax duties) over the health and well being of the populous.
especially when the tag line to the report i quoted is:
"In the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/09 13:01:48
2016/05/09 13:44:39
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
thesearmsarerob wrote: Don't forget though that cigs also contain diacetyl ( the chemical implicated in pop corn lung ) at higher concentrations then found in e juice....I have not heard of any cases of popcorn lung in smokers....
I vape a bit, not a heavy user, and am for some regulation, however it does feel that these regulations are overly stringent and put the vape market in the hands of big business as they are the only ones that can afford the fees.
The royal college of physicians states that
" the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."
also :
"There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers."
It seems then that the advice given with the information we currently have is that e cigs should be supported along with quit programmes, whilst regulations to ensure minimum standards are enforced. It seems that these overly harsh regulations are a backwards step and will effectively stifle the market (and hand it to big tobacco in the process) and as such promote more usage of traditional analogues .
The cynical view is that many countries are trying to protect revenues from smoking ( such as tobacco bonds and tax duties) over the health and well being of the populous.
especially when the tag line to the report i quoted is:
"In the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK"
But doesn't it seem a bit backwards to promote something as a healthy alternative when sufficient studies have yet to be done as to the long term effects of it? Sure, it's better than cigarettes, but cigarettes are healthier than drinking bleach. Healthier alternative =/= safe product for long term use.
thesearmsarerob wrote: Don't forget though that cigs also contain diacetyl ( the chemical implicated in pop corn lung ) at higher concentrations then found in e juice....I have not heard of any cases of popcorn lung in smokers....
I vape a bit, not a heavy user, and am for some regulation, however it does feel that these regulations are overly stringent and put the vape market in the hands of big business as they are the only ones that can afford the fees.
The royal college of physicians states that
" the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."
also :
"There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers."
It seems then that the advice given with the information we currently have is that e cigs should be supported along with quit programmes, whilst regulations to ensure minimum standards are enforced. It seems that these overly harsh regulations are a backwards step and will effectively stifle the market (and hand it to big tobacco in the process) and as such promote more usage of traditional analogues .
The cynical view is that many countries are trying to protect revenues from smoking ( such as tobacco bonds and tax duties) over the health and well being of the populous.
especially when the tag line to the report i quoted is:
"In the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK"
But doesn't it seem a bit backwards to promote something as a healthy alternative when sufficient studies have yet to be done as to the long term effects of it? Sure, it's better than cigarettes, but cigarettes are healthier than drinking bleach. Healthier alternative =/= safe product for long term use.
I agree that more long term studies have to be carried out, however the studies that have been done and the initial data suggests that e cigs are at least 95% safer. Why would one not want to promote that rather than analogue cigs that we know are really harmful? The quotes I included are not from an industry body but from a body that has carried out an independent study.
I worry that we will throw the baby out with the bath water, no one is going to argue that these are risk free ( if they do then they haven't looked into it) but the evidence suggests that these devices can be used to reduce harm. I would not want to see these advertised as some kind of health fags. However I think that they should be looked at as harm reduction.
People smoke, it kills, we know that for definite. These have the capacity to reduce the harm, even if they aren't good for you they appear to be magnitudes better for you than traditional tobacco products. Why stifle that in direct contradiction to the evidence found in the reports that have been conducted? That's what seems backwards to me. We do have some information and the alternative is worse, so why crack down on these in a way that will make them less accessible? It just seems that rather than pursuing a viable alternative people just say " but they might be bad!!" and are then happy for others to carry on smoking as a result.
2016/05/09 14:23:46
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
thesearmsarerob wrote: Why would one not want to promote that rather than analogue cigs that we know are really harmful?
How about promoting neither?
Well, yeah I don't think either should be advertised ( I don't agree with seeing e cig adverts on tv etc) but I do think that they should be available to those that want them as a harm reduction choice. I used promote to mean put one before the other in this instance. The regs facing E cigs at present are being applied more stringently than those on tobacco in many countries.
The regulations being imposed in the USA and EU currently will gut the market making them much harder to get. This will put people back onto traditional tobacco products
The main users of ecigs are smokers or ex smokers,
So if they are harder to get or the devices are not as effective ( the USA regs have a grandfather date of 2007 meaning that most current devices will not be available once they come into effect as the companies making them won't be able to afford the necessary fees) then people who would have used them are more likely to stick with normal fags, which we know are really bad for you.
2016/05/09 15:24:19
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
Salty...yes...as a child of a smoking mom who died at 55 due to lung cancer...I wish tobacco companies would all go bankrupt, their buildings crumble to dust, and their execs all burn in hell. Sorry, not sorry for being a little emotional about the subject.
When you drink at least you're only hurtjng your own body. Smoking...yeah...that pollutes the air around you and anyone else nearby.
Vaping is basically like drinking Light Beer instead of regular beer....Sure...it won't make you as fat as fast and it'll get you your beer goggles...but it still kills your liver and brain cells.
Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble that's my soapbox speech.
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
2016/05/09 15:59:45
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
thesearmsarerob wrote: Don't forget though that cigs also contain diacetyl ( the chemical implicated in pop corn lung ) at higher concentrations then found in e juice....I have not heard of any cases of popcorn lung in smokers....
I vape a bit, not a heavy user, and am for some regulation, however it does feel that these regulations are overly stringent and put the vape market in the hands of big business as they are the only ones that can afford the fees.
The royal college of physicians states that
" the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."
also :
"There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers."
It seems then that the advice given with the information we currently have is that e cigs should be supported along with quit programmes, whilst regulations to ensure minimum standards are enforced. It seems that these overly harsh regulations are a backwards step and will effectively stifle the market (and hand it to big tobacco in the process) and as such promote more usage of traditional analogues .
The cynical view is that many countries are trying to protect revenues from smoking ( such as tobacco bonds and tax duties) over the health and well being of the populous.
especially when the tag line to the report i quoted is:
"In the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK"
But doesn't it seem a bit backwards to promote something as a healthy alternative when sufficient studies have yet to be done as to the long term effects of it? Sure, it's better than cigarettes, but cigarettes are healthier than drinking bleach. Healthier alternative =/= safe product for long term use.
I agree that more long term studies have to be carried out, however the studies that have been done and the initial data suggests that e cigs are at least 95% safer. Why would one not want to promote that rather than analogue cigs that we know are really harmful? The quotes I included are not from an industry body but from a body that has carried out an independent study.
I worry that we will throw the baby out with the bath water, no one is going to argue that these are risk free ( if they do then they haven't looked into it) but the evidence suggests that these devices can be used to reduce harm. I would not want to see these advertised as some kind of health fags. However I think that they should be looked at as harm reduction.
People smoke, it kills, we know that for definite. These have the capacity to reduce the harm, even if they aren't good for you they appear to be magnitudes better for you than traditional tobacco products. Why stifle that in direct contradiction to the evidence found in the reports that have been conducted? That's what seems backwards to me. We do have some information and the alternative is worse, so why crack down on these in a way that will make them less accessible? It just seems that rather than pursuing a viable alternative people just say " but they might be bad!!" and are then happy for others to carry on smoking as a result.
I'd definitely be interested to see more studies. Not sure what you've looked at, but the WHO released one about the harm of e-cigs (again, still better than cigarettes, but not good).
I'm not trying to stifle them, but I think regulating them so that companies can't just put whatever chemicals they want into e-cigs is not a crazy idea. I think all products released to the general public should be regulated to a degree.
I agree it's good that these are helping people switch off cigarettes, but my problem is that the new trend is "E-cigarettes are completely risk free, they're so much healthier than cigarettes." (I've literally had a friend who vapes tell me e-cigarettes have no health risks)
My dad currently smokes cigarettes and will probably die from it. I wish he would stop but I also recognize that it's his decision. Do I want to ban all e-cigs and let people keep on smoking regular cigarettes? No, but I think it's silly people claim that e-cigs are such a healthy alternative when they haven't existed long enough for long term studies to be done (Especially considering cigarettes weren't known to be dangerous until around World War 2)
thesearmsarerob wrote: Don't forget though that cigs also contain diacetyl ( the chemical implicated in pop corn lung ) at higher concentrations then found in e juice....I have not heard of any cases of popcorn lung in smokers....
I vape a bit, not a heavy user, and am for some regulation, however it does feel that these regulations are overly stringent and put the vape market in the hands of big business as they are the only ones that can afford the fees.
The royal college of physicians states that
" the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."
also :
"There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers."
It seems then that the advice given with the information we currently have is that e cigs should be supported along with quit programmes, whilst regulations to ensure minimum standards are enforced. It seems that these overly harsh regulations are a backwards step and will effectively stifle the market (and hand it to big tobacco in the process) and as such promote more usage of traditional analogues .
The cynical view is that many countries are trying to protect revenues from smoking ( such as tobacco bonds and tax duties) over the health and well being of the populous.
especially when the tag line to the report i quoted is:
"In the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK"
But doesn't it seem a bit backwards to promote something as a healthy alternative when sufficient studies have yet to be done as to the long term effects of it? Sure, it's better than cigarettes, but cigarettes are healthier than drinking bleach. Healthier alternative =/= safe product for long term use.
I agree that more long term studies have to be carried out, however the studies that have been done and the initial data suggests that e cigs are at least 95% safer. Why would one not want to promote that rather than analogue cigs that we know are really harmful? The quotes I included are not from an industry body but from a body that has carried out an independent study.
I worry that we will throw the baby out with the bath water, no one is going to argue that these are risk free ( if they do then they haven't looked into it) but the evidence suggests that these devices can be used to reduce harm. I would not want to see these advertised as some kind of health fags. However I think that they should be looked at as harm reduction.
People smoke, it kills, we know that for definite. These have the capacity to reduce the harm, even if they aren't good for you they appear to be magnitudes better for you than traditional tobacco products. Why stifle that in direct contradiction to the evidence found in the reports that have been conducted? That's what seems backwards to me. We do have some information and the alternative is worse, so why crack down on these in a way that will make them less accessible? It just seems that rather than pursuing a viable alternative people just say " but they might be bad!!" and are then happy for others to carry on smoking as a result.
I'd definitely be interested to see more studies. Not sure what you've looked at, but the WHO released one about the harm of e-cigs (again, still better than cigarettes, but not good).
I'm not trying to stifle them, but I think regulating them so that companies can't just put whatever chemicals they want into e-cigs is not a crazy idea. I think all products released to the general public should be regulated to a degree.
I agree it's good that these are helping people switch off cigarettes, but my problem is that the new trend is "E-cigarettes are completely risk free, they're so much healthier than cigarettes." (I've literally had a friend who vapes tell me e-cigarettes have no health risks)
My dad currently smokes cigarettes and will probably die from it. I wish he would stop but I also recognize that it's his decision. Do I want to ban all e-cigs and let people keep on smoking regular cigarettes? No, but I think it's silly people claim that e-cigs are such a healthy alternative when they haven't existed long enough for long term studies to be done (Especially considering cigarettes weren't known to be dangerous until around World War 2)
I've looked at the public health England findings and the Royal college of physician's findings amongst others.
I agree that there should be some regulation, but the regulations such as the tpd ban things like cross border sales, a restriction not put upon tobacco products. It seems unfair and if e cigs are better for you counter productive.
I think it's important to differentiate between harm reduction and harmless though. E cigs seem to represent an opportunity for harm reduction and at present the regs being imposed, I think, disproportionately penalise them when compared to tobacco. I'm definitely not trying to advocate e cigs as harmless and healthy. The anecdotal evidence I've seen though suggests that people do find that they help them come off tobacco in a way other nicotine replacement devices or quit programmes have not.
I've also seen reports that more up to date devices that produce a more satisfying vape experience are more likely to help people stay away from tobacco. These have just been directly regulated against in the USA. That's what I mean when I say that these regs seem to represent a backwards step. It will make people more likely to stick with tobacco.
2016/05/09 17:55:42
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
thesearmsarerob wrote: Don't forget though that cigs also contain diacetyl ( the chemical implicated in pop corn lung ) at higher concentrations then found in e juice....I have not heard of any cases of popcorn lung in smokers....
I vape a bit, not a heavy user, and am for some regulation, however it does feel that these regulations are overly stringent and put the vape market in the hands of big business as they are the only ones that can afford the fees.
The royal college of physicians states that
" the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."
also :
"There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers."
It seems then that the advice given with the information we currently have is that e cigs should be supported along with quit programmes, whilst regulations to ensure minimum standards are enforced. It seems that these overly harsh regulations are a backwards step and will effectively stifle the market (and hand it to big tobacco in the process) and as such promote more usage of traditional analogues .
The cynical view is that many countries are trying to protect revenues from smoking ( such as tobacco bonds and tax duties) over the health and well being of the populous.
especially when the tag line to the report i quoted is:
"In the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK"
But doesn't it seem a bit backwards to promote something as a healthy alternative when sufficient studies have yet to be done as to the long term effects of it? Sure, it's better than cigarettes, but cigarettes are healthier than drinking bleach. Healthier alternative =/= safe product for long term use.
I agree that more long term studies have to be carried out, however the studies that have been done and the initial data suggests that e cigs are at least 95% safer. Why would one not want to promote that rather than analogue cigs that we know are really harmful? The quotes I included are not from an industry body but from a body that has carried out an independent study.
I worry that we will throw the baby out with the bath water, no one is going to argue that these are risk free ( if they do then they haven't looked into it) but the evidence suggests that these devices can be used to reduce harm. I would not want to see these advertised as some kind of health fags. However I think that they should be looked at as harm reduction.
People smoke, it kills, we know that for definite. These have the capacity to reduce the harm, even if they aren't good for you they appear to be magnitudes better for you than traditional tobacco products. Why stifle that in direct contradiction to the evidence found in the reports that have been conducted? That's what seems backwards to me. We do have some information and the alternative is worse, so why crack down on these in a way that will make them less accessible? It just seems that rather than pursuing a viable alternative people just say " but they might be bad!!" and are then happy for others to carry on smoking as a result.
I'd definitely be interested to see more studies. Not sure what you've looked at, but the WHO released one about the harm of e-cigs (again, still better than cigarettes, but not good).
I'm not trying to stifle them, but I think regulating them so that companies can't just put whatever chemicals they want into e-cigs is not a crazy idea. I think all products released to the general public should be regulated to a degree.
I agree it's good that these are helping people switch off cigarettes, but my problem is that the new trend is "E-cigarettes are completely risk free, they're so much healthier than cigarettes." (I've literally had a friend who vapes tell me e-cigarettes have no health risks)
My dad currently smokes cigarettes and will probably die from it. I wish he would stop but I also recognize that it's his decision. Do I want to ban all e-cigs and let people keep on smoking regular cigarettes? No, but I think it's silly people claim that e-cigs are such a healthy alternative when they haven't existed long enough for long term studies to be done (Especially considering cigarettes weren't known to be dangerous until around World War 2)
I've looked at the public health England findings and the Royal college of physician's findings amongst others.
I agree that there should be some regulation, but the regulations such as the tpd ban things like cross border sales, a restriction not put upon tobacco products. It seems unfair and if e cigs are better for you counter productive.
I think it's important to differentiate between harm reduction and harmless though. E cigs seem to represent an opportunity for harm reduction and at present the regs being imposed, I think, disproportionately penalise them when compared to tobacco. I'm definitely not trying to advocate e cigs as harmless and healthy. The anecdotal evidence I've seen though suggests that people do find that they help them come off tobacco in a way other nicotine replacement devices or quit programmes have not.
I've also seen reports that more up to date devices that produce a more satisfying vape experience are more likely to help people stay away from tobacco. These have just been directly regulated against in the USA. That's what I mean when I say that these regs seem to represent a backwards step. It will make people more likely to stick with tobacco.
Ah, I see. I agree, I think going full ham on this would most likely penalize E-cigs, hopefully they can find some sort of balance. I'm not sure if they have one already, as I don't vape, but I'd like to see some sort of warning on e-cig packages that cigarettes currently carry.
Not sure of the rest of the country but in California they already have the chemical warnings and pretty much every vape shop already does not allow anyone under 18 to enter period.
KingCracker wrote: Regulations are fine with me. I'm sick of people walking around in stores and in public vaping and then puffing it in my Fracking face. Should be looked at like cigarettes IMO
Out here in Washington (State) I've noticed a lot of the "State law requires any and all smoking be done 20ft. or more from any doors/windows of a building" signs have been amended to include vaping with more "traditional" means of getting nicotine/tobacco.
I think I stand with others and say that regulating this new market will be a net good thing for everyone. The regulations I've been keeping an eye on, in regards to the FDA, is how they've been going after "premium cigars"
On occasion, I will smoke a nice churchill or torpedo, but what many of the proposed FDA regulations would do, is eliminate the ability of actual tobacconists and smoke shops (guys who sell ONLY cigars, pipe blends and the like, not cigarettes) to sell their product... I'm sorry, but a cigar, and by extension pipe tobacco are items which require knowledge and care to sell for full value. You literally cannot sell them in a gas station like you can with cigarettes and vaping gak.
2016/05/10 06:41:13
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
KingCracker wrote: Regulations are fine with me. I'm sick of people walking around in stores and in public vaping and then puffing it in my Fracking face. Should be looked at like cigarettes IMO
Out here in Washington (State) I've noticed a lot of the "State law requires any and all smoking be done 20ft. or more from any doors/windows of a building" signs have been amended to include vaping with more "traditional" means of getting nicotine/tobacco.
I think I stand with others and say that regulating this new market will be a net good thing for everyone. The regulations I've been keeping an eye on, in regards to the FDA, is how they've been going after "premium cigars"
On occasion, I will smoke a nice churchill or torpedo, but what many of the proposed FDA regulations would do, is eliminate the ability of actual tobacconists and smoke shops (guys who sell ONLY cigars, pipe blends and the like, not cigarettes) to sell their product... I'm sorry, but a cigar, and by extension pipe tobacco are items which require knowledge and care to sell for full value. You literally cannot sell them in a gas station like you can with cigarettes and vaping gak.
Sadly Michigan hasn't caught up yet, hence my comment on people openly vaping in stores and public. I want to strangle people that do that, I'm fine with them making the choice to potentially kill themselves, that's their choice to make but I decided long ago I don't and then puffing that crap all around me when I'm shopping makes the anger sharks swim in my head
2016/05/10 19:20:48
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
I was in a little town the other day on the border and it's like an old Mennonite town but they had more vape shops than liqueur stores. Had couple lounges too. The demographics in the lounge was a weird sight. A lot of older people using starter e-cigs along side the younger clients. The contrast caught me off guard.
I personally quit smoking through e-cigs. Then after gradual reduction in nicotine strength, I quit e-cigs too. I'd say if your determined enough to quit smoking e-cigs are the path of least resistance. They don't require you to break the hand to mouth portion of the habit at the same time as you wean yourself off the chemicals. I still have trouble with that part of the habit. Modelling and painting and chewing on my fingers seems to have satiated that part of the habit. Is it safe? I don't know, to be honest I'd take 4 months of e-cigs over a lifetime of smoking. 4 months of Maybe is better than 20 years of No. This was about a year and a half/ two years ago now. It's going well and I hope it lasts. I don't think you ever truly quit smoking, you just stop.
The vapers vaping in stores and inside indoor public places are stupid, and would be stupid in public with or without vaping. Call/find security or have the store owners ask them to stop/leave. You could also confront them yourself, if you'd prefer. Doing nothing isn't going to make it better though.
Legislating vaporizers in the same way as smokes doesn't really make sense. Nicotine probably doesn't cause cancer in the same way as a smoke would. I'd really rather that it was studied and the those studies were replicated and that the whole process was done outside of either the health care industry or the tobacco industry. I'd say no minors or a 18-21 minimum age seems appropriate.
I don't think they are really capable of being a gateway to smokes. They just don't have the smoothness or enjoyability of vaping. Cigs are harsh and gross, and if it wasn't for it addictive qualities, I doubt many would use it as frequently as they do. beyond connoisseurs. E-Juice should have fewer addictive additives as well. It should just be nicotine suspended in a food safe solution. So regulation to that effect would be good but would have to be handled carefully.
NobodyXY wrote: Legislating vaporizers in the same way as smokes doesn't really make sense. Nicotine probably doesn't cause cancer in the same way as a smoke would.
Regulation isn't just about carcinogens but also that nicotine is incredibly addictive, physically and mentally, and creating addictive pseudo-cigarettes with no regulation is not a good idea. Just because it isn't as cancer causing doesn't mean it isn't still incredibly problematic.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2016/05/10 20:28:42
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
Ahtman wrote: I quit smoking by not smoking anymore.
NobodyXY wrote: Legislating vaporizers in the same way as smokes doesn't really make sense. Nicotine probably doesn't cause cancer in the same way as a smoke would.
Regulation isn't just about carcinogens but also that nicotine is incredibly addictive, physically and mentally, and creating addictive pseudo-cigarettes with no regulation is not a good idea. Just because it isn't as cancer causing doesn't mean it isn't still incredibly problematic.
And the fact that it isn't just nicotine in e-cigs. Some chemicals/additives they use don't react well, and there have been cases of these chemicals being overheated and turning into toxins/carcinogens.
There certainly is a lot of issues with various flavor mixes and stuff.
as the previous example of the butter flavor. while still food safe for consumption will feth you up if inhaled.
my only issue is that its horribly cost prohibitive to do these full tests for each flavor and mix of flavor. effectively killing off the entire industries.
not saying im against it. but its not gonna be pretty.
Desubot wrote: effectively killing off the entire industries.
not saying im against it. but its not gonna be pretty.
Probably the pretense that it is harmless or safe was, at best, an umbrella that many hid under for awhile but that doesn't keep the rain from falling. Cigarettes kill over time but they are still legal so I doubt e-cig/vaporizers are going to disappear either, it will just change as necessary. Like any industry if it doesn't change it will die off.
Sometimes it is ok if an industry dies off, which isn't going to happen here, I imagine. I don't see people gnashing teeth and tearing cloth over the asbestos industry, for example. It turned out to be a bad idea that caused a lot of harm. This isn't asbestos so it will just change as needed and not disappear. It also has a bit of a feeling of being the trendy sort of thing at the moment where people will look back on it like people look at parachute pants in the 80s.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2016/05/11 11:33:03
Subject: FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
Desubot wrote: There certainly is a lot of issues with various flavor mixes and stuff.
as the previous example of the butter flavor. while still food safe for consumption will feth you up if inhaled.
.
diacetyl was known about for a couple of years before it hit the mainstream, most companies stopped using flavourings that contained them a long time ago, it was such a scandal within the industry that some vendors took to getting their liquids lab tested and make the results available on their websites.
Likewise the lab results that showed formaldehyde in large quantities have been roundly debunked as the conditions that caused these results would not be vapable, the voltages used burnt the equipment, if you try and vape a "dry hit" it's really horrible. So horrible in fact that temperature controlled devices have become quite popular to avoid this, exactly the type of product that will fall foul of the 2007 cut off.
Like I said before The royal college of Physicians have come out in support of E cigs as a harm reduction method and advised that smokers should be encouraged to vape. This is the body that made the definitive link between tobacco and cancer in 1962 and have been an important voice in tobacco control since then. It's not just vapers and clouds bro clouds douche bags but well respected scientific institutions that are supporting vaping. It boggles my mind that regulations that will effectively ban 90%+ of all products currently available. The FDA have only approved one new tobacco product since 2007 so the chances of modern vape devices still being available doesn't look good.
Nicotine in of itself is classed as about as harmful as caffeine ( I don't see this being banned in soda for example which is also really bad for you for a variety of reasons), the health risks from tobacco comes from the combustion element of the delivery system. I feel that governments are really missing a trick here in terms of harm reduction and public health.
I'm sorry to go on but there is a lot of scare stories flying around and the reality of the situation is that there have been studies carried out and the evidence supports these products as having a significant part to play in reducing the harm from tobacco. These are being legislated against to protect vested interested from pharmaceutical and tobacco companies.
Every person who vapes should do so with the knowledge that what they're using might be very harmful. A couple years back, the FDA published some test results, and they found all kinds of nasty chemicals. Do you really know where that Strawberry flavor vape fluid came from, and what's in it?
Summary of Results: Laboratory Analysis of Electronic Cigarettes Conducted By FDA
FDA conducted a preliminary analysis on some samples of electronic cigarettes and components from two leading brands. Due to the variability among products, this analysis should not be used to draw conclusions about what substances are or are not present in particular electronic cigarettes or brands of electronic cigarettes.
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation, Office of Compliance purchased two samples of electronic cigarettes and components from two leading brands. These samples included 18 of the various flavored, nicotine, and no-nicotine cartridges offered for use with these products. These cartridges were obtained in order to test some of the ingredients contained in them and inhaled by users of electronic cigarettes.
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation, Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis (DPA) analyzed the cartridges from these electronic cigarettes for nicotine content and for the presence of other tobacco constituents, some of which are known to be harmful to humans, including those that are potentially carcinogenic or mutagenic.
DPA's analysis of the electronic cigarette samples showed that the product contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed.
DPA's testing also suggested that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent.
Specifically, DPA's analysis of the electronic cigarette cartridges from the two leading brands revealed the following:
Diethylene glycol was detected in one cartridge at approximately 1%. Diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze, is toxic to humans.
Certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens were detected in half of the samples tested.
Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans—anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine—were detected in a majority of the samples tested.
The electronic cigarette cartridges that were labeled as containing no nicotine had low levels of nicotine present in all cartridges tested, except one.
Three different electronic cigarette cartridges with the same label were tested and each cartridge emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff. The nicotine levels per puff ranged from 26.8 to 43.2 mcg nicotine/100 mL puff.
One high-nicotine cartridge delivered twice as much nicotine to users when the vapor from that electronic cigarette brand was inhaled than was delivered by a sample of the nicotine inhalation product (used as a control) approved by FDA for use as a smoking cessation aid.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/11 21:30:55
2016/05/11 21:32:09
Subject: Re:FDA makes a move to effective outlaw vaping
jasper76 wrote: Every person who vapes should do so with the knowledge that what they're using might be very harmful. A couple years back, the FDA published some test results, and they found all kinds of nasty chemicals. Do you really know where that Strawberry flavor vape fluid came from, and what's in it?
Summary of Results: Laboratory Analysis of Electronic Cigarettes Conducted By FDA
FDA conducted a preliminary analysis on some samples of electronic cigarettes and components from two leading brands. Due to the variability among products, this analysis should not be used to draw conclusions about what substances are or are not present in particular electronic cigarettes or brands of electronic cigarettes.
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation, Office of Compliance purchased two samples of electronic cigarettes and components from two leading brands. These samples included 18 of the various flavored, nicotine, and no-nicotine cartridges offered for use with these products. These cartridges were obtained in order to test some of the ingredients contained in them and inhaled by users of electronic cigarettes.
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation, Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis (DPA) analyzed the cartridges from these electronic cigarettes for nicotine content and for the presence of other tobacco constituents, some of which are known to be harmful to humans, including those that are potentially carcinogenic or mutagenic.
DPA's analysis of the electronic cigarette samples showed that the product contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed.
DPA's testing also suggested that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent.
Specifically, DPA's analysis of the electronic cigarette cartridges from the two leading brands revealed the following:
Diethylene glycol was detected in one cartridge at approximately 1%. Diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze, is toxic to humans.
Certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens were detected in half of the samples tested.
Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans—anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine—were detected in a majority of the samples tested.
The electronic cigarette cartridges that were labeled as containing no nicotine had low levels of nicotine present in all cartridges tested, except one.
Three different electronic cigarette cartridges with the same label were tested and each cartridge emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff. The nicotine levels per puff ranged from 26.8 to 43.2 mcg nicotine/100 mL puff.
One high-nicotine cartridge delivered twice as much nicotine to users when the vapor from that electronic cigarette brand was inhaled than was delivered by a sample of the nicotine inhalation product (used as a control) approved by FDA for use as a smoking cessation aid.
This. This is the kind of testing I'd like to see. I know everyone thinks it's all big tobacco, but maybe vaping isn't that healthy.
3100+
WAR IS ALL WE KNOW
In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only Brussels Sprouts. 
~1.5k
