Is the Federal Government going to enforce the existing regulations on marijuana?
1
Many of the commenters seem to have missed the focus of concern by the editors. They are advocating for regulation to protect kids from becoming nicotine addicts and reversing the trend of downward use. There's nothing here about taking away YOUR e-cigs.
Tobacco profits have been suffering from their customers dying off or quitting. Unless you think it's a great idea to keep nicotine addiction around, let's keep trying to reduce the intake into the pipeline.
Tobacco profits have been suffering from their customers dying off or quitting. Unless you think it's a great idea to keep nicotine addiction around, let's keep trying to reduce the intake into the pipeline.
2
I think these articles have a major scare-mongering and "no fun allowed" moralism component to them. Pretty much everything enjoyable from booze, to high risk sports to food to sex has risk associated with it, from disease to death.
I don't doubt that e-cigs have some risk (at this point, largely unknown as to specifics AND magnitude) but they are far less risky than tobacco smoke AND as a non-smoker bystander a lot less annoying. You can sit right next to someone using an e-cig and if you try real hard, right as they exhale, almost smell something. But then it's gone. There is no lingering odor, residue, etc.
If nicotine is the big risk factor, please, tell us something specific about the risks of nicotine use in the concentrations commonly available to e-cig users. How does it compare to coffee or energy drinks as a substance. Don't tell me "think of the children" or worse, throw that word "addictive" around.
I don't necessarily think a mostly harmless substance (cf. caffeine in coffee) that also happens to be addictive makes it a crisis, either, or necessitates a huge government effort in regulation and control. The last thing we need is more time money and energy thrown into another prohibition regime.
I don't doubt that e-cigs have some risk (at this point, largely unknown as to specifics AND magnitude) but they are far less risky than tobacco smoke AND as a non-smoker bystander a lot less annoying. You can sit right next to someone using an e-cig and if you try real hard, right as they exhale, almost smell something. But then it's gone. There is no lingering odor, residue, etc.
If nicotine is the big risk factor, please, tell us something specific about the risks of nicotine use in the concentrations commonly available to e-cig users. How does it compare to coffee or energy drinks as a substance. Don't tell me "think of the children" or worse, throw that word "addictive" around.
I don't necessarily think a mostly harmless substance (cf. caffeine in coffee) that also happens to be addictive makes it a crisis, either, or necessitates a huge government effort in regulation and control. The last thing we need is more time money and energy thrown into another prohibition regime.
10
Here's a radical thought: people seek out some type of drug support and if they don't use tobacco, they use prescription drugs - or worse. The CDC's own figures show that the decline of smoking almost perfectly mirrors the increase in prescription drug usage (about 44 - 28% and vice versa). Somehow, that point never gets made because it undermines their self-righteousness - and their particualr funding biases. The mistake these well-meaning people make is that they compare eCigs to tobacco, when they really should compare them to all drugs. Once you do that, eCigs start to look like a good tradeoff. In fact, they are the future. (Author: "Cigarette Seduction")
1
as someone who has battled cigarette addiction all my life, ecigs are a great break through. It reduces my nicotine intake greatly because I can self dose whenever and however much I need. With cigarettes the tendency is to smoke as much as possible to deal with places you cant smoke. then you never ever throw away a half of cigarette, you smoke everyone done to the butt. Flavors offset the reduced nicotine and help reduce nicotine intake with flavor substitution. This should be about harm reduction not prohibition. Regarding threats to health from addictive substances, when we talk about alcohol as the biggest destructive addictive substance in our country we will be making some progress. Making products illegal for those under 18 is fine, but taking out flavors is like banning wine coolers for adults because they might appeal to young people who cant legally drink.
4
Econ 101!
E-cigarettes have a complementary demand curve to original cigarettes. The canonical example is cereal and milk; more cereal? you want more milk.
Using e-cigarettes is NOT a substitute for smoking; one makes you want the other more.
E-cigarettes have a complementary demand curve to original cigarettes. The canonical example is cereal and milk; more cereal? you want more milk.
Using e-cigarettes is NOT a substitute for smoking; one makes you want the other more.
2
on what basis do you make this observation? e-cigarrettes helped me quit tobacco and i have never looked back since. my experience seems to be quite common.
11
Why is it that the Times answer to ever problem seems to be more governmental regulation? And why is it always under the guise of "saving the children"?
6
You know what would be great? An e-cigarette that also delivered Adderall!
2
While a little regulation is probably not a dangerous thing as relates to this topic, I concur with those other observations here that E-Cigarettes are by FAR the lesser evil. Admittedly, they are vehicles for the ingestion of nicotine, this highly addictive drug - but the smokers were already hooked on that anyway - so that can't be a primary concern.
Regular cigarettes literally asphyxiate people, over time, by clogging up their bronchioles with TAR. Maybe there are no truly good ways to die, but this has GOT to be one of the worse ways; to slowly asphyxiate, yet compelled to continue consuming the thing that is killing you.
While the ingestion of such a powerful drug as nicotine is clearly a problem, E-Cigarettes allow a cessation of the tremendously damaging tar problems, and facilitates "backing off" the amount of the drug ingested, so that eventually a person can break, or greatly minimize the addiction.
That can't be bad.
Regular cigarettes literally asphyxiate people, over time, by clogging up their bronchioles with TAR. Maybe there are no truly good ways to die, but this has GOT to be one of the worse ways; to slowly asphyxiate, yet compelled to continue consuming the thing that is killing you.
While the ingestion of such a powerful drug as nicotine is clearly a problem, E-Cigarettes allow a cessation of the tremendously damaging tar problems, and facilitates "backing off" the amount of the drug ingested, so that eventually a person can break, or greatly minimize the addiction.
That can't be bad.
4
You are mistaken that the growth of vaping is a result of big tobacco pushing the use of e cigs. The product offered by the big tobacco companies is so inferior to the rest of the industry it raises the suspicion that they are trying to sabotage the trend away from tobacco. As a smoker for more than sixty years who started vaping four years ago, I can assure you vaping is not a portal to smoking. Rather the opposite is true. The immediate health benefits are amazing. I agree that young people should be discouraged from either smoking or vaping, but anyone concerned about the health of young people or anyone else should welcome the fact that young people are vaping rather than smoking.
16
Smoking of real cigs is sharply down, why no headlines on that? I'm curious as to what the NYT's is gaining from this, as the " reporting" is very one sided.
If you're so afraid " for the children", why aren't you going after the liquor companies? Think its not marketed to children? Why don't we discuss it over a nice root beer flavored vodka? Or maybe you'd prefer the bubblegum schnapps?
If you're so afraid " for the children", why aren't you going after the liquor companies? Think its not marketed to children? Why don't we discuss it over a nice root beer flavored vodka? Or maybe you'd prefer the bubblegum schnapps?
5
Conclusive clinical studies by both (ironically) "Big Tobacco" AND the FDA determined that "vaping" (the most popular form of "e-cig" use) is on the order of 40 times safer (!) than tobacco.
There are only 4 ingredients in vaping liquids ("e-juice"); 1) vegetable glycerin, 2) polypropylene glycol, 3) food-grade flavorings, 4) nicotine.
1) vegetable glycerin is used in countless food and pharmaceutical products, far too numerous to list here.
2) polypropylene glycol is used in coffee-based drinks, liquid sweeteners, ice cream, whipped dairy products, soda, medical vaporizer products, and even injected medications. Importantly, none of these nicotine products carry a massive tax burden the way smoking products do.
3) food-grade flavorings are in almost every consumable product we all eat.
4) nicotine is used in gum, trans-dermal patches, and nasal sprays - primarily for reducing dependence on tobacco products.
And there, in #4, lies the rub. Big Tobacco is financing mega-million-dollar campaigns against vaping because it cannot see how to make money from it. Various government agencies are seeking to tax vaping in an obvious "cash-grab" attempt to subsidize lagging tobacco-tax revenues. And ignorant fools, too lazy to actually research the issues involved, are against vaping simply because they fear what they don't understand.
The most important fact is this; vaping is not "slightly" safer than smoking - it's exponentially safer.
There are only 4 ingredients in vaping liquids ("e-juice"); 1) vegetable glycerin, 2) polypropylene glycol, 3) food-grade flavorings, 4) nicotine.
1) vegetable glycerin is used in countless food and pharmaceutical products, far too numerous to list here.
2) polypropylene glycol is used in coffee-based drinks, liquid sweeteners, ice cream, whipped dairy products, soda, medical vaporizer products, and even injected medications. Importantly, none of these nicotine products carry a massive tax burden the way smoking products do.
3) food-grade flavorings are in almost every consumable product we all eat.
4) nicotine is used in gum, trans-dermal patches, and nasal sprays - primarily for reducing dependence on tobacco products.
And there, in #4, lies the rub. Big Tobacco is financing mega-million-dollar campaigns against vaping because it cannot see how to make money from it. Various government agencies are seeking to tax vaping in an obvious "cash-grab" attempt to subsidize lagging tobacco-tax revenues. And ignorant fools, too lazy to actually research the issues involved, are against vaping simply because they fear what they don't understand.
The most important fact is this; vaping is not "slightly" safer than smoking - it's exponentially safer.
10
There are many conflicting views.
The individual wants freedom to make decisions without government interference. That is a given. No taxes, no health care cost, no liability, no damage.
However, the state and community thinks otherwise. Why?
The answer is plain and simple. The cost of living and dying (regardless of our lifestyle) is borne by more than one, it's a community effort, shared by family, friends, co-workers, health care workers, and the greater public represented by the government.
That is why the state and the federal government has a great interest in regulating our behavior, just like your parents wanted you to behave when you were a child. To avoid unnecessary harm, to reduce cost and minimize damage to you and your loved ones.
So there is no escaping the need to draw a line, between individual freedom to choose and act they way we wish, and the greater need for community and responsibility towards our fellow humans, family and friends.
Where would you like to draw the line?
The individual wants freedom to make decisions without government interference. That is a given. No taxes, no health care cost, no liability, no damage.
However, the state and community thinks otherwise. Why?
The answer is plain and simple. The cost of living and dying (regardless of our lifestyle) is borne by more than one, it's a community effort, shared by family, friends, co-workers, health care workers, and the greater public represented by the government.
That is why the state and the federal government has a great interest in regulating our behavior, just like your parents wanted you to behave when you were a child. To avoid unnecessary harm, to reduce cost and minimize damage to you and your loved ones.
So there is no escaping the need to draw a line, between individual freedom to choose and act they way we wish, and the greater need for community and responsibility towards our fellow humans, family and friends.
Where would you like to draw the line?
1
After reading a bunch of pro-e-cigarettes comments, I would suggest that rather than prohibiting their sale to kids, or otherwise regulating their use, manufacturers be forced to offer all variations of the product in just one flavor.
And that flavor should be the flavor of what's in my cats' litter box before I clean it. (Along with the scent, of course.)
And that flavor should be the flavor of what's in my cats' litter box before I clean it. (Along with the scent, of course.)
2
I suggest we do the same with soda, as sugar is addictive and there is an obesity epidemic in this country.
Plus, I personally disapprove of people drinking soda and my beliefs should trump everyone else's right to do as they wish to their own bodies.
Plus, I personally disapprove of people drinking soda and my beliefs should trump everyone else's right to do as they wish to their own bodies.
3
There is much hand-wringing here, and elsewhere, that allowing laxer regulations on e-cigarettes will promote nicotine addiction. However, what about their huge potential to combat nicotine addiction and reduce lung cancer and emphysema rates? Unlike a cigarette, you know the nicotine content in your "juice," and can step down gradually until you reach 0. And some people continue to "vape" with 0-nicotine juice because they enjoy the behavioral, if not chemical, component of smoking.
And THAT (the behavioral component) is something unique that only e-cigarettes bring to the smoking cessation table. Patches and gums replace nicotine too, at great cost to the user, but do not replace that most difficult psychological part of smoking cessation. Neuroscience research has long proven that there are two reward phases in addiction: the anticipation and the delivery phases. Patches/gum only target the reward phase. Going through the motions of smoking without smoking may be the extra help people need to stick with a nicotine weaning-off strategy.
And THAT (the behavioral component) is something unique that only e-cigarettes bring to the smoking cessation table. Patches and gums replace nicotine too, at great cost to the user, but do not replace that most difficult psychological part of smoking cessation. Neuroscience research has long proven that there are two reward phases in addiction: the anticipation and the delivery phases. Patches/gum only target the reward phase. Going through the motions of smoking without smoking may be the extra help people need to stick with a nicotine weaning-off strategy.
4
It appears a portion of irrational current and former cigarette smokers have now become irrational e-cig (or variations thereof) users, and are as strident in their defense of the indefensible. Nicotine is an addictive drug, and it should not be legally available to minors (those under 18) or marketed to them. Whether or not current or former adult nicotine addicts think e-cigs are safe and/or help them to stop smoking is irrelevant and unproven.
4
Nicotine is an optional additive to the Propylene Glycol/Vegetable Glycerin liquid used in E-Cigarettes. Typically it is added in concentrations from 6 to 18+ milligrams per milliliter. A milligram per milliliter is a concentration of 1 tenth of 1 percent.
If Nicotine is the issue, then regulate Nicotine. It is not an essential element of the E-Cigarette liquid. I ordered mine with 6mg/ml when I first quit cigarettes and tapered quickly to 0 mg/ml.
Propylene Glycol and Vegetable Glycerin are both food additives and already regulated by FDA.
Flavors, like Nicotine, are optional additives.
The other main variable affecting safety is the vaporizer temperature. An earlier Times article on this subject cited harmful substances in the vapor without properly noting that there is research showing that these byproducts are a function of temperature. Again, the buyer has the option to control the temperature when (s)he orders vaporizer coils. If you want to regulate this side effect, regulate coils.
The E-Cigarette is a powerful smoking cessation tool. If NYT wants to address this serious health issue in a constructive fashion, do your research and advise people, and pressure the industry, on the benefits and pitfalls. Self-righteous "cold-turkey" prescriptions are right up there with abstinence only sex education in terms of effectiveness in solving the problems they address.
If Nicotine is the issue, then regulate Nicotine. It is not an essential element of the E-Cigarette liquid. I ordered mine with 6mg/ml when I first quit cigarettes and tapered quickly to 0 mg/ml.
Propylene Glycol and Vegetable Glycerin are both food additives and already regulated by FDA.
Flavors, like Nicotine, are optional additives.
The other main variable affecting safety is the vaporizer temperature. An earlier Times article on this subject cited harmful substances in the vapor without properly noting that there is research showing that these byproducts are a function of temperature. Again, the buyer has the option to control the temperature when (s)he orders vaporizer coils. If you want to regulate this side effect, regulate coils.
The E-Cigarette is a powerful smoking cessation tool. If NYT wants to address this serious health issue in a constructive fashion, do your research and advise people, and pressure the industry, on the benefits and pitfalls. Self-righteous "cold-turkey" prescriptions are right up there with abstinence only sex education in terms of effectiveness in solving the problems they address.
17
Seems to me that the purpose of e-cigs is to reduce the amount of regular cigarette smoke entering the lungs - thus reducing the risk of lung cancer and to provide a way to gradually reduce dependence on nicotine by buying weaker e-cigs. They are for those addicted to smoking. Are there collateral risks? Of course. But if they meet those two goals, they should be made available to the public.
8
The fight over e- cigarettes is being waged all around the world in different proportions. In some countries like France, Australia and Brazil there is complete ban , while in other countries like Netherland, Finland it is partially prohibited and in Germany,Portugal it is legal.In US though there are some state specific laws, there is no Federal Law to regulate e- cigarettes.
As per WHO report Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), of which electronic cigarettes are the most common prototype, e- cigarettes contains a solution which is composed of nicotine along with Propylyn glycol, glycerol and other flavoring agents, which gets vaporized when the user inhales it.As per the report some of these chemicals are considered to be toxic to the health of the individuals in general and teenagers in particular .
It's startling to know that the e-cigarette use among high school students shoot up to 13% last year. Tobacco industry and lobbies are working hard to attract more and more people.i.e., e- cigarettes are now available in 7000 flavors!!!."Todays children are tomorrows citizens." nicotine use has a detrimental effect on the physical as well as cognitive development of the students. Health is paramount when compared to other aspects. salubrious human resources play a vital role in the national development.
Thus the need of the hour is to enact stringent laws to restrict the tobacco products access to teenagers .It's already high time to act.health is wealth.
As per WHO report Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), of which electronic cigarettes are the most common prototype, e- cigarettes contains a solution which is composed of nicotine along with Propylyn glycol, glycerol and other flavoring agents, which gets vaporized when the user inhales it.As per the report some of these chemicals are considered to be toxic to the health of the individuals in general and teenagers in particular .
It's startling to know that the e-cigarette use among high school students shoot up to 13% last year. Tobacco industry and lobbies are working hard to attract more and more people.i.e., e- cigarettes are now available in 7000 flavors!!!."Todays children are tomorrows citizens." nicotine use has a detrimental effect on the physical as well as cognitive development of the students. Health is paramount when compared to other aspects. salubrious human resources play a vital role in the national development.
Thus the need of the hour is to enact stringent laws to restrict the tobacco products access to teenagers .It's already high time to act.health is wealth.
There is no complete ban on vaping in any country. Some countries in the EU have regulated vaping in the same way they do tobacco, and Australia has a lot of restrictions on the their use, but all of them are being cautious about how they regulate the industry. You can't bring a vaping device into Canada, but you can buy them there.
I'm okay with regulating if we also regulate overeating.
3
We should not be allowing companies to addict our kids to drugs, period, and the key marketing strategy for e cig growth is achieving product adoption by our kids. Hooray for adults who are using these to cut their lung cancer risk, but they are already addicted. The FDA needs to finish its rulemaking and make it clear that any marketing or sales activity has to prevent pitching to teenagers, selling to them, or otherwise enabling their use.
Wow - another scare piece. Will it never end? e-cigs are not tobacco.
10
I am over 60. I was never a real smoker but frankly enjoyed that rare and occassional cigarette with a glass of wine or perhaps after a nice meal. At that "maybe a cigarette a week" rate, its no different than enjoying a nice cigar with a glass of scotch. I got into vaping and found that I enjoy many of the so-called "kids flavors" like cinammon or banana. I haven't touched tobacco in 2 yrs. I support sales restrictions to anyone under 18 but urge caution on stamping some arbitrary label on e-cig products. Who's to judge what's "too sweet" and "clearly marketing to kids"?? Will we have a gov't Tasting Committee??
6
I would like to pick a side and contribute something substantive here, but a reflection on my relationship to nicotine is all I can offer. Addicted to smokeless tobacco for 15 years beginning at age of 15, I cannot overstate the intensity of my dependency to it.
I was never ignorant to the health risks. With a youthful sense of invincibility, I cultivated a heroic disregard for the health risks, which I would rationalize for many years to come.
Averaging a “tin” every two days or so for over a decade, it became a part of my identity—even as a private ritual that I hid from most people. As a stimulant, it was a fuel for my productivity: it powered me through high school, college, and work. I consumed it “recreationally.” I carved out time in my day to be alone…I declined social plans, hurried home from work, and shirked networking events in preference for dipping. The act of consuming it and the effects of the drug itself made me feel like I was being productive.
There was an enormous psychological component to my addiction, but I must caution that nicotine has serious long term implications beyond the immediate physical health risks.
Rationalizing “less harmful” nicotine delivery methods is a slippery slope that may create more hazard for the mental dependency. Having tried dozens of time to quit over the years, the mental servitude now seems to have been the more dangerous and debilitating.
I was never ignorant to the health risks. With a youthful sense of invincibility, I cultivated a heroic disregard for the health risks, which I would rationalize for many years to come.
Averaging a “tin” every two days or so for over a decade, it became a part of my identity—even as a private ritual that I hid from most people. As a stimulant, it was a fuel for my productivity: it powered me through high school, college, and work. I consumed it “recreationally.” I carved out time in my day to be alone…I declined social plans, hurried home from work, and shirked networking events in preference for dipping. The act of consuming it and the effects of the drug itself made me feel like I was being productive.
There was an enormous psychological component to my addiction, but I must caution that nicotine has serious long term implications beyond the immediate physical health risks.
Rationalizing “less harmful” nicotine delivery methods is a slippery slope that may create more hazard for the mental dependency. Having tried dozens of time to quit over the years, the mental servitude now seems to have been the more dangerous and debilitating.
8
Notably missing from this op-ed piece: the fact that actual tobacco use among young people is at an all time low. One does not need to be a math major to see that the rise in vaping is directly related to the decline in smoking. I suspect that positions like those advocated here are driven more by ideology than science. If it wasn't the tobacco industry producing e-cigs, but big pharma, they'd probably be singing a very different tune.
7
One would think that anything that reduces smoking/use of tobacco by the young would be supported by Dr. Kessler. One wonders at his motives given the collusion between state governments and the tobacco industry over the master settlement back in the 1990s which was designed to maximize revenue to the states while maintaining a tobacco monopoly. E-cigarettes chipping away at smoking? Bad for government and the tobacco industry.
Dr. Kessler is a notorious fear monger. His jihads against salt and fat as well as his anti-science attack on the silicone implant industry when he was head of FDA are well documented. All have been discredited (the silicone case, which cost thousands their jobs and drove companies out of business) or undermined (salt and fat limits/bans) by real science. His credibility and objectivity are close to zero, to me.
Dr. Kessler is a notorious fear monger. His jihads against salt and fat as well as his anti-science attack on the silicone implant industry when he was head of FDA are well documented. All have been discredited (the silicone case, which cost thousands their jobs and drove companies out of business) or undermined (salt and fat limits/bans) by real science. His credibility and objectivity are close to zero, to me.
3
As a former smoker, my opinion is that the tobacco companies are the devil incarnate. That being said, it is my understanding that the nasty health effects from smoking are absent from E-cigarettes. If that is the case, then government overreach here is the bigger concern. This is still America, after all.
5
This piece sounds like Prof Hill in the "Music Man" warning us about the dangers of the new pool table in our community. You know that while E Cigarette use has gone up with the young. Tobacco use has dropped, but you don't mention this, do you?
3
It would be helpful if the NY Times would also editorialize on the need for much more active and effective new measures to prevent and reduce smoking -- such as limiting the amount of nicotine in cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products to minimal levels.
Smoking still causes the vast majority of all death, disease, disability and other health harms caused by tobacco use. But there does not currently appear to be any serious or significant discussion by editorial boards or others in the press about the crying need for implementing readily available new measures that would quickly and sharply reduce smoking and all the suffering and costs it causes.
Whether regulated effectively or allowed to run wild, the marketing of e-cigarettes in the will not, by itself, quickly or sharply reduce overall smoking. Minimizing nicotine levels in cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products would -- and would also eliminate the risk that youth who become addicted to e-cigarettes might subsequently become long-term smoking addicts in order to get an even stronger nicotine hit.
Smoking still causes the vast majority of all death, disease, disability and other health harms caused by tobacco use. But there does not currently appear to be any serious or significant discussion by editorial boards or others in the press about the crying need for implementing readily available new measures that would quickly and sharply reduce smoking and all the suffering and costs it causes.
Whether regulated effectively or allowed to run wild, the marketing of e-cigarettes in the will not, by itself, quickly or sharply reduce overall smoking. Minimizing nicotine levels in cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products would -- and would also eliminate the risk that youth who become addicted to e-cigarettes might subsequently become long-term smoking addicts in order to get an even stronger nicotine hit.
1
You can add nicotine to juice to make it as strong as you want it. Anyone who has switched to vaping would never go back to smoking. Anyone really concerned about health issues should rejoice in the rise in vaping and the reduction in smoking. It is the smoke that does the damage, not the nicotine.
I find that all kinds of people are willing to regulate all kinds of things as long as these things are not something THEY want to do... At any rate, I'm currently trying to switch from smoking a regular pipe to 'smoking' an e pipe... The idea here is to ratchet down your nicotine intake while substituting the regular pipe for an electronic facsimile of a pipe... My goal, of course, is to arrive at the zero nicotine level, where you can then decide whether you want to continue using the e pipe, or just quit altogether... I intend to pursue the latter goal...
20
Mark, unless the writers of this op ed are under 18, your logic is flawed. The major thrust of regulation recommended is for minors A second point: if you reference to an e-pipe is more accurately the "tank" delivery model of liquid nicotine, you are not necessarily getting less nicotine than what you would in a cigarette. So, you are not "ratcheting down" your nicotine consumption, but rather maintaining it.
Again; typical Liberal prescription - regulate and tax. Here's a thought; if it's not hurting others, leave people the hell alone?
8
No, it is time for people to start minding their own business.
They would not have it unless their parents didn't care if they had it, time for parents to start raising their own kids and stop expecting the government to raise them.
It is 100% the parents fault, they are responsible for them. It is NOT the responsibility of the tobacco companies to raise them either.
There are just as many adults who want the flavored stuff and it is no one's business but their own what flavor they are smoking.
It is like that with so many things, video games, movies, magazines, alcohol etc. like everything on the planet should just be for kids and if it isn't then it should be banned!
People who never have kids or who's kids are grown are still having to raise other people's kids by proxy.
They would not have it unless their parents didn't care if they had it, time for parents to start raising their own kids and stop expecting the government to raise them.
It is 100% the parents fault, they are responsible for them. It is NOT the responsibility of the tobacco companies to raise them either.
There are just as many adults who want the flavored stuff and it is no one's business but their own what flavor they are smoking.
It is like that with so many things, video games, movies, magazines, alcohol etc. like everything on the planet should just be for kids and if it isn't then it should be banned!
People who never have kids or who's kids are grown are still having to raise other people's kids by proxy.
8
Just about every measure proposed here in this piece will either make no difference or will never become law.
1. An FDA regulation making it illegal to sell e cigarettes to minors. It has been illegal to sell cigarettes to minors for decades, yet this did not make a dent in the number of kids that smoked. And e cigarettes will be no different.
In addition an FDA regulation will not be enforced by the federal government. The only means of enforcement of these laws that had any effect at all were those that were done by local police departments. And the reason they did this was because there was a compelling health interest involved, 1 out of 3 smokers will die as a result of a smoking. E cigarettes pose no serious threat at all to health. So the police will have better things to do than to waste time and resources to enforce such petty laws.
The proposal to disallow "celebrity endorsements, slick TV and magazine ads and sponsorships of race cars and music festivals" shows a basic lack of understanding as to why such promotion has been made illegal in regard to cigarettes. It is because cigarettes are a public health hazard and have no safe use. E Cigarettes are certainly not in that category and are certainly no worse than beer or hard alcohol.
And what warning is it that shall be written in e cigarettes, that nicotine is addictive. Perhaps caffeine too should carry such a warning.
1. An FDA regulation making it illegal to sell e cigarettes to minors. It has been illegal to sell cigarettes to minors for decades, yet this did not make a dent in the number of kids that smoked. And e cigarettes will be no different.
In addition an FDA regulation will not be enforced by the federal government. The only means of enforcement of these laws that had any effect at all were those that were done by local police departments. And the reason they did this was because there was a compelling health interest involved, 1 out of 3 smokers will die as a result of a smoking. E cigarettes pose no serious threat at all to health. So the police will have better things to do than to waste time and resources to enforce such petty laws.
The proposal to disallow "celebrity endorsements, slick TV and magazine ads and sponsorships of race cars and music festivals" shows a basic lack of understanding as to why such promotion has been made illegal in regard to cigarettes. It is because cigarettes are a public health hazard and have no safe use. E Cigarettes are certainly not in that category and are certainly no worse than beer or hard alcohol.
And what warning is it that shall be written in e cigarettes, that nicotine is addictive. Perhaps caffeine too should carry such a warning.
10
Could not quit cigs no matter what I did. Now there are ejuice chefs who make NEW and refined exquisite flavors that thrill the soul. The equipment is becoming aethetically prized and fascinating. The effects this will have on the world will be like the computer. It is a gift from god.
2
About time this happens.
The "new" thing in this area.
Users of e-cigarettes who consider themselves exempt from non-smoking laws. For me, the latest one was in a grocery store in the produce aisle. I guess the one scowl was enough to get him to stop.
The "new" thing in this area.
Users of e-cigarettes who consider themselves exempt from non-smoking laws. For me, the latest one was in a grocery store in the produce aisle. I guess the one scowl was enough to get him to stop.
5
They are also becoming a problem in the workplace for the same reason. For those with asthma and other respiratory conditions, the vapor and odor can be irritants.
It's vapor ... not smoke. For all the cherry-picked pseudo facts presented in this many many articles, there are many, many other reports that show it is not hurting YOU in any way. We don't regulate people shopping (or dining out) with 3 or 4 screaming kids running around shops or restaurants, but that absolutely raises the blood pressure of several people around them.
For all the blather (and "oh, the children" hand-wringing), this was how I quit smoking. And I am suspect that all this somehow snowballed all at once into a series of stories. More than likely fed to the media by the tobacco industry that is losing out or the same busybodies whose kids are running amok while they get petitions signed to ban everything but the kitchen sink.
For all the blather (and "oh, the children" hand-wringing), this was how I quit smoking. And I am suspect that all this somehow snowballed all at once into a series of stories. More than likely fed to the media by the tobacco industry that is losing out or the same busybodies whose kids are running amok while they get petitions signed to ban everything but the kitchen sink.
1
Funny how people looking to stop people from smoking, drinking, etc, are always above the age limit they suggest.
4
And "funny" how kids aren't writing opinions in national papers about permitting them the use of tobacco, alcohol, and other harmful products that they know are really cool stuff.
"In 2011, the F.D.A. announced its intention to impose rules on e-cigarettes as a tobacco product. The F.D.A. finally issued proposed rules in April 2014. But those rules still have not been finalized, and the administration has not committed to a firm date to take action."
Interestingly, after 9/11 the legislative and regulatory process went into overdrive and the result was that laws were enacted and regulations were enacted and implemented in the blink of an eye.
Do you suppose tobacco interests might have anything to do with the apparently endless gestation we're reading about here?
Yet which of the two, islamist extremism or tobacco products including e-cigarettes,will take the greater number of American lives in the coming decades?
Interestingly, after 9/11 the legislative and regulatory process went into overdrive and the result was that laws were enacted and regulations were enacted and implemented in the blink of an eye.
Do you suppose tobacco interests might have anything to do with the apparently endless gestation we're reading about here?
Yet which of the two, islamist extremism or tobacco products including e-cigarettes,will take the greater number of American lives in the coming decades?
4
Many sensible proposals have already come out surrounding e-"cigarettes," like age protection and quality assurance. I would have no problem, also, with doing away models that look like actual cigarettes, similar to the way candy manufacturers no longer make candy or gum cigarettes.
But I put the term "cigarette" in quotation marks because the device I use looks nothing like a cigarette, and because the continued use of the term perpetuates the misconception that all forms of nicotine delivery are essentially alike, and equally harmful (and therefore, in the minds of many, sinful).
Why can't we begin to view nicotine consumption--when dissociated from tobacco use--as a legitimate habit to be enjoyed by adults, like caffeine or alcohol (and not like hard drugs like heroin as one commenter here breathlessly claimed)? I use my vapor device respectfully (i.e., not around kids or in closed public spaces), and I don't pollute the environment or risk the many smoking-related illnesses associated with cigarettes. I also use a low-nicotine formula. What's so terrible about that?
And while we're on the subject, people need to get over the flavoring issue. There's no such thing as "tobacco-flavored" e-liquid--it's all sweet or pleasant tasting to some degree. That's one of the draws for ex-smokers like me! To demand that e-liquid tastes terrible is punitive and puritanical. How'd you like it if I demanded that your morning Starbucks tasted like pond water?
But I put the term "cigarette" in quotation marks because the device I use looks nothing like a cigarette, and because the continued use of the term perpetuates the misconception that all forms of nicotine delivery are essentially alike, and equally harmful (and therefore, in the minds of many, sinful).
Why can't we begin to view nicotine consumption--when dissociated from tobacco use--as a legitimate habit to be enjoyed by adults, like caffeine or alcohol (and not like hard drugs like heroin as one commenter here breathlessly claimed)? I use my vapor device respectfully (i.e., not around kids or in closed public spaces), and I don't pollute the environment or risk the many smoking-related illnesses associated with cigarettes. I also use a low-nicotine formula. What's so terrible about that?
And while we're on the subject, people need to get over the flavoring issue. There's no such thing as "tobacco-flavored" e-liquid--it's all sweet or pleasant tasting to some degree. That's one of the draws for ex-smokers like me! To demand that e-liquid tastes terrible is punitive and puritanical. How'd you like it if I demanded that your morning Starbucks tasted like pond water?
21
Forget e-cigarettes being regulated, why not cigarettes? Why, are cigarettes legal at all? People should have to roll their own, and by dime bags, just like that other illegal substance.
5
It's not smoking, and it's not a tobacco product. Let's start there. And, as always, let's follow the money. What money is lobbying to have e-cigs heavily regulated?
I'm an e-cig success story; I was a pack a day camel filter smoker. A year ago I waled into a small vaping exposition, bought a starter kit, crumpled up what was left of the pack of cigarettes I had with me and have not touched one since. Yes, I'm still using a nictotine delivery system. I also drink coffee daily, and alcohol occassionally. So?
Be careful just how big-brotherish you want to get on this issue. 18+, maybe...but look at smoking vs vaping graphing for kids and make sure that's part of the equation as well because, let's face it; no age limit ever kept cigarettes or alcohol out of kids hands.
I'm an e-cig success story; I was a pack a day camel filter smoker. A year ago I waled into a small vaping exposition, bought a starter kit, crumpled up what was left of the pack of cigarettes I had with me and have not touched one since. Yes, I'm still using a nictotine delivery system. I also drink coffee daily, and alcohol occassionally. So?
Be careful just how big-brotherish you want to get on this issue. 18+, maybe...but look at smoking vs vaping graphing for kids and make sure that's part of the equation as well because, let's face it; no age limit ever kept cigarettes or alcohol out of kids hands.
29
Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful!
Both authors live rather well off Tobacco Master Settlement money and Government grants among other sources of revenue for the Multibillion dollar a year world wide "Tobacco Control" business. Also they do not hesitate for one single second to shamelessly peddle already established lies. Kessler is a professor at UCSF which is also the Mater of Stan Glantz. Anyone with a little bit of time on their hands should follow either of the two links below to get a somewhat more balanced picture. Also from scientists who nowadays have scant chance of ever again getting any government funding or parts of the billions paid by Big Tobacco against the settlement. Does the NYT really not moderate or discern whatsoever the texts that go in as Op-eds? These two gentlemen are purporting to convey facts when they are in fact delivering blatantly lying propaganda that does nothing whatsoever but HARM public health. One would think both gentlemen are completely opposed to clean needles and condoms as well.
But the greater shame on NYT for actually publishing this garbage that no doubt will kill a lot of people for every life saved. Oh, by the way, isn't that last part the antithesis of good Public Health work?
http://nicotinepolicy.net/documents/letters/MargaretChan.pdf
http://antithrlies.com/2015/04/22/california-ecig-regulation-hearing-a-c...
Both authors live rather well off Tobacco Master Settlement money and Government grants among other sources of revenue for the Multibillion dollar a year world wide "Tobacco Control" business. Also they do not hesitate for one single second to shamelessly peddle already established lies. Kessler is a professor at UCSF which is also the Mater of Stan Glantz. Anyone with a little bit of time on their hands should follow either of the two links below to get a somewhat more balanced picture. Also from scientists who nowadays have scant chance of ever again getting any government funding or parts of the billions paid by Big Tobacco against the settlement. Does the NYT really not moderate or discern whatsoever the texts that go in as Op-eds? These two gentlemen are purporting to convey facts when they are in fact delivering blatantly lying propaganda that does nothing whatsoever but HARM public health. One would think both gentlemen are completely opposed to clean needles and condoms as well.
But the greater shame on NYT for actually publishing this garbage that no doubt will kill a lot of people for every life saved. Oh, by the way, isn't that last part the antithesis of good Public Health work?
http://nicotinepolicy.net/documents/letters/MargaretChan.pdf
http://antithrlies.com/2015/04/22/california-ecig-regulation-hearing-a-c...
6
What are the lies and who is lying about it? Please explain.
So am I take away from this that if there were no ecigs at all, that these youth would be smoking tobacco instead? Just sayin. Teens are going to do what teens are going to do. Get over it already. I would much rather them vape than smoke.
All this hype about ecigs, kids, the dangers etc is just that, hype. The scientific data making claims about ecigs, pro or con, is generally cherry picked by those that are part of the anti smoking mafia anyway.
Regulate flavors? Why? Go into any liquor store and you will find practically every flavor made in eliquids, also in liquor. The enticement to adults is that they like the choices of flavors. Not just kids. My wife loves her Almond Joy and Mounds flavors.
A recent study from march 9th in the “Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology” report said this after extensive testing,
"The researchers specifically looked for 8 toxins in this study: carbon monoxide, carbonyls, phenolics, volatiles, metals, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, polyaromatic amines, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Researchers were shocked to see that the toxins in ecigarette vapor were quite similar to the normal toxins found in regular room air. In fact, there was no major increase in toxins between normal air and ecig vapor."
That's just from one report of dozens if not hundreds. But the government and detractors don't want to talk about these. Why? Money.
All this hype about ecigs, kids, the dangers etc is just that, hype. The scientific data making claims about ecigs, pro or con, is generally cherry picked by those that are part of the anti smoking mafia anyway.
Regulate flavors? Why? Go into any liquor store and you will find practically every flavor made in eliquids, also in liquor. The enticement to adults is that they like the choices of flavors. Not just kids. My wife loves her Almond Joy and Mounds flavors.
A recent study from march 9th in the “Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology” report said this after extensive testing,
"The researchers specifically looked for 8 toxins in this study: carbon monoxide, carbonyls, phenolics, volatiles, metals, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, polyaromatic amines, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Researchers were shocked to see that the toxins in ecigarette vapor were quite similar to the normal toxins found in regular room air. In fact, there was no major increase in toxins between normal air and ecig vapor."
That's just from one report of dozens if not hundreds. But the government and detractors don't want to talk about these. Why? Money.
22
It is the responsibly of MOM and DAD to keep their kids away from bad things. Not the government job you have to be 18 to buy vape products. They only thing that would change is you will make it more costly for the people who vape in the form of higher taxes. This nanny stuff has got to stop.
I am so sick of all the dumb laws we have to protect the kids. I want to live free not in a nanny state.
I am so sick of all the dumb laws we have to protect the kids. I want to live free not in a nanny state.
11
"The 2009 law prohibited the sale of candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes, and for good reason: Those cigarettes were a blatant appeal to teenagers. But e-cigarettes now come in more than 7,000 flavors. An extension of the flavored cigarette prohibition to e-cigarettes is more than justified. Adult e-cigarette users don’t need flavors like cotton candy." Following this train of thought, then, alcohol manufacturers need to stop making flavored booze because adults don't need flavors. The absolute stupidity of this article is evident. Just more bought and paid for propaganda by Big Tobacco.
17
John, where do you think the nicotine for e-cig devices comes from? It is extracted from tobacco. E-cigs are a gift to tobacco companies.
Nicotine is addictive. It is also a poison. The tobacco companies have known this for years. Nicotine is more addictive for some than others. Those who are addicted early in life are among those who are most likely to find it very difficult to quit.
Tobacco companies knew all these things and activel studied how to pitch their product to the teens most likely to flout their elders warnings not to start smoking.
All this came to light over a decade ago when carefully hidden company research was finally exposed.
The tobacco companies are at it again, it appears.
Tobacco companies knew all these things and activel studied how to pitch their product to the teens most likely to flout their elders warnings not to start smoking.
All this came to light over a decade ago when carefully hidden company research was finally exposed.
The tobacco companies are at it again, it appears.
4
I suspect high taxation rates should be added to these suggestions. To pretend that nicotine is not a health hazard delivered in vapor is akin to heroine being delivered the same way. Nicotine is of course more addictive.
4
MD, do you drink coffee. As FDA Tobacco director Mitch Zeller said, nicotine addicts but it's mainly the tar that kills.
5
How do Kessler and Myers know that adult e-cigarette users don't like the sweeter flavors that they want banned? The answer is they don't: a simple google search would have told them adult users like these flavors so much they review/debate which ones are best. Are we permitted to do an invasive audit of Kessler and Myers' lives to see what dubious things they may have enjoyed in their lives? Ban sales to kids if you want but leave the adults alone!
26
The authors talk a lot about regulations and store displays and many details. But they neglect to mention this: What is in the vapor of an e-cig?
It should be pretty easy for the authors to purchase one of every type of e-cig, set up a machine to collect the vapor inhaled and exhaled, and run a chemical analysis on this. Then report on the contents - the amount of nicotine, tar, and other chemicals. Yet the authors don't do this. Why?
No references. Some oblique statements about what the tobacco industry "knows".
Granted, this is the "opinion" zone. But intelligent Americans are used to opinions being presented as facts - now we want facts to back up your biased, rehearsed, dogmatic opinions. Don't tell us what we should believe - give us facts to believe in. Otherwise your opinion is a waste of pixels.
It should be pretty easy for the authors to purchase one of every type of e-cig, set up a machine to collect the vapor inhaled and exhaled, and run a chemical analysis on this. Then report on the contents - the amount of nicotine, tar, and other chemicals. Yet the authors don't do this. Why?
No references. Some oblique statements about what the tobacco industry "knows".
Granted, this is the "opinion" zone. But intelligent Americans are used to opinions being presented as facts - now we want facts to back up your biased, rehearsed, dogmatic opinions. Don't tell us what we should believe - give us facts to believe in. Otherwise your opinion is a waste of pixels.
27
"It should be pretty easy for the authors to purchase one of every type of e-cig, set up a machine to collect the vapor inhaled and exhaled, and run a chemical analysis on this."
Perhaps you missed the part where the authors stated that e-cigarettes now come in more than 7000 flavors. Do you really expect them to test each one? Even if they did, are you sure one batch of strawberry flavor is the same as the next? There is currently no regulation of the manufacture of these liquids or the devices that dispense them, nor is there even a central database of what is out there.
Wouldn't this be more reasonable: how about requiring manufacturers to submit devices and liquids to the FDA for testing prior to sale?
Perhaps you missed the part where the authors stated that e-cigarettes now come in more than 7000 flavors. Do you really expect them to test each one? Even if they did, are you sure one batch of strawberry flavor is the same as the next? There is currently no regulation of the manufacture of these liquids or the devices that dispense them, nor is there even a central database of what is out there.
Wouldn't this be more reasonable: how about requiring manufacturers to submit devices and liquids to the FDA for testing prior to sale?
Thank you Dr. Kessler, again. Your service to America on vital health issues is outstanding and we are grateful.
6
I totally agree. FDA should have oversight over these clever devices. I understand that there are chemicals or compounds in these devices to enable the delivery of nicotine that are harmful. I don't see in NYC widespread usage of this anymore but but irked me to no end is that a few die-hard smokers switch to these devices and began using them in our offices. They were quite defiant that it was legal to use these devices indoors. I do commend our Mayor Bloomberg for eliminating smoking from all public places indoors, restaurants and bars. I was livid when he raised the taxes so high on cigarettes that I had to consider alternatives. Thank you Mr Bloomberg know that I quit smoking and so many others in NYC did too. Now I suggest we take away these adult pacifiers by putting them under the auspices of the FDA - make it available via prescriptions!
5
Contra Bloonmberg, leading anti-smoking organizations, Cancer research UK and Action on Smoking & Health, oppose bringing ecigs into smokefree laws.
Evidence is that toxicants are below harmful levels, and going after them would increase population exposure to real secondhand smoke, discourage smokers from buying lifesaving devices and send former smokers to stand outside with cigarette users encouraging relapse.
Evidence is that toxicants are below harmful levels, and going after them would increase population exposure to real secondhand smoke, discourage smokers from buying lifesaving devices and send former smokers to stand outside with cigarette users encouraging relapse.
5
'...a few die-hard smokers switch to these devices and began using them in our offices...'
It is illegal to do so in New York.
It is illegal to do so in New York.
Oh yes,must regulate. A lot of Cash is slipping by isn't it ?
Interesting how no one was interested in "Saving Lives" (slight chuckle) until it become a Possible large source of Cash.
Interesting how no one was interested in "Saving Lives" (slight chuckle) until it become a Possible large source of Cash.
15
FDA approval is estimated to be a regulatory overkill, banning 99.9% of products. Big Tobacco will then be left alone to smolder the disruptive product.
A more rational approach would be to set product standards -- just like any other beneficial but potentially harmful consumer product.
A more rational approach would be to set product standards -- just like any other beneficial but potentially harmful consumer product.
8
Thing is, e-cigarettes are not part of the "tobacco industry" that you cite in the last sentence, "addicting another generation of kids." In fact, e-cigarettes are the biggest threat the tobacco industry has EVER faced, and they are running so scared they are obviously pulling a lot of strings behind the scenes to whip up public hysteria against vaping.
Banning e-cigarettes would play right into Big Tobacco's playbook.
Banning e-cigarettes would play right into Big Tobacco's playbook.
48
You are misinformed. Many of the major tobacco companies now make and market e-cigarettes and related devices along with the liquid nicotine. These companies are in the business of marketing nicotine/addiction. The nicotine in e-cig liquids is extracted from tobacco. See the connection?
While I agree with the authors on several points, (restricting selling and marketing to kids and banning certain flavors of e-cigarettes) I wish the authors had taken the time to point out the other finding from the federal government: that smoking combustible cigarettes among youth had plunged. (I refer everyone here to Joe Nocera's column from a couple days ago.)
Recently, I successfully used e-cigarettes to quit combustible ones and, I have to say, I feel much, much better. I can breathe better. I am not as prone to prolonged colds or sinus infections. I can taste things again. There is no offensive odor.
And while I can still feel an effect on my breathing after a long day, it's nowhere near as severe as when I smoked about a half a pack a day.
This is an improvement over traditional cigarettes.
Still, many things concern me and I hope federal legislation addresses them: I noticed the products I use are sometimes made in China. I would like these products regularly tested so I know exactly what's in them. We also need to start long term health studies, because while my gut tells me that these are safer, they are not necessarily safe.
But please, let's not overreact here. We should welcome the news that teenage smoking is in sharp decline. I worry however that a potentially safer product is being vilified by overzealous anti-tobacco campaigners. Yes nicotine is addictive. It is not, however, the most dangerous thing about smoking. That would be the smoke.
Recently, I successfully used e-cigarettes to quit combustible ones and, I have to say, I feel much, much better. I can breathe better. I am not as prone to prolonged colds or sinus infections. I can taste things again. There is no offensive odor.
And while I can still feel an effect on my breathing after a long day, it's nowhere near as severe as when I smoked about a half a pack a day.
This is an improvement over traditional cigarettes.
Still, many things concern me and I hope federal legislation addresses them: I noticed the products I use are sometimes made in China. I would like these products regularly tested so I know exactly what's in them. We also need to start long term health studies, because while my gut tells me that these are safer, they are not necessarily safe.
But please, let's not overreact here. We should welcome the news that teenage smoking is in sharp decline. I worry however that a potentially safer product is being vilified by overzealous anti-tobacco campaigners. Yes nicotine is addictive. It is not, however, the most dangerous thing about smoking. That would be the smoke.
24
I'm disappointed that this Times editorial, like most negative articles on e-cigarettes, does not once mention the fact that many e-cigarette users opt for a non-nicotine solution. But of course that would have weakened your editors' negative article, since what would be the point of regulating a "smoking"product which contained no tobacco and no nicotine? Perhaps restricting e-cigarettes to non-nicotine solutions might be the answer. I personally have used a non-nicotine e-cigarette for two years after a lifetime on tobacco cigarettes- and never looked back. I 've also saved $15,000 in that time that did not go to Big Tobacco. P.S. My favorite non-nicotine glycerin solution is strawberry bubblegum. And I'm 74.
41
As a former smoker who tried and failed many times to quit tobacco (but succeeded eventually!!!) I can only agree with this OpEd. Wholeheartedly. Nip this product in the bud. Proponents claim it reduces smoking, but it only reduces smoking in "smoke free" areas not wise enough to ban e cigs. Everywhere else, it increases smoking, increases risk, and makes quitting tobacco harder for the millions who want to be tobacco free
10
Steve, there is no smoking. There is no smoke. It dramatically lessens health risks, since nictotine was never the killer in our cigarettes, and it all but eliminates second hand inhalation risks. Other than that I found your analysis spot-on.
1
This is silly. E-cigs are not tobacco and I, for one, have quit tobacco using these devices. To say it increases smoking is just patently false.
10
The marketing's always the thing
Makes tobacco's register ring,
The cunning is stunning
And so slyly running,
With profits, of course, always king!
Makes tobacco's register ring,
The cunning is stunning
And so slyly running,
With profits, of course, always king!
16
Absolutely, strict e cigarette regulation should be a priority for the FDA.
1