SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The U.S. surgeon general has warned against surging e-cigarette use among teenagers, calling it a "major public health concern" in a new report:
The U.S. surgeon general is calling e-cigarettes an emerging public health threat to the nation's youth. In a report being released Thursday, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy acknowledged a need for more research into the health effects of "vaping," but said e-cigarettes aren't harmless and too many teens are using them. "My concern is e-cigarettes have the potential to create a whole new generation of kids who are addicted to nicotine," Murthy told The Associated Press. "If that leads to the use of other tobacco-related products, then we are going to be moving backward instead of forward."
[...] Federal figures show that last year, 16 percent of high school students reported at least some use of e-cigarettes - even some who say they've never smoked a conventional cigarette. While not all contain nicotine, Murthy's report says e-cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco-related product among youth. Nicotine is bad for a developing brain no matter how it's exposed, Murthy said. "Your kids are not an experiment," he says in a public service announcement being released with the report.
It's already illegal to sell e-cigarettes to minors. Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration issued new rules that, for the first time, will require makers of nicotine-emitting devices to begin submitting their ingredients for regulators to review.
Also at USA Today, NYT, The Hill, and The Washington Post.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 09 2016, @02:09PM
Pretty much what I had to say. FFS, just let people do what they want to do UNLESS there is a PROVEN risk to public health.
Funny that the government spends so much time trying to ban stuff that Average Joe wants to do - but they're in bed with the pharmaceuticals and GMO food coroporations - not to mention the military industrial complex. Actually - it's not funny at all.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by weeds on Friday December 09 2016, @02:30PM
let people do what they want
Does not apply to minors.
Putting aside the health concerns
This is about health concerns.
Nicotine is bad for a developing brain no matter how it's exposed
I guess you missed that part.
Going from a bad "drug" - cigarette smoking, to a less bad "drug"- vaping is still bad.
I don't want my kids doing either of those. I gather from your comments, your thinking is, "I'm glad my kids are vaping, because they aren't smoking." (Or you don't have kids). It's not hard to construct a lot of nonsense from that point of view... "I'm glad my kids are doing cocaine. At least they aren't hit men."
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @02:49PM
Does not apply to minors.
Apparently you missed that teens still smoke. If tobacco were outlawed, but vaping legal, how would the health effect compare to having tobacco legal and vaping outlawed?
Wait, we already know the answer: The United Nations’ World Health Organization projects that a billion people will die prematurely from smoking this century.
Amount of deaths connected to vaping: 0.
I guess you missed that part.
No, I'm quite aware of it. But so does caffeine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2699625/ [nih.gov]
Shall we outlaw coffee, soda, and chocolate as well?
I don't want my kids doing either of those.
Which is between you and your children.
However when you literally condemning a billion people to death for sake of your children, you've moved over from busybody to tyrant.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Friday December 09 2016, @03:24PM
However when you literally condemning a billion people to death...
Literally? Really? Trying to stop kids from vaping nicotine is going to kill a billion people?
Since coffee, soda, and chocolate already can have a negative effect on the developing brain, let's add another one.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @03:38PM
How disingenuous of you.
If the regulations were only to ban sale to minors (which has already happened at the state level, so completely unnecessary), there wouldn't be any argument except for why is this needed at the federal level?
But that's not what the regulations say. You're even quoting the other parts of the regulations, so you should really know better.
So yes, a billion deaths under the smokescreen of saving your children.
Best of luck with your caffeine ban. I'm sure you'll be writing your congressman short to get this enacted.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Friday December 09 2016, @04:09PM
Why is what needed at the federal level? Did he say, "I'm going to start passing federal laws."? No, the article says,
Murthy's report calls on parents and health workers to make concerns about e-cigarettes clear to young people. He said local officials should take action, too, such as including e-cigarettes in indoor smoke-free policies.
Is there something wrong with this?
We are all pissed off because the surgeon general said that vaping nicotine is not a good idea for young people and they should know the dangers?
Did I suggest a caffeine ban? That wasn't very bright of me. Oh wait. I didn't.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @04:02PM
I'm sure I don't have to point out the absurdity and disingenuousness of comparing projected deaths over the next century to deaths seen over the past couple years. 0 deaths over the past couple years does not mean it'll stay 0 over the course of 100 years.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @04:12PM
Except if you had bothered to do any research, you'd see vaping has been around since the early 2000s. Still no deaths.
Shall we wait 100 years before deciding what to do then?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 09 2016, @02:53PM
The fuck it doesn't. Show me the bit of the Constitution that grants Congress the blanket right to pass laws limiting the liberties of people based on their age. Or show me the bit that authorizes them to regulate drugs. It isn't there, so the tenth amendment says it does not exist. And don't even go to the commerce clause. That clause was never meant for anything but giving the feds the authority to say "no, you may not slap tariffs on goods from other states of the union" and they damned well know it.
Not all, or even most, vaping liquids contain nicotine. There are a wide range of flavored liquids with no nicotine whatsoever. Regulate what you actually say you have the authority to regulate (the nicotine) rather than everything even possibly related to it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Friday December 09 2016, @03:20PM
The fuck it doesn't.
Not sure what fuck has to do with it, but throw it in there.
The constitution is the highest law of the land, not the only law of the land.
If laws that regulate activity are unconstitutional, feel free to bring them up to the supreme court. Not really my point.
We have laws that apply to minors and regulate activities based on age. If you don't like that, again, feel free to bring them up to the supreme court. The fact is, the laws are there and apply.
While not all contain nicotine....
I think that was in the original.
I don't know what the numbers are for vaping. My personal experience (not a valid argument) is that vaping is used and promoted as a way to deliver nicotine without all the other chemicals you get from burning tobacco. Indeed, no one should stand in your way if you want to inhale Vicks Vapo Rub.
Regulating the distribution of nicotine is a good idea. Maybe if the manufacturers had to tell you what was in the liquid, you could start that.
Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration issued new rules that, for the first time, will require makers of nicotine-emitting devices to begin submitting their ingredients for regulators to review.....
Maybe they should have to put them on the packaging too.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @03:28PM
Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration issued new rules that, for the first time, will require makers of nicotine-emitting devices to begin submitting their ingredients for regulators to review
Forgot this part:
The more onerous regulations are yet to come, she said. E-cigarette manufacturers now have two years to go through a long and expensive application process for each and every product that they intend to sell after 2018.
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/health/4094014-end-vaping-retailer-says-new-fda-regulations-will-kill-industry [duluthnewstribune.com]
Show me any other product that has that degree of regulation.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Friday December 09 2016, @03:48PM
The Constitution is the root of all legal authority, and no authority can exceed what it specifically allows, or contradict what it specifically prohibits. All laws and regulations in the US which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL are invalid. Get back to us when you understand that.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Friday December 09 2016, @03:54PM
Thanks for pointing that out. You do understand that the law is unconstitutional after it has been tested.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @05:30AM
A law is either unconstitutional or it is not. If a law is unconstitutional, then it is null and void even if the government doesn't recognize that fact, and The People must get rid of it. The founders never intended go give the Supreme Court absolute authority over whether a law is constitutional or not. Hell, the Supreme Court has overruled its past decisions on numerous occasions, even in cases where the relevant portions of the Constitution didn't change between the decisions, so the idea that they're always correct is nothing but a legal fiction.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday December 10 2016, @05:27AM
If you don't like that, again, feel free to bring them up to the supreme court. The fact is, the laws are there and apply.
Thanks for pointing out that laws like this exist. May I also point out that the NSA is conducting unconstitutional mass surveillance on the populace? Yes, it exists, and chances are you already knew that. Take it up with the Supreme Court if you don't like it. So useful.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday December 09 2016, @03:12PM
My employer, Boston Dynamics, has the same mindset. If you want to smoke cigarettes on campus, you must do so only at the handful of designated smoking areas on campus. But if you vape, you can do it anywhere as long as you are not within 20 feet of any building entrance. At a previous employer I knew a guy who vaped indoors in violation of the rules, and because he used unscented cartridges, it didn't bother anybody.
That being said, I think tobacco smells good -- but flavored tobacco smells like shit. Whenever I smoked blunts with the Blacks it pissed me off to no end when they purchased grape or peach-flavored blunt wraps.
Ahhh, smoking blunts with blacks. Crammed into a tiny apartment, sipping on Carlo Rossi Sangria watching the football game. Good times, good times.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 09 2016, @05:11PM
"Does not apply to minors."
WTF not? Since when did government displace parents? If parents permit the kid to (fill in space) then it's none of government's BUSINESS!!! Only an authoritarian believes that government trumps parental rights.
"Putting aside the health concerns
This is about health concerns."
Huh, wut? You're not quoting me with that.
"Nicotine is bad for a developing brain no matter how it's exposed
I guess you missed that part."
And - WTF does that have to do with anything? Oh - let me guess - authoritarianism. The government has the right/responsibility to decide what is good for you, and to enforce it's decision. The home of the brave and the land of the free has become the home of the weenies and the land of the chatel. Government owns your ass, is that it?
I don't much care what is "wrong". There are a lot of "wrong" things that are legal in this country. Predatory loan shark institutions - but they haven't been outlawed, have they? I don't think alcohol is good for you, but we saw what prohibition accomplished. I disapprove of marijuana, but again, we see what prohibition cost us.
I have kids. Those kids are adults now. They do what they want to do. The thing is, this is THEIR free country as well as my own. The kids aren't my slaves. They aren't little me. They are free to do good, do bad, fuck up, whatever the hell they want to do. They are free to make millions, and be elected just like Trump, or they can become crack whores and live in destitution. It's THEIR CHOICE - that's what FREEDOM is all about.
You want to allow those kids to be free to do what you approve of, is that it?
For all of my intolerance, I am more tolerant than you. Proof? Well, I disapprove of homosexuality - everyone knows that. But, I have never proposed that we use the police forces to stamp out homosexuality. But, here, you are approving of some authoritarian bastard's plan to outlaw vaping, and to have it enforced by the cops.
Don't you people ever learn? PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK!!!
Fuck the surgeon general.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday December 09 2016, @06:28PM
And the crazy libertarian goes crazy. Who'd've guessed?
It's not authoritarian to be concerned that products are being marketed and sold to minors, who we, as a society, generally recognize as not necessarily being capable of understanding the full ramifications of every choice they make. Particularly when those products have known elements that are both addictive and known to be harmful to minors, in particular.
That's making laws that establish boundaries on just who you can sell things to for reasons that are generally pretty valid in terms of overall harm and ability to engage in informed consent. I know you believe in magic, so my reply won't convince you that it's not all just people "getting what they deserve" and the government is "infringing on freedom" by assessing the nature of drugs and their effects. But it's always nice to condescend to people who really are just nuts.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 09 2016, @06:43PM
It IS authoritarian. First, the authoritarians redefined "minor" to suit their own opinions. Only two generations ago, a married couple were by definition, "adult". It didn't matter if they were 13 years old, and eloped to get married - they had a marriage license, they were adults. An adult could decide to drink, and a parent could serve alcohol to his/her own child in any setting - public or private. Today, if I give my 18 year old son a beer in the privacy of my own home, and he posts that on Facefook, the cops will be here in ten minutes to kick my door down. That IS authoritarian.
The fact that you approve of these authoritarian powers doesn't change the fact that they are authoritarian. The fact that I disapprove of them doesn't change that fact. Authoritarianism is exactly what it says on the package. You presume to be smarter than other people, and you presume to have some right or authority to decide what they may do.
That works alright, for your own children. Until they say "Fuck you Dad, we're moving out!"
It doesn't work so well out here in the big bad world. The kids still drink, smoke tobacco, smoke pot, shoot up all kinds of shit - and you won't stop them.
So - you want to continue the "War on Drugs", and maybe start another "War on Tobacco" or "War on Nictotine"? Basically, you would rather pay cops to kill kids for disobeying the law, than allow them to decide how to poison themselves.
THAT is what your authoritarianism is all about.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday December 09 2016, @07:02PM
Authoritarianism, for those who actually care, is defined as
To a libertarian it's more like
(Score: 2) by rondon on Friday December 09 2016, @08:00PM
Do you dispute that our government has "almost absolute control" over the drugs nicotine, alcohol, and most others except for caffeine? Do I not remember a man in New York City being choked to death for selling cigarettes for which he hadn't paid the tax man enough money? Is that not, by definition, authoritarian when a man can be murdered for not paying taxes on the drug that he sells?
Jesus Christ, why do we need to argue in this day and age about whether or not our government is freaking authoritarian on drugs? They are waging a war on drugs, for Christ's sake.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday December 09 2016, @08:17PM
Yes I do dispute that. You're wrong. You're 100% wrong.
You're arguing from example. The reality is that any drug which has passed safety inspections sufficient to be sold freely, can be examined, bought, and consumed from any number of privately run drug stores in the country, with non-government, expert oversight required in situations where taking the substance is measurably risky and hard for non-expert to understand.
Sorry this is once again a case where the libertarian "side" is just being an obsessed idiot who decries any and all regulation on willful misunderstandings. It's basically baby's first ideology, and a modest amount of self-critical analysis would have driven you to ways you're just utterly incorrect.
(The excessive use of force by police enforcing laws is a serious problem, and in general, enforcement of this medical law should be run through citations and fines)
(Score: 2) by rondon on Wednesday December 14 2016, @01:53PM
I don't understand how you are ignoring your own caveats. "Safety inspections sufficient" means that the government can declare any substance unsafe, regardless of actual safety, and then regulate that up unto the point of enforcing their rules with violence. The violence, I might add, can escalate to murder without serious repercussions. This strikes me as well within the definition of authoritarian.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 09 2016, @08:02PM
You've chosen one definition, as it applies to government, and that appeals to your own opinions.
au·thor·i·tar·i·an
əˌTHôrəˈterēən/
adjective
adjective: authoritarian
1.
favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
"the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime"
synonyms: autocratic, dictatorial, despotic, tyrannical, draconian, oppressive, repressive, illiberal, undemocratic; More
disciplinarian, domineering, overbearing, iron-fisted, high-handed, peremptory, imperious, strict, rigid, inflexible;
informalbossy
"his authoritarian manner"
antonyms: democratic, liberal
showing a lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others; domineering; dictatorial.
"he had an authoritarian and at times belligerent manner"
noun
noun: authoritarian; plural noun: authoritarians
1.
an authoritarian person.
synonyms: autocrat, despot, dictator, tyrant; More
disciplinarian, martinet
"the army is dominated by authoritarians"
Translate authoritarian to
Use over time for: authoritarian
adjective
1.
favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom:
authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2.
of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3.
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others:
an authoritarian parent.
noun
4.
a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.
________________________________
Take a leadership test someday. FYI, I am an authoritarian/coach blend of leader. I know what authoritarian is, because I are one. Take a course, take a test, and learn more about yourself. YOu ARE an authoritarian. You are not the same kind of authoritarian that I am, but you are one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @05:36AM
So is the NSA's mass surveillance authoritarian? How do you know if their control is absolute or approaching absolute? How can that be measured? By this standard, it's hard to say with confidence that authoritarianism exists at all, even in the worst countries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @05:33AM
It's not authoritarian to be concerned that products are being marketed and sold to minors, who we, as a society, generally recognize as not necessarily being capable of understanding the full ramifications of every choice they make.
Unless you're an idiot, you would also recognize that that applies to pretty much every adult in existence. Who understands the full ramifications of every choice they make? What an insane standard. Besides that, most adults seem to be only slightly better than children at making long-term decisions, so this seems incredibly arbitrary. Maybe we should test everyone periodically.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @07:10PM
I have kids too, and one of the challenges of being a parent is to teach them that many things that are legal and "everyone else" does are sometimes a really bad idea. You know why this parental responsibility is necessary? Because no minor who has ever wanted to smoke cigs was ever more than MINORLY INCONVENIENCED by whether or not he could legally buy it.