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.
Related Stories
The US officially raises the tobacco buying age to 21
A new law in the United States that prohibits the sale of tobacco products to anyone under the age of 21 is now in effect, according to the US Food and Drug Administration.
Last week, President Donald Trump signed the new minimum age into law as part of a sweeping spending bill. On Friday, the FDA noted on its website that "it is now illegal for a retailer to sell any tobacco product -- including cigarettes, cigars and e-cigarettes -- to anyone under 21. FDA will provide additional details on this issue as they become available."
The increased age restriction for tobacco purchases is one of several provisions outside of the spending measures themselves attached to the broader $1.4 trillion spending agreement.
Also at ABC.
Previously: California to Permit Assisted Suicide Starting June 9th, Could Raise Smoking Age to 21
California's Legal Smoking Age Set to Rise to 21
Tobacco Roundup
U.S. Surgeon General Decries Teenage Vaping
Oregon Becomes the Fifth State to Raise the Tobacco Age Limit to 21
San Francisco Bans E-Cigarette Sales
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @01:21PM
Teen vaping rates have gone up (like 3 mil now), tobacco use has gone down (lowest rate ever).
Putting aside the health concerns, giving us another "gateway" drug argument gives away the mindset. This is yet again more prohibition with a "think of the children" twist.
You can't have "an emerging public health threat" without any evidence of harm. Legalization has no effect on teen use
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/colorado-s-teen-marijuana-usage-dips-after-legalization/ [scientificamerican.com]
But putting onerous regulatory burden on e-cigarettes will certainly spike tobacco use, which is just ass backwards any way you look at it.
(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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday December 09 2016, @03:13PM
Vaping is a substantially different issue than marijuana, because the effects are different.
Marijuana is, as best as anyone can tell, not physically addictive, and relatively harmless, doing less harm than either tobacco or alcohol. It is, like a lot of things, psychologically addictive, so there probably is such a thing as using too much of it, but it's darn near impossible to overdose on and there isn't a clear link between marijuana and specific health problems.
Nicotine, on the other hand, is demonstrably bad for you [nih.gov], and vaping provides an intake of nicotine even as it avoids the effects of tar that lead to lung cancer. The vaping industry would like you to think otherwise, so they are intentionally sowing confusion about this question, but vaping is not harmless. Warning you about that fact is one of the duties of the Surgeon General.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @03:23PM
Problem- there are various nicotine replacement regimens available to help people quit smoking (effectiveness of about 1%).
How can you argue in good faith about the ill effects of nicotine and outlawing one form over another when these products are around?
And comprehension fail- the issue isn't the effects of marijuana over nicotine, but the effects of legalization on use by teens.
Speaking of sowing confusion.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday December 09 2016, @05:13PM
This is yet again more prohibition with a "think of the children" twist.
Straw man at all? From TFA:
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.
Not exactly prohibition, and certainly not the sort of "go-to-jail for possession, let alone supplying" mindset that has caused the "war on drugs".
Is it better that smokers currently filling their lungs with tar and carbon monoxide switch to e-cigs? No shit, Sherlock, but maybe, just maybe, it would be a good idea not to sell e-cigs to 12 year-olds, not let companies promote SpongeBob-themed, bubblegum-flavored liquids that "aren't aimed at children honestly" and have some regulations to ensure that liquids actually contain what the manufacturers say they do and don't contain crazy amounts of nicotine.
You can't have "an emerging public health threat" without any evidence of harm.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Once upon a time, nobody thought that smoking tobacco was dangerous. When people have been inhaling glycol vapour laced with nicotine (and various flavourings that aren't normally found in the lungs) for 20 years, we'll know. In the meantime, while I'd agree that we don't want "war on vapour", there is some cause for caution.
Oh and there is some evidence [atherosclerosis-journal.com] that nicotine causes problems [nih.gov]. Certainly not nearly as many problems as the other crap in tobacco smoke, but if you prematurely hang a big "totally harmless" tag on it, then some people are going to vape a lot more than they smoke, and maybe get much higher doses of nicotine. Whatever, though, its addictive, and if some problem with e-cigs does emerge, users are going to have a bloody hard time getting off them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @05:40AM
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
No, but the burden of proof is on the government to prove that a problem exists. Otherwise, they have no justification for creating new restrictions.
Prove you're not a terrorist, fool.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday December 10 2016, @02:19PM
No, but the burden of proof is on the government to prove that a problem exists.
Really? Shouldn't the businesses poised to make a fortune from e-cigs bear some responsibility of proving that they are safe before getting millions of new people hooked on nicotine?
Oh, sorry, I forgot - "privatise the profits, nationalise the risks" is the new mantra of government.
(Score: 3, Funny) by LoRdTAW on Friday December 09 2016, @01:27PM
http://imgur.com/gallery/gZMbe [imgur.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday December 09 2016, @01:47PM
Yes, teenage vaping has probably gone up. What the guy fails to address is by how much teenage smoking has come down.
Also... No consensus on the risks or advantages of vaping? Excuse me? There is an overwhelming consensus on vaping being at least 95% safer than smoking among health professionals. Again, vaping probably ain't good for you if you start doing it as a non-smoker, but that's not the point: the point is, how much safer is vaping compared to smoking.
It's all about getting future smokers to pick something safer if they absolutely feel the need to start sticking something into their lungs, and getting current smokers to stick something safer into their lungs. It is NOT about the additional risk to non-smokers who might suddenly feel the urge to vape just because vaping is readily available and cheap: those are essentially non-existent.
In short, another half-baked statement designed to spread fud about vaping. You can almost see the cold hand of the tobacco and pharma industry on the guy's shoulder...
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday December 09 2016, @01:58PM
But teens are no health professionals, so those nuzmbers don't apply to them. ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Kilo110 on Friday December 09 2016, @02:07PM
I suppose the issue is kids who pick up vaping that wouldn't have taken up smoking. Vaping is seen as safer than smoking and perhaps more fun and enjoyable considering all the different flavors out there. Therefore there would be less hesitation to try them.
I've never touched cigarettes, and as an adult, I personally have no interest in vaping. But I do wonder what I would've done had vaping been around while I was a teenager.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Friday December 09 2016, @02:12PM
While not all contain nicotine, Murthy's report says e-cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco-related product among youth.
This is how dishonest these puritanical authoritarians are [blogspot.com]. They call e-cigarettes "tobacco-related" products, even though they have no nicotine and no tobacco were used to create them. This is nothing but a fear-mongering "won't someone please think of the children" propaganda campaign designed to drum up support for banning e-cigarettes completely, even though that will drive adults that have managed to give up combustible cigarettes to go back to them.
In their zeal to get rid of these things, they are supporting the profits of big tobacco and it will lead to greater suffering and death. I think they know this, but they do not care. They are convinced that if anyone is to get a dose of nicotine, they should suffer and die as a result. It's how they see the world. And, yes, people will die [soylentnews.org] as a result of these efforts.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @07:01PM
> They call e-cigarettes "tobacco-related" products, even though they have no nicotine and no tobacco were used to create them
Duh 95+% of vaping is about nicotine. The nicotine in vaping fluid is extracted from tobacco leaves.
Describing vaping as tobacco-related is completely accurate. Sure there are exceptions, but that doesn't negate the overwhelming use of e-cigs as a nicotine delivery system.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Friday December 09 2016, @08:02PM
95+% of all statistics you see on the internet are made up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @08:17PM
Yay for autistic literalism.
Its a representative number.
If you have a well-researched number at hand, post it.
Otherwise learn how to be a normal human being.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @05:45AM
Yay for autistic literalism.
Thanks for adding more pseudoscience to the discussion. You're not a psychologist or anything related and have absolutely no place using terms like "autistic" here. Stop using such terms as generic insults.
In any case, don't say that someone is being too literal because you pulled statistics out of nowhere and they called you out on it. Instead, try being correct so that fewer people will feel the need to argue with you. This is entirely your fault.
Otherwise learn how to be a normal human being.
So being a "normal human being" includes making up statistics and passing them off as fact, and then insulting people who correct you? I don't want to be a "normal human being", then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @07:20AM
> You're not a psychologist or anything related and have absolutely no place using terms like "autistic" here.
Getting your panties in a twist because I'm using words in a way you don't approve of has got to be the most autistic thing ever. The fact that you have admitted to being on the spectrum kind of undermines your whole point too.
> So being a "normal human being" includes making up statistics and passing them off as fact, and then insulting people who correct you? I
I have yet to see any correction at all. Just someone who thinks literalism is the only source of meaning. Someone so autistic that the concepts of hyperbole and casual communication are incomprehensible.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @08:21PM
As an FYI: There are more sources for nicotine than just tobacco. Some of the vape shops near me get the extracted nicotine for their e-juices from tomatoes to help avoid getting taxed/regulated under existing tobacco laws. It's just as effective.
I did note most of the comments on this story are careful to refer directly to the nicotine in e-cigs instead of the tobacco for this reason.
From wikipedia:
Nicotine is a substance found in most members of the Nightshade family of plants. Small quantities of it can be found in tomatoes, potatoes, aubergines (eggplants) and green pepper (Capsicum, the peppers used as vegetables).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @11:05PM
> There are more sources for nicotine than just tobacco.
Yes. there is a minuscule amount of e-juice using non-tobacco nicotine derived from other members of the nightshade family. And I knew someone would bring it up because, here on retarded slashdot, the one thing you can count on is that somebody is going to think that the rare exception is representative of the general case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @05:47AM
No one has provided any well-researched statistics, so it's hard to say what is and is not representative of the general case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @07:23AM
Thank you Captain Obvious!
Your contributions to the conversation have been very enlightening.
Completely invaluable that!
Perhaps you could also tell us that the sky is not technically blue? I feel that is something completely within your wheelhouse. Am I right?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday December 09 2016, @07:07PM
[Electronic cigarettes] have no nicotine and no tobacco [is] used to create them.
That's incorrect. Very often, the fluid used with electronic cigarettes contains nicotine, which is exracted from tobacco, as the blog you linked acknowledges:
But the nicotine in a nicotine patch is derived from the same tobacco as is the nicotine in e-cigarettes.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Saturday December 10 2016, @04:12PM
No, it's not incorrect. You can say that some e-liquid used in e-cigarettes are tobacco products. But it's disingenuous and a lie to put e-cigarettes into that category at all.
It's actually LESS accurate than claiming that vehicles are petroleum products. Yes, there are lots of vehicles that run on petroleum products, but many that do not. By claiming all vehicles are petroleum products you are inaccurately describing what they are.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday December 11 2016, @03:30AM
Let's go back to your statement:
[Electronic cigarettes] have no nicotine and no tobacco [is] used to create them.
Disposable electronic cigarettes, which come pre-filled with a fluid that can contain nicotine, exist. From the product page for Imperial Tobacco's blu eCigs:
This product contains nicotine derived from tobacco.
-- https://www.blu.com/en/US/e-cigs/blu-disposable [blu.com]
Veppos and Vapourlites also contain nicotine, although they don't disclose its source:
http://www.veppocig.com/disposable-e-cigs/ [veppocig.com]
http://www.vapourlites.com/disposable-electronic-cigarette.html [vapourlites.com]
You didn't qualify your statement with "some" or like wording; those are three examples that contradict it.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Sunday December 11 2016, @09:45PM
You didn't qualify your statement with "some" or like wording; those are three examples that contradict it.
For some reason, you are now holding me to a greater standard than you are holding the Surgeon General of the US. That really seems myopic.
Blu are products produced by the big tobacco companies playing "catch-up" to the e-cigarette market. Veppo is busy working to these onerous regulations [veppocig.com] which are being promoted with lies and pseudoscience. You are cherry-picking Veppo's products. One small portion of their offering contains nicotine, the vast majority do not.
And it's not "some". It's the vast majority of these products that are made without any tobacco. Tomatoes, eggplant, and other foods always contain nicotine. Should we call those tobacco products as well, even though they do not contain tobacco?
Why you want to defend the lies and deceit of these fascists bureaucrats is beyond me. I assume you are a marketing representative for big tobacco, or simply someone that is okay with eliminating these products and promoting death and suffering for the people that will resort to combustibles when they are gone.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 09 2016, @02:32PM
How about we do the non-overreactive thing for a change and ban the sale of nicotine-containing liquids to minors instead of banning the hardware and liquids that contain no nicotine whatsoever? If they're not harming themselves, the busybodies around the nation really need to fuck right off out of their business. "It's a gateway blah" is not a valid legal source of authority to pin legislation upon.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Friday December 09 2016, @03:30PM
How about we do the non-overreactive thing for a change and ban the sale of nicotine-containing liquids to minors...
Can't disagree with that. But we have a history of banning drug paraphernalia :-/
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday December 09 2016, @03:43PM
We also have a history of the educated and wealthy looking down on the habits and favored vices of the lower classes, and passing laws to match.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 09 2016, @04:50PM
Dude, please, this has nothing to do with class but everything to do with fucktards who think that everything that isn't prohibited should be mandatory; and those come from all walks of life.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Friday December 09 2016, @08:05PM
I respectfully disagree. I don't believe I have ever met a truly poor person who cared enough to attempt to ban my vices. I have heard and read the words of many, many wealthy people who were absolutely concerned about my vices and were hellbent on making them illegal.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but it is still more than you have provided for your statement.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 09 2016, @08:42PM
That would be your own good fortune then. Go to church. Any faith or denomination. You'll meet them by the millions. The religious right does indeed exist even if it's not taken seriously by the Republican party anymore. But I do agree that limousine liberals are quite keen to legislate approved behavior as well.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday December 09 2016, @03:14PM
If that guy starts fighting vaping, he can happily go and snuff it [youtube.com] for all I care. (Trigger warning: the linked video is a snuff video. Don't watch if you can't take it.)
I was into snuff when I was 13 because I wasn't aware of the negative health-impact. Recently my son started to show interest in smoking, and I checked on wikipedia to find some good arguments against it, and to prove that the claimed positive effects of smokers are totally moot. Bad luck. After reading this part [wikipedia.org] and finding only little actual risks in the following section (most risks are about burning tobacco, mentioning that it is not actually understood how relevant the part of the nicotine itself is) I went and bought myself a new pack of snuff, first time for > 20 years. Not sure if I'd like to start vaping; probably not as long as THC-oils are illegal where I live. I prefer the freeing effect of menthol snuff in my nose.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @03:55PM
snuff video
Until I read the second sentence of the second paragraph, I sincerely thought you were talking about watching videos where others die. The concept was rather disturbing, although there are such people out there with that pathology. Perhaps you should consider possible double entendres before hitting submit? ;) (Or maybe I should consider changing my preformed concepts. Or both.)
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday December 09 2016, @04:18PM
Or you try to adjust your pun-sensor :-) The misconception was intended. And for those to anxious to try: The video is really actually about sniffing snuff tobacco.
BTW: Just to clarify: Of course I do not endorse my son to use nicotine, or any other drugs for that matter. I advise him most clearly against it and tell him to wait at least until his bodily development is complete, and afterwards to use his brain to make decisions and to get all relevant information first. However, if he really wants to I would go to any length to tell him that snuff tobacco or vape is no less cool than cigarettes.
(Although I never saw what was so cool about burning herbs and inhale the smoke to attract a very smelly body-odour, yellow teeth, worse sexual performance (even though that might not matter as much any more due to the unavoidable smelly breath), potential cancer, ...)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @03:54PM
The question is not whether or not vaping is better or worse than smoking 'regular' cigarettes. The question is whether or not vaping is bad for you.
Similarly, getting kneecapped is less bad than getting hit by a train, but that doesn't mean we should applaud kneecappers...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday December 09 2016, @06:55PM
Exactly.
I'm one of those weird people who thinks that putting anything else than fresh in your lungs should be limited to a minimum (what do I know, i've only got a dozen firemen as neighbors).
IF you absolutely have to suck on some stuff to generate smoke, sure, vaping is better than tobacco. But every measurement of vaping products does show some heavy stuff that can't be good for you. So I'd prefer if I did enjoy less growth in insurance premiums, courtesy of reduced lung issues from the previous decline in smoking.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Friday December 09 2016, @08:21PM
A bit too absolutist. What about sugar in drinks/snacks? A chemical/product should provably be at some level of harm before the government is triggered into action.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @11:02AM
If each kneecapping reduced the number of people hit by a train by a figure that is higher than the ratio of their badnesses, we probably should.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @06:51PM
...Joe Camel.
(stolen from yesterday's The Late Show)