SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
U.S. to Crack Down on Tobacco, Electronic Cigarettes
NBC News and the Providence Journal report that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a rule which will classify cigars, chewing tobacco and nicotine-containing fluid for electronic cigarettes as tobacco products. Under the rule, sale of those items to people under 18 years of age is to be prohibited. The electronic parts of electronic cigarettes are not covered by the rule. According to NBC News, the rule "will be open for public comment before it becomes final." The FDA regulates cigarettes and loose tobacco for smoking.
[Continues...]
Courts in EU, India Uphold Anti-tobacco Laws
On 4 May the European Court of Justice turned down challenges to the 2014 revision of the Tobacco Products Directive. The law entails enlargement of warnings, prohibition of menthol cigarettes, prohibition of packages holding fewer than 20 cigarettes, restrictions on advertising of electronic cigarettes, and limits on the nicotine content of fluid for electronic cigarettes. It enables EU countries to require plain packaging. The court said the regulations were necessary to comply with the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
Also on 4 May, India's Supreme Court declined to further delay the implementation of a requirement for larger warning messages on cigarette packages. Several cigarette manufacturers including ITC Ltd. have shut down their factories. The chairman of ITC decried the requirement, saying:
Behind this is vested interests... where money is given into the hands of so-called NGOs, who are being influenced to kill local brands knowing fully well that smuggled cigarettes of some other industry are going to be used here.
Golden Tobacco in Gujarat has been following the rule, which had originally been intended to take effect 1 April 2016, "from April 2015 [sic]."
coverage:
- Irish Times (EU)
- Belfast Telegraph (EU)
- Live Mint (statement from ITC chairman)
- Voice of America (government-sponsored; covers India)
- Nikkei Asian Review (shut-downs in India)
- Reuters (India)
- Christian Science Monitor (both EU and India)
- The Wall Street Journal (paywalled; about shut-downs in India; predates ruling)
- Reuters (about shut-downs in India; predates ruling)
- The Wall Street Journal (paywalled; about EU)
- Quartz India (India, Golden Tobacco)
- The New York Times (EU, India)
further information:
- 2014 Tobacco Products Directive (PDF)
- press release from cigarette manufacturer JTI regarding EU ruling
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:28AM
Not really (well, except for some unscrupulous sellers who aren't going be bothered by the new regs anyway), more it is codified now.
Would like to hear the uber-libertarian crowd chime in. One the one hand, FREE MARKET. On the other hand, unless you researched it, it was difficult to determine what was in the liquid, and even then, maybe they lied. How does the free market solve this without a body count or government intervention? I would expect some oversight to ensure truth in labeling at a minimum. The fear is that this moves to regulatory capture and ultimately stagnation.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:18AM
I'm not sure the liquid is the main problem. You can make your own very cheaply (something Big Tobacco wants to prevent, which is why it is pushing for strict regulations), and some models of vaporizer allow you to vape solid weed rather than nicotine in liquid. Nicotine is sold in gum and patch forms, why would a heated liquid be much worse?
The problem is that you have vape shops popping up everywhere and every gas station in America selling cheap vaporizers. They might contain the finest of Chinese plastics and other chemicals that get heated into the vapor. With almost no regulations to deal with and a massive increase in users in a short period of time, the health effects are unstudied. If there are a thousand models on the market, how do you know which ones are safe?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @06:40AM
Because at least for the liquid sold, there is absolutely no telling what is in it (let alone concentration). Could be nicotine, could be a mild stimulant, could be caffeine. There is no accountability except for seller assurance for something he has probably never seen, and was probably produced in China as well. Hell, there is difficulty in having a proper documentation for pharmaceuticals.
The exposure from actual vapors minute compared to the liquids/flavorings. The effects from possible dioxin exposure would be far less than you would get exposed to from other sources. I would trust people would at least rinse vapors out, but perhaps I'm giving people too much credit.
Tracking down unadulterated tobacco isn't as easy as you think, unless you live in big tobacco country, or grow it yourself.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:33AM
I can't speak to vaporizers, but for E-Cigs (AKA PVs), even the Chinese ones are all metal in the parts that get hot. They've been around for over a decade without regulation with few problems.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday May 07 2016, @12:34PM
Uhhh you don't buy shit from gas stations, same as you wouldn't expect gas station food to be high quality or good for you?
Pretty much every town has a vape shop now and I have yet to walk into one where they didn't really know their shit, in fact its insane how much those guys can tell you about the various makes and models and juices. A good chunk of them now also have what is called the "in house brand" where you know what is in it because you can watch it being made right there on the spot. I personally love this about mine as you can come up with any combination you can think of and if its something they've never made before? You get to name it and its added to the house brand list.
But the old "but think of the childrens!" is just that, as I've been to vape shops in 4 states so far and NEVER, not once, been in a shop that didn't card if you looked like you were under 30. Most of the guys you find in the shops BTW are just like me, ex-smokers that used vaping to get off the cancer sticks. I smoked for nearly 30 years and tried everything, gums and patches and pills, none of that shit worked, but thanks to vaping I've been cigarette free for over 3 years.
Oh and if this was actually about "the kids" instead of helping out RJ Reynolds and pals? They wouldn't be worried about vaping, hell I have yet to hear of a single kid that OD'd on an e-cig, what they'd be worried about is purple drank, which is the latest "in" drug and which has had a shitload of ODs and which has "legal" knock offs aimed directly at kids [wikipedia.org].
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Saturday May 07 2016, @05:05PM
You don't, but how many millions of people do?
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/04/16/400144741/use-of-e-cigarettes-triples-among-u-s-teens [npr.org]
Surveys are showing that teens are vaping, but that teen smoking has dropped. I expect they can get their vaping supplies from older kids/adults, even more easily than alcohol. I bet some parents even enable the habit since it is a lot more discreet and less dangerous than drinking, or just easier to siphon off some e-liquid. I'm more than willing to ignore this "problem", but don't be surprised if some form of vaping yields a cancer risk in future studies.
Otherwise, I agree with your post. A legal purple drank with melatonin in it? Clever.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday May 08 2016, @01:15PM
Teens drink too, do we blame the beer? No we blame the ones giving it to them and rightly so. If an adult buys porn and gives it to their kid, blame the porn industry? Nope we blame the bad parents.
If you want to see what its really about look up "FDA Ecig 2007 rule" and get ready to be gobsmacked at just how bought and paid for the FDA has become as congress is scrambling to STOP the FDA from handing the ENTIRE ecig business to RJ Reynolds and company. What is the 2007 rule? It would mean that no ecig product which wasn't on the market by 2007 could be sold which would mean the ONLY ecigs that could be sold would be "cigalikes", aka the cheap weak battery POS that tastes like you are smoking an old tire and which doesn't do shit to help smokers quit. Its also one of the most expensive makes you can buy at around $10 for a unit that if you are REALLY lucky lasts about 3 hours, compared to the tank and battery units where the batteries can last for years (I have several reaching the 2 year mark, work just fine), the coils are cheap (A $2 coil lasts around 3 weeks) and for enough juice a heavy smoker like me cannot run out for an entire month? $20.
BTW you wanna make a little guess as to whom owns every.single.one. of the ecigs that can be sold under the 2007 rule? If you said RJ Reynolds and friends? Then you are correct and now know just what bullshit the FDA has become. Study after study shows smoking going down thanks to ecigs, study after study show they are much MUCH safer than ecigs, with the British study recently released showing them 95% safer than cigarettes which is why British doctors are now prescribing ecigs to smokers, what does the FDA want to do? Hey lets go back to giving smokers no choice but big tobacco, I'm sure that will help people quit smoking...what a fucking scam and a perfect example of how rotten and corrupted our systems have become. Can you say "regulatory capture" boys and girls? I think you can.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:42AM
They've been available for more than 10 years and the body count is currently zero. Perhaps part of it is that the vase majority of manufacturers and sellers are fairly small. Too small to develop the structural collective psychopathy seen in large corporations. Perhaps they're small enough that they simply cannot afford to kill off their customers. Or perhaps it's simply that there isn't much to go wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07 2016, @08:48AM
I don't get it. Do you think that the "uber-libertarian crowd" only supports the free market because they think it brings more practical benefits? I don't know about others, but for me it's because I think the other options are unethical. Even if the free market was more 'dangerous' in some ways, I would accept that as a cost of living in a free society.
I don't agree with banning cigarettes or similar products for people under 18.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday May 07 2016, @10:28AM
Yup, that's where parenting comes in.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.