E-Cigarettes Should Be Banned...

[tom502]

I wouldn't ban anything.

[lxskllr]

It's not the government's place to ban anything. Everybody knows what the risks are regarding smoking, and they have for a very long time. If someone decides the pleasure from smoking outweighs those risks, who is anyone to tell them they can't? That's a violation of one of the core principles of the US Constitution(not that that quaint document has any meaning anymore). As far as medical costs go(though that's a false argument), smokers cost less over a lifetime than non smokers do. Maybe they should make cigarette smoking mandatory?

[precious007]

As far as medical costs go(though that's a false argument), smokers cost less over a lifetime than non smokers do. Maybe they should make cigarette smoking mandatory?

I highly doubt this.

[Ephemeris]

It's not the government's place to ban anything.

Exactly.

[Ephemeris]

I highly doubt this.

Just one of the many studies that prove otherwise:

http://weakonomics.com/2009/04/14/ci...lthcare-costs/

[devilock76]

Under Bill Clinton they did this study about the costs of smoking. It basically showed that because smokers die sooner they incur less long term costs than non-smokers who die from old age.

It is kind of like why my motorcycle insurance is cheaper than automotive. Yes I am more likely to die on the motorcycle, but I am less likely to hurt another vehicle from my own mistake. Additionally I am less likely to survive a serious enough accident.

Ken

[Jwalker]

Yeah no doubt cigar smokers are next. It was common practice when smoking was still allowed to allow cigarette smoking but not cigar smoking for example the airlines and many casinos. Pipe smoking not so much I must say pipe smoking is so uncommon that it will be ignored for a long time, there's definitely been an increase in pipe smoking anecdotally but there are still more people smoking crack than smoking pipe tobacco.

[TommyGunBC]

December 7, 2010, 2:26 PM
E-Cigarettes Win Court Ruling
By DUFF WILSON
Electronic cigarettes moved a step closer to being regulated just like mainstream tobacco products on Tuesday when a federal appellate court unanimously upheld an injunction against the Food and Drug Administration’s attempt to ban them or regulate them more strictly as drugs.

E-cigarettes are battery-powered tubes that look like cigarettes. They deliver nicotine by vaporizing a nicotine-derived liquid without combustion. Their distributors say this makes them more healthy than cigarettes. They can even deliver steam to exhale like a clean, smoke-free smoke.

The F.D.A., concerned with marketing claims of products that deliver a highly addictive substance, has tried to ban e-cigarettes as unapproved drug delivery devices.

But the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., upheld a lower court injunction against the F.D.A. ban. The appellate court said the F.D.A. should regulate them under the 2009 legislation that set up a Center for Tobacco Products. E-cigarettes are marketed for the pleasure of a product, not for the therapeutic benefit of a drug or medical device, the court said.

Jeffrey Ventura, an F.D.A. spokesman, said in a statement on Tuesday, “We are studying the opinion and considering next steps.”

The e-cigarettes in the case were manufactured by Sottera of Scottsdale, Ariz., doing business as NJOY. It sells the products and refill cartridges on a Web site requiring certification that the buyer is 18 years old. A starter kit costs $79.99.

Quit-smoking products like nicotine patches and gum and the Pfizer pill Chantix are regulated by the federal drug law, which requires them to be proven safe and effective. The tobacco law allows the F.D.A. to regulate ingredients and marketing claims in “any product made or derived from tobacco,” but shifts more of the burden of proof to federal regulators.

The F.D.A. tried to regulate all tobacco products as drugs in 1996. The Supreme Court ruled against that by a 5-4 vote in 2000, leading to work in Congress to develop the tobacco control act that passed last year.

The appellate court ruling was hailed by advocates of e-cigarettes, who say they are much safer than cigarettes.

“This is a huge victory for public health and civil justice,” Bill Godshall, founder of Smokefree Pennsylvania, a nonprofit group supporting e-cigarettes, wrote in an e-mail message. “It’s time for F.D.A. officials to come to their senses by reclassifying (and promulgating reasonable regulations for) e-cigarettes as tobacco products.”

The American Heart Association was among the antitobacco groups to support a drug ban or tighter regulation.

“We’re gravely concerned about the implications of today’s ruling,” the association’s chief executive, Nancy Brown, said in a statement. “The appeals court has cleared the way for the industry to peddle these products to consumers without any scrutiny as to their safety or efficacy. There is no scientific evidence that e-cigarettes are effective smoking cessation devices and, until they undergo rigorous evaluation by the Food and Drug Administration, they should be pulled from the marketplace. With this ruling, e-cigarette manufacturers will continue to make misleading claims that their products can help smokers quit.”

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington advocacy group, said the ruling would leave an unregulated period before the F.D.A. could assert jurisdiction.

“This decision will allow any manufacturer to put any level of nicotine in any product and sell it to anybody, including children, with no government regulation or oversight at the present time,” the campaign’s president, Matthew L. Myers, said in a statement. “We urge the government to appeal this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. “

[raptor]

Yeah no doubt cigar smokers are next. It was common practice when smoking was still allowed to allow cigarette smoking but not cigar smoking for example the airlines and many casinos. Pipe smoking not so much I must say pipe smoking is so uncommon that it will be ignored for a long time, there's definitely been an increase in pipe smoking anecdotally but there are still more people smoking crack than smoking pipe tobacco.

Cigars are the symbol of the wealthy and powerful. They've been off the hook tax-wise for so long because the wealthy enjoy them. This might change soon, and people on various cigar forums are scared shitless that more taxes are on the way.

Not sure on your crack vs. pipe comment though

[stubby2]

You need to stop and check yourself when you say things like "E-cigs haven't been around long enough to gauge the effects of long-term usage" because that's exactly the same thing that critics are saying about snus.

Just personally, it seems kind of like a no-brainer when you think about it: all of the nicotine of a deadly cigarette delivered in a harmless water vapor? I don't see what the big deal is, so long as the Chinese aren't adding poisonous chemicals to the mix. According to the FDA's own research, they're not.

I'm no fan of E-cigs, but I'm a fan of freedom. The proverbial "slippy slope" gets ever steeper when you divide the factions.

If people at snuson haven't noticed the membership of ECF (electronic cigarette forum) is getting close to 50,000 with rabid growth. I don't use them but they have become the elephant in the room as far as harm reduction goes. Ignore them at your own peril. Not only are there numbers exploding but there is a strong political activism among e-cig users. It's been trial by fire for them because of the threat of a ban. Out of that has come the CASAA (Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association) which is a consumer based group advocating tobacco harm reduction. They advocate not just e-cigs but snus and dissolvables. Everyone here would do well to join them to at least add you name to the numbers. It's the least you can do.

One of the reasons e-cigs have gotten popular so fast is that as of yet there is no stigma attached to them despite effects by tobacco control to do so. Snus has an uphill battle because of decades of misinformation about smokeless tobacco. But... as people get involved with e-cigs they end up getting educated about the concept of harm reduction and you can't do that without the word snus coming up like a whack-a-mole. Many people have ended up trying snus after starting out with e-cigs. At this point the success of snus is tied to the success of e-cigs. The better e-cigs do the better snus will do. It's a win-win for everyone (except pharmaceutical companies and tobacco control groups). Snus may survive without e-cigs but it will do a lot better with e-cigs in the mix.

[Premium Parrots]

I wish I lived in the olden days when smoking was good for you.

crap. now I want one of those lil non-filtered Kools that used to cloud my lungs.....and my brain so well.

[dreed2]

The problem with "banning" anything (I use that term loosely, since every product under the sun that has ever been ‘banned’ is still available to anyone who wants it) is that while banning something that you personally don't care for sounds all well and good, it's only going to be a short time before they ban something that you like.

In my personal opinion, E-Cigs are for the most part your typically cheap Chinese sweatshop-manufactured junk that lies there unusable two days after you buy it. But if I was to start waving the "ban" banner and the FDA pulls the E-Cigs from the market, there's going to be twenty thousand pissed off E-Cig users that are going to start waving the "ban snus" banner. Then the government will move on to banning cigarettes, dip, and anything they think they can get away with.

You need to stop and check yourself when you say things like "E-cigs haven't been around long enough to gauge the effects of long-term usage" because that's exactly the same thing that critics are saying about snus.

Just personally, it seems kind of like a no-brainer when you think about it: all of the nicotine of a deadly cigarette delivered in a harmless water vapor? I don't see what the big deal is, so long as the Chinese aren't adding poisonous chemicals to the mix. According to the FDA's own research, they're not.

I'm no fan of E-cigs, but I'm a fan of freedom. The proverbial "slippy slope" gets ever steeper when you divide the factions.

Right now, we're starting to see some more cross-pollination between alternative tobacco users. When I first got into the snus scene, the snuffers were in one corner, the snusers in the other, pipe tobacco guys were duking it out with cigar guys, etc. Then the government swooped in and picked cigarette smokers as a target, and we all kind of let them have at it. "Well, cigarettes are bad. They should be regulated."

Then when the Feds did about all they could with cigarette smokers, they came after the rest of us. We said things like "I don't care what they do to American oral snuff. That stuff's bad. I get my stash from Sweden." But then everyone acted shocked when the Feds lumped all smoke-free tobacco together and we were all equally screwed.

The cigar guys and pipe tobacco guys are next. Cigars have always been, and probably always will be exempt from any tight regulation that the other tobacco classes submit to. But the pipe smokers are in a minority, so they're wondering why they're being targeted. Well let's see, you sat back and let the government come after cigarette smokers and smokeless users. Did you think that you would be spared?

Folks, we as tobacco users have got to stop dividing ourselves up into these little groups and watch while the world powers take us out one by one. Leave your personal reservations at the door. I personally hate cigarettes, shisha, E-cigs and cheap cigars, but I'll be damned if I sit idly by and watch as they fall under the tyrannical hand of a nanny government.

This is why our magazine, which of course focuses on snus and snuff, tries to include a little of everything in the mix. We need to form a union of like-minded tobacco users that value personal freedom and minimum government interference. We should all be celebrating the recent E-Cig victory in Washington, because it's a victory for every one of us.

Great post, and I totally agree with you!

[dreed2]

Out of that has come the CASAA (Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association) which is a consumer based group advocating tobacco harm reduction. They advocate not just e-cigs but snus and dissolvables. Everyone here would do well to join them to at least add you name to the numbers. It's the least you can do

I'm a member of CASAA already, and I totally agree with what they're doing. Harm reduction should not become illegal.

[Roo]

I can't believe what these nutjobs are saying. Ban the distribution of e-cigs until their safety can be evaluated? I'd be surprised if 1% of e-cig users were NOT using them to quit SMOKING. The stupidity in pushing these "fringe" users back to "analog cigarettes" (god I hate that term) is truly dumbfounding. @ Precious and all of your comments, who should give a shit IF e-cigs are dangerous on any level? Do you really think these e-cig users should be left in the dust to turn back to cigarettes while you sit on your horse with a lip full of Copenhagen? Give me a break dude. And Jwalker, I'm going to have to agree with your pipe vs crack statement. As you've maybe figured out by now I work in Pioneer Square, next door to the Compass Center homeless shelter. I see crack at every turn when I walk out the door. Most people don't, but rest assured, in your nearest big city there are lots of people smoking crack. Lol why am I talking about crack. Ephemeris, excellent post.

[dreed2]

@Roo, another awesome post! Big tobacco has to get a grip on reality and learn that we are on to them and they aren't going to rule this country anymore while killing any more of the people we love. This is about freedom. Freedom to choose harm reduction.

United we stand, divided we fall.