Previously, we saw the NY Times editorial board calling for lots of Government restrictions on electronic cigarettes, which matches some in the progressive community doing the same. In fact, the Times has been covering e-cigs for awhile now, and taking the position that since we do not really know, regulate! Today we get
Selling a Poison by the Barrel: Liquid Nicotine for E-Cigarettes
A dangerous new form of a powerful stimulant is hitting markets nationwide, for sale by the vial, the gallon and even the barrel.
The drug is nicotine, in its potent, liquid form — extracted from tobacco and tinctured with a cocktail of flavorings, colorings and assorted chemicals to feed the fast-growing electronic cigarette industry.
These “e-liquids,†the key ingredients in e-cigarettes, are powerful neurotoxins. Tiny amounts, whether ingested or absorbed through the skin, can cause vomiting and seizures and even be lethal. A teaspoon of even highly diluted e-liquid can kill a small child.
Obviously, this means heavy regulation by Government. There’s no doubt that nicotine in a liquid form can be dangerous: when I fill my e-cig tanks, I’m careful, and immediately wash my hands. Though it is only a tiny bit getting on my fingers, typically from taking the cap off the tank.
But, like e-cigarettes, e-liquids are not regulated by federal authorities. They are mixed on factory floors and in the back rooms of shops, and sold legally in stores and online in small bottles that are kept casually around the house for regular refilling of e-cigarettes.
And, in Liberal World, everything MUST be regulated by the federal authorities. Interestingly, I’m not so sure that liberals who use e-cigs would agree. I also find it interesting that these same liberals at the NY Times, along with the other Dems calling for massive regulation, have no problem with a non-related person taking an underage girl across state lines for an abortion. In fact, they think making sure there are no restrictions on abortion is a Great Idea.
The problems with adults, like those with children, owe to carelessness and lack of understanding of the risks. In the cases of exposure in children, “a lot of parents didn’t realize it was toxic until the kid started vomiting,†said Ashley Webb, director of the Kentucky Regional Poison Control Center at Kosair Children’s Hospital.
And since some people are pure idiots, others have to pay the price. Anyone else getting the idea that the “article” belongs in the opinion section, not the business section?
Cynthia Cabrera, executive director of Smoke Free Alternatives Trade Association, said she would also favor regulations, including those that would include childproof bottles and warning labels, and also manufacturing standards. But she said many companies already were doing that voluntarily, and that parents also needed to take some responsibility.
I don’t have a problem with that. Though, adults seem to have more problems with childproof bottles than children. There are warning labels on the liquid I purchase. There are warnings on the Blu e-cigs I started with. Some manufacturing standards would not be bad. I like that the people at the store I purchase from are puffing on the same stuff I am buying. They wouldn’t be doing that if they were concerned over what they were purchasing.
But that’s not what this push is about. This is about massive government regulation, and increasing taxation on a sector of the economy that is moving and growing. And, as noted time and time again in the comments, this is simply a hysterical scare story, in other words, an opinion piece in disguise. This is the Nanny State in action. We can have a legitimate, rational, adult debate without the bat-guano crazy.
Here’s another scary chemical. GASOLINE! Let me just do a little editing of that article…
This “gasolineâ€, the key ingredient in automotobile fuel, is a powerful toxin. Tiny amounts, whether ingested or absorbed through the skin, can cause vomiting and seizures and even be lethal. A teaspoon of even highly diluted gasoline can kill a small child.
Yikes! Let’s get rid of the stuff!
Last I checked, neither nicotine gum or patches are in child proof packages.
Again, something that looks like something bad/evil must be taxed/regulated/banned.
I have always felt that there is a distinction between “required information” and “regulating sales.” Last year a court found the new proposed packaging for cigarettes went from “informational” to “advocacy” and was therefore illegal.
Regulations on sales make decisions for you. Warning / informational labels allow you to make the decisions for yourself.
One is freedom, the other a form of oppression.
So I am like you….. I don’t have issues with “labels,” but other regulations, especially regulations based on fear and not science, should be shunned and discarded.
Unless it is a Lefty sin, (Pot, abortion, Gay, wind power) they are against it and it must be regulated. Leftists are all about government revenooin’ and regulatin’. They have no other answer to life’s issues because they HATE freedom.
Just a head’s up:
You can buy a liter of 100mg/l nicotine from myfreedomsmokes.com for $140.
Then you can dilute it down by 5 or 10 times with PG and your favorite flavoring (depending upon whether you smoked Marlboro red or lights) and you have enough e-liquid to last 5 or 10 years. Not an exaggeration. I stocked up a while ago, so I don’t care what kind of laws they make :). The PG and flavoring required to dilute it will probably cost another $100. Helluvalot cheaper than smoking.
Also, don’t ask if you are allowed to use e-cigs when you go out. Ask if they mind if you use your inhaler. Because that’s all it really is.
“mixes in back rooms of shops”.
Cue image of filthy seedy smoking criminals cutting vape liquid with something from a leaky barrel with a skull and crossbones on the side.
Just like when the NY Times talks about conservative politicians making deals in “back rooms”. I’m sure they visualize them enveloped in tobacco smoke, too.
It’s an addictive, pharmacologically active substance with a specialized device for rapid intrapulmonary absorption.
We regulate food colorings, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, corn flakes, heroin, oxycontin, pseudoephedrine, iodized salt, acetaminophen, x-rays, L-dopa, fireworks, milk, firearms, ricin and Freon, just to name a few.
Why in the world wouldn’t we regulate a fruit-flavored, addictive toxic substance packaged with a “cool” delivery device?
Is an age limit too much regulation for the anti-government libertarians?
No one said that, Jeff. I have no problem with some regulations, as I said in the post. And age limit of 18 would be fine.
Say, how about an age restriction on abortion set at 18 unless accompanied by a parent or guardian? Would that be OK with you?
And it is pretty far from nicotine to freaking ricin.
I’m with Jeffrey. Let’s regulate it the same amount we regulate iodized salt. Or coffee (which is filled with deadly dangerous caffeine! Did you know a teaspoon of that stuff will kill a small child? Even an adult!)
Ban them for the under 18 year olds…make the youngsters smoke real cigarettes until they get older.
Banning tobacco cigarettes, pot and alcohol have worked perfectly so far, no children are ever seen using them.
What a bunch of maroons….
Each year cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, cocaine, heroin, AIDS, murder, suicide and auto accidents, combined. Is it out of the question to keep peppermint and chocolate flavored nicotine delivery devices out of the hands of children, making them less likely to smoke cigarettes?
And out of fairness, shouldn’t e-cigs be regulated and taxed just like their main competitor, cigarettes?
________________________________________________
Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarette Use Among US Adolescents: A Cross-sectional Study
Lauren M. Dutra, ScD; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD
JAMA Pediatr. Published online March 06, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.5488
ABSTRACT:
Importance: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is increasing rapidly among adolescents, and e-cigarettes are currently unregulated.
Objective: To examine e-cigarette use and conventional cigarette smoking.
Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional analyses of survey data from a representative sample of US middle and high school students in 2011 (n = 17 353) and 2012 (n = 22 529) who completed the 2011 and 2012 National Youth Tobacco Survey.
Exposures: Ever and current e-cigarette use.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Experimentation with, ever, and current smoking, and smoking abstinence.
Results: Among cigarette experimenters (≥1 puff), ever e-cigarette use was associated with higher odds of ever smoking cigarettes (≥100 cigarettes; odds ratio [OR] = 6.31; 95% CI, 5.39-7.39) and current cigarette smoking (OR = 5.96; 95% CI, 5.67-6.27). Current e-cigarette use was positively associated with ever smoking cigarettes (OR = 7.42; 95% CI, 5.63-9.79) and current cigarette smoking (OR = 7.88; 95% CI, 6.01-10.32). In 2011, current cigarette smokers who had ever used e-cigarettes were more likely to intend to quit smoking within the next year (OR = 1.53; 95% CI, 1.03-2.28). Among experimenters with conventional cigarettes, ever use of e-cigarettes was associated with lower 30-day (OR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.21-0.28), 6-month (OR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.21-0.28), and 1-year (OR = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.21-0.30) abstinence from cigarettes. Current e-cigarette use was also associated with lower 30-day (OR = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.08-0.15), 6-month (OR = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.08-0.15), and 1-year (OR = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.07-0.18) abstinence. Among ever smokers of cigarettes (≥100 cigarettes), ever e-cigarette use was negatively associated with 30-day (OR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.89), 6-month (OR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.83), and 1-year (OR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56) abstinence from conventional cigarettes. Current e-cigarette use was also negatively associated with 30-day (OR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18-0.69), 6-month (OR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.13-0.68), and 1-year (OR = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.87) abstinence.
Conclusions and Relevance: Use of e-cigarettes was associated with higher odds of ever or current cigarette smoking, higher odds of established smoking, higher odds of planning to quit smoking among current smokers, and, among experimenters, lower odds of abstinence from conventional cigarettes. Use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents.
“Each year cigarettes kill more Americans than…”
Yes, Jeffrey, they’re not good for you. So stop trying to impede the growth of their more healthy replacement. You’re killing people by doing that.
Imagine if someone said, “Methamphetamine (speed) kills people. So let’s regulate all speed with equal vigor, including caffeine.”
Don’t harp on the ‘over 18’ thing. No one sells ecigs to kids. Making a law is unnecessary.
Kevin,
Do you have evidence that e-cigs are a more healthy replacement? The recent abstract I cited concludes: “Use of e-cigarettes was associated with higher odds of ever or current cigarette smoking, higher odds of established smoking, higher odds of planning to quit smoking among current smokers, and, among experimenters, lower odds of abstinence from conventional cigarettes. Use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents.”
Their data demonstrate that e-cigs recruit new cigarette smokers.
Are you suggesting that coffee use recruits new methamphetamine users? In and of itself, there is no evidence that coffee is harmful. Nicotine is harmful on its own.
Why do you claim that no one would sell e-cigs to kids?
Say, Jeff, you didn’t answer my question on abortion.
I’m not surprised, though.
I know a number of people, including myself, who stopped coughing (the ‘morning hack’) after switching to ecigs.
“Use of e-cigarettes was associated with higher odds of ever or current cigarette smoking…”
I think you misunderstand that line you quoted. It’s saying that most (possibly all) ecig smokers used to smoke regular cigarettes. It is a GOOD thing that they switched.
Quit being such a nanny. Stop trying to control what other people do with their own bodies. Thanks in advance! :)
Since I switched to mostly e-cigs and have cut down to 5-6 real a day, that morning hack is gone. My lungs feel better, I have more lung capacity, I can exercise more without getting breathless, etc. I do need to follow through and give up all real soon.