Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway_yy2Di | Hacker News Reader

The article neglects to mention that the Congressional Act which forces (?) the FDA's hand, was one that Phillip Morris sponsored and lobbied for. I think this is key to understanding why the FDA is acting like this, seemingly against public health, while benefiting incumbent cigarette makers.

    Passage, if it comes, may be politically impossible without
    the negotiated support of Philip Morris, whose Marlboro
    brand helps make it the American tobacco industry’s biggest
    player.
    
    The company’s central role, in fact, is a reason that some
    antismoking activists worry that the bill is a deal with the
    devil. Philip Morris’s support is also why other major
    tobacco companies — none of which back the legislation — see
    a cunning ploy by Marlboro’s maker to seal the company’s
    dominant position.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/01tobacco.html

View on HN

This is a great example of what lobbying is and isn't. There are objectively good reasons to regulate e-cigarettes. And it's undeniable that tobacco companies are much more heavily regulated than e-cigarette companies. But it's also true that what hurts e-cigarette companies helps tobacco companies.

or the e-cig companies are a direct competitor to cigs. safer and cheaper competitive product that the cig companies want shut down or be heavily encumbered so they stay competitive.

So? It's a fact that the safety of e-cigarettes is not well-understood. That's a helpful fact to the cigarette industry. Pushing that fact to Congress is not bad just because it is self-motivated.

This is true for many, many things in the United States. The big category that comes to mind is cosmetics.

I'm aware of at least one component - styrene - which has been linked to cancer and is commonly present in fragrances.

This could be said about any new product, and is the basis of FUD. Characterising this merely as "honest even if self-interest" is a mistake. The balance of evidence is clearly that the known health benefits of switching from cigarettes to ecigs greatly outweigh the hypothetical unknown risks.

But that's not the question. The question is: are e-cigarettes safe enough to be unregulated? Moreover, the vast majority of products don't involve inhaling chemicals so I'm not sure what you're point is bringing that up.

That's not the question at all. The question is whether such heavy regulation causes more harm than benefit. And it probably does.

How do we know that? The proposed regulation involves getting FDA approval. That's the process by which we find out how safe they are.

> How do we know that?

You could say the same thing about most products.

Imagine if every food on the market had to pay a million dollars to get certified.

If the FDA wanted to run a generic study on whether vaping was safe, I would applaud it. Even if it charged ten million dollars across the entire industry to fund that study, that would be fine. But making every manufacturer go through an independent highly-expensive process is a product of regulatory capture, not to keep anyone safe.

I find it quite a stretch to lump vaping in with food. The FDA regulates food and drugs. And yes, drug makers do have to pay a strong price to get certified. It incombs to the the drug maker to run toxicology tests, not the FDA. The latter just enforces the conformity of those tests to its standards.

In general, vaping fluid is a couple basic ingredients plus flavors. The basic ingredients should go through drug-level safety testing if they haven't already gone through it. But each recipe on top of that? Very similar to new food recipes.

Or similar to drug combos, which must be certified as such.

Even if the individual drugs have their own certification, mixing them and packaging them together requires a new certification. Now of course, the new cert will rely heavily on the existing docs, so it's not like everything has to be re-proved again, but the interaction & effects thereof are scrutinized a bit more heavily.

It's not mixing and matching drugs. It's taking one single drug and adding flavors. The inactive ingredients do not need the same scrutiny as active ones.

That is "a" process. Another process is widespread usage and observing the result - there has been widespread use for 5+ years (and even further back on a smaller scale) by people who often smoked 20 to 30 years before switching, and I would challenge you to find any evidence suggesting there is a health risk.

Of course this is assuming that the goal of the FDA is to genuinely protect consumers.

What Dylan said. There are more alternatives to no regulation besides "regulated the same as this deadly product from a massively encumbered industry". Bike helmets should probably be regulated too, but if they weren't yet regulated and a bill came up to place them under the same onerous rules as automobiles, the obvious correct choice would be to say no.

E-cigarettes are an alternative to something 100% known to be unsafe. Surely a better response is some sort of labeling that the risks are unknown rather than effectively banning them. This pushes people back to something smoking cigarettes, which is going to be bad for smokers, and bad for people like me who dislike being around smokers.

I smoke ecigs and the ones I buy already have the dangerous warning labels on them advising against using nicotine.

> But it's also true that what hurts e-cigarette companies helps tobacco companies.

Not really. The major tobacco manufacturers dominate e-cig marketshare in the US.

The way it benefits them is that smaller players can afford the regulation less, ensuring the tobacco manufacturers can get a total lock on the market.

Bootleggers and Baptists... I wonder how all the hysterical anti-tobacco organizations, who see anything with nicotine in it as the second coming of tobacco smoking, feel about that? It should feel awkward.

Well, I favor it. Just because it favors Big Tobacco doesn't mean it doesn't simultaneously do some good. Big Tobacco's self interest is, in this case, what I consider to be the general interest.

It was actually incredible to me that e-cigs got away with so little regulation for so long in the first place. The only thing I'm worried about is it's too little, too late: there are a lot of people now who are hooked on nicotine who weren't before, and the constant barrage of marketing claiming they are perfectly safe is only making matters worse.

And yes, I recognize that it possibly has some use in helping smokers quit or move to a nicotine delivery system that is most probably less harmful. If that's the justification for e-cigs, then limit sales to smokers.

There are a lot more people hooked on nicotine than before? Is there evidence you can cite for that? That's a surprising statement.

E-cigarettes are 100x dorkier than cigarettes and much more annoying to use. Virtually none of my smoker friends stick with them for very long.

> There are a lot more people hooked on nicotine than before? Is there evidence you can cite for that?

I said "who weren't before", i.e., there are new nicotine addicts who became addicted through e-cig usage (and probably would not have become addicted otherwise.) I did not say, and I doubt, that there are more nicotine addicts than before given the general downward trend in smoking.

I generally see two types of people vaping or using e-cigs: middle schoolers and smokers who want an additional fix, often in places they aren't allowed to smoke - for some reason a huge number of vapers, etc. think that no-smoking rules don't apply to them. I've seen people get violent over being asked to stop vaping in a no-smoking area twice.

Can you present data to back this up? I would be surprised to learn that it was true. Middle schoolers, for instance, can get cigarettes even more easily than they can e-cigs†, and while vaping indoors was pretty common a couple years ago, it's been more than a year since I saw anyone do it in Chicago.

I guess I'm saying: I'm really skeptical of your claim that e-cigarettes are introducing more people to smoking. Cigarettes already do a pretty amazing job of introducing people to smoking.

† As the parent of someone who was a middle schooler just last year, let me add that I would be flabbergasted to see one of them vaping, but not entirely surprised to see them with a cigarette. If I saw a teenager vaping, "tobacco" would not be my first guess as to the intoxicant involved.

> Can you present data to back this up?

I framed it the way I did because all I have is anecdotes. When I say "a lot of people are addicted to nicotine that weren't before" this is substantiated by my personal knowledge of around three dozen individuals.

> I'm really skeptical of your claim that e-cigarettes are introducing more people to smoking.

There are more than three hundred million people in the US. E-cigs are a multibillion dollar industry. It would be astonishing if there was no one introduced to nicotine by e-cigs.

> vaping indoors was pretty common a couple years ago, it's been more than a year since I saw anyone do it in Chicago.

> As the parent of someone who was a middle schooler just last year, let me add that I would be flabbergasted to see one of them vaping,

Some of this is probably cultural. I've never been to Chicago, but Chicago friends tell me that people are generally much health-focused in Chicago. I live in a southern rural area, and from what a teacher friend tells me and from my own observation, about a third of local middle schoolers vape. I can definitely believe this is an outlier, but even that's too much, in my opinion, considering it didn't have to be that way. There are much fewer smokers, and that's been about constant.

"Chicago friends tell me that people are generally much health-focused in Chicago".

This city is practically made of sausage. Its official vegetable is bacon.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has gotten hooked on nicotine by way of e-cigarettes, but it's nowhere close to cigarettes. A 12 year old can get a pack of cigarettes and hand them out to their friends. Try that with one of those dorky e-cig pens.

If we assume that childhood obesity is a reasonable proxy for health, then Chicago is healthier than my state: 25% vs 31%. [1] [2] (I use state because nobody is publishing statistics on the local level.)

> Try that with one of those dorky e-cig pens.

They just pass them around if someone doesn't have one.

[1] http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/cdph/CDP...

[2] http://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/3593.pdf

They really don't.

I'm not speculating. I'm telling you what I see daily in front of the school.

I remain skeptical. I did some research, and the reports I found suggest that e-cig usage among teenagers is rare relative to cigarettes, and that most teenage e-cig users are former cigarette smokers. And again, as a parent of two children in roughly this age group, what you're saying you see every day conflicts with my own experience.

I think you're wrong about the general argument you're trying to make about e-cigarettes.

About 5 of every 100 middle school students (5.3%) reported in 2015 that they used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days—an increase from 0.6% in 2011.

About 2 of every 100 middle school students (2.3%) reported in 2015 that they smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth...

Findings from the 2014 National Youth Tobacco Survey show that current e-cigarette use (use on at least 1 day in the past 30 days) among high school students increased from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent in 2014, rising from approximately 660,000 to 2 million students http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p0416-e-cigarette-use...

PS: Why do you constantly say stuff like this when fact's are clearly not on your side?

I got my assertion from:

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_959.pdf

But note that on the page you cite it says that overall tobacco use in middle school has not changed since 2011. So kids are substituting a more dangerous product (cigarettes) for a less dangerous product (vaping).

That's reversing a long term trend of decreasing tobacco use among middle school students. Current usage patterns mean e-sig users tend to go back to tobacco at some point. Thus e-sig's may in fact act like the mythical 'gateway' drug among middle school students.

During 2000--2009, the prevalence of current tobacco use among middle school students declined (15.1% to 8.2%), as did current cigarette use (11.0% to 5.2%) and cigarette smoking experimentation (29.8% to 15.0%)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5933a2.htm

Smoking an vaping are different. Why should no smoking rules apply to vaping?

Because I don't want to breathe your diacetyl and propylene glycol mist any more than you want to breathe my cigarette smoke.

I'm with you, and I also don't want to breathe the halitosis-infused mist expelled by my coworkers. Seems reasonable to me to have some legislation on the books to require people who work in a shared workplace to brush their teeth.

So are you also banning asthmatics from using their inhaler in public? You're getting secondhand propylene glycol from them too!

I don't smoke or vape, but I really don't see why vaping is so unpopular. Is it just "drugs are bad" again? I again don't get it, as nobody complains about seeing people drinking coffee in public. As far as I can tell, caffeine and nicotine are similar drugs with different delivery mechanisms. Except nobody is worried about high school students getting hooked on caffeine from flavored coffee beverages.

When asthmatics start leaving thick, persistent clouds of inhaler mist behind them as they walk, you'll have a point there.

I guess if you want to pollute, you have to make the pollution invisible, like cars do.

But you will happily walk along streets with diesel fumes being pumped out? I don't suppose you might even contribute to those fumes yourself?

Mind those goalposts, now. We're talking about no-smoking areas, not no-driving streets.

Isn't the assumption that smoking laws should apply to vaping moving the goalposts?

E-cigarettes are 100x dorkier than cigarettes and much more annoying to use.

Unfortunately my friends of friends who vape didn't get this memo. People who never would have picked up smoking are now addicted to vaping.

Assuming more people use nicotine than before, and you have no proof of that, regulating e-cigs without showing negative health effects is a bad idea.

It's also a bluenose idea: Kids are using a mind altering drug! OMG! Other than the approved ones like caffeine in Mountain Dew and Coke, which, with the sugar, are certainly more harmful than nicotine.

They're pleased with the regulation. Example:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press_releases/post/2016_05_0...

> The major tobacco manufacturers dominate e-cig marketshare in the US.

I'm curious what leads you to believe this? Perhaps they lead in the "gas station disposables" market, but almost no one uses those. Anyone serious about using an ecig uses the larger 650 (minimum) mah batteries with detachable ~atomizers (because nothing smaller than that performs adequately) and those are manufactured almost exclusively by independent Chinese companies and sold via independent websites and retail stores.

> I'm curious what leads you to believe this?

All the available sales data, such as this: http://www.journalnow.com/blu-ecigs-brand-has-lost-market-sh...

According to Nielsen data as of May 16, Vuse has a 35.7 percent U.S. market share as measured by all distribution channels for e-cigs. Vuse is available at more than 100,000 retail outlets nationwide.

Blu eCigs was second in market share at 22.7 percent, while Logic was third at 13.8 percent. Logic was bought recently by Japan Tobacco.

There is a lot of data missing from independent vape shops, yes. But the numbers we have indicate Big Tobacco is moving near a billion dollars worth of e-cigs a year.

> Anyone serious about using an ecig uses the larger 650 (minimum) mah batteries with detachable ~atomizers (because nothing smaller than that performs adequately) and those are manufactured almost exclusively by independent Chinese companies and sold via independent websites and retail stores.

People serious about coffee buy their own beans sourced from great growers, get a grinder, etc etc. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the millions of people who buy coffee get it from places like McDonald's and Starbucks and instant coffee containers.

And at any rate, parts and liquids sourced from independent Chinese companies and sold via independent websites sounds exactly like the kind of thing that should be regulated and inspected.

> Nielsen data focuses primarily on convenience-store sales. Data includes vaporizers, or open vapor products, but those are more frequently bought at vape shops and tobacco outlet stores.

> Nevertheless, the vast majority of the millions of people who buy coffee get it from places like McDonald's and Starbucks and instant coffee containers.

I suppose one might think this is a valid comparison, but it simply is not. Try this: for the next few weeks when you're out and about, pay attention to the types of ecigs people are using in public, I guarantee you it isn't the tiny Blu or Vuse disposables; I see at least 25 people a day using ecigs in the wild, and I have literally never seen anyone using one of these disposables that is being reported on in that statistic.

Or if you are genuinely curious in discovering the correct answer to this question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette

https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/search?q=vuse&...

https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/search?q=blu&r...

Possible you live in a bubble. (Or more than possible. I mean, you're treating Reddit as representative.) I've seen a couple of custom-assembled vapes out and about, and a hell of a lot of gas station disposables.

> a hell of a lot of gas station disposables.

Based on the virtually unanimous opinion on reddit (or any other ecig forum for that matter) that disposables suck, as well as never seeing them in public, I find that "a little" hard to believe.

No doubt. After all, it plainly doesn't suit your prejudice on the matter.

My prejudice has no effect on reality though, does it? So what is the reality?

seconding your anecdote. I use an ecig myself, and I live next to a college campus -- I'd probably say I see about five people a day using them. I have never seen someone using one of the cig-like disposable types.

> I use an ecig myself, and I live next to a college campus

And college campuses (and the areas around them) are totally a representative cross-section of the general; population on all things, including mechanisms of tobacco consumption, right?

Do you have reason to think they wouldn't be representative?

Your tone makes it sound like you're kind of hostile to the very idea, do you have some personal attachment to the matter?

> Do you have reason to think they wouldn't be representative?

The fact that they are demonstrably not representative of the general population by age, income, education, or, really, just about any other variable that has been studied makes it very unlikely that they'd be, except coincidentally, representative as far as purchasing patterns for any particular good for which a variety of options exists (unless its a good purchases nearly exclusively by college students, but that's clearly not the case here.)

Using e-cig forums as a measure of e-cig marketshare is like using headphone forums as a measure of headphone marketshare.

Most people don't have Sennheisers.

But my totally scientific survey of the Head-Fi forums says you're wrong!

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. One key difference that comes to mind: people that buy a pair of Sennheisers doesn't typically run out and try and convert all of his friends and relatives who are using Beats, whereas with ecigs it is quite common (maybe because in this case it involves, you know, life or death).

Anecdote vs. anecdote. Until manufacturers of non-disposable units start publishing their sales numbers, this is just spinning tires in the mud.

It's hard to take you seriously when your evidence is, "just look at all the people around you using real e-cigs not that cheap 7-11 crap."

Judging product popularity by visible usage is a dumb idea? So if you see lots of people driving Toyotas, and only rarely (or never) see someone driving a Ferrari, you wouldn't take seriously someone who speculated that Toyota unit sales are higher than Ferrari?

> try this: for the next few weeks when you're out and about, pay attention to the types of ecigs people are using in public

I suppose one might think this is a valid comparison, but it simply is not. Who you encounter isn't a representative sample of the population, its skewed by your own age, location, socioeconomic class, etc.

Corporate lobbying isn't the only kind of lobbying.

How is it against public health to require all these inhaler devices to undergo some sort of real approval process?

Yeah the date chosen serves PM's needs, but I don't think it hurts public health.

Because they directly compete with, and are much safer than, cigarettes.

edit: Studies are continually being done, and so far the results are pretty clear: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/08August/Pages/E-cigarettes-95-p...

On a relative scale they may be safer, but that doesn't mean they're safe in general.

Right. But if the availability of these devices leads to lower levels of smoking (and my understanding is that it does), safer is what matters, no?

Agreed. But I think they should still be regulated. (I'm not certain they should be regulated the same as cigarettes, though.)

To make sure e-cigs properly induce cancer and life long addiction? Does regulation serve an actual purpose, or just a silly exercise in obedience directed by their corporate overlords..

Nicotine is a drug, and should be regulated at least as other over-the-counter drugs are. It's also important to keep in mind that the liquid nicotine used by the e-cig is concentrated and toxic: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-...

Should nicotine be more regulated than caffeine?

I think on par with caffeine makes sense - but keep in mind that the relevant comparison here is not a can of Coke, but a bottle of caffeine pills. The latter has stricter standards than the former.

For about $30 you can buy enough caffeine powder to kill a horse. Not highly regulated.

The regulation doesn't make it expensive; the regulation ensures that it is pure.

Yes, thank you. Regulation is why when you buy, say, ibuprofen from the drug store, you are confident that it is actually ibuprofen. Because it is a drug, it is held to different standards than, say, strawberries by the FDA.

I think the problem here is that people use "regulation" as a synonym for "hard to get", but that's not what it means. Yes, part of regulation is in controlling consumer access, but regulation also applies to the manufacturing and distribution of the drug.

It's also worth noting that in the future, the FDA may enact stricter controls on powdered caffeine: http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm460...

So instant coffee should be regulated by FDA? What about table salt? Also sold in deadly amounts everywhere. Vinegar?

I am not even talking about toxic common household chemicals - just the food items, directly intended for consumption.

I have no doubt FDA would love to regulate all of the above but it's specifically prevented from this. AFAIK it cannot regulate substances, which were in use when FDA was established. I hope somebody takes them to court since nicotine had been in use long before FDA.

Technically, all of that is regulated by the FDA, since food safety is part of their mandate. But they don't have extra regulations when caffeine is naturally occurring in a food. They do, however, have extra regulations when caffeine is added to a food (such as energy drinks), and part of that regulation says how much caffeine can be added.

I think people are confusing "regulation" with "I need a doctor's prescription to buy". Caffeine is already regulated by the FDA.

I think you are confusing food safety and "I need to be paid $1M+ if you want to sell this" shakedown.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. My contention is that these nicotine vials should be at least as regulated as other over-the-counter drugs, such as ibuprofen. Do you disagree with that?

Or maybe we should back up even further. Are you ideologically opposed to all kinds of regulation, including the kind of regulation the FDA already applies to existing over-the-counter and prescription drugs?

>I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. My contention is that these nicotine vials should be at least as regulated as other over-the-counter drugs, such as ibuprofen. Do you disagree with that?

Yes I do. The regulation in OP has nothing to do with safety and everything with giving the monopoly to the right people. If you are concerned about safety then the generic food/household chemicals safety protocols are applicable here. Nobody needs to go through FDA approval for the new vintage of every wine on the market. You can even blend different grapes! FDA has no say in this.

More - safety is not a problem now. There are no reports of people suffering en masse from unregulated e-juice or premium cigars. Then, why exactly do they need to be regulated?

I thought I was clear on my point, but I suppose not. I will try to clarify again.

In the beginning of the thread, I said that I do not necessarily think the regulations should be the same as cigarettes. In other words, I am not sure if I agree with the regulations that are described in the article. I bring this up because you said "the regulation in the OP has nothing to do..." in a manner that implies to me that you think I am discussing those regulations. I am not.

However, several people have said they want no regulation, which to me seems extreme. That would make the regulation of liquid nicotine less than that of other drugs like caffeine, ibuprofen and aspirin.

I find your wine example to be strange, as wine and alcoholic drinks in general are heavily regulated, just not by the FDA. For wine specifically, see: https://www.ttb.gov/wine/index.shtml

To your question, which is why do I think think these vials should be regulated the same as existing drugs? Because it is a drug, and I think the FDA should regulate all drugs. Drug safety is generally not a problem because of regulation. I also linked to a NYT article which shows that there are problems where children handle the liquid nicotine and get very sick. Liquid nicotine is toxic, which some people don't realize. And it is a problem with "supplements" which the FDA is not allowed to regulate. So, three questions. One, do you support the FDA regulating drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen? Two, if you do, why do you want to treat nicotine differently? Third, are you ideologically opposed to all food and drug regulation?

I ask the third question because if you are ideologically opposed to all food and drug regulation, then there's no point in discussing the particulars of regulating nicotine.

>Because it is a drug, and I think the FDA should regulate all drugs.

It might be a drug by some definition, but it's not by law and, by the same law, FDA cannot regulate all drugs but only new ones.

>One, do you support the FDA regulating drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen?

In general, I do not support FDA at all and think this agency has long overstepped it's mandate and in need of serious regulations for itself. In particular, I do not see how giving aspirin to FDA is going to do any good. It's not like children never got poisoned by FDA-approved drugs.

>Third, are you ideologically opposed to all food and drug regulation?

No, only pragmatically. If you can show a regulation improving life of anybody other than people administering it on expense of general public then I am all for it.

The FDA already regulates other forms of nicotine (patches, gum, lozenges, sprays, inhalers).

But, since you are opposed to the FDA in general, then I think our discussion of the FDA regulating this nicotine product is not productive - our disagreement is not on any particular aspect of this particular drug, but in the existence of the FDA, and regulations in general. You object to all FDA regulations, not just nicotine. That is a much larger discussion, which I don't particularly want to engage in right now.

> The FDA already regulates other forms of nicotine (patches, gum, lozenges, sprays, inhalers).

And it's able to do so because these are sold as a cure for smoking i.e. a medicine. If you tried to sell charcoal as a cure for, say, cancer then FDA would be in its right to regulate you as well. I do not oppose FDA overseeing medical claims on principle. More, I think this is exactly what FDA should be doing. And I agree that this discussion is going nowhere, you seem to consider regulation good by itself, which should be enforced no matter the effects.

It is a drug as is caffeine and dextromethorphan. The former is marketed (to children!) and shown to be enjoyed by characters in popular television shows; the latter is sold in general stores, not necessarily just pharmacies. It is the ingredient in dayquil. Nicotine is a mild stimulant just like caffeine. I'm trying to find studies that compare it but I can only find scientific american and sky news stories that just say that many argue that nicotine is no more bad for you than caffeine.

I'm not clear on this point: do you think we are in disagreement? Both of the drugs you listed are regulated by the FDA. There is also a big difference between a can of Coke and a bottle of caffeine pills. The latter is similar to the vials of liquid nicotine (which are toxic, since they are are concentrations well above the standard dose).

I sympathize with the libertarian "I should be able to decide what I put in my body" but the fact is that right now anyone using e-cigs has no idea what's in that juice they fill their devices with. Studies have found some pretty nasty stuff in there (besides the nicotine) including diacetyl. If you want to encounter corporate overlords, try suing them after the fact for destroying your lungs. They will argue you knew it's dangerous and you decided to put it in your body.

The point is we have a drug that's known to be addictive and cancerous - and it's sold over the counter. Smokers don't know what's in a cigarette and they don't care. So in this grand equation - exactly how does regulation benefit anyone besides the tobacco industry and their crony bureaucrats? The word regulatory capture comes to mind.

> the fact is that right now anyone using e-cigs has no idea what's in that juice they fill their devices with.

The majority of mainstream manufacturers are very straightforward about EXACTLY is in their juice, and the industry has been very responsible with self-regulation, such as with diacetyl which seems to be a genuine possible risk and is now largely avoided.

I was at a theme park last month with my toddler, sitting on a bench in no-smoking area and this lady came over and started smoking an e-cig right next to us. When I pointed out to her the smoking area about 200 feet away from us, she said "Oh don't worry. These are totally safe for the little one!" I smiled politely, said "Have a good day" and walked away without making a fuss.

As to your point, they may be safer than regular cigarettes but what's even safer is not smoking anything around me or my family. I don't how safe they are because there are no regulations [1]. If the vapers think they are safe enough to be used in close proximity to toddlers, then the e-cig companies have done a fantastic job of marketing. I'm totally ok with FDA regulating them.

1. http://www.babycentre.co.uk/x25008143/is-it-safe-to-use-e-ci...

Worrying about e-cigarettes outdoors seems like an overreaction, compared to thousands of other more serious environmental toxins we all face every day. (Frankly worrying about regular cigarettes outdoors also is an overreaction, but smokers have been very effectively demonized in our culture.) I guess turning the issue into a black-and-white binary is easier than reasoning about dosage.

I feel like the concern there would directly be secondhand nicotine in the vapor, which is particularly neurotoxic to developing brains [1]. Feels like a pretty reasonable concern to me, with a child around?

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746456/

Except the amount of nicotine indoors is far less than cigarettes. I'd imagine outside is almost nil.

> The emissions discharge water, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nicotine into indoor air at levels far lower than found with tobacco cigarettes (Schripp et al., 2013).

http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_528.php

In addition, e-cigarettes dont always have nicotine and often have lower amounts than cigarettes. Further making the fear of momentarily sitting near someone smoking an e-cigarette outside almost irrational in terms of health risks.

In terms of not wanting vapor being blown in your face, then I agree there is a social etiquette that should be respected.

More than not wanting the vapor, it's respecting that others may have that concern in a public space, as irrational as it may seem to you. I think common sense would extend e-cigs to a "no smoking" area.

The very fact that there are flavoured vapors that smell up an entire room with their disgustingly sweet scents is enough to ban them indoors. I don't want your strawberry cloud in my face. Imagine 20+ people in a closed space all dispersing their various scented vapors. No thanks. It would not be considered acceptable for someone to burn incense in most indoors locations; this is no different in that regard, and may be worse.

Should we ban spray on deodorant and perfume too? I find axe particularly offensive and a few perfumes too.

People that overuse deserve to be talked to and asked to tone it down. I've seen a couple of instances of this in my time and it works, as most people are a little embarrassed to learn that their perfume/cologne/body spray is that pungent. Fair enough, considering that once you've used the same scent for months on end, you barely smell it on yourself anymore. Sometimes it takes a gentle nudge to inform.

And yes, if once talked to, someone continues to bathe themselves in scents that gag other people, they need to be let go. The flagrant disrespect for people who have to be around you for 8 hours a day is too much.

Indeed, and I think the same is true of vaping. If you're blowing obnoxious clouds indoors, sure, you should be asked to stop and, on refusing, ejected. This, as with the fragrance example, does not require regulation.

Dosage of what? The contents of e-cigs has been unregulated until now.

And what if the device isn't safe in some way? What if it's likely to explode? Or the way it vaporizes things can tend to produce some sort of unexpectedly toxic chemical, perhaps only with certain vaping fluid?

These kind of concerns are why people want them regulated.

There is not even any theoretical reason to think any of this.

> And what if the device isn't safe in some way? What if it's likely to explode?

"What's Causing Some E-Cigarette Batteries to Explode?", NBC News, 2 months ago

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/what-s-causing-some...

> Or the way it vaporizes things can tend to produce some sort of unexpectedly toxic chemical perhaps only with certain vaping fluid?

The contents of the fluid was unregulated, so how can you say that's not even a theoretical concern? A quick Google search shows a TON of recipes which could easily cause problems. How can you be sure that some fluid works fine with most e-cigs but when used by one that runs a bit hotter it doesn't cause a fire or have some chemical reaction between components that generates some dangerous gas? What if the fluid somehow reacts with the plastic or metal inside your specific e-cig?

> Dosage of what? The contents of e-cigs has been unregulated until now.

And it's not like anyone has ever seen cases of normally safe products made in an unsafe way put on the market.

http://time.com/107922/china-pet-food-contamination-recall-v...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8944028...

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/lumber-liquidators-halts-chines...

http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/18/toxic-hair-straighteners-inte...

Likely != some

Of course some batteries explode. Shall we also ban laptops and cell phones?

As for content of the juice, sure there has been a few incidents of chemicals discovered to be potentially unsafe, but that's a far cry from " tend to produce some sort of unexpectedly toxic chemical". (What does that even mean, it sounds like we live in pre-scientific times and the world is a completely mystery to us.)

> How can you be sure that some fluid works fine with most e-cigs but when used by one that runs a bit hotter it doesn't cause a fire or have some chemical reaction between components that generates some dangerous gas?

There is no theoretical basis in chemistry to believe this, and there is extremely widespread usage of ecigs with no incidents.

But sure, anything in the world is possible I suppose considering you cannot prove a negative. I'm going to start wearing safety goggles when using my computer in case the screen explodes, after all, even though there's no theoretical reason to fear this and no incidences of it happening, it could, couldn't it. :)

You are so vociferously defending ecigs, i have to ask, why? They are clearly not good for you, and have been taken up by the market sources that successfully obfuscated the dangers of tobacco for many years. Are you being paid in some way by a pro e-cig group, or do you sell them?

It appears there actually may be a plausible theory:

http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/14771/how-does-...

Common sense is utterly useless against parents.

> If the vapers think they are safe enough to be used in close proximity to toddlers, then the e-cig companies have done a fantastic job of marketing.

Or you just happened to run into an uneducated/unintillegent/dishonest person smoking an e-cig.

That article has contains no theory, never mind evidence, that vaping near a baby could be harmful.

> But if the availability of these devices leads to lower levels of smoking (and my understanding is that it does), safer is what matters, no?

If safer is what matters, then it matters not only whether it leads to a lower volume of smoking but whether the (volume of smoking) × (harm from smoking) + (volume of vaping) × (harm from vaping) is lower under one regime than another. Its possible for the "no vaping" case to be safer in total than the "with vaping" case, even if the harm from vaping is lower and the volume of smoking is lower with vaping available.

We don't require everything that we consume to be completely safe. Most foods are choking hazards.

In a sane world the vastly safer alternative would be less regulated than the vastly more lethal one.

We seem to be leaving that world.

How do you know ? I don't think this statement can be generally until more tests are done. I would expect the result to change vastly mainly depending on the composition of the liquid.

True enough. But if it turns out that a particular type of liquid is bad, you can simply switch. Switching brands of cigarette isn't going to help you.

How do we know that?

>How is it against public health to require all these inhaler devices to undergo some sort of real approval process?

There are two issues here.

First, the government has absolutely no right to tell me what I can or can't do "for my own good" at the point of a gun (even though it does so already in many ways), and this is just another attack on my freedom.

Even if you buy into the government's "right" to control the personal behavior of consenting adults behind closed doors titularly because of "public health", this legislation isn't about that.

>Each application could cost $1 million or more

Creating such an expensive and onerous application process insures that the vast majority of e-cigarettes won't ever make it to the "approval process". Only corporations with very deep pockets will have access to this market after this law is passed, and that access has absolutely nothing to do with public health.

That's the issue here

Another bootleggers and baptists style coalition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists

The bill, and today's new FDA regulation, are not against public health. As that same article says:

> Philip Morris’s motives notwithstanding, the legislation has broad support from nearly 1,000 advocacy groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which led the negotiations with the company, as well as the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society.

And today public health organizations like the American Lung Association and American Heart Association are welcoming the FDA rule:

http://www.lung.org/about-us/media/press-releases/fda-assert...

http://newsroom.heart.org/news/new-rule-gives-fda-tighter-gr...

Phillip Morris' involvement is not a form of corruption, or social proof the rule is secretly bad for everyone. It's the natural consequence of our system of government, which says that persons and companies subject to new laws are allowed to have a say in the process. Google fought SOPA, for example.

The benefit to Phillip Morris is to deny new entrants to the tobacco market. This is also a benefit to public health, plus health advocates hope that the regulations will help shrink the overall market for tobacco products in the U.S.

Edit: throwaway_yy2Di says the bill is bad for public health based on nothing, and is the top comment. 1,000 public health orgs say the bill is good for public health (in the same story!), and this comment is sitting at 0. I guess that's HN for ya...

The issue is that tobacco cigarettes are _much_ worse for your health than e-cigarettes. This doesn't mean e-cigarettes aren't unhealthy, but between the two there's a clear winner in terms of health outcomes. Sure, it denies entry to the tobacco market, but it specifically denies entry to a more competitive, healthier alternative to tobacco cigarettes.

> The issue is that tobacco cigarettes are _much_ worse for your health than e-cigarettes.

No one knows if that is true yet, which is one reason the regulation was created. Again, from the American Lung Association:

> Absent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, there is no way for the public health and medical community or consumers to know what chemicals are contained in e-cigarettes (also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems or ENDS) or what the short- and long-term health implications might be.

http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/tobacco/oversight-and-re...

In addition, e-cig vs. tobacco cig is not a zero sum. E-cig use is growing among youth who have never smoked before. If the e-cig market was all smokers switching to e-cigs, your comment would make sense, but that's not the market.

Here's my 2 pennies...

From what I've read - evidence has been piling up that ecigs are in fact a far healthier alternative to tobacco.

Example (of many): "E-cigarettes are not completely risk free but when compared to smoking, evidence shows they carry just a fraction of the harm. The problem is people increasingly think they are at least as harmful and this may be keeping millions of smokers from quitting."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...

From my point of view, the US government has prioritized tax revenue over public health.

I'm certainly NOT against reasonable laws and health regulation - but overbearing, expensive regulations will most likely kill more people by causing them to continue tobacco smoking. The vast majority of smokers are poor - and fewer of them will be able to afford ecigs under these regulations.

It would be reasonable to expand and federally regulate the current system of third party lab testing to include all liquids and consumer equipment. Almost all domestically produced base liquids and nicotines are FDA approved. Most consumer equipment (coils, batteries, etc) I've seen at shops are also lab tested.

But instead, the government has again aligned with tobacco companies to maintain their tax base and tobacco profits. It's a disgusting abuse of regulatory powers.

> there is no way for the public health and medical community or consumers to know what chemicals are contained in e-cigarettes

Nonsense, reputable manufacturers are very straightforward about what is in their juice. Furthermore, while FDA oversight would undoubtedly increase quality standards to some degree, it doesn't guarantee purity and compliance.

On certain topics some people seem determined to not use common sense.

Regulation will improve purity, quality, and consistency of dosage, as well as verify what manufacturers say.

For safety, there is more to it than the ingredients:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11637086

More detail:

http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/14771/how-does-...

Very interesting, so perhaps there is at least some theoretical risk!

I don't know why you think that is true. Just because they are the government? Ask Flint MI how good their government-approved water is.

Flint's water is NOT government approved, it is well above the legal limit for lead. I don't really know what point you're trying to make here.

Also: pretty much every single tobacco manufacturer in the US sued over the constitutionality of the Act on various grounds (often free speech w/r/t restrictions on advertising).

Altria (Philip Morris parent company) was the only tobacco player not to say a word once the Act passed.

While their influence is obvious the outcome is still fine by me. Many insurance policies do not distinguish between smoking and vaping. Let alone the fact that anything you ingest or inhale that is sold should be proven safe. Where is the proof that they are safe than supports your statement its against the public health to do this?

Considering the amount of money cigarette manufacturers pay out to the government and states it makes sense that anything that takes their place needs to be proven safe or not safe and then handled accordingly.

Like say, scary skull-and-crossbones labeling on the package? There are tons of ways they could have addressed the state of safety research available for the product without handing a giant regulatory favor to the tobacco lobby. But we're talking about the tobacco lobby -- your safety was only ever a giant farce to them.

"Proven safe" is a very high bar.

Is alcohol, high-fructose corn syrup, or grilled red meat "proven safe"?

Agreed, "proven safe" would fail even with water, which is toxic to humans above certain quantities.

What about "generally recognized as safe", which is a category I think most foods fall into unless evidence directly to the contrary surfaces?

Sugar is generally recognised as unsafe, addictive and unhealthy. Tens of millions of people suffer from it.

You're not speaking the same language as your parent commenter. "Generally Recognized As Safe" (GRAS) is an FDA designation, and not a literal phrase. High Fructose Corn Syrup, for example, is GRAS.

And yet, we need it to survive.

but I don't put any of those things inside my body if I'm simply walking behind you on the sidewalk while you consume them.

That's not a distinction the parent commenter made.

You put a whole lot of crap in your body walking down American streets, unless you think all those cars are crapping out rainbows and sunshine from the exhaust pipe.

Agreed, I also take issue with "Safer than cigarettes"; we know a lot more about cigarettes/tobacco than e-cigarettes. It's true that cigarettes have a large buffet of unsafe chemicals, but it's clear that e-cigarettes have widely varied chemicals from brand to brand with little transparency as to what they are. I feel it's more appropriate to say "Safer than cigarettes, we think". The Popcorn Lung situation comes to mind. Buyer/user beware.

They don't have to be "safe" - I'm sure they're not. They just have to be safer than cigarettes, which they almost certainly are. Given this it is essential to encourage people to switch. A million bucks to the government for every flavor? A transparent attempt by established players to kill a disruptive nascent industry.

Beware status quo bias.

Where "flavor" == "additive mixture that's being aerosolized and inhaled", I think some sort of FDA approval is reasonable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com