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?
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...
> 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.
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.
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.
"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...
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. :)
http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/14771/how-does-...
Or you just happened to run into an uneducated/unintillegent/dishonest person smoking an e-cig.
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...
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.
I think people are confusing "regulation" with "I need a doctor's prescription to buy". Caffeine is already regulated by the FDA.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.