Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

The War on Vaping


Muda69

Recommended Posts

https://reason.com/2019/09/24/vaping-rashida-tlaib-hearing-conspiracy/

Quote

A House subcommittee hearing on the allegedly harmful effects of e-cigarettes took a bizarre turn when Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D–Mich.) asked the panel's only pro-vaping witness, Vicki Porter, whether she was a conspiracy theorist.

Tlaib had apparently noticed Porter winking at one of the Republican participants, and thought this was possibly indicative of something nefarious. Porter patiently explained that she knew this man personally and was just saying hello.

Tlaib's larger concern, of course, was that Porter had directly and quite pointedly challenged the tortured logic of the Oversight and Reform Subcommittee hearing. Contrary to the other participant's assertions that vaping was bad, full stop, Porter thanked e-cigarettes for helping her to quit smoking—and reminded Congress that there were millions of other adults just like her.

"Vaping is a health miracle to me," said Porter. "Not safe, but less harmful."

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (D–Fla.) dismissed Porter's comments, saying, "I want to confirm the testimony of Ms. Porter is anecdotal, related specifically to her opinion, and she is not a public health expert."

 

Tlaib celebrated the anti-vaping witnesses for "speaking truth about this, because the long-term effects are very dangerous" before attempting to discredit Porter with the conspiracy-theorist smear.

.@RashidaTlaib attacks conservative vaping advocate Vicki Porter: "Are you a conspiracy theorist?" pic.twitter.com/Czf5cALRks

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) September 24, 2019

 

Moments before, Tlaib had asserted secondhand smoke was "worse than directly smoking cigarettes." This, of course, is not true—indeed, it's utterly ludicrous. Who is the conspiracy theorist again?

For more on Tlaib's fact-free anti-vape agenda, read the Reason Foundation's Guy Bentley.

Yep, fact-free is about how the federal government starts most of it's "wars" against the general populace.   Why should vaping be any different.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I think the whole thing in the nutshell is the government has very little oversight in the vaping world. All of this is merely and exercise to gain control and extend the government's tentacles into the vaping industry in the name of "safety". 

Good point.  After the feds get done probably the only vaping products available to purchase will be made by Juul,  owned by old time tobacco giant Phillip-Morris, who spends millions a year on lobbying.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here Is Why the Massachusetts Ban on Vaping Products Is Bad for Public Health: https://reason.com/2019/09/25/here-is-why-the-massachusetts-ban-on-vaping-products-is-bad-for-public-health/

Quote

Yesterday, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) announced an "emergency" ban on the sale of all vaping products, including devices used to consume cannabis extracts, nicotine, or solutions with no psychoactive ingredients. Unlike the bans on flavored e-cigarettes in Michigan and New York or the similar ban planned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which were presented as responses to underage consumption, the Massachusetts edict is based mainly on concerns about recent reports of severe respiratory illnesses associated with vaping. But the governor's explanation is highly misleading in light of what we know about the causes of those illnesses, and his sweeping ban is apt to undermine public health instead of protecting it.

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are currently investigating a multi-state outbreak of lung disease that has been associated with the use of e-cigarettes or vaping products (devices, liquids, refill pods, and/or cartridges)," Baker's press release says. "To date, the CDC has confirmed 530 cases of lung injury across 38 states. While many of the patients reported recent use of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing products, some reported using both THC and nicotine products. No single product has been linked to all cases of lung disease."

Baker is echoing the CDC's framing, which obscures the fact that the overwhelming majority of lung disease cases (not just "many") are associated with black-market cannabis products. In states where the products used have been reported, the share of patients who admitted vaping THC ranges from 83 percent to 100 percent. The actual rates in some of those states may be even higher, since patients might be reluctant to admit illegal drug use.

The most plausible explanation for the respiratory illnesses is that vaping oil-based THC solutions is leading to lipoid pneumonia, a rare condition caused by fat particles in the lungs, or eosinophilic chemical pneumonitis, a disease marked by elevated levels of white blood cells in the lungs. A leading suspect is vitamin E acetate, which was detected in most of the THC fluids tested by the FDA and New York's state lab. Legal nicotine e-cigarettes, by contrast, typically vaporize e-liquids containing propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin. Furthermore, such e-cigarettes have been used by millions of Americans for years, while the respiratory illnesses have been reported only in the last few months, which suggests that relatively new additives or contaminants are to blame.

"These excipients [propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin] have been used in e-liquids for the past 12 years without a problem," notes Boston University public health professor Michael Siegel, a physician and epidemiologist who supports e-cigarettes as a harm-reducing alternative to the conventional, combustible kind. "If PG/VG were the problem, then there would be a huge number of cases occurring among adults, much less of a differential by gender, and much less of an age gradient in the reported cases."

Siegel faults the CDC for its muddled message about vaping-related lung disease. "Given the fact that close to 90% of cases and 100% of the deaths for which products have been reported are associated with marijuana vaping, it is inexcusable that the CDC fails to distinguish between the products being vaped," he writes. "It is also inexcusable that CDC has failed to distinguish between the vaping of oil-based e-liquids (which are typically used in [THC cartridges]) and water/alcohol-based e-liquids (as are used in virtually all e-cigarettes)."

In this context, Baker's comprehensive ban on all vaping products makes little sense. He is relying on his authority to declare an emergency "which is detrimental to the public health." Based on Baker's declaration, the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Health, with the approval of the state Public Health Council, has imposed a four-month ban covering a wide range of products that, so far as we know, have not been implicated in respiratory illnesses.

Implicitly conceding the inadequacy of his main justification, Baker also cites recent increases in e-cigarette use by minors as a rationale for the ban. "Vaping products are marketed and sold in nearly 8,000 flavors that make them easier to use and more appealing to youth," says Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito. "Today's actions include a ban on flavored products, inclusive of mint and menthol, which we know are widely used by young people."

Baker's action highlights the alarmingly broad authority that some governors are claiming to ban products they don't like in the name of "public health." Since the statutes on which they are relying do not define "public health," they seemingly allow governors to declare any situation an "emergency" and impose bans without new legislation. Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, which seeks to preserve e-cigarettes as an option for smokers who want to quit, asks, "If a governor is permitted to just ban e-cigarettes for four months, what else could they ban?" That seems to be an open question, although litigation by vaping businesses may clarify the answer.

Baker's defense of his ban lumps together several distinct issues: the outbreak of respiratory illnesses related to THC vaping, the surge in underage e-cigarette use, and the relative hazards of vaping and smoking. His take on that last issue is decidedly unscientific. "To further inform the public about the dangers of vaping and e-cigarette use," his press release says, the Department of Public Health "is relaunching two public awareness campaigns aimed at educating parents and middle and high school-aged youth. 'Different Products, Same Danger,' originally launched in April 2019, links the dangers of vaping to cigarette smoking."

Legal e-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without tobacco or combustion, emphatically do not pose the "same danger" as conventional cigarettes. As David Abrams, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at NYU, explained in a recent interview with CBS News, studies of biomarkers in smokers who have switched to vaping find that they are exposed to far fewer hazardous substances, at far lower levels, than people who continue to smoke. "E-cigarettes are way less harmful than cigarettes," he said, "and they can and do help smokers switch if they can't quit."

If every smoker in the United States switched to e-cigarettes, Abrams estimates, it would prevent as many as 7 million smoking-related deaths. Vaping "delivers nicotine in a very satisfying way without the major harms of burning tobacco," he said. "If we lose this opportunity, I think we will have blown the single biggest public health opportunity we've ever had in 120 years to get rid of cigarettes and replace them with a much safer form of nicotine."

The harm-reducing potential of e-cigarettes has been recognized by a wide range of public health agencies and organizations, including the FDA, the Royal College of Physicians, Public Health England, the American Cancer Society, and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In 2015, Public Health England said "best estimates show e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful to your health than normal cigarettes." Yet the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is telling people that e-cigarettes pose the "same danger" as combustible cigarettes, a false premise that seems to be part of the logic underlying its ban.

If you ignore the enormous difference between the health risks posed by smoking and the health risks posed by vaping, it is easier to rationalize a policy that will deprive current and former smokers of an alternative that could save their lives. Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary Marylou Sudders implicitly acknowledges the impact the vaping ban will have on smokers who have switched to e-cigarettes or might be interested in doing so. "As a result of the public health emergency," she says, "the Commonwealth is implementing a statewide standing order for nicotine replacement products, like gum and patches, which will allow people to access these products as a covered benefit through their insurance without requiring an individual prescription."

As David Abrams noted in his CBS News interview, research indicates that e-cigarettes are nearly twice as effective in smoking cessation as those "nicotine replacement products." Many smokers who did not manage to quit with "gum and patches" were able to do so with e-cigarettes. By ignoring that reality, Massachusetts pretends that its vaping ban will improve public health when in fact it is apt to result in more smoking-related diseases and deaths as former smokers return to a much more hazardous habit and current smokers are deterred from quitting.

"Massachusetts has made significant progress over the past two decades in curbing youth and adult tobacco use," the governor's press release notes. "In 1996, the youth smoking rate was 36.7%. Today, the youth smoking rate is 6.4%. The adult smoking rate is also low, with just under 14% of adults using combustible tobacco products." These downward trends not only continued as vaping became more common; they accelerated, suggesting that e-cigarettes are replacing a far more dangerous source of nicotine. But that consideration does not seem to have figured at all in Baker's decision.

It should go without saying that the Massachusetts ban will not curtail vaping of mystery cartridges and e-liquids available on the black market, which pose the greatest risks. To the contrary, the ban will drive vapers toward those products. "Legal vapes while not safe are subject to regulation on manufacturing, sales, marketing, ingredients, warnings," former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb noted last month. "If we outlaw all vapes, and pull legal products off the market, problems with illegal and counterfeit products will get worse." Yet that's exactly what Massachusetts is doing.

Never mind the principle of freedom, that government has no business telling an adult what they can and cannot consume.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CDC Confirms That the Vast Majority of Vaping-Related Lung Disease Cases Involve THC Products: https://reason.com/2019/09/27/cdc-confirms-that-the-vast-majority-of-vaping-related-lung-disease-cases-involve-thc-products/

Quote

Today the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finally confirmed that the vast majority of patients with vaping-related respiratory illnesses have reported using cannabis products, typically purchased on the black market. Among 514 patients for whom the information was available, the CDC found, 77 percent reported using THC products. Just 16 percent said they had vaped only nicotine, although the types, sources, and brands of the products were not identified.

Since people may be reluctant to admit illegal drug use, the true rate of THC vaping among the patients with respiratory symptoms is almost certainly higher. Prior data from several states indicated that 83 percent to 100 percent of patients reported that they had vaped THC.

Another CDC study, based on interviews with 86 patients in Wisconsin and Illinois, found that 87 percent "reported using e-cigarette products containing THC." Two-thirds of the THC vapers said they used cartridges "sold under the brand name Dank Vapes," one of several "largely counterfeit brands with common packaging that is easily available online and that is used by distributors to market THC-containing cartridges with no obvious centralized production or distribution."

In light of this information, the main thrust of which has been apparent for at least a month, it is harder than ever to justify the insinuation that legal e-cigarettes are to blame for the lung disease outbreak, which involves 805 cases and 12 deaths by the CDC's latest count. While 16 percent of the patients in the CDC's study of 514 cases said they vaped only nicotine, those self-reports may not be reliable given the sensitivity of the subject. In any case, there is no indication so far that any of the patients were using legal e-cigarettes, as opposed to black-market pods or e-liquids, which may pose special hazards.

The CDC's findings make sense, since legal e-cigarettes have been used by millions of Americans for years without reports of lung illnesses like these. The cases emerged only in recent months, which suggests that the problem is relatively new additives or contaminants in THC vapes, and possibly also in counterfeit nicotine pods or nicotine e-liquids of unknown provenance.

....

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Setting the Record Straight on Vaping: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/setting-the-record-straight-on-vaping/

Quote

There’s a lot to unpack from this recent piece in The Federalist written by my friend and former White House advisor, Katy Talento, which endorses government plans to limit access to e-cigarette devices and flavors. I’ll take her main arguments — which are the ones most commonly made to support vaping bans — one at a time.

Vaping Is Just as Bad as Smoking

Katy belittles the idea that vaping is a public health win. Yet harm reduction is a valid goal, and vaping has helped millions quit traditional, combustible cigarettes. This is in part because vaping allows people to continue to mimic the physical act of smoking (which is particularly important to women) but with a device that delivers the nicotine in a safer, non-carcinogenic way.

Don’t take my word for it. Consider the positions of Public Health England, the Royal College of Physicians, and Cancer Research U.K., all of which endorse e-cigarettes as an effective smoking cessation tool. A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms the efficacy of these devices, finding that smokers who used e-cigarettes were twice as likely as those who used other smoking cessation tools to successfully quit smoking. And these public health organizations estimate that vaping is 95 percent less harmful than smoking. Even the FDA admits that vaping is safer than traditional smoking.

Vaping and Nicotine

Katy describes how e-cigarettes work and writes that vape liquid is a “concoction of chemicals containing high-concentration of nicotine.” Yet in reality, vape liquid typically includes a combination of three main ingredients: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and flavorings, all of which are approved for use in food, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals. And with many but not all e-cigarette devices, nicotine is optional. If a user chooses to include nicotine in their vape liquid, most e-cigarettes are designed to allow the user to control how much nicotine they are vaping.

Many former smokers report being able to quit smoking and vaping entirely because of this dose control — easing off by slowly lowering the amount of nicotine they vape until eventually they can stop completely (In a podcast I did with Liz Mair, she tells a compelling story about using e-cigarettes to stop smoking, and eventually stop vaping too).

“Big Vape” Is Just the New Big Tobacco

Katy claims the teen vaping issue is due to the nefarious actions of “Big Vape.” Yet, while there are larger e-cigarette companies, like Juul and Phillip Morris (which manufactures an e-cigarette device called IQOS, only sold outside the U.S.), the e-cigarette industry in the United States is largely made up of small, individually run vape shops. In fact, currently, there are about 10,000 of these small retail outfits (that are not connected to nor supported by “Big Vape”). These small businesses employ more than 90,000 people and most of these shops manufacture their own e-liquids and flavors.

Most will close if e-cigarette and flavor bans are enacted.

Flavors Are Just for Kids

According to multiple studies, fruit flavors are the preferred flavor of all e-cigarette users — and most importantly, the preferred flavor of former smokers who have switched to e-cigarettes. Candy or dessert flavors are the next most popular. Tobacco flavor is generally found to be the least preferred flavor in all age groups. In other words, vape liquid manufacturers are producing fruit flavors to respond to consumer demand, not to bait kids into illegally vaping.

Of course, as with any industry, there are bad actors and those who act in bad faith. And yes, there have been vape liquid manufacturers who have packaged flavors to attract youth. That’s terrible and shouldn’t happen. But those products were taken off the shelf by the FDA.

Selling e-cigarette products to kids is already illegal and many vape companies actually agree that the legal age to purchase e-cigarettes should be increased from 18, the legal age in most states, to 21. (I do not hold this view, but “Big Vape” does.)

Epidemic Levels of Vaping

Katy writes, “Every kid, including yours, has tried vaping.” She’s correct that lots of kids “try” vaping. But the good news is that very few make it a habit. The CDC has found that only about 5.7 percent of teens (that includes 18 and 19 year olds) habitually vape (I analyzed the CDC data at length here).

It’s certainly worth examining what we can do to reduce this small number of habitual teen e-cigarette users and advise teens not to vape. But it’s folly to introduce prohibition policies on a product that has helped millions of adults quit the much more dangerous habit of smoking. How is that not a public health failure?

Vaping Is a Gateway to Traditional Cigarette Use for Teens

Katy suggests that vaping is a gateway to smoking traditional cigarettes, saying that “studies show that kids vape first, and then switch to conventional cigarettes.” Except that’s not at all what the study says. Instead, the study says, “kids who vape the highest level of nicotine are the most likely to switch to cigarettes.” That’s troubling, but hardly surprising given the highly addictive nature of nicotine, which makes them vulnerable to nicotine addiction.

Moreover, as Katy mentions elsewhere, there has been a major decline in teen cigarette smoking and cigarette smoking across the board. In fact, teen smoking is at a historic low. That’s despite — and perhaps even because of — the increase in vaping. If vaping were a gateway to smoking, surely teen smoking rates would increase. They have not.

Throwing Innovation out with the Vape Liquid

Calls to ban vaping are largely being driven by the recent outbreak of lung disease overwhelmingly associated with people using black market THC-tainted vape liquid. Bans on vaping products, such as bans on popular, FDA-regulated flavors, won’t solve that problem, but rather will grow the already thriving black market for vape products.

It’s unfortunate that Katy ends her piece by suggesting that those who warn about the dangers of prohibition policies are being paid off by “Big Vape” to do so. Groups tend to get funding from a wide variety of financial backers, including corporations. But corporations tend to support organizations that share their principles already. For example, the group I work for has received some small support (about 1 percent of our budget) from corporations related to vaping. Yet I wrote on these issues long before we received that support and would continue to, absent their contribution. Rather than impugning motives, it would be far better to focus on the merits of the policy.

We Can’t Outlaw All Bad Choices

Of course, we all wish that people would make healthier choices, such as not smoking or engaging in addictive behaviors. But we don’t ban junk food or alcohol for adults, nor do we limit access to retail stores to help those with shopping addictions (thank God!). The government should focus on enforcing the restrictions on selling vaping products to minors and work diligently to warn the public against illegal, black-market vaping products. But the government has no business wiping out an industry that actually has saved lives and will, if left in the marketplace, save millions more.

Agreed.  Government, but state and federal, needs to butt out.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, raiderx2 said:

Is it true most of the vaping deaths involve THC, not the nicotine version?

Yes,  from a prior post:

Quote

Today the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finally confirmed that the vast majority of patients with vaping-related respiratory illnesses have reported using cannabis products, typically purchased on the black market. Among 514 patients for whom the information was available, the CDC found, 77 percent reported using THC products. Just 16 percent said they had vaped only nicotine, although the types, sources, and brands of the products were not identified.

Since people may be reluctant to admit illegal drug use, the true rate of THC vaping among the patients with respiratory symptoms is almost certainly higher. Prior data from several states indicated that 83 percent to 100 percent of patients reported that they had vaped THC.

Another CDC study, based on interviews with 86 patients in Wisconsin and Illinois, found that 87 percent "reported using e-cigarette products containing THC." Two-thirds of the THC vapers said they used cartridges "sold under the brand name Dank Vapes," one of several "largely counterfeit brands with common packaging that is easily available online and that is used by distributors to market THC-containing cartridges with no obvious centralized production or distribution."

...

The CDC's findings make sense, since legal e-cigarettes have been used by millions of Americans for years without reports of lung illnesses like these. The cases emerged only in recent months, which suggests that the problem is relatively new additives or contaminants in THC vapes, and possibly also in counterfeit nicotine pods or nicotine e-liquids of unknown provenance.

 

  • Like 2
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Pending Ban on Flavored E-Cigarettes in Massachusetts Authorizes Forfeiture of Vapers' Cars: https://reason.com/2019/11/14/pending-ban-on-flavored-e-cigarettes-in-massachusetts-authorizes-forfeiture-of-vapers-cars/

Quote

According to the Institute for Justice, Massachusetts has "the worst civil forfeiture laws in the country." It looks like state legislators are about to outdo themselves.

The Massachusetts House of Representatives yesterday approved a bill that would ban flavored e-cigarettes, impose a 75 percent excise tax on "electronic nicotine delivery systems" (including e-liquids as well as devices), and authorize forfeiture of cars driven by vapers caught with "untaxed" products. The House approved H4183 by a vote of 127 to 31, and the state Senate is expected to consider it next week.

An "emergency" ban that Gov. Charlie Baker (R) imposed on all vaping products in September will expire on December 24. This bill permanently bans "flavored tobacco products," including menthol cigarettes as well as vaping liquids that taste or smell like anything other than tobacco. It does not apply to hookah bars or marijuana vapes.

Rep. John Mahoney (D–Worcester), chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Health, claims e-cigarette flavors "were created and designed for one reason only—for young people to become addicted to nicotine and to become lifelong users." Since adults who have switched from smoking to vaping overwhelmingly prefer flavors other than tobacco, that statement is either shockingly ill-informed or brazenly mendacious.

Once their preferred flavors are no longer legally available, some of those vapers may go back to smoking, a far more dangerous habit, while others may buy potentially tainted pods or e-liquids on the black market. Or they might buy flavored e-liquids in states where they are still legal and bring them back to Massachusetts. But vapers who try to find ways around the ban should be aware of the potential penalties.

The bill says "a person who knowingly purchases or possesses an electronic nicotine delivery system not manufactured, purchased or imported by a licensed electronic nicotine delivery system distributor or licensed electronic nicotine delivery system retailer shall…be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for the first offense and not more than $25,000 for a second or subsequent offense." But that's not the worst of it.

The bill also says a police officer who "discovers an untaxed electronic nicotine
delivery system in the possession of a person who is not a licensed or commissioner-authorized electronic nicotine delivery system distributor" may seize both the product and the "receptacle" in which it is found, "including, but not limited to, a motor vehicle, boat or airplane in which the electronic nicotine delivery systems are contained or transported." Such property "shall be turned over to the commissioner [of revenue] and shall be forfeited to the commonwealth." The commissioner may then sell the seized property and "deposit the proceeds in the General Fund."

Dan Alban, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice who has been fighting forfeiture abuse for years, was astonished by this provision. "This is completely insane and endangers the property rights of anyone in Massachusetts," he says. "Even if you don't have an 'untaxed electronic nicotine delivery system,' are you going to search every passenger in your vehicle? It is as though someone wanted to highlight the indefensibility of forfeiture via reductio ad absurdum. Does 'receptacle' include a house as well?" Alban says the provision's only redeeming feature is that the proceeds from forfeitures would go into the state's general fund, rather than the budgets of the police departments that seize the property.

While both fines and asset forfeiture could be deployed against distributors of newly illicit vaping products, they apply to consumers as well. "A resident of the commonwealth shall be liable for the collection of the excise on all electronic nicotine delivery systems that are in the resident's possession at any time and upon which the excise has not been paid by an electronic nicotine delivery system distributor or electronic nicotine delivery system retailer," the bill says. "There shall be a presumption that the excise on the electronic nicotine delivery system has not been paid and that the resident is liable for such excise if a resident, upon demand, fails to produce or exhibit to the commissioner or the commissioner's authorized representative an invoice or sales receipt by an electronic nicotine delivery system distributor or electronic nicotine delivery system retailer for an electronic nicotine delivery system in the resident's possession."

In other words, a vaper is presumed to be in possession of "an untaxed electronic nicotine delivery system," which makes his car subject to forfeiture, unless he has receipts that prove otherwise. And in the case of newly illegal vaping products purchased out of state or on the black market, he will have no such proof.

Under this bill, unapproved vaping products would be treated like illegal drugs, possession of which is enough to justify forfeiture of the vehicles in which they are found. Massachusetts is poised to deprive vapers of the harm-reducing products they used to quit smoking, then steal their cars if they dare to defy that unjust and irrational edict.

"Over the objections of most local lawmakers, Massachusetts voters voted to end marijuana prohibition three years ago," says Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association. "Now it appears that legislators are searching for a new drug war to fight. No adult should have to travel with receipts in their pockets at all times under the threat of having their vehicle seized by police for daring to use a flavored nicotine product. Based on what we know from the disastrous war on marijuana, inevitably it will be poor and marginalized communities that will feel the pain from laws like this. This is what happens when you have legislators who not only don't understand what they are banning but are also insistent upon rushing a bill into law."

Police State to the max.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'We Vape, We Vote' Crowd Got Through to Donald Trump, Advisors Say: https://reason.com/2019/11/18/we-vape-we-vote-crowd-got-through-to-donald-trump-advisors-say/

Quote

The "we vape, we vote" crowd seems to have gotten through to the White House. In the wake of a well-attended protest on the National Mall and other advocacy efforts, President Donald Trump is apparently rethinking a promised federal ban on flavored nicotine vaping products.

Regulators had cleared the ban, and an announcement was expected. "One last thing was needed: Trump's sign-off," reports The Washington Post. "But on Nov. 4, the night before a planned morning news conference, the president balked."

An adviser to Trump told the Post that Trump was worried that the ban would lead to job losses and that this would cause him political problems. In addition:

Officials said the blowback to Trump's vow to ban most flavored e-cigarettes had rattled him. In an aggressive social media campaign—#IVapeIVote—advocates claimed the ban would shut down thousands of shops, eliminating jobs and sending vapers back to cigarettes. The president saw protesters at events and read critical articles. His campaign manager, Brad Parscale, privately warned the ban could hurt him in battleground states, said a person who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Trump was now upset with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, who had taken the lead in rolling out the plan, said three officials familiar with the discussions.

 

Good!

The New York Times is framing this as Trump caving to "lobbyists" at the expense of children, because its editors have never encountered a destructive moral panic they didn't want to exacerbate.

But this is very good news for all the adults who enjoy nicotine vaping products in flavors other than tobacco, the countless former cigarette smokers who used these products to quit, and, yes, even The Children too. For those who do still find ways to inhale something they shouldn't—and of course some will, as some teenagers always do—it's profoundly less dangerous for them to be sneaking a mango Juul pod or some other known-source and ostensibly accountable brand and not whatever crazy crap a black-market, random-origin nicotine vaping products may contain.

The vaping-linked illnesses everyone's been panicking are a result of synthetic vitamin E filler (and maybe other substances) that people were inhaling from mostly black-market THC vape pens. So dialing back plans to drive more nicotine vapers to the black market is not only a good political move; it's the most prudent way to protect public health.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Looming Threat to E-Cigarettes: https://reason.com/2019/11/20/another-looming-threat-to-e-cigarettes/

Quote

President Donald Trump reportedly has reconsidered a plan to ban flavored e-cigarettes, a reversal that was widely portrayed as a triumph of politics over public health. Yet that criticism more aptly describes the proposed ban, which would have sacrificed the interests, and potentially the lives, of current and former smokers in the name of curtailing underage vaping.

There were political arguments on both sides of this debate. Advocates of the flavor ban argued that it would appeal to suburban women concerned about the recent rise in e-cigarette use by teenagers, while opponents warned that it would alienate vapers who were otherwise inclined to support the president, endangering his re-election.

The opponents, bolstered by rallies and polling data suggesting that vapers were highly motivated and apt to vote (or refrain from voting) based on this issue, seem to have prevailed. But they not only had the stronger political argument; they also had the stronger public health argument.

Millions of Americans have quit smoking by switching to vaping, a far less hazardous source of nicotine. Consumer surveys and sales data show they overwhelmingly prefer the products targeted by the proposed ban.

That policy, which was expressly designed to make vaping products less appealing, would have driven some former smokers back to their old habits while deterring current smokers from making a switch that could save their lives. Even The New York Times saw the folly of this approach, warning that it "would almost certainly force people who already use these products, including roughly 11 million adults, to choose between traditional cigarettes (which remain widely available, despite being deadlier than e-cigarettes) and black-market vaping products."

For the time being, the vaping industry, including thousands of mom-and-pop shops across the country, seems to have dodged a bullet. But it still faces the looming threat of federal regulations that are expected to drive most businesses and products from the market.

Under a 2016 rule, manufacturers, which include vape shops that mix their own e-liquids, have to persuade the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that allowing sales of their products is "appropriate for the protection of public health." Although it's still not clear exactly what that means, vaping businesses must submit a "premarket tobacco application" (PMTA) for each of their products by May 12—less than six months from now.

A PMTA is required for every product variation. The FDA puts the "average cost" at $132,000 for e-liquids and $467,000 for devices, although it says some applications could cost more than $2 million.

Either way, those costs are likely to deter all but the largest vaping companies. The FDA itself predicts that "54 percent of delivery systems and somewhere between 50 and 87.5 percent of e-liquids" will "exit the market" before the application deadline.

If a business manages to file adequate applications in time, it will be allowed to keep those products on the market for up to a year while the FDA decides whether to approve them. But even at this late date, the requirements for approval remain opaque, as a lawsuit filed last month by a coalition of small vaping companies points out.

The FDA, for instance, demands "sufficient information regarding the potential abuse liability" of each product and suggests it would be satisfied with "a double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subject study comparing several doses of a new product to a comparator product with a known abuse liability." It's not clear whether anything short of that prohibitively expensive option would suffice. And while manufacturers are supposed to list "harmful or potentially harmful constituents," the FDA still has not fully specified what those are.

"Our next focus will be on ensuring that the Trump administration recognizes the need to reform the FDA's regulatory system for these products," says Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, an advocacy group that supports vaping as a harm-reducing alternative to smoking. "If President Trump wants to win in 2020, mere inaction on this issue is not enough."

More crony capitalism.   Interesting that all this vaping scrutiny has occurred with a year of Altria/Phillip-Morris acquiring Juul,  by far the largest of the vaping manufacturers.  Phillip-Morris has a very well funded and powerful lobbying arm,  easily enough to sway the FDA and other state regulators into action.  And they have the deep pockets to easily fund any kind of FDA regulation.

 

 

Edited by Muda69
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Texas Schools Use 'Vape-Detecting Technology' To Arrest and Imprison Teens Who Vape: https://reason.com/2019/12/17/vaping-texas-schools-thc-drugs/

Quote

Imagine a building where drug-sniffing dogs roam the corridors, air-quality sensors alert officials if anyone is inhaling a controlled substance, using the bathroom is a privilege rather than a right, clothing is searched in case anyone is hiding contraband up their sleeves, and those who are caught breaking the rules could face life-derailing punishments.

You might be imagining a prison. In fact, I have just described a public school in Texas, where the authorities are so obsessed with stopping teenagers from vaping that they are perfectly willing to treat them like inmates.

That's the only conclusion one can reach from this eye-opening Texas Tribune article, which details the state's draconian efforts to crack down on the vaping scourge. This year, Texas raised the vaping age from 18 to 21, and schools are pulling out all the stops—including installing "vape-detecting" sensors in the hallways—to prevent underage usage. The Tribune reports:

Vaping nicotine alone is prohibited for students under age 21, and an increasing number are being suspended or removed from regular classes and sent to alternative schools designed for students with disciplinary problems.

A smaller—but rapidly growing—number of students are being expelled when suspected of vaping THC, the mind-altering ingredient in marijuana and a felony-level controlled substance under state law. THC oils or waxes used in vape pens are almost always more potent than the marijuana plant. Police are called and students arrested in cases where officials simply suspect a vape pen contains illegal drugs.

As vaping continues to outpace traditional smoking among the nation's youth, students who a few years ago may have been charged with at most a misdemeanor for smoking a joint are now facing felony charges for having a vape pen in their backpacks.

The article highlights a few concrete examples. Student Thomas Williams-Platt, age 17, brought a vape pen into school that he had purchased from another student. Police conducted an on-site drug test that determined it contained THC. He was arrested, handcuffed, and booked into jail, where he spent hours in a cell "listening to the screams of other arrestees suffering from drug withdrawal." Texas law considers 17-year-olds to be adults for sentencing purposes, which meant that Williams-Platt could face felony charges.

That 17-year-olds in Texas are considered insufficiently mature to vape, but plenty old enough to go to prison, is an absurd and unconscionable hypocrisy. It's also the law.

When students are caught vaping, they are often immediately expelled and shipped off to alternative schools for serious wrongdoers. These are even worse environments for young people, described by Williams-Platt as a kind of "super strict kindergarten" where students learn very little, except perhaps to follow capricious and arbitrary rules. The number of Texas kids sentenced to these schools has increased 6o percent since last year, and officials say the war on vaping is largely to blame.

To the extent that vaping is harmful, most of the danger comes from consuming illicit, black market vaping products—the very sort of vaping that becomes more common as the industry is driven underground by overzealous legislators. But let's say the health concerns were well-founded. What's worse for the average teenager: vaping, or going to prison? There should be no doubt that the solution to this supposed problem—pulling kids out of good schools to send them to bad schools, treating them like inmates, and charging them with felonies—is significantly more harmful.

The war on vaping is a moral panic with terrible consequences for the very people it is supposedly designed to protect. Sadly, it is likely to get much worse. Various Republican and Democratic senators have proposed a federal measure to ban all tobacco products—including e-cigarettes—for everyone under the age of 21.

So you can fight and die for your country at the age of 18, but you can't legally consume alcohol or (soon) tobacco products.    Something is wrong here.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...