Althouse: 6 opinions on regulating vaping e-cigarettes.

August 21, 2013

6 opinions on regulating vaping e-cigarettes.

Should people be allowed to deliver nicotine to themselves, in public, while looking quite a bit like they are smoking?

22 comments:

Wince said...: More research, review, regulation: fine.

But it's clear the anti-tobacco fascists see a threat in e-cigs to their rice bowls, and wish to protect their sinecures even at a net cost to the public health.; 8/21/13, 10:32 AM
MadisonMan said...: They found detectable levels of toxic cancer-causing chemicals, including an ingredient used in anti-freeze.

I am unpersuaded by a 'detectable level' argument unless you tell me what levels you found. 1 part per billion? BFD.

I can see, however, how the FDA would want to regulate them, as that would be a kind of job security.; 8/21/13, 10:59 AM
AaronS said...: "should people be allowed"

NYC's government and their local paper seem to use this as a starting point for every question.; 8/21/13, 11:10 AM
gadfly said...: I thought that the problem with cigarettes was noxious smoke - it certainly is with me. E-Cigs do not produce noxious smoke, so whose business is it other than the smoker?

The behavior Nazis are at it again but they will not go to the well to have tobacco smoking declared illegal (it's the tax revenues doncha know).; 8/21/13, 11:18 AM
PoNyman said...: I don't know much about e-cigs or nicotine addiction, but I wonder if e-cigs could be smartened up and do some sort of slow decrease in the nicotine consumed over time.; 8/21/13, 11:23 AM
PoNyman said...: I don't know much about e-cigs or nicotine addiction, but I wonder if e-cigs could be smartened up and do some sort of slow decrease in the nicotine consumed over time.; 8/21/13, 11:24 AM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Agreed. Someone comes up with a way for people who enjoy nicotine and also enjoy the physical action of smoking to get both minus the lung cancer and emphysema, and without posing any risk or even irritation to anyone else, and the anti-smoking folks go absolutely ballistic.

I think that long ago the "social shaming" aspect of the anti-smoking campaign ceased being only, or even primarily, about public health and became a sizable end in itself. It's simply too much fun, making people huddle outside in the rain or the cold, evicting old guys from apartments they've lived in for decades because someone smelled tobacco smoke in the stairwell, &c. Beating up on other people's "filthy habits" is addictive, too.

Obesity is of course the new smoking. It's perfect for the purpose: Like smoking, but unlike (say) hypertension, it's visible to the naked eye; and, also like smoking, it gives the scolder the opportunity to insult other people while feeling virtuous about it. You've always wanted to call your neighbors disgusting lardasses, and now you can, because you're merely concerned for their own well-being!

(Obligatory disclosure: I don't smoke, and never have, but I know a lot of people who do.); 8/21/13, 11:35 AM
Brian said...: I don't have a dog in this fight, but this sentence (from the ALA guy):

"They found detectable levels of toxic cancer-causing chemicals, including an ingredient used in anti-freeze."

belongs in the Weaseling Hall of Fame.

If there were *toxic* levels of the relevant compounds present, he would no doubt say that instead of using this ridiculous "detectable" verbiage.

And since it is unlikely that anyone rose to the presidency of the ALA without ever learning that the dose makes the poison, I can only assume the deception is intentional.; 8/21/13, 11:57 AM
Seeing Red said...: Via Confounded Interest:

1. Forced forced home inspections by gov’t agents: Under Obamacare, government agents can engage in “home health visits” for those in certain “high-risk” categories. Those categories include:

• Families where mom is not yet 21;

• Families where someone is a tobacco user;

• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities, and

• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

When pot is legal, what are they gonna do?; 8/21/13, 12:23 PM
Original Mike said...: The desire of some people to impose their will on others never ceases to amaze me.; 8/21/13, 12:29 PM
dmarks said...: I am definitely opposed to the public/indoor tobacco-abusing sociopaths ability to violate my rights by forcing me to breathe their lethal toxins.

But these vapor things are not smoke. Harmless, like nicotine gum and patches. Even if they look a lot sillier.; 8/21/13, 12:36 PM
Sigivald said...: Yes. Next question?

Nobody else's damned business - given that unlike an actual cigarette there is roughly zero effect on anyone else.

(Not that I think smoking anything else should be banned "in public, BECAUSE".

But even the half-plausible excuse of effect on others goes away with a vaporizer.); 8/21/13, 12:37 PM
DAN said...: Supposedly it was Lenny Bruce who said, "Everybody's afraid that somebody somewhere is having a good time."; 8/21/13, 12:43 PM
lgv said...: Wow, some of the most unpersuasive arguments I've ever heard against the e-cig.

Mr. Wimmer needs to find a new calling.

First, can you really classify it as a "tobacco" product?

Second, shouldn't the question for Mr. Wimmer be, "Does the E-Cig impact lung health?" If not, then go away Mr. American Lung Association dude.

Detectable levels of diethylene glycol? They didn't mention which brands. It is unlikely to be a serious issue, but it could easily be replaced with a non-toxic glycol or wetting agent.

The product needs a new name. It's not a cigarette.

It must suck to have a job where your success would cause you to lose your job. That's why regulators and watch dog groups must always pursue mission creep.; 8/21/13, 3:07 PM
Diomedes said...: I don't know much about e-cigs or nicotine addiction, but I wonder if e-cigs could be smartened up and do some sort of slow decrease in the nicotine consumed over time.
You can do it manually. A friend of mine has been gradually reducing the amount of nicotine he puts in his; as of two weeks ago he was smoking a completely nicotine-free e-cig.; 8/21/13, 5:18 PM
TWM said...: My oldest son now 28 and smoking for 12 years switched to e-cigs a few months ago. He is happier and healthier and his mom and I are much relieved.

And yes e-cigs allow you do "dial down" the levels of nicotine delivered so you can wean yourself off of the habit.

Naturally, because all this is good, the government is gonna screw it up.; 8/21/13, 5:43 PM
dmarks said...: Michelle said: "It's simply too much fun, making people huddle outside in the rain or the cold, evicting old guys from apartments they've lived in for decades because someone smelled tobacco smoke in the stairwell"

Forcing other people against their will to breathe in toxic fumes is too much "fun" for the sociopaths who insist on it. Even the latter example, in which tobacco-abusing addicts inflict damage on others' property.

I fully support clamping down the "right" of smokers to force others to smoke.

But the e cigs aren't this at all. I support this, like the gum, patch, and even chew. No one has ever forced anyone to chew tobacco.; 8/21/13, 7:12 PM
tim maguire said...: Banning e-cigs is like banning cartoons of child porn. The nannies got so carried away with the idea of hating it that they forgot what was wrong about it in the first place.; 8/21/13, 8:28 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: I really don't understand e-cigs. Seems to me that it would much easier and cheaper for smokers to achieve exactly the same result and make exactly the same impression by just taking nicotine pills and having "douchebag" tattooed on their foreheads.; 8/22/13, 12:16 PM
Jim Howard said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/22/13, 7:13 PM
irablair said...: I agree that electronic cigarettes does not produce noxious smoke and without any risk of lung cancer and emphysema you can enjoy the smoking Read More; 8/26/13, 6:44 AM
eddie willers said...: Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

~ C.S. Lewis; 8/26/13, 2:40 PM