The marketing of e cigs needs to be regulated just as cigarettes are.

[NCTraveler]

I see no way someone would be against that. I cannot figure out why so many people are in fear of regulating the marketing of a nicotine delivery device. Nicotine is extremely addictive. Marketing them with cute little lizards, balloons, bears, hearts, ect. needs to stop. E cigs contain many harmful chemicals in the "juice". No, not apple juice. But mint chocolate chip juice containing nicotine. How about Rainbow Blast flavor, also containing nicotine. A place on US 19 in Palm Harbor sells a "juice" called Hulk Jizz.


My question: Why are you personally opposed to regulating a nicotine delivery devise in the same manner in which the marketing of cigarettes is regulated? If you are not opposed, let it be known here.

Common chemicals found in the "juice"

Acetaldehyde (MS)
Benzene (SS)
Cadmium (MS)
Formaldehyde (MS,SS)
Isoprene (SS)
Lead (MS)
Nickel (MS)
Nicotine (MS, SS)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS)
Toluene (MS, SS)

http://www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/10-chemicals-identified-so-far-e-cig-vapor-are-california-prop-65-list-carcinogens-and-reproductive

[antiquie]

1. My personal problem with it is including vaporizers.

The devices are used for other than nicotine.
My vaporizer is my medication delivery device.
Regulate the substance, not the devices.

[NCTraveler]

3. If you read my op(don't mean that in a bad way, just clarifying)...

I do not want to regulate the device or substance at this point. I only want to regulate the marketing. That is all. Nothing else. It would have absolutely no impact on you.

[Vox Moi]

53. Exactly

Trans-fats were the problem.
Nobody wanted to ban french fries.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Here is the rub

You can buy (I hope you do) your medication at the pharmacy. I suspect the delivery device was also bought at the pharmacy. Yours are already heavily regulated, and we are not talking about those. We are talking of the guys at the mall, for example.

I use an inhaler, two of them. I buy both of them at the pharmacy. One is expensive as well, even with insurance. The other is fairly cheap.

[antiquie]

61. My pharmacy/dispensary has not yet been regulated.

I only oppose all-encompassing regulations that do not consider what else is legal medication in California. That is what was wrong with the bill here that was pulled.

I can't differentiate between marketing to teens and marketing to young adults.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. That is where you are wrong

Pharmacies fall under the State Department of Health, the County Department of Health and the FDA.

And you cannot differentiate it, but it is very real. Here, just some research on this

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/11/110416/electronic-cigarettes-new-route-smoking-addiction-adolescents

What local cities and counties are doing is placing these devices under the tobacco rubric, why? The Feds are well behind the power curve. Some states have also added them to the same rubric. Why? By watching somebody use a vaporizer (medical devices will have to be clearly marked) I cannot tell if it has juice, or juice + anything else.

People who use them are of course in a panic, and I do not mean those with medical needs. IMHO it is a cool way to get around smoking bans at restaurants, hotels, parks, county and city facilities, work places, schools and colleges. Anecdotally a fourth grade teacher was talking about how kids think Mr. Peters is great since he uses his device while teaching class, and the school district is now coming with policies to deal with that. We call it behavior modeling. And if I were a parent and my kid told me teach is doing that in class I would be outraged. Do not need my fictional kid to see that, or my very real nephews.

And that district is not the exception. An increasing number of school districts are coming up with policy. After all, if a kid lights up there are clear policies. If he or she vaps, there are none. But medical devices should be taken into account. So will make sure that arrives to proper officials.

This is what we are talking about.

And if it helps people quit, still anecdotal, the more power to them. But the research being done tells me that while less dangerous, they are not safe.

[antiquie]

71. Whatever you say.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. So pharmacies are not regulated?

You are right. I sure have missed the certificates!

FYI, here is the one for your state.

http://www.pharmacy.ca.gov/

[earthside]

2. This is what dooms liberals, progressives, Democrats ...

... the overreach of 'nannyism'.

Caffine is very addictive, too.
So, is sugar.

E-cigs are not tobacco cigarettes.

Liberals and progressives and Democrats need to embrace some degree of personal freedom and personal responsibility, recognize technological changes, and not become scolds against everything new that might be 'bad' for people.

This isn't an earth shattering issue, but Democrats need to be wary of a narrative of 'big' government that becomes truly destructive of our political goals, especially this year.

[NCTraveler]

5. It is so nanny...

to not want this...


Acetaldehyde (MS)
Benzene (SS)
Cadmium (MS)
Formaldehyde (MS,SS)
Isoprene (SS)
Lead (MS)
Nickel (MS)
Nicotine (MS, SS)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS)
Toluene (MS, SS)


to be marketed toward children. Really, nanny? To not want to market a product that delivers these chemicals to children? How in the world can anyone be against that?

[KittyWampus]

8. So make sales to children illegal. Period. It's that easy. And your contention of what is marketed

towards children and what is not is simply your personal opinion.

Are any adverts appearing in children's television hours etc?

Do you have any memos from these companies regarding how they are targeting children?

[NCTraveler]

11. You are clearly not being serious.

Maybe you are very young and did not witness the marketing of cigarettes decades ago. That is the only thing I can think of.

No marketing to children here. This website is simply tailored toward adults whose maturity was stunted in their teens.

http://www.totallywicked-eliquid.com/products.html

[KittyWampus]

15. "Totally Wicked". It looks like it appeals to Goths and Comic fans. You seem to have a very limited

set of acquaintances if you think that website is set up to appeal primarily (or at all) to children.

BTW, I am 50 years old and have always ranged widely in my art, culture preferences.

I personally like styles associated with psychedelics, gothic/emo, manga and comics.

And there are many, many other adults who share my enthusiasm for all different types of graphics.

My prime concern when it comes to graphics is that they are well done… not that they fall into a category deemed by some as "adult".

[NCTraveler]

18. Once again, you are clearly not being serious. nt.

[Sissyk]

74. Maybe you think passion

Is directed at kids? I'm in my fifties. Is my passion I still have for people and things because my maturity was stunted in my teens????

From the website you posted that is supposedly directed t children:


Totally Wicked (TW) was born of passion, a passion for vaping, a passion for business and a passion for service, and this still remains the backbone of our company today.

[Ms. Toad]

22. Got the same memos we had at the time the very same tobacco companies were

marketing cigarettes to teens. No, wait, those didn't come to light until at least a decade later. After multiple lawsuits and whistle blowers. They denied it vehemently at the time.

Fool me once...

[Ms. Toad]

20. Neither caffeine nor sugar are anything like tobacco

as far as addiction goes.

Here's a comparison with caffeine. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addictive_Properties#sthash.8oMtiZth.dpbs

As far as sugar - although scientists are considering whether it is possible to be addicted, if were in the same category as smoking as far as addictive capabilities, there wouldn't still be a question as to whether it was addictive at all.

[VanillaRhapsody]

103. tobacco or nicotine?

and what about alcohol for addiction?

[Ms. Toad]

105. Nicotine

and from the chart in my last post (responding to specific allusions that sugar and caffeine are as addictive as nicotine) includes alcohol - which is equivalent or more addictive than nicotine.

[VanillaRhapsody]

111. have you ever been addicted to any of those substances?

[Ms. Toad]

112. No.

But I have had close friends and siblings who have been, to both. I know how hard it is to quit - and to stay off either of them even decades later. That is why I think it is important to minimize the risks of creating an addiction in teens by glamorizing its use the way the tobacco industry does so effectively.

[kcr]

29. That is said about every tenet of liberalism

Liberals just need to learn how to not be liberals, right? Then everything would be fine! Regulation? Who needs it! Social safety nets? Ugh, helping those lazy people, why do liberals insist on that? Equality? Loses us elections! We should drop that alredy/save it for a better time.

Nonsense. Seems to me if there is a valid argument against something, you rely on that argument. It must be a pretty weak argument if the only thing you've got is, "It makes you look bad" Well, even if it's true. Sometimes the things worth doing aren't easy.

[KittyWampus]

4. They are NOT CIGARETTES. And you can't restrict the "free speech" of marketing

Much of what you try to label as marketing to children is just your characterization that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And makes your case seem very weak and easily ridiculed.

And most of what you object to can't be restricted according to the Constitution.

All that need be done is restrict sales to minors.

PERIOD.

Now, I would make the case that media advertising to children for any product whatsoever should not be allowed.

Children do not have the mental development to withstand the onslaught.

But when it comes to a product that adults have every right to enjoy, you can only go so far.

And I sincerely doubt many Americans would be willing to stand up to all advertising aimed directly at kids.

[NCTraveler]

6. You are wrong on about it being free speech.

That is a fact. Are you saying that Altria has free reign with respect to marketing cigarettes? We both know your statement is completely inaccurate.

[KittyWampus]

9. WTF? You are talking about logos and designs. That is how weak your argument is.

[NCTraveler]

17. Logos and designs...

you mean marketing. You seem to not understand the influence of logos and designs in marketing.

[NCTraveler]

7. Have to reply again as I am truly baffeled by this statement.

"They are NOT CIGARETTES. And you can't restrict the "free speech" of marketing"

I have never heard an adult say such a thing.

[KittyWampus]

10. Anyone who doesn't grasp that e-cigs are not combustable cigarettes is "misguided".

And unless marketing features obscenity, there is little regulation to be had.

Your entire argument is about objecting to hearts and flowers and little bears… and by the way I am 50 years old and STILL have a t-shirt with something similar to this bear:

[NCTraveler]

14. I'm sure your t shirt is cute.

Does it contain

Acetaldehyde (MS)
Benzene (SS)
Cadmium (MS)
Formaldehyde (MS,SS)
Isoprene (SS)
Lead (MS)
Nickel (MS)
Nicotine (MS, SS)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS)
Toluene (MS, SS)

Watching anti-regulation libertarians try to make a case here is kind of funny. To the point that you will compare your t shirt to this:

Acetaldehyde (MS)
Benzene (SS)
Cadmium (MS)
Formaldehyde (MS,SS)
Isoprene (SS)
Lead (MS)
Nickel (MS)
Nicotine (MS, SS)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS)
Toluene (MS, SS)

Do you see what you just compared the image on your t shirt to:

Acetaldehyde (MS)
Benzene (SS)
Cadmium (MS)
Formaldehyde (MS,SS)
Isoprene (SS)
Lead (MS)
Nickel (MS)
Nicotine (MS, SS)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS)
Toluene (MS, SS)

[KittyWampus]

21. Don't allow them to be sold to children. That's how it easy it is.

[Ms. Toad]

25. Because that worked so well with cigarettes. n/t

[KittyWampus]

27. It works well enough for a free society. There are things called "Parents".

[Orrex]

39. You're right--we should get rid of all laws protecting children

Because we have things called "Parents."

[Mariana]

66. The poster you said that to is in favor

of not allowing e-cigs to be sold to minors. How, exactly, is that like saying we should get rid of all laws protecting children?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

110. Because the laws prohibiting ANY marketing of cigarettes are mostly enacted to protect children

[Ms. Toad]

52. Which also worked so well at countering the money and advertising genius

of the very same tobacco companies which are already employing the very same tactics to market their e-cigs.

It obviously did not work well enough against these same companies in the past with the same core product (nicotine), and regulation was necessary.

As I said in an earlier post, fool me once...

When we have seen the past, and the direction the present is heading, there is no reason to wait until the train pulls into the same wrong station it has in the past before taking action.

[Mariana]

60. It has worked, extremely well.

The rate of teen smoking has plummeted.

[Ms. Toad]

87. After tobacco marketing was regulated -

When it was unregulated, and when smoking was allowed everywhere, it was climbing. Which is pretty much the point. We are introducing a new nicotine delivery device which is has been adopted by the same entities which heavily contributed to the disastrous rates of young addiction to smoking in generations past.

We should learn both from our mistakes (allowing it unregulated for so long), and our successes (regulating marketing and public use of cigarettes).

[Mariana]

93. Cigarette advertizing has been restricted for many decades.

It was only fairly recently that sales to minors were seriously banned, and laws against possession by minors were put in place.

Would you tell us what would be your solution, specifically? Please don't be vague. If you could be dictator for a day, how exactly would to regulate this?

[Ms. Toad]

104. Tobacco sales to minors have been in place for a little more than two decades.

What has happened more recently is the move toward limiting public smoking.

If I was dictator for the day, I would place the same restrictions on e-cigs that are currently in place for cigarettes. The same restrictions on sales, use, and marketing. Anywhere smoking is banned, I would also ban e-cigs.

I might make an exception (for marketing and public use, but not sale) for devices which are not intended to mimic smoking - although to some extent making them different would defeat the purpose because making them similar in size/shape/function to cigarettes is part of what makes them useful to people using them to quit smoking.

My concern is a repeat by the tobacco industry - and by prevalent public use - which glamorizes the use of something which is physically addictive (the nicotine), and creates habits identical to smoking which add to the difficulty of overcoming the physical addiction in new generations of teens.

[SomethingFishy]

51. You keep posting that list..

All those chemicals are consumed in other products as well. Beer, soda, food...

Yes nicotine should not be marketed to kids. However anyone with half a brain (including my doctor) can tell you that e-cigs are not tobacco, there is no tobacco, and there won't be any tobacco. They are safer, and they are helping people quit.

I find it amusing that the biggest haters of smokers are the ones who want to try to limit something that can help them quit.

[Sissyk]

78. +1000

Bingo to every thing you said.

It's kinda like some people don't wants others to quit unless it's done their way.

[RobinA]

85. That's Because

it's rarely actually about the smoking. Same as the anti-abortion crowd is usually not about abortion when you get right down to it. Whenever people are against something someone else is doing, I usually find the actual thing being done is not the real issue.

[virgogal]

13. Agreed. n/t

[kcr]

31. You can't?

Tell that to Joe Camel.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Why not like alcohol, which Lush Society allows to make ads with puppies

and ponies to show during daytime events? Why don't you object to the booze that puts the skid in Skid Row being marketed with Melon flavors and hip, young spokesfolks? How about 'Mike's Lemonade, always different, always refreshing'?
The Budweiser Superbowl ad was titled 'Puppy Love' and it stared a puppy, selling beer in the daytime. Not a peep out of the Marketing Cops.

[NCTraveler]

16. "Why don't you object to the booze that puts the skid in Skid Row being marketed with Melon flavors"

Had no clue that my op needed to mention every product I feel needs to be regulated with respect to marketing.

Do you think e cigs, containing cancer causing chemicals, should be allowed to market to children? It really is simple.

My op is about the marketing of e cigs. I can find no reason at all that a progressive would be against the regulation of a nicotine delivery device containing cancer causing agents to be marketed toward children.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. You were asked a question first. You should try answering it.

You said "marketing of e cigs needs to be regulated just as cigarettes are."

I asked you 'Why not like booze'? Why like cigarettes, why not like alcohol?

My question, if you had paid any attention, would suggest that I don't think ANYTHING should be marketed to children. But your answer suggests you are fine with 'Redd's Strawberry' ads and Puppy laden beer ads. I noted that no one was upset about Beer Puppy which was specifically created for a day time, family event.
If alcohol can run Puppy ads during daytime TV, you need to come up with better arguments than 'I don't like e-cigs' to promote regulating them more than Skid Row Puppy Beer.
Most of your claims are specious and some are absurd. As others have pointed out to you. You object to a 'Rainbow Flavor' when the fucking Rainbow is the symbol of a minority community that smokes more than others. You act as if the Rainbow is owned by Toys R Us. And that affectation is present to avoid actual discussion.

[NCTraveler]

32. "But your answer suggests you are fine with 'Redd's Strawberry' ads and Puppy laden beer ads."

My answer suggests that in no way. I mean in no way at all. That is just pulled out of thin air.

"If alcohol can run Puppy ads during daytime TV, you need to come up with better arguments than 'I don't like e-cigs' to promote regulating them more than Skid Row Puppy Beer."

I have no clue where you got this from. I think it will be found that e cigs are slightly better than cigarettes. I think that is a good thing. For your line there to make sense you would have to find where I said I don't like them. You will find no such thing.

"Flavor' when the fucking Rainbow is the symbol of a minority community that smokes more than others. You act as if the Rainbow is owned by Toys R Us. And that affectation is present to avoid actual discussion."

Rainbows are not always about the gay community. Why did you only pick out that one? Marketing is based on multiple fronts with multiple designs. The rainbow flavor falls in line with other designs and logos. Maybe you are right, they are using the rainbow flavor to market towards a minority community in an area absolutely filled with bigots.That is their winner approach. You have made a number of assumptions with respect to my posting that are simply pulled out of thin air, not from one single word I have written.

Show me where I have said "I don't like e-cigs? Show me where I have said I have a problem with products being marketed towards a minority community?

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Your OP makes no mention of children, it does insist upon regulation of e-cigs

just as real cigs. Since alcoholic bevvies are more freely marketed that cigarettes, a person contending that e-cig regulation should be identical to real cigarette regulation is obviously calling for more regulation in marketing e-cigs than alcohol.
My first question to you was 'why regulate them like cigarettes, why not like alcohol'?
The OP says nothing about children, insists on regulation like cigarettes. In thread you change the question entirely to 'should they be marketed to children'. No they should not be, nor are they around here. At all. Never once seen it. I do see 'Cute Puppy Says Have a Beer' ads.
I don't think they should be allowed to market food to kids, frankly. Much less Budweiser.
I also don't think e-cigs should be treated just like cigarettes in regulation at all. Because they are not just like cigarettes.

[NCTraveler]

42. They are clearly marketed toward children.

Very few people disagree with that. It is even more blatant than "Joe Camel". Many states are currently in the process of regulating the marketing of e cigs toward children. You are saying they are doing this because they feel they aren't being marketed to children. It is almost funny if it weren't the truth.

You have put enough words in my mouth. You have truly made up things out of thin air.

Nicotine delivery device.
Contains cancer causing chemicals.
Heats the chemicals in order to get them to a state to be inhaled.
Marketed as "cig".

Nope, no connection. Not similar.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. I don't agree with you on that, nor have you proved your point, nor do most

in this thread agree with you. You keep repeating your material instead of responding to the questions asked you. Read what you wrote in your OP again, which is not about marketing to kids but about regulation of this product exactly as cigarettes are regulated. I asked you why you want them more regulated than alcohol and you went off the deep end.
Here in Oregon, we were unable to get a new law to restrict sales to minors on the books this year in part because of folks who sought far more regulation that did not find enough support, so the whole thing went down. THAT is the danger from speaking in vague ways and attempting to conflate products and needs:

"State lawmakers on Wednesday stubbed out the possibility of any new restrictions on electronic cigarettes in Oregon this year.

They had been weighing two concepts: a ban on sales of e-cigarettes to minors and a ban on the indoor use of the products in most public places and in workplaces, as is the case with conventional tobacco use.

While the proposed ban for minors received blanket support in a public hearing last week, there was much more debate about the restrictions on use in public areas."
http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/31141863-75/state-cigarettes-debt-public-ban.html.csp

What is YOUR State doing?

[Glitterati]

19. I'll be glad when these holy rollers have "won"

their battle against cigarettes.

Then, they can move on to your favorite vice.

Hey, I know....we can start a campaign against meat eaters next. You know, since red meat is so detrimental to the health of Americans. In fact, I bet we can find a study or two that says red meat is killing Americans!

Whooo hoooo, we can move on to the next issue soon.

Chris Hayes is READY to move to the next subject and apply the tobacco "victory" to it:

HAYES: More on what we can learn from the anti-tobacco battle for other
progressive fights ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: We`re back and joining me now, Heather McGee and Sam Seder. I
don`t think that we think enough about as progressives, just a tremendous
success that has been the decline in the smoking rate. It`s a progressive
success story. You had big business trying to muddy the waters on science,
as documented in a great book. The parallels between climate science and
tobacco science! You had libertarians saying you`re a nanny state, and
then you had this cultural message that got sent. And all those things
came together, I wonder what else do you think like guns, for instance, is
that the solution for guns?

SAM SEDER, HOST, "MAJORITY REPORT": I think there`s potentially the
solution with guns. I think it can work in terms of climate change as
well. We see it. I think in the context of climate change, one of the
studies shows you are five times more likely to quit smoking if you do not like the tobacco companies. Three to five times less likely to start
smoking if you do not like the tobacco companies. We see organizations
going around and starting to do a divestment program at colleges across the
country and to say these carbon energy companies are poisoning us and
that`s an externality of our profit making.

HEATHER MCGHEE, DEMOS: Another piece of it that has to happen, though, is
the tobacco where it got more expensive, it has to become more expensive to
use the --

HAYES: It`s not just moral inflation?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/54295632/ns/msnbc-all_in_with_chris_hayes/#.UyHAdoVDFuk

Meat eaters? Gun owners? The unemployed? The poor? Who's next up for this great "progressive victory" Chris Hayes and associates are hunting for.........

[NCTraveler]

23. "I'll be glad when these holy rollers have "won""

That doesn't make sense with respect to my op. I want to see them regulated in the same fashion cigs are. Nothing more. What have the holy rollers done to cigarettes? cigarettes can be bought on just about every street corner in the country. Not sure what your response has to do with wanting to stop the marketing of cancer causing agents to minors. In no0 way do I want to do away with e cigs. Just the opposite in fact. I think we will find out in a couple of years that they are a smidge better for your health than cigarettes. If one cannot get off nicotine, this is probably a better product for them to use. All I am talking about is regulating marketing toward children. Did that do in tobacco manufacturers?

[Glitterati]

26. Have fun. I'll be happy to see the next target.

I really think we need to stop marketing red meat to kids! Good GAWD, all those McDonalds hamburgers are killing our kids with artery clogging cholesterol! McDonalds is selling a lifetime of heart disease to KIDS! OMG!

When are you going to get on the case of selling harmful "red meat" to kids? What's your next holy rolling campaign?

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Public health are holy crusades?

By the way, public health officials have been after Mickey Ds for decades now, and a reduction in red meat consumption has indeed occurred.

[Glitterati]

69. Bwahahahahahahahaha

You and NCTraveler playing tag team today?

I have no doubt this is just a bunch of ex-smokers who are so terrified of smelling a lit cigarette they're terrified they'll start up again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. I am not an ex smoker

Unless you count second hand.

I saw dad depend on oxygen during the last year of his life and not be able to quit.

So you could say I do not want any of my nephews or nieces to pick up the habit. But since you are this insulting this morning, who pays the post? Reynolds? Do they pay well? Or NJoy?

I pointed out that public health have been warning on the dangers of fast food for decades. They do chew gum and walk at the same time.

[Glitterati]

76. Get back to me when it becomes a crusade

like this.

Aimed at children.

We can't forget the children.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. But the industry has targeted children

Or you forgot Joe Camel?

By the way joe is the tip of that iceberg.

[Glitterati]

82. Bwahahahahaha

your desperation is showing.

Did you forget Happy Meals? You want to talk about a tip of an iceberg?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. None is arguing that fast food has never targeted

Children. What desperation? By the way, Professor Gantz at UCSF has found that direct marketing to youth not in the past, in the present.

You are the one showing desperation here. Oh and this link is posted elsewhere in this same series of threads. From IPhone it is that much harder. So either look for it, or when I get home I will update.

Though I must conclude you are a smoker.

[Glitterati]

88. Once again, you ASSUME wrong

but, you do have a real nasty habit of jumping to conclusions when someone DARES to disagree with you.

Personally, I find this kind of crusade against anyone mind numbingly stupid - whether it's you, NCTraveler, Paul Ryan or anyone else.

You're too damned stubborn to admit you've WON. Leave. It. Alone. Already.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. You have been insulting all

Along. And now you compare me with Paul Ryan. I guess cdc is full of little Paul Ryan's. So you will attack next climate change science? I mean, it's science and stuff.

Nope, it is not about winning or losing. That is not what science is all about. But I guess that thing about flat earthers does apply here.

[Glitterati]

94. ROFL

OK, if you say so.

I, personally, find your behavior on DU to be insulting and demeaning. So who wins this one?

Grow up. People disagree with you. Sometimes.

I did check the url and this is DEMOCRATICUnderground, you know...not CU. You really need to go over there and fight your REAL demons, not the people here who might even agree with you once in a while.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. My lord

I suggest you use the ignore poster in this case. It will help you lots.

I will take my own advise on this matter.

Cool, called a libertarian and a republican in the same thread for actually believing science is onto something. Flat earthers indeed.

Goodbye.

[Glitterati]

96. LOL

anything you say. I wouldn't DARE disagree with you, after all. Wouldn't want to be your next crusade.

Toodles!

[maddezmom]

77. So people with a different opinion than you are paid to post? Shills?

Hmmm, interesting.

[Glitterati]

83. ROFL, she can't keep up

the other day I was her best bud when I was posting in one of her other threads.

She's so deep in her paranoia, she can't keep the players straight.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Your OP does not mention children at all, nor marketing to them

Perhaps that's why you are getting bad reactions? In thread it's all about 'the Children' but your OP was simply asking if others think they should be regulated 'exactly like cigarettes'. You are not even asking 'what regulations should there be' or 'what marketing is allowed in your state now' you are asking a very narrow question and then behaving as if you'd asked a general question.

[NCTraveler]

33. I think you make a good point there.

About me not mentioning children. I kind of thought it was common sense. An assumption I should not have made. I still cannot figure out why anyone would be opposed to regulating the marketing of a nicotine delivery system containing cancer causing chemicals in the same manner cigarettes are. Still, I should have mentioned the marketing to children. Just didn't think it was needed. The libertarian anti-regulation crowd often needs a little better explanation.

Nicotine delivery device.
Contains cancer causing chemicals.
Why not regulate them as cigarettes are?

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Stow your insults, you wrote bait. No one here is opposed to all regulation

of these products, but few will agree that a product that is not a cigarette should be regulated in the same manner as a cigarette. And that is the whole of your OP. You then pretend you wrote about marketing to kids. But when asked why you want them treated as if they were cigarettes, more regulated that alcohol, you refused actual discussion entirely. Now you are shouting 'libertarian' and that is absolutely slimy name calling bullshit. But you do it 'for the children'.
If it was up to me, they'd not be allowed to market McDonanlds to kids. Marketing to children is rarely ethical. It is very legal. Puppy sez drink beer!!!!

[NCTraveler]

44. I pretend nothing.

You have put words in my mouth over and over again. At one point even trying to make it about LGBT, at other points making it about everything else.

Nicotine deliver device.
Contains cancer causing chemicals.
Heats the product to get it into a state to be inhaled.
Marketed as a "e-cig"

Funny that you consider it bait.

[NCTraveler]

46. Lets make the question extremely simple.

What regulation that Altria has to follow with respect to the marketing of cigarettes do you think should not apply to e-cigs? You have made your opposition to regulations being similar to that of cigarettes. You have made that very clear. What two regulation with respect to the marketing of cigarettes do you think should not apply to e-cigs. Your opposition to similar regulations is clear. Give an example of what you are opposed to. I can't figure out how one could be opposed in this situation.

[Bluenorthwest]

50. They are a harm reduction boon to milions who should be aware of

the option. You favor the total advertising ban cigarettes have. I asked you why you think this product should be more regulated than alcohol, and you have failed again and again to even attempt an answer, but you have flung some poo 'for the children'.
You would rather see smokers keep smoking? I don't get that at all, not at all.
Not a thought comes from you about basic law regulating marketing to children, I'd support that law strongly. But your concern is not about that, it is about making sure no adult sees an ad for an e-cig. Which I do not understand at all.
Cigarette ads were barred because adults and children alike should not be smoking. Some adults, however, should be vaping instead of smoking. This indicates that the regulations needed might be different than those for cigarettes.....because they are not cigarettes.

[NCTraveler]

54. "You favor the total advertising ban cigarettes have."

Cigarette companies are not totally banned from advertising.

"You would rather see smokers keep smoking? I don't get that at all, not at all."

I don't get it either. Probably because I never said it.

You avoided the question completely all while making things about what I have said up out of thin air. You have done that over and over.

The simple question is: With respect to marketing, what regulation that Altria has to follow do you think e cigs shouldn't have to follow. You seem to be against something you are not educated on. It is kind of funny that you feel there is a 100% ban on the marketing of cigarettes. I guess that is the answer to a lot of the problem. Lack of education with respect to the regulations you so adamantly oppose.

With respect to marketing, what regulation that Altria has to follow do you think e cigs shouldn't have to follow.

[OregonBlue]

28. The amounts were minimal. Nicotine inhalers contain higher amounst of many of the chemicals.

The low risks of e-cigarettes is supported by research done by Dr. Siegel of Boston University, Dr. Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth, Dr Maciej Goniewicz of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Dr. Laugesen of Health New Zealand, Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University, and by the fact that the FDA testing, failed to find harmful levels of carcinogens or toxic levels of any chemical in the vapor.

A comprehensive review by a Drexel University professor based on over 9,000 observations of e-cigarette liquid and vapor found "no apparent concern" for bystanders exposed to e-cigarette vapor, even under "worst case" assumptions about exposure.
Additionally, a study by the Roswell Park Center that was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that the levels of chemicals and toxicants in the vapor produced by 12 different e-cigarettes and noted that the trace levels of chemicals present were comparable to what is found in a FDA-approved nicotine inhaler.

I have no problem with them being regulated for children and young adults. Otherwise, I think they are a good thing and so much safer than cigarettes or nicotine inhalers.

[NCTraveler]

36. I like this sentence a lot.

"I have no problem with them being regulated for children and young adults. Otherwise, I think they are a good thing and so much safer than cigarettes or nicotine inhalers."

I do think some of the research at this point is difficult. There are so many different juices out there. There is a guy near where I live, with a stand alone store, who mixes his own juice. No ingredient list, just his special juice. No one is looking at what he is selling to consumers. The FDA needs to step in. I think it is very difficult at this point to determine what is really being sold to the consumer. I have no problem with e cigs on the market. I do have a problem with their marketing. I also think it is too early to tell what the health effects will be. I do feel that the health effects will be better than cigarettes.

[OregonBlue]

55. Perhaps but in general I don't like regulations unless it's proven that something is bad for you.

Adults can choose whether to eat sugar, drink alcohol, etc. We know those things are not good for us. Ecigarettes are not tobacco and in fact contain no more harmful trace chemicals than nicotine inhalers.

Until there is definitive proof that they are in some way harmful, I think restrictions should be limited to restrictions on advertising and selling to minors.

[NCTraveler]

56. Greatly respect your position.....

and the manner in which you stated it.

"Until there is definitive proof that they are in some way harmful, I think restrictions should be limited to restrictions on advertising and selling to minors. "

This would make me a happy camper.

[Bonobo]

34. Not opposed to regulating the marketing but not sure why cigarettes would be the model

They are NOT cigarettes and not even very much LIKE cigarettes. There are a host of things that are MORE like cigarettes including campfires, car exhausts, burning leaves and barbecues. E-cigs? Not very much like cigarettes at all since they don't burn and don't produce smoke.

So regulate them? Sure, I guess so.

But not the same as cigarettes because they have almost nothing in common with cigarettes.

[Fawke Em]

35. OK... I'll go along with this as soon as they regulate pork commercials.

Pork is horrendous for you. It's not the "other" white meat.

Most of the world refuses to eat it, but if you say, "bacon" in America, you have swarms of people willing to give themselves heart attacks for the "privilege" of eating this fat-laden meat.

Why?

Advertising.

Turkey bacon is just as good and doesn't contain the fat. And chefs who use bacon to flavor food are just lazy.

My point?

That we need not nanny one group of people unless we nanny everyone. Just because something isn't popular and we think we can get away with bastardizing folks who do the "unpopular" thing doesn't mean we should.

[NCTraveler]

37. Turkey bacon...Seriously.

That is what I told my so when they put "turkey bacon" in the cart. Turkey bacon, seriously.

I found out that afternoon that turkey bacon is great.

Yes, the art of marketing is powerful and truly drives consumerism in certain directions.

[pintobean]

41. Taste and price.

It has nothing to do with advertising.

It is one of the most commonly consumed meats worldwide, with evidence of pig husbandry dating back to 5000 BC.

Pork is a popular meat in the Western world, and is very common in Chinese cuisine. The religions of Judaism and Islam, as well as several Christian denominations, forbid pork. It remains illegal in several Muslim countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork

You say "Most of the world refuses to eat it". That's simply not true, and most of those who don't eat pork abstain for religious reasons.

[tammywammy]

40. ....

Then ban the sale of the juice with nicotine to children. Problem solved.

[ZombieHorde]

45. I'm opposed to the regulations I think you're talking about.

I have kids, and I talk to them about these things. I would rather focus on helping kids with increased educational programs and social programs than restricting various things. I believe in empowering people.

[NCTraveler]

48. I do get your point.

It is the correct approach when dealing with kids. I also believe in empowering people. I also believe regulations are necessary when a clearly addictive and harmful product is being marketed towards children. I think all of the above can be done and we will be better off for it. Many states are currently discussing regulating the marketing of this product. I don't think marketing things like cigarettes or e cigs empowers anyone. I don't think the lack of regulation with respect to harmful products toward children can be connected to empowerment. Still, your approach to parenting itself is the way to go. Rock on Zombie.

[Trajan]

47. yeah .. don't market to kids .... yadda yadda yadda

NOW .... just stay the fuck out of my life ...

Tired of the overreaching controllers ...

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Agreed, they need to be regulated.

For the record, here is a loophole some states have closed, but not others. If the device or juice contains zero nicotine, they can be sold to minors.

[Liberal Veteran]

59. The whole thing reeks of "moral panic" to me.

The vast majority of arguments appear to be extrapolations and transference of valid criticisms of the tobacco companies and the harm that real cigarettes have caused.

As others have so easily pointed out, this is very easily solved with "Selling to minors to should be illegal." This is a rational idea.

Pretty much everything else from worrying that someone might buy a whimsical sticker to put on their e-cig battery or they come in flavors is the same kind of nonsense that we laughed mockingly about when "Tinky Winky" was outed as luring kids into homosexuality.

And while we are at it, your study above is about the vapor, not the juice. Of course, identified means anything from trace amounts at barely the level of detection to practically rife with this substance.


Do you know what plain old exhaled air (from non-smoker/vapers) has in it?

Acetone
formaldehyde
acetaldehyde
butanone
isoprene
methanol
ammonia
ethanol

As well as trace chemicals of what you may have just ingested.

Science isn't a cherry picking contest. If you are going to rationalize your dislike of something using science, then use science (e.g. comparative analysis vs. ambient air vs. exhaled air and levels of detection compared with indoor air quality standards of safe level of trace chemicals in air), not scare tactics of scientific-y sounding stuff to make your point.

Otherwise, you might as well be telling us that people who ate a tuna sandwich exhaled mercury as an reason to ban tuna sandwiches.

[zappaman]

63. +100! n/t

[maddezmom]

64. +100

👍

[opiate69]

67. + a Brazilian....

[cthulu2016]

72. Yes

[DirkGently]

98. Yes. The fear seems to be that the "users" are "getting away with it."

Somewhere along the line, the point of the social stigma attached to tobacco use -- that it's both addictive AND devastating to health -- seems to have been lost. It has become, as you say, a moral issue, objectionable without any rational context, as though it were inherently "bad."

Isn't this the same thing for which we all deride conservatives? Conflating the problems of sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancy with the idea that sex is "bad" comes to mind. They actually try to justify the blind moral outrage by PRESERVING HARM, like opposing sex ed, birth control, and vaccinations. Because they don't want to send "the wrong message" that people might have sex safely and enjoyably, with no one being harmed.

The e-cig thing is not an exact parallel, because nicotine is not a benign substance. But the illogic of either insisting it's the same as "smoking," or trying to prevent people from doing something apparently much safer and less offensive than smoking because it is somehow removing the *moral stigma* of something which only serves the same purpose as smoking, but is fundamentally a different thing (i.e., no smoke is involved) is just ass-backward thinking.

Likewise, dragging in the spector of "children" is a go-to ploy for irrational moral outrage. Children shouldn't do a lot of things that adults should do whenever they like. And as far as that goes, I would think getting a hold of the various bits and pieces and liquids and batteries and charging devices that go into e-cigs would be more challenging for a "child" than locating a cigarette and a match. If everyone needed a $200 vaporizer to use marijuana, there'd be fewer kids trying that as well.

[SirRevolutionary]

101. +1000!

[bunnies]

107. Im +1ing your post...

because Im tired of arguing with the OP in the other thread. Some people are just NEVER going to get it.

[Glitterati]

109. Exactly! They look like cigarettes and are therefore "bad"

It's pure and simple moral outrage, nothing more and nothing less.

My biggest concern is what happens to all this moral outrage when they figure out they've won?

What becomes the next big "moral panic" over which to exercise their new found power?

The anti-smokers have won the war and are trying to figure out where to expend all their moral outrage now. Today it's ecigarettes.

Where will the authoritarians expend all this moral outrage next? Obesity? Meat eaters?

I posted up thread about the Chris Hayes conversation about where to expend the newly discovered effectiveness.......it was pretty damned scary to watch!

[Tikki]

68. Regulated as cigs, Yes and the marketing needs to rebranded as a 'stop smoking tool' instead….

of a lifestyle choice.

We do not need another generation addicted to nicotine.


Tikki

[Liberal Veteran]

73. Let me just ask the question: Why?

Addiction seems to your moral dilemma with regards to e-cigs.

So let's examine it.

It is kind of a catch-all term with various definitions (heroin addiction vs. gambling addiction being very different things). Let's go with the CDC definition.

Addiction is defined as a chronic, relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences.

I think the part after the comma is somewhat important.

Suppose their are no or very little harmful consequences? Is it still addiction? Does that make it morally wrong?

Caffeine and nicotine in and of themselves have very similar profiles with somewhat suggestive evidence of one being slightly more addictive.

If someone has headaches or brain fog because they haven't had their morning coffee/tea/chocolate bar, are they any less addicted to someone who has a headache or brain fog because they didn't have any nicotine?

Does it really have an impact on you if someone has a personal vice? Neither impairs the ability of someone to interact normally with society at large (i.e. people aren't being scraped off the roads after drinking a coffee or vaping and driving a vehicle).

So why does it bother you so much?

[Tikki]

79. Sorry nicotine is measurably more addictive than caffeine…and harder to wean off of .

If an adult has a nicotine habit, that is what it is.

But since we are asking questions, may I ask:

Do you want the next generations to have a nicotine habit based on a lifestyle choice?

e-cigarettes seem to help many off cigarettes and I believe that is a grand thing,
but the next logical step would be to wean oneself off of the nicotine in e-cigarettes.
I have been told that probably won't happen all that often because e-cigarettes are a pleasurable thing.

This is why they need to be regulated and re-branded, they should not be a pleasurable
activity we are presenting to future generations…

Without regs and serious marketing this could very will happen.

Tikki

[Mariana]

84. I believe you misunderstand something.

...the next logical step would be to wean oneself off of the nicotine in e-cigarettes.
I have been told that probably won't happen all that often because e-cigarettes are a pleasurable thing...



E-cigs are pleasurable with or without nicotine. Most people who use them to stop smoking do, in fact, wean themselves off nicotine over time. Some of them give up the e-cigs at that point. Some continue to use them with zero nicotine. A few will never give up the nicotine under any circumstances.

Do you have a problem with people using e-cigs that have no nicotine?

Do you have a problem with people enjoying e-cigs that have no nicotine?

[Tikki]

90. I stand by the fact that most do not use e-cigarettes on a regular basis without nicotine.

There are much cheaper ways to infuse a bit of flavor into your mouth.

I have no problem with adults using e-cigarettes..but I want them regulated like alcohol and cigarettes
and rebranded in advertising to explain what they really are used for and what they contain.


Tikki

[Liberal Veteran]

92. It doesn't pick my pocket or gore my ox. Why do I care?

If people enjoy a habit you personally consider a vice, is it your problem or their own?

Is your existence dependent on telling other people what they cannot do when something has no impact on you?

Enjoying something of which you don't approve? Is that really a solid basis to harass others?

[Tikki]

97. I am not telling any adult that they can not use e-cigarettes..but what the OP has posted is true...

I want e-cigarettes regulated like alcohol and tobacco and I want information made available to potential users
including what they are used for and what they contain not only on the e-cigarette packaging but, also, in advertising.

My dream, so to speak, would be that this generation of former cigarette smokers would be the last to use
nicotine to addiction.

Tikki

[Liberal Veteran]

99. So, essentially this would be your ideal e-cig advertisement.

E-Cigs: They Suck Less Than Cigarettes.*

Now available in new Ashtray, Diarrhea, and Halitosis Flavors!

*Warnings!

• Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly, and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to E-Cigs.
• Caution: E-Cigs may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.
• E-Cigs contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
• Do not use E-Cigs on concrete.

• Discontinue use of E-Cigs if any of the following occurs:

• itching
• vertigo
• dizziness
• tingling in extremities
• loss of balance or coordination
• slurred speech
• temporary blindness
• profuse sweating
• heart palpitations

• If E-Cigs begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head.
• E-Cigs may stick to certain types of skin.
• When not in use, E-Cigs should be returned to its special container and kept under refrigeration. Failure to do so relieves the makers of E-Cigs, Wacky Products Incorporated, and its parent company, Global Chemical Unlimited, of any and all liability.
• Ingredients of E-Cigs include an unknown glowing substance which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space.
• E-Cigs has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is also being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.
• Do not taunt E-Cigs.
• E-Cigs comes with a lifetime guarantee.

[Tikki]

102. Clever…have you ever seen the warnings on cigarette packaging in other countries?

Here is a link to an article about the subject:http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/16/business/tobacco-health-warnings/

We are pretty much wimps here in the U.S.when it comes to telling it like it is…



Tikki

[Liberal Veteran]

106. E-cigs are not smoking tobacco. Period. Is that so hard to understand?

One might as well say Nicorette gum and patches are smoking tobacco or taking an Excedrin Headache tablet is drinking coffee or drinking willowbark tea (which contains aspirin).

That being the case, why on earth would we treat e-cigs the same as something they aren't?

That is really the issue here. There is common ground on not selling these products to minors. Why does it need to go further than that?

[Tikki]

113. What part of addiction do you not understand. It needs to go farther so that when a young adult...

picks up a vap kit they can see plainly on the packaging that the product contains an truly addictive substance.

Hopefully with regulations and realistic advertising that young adult won't want to take on an addictive habit.

Tikki

[SirRevolutionary]

108. I like to ask this question often

Have you ever in your life been a smoker for more than 6 months or otherwise been addicted to nicotine?

If the answer is no, than I don't know how you'd tell "nicotine addicts" that they're addicts in the first place or what it's like to be addicted.

I too bought into the mega anti smoking hype. When I initially quit smoking and moved to vapes with nicotine years ago, and later decided to drop the nicotine, it was a complete non-issue for me to lose the nicotine. My addiction or habit was the act of puffing (the very thing the Puritans don't want to see) but still my assertion on why ecigs are the best method to quit smoking. Most other former smokers I've spoken to agree it's the act of smoking, not the nicotine they're addicted to.

Either way, here's some interesting info on nicotine and caffeine and vaping http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/faq/nicotine.htm

[Sissyk]

80. I can't figure out why some people are

So fearful of a Delivery Device.

[DirkGently]

89. Not marketed to children, no. But not regulated "just as cigarettes are."

I think this is a straw argument to begin with. The debates I have seen focus on people incorrectly equating e-cigarettes with tobacco out of what often appears to be a craven need to punish tobacco users who are "getting away with it. Alongside of that, a false argument is constructed that "flavors" in e-cig vapor are a lure to children, because ... apparently adults do not enjoy flavors ... ? or something. The debate has been about whether e-cigs should be "banned" the way smoking is, even though it is not remotely the same thing.

The list of deadly chemicals is baloney. There has been no finding that things like Toulene and Formaldehyde are commonly found in the "juice." It's generally nicotine and food flavoring in propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin. The most you could possibly say in that regard is that ingredients should be listed and toxins other than nicotine forbidden. Which is not, by the way, something done with cigarettes, which contain all kinds of things we basically don't regulate.

The only parallel between smoking and "e-cigarettes" is nicotine. Nicotine is addictive and should not be sold to children.

That's it. It's not kinda like smoking. Not pretty much like smoking. Not an insidious way to soften the carefully constructed social stigma against smoking. It's a different thing. It may have dangers, but there is no indication those dangers will come close to the dangers of tobacco use. And it's helping people with an incredibly harmful habit quit.

[SirRevolutionary]

100. You can't read the study without purchasing it

But here's the entire free abstract:


Abstract

Significance Electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes, are devices designed to imitate regular cigarettes and deliver nicotine via inhalation without combusting tobacco. They are purported to deliver nicotine without other toxicants and to be a safer alternative to regular cigarettes. However, little toxicity testing has been performed to evaluate the chemical nature of vapour generated from e–cigarettes. The aim of this study was to screen e-cigarette vapours for content of four groups of potentially toxic and carcinogenic compounds: carbonyls, volatile organic compounds, nitrosamines and heavy metals.

Materials and methods Vapours were generated from 12 brands of e-cigarettes and the reference product, the medicinal nicotine inhaler, in controlled conditions using a modified smoking machine. The selected toxic compounds were extracted from vapours into a solid or liquid phase and analysed with chromatographic and spectroscopy methods.

Results We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product.

Conclusions Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study. (To view this abstract in Polish and German, please see the supplementary files online.)

*******************
So when you repeatedly post "the juice" containing the below listed chemicals. You do realize there are thousands of juices out there, and did these come from Chinese factories perchance?

Acetaldehyde (MS)
Benzene (SS)
Cadmium (MS)
Formaldehyde (MS,SS)
Isoprene (SS)
Lead (MS)
Nickel (MS)
Nicotine (MS, SS)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS)
Toluene (MS, SS)

Where did this come from, are they from the full study? Because they're not listed in the abstract of the study referenced. This abstract itself says mentions things such as "12 brands of e-cigarettes" studied, and "The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product." and "Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants."

Want some more studies to read? Here you go, browse through these for a while and you might be convinced ecigs/vapes are not the zombie-creating voodoo sticks you think they are.

http://onvaping.com/the-ultimate-list-of-studies-on-e-cigarettes-and-their-safety/

These are not "emerging science", these are recent studies on ecigs and their safety.

As far as "the kids, kids", I would think everyone would agree no vapes/ecigs should be sold to kids. Period. To those who keep griping about "personal responsibility" when it comes to smoking, vaping, and quitting, I'd tell them to take a dose of their own medicine and practice some personal responsibility in parenting their own kids to make sure they're not consuming products or viewing media their parents do not approve of.