I found this article interesting as regards the typical over step of monopoly powers of the FDA.

Link to article

Quote: The E-cigarette comes in many different sizes, shapes, and manufacturers. Like any product, all of them naturally have their own pro's and con's. Some of them have great vapor production but have a horrible battery-life. Others have an excellent battery life, but they don't produce enough cigarette-mimicking vapor.

Yes that's right folks: vapor. The E-cigarette is more or less a personal nicotine vaporizer.

There is no actual "smoke," nor is there any actual tobacco, tar, or harmful chemicals. What you actually inhale and exhale is a mixture of Propylene Glycol (or Vegetable Glycol), Nicotine, some natural flavor or another, and water. Now that we mentioned Nicotine, this is the part where the FDA comes rolling in.

The initial argument that the FDA produced after a brief study, was that Diethylene Glycol was a health risk, as it is commonly found in substances such as anti-freeze. What the FDA did here was consciously derail and sabotage the E-Cigarette through their tried and true fearmongering technique of big-worded misinformation.

Here is a part of the original FDA quote:

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze."

Is DG (Diethylene Glycol) considered toxic? The answer is yes. But what the FDA failed to mention is that the tested E-Cigarette cartridges had about 1/10 the DG that can be found in aspirin, and about 1/40 the amount found in your typical tobacco cigarette. It can also be found in a variety of consumable products on the market that we use daily. It's actually not an ingredient in anti-freeze. It's an ingredient in coolants. They mixed that up with PG (Propylene Glycol) which is actually put into anti-freeze in order to make the anti-freeze child-safe and/or pet-safe.

Not that it really matters much. But DG is actually not a typical ingredient you find in E-Cigarettes. It is typically used as a humectant for tobacco products; which would explain its presence in one out of the 18 E-cig cartridges tested. The presence of Nicotine typically means you will also find DG. If you were to test real cigarettes for this chemical, you would find it in %100 of the tested cigarettes.

But, strangely, the FDA doesn't set an embargo on big tobacco.

DG and PG are actually considered "Safe for human consumption" in certain quantities by the FDA in several consumable products. To put it into perspective: You would have to consume around 12,000 E-cigarette cartridges loaded up with DG and PG within 24-hours in order to get yourself anywhere near toxic levels of DG/PG. Sounds pretty freaky until you find out that your average E-cigarette user will puff down 1.5 cartridges per day. The heavier puffers will inhale as many as 3.

So why the scary lingo?

I guess it is possible that the FDA made a mistake and used the "toxic/carcinogen" description for the wrong glycol. Plain Ethylene Glycol is indeed pretty toxic. But they didn't find any of that in the E-cigs, maybe they just liked the contents of EG's toxic properties description. So I suppose we could toss lying and/or being utterly incompetent into the equation. Do they actually have "scientists" under the FDA's employ, or is it just another team of monkeys throwing turds and screeching?

An anonymous commenter writes:

"So why is the FDA focusing on diethylene glycol? Because if they told you that e-cigarettes contain trace amounts of aspirin and nicotine you'd stare blankly and shrug your shoulders. But when someone starts throwing around a term like diethylene glycol people pay attention because nobody knows what the hell it means and it doesn't sound like something you necessarily want a tall frosty mug of."

Where can you find Diethylene Glycol and Propylene Glycol?

You can find it in toothpaste, wine, dog food, mouthwash, cough syrup etc etc etc. You can find it in the fog-machines that pump the air full of the annoying stuff at concerts. You can find it in many of the pharmaceuticals that you ingest orally, get injected with, or apply to your skin.

One would have to be incredibly stupid to think that the FDA doesn't know all these facts. They do. They approved all that other stuff; so why derail this?

It really boils down to simple protectionism and abuse of monopoly power. Like so much of the FDA nonsense which requires we in the states to buy our pharma from Canada, or outright disallows potentially life saving treatments for terminally ill patients to "protect" them.

See also the idiotic ban on flavor additives, which make clove cigarettes (something I like[d] to enjoy occasionally) illegal now. This is really just testament to the overly powerful influence that the tobacco lobby has on our government.

I can't smoke a clove every three or four months at a poker game, but Joe Sixpack can inhale three packs of tar-laden shit-sticks every damn day and nobody bats an eye. There's no protection of the consumer in mind here; the only thing they're protecting is their yachts and six-digit salaries.

Quote: Original post by ApochPiQ
See also the idiotic ban on flavor additives, which make clove cigarettes (something I like[d] to enjoy occasionally) illegal now. This is really just testament to the overly powerful influence that the tobacco lobby has on our government.

I can't smoke a clove every three or four months at a poker game, but Joe Sixpack can inhale three packs of tar-laden shit-sticks every damn day and nobody bats an eye. There's no protection of the consumer in mind here; the only thing they're protecting is their yachts and six-digit salaries.

you could roll your own. Not an ideal solution, but might be better than nothing depending on how much you like them.

@OP. interesting read.

So in the text they happily compare inhaled versions and ingested versions of Diethylene Glycol, and assume they have the same effect? Your lungs have different behaviors than your stomach - I can see this requiring studies to be allowed.

This reminds me of how in Canada, you cannot buy a small, individual cigarillo anymore. They have to be sold in packages of 20, or in sizes where the individual cigarillo larger than 1.4grams. The idea is that kids are getting hooked on tobacco via primetimes/captain blacks/etc.

But it really makes no sense. I've been a two pack a day smoker, a fully quit smoker, and a cigarillo smoker. With cigarillo's, I used to go to the convenience store, grab a smoke for a toonie, and have a cigarillo now and again. I'm not interested in smoking 1.4grams of tobacco at a time, and given the price difference between a packet of 20 cigarillos, and a packet of 20 cigarettes ($18 - 20 cigarillos, $6 - 20 cigarettes) , I end up buying the cigarettes. Then it really becomes difficult to keep smoking in moderation, since I have cigarettes on hand. They burn a hole in my pocket and whenever I'm bored waiting for somebody, I light one up - so instead of swinging by the convenience store on my way home from work for a relaxing cig, I've got 20 cheap, unsatisfying cigarettes that I can't stop myself from smoking.

I'd smoked 1 cigarillo every day or two for several months, but ever since the stores were forced to stop selling them, I bought cigarettes and got hooked on those again.

These sorts of regulations, similar to the FDA's war on e-smokes, I don't see as doing any good to protect "kids" (if that was the case, they were smoking them illegally/underage etc. anyway, which is a problem with the stores selling them to kids, not with the product), or any other segment of the population. These types of regulations seem to just funnel people back towards cigarettes to keep them addicted and giving money to Big Tobacco.

Doesn't matter to me anymore, I decided to cancel my body's nicotine subscription. But still, tobacco legislation frustrates me to no end. In two of the cities I've lived in now, they've implemented public smoking bans; removing ash-trays - and then fining businesses for butts on the sidewalk. In Vancouver they implemented a public smoking ban in parks... if it was really banned for reasons of litter and pollution; why not put the ash-trays back, instead of erecting a bunch of ugly "no smoking" signs all over the park.

It seems duplicitous - what I get is that those responsible for these types of actions against the evil nicotine want it to appear as though they're fighting cigarette addiction, while still reaping the benefits of the business.

If "they" really wanted to stop everyone from smoking, why not make tobacco a controlled substance? I disagree with regulating any plant, but since we seem to think we need someone to tell us what to do with our bodies, here's my proposal:

* - Phase out cigarettes over a year. Limit the amount individual stores can bring in, and increase taxes. Limit the amount of cigarettes an individual can purchase over a 1 month period. Smoking 1 cig a day is no big deal, smoking 20 is ridiculous. What if you could only buy something like, 20-60 a month. Gradually reduce this number.

* - Provide open access to quit-smoke programs, staffed by professionals/doctors to provide aid to those trying to quit, including NRT (when deemed appropriate by the doctor)

* - Finally, legislate so that big tobacco can no longer sell pre-processed cigarettes; since these are the major issue.

* - Gradually phase out commercially available tobacco products.

I think ideally, in this scenario, tobacco itself would remain legal; i.e. if you want to go to the effort of growing/drying/curing/rolling it yourself, you may. But the convenient, fast-foodesque filter cigarettes (which are 1000x the public-health problem of e-cigarettes, cigarillos, cigars etc.) would be gone.

But really, who is getting screwed with the constant cigarette price-hikes brought on by taxes, and the limiting of options for smokers? Whose money is financing Big Tobacco and the governments they lobby?

Quote:
source

So of those people who are still in the smoking minority who are they? An examination of the social epidemiology reveals some interesting statistics.

The highest prevalence of smokers is among the unemployed, poorly educated, and low income populations. The very people who have the least amount of disposable income purchase the majority of cigarettes. For this population at least, it would appear that the economic impact of cigarette smoking is not important enough to motivate a change in smoking behaviour.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I found this article interesting as regards the typical over step of monopoly powers of the FDA.

I find it more interesting that you have confused the Lounge with your personal blog, and posted a source from an extremist site to rail up essentially a discussion for you to espouse your personal, poorly thought out opinions about government.

Then again, that's pretty much all you've ever used the Lounge for, so we'll move on to the place you linked. (But unlike others -- Eelco for example -- you're a productive member in other ways and I do want to make that clear before moving on to be quite insulting.)

Excerpts from the site homepage:

Quote: The Real Purpose of the Census
It’s the fuel of government control. Article by Martin Masse.

Want To Help Yourself, Your Family, Your Society?
Stop spending. "Stimulus" is poison. Article by Shawn Ritenour.

Those Eerie Wind Farms
James Delingpole on pollution of the countryside.
...
Is Fighting for Smaller Government Racist?
Daniel Greenfield on the tragic outcome of 40 acres and a mule politics.

And the Ron Paul article right on the home page is almost laughably stereotypical. Long story short, we're dealing with a far libertarian site. Thrilled about Rand Paul's candidacy, I bet.

Then there's the actual article, which bears all the hallmarks of your typical extremist who is proud of their ability to write a C grade high school paper. Scare-quotes, scare-italics, random digressions, conspiratorial conjecture -- this is bordering on self-parody.

Quote: I would like to quote the great Dr. Ron Paul...So it would seem that our beloved Dr. Paul doesn't trust them either.

Classic.

Listen Dredd, how many links do you see in the Lounge to DailyKos? RedState? ThinkProgress? Michelle Malkin? It's pretty much none, because most people understand that, regardless of your spot on the political spectrum you aren't going to be taken seriously by posting those sites. They're too violently biased. So why should this be taken seriously? Because it's on a separate political axis than the mainstream left-right range? Uh, no.

If you really, truly want to discuss this seriously, I recommend you find a site which isn't dripping of "government is evil" at every sentence. I actually recommend (without force of moderator status) that you just give up on the Lounge, but at least try to find a proper discussion of the problem.

(Digression: I like many of Ron Paul's ideas -- the death of audit the fed was downright sad. But his followers appear to be almost uniformly douchebags and his son is a comical, BioShock worthy exaggeration of libertarian thinking. I additionally lack sufficient background to judge factual validity in this whole E-cig discussion, but I'm sure as hell not taking information from the asshole who wrote the linked article.)

[Edited by - Promit on July 30, 2010 4:36:37 PM]

Come on Dred, you ought to know better than to engage in using the "war" misnomer. When the FDA starts dropping bombs on stores that sell e-cigs, then you can call it a war, but until then, it's more phony outrage, just like the kind of phony outrage peddled by Fox News and Right Wing Radio.

"Another result would also be the fact that China (of all places) seems to be a lot more accepting of these ingenious devices than our own "democratic" government."

Why does this surprise Fetters? The quotes suggest that he thinks protecting consumers isn't democratic but allowing consumers to consume lead, anti-freeze and other harmful additives, as China has become known for, is somehow ok and marks China as authentic and the US as inauthentic.

Fetters cites a USDA quote, but the page linked to does not contain the quote in his article. Typical sloppy work from lewrockwell.com.

"But what the FDA failed to mention is that the tested E-Cigarette cartridges had about 1/10 the DG that can be found in aspirin, and about 1/40 the amount found in your typical tobacco cigarette."

Where did Fetters gets those figures from? Why doesn't he cite the source of his counter information. Again, the sloppy work from lewrockwell.com is typical.

"Do they actually have "scientists" under the FDA's employ, or is it just another team of monkeys throwing turds and screeching? "

Given Fetter's shoddy scholarship I'd say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

"Now the FDA has decided that it (under the banner of public health interests) would fly in the face of the 4th amendment and begin seizing these devices from the USPS and other shipping agents without a lawful ban in place."

Unsubstantiated rumor. No incidents described, no news reports cited. Again, shoddy shoddy shoddy.

"The FDA got a lovely cease and desist order from the Honorable Judge Richard Leon." The court case is from April 2009. The Senate changed the law in June 2009 [1]. Obama signed it [2]. It took less than five minutes to find those references yet Fetters doesn't even let on that the situation today might be different than how he describes it. Again, shoddy shoddy shoddy.

The pro e-cig links he rounds out the piece with lead me to think Fetters might be an industry shill. What ever the case, lewrockwell.com ought to do a better job of editing what it publishes, less it lead people to think that libertarian means freedom to lie, freedom to be lied to, freedom to be duped, freedom to be dumbed down, again and again and again.

Quote: Original post by Promit

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I found this article interesting as regards the typical over step of monopoly powers of the FDA.

I find it more interesting that you have confused the Lounge with your personal blog, and posted a source from an extremist site to rail up essentially a discussion for you to espouse your personal, poorly thought out opinions about government.

Then again, that's pretty much all you've ever used the Lounge for, so we'll move on to the place you linked.

That's right, everyone knows that the lounge is Lessbread's blog for linking to extremist sites and espousing his personal, poorly thought out opinions about government.

Quote: Original post by ApochPiQ
See also the idiotic ban on flavor additives, which make clove cigarettes (something I like[d] to enjoy occasionally) illegal now. This is really just testament to the overly powerful influence that the tobacco lobby has on our government.

I can't smoke a clove every three or four months at a poker game, but Joe Sixpack can inhale three packs of tar-laden shit-sticks every damn day and nobody bats an eye. There's no protection of the consumer in mind here; the only thing they're protecting is their yachts and six-digit salaries.

That's the part that frustrates me so much. It's not that the tobacco industry is some evil consortium(although they may be). It's that law is for sale that is the problem.(IMHO)

Quote: Original post by Promit
stuff...

So did you have an opinion on the subject or are you just content trolling and attacking the source? Maybe the lounge isn't meant for you buddy.


edit** and I know you are largely reasonable in your political views when you aren't obligated to reinforce some backwards view of government. I wish you'd just relax and enjoy a pleasant conversation instead of feeling obligated to attack every time I discuss something outside of what Linus Torvalds said to Paul Graham, or why Starcraft 2 is teh bomb, or suckz.