
India bans e-cigarettes, citing youth health concerns - hhs
https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/18/india-bans-e-cigarettes-citing-youth-health-concerns/
======
KingMachiavelli
If we are to ban anything that could endanger public/youth health, then we
should ban alcohol & driving as well. (In the US) It's absurd that same
cities/communities that were behind legalization of cannabis also are the
first cities to crack down on vaping. Why is one thing a champion of
individual freedom while another is the scourge of soccer moms?

Make the legal limit for everything 21, I don't care. I'm an (young) adult and
would like to consume the same substences humans have been consuming for 100s
of years; alcohol, cannabis, & nicotine (tobacco), It shouldn't matter that
I'm mitigating the harm of the worse one (tobacco). The goal isn't to be 100%
safe, otherwise I'd also have to eliminate driving, red meat, etc.

~~~
tryitnow
Huh?

They're not banning tobacco, they're banning e-cigarettes, specifically
because there is a ton of evidence that youth get addicted to nicotine via
e-cigs.

If you want to smoke tobacco, go ahead, you're still free to do so. No need to
hyperventilate.

If you want to quit smoking tobacco, don't use e-cigs. Start using products
like nicotine lozenges, gums, patches, etc in addition to therapy or other
medical interventions. These nicotine delivery mechanism have not been shown
to get youth addicted to nicotine.

~~~
mullingitover
> specifically because there is a ton of evidence that youth get addicted to
> nicotine via e-cigs > If you want to smoke tobacco, go ahead, you're still
> free to do so

So we should freak out about youth using a thing that's a 95% harm reduction
compared to smoking tobacco, and not ban tobacco. Got it.

> Start using products like nicotine lozenges, gums, patches, etc

Last I checked these were half as effective as e-cigarettes for quitting.

------
WarDores
I think we've hit the "moral panic" stage with e-cigarettes.

~~~
abduhl
Or, alternatively, we've hit the "preponderance of the evidence" stage for
e-cigarettes and vaping in general being bad for your health and governments
are doing what they think is correct for the health of their constituents.

~~~
WarDores
There's much more evidence for fast food being bad for your health, and we're
not up in arms about that one (collectively). I'm not _for_ vaping,
necessarily -- and I don't like it in public: I'm for smoking in general to be
banned from public spaces because of the way it affects other people -- but if
you want to choose that in your own house, go for it.

~~~
human20190310
I hate when someone produces a cloud of vape steam in the middle of a crowd of
people waiting to cross the street. It just hangs there, a visibly stinking,
redolent horror invading everyone else's nostrils.

~~~
reroute1
This is all subjective. I personally don't mind at all, but cigarette smoke
irritates the hell out of me

~~~
nitrogen
This is why public spaces have to target a relatively high standard --
everyone is bothered by and allergic/sensitive to different things.

------
danans
> “The data that we have largely is derived from the US’ experience and it the
> US the latest stats that I have before me states that there has been a 77.8%
> growth among school students who are at the 10th and 12th level.”

> She also pointed to “surprising” growth in e-cigarette use among US middle
> school students — up 48.5%, per stats she cited.

It's interesting that they are citing US data for this decision directly. Not
that you can't learn from others, but you'd think the Indian government would
be able to gather its own domestic statistics on this.

If I had to spin a theory about the reason for this ban, I'd say that this is
more about preventing the urbanized middle to upper class youth - who are more
likely to mimic trends form the US - from starting the habit. It seems like
more of a political signal that "we are in cultural control" to conservative
voters (who are mostly middle to upper class in India). Also, note the similar
ban on flavored e-cigarettes by the US administration just a few days ago.
Perhaps one government is taking political queues from the other? Wouldn't be
the first time that has happened lately.

It can't be practically related to health, since as others have noted, the
extreme urban air pollution is likely the primary broad-based driver of
respiratory disease in India, not vaping.

~~~
tryitnow
Why can't it be related to health? It seems like it's an attempt to prevent
Indian youths from developing nicotine addiction, which is probably a pretty
smart idea even if it's done for culturally chauvinistic purposes.

Personally, I'm ambivalent on whether or not nicotine by itself is harmful,
however, I would use the precautionary principle here for the following
reasons:

1) vaping isn't just nicotine alone, there are other chemicals and the jury is
still out on their effects, why take the risk? which leads to... 2) risk
profile: the risks associated with not vaping are virtually non-existent
whereas the risks associated with vaping include consuming chemicals other
than nicotine and any risks associated with chronic nicotine consumption (both
the risks we know and the risks we don't know about).

In other words there's no actual benefit from chronic nicotine consumption.

Now, I do believe occasional nicotine consumption can be used to enhance
cognitive performance. Of course, the business model for vaping doesn't
support occasional use. Vaping is all about getting people addicted so they're
forced to buy your product even though your product doesn't benefit them
beyond just alleviating withdrawal symptoms - symptoms which wouldn't exist if
they hadn't been addicted in the first place!

For those who can control their addictive urges I recommend using nicotine
gums, lozenges, and patches once in a while (as long as you're in good
health).

~~~
danans
>Why can't it be related to health?

I don't think it's not related in some marginal way to health. I just doubt
that it will have much impact on health given the terrible air pollution that
people are already subjected to, regardless of whether they smoke. The
stronger explanation is the political moral signaling.

It would be a different thing if e-cigs were banned in a country that had very
low air pollution and, say universal health care like Canada, because in that
case the taxpayer is on the hook for paying for whatever the negative health
effects of vaping are - and the connection between vaping and the condition
would be much clearer.

------
UnFleshedOne
Any government that bans e-cigarettes without banning normal cigarettes should
just give up and dissolve.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Which other risky activities should be banned? American football? Alcohol?
Unsustainable consumption of natural resources?

I don't see a need to ban things that don't hurt others. I'd rather plow more
resources into educating members of society of the consequences of their
actions.

Edit: I was under the impression that e-cigs don't produce second hand smoke
harmful to others like old cigarettes, but if they do then I would change my
position. I was under the impression e-cigs are harmful to their users only.

~~~
sachdevap
> I'd rather plow more resources into educating members of society of the
> consequences of their actions.

And how has that worked for smoking levels in Japan, South Korea - I would say
they have pretty high levels of education, with no dearth of information on
bad consequences of smoking.

Edit: I think people are assuming I am for the ban. I am not for the ban. I
don't think bans like this work. But plowing more resources into the education
system is just not particularly effective at preventing addictive behaviors.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Then that is their choice? Children play sports even though they break bones,
people at desserts even though carbs and sugar are bad for you, people fly to
island resorts for vacation even though it's destroying the planet.

On the scale of things causing negative externalities to society, e-cigs are
not at the top of my list. Although, the smell of cigarette smoke and its
effects on others's lungs is of course harmful to others, so I could get
behind stricter regulations or banning of those.

~~~
sachdevap
I am not denying them their choice, nor am I in favor of the ban (I don't
think bans work).

I am saying that education does not dissuade addictive behaviors.

------
bag531
Are cigarettes banned in India?

~~~
hello_friendos
Does it matter? This is about vapes. Pointing at something else that is
harmful and saying "What about this though", is unhelpful and lazy.

~~~
KingMachiavelli
It matters because, if the law drives people to smoking tobacco then this
could have a net-negative health effect.

~~~
olcor
I don't think the law is driving people to tobacco. The law seems to basically
give up on incorrigible cigarette smokers who won't (can't, even if they try?)
be swayed by the best of intentions and data, and trying to ensure that less
well-informed people don't fall prey to fancy e-cigarette ads which don't do
much to specify how much nicotine they contain and how addictive they are.

I agree that it's not the best of implementations. Unsure how effective it
will be though, but it's one of the easiest to cook up.

edit: I fully support downvotes if you think this comment is insensitive, but
at least provide a bit of logic so I can understand what I might be missing?

~~~
EpicEng
You don't have a clue. The alternative for many of (myself included) is
cigarettes, not quitting. You can call us lazy, weak, whatever, it doesn't
matter; we like smoking and we're not going to stop.

~~~
olcor
Yes, I don't have a clue. No, I'm not calling you weak/lazy/whatever.
Incorrigible doesn't mean either of these things. You like smoking, feel free
to do so. I'm just saying that it's known that nicotine, in general, is a bad
idea. If you know that and yet you smoke, go ahead. But there's going to be
efforts from any reasonable government to not get any new members to the club.

> we like smoking, and we're not going to stop

I have a feeling that you don't mean that, but would you rather have a bunch
of kids thinking they're doing a cool thing (apparently a lot of kids used to
think that about Juul not too long ago in the States)? For them, cigarette's
not going to be a substitute as it is for smokers currently. Cigarettes are
already that icky thing old people do and cause lung cancer (basically their
favorite movie star told them so for 2 years).

By all means, smokers can continue smoking, but they should expect some
backlash towards your new favorite thing because it might be less harmful than
smoking, but is still harmful for potential new users.

~~~
EpicEng
>I have a feeling that you don't mean that, but would you rather have a bunch
of kids thinking they're doing a cool thing (apparently a lot of kids used to
think that about Juul not too long ago in the States)?

I do, and please spare me the "think of the children" argument. It's not a
good enough reason to infringe upon my rights and health. Kids have and will
do things that are bad for them. It's inevitable. I'm not saying don't try to
curb it, just don't punish me at the same time. Make it harder to get for
anyone under 21. Institute reasonable regulations for juice manufacturers. I'm
fine with that.

>By all means, smokers can continue smoking, but they should expect some
backlash towards your new favorite thing because it might be less harmful than
smoking, but is still harmful for potential new users.

Banning it completely is far from "some backlash".

~~~
olcor
> please spare me the "think of the children" argument.

For the sake or argument, why? Don't they deserve some thought? Or are you
completely insensitive to so many of the teenagers who've gotten addicted and
can't go back to a nicotine-free life?

> It's not a good enough reason to infringe upon my rights and health

What's a guard rail for you is a potential car crash for the rest.

> It's inevitable. I'm not saying don't try to curb it, just don't punish me
> at the same time. Make it harder to get for anyone under 21. Institute
> reasonable regulations for juice manufacturers. I'm fine with that.

I'm sure that's what they said (and maybe did) about cigarettes. How's that
going? "We like it and we're not going to stop" \-- that's what an entire
generation which didn't have full knowledge about the ill effects of smoking
might be saying. That's what a million vapers from the next generation are
going to say because they didn't have full knowledge of the harms, and people
better hope it's just an addiction issue and not a health one. Kids will
probably always do what's bad for them, but it's up to the adults to minimize
damage. And yes, there's a gap. A Juul is going to reach middle India faster
than the knowledge that it's addictive and should be handled with care.

> Banning it completely is far from "some backlash".

Yes, and I didn't say it was perfect; in fact I believe it might end up having
an opposite effect. But the reasonable ways out haven't worked well. There's a
very high probability that the government knows this too, and is going to end
up trying all the steps you suggested. But at least the message is out.

~~~
EpicEng
>For the sake or argument, why? Don't they deserve some thought? Or are you
completely insensitive to so many of the teenagers who've gotten addicted and
can't go back to a nicotine-free life?

Because it's an emotional response that gets people all worked up and all of a
sudden facts, logic, and adult choice go out the window. There is a wide array
of actions which can be taken to curb child use which are far short of a
complete ban, and let's not forget that this all began with "VAPING IS KILLIN
PEOPLE!" headlines, an issue which has nothing to do with vaping in general or
its long term effects.

>What's a guard rail for you is a potential car crash for the rest.

How so? We have no reason to believe that vaping is harmful long term. It's a
risk, sure, but "car crash"? Based on what exactly?

>I'm sure that's what they said (and maybe did) about cigarettes. How's that
going?

Smoking rates are way down. Why do you think it's your responsibility or right
to dictate whether or not I can smoke?

>But the reasonable ways out haven't worked well.

What are those? What have we tried so far? Btw, cigarettes are still perfectly
legal!

~~~
olcor
> What are those? What have we tried so far? Btw, cigarettes are still
> perfectly legal!

Why do you think that is? Even after all those full-pack warnings! Don't
people know they're bad?! And to answer what we tried: Gutka (a form of
tobacco) banned in most Indian states. Ban on advertising of alcohol and
tobacco products. Full scale cancer pictures on cigarette boxes. Why not a
blanket ban? Because, well, people want it, just as much as you're vigorously
defending now... the ban on vaping is before the majority starts wanting that
too. It sucks, but in the eyes of the government, it's something which is
easier to defend.

> and let's not forget that this all began with "VAPING IS KILLIN PEOPLE!"

No, it began with people getting hooked to nicotine-delivery substances and
not being able to stop.

> How so? We have no reason to believe that vaping is harmful long term. It's
> a risk, sure, but "car crash"? Based on what exactly?

Vaping might not be bad health-wise. Nicotine addiction is bad, at least on
economic consequences (remember, this isn't a rich country, so for many people
it's a choice between nicotine and other necessary goods), and might be
multiple-packs-a-day bad, because you know, addiction. I'm not sure if I want
to wait for multiple generations to get hooked up to addiction before the
health results of multi-decades of careful research (sometimes sponsored by
vaping companies) are out.

> Smoking rates are way down. Why do you think it's your responsibility or
> right to dictate whether or not I can smoke?

Yeah, and look what that took. Millions of people dying before a dent in the
numbers (and let's not attribute that to vaping, at least in India, because it
hasn't caught hold on that scale yet). A developing country can't see people
die for that long for addiction risk declines. And yes, it is my right as a
citizen to support something I know is curbing a bad thing before it gets hold
in my country. You might be benefiting from vaping, but I don't see an issue
in preventing large companies peddling more bad stuff to people, kids or
otherwise.

Again, the last thing I would say is helpful is banning things, and I'm kind
of starting to understand your points as well. But vigorous defense of
nicotine isn't the right way to go IMO. We can trade arguments all we want,
and honestly, I'm not fully antagonistic against anything here, but it is my
belief that I'd like to make a smoke-free person's opinion heard alongside
people who are struggling with quitting, or don't want to. I enjoy a smoke-
free and addiction-free life, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, but it
took me a lot of fighting peer pressure + manipulative advertising to be in
this position today. It shouldn't have been a fight at all, but there's no
company which is going to profit from non-smoking/teetotalism/whatever, and
governments aren't going to see revenues from it.

~~~
EpicEng
>Why do you think that is? Even after all those full-pack warnings! Don't
people know they're bad?! And to answer what we tried: Gutka (a form of
tobacco) banned in most Indian states. Ban on advertising of alcohol and
tobacco products.

I thought we were talking about vaping. I already said I was more than fine
with restricting purchase, advertising, etc. in the same way we do with
tobacco. But no, it's now a ban, and we've tried nothing.

>No, it began with people getting hooked to nicotine-delivery substances and
not being able to stop.

That's ridiculous. Of course the current hysteria did. Whether or not I want
to be hooked on nicotine is none of your damn business.

>Nicotine addiction is bad, at least on economic consequences (remember, this
isn't a rich country, so for many people it's a choice between nicotine and
other necessary goods)

Again, don't need to be people's nannies. Do we have real data on that or are
you just thinking aloud? Are there no other vices that would take its place?
C'mon.

>I'm not sure if I want to wait for multiple generations to get hooked up to
addiction before the health results of multi-decades of careful research
(sometimes sponsored by vaping companies) are out.

I'm not sure it should be up to you. That's my point.

>And yes, it is my right as a citizen to support something I know is curbing a
bad thing before it gets hold in my country.

You don't know it's a bad thing. In a vacuum where it is the only harmful
substance known to man, sure, but you ignore the fact that people are just
going to go back to cigarettes. Why isn't your country as concerned with
those?

>Again, the last thing I would say is helpful is banning things, and I'm kind
of starting to understand your points as well. But vigorous defense of
nicotine isn't the right way to go IMO.

I'm not out to defend nicotine. I wouldn't want my son to start vaping, but we
have to weigh what we _lose_ at the same time we discuss what we may gain.

One thing I'd like you to understand is that, from my end, I'm worried. I'm
worried I'm going to lose vaping and will go back to cigarettes. I hope I
don't, but I've failed before, and I have a family who is worried as well.

~~~
olcor
> One thing I'd like you to understand is that, from my end, I'm worried. I'm
> worried I'm going to lose vaping and will go back to cigarettes. I hope I
> don't, but I've failed before, and I have a family who is worried as well.

Sorry to hear that. I didn't intend to add to your worries; this was all for
purposes of a debate. I do hope things turns out well for you.

------
autokad
black market e-cigarettes harms/kills some people

the solution people come up with?

ban legal e-cigarettes

------
hourislate
Since this is a relatively new vehicle in delivery of an addictive substance
it would seem prudent to ban it while possible before wide spread adoption.

India already has a problem with heavy pollution that basically amounts to
smoking a pack of cigarettes a day just living in most of its cities. Add to
the fact that cigarettes and tobacco are widely available, why even introduce
more ways to destroy peoples health.

~~~
ggreer
Vaping is a substitute for smoking. If you ban vaping, you get more smokers
and overall worse health outcomes.

Using just US statistics, you get the following result[1]:

> ...if a public e-cigarette ban reduces the number of smokers who switch to
> e-cigarettes by 2%, you’ve just killed an extra 9000 people per year – about
> three 9-11 attacks, or twice the number of US soldiers who died in the Iraq
> War.

1\. [https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/28/thank-you-for-doing-
so...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/28/thank-you-for-doing-something-
ambiguously-between-smoking-and-not-smoking/)

~~~
gpm
Vaping can be a substitute for smoking, but a lot of people are now vaping who
weren't previously smokers, especially young people.

Maybe it should be offered as a prescription drug to quit smoking...

~~~
ggreer
You are assuming that vaping is comparable to smoking in terms of danger. It
isn't. Vaping is incredibly safe. The only people who have gotten sick or died
have been using black market THC cartridges. Smoking kills around 400,000
Americans per year.

If you make vapes harder to acquire than cigarettes, you will cause mass
death. Cigarettes are available without a prescription. You can get them at
any gas station, corner store, or supermarket. If vaping isn't as convenient
or as available, you will get more smokers and worse health outcomes.

Again, a 2% increase in the number of smokers in the US is 9,000 deaths per
year. I understand where you're coming from. It certainly doesn't feel good to
let a bunch of teenagers get hooked on vapes. But you are weighing a
hypothetical, unlikely harm against a concrete ongoing harm that is several
thousand times larger in magnitude. One's intuitions simply can't be trusted
in these cases.

------
uptown
Wonder how big a check the traditional cigarette makers cut to make this
happen.

~~~
Clubber
It's happening in the US too, and we're all falling for it.

------
tossAfterUsing
i think they should just ban the nicotine, not the vaping.

as a person with a nicotine addiction, i can tell you it's a hard one to
crack. as a person who has smoked, i can tell you vaping is hardly a
substitute.

that being said, i know some friends who have gotten way worse nicotine
cravings as a result of vaping more or using stronger liquid than what they'd
have in their regular cigs.

something worth noting, in countries outside the US, you can get approximate
dosage labels on your cigs.

something else worth noting, my own nicotine dependency seems to have been
made way way worse by using hooka, instead of cigarettes. surely, this is n=1.

edit to add: i don't actually think they should be banning any of this shit...
but if you want to prevent people from getting hooked on a substance that can
later be further used to manipulate behavior (e.g. by adding other things to
it) then you should ban the nicotine.

in the end, i think they're wanting to ban vaping because they want to prevent
people from smoking thc.

~~~
EpicEng
>as a person with a nicotine addiction, i can tell you it's a hard one to
crack. as a person who has smoked, i can tell you vaping is hardly a
substitute.

I smoked a pack a day for fifteen years. Vaping was the only thing that got me
off of cigarettes because it is _far_ more enjoyable. Cigs now taste like
eating a bonfire.

You should preface that with "IMO" because obviously it doesn't apply to the
tens of millions who have successfully switched over.

------
programmarchy
e-cigarette marketing was targeting youth demographics [1]. They could have
stuck with marketing to adults, but they got greedy, and I have no sympathy
for these companies now that governments are coming down hard on them.

[1] [https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-
indus...](https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-industry-
marketing/4-marketing-tactics-e-cigarette-companies-use-target)

~~~
EpicEng
Nonsense. Honestly, how do people swallow the garbage argument that only
children like sweet flavors? As you typed that out did you forget that you
enjoy the taste of ice cream more than the ashes of a bonfire?

~~~
programmarchy
The marketing is obviously directed towards youth in certain circumstances --
for example they have packages that look exactly like Lucky Charms and Froot
Loops.

Would you also argue that Lucky Charms and Froot Loops cereal commercials are
not advertising to children, because some adults happen to eat sugary cereal?

~~~
EpicEng
So... let me understand this... the flavors are literally Lucky Charms and
Fruit Loops, right? What else would they put there? Do you think adults don't
like sweet cereal?

I don't think that is "obviously directed towards youth." It's only obvious
that it's directed toward people who like Lucky Charms and Fruit Loops, of
which many are adults.

>Would you also argue that Lucky Charms and Froot Loops cereal commercials are
not advertising to children, because some adults happen to eat sugary cereal?

No, because those ads are obviously aimed toward children. They're full of
kids and the boxes contains toys! Nothing like that is happening with vape
juice (and it shouldn't if it is.)

That all said, I'm with you; bring down the hammer on that sort of thing. Get
rid of the flashy packaging. Keep the warning labels. That does far more good
than harm. Just don't take the flavor away from me if I want it.

------
mcguire
Here's a question:

Are there any studies on the relative addictiveness of various forms of
tobacco? IIRC, cigarettes have been explicitly engineered to deliver a high,
short-lived dose quickly, while cigars and pipe tobacco, and apparently vaping
liquids, do not have the same psychoactive effects.

------
ngcc_hk
Equal treatment of both; otherwise e is better than traditional one as it
harms other less

------
xiphias2
I'm hoping that e-cigarettes decreases second hand smoking that I have to
endure, which is affecting me quite badly.

If a person comes to my house I prefer that he smokes e-cigarette over a real
one at least while he's visiting me.

------
olcor
I'm a life-long straight-edger who knows next to nothing about e-cigarettes
except that it looks like they're much better nicotine-delivery systems which
don't have the extra harmful stuff cigarettes have wrapped up, so please take
all I say with multiple grains of salt.

IMO is a good decision. And I say this with full cynicism; I really don't care
either way. I don't have many people in my circle who're smokers or vapers,
and I've never done either, so I can't really relate.

I feel this is a good decision because:

\- Cigarette and beedi
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beedi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beedi))
companies have been entrenched in this society for long, so they can battle
things out for the existing products. Most people have started to wisen up to
these though, so the effects on mass population are reducing day by day
(education and those large images of cancer help). In e-cigarettes' case,
getting something out before it becomes entrenched, is IMO, a good thing,
however unpopular. It took so damn long for people to realize tobacco is
dangerous. Better this info gets out quicker now, especially in a country like
India where accurate and well-rounded information is hard to get.

\- E-cigarettes still contain addictive nicotine. While the current war
against normal cigs/bidis might be about the smoke and other stuff, the
central hook is still an addictive substance. E-cigs have the potential to
dial up delivery of this addictive stuff up to 10. This isn't good for most
people.

\- Say whatever you want about e-cigarettes. It's known that it's seen as a
cool thing among kids, and the packaging is damn near perfect. a country could
do better to avoid getting its future generations getting hooked up with a
snazzy-looking thumb drive before realizing too late that their parents' money
is now captive to fruit-flavored pods. I've noticed juul usage amongst teens
in the US, and some seem hooked beyond repair (just like smokers are today).

I don't really care however this goes, I'm not going to be the one who'll be
vaping or smoking or whatever so I don't have much of a stake in this (I don't
even like the current politics either). But to me, getting something out of
the picture before it becomes a huge issue might be a good idea (unless, like
in Harry Potter parlance, where the best thing Umbridge did to make sure The
Quibbler was read was banning it...)

~~~
Clubber
Ya, who cares how many people this decision kills. It doesn't affect you,
right?

~~~
olcor
Well yes, it doesn't affect me. Doesn't mean that my viewpoint is not of any
value.

I'm not sure if this decision "kills" people. I know nicotine is addictive. I
know giving up addictive stuff is hard. But if you think that having something
which is less harmful for people already consuming more harmful stuff and more
harmful for the rest who might be pulled into this, I'd believe that some
action to reduce the damage being taken is not a unilaterally bad decision.

I try very hard to not get addicted to stuff, because I know it's damaging.
But I'm not sure if it's a good idea to keep something we are pretty sure is
bad (nicotine addiction) around just because it's an easy out for someone
who's already doing harm for himself and people around him.

People fought to contain smoking, they lost. Clearly neither forced abstinence
or knowing temperance is an awesome solution. But I'd rather ban something
small which has the potential to get to the big bad real soon (e-cigarettes
don't come with a doctor's approval as far as I know), because it's doable,
than handhold people into something we know is not ideal, and can possibly be
much worse.

------
donohoe
Sign. India in the lead on this one and US lags behind.

I'm disappointed that with the big tobacco settlement (1998) they didn't start
automatically raising the legal smoking every year by another year - and
basically phase out tobacco forever.

~~~
techntoke
Same with alcohol and caffeine and addictive prescription drugs.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
And water.

~~~
9wzYQbTYsAIc
Ban dihydrogen monoxide now.

------
johnisgood
Alrighties. Are they going to ban cigarettes too?

------
ganitarashid
It’s good that e-cigarettes are not safe. There shouldn’t be a “safe” smoking
alternative and we should never believe the tobacco industry.

