
Vape Regulation Is Coming - tmlee
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/vape-regulation-is-coming-and-it-just-might-kill-the-industry
======
dwc
From articles and interviews about the health effects of vaping, I've gathered
that there are basically two distinct groups of people: 1) ordinary people,
who hold views ranging from skepticism to enthusiasm, and 2) anti-smoking
activists who are sure that vaping is as bad as smoking, no matter what.

The extreme anti-tobacco people don't believe in harm reduction. They also
battle snus, which is far healthier than smoking and is _probably_ far less
harmful than other forms of "chewing tobacco" due to the way it's processed.
Rather than seeing fewer health problems from tobacco related products, these
people would will stand on principle while people continue to smoke.

~~~
sophacles
A lot of people get this idea of "poison, therefore avoid at all costs" in
their head about a lot of things. For instance, my local makerspace does a
"teach people to solder" table at public events to get folks into making
things. So many parents upon learning that solder has lead, decide to take
their kids away, because lead will probably kill them right now. Several times
they have tried to get us shut down _because we have lead_.

It doesn't make it ok, just how some people seem to think.

~~~
jbob2000
This mentality is also present with food. "Genetically modified food is bad
because the word genetic is dirty and I don't know what it means, even though
every type of food ever has been genetically modified! Won't someone think of
the children!?!"

------
cjoelrun
I really hope regulations don't go that as far as this article describes. I
realize that formal review of drug delivery products are important for safety,
but the deadlines they're imposing will hurt what vaping has done for public
air quality.

I don't vape, but I wish that everyone who smoked in public spaces would just
switch to vaping because of how much better it is on everybody around them.

There's a way to getting to what regulators want, but demanding things happen
on a timeline that not even they can keep up with is ridiculous and needs to
be rethought.

~~~
asift
>I realize that formal review of drug delivery products are important for
safety

Can we be certain of that? How do we define safety? The FDA focuses on
ensuring that no one is harmed by the use of a product, but they pay very
little attention to those who are harmed by the lack of access to a product.
The institutional incentives that exist encourage this conservative approach
to drug access.

There are also many forms of regulation outside of governmental regulation. No
bureau is needed to verify the quality of my Uber driver, but they still tend
to be better than most taxis I've ever taken. 10 years ago you could have said
"formal review of taxi drivers is important for safety" and most people would
have agreed with you, but fortunately some entrepreneurs realized there was a
better form of regulating driver quality.

------
panglott
Vaping is clearly less harmful than cigarette smoking, and shifting from
cigarettes to vaping is a great move. But somehow the most gullible vapers
have convinced themselves that vaping is utterly harmless, and they should be
able to do it everywhere the way they did when omnipresent secondhand smoke
was taken for granted. So we get all this clear propaganda about how harmless
it is, and how the nonsmokers are bunch of unreasonable fascists for not
letting people do it all over the place.

------
saurik
This "grandfather" date is so dumb and such obvious pandering to an existing
large business faction: this kind of law should apply to everything and
everyone. "We now require all food to be tested for contamination with [insert
newly understood poison here], unless it was marketed before we discovered the
poison... in that case, have fun!" :/

------
sneak
This is so fucking stupid. People aren't going to give up their nicotine
addictions; giving them a cheap and convenient alternative that is many orders
of magnitude safer for themselves and their families than smoking is the
single best outcome that could happen.

It's really simple: Make vaping less accessible, continue to destroy the lungs
of children and others with secondhand smoke.

~~~
onetwotree
Exactly. I switched from smoking to vaping a few months back, and I haven't
looked back. My lungs don't hurt when I wake up in the morning, I don't smell
like cigarettes all the time, and my landlord has, based on some industry
research or something, decided to let me vape inside.

I'm always trying to cut back and quit, but I'll switch right back to smokes
if I can't vape.

------
ende
Probition should be prohibited.

------
digitalzombie
I dislike vaping.

People thinks it's ok to blow those things in your face or near people.

It's basically spitting to me.

I also think Vape is bad for you and is up there with smoking. Just cause it
less bad than smoking doesn't mean it's not harmless, it's just an excuse to
not quit a harmful habit.

It's a free country but still I wish they can't vape in certain area or have a
designated area so they can vape.

~~~
wtf23737
Do you drive? You realize you are pumping extremely harmful smoke into the air
in large quantities?

I'd rather take a puff of someones second hand vaporizer smoke then to breath
in the shit that comes out of your tail pipe.

~~~
onetwotree
Wat.

~~~
wtf23737
What was hard to understand?

------
DigitalSea
Good. These e-cigarettes are the worse thing to happen to health in a long
time. Just as smoking rates started to decline, out come vapor cigarettes
which are in some cases more dangerous (exploding in peoples faces). I've seen
too many people "vaping" on buses and trains for something to not have been
done about it.

~~~
Zikes
It's all pretty ludicrous even on the surface. A lot of vaping proponents try
to argue the relative safety of water vapor to smoke, but in the end it's
still just a delivery method for various chemicals including nicotine. Not to
mention the vapor is just as obnoxious as smoke.

~~~
sneak
It's not water vapor, it's glycerin and propylene glycol, primarily.

You'd be right, except that the vapor condenses in seconds and the effect on
others nearby is below the threshold of measurement, whereas secondhand smoke
lingers for minutes or hours and is extremely measurably harmful to anyone in
proximity of a smoker.

Nicotine itself isn't that harmful.

~~~
esaym
Propylene glycol? That doesn't sound good:
[https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/19870.htm](https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/19870.htm)

>"Skin: In case of contact, flush skin with plenty of water."

>"Inhalation: If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give
artificial respiration."

I remember in the mid-1990's, there were many articles pointing the finger at
propylene glycol in personal care products for increasing cancer rates. Even
to this day I use Thai salt for deodorant as I don't want to be slathering
propylene glycol all over me.

I quick google search for 'propylene glycol' doesn't turn up too much for
health risks. But still, I don't want the stuff touching, and I wouldn't want
it in my lungs either....

Edit: and to the down voters, I am not anti-vape or anti tobacco. I think both
are pretty cool. But as a neat freak, I don't want all my stuff smelling like
smoke. And as a health conscious person, I don't want my last days on this
earth ending with me on a hospital bed gasping for air from a failed
respiratory system.

~~~
rory096
Why did you quote the generic 'first aid measures' section? The 'health
effects' section is far less alarming:

>Skin: May be absorbed through damaged or abraded skin in harmful amounts.
Allergic reactions have been reported. A single prolonged skin exposure is not
likely to result in the material being absorbed in harmful amounts. Prolonged
contact is essentially non-irritating to skin. Repeated exposures may cause
problems. Negative results have consistently been obtained in guinea pigs
studies for sensitization. 1,2-Propylene glycol is not considered an
occupational skin sensitizer. (CHEMINFO)

>Inhalation: Low hazard for usual industrial handling. Inhalation of a mist of
this material may cause respiratory tract irritation. Material has a low vapor
pressure at room temperature, so exposure to vapor is not likely.

~~~
esaym
To each their own I guess. Those sound even worse personally.

"Inhalation: Low hazard for usual industrial handling." <\- Industrial
handling probably doesn't include smoking it....

