Sorry about the incendiary title. Obviously Brown and other democrats don't intentionally advocate for big tobacco, and they mean well here. But I want them to think about what they're asking for.
I haven't logged in since 2010. I gave up on politics in general around that time, just so frustrating and seemingly pointless. I vote for dems every election, because they are better than republicans, but that's all. I just want to enjoy my life. Wasting energy trying to influence a political system that seems almost totally corrupted by business interests doesn't seem like a good use of my time or energy, just a way to get frustrated and depressed.
So why am I here writing this diary then? E-cigarettes and e-liquids. Democrats want to regulate them into the ground. Let me be clear... I am all for regulations on e-cigarettes. But they have to be smart about it, not hysterical, like they are at the moment.
I will say this. I have always voted for Sherrod Brown when he was on the ballot. He WAS one of my favorite politicians. He's an actual progressive, which is quite rare these days. But if this ban on flavorings goes through, I will not be voting in the next election. I have a bunch of family members who switched from smoking to vaping also, they can usually be counted on to vote for democrats, they will probably not vote either (or even worse, vote for republicans instead).
More after the jump..
I've seen people say this is not an important issue. To me, IT IS IMPORTANT. Important enough that I'm willing to sit at home on election day and watch republicans take over the government again. To me, avoiding lung cancer is important. Minimizing my risk of getting COPD is important. Being able to exercise is important, being able to wake up without coughing up a lung is important, having working senses of taste and smell is important, not smelling like an ashtray is important. Do you get the picture?
Yes, you can get the same things by quitting nicotine completely. I was never able to do that though. So I picked the lesser of two evils. It's kind of like the relationship between heroin and suboxone. Yes they are both addictive and it would probably better if you took neither, but if you have to pick one, which is the lesser evil, which do you want addicts choosing?
Don't accuse me of being a "one issue voter" like that means anything. Someone who won't vote for an anti-choice democrat is a one issue voter. A person who refuses to vote for politicians for their non-support of LGBT rights is a one issue voter. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Most people have issues they won't compromise on.
So anyways, about those regulations:
Currently, e-cigarettes are not subject to federal laws and regulations that apply to traditional cigarettes. For example, federal laws and regulations prohibit traditional cigarettes from being sold to persons younger than 18, distributed as free samples, advertised on television and radio, and having characterizing fruit flavors that appeal to kids. In addition, traditional cigarettes may only be displayed behind the counter where they are accessible to the public only through direct interaction with a sales clerk.
For more than four decades a federal ban on cigarette ads for radio and television has helped to deglamorize smoking for young people. We are concerned that e-cigarette makers are using a broad range of marketing techniques previously employed by traditional cigarette companies to entice youth to use their products. These marketing techniques include utilizing advertisements and product placement with celebrities; sponsorship of events; distributing samples; selling products in flavors that appeal to children, such as strawberry and bubblegum; and making their product easily available to youth online and in the now ubiquitous e-cigarette mall kiosks.
Most of this sounds good to me. I've got absolutely no problem with restricting sales to 18+, restrictions on advertising, and putting them behind counters. Also not mentioned here but good ideas: mandatory child safety caps, warning labels like cigarettes and alcohol have, minimum standards for purity and cleanliness, and restrictions on dangerous flavorings like diacetyl, acetoin and acetyl propionyl.
But I have a big problem with banning flavorings. First of all, it's ridiculous. Relax for a second and drop the "think of the children" hysterics. Adults like flavors too! Have these politicians never heard of a wine cooler? How about flavored condoms? How about flavored blunt wraps? The vast majority of these products are purchased and used by... adults. I'm 25 years old and right now I'm vaping a sweet pear and mint flavored e-liquid. So, am I just a weirdo? Or is it possible that these flavors are designed for adults, and not children?
Besides the hypocrisy of it, there's a more important reason why flavored liquids need to remain legal. They make vaping more attractive than smoking. Like I said above, given a choice between heroin and suboxone, which would you rather have someone you love addicted to? If there's a choice between cigarette smoke, and a much safer alternative, which would you pick?
By the way, it is much safer, according to pretty much every study done on it:
· Electronic cigarette deliver an aerosol to the user (which may contain nicotine) without involving combustion.
· Nicotine is not officially listed as a carcinogen, is not causing respiratory disease and has minimal effects in initiating and propagating atherosclerosis. Despite laboratory evidence that nicotine may exhibit carcinogenic and mutagenic effects, no clinical study has ever confirmed that it has such properties at levels associated with human use. It is well-known that smokers smoke for nicotine but die from combustion products.
· Most of the chemicals emitted in tobacco cigarette smoke are completely absent from electronic cigarettes, or are present in minimal quantities. A characteristic example is tobacco-specific nitrosamines, with smoking resulting in up to 1800 times higher daily exposure compared to electronic cigarette use. No combustion products are emitted from electronic cigarettes. Other toxic chemicals such as carbonyls are emitted at levels lower by order(s) of magnitude compared to tobacco products. The chemical profile of electronic cigarette liquids and aerosol is perfectly compatible with their role as tobacco harm reduction products.
· The studies evaluating particle size have been mispresented as showing evidence of risk for cardiovascular and respiratory disease. In reality it is scientifically unprecedented to discuss about size and ignore the composition of the particles. Electronic cigarette aerosol is mostly comprised of droplets of propylene glycol, glycerol, nicotine and flavorings, with minimal quantities of other chemicals. They are incomparable to micro- and nano-particles emitted from combustion sources (such as tobacco cigarettes) or to environmental pollution particulate matter. There is no evidence that the particles emitted from electronic cigarettes represent a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Based on their composition, they confer minimum (if any) risk.
· All cytotoxicity studies of electronic cigarette aerosol have found that electronic cigarettes have minimal, and in some cases no, cytotoxic properties on cultured cells. The comparison with tobacco cigarette smoke confirmed that electronic cigarettes are by far less toxic to the cells studied. Animal studies have verified the beneficial safety profile of the basic electronic cigarette ingredients (propylene glycol, glycerol and nicotine) compared to tobacco cigarette smoke.
· There is no second-hand exposure to combustion products. Exposure to nicotine is at levels 10 times lower than tobacco cigarettes. Of note, second-hand exposure to nicotine is not associated with addiction or other adverse health implications. One study found the release of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; however, the finding is questionable due to the lack of combustion in electronic cigarettes.
· Clinical studies have shown that electronic cigarette use is not associated with acute worsening of cardiac function or coronary flow disturbances and does not activate inflammatory pathways. There are mixed findings concerning the acute effects on respiratory function. No study has found worsening of spirometry measurements, while a study comparing active and passive smoking with electronic cigarette use found adverse effects only after smoking. Of note, a recent study (not included in the review because it was published later) found asthmatic smokers who switch to electronic cigarette use show significant improvement in respiratory function after 1 year of electronic cigarette use (Polosa et al. Effect of smoking abstinence and reduction in asthmatic smokers switching to electronic cigarettes: evidence for harm reversal. Int J Environm Res Public Health 2014;11:4965-4977).