Trump administration finalizing ban on flavored e-cigarettes

[Dashinka 24,505]

10 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Don't get me wrong, I hate smoking.  It stinks, and affects everyone around the smoker.  Vaping at least smells nicer.  I can actually enjoy getting whiffs of the vapor of someone who is puffing on it. 

 

And while I would personally like to see smoking become a rarity, we have never seen a government ban of such.  Not sure there is a justifiable need to ban vaping just yet.  But I do agree that nicotine is a bad drug overall, and does no good for the body.  Unlike THC.

Do the local governments get a sin tax from e-cigarette devices and cartridges?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Ban Hammer said:

as a vaper for 5 years (and a former smoker for 24) i believe nicotine does serve a valid use - without it, i'd probably be suspending a lot more people.........

 

   As I said the main use for nicotine among most users is to alleviate the withdrawal symptoms of an existing addiction to nicotine. If someone had never smoked, they wouldn't need nicotine and if someone quits they wouldn't need nicotine. I understand that people continue to smoke for that reason, but I wouldn't call it a valid reason for nicotine use.

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Probably not a parallel at all, but a doctor once told me that the way to overcome a caffeine headache is to ingest a little more caffeine, but not as much as what caused the headache.  Interesting.

 

  Definitely true. As a former caffeine addict, I would often have 5 or 6 cups when I worked night shifts, and then none one my first day off. I used to get really bad headaches at the end of that day off and I always thought it was lack of sleep, but after talking to my physician, it ended up being quickly narrowed down to caffeine withdrawal. Of course,  one of the physiological actions of caffeine is vasodilation, and so one of the effects of acute withdrawal is constriction of blood vessels.

 

  My doctor eventually told me my options to get rid of the headaches were, in order of best to worst, drink coffee in moderation, give it up entirely, or drink 6 cups everyday.

[Dashinka 24,505]

5 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Definitely true. As a former caffeine addict, I would often have 5 or 6 cups when I worked night shifts, and then none one my first day off. I used to get really bad headaches at the end of that day off and I always thought it was lack of sleep, but after talking to my physician, it ended up being quickly narrowed down to caffeine withdrawal. Of course,  one of the physiological actions of caffeine is vasodilation, and so one of the effects of acute withdrawal is constriction of blood vessels.

 

  My doctor eventually told me my options to get rid of the headaches were, in order of best to worst, drink coffee in moderation, give it up entirely, or drink 6 cups everyday.

I too have experienced those caffeine withdrawal headaches.  I was not a coffee drinker, but used to do Diet Coke regularly, when I decided to get myself off the synthetic sweeteners, I gave up Diet Coke cold turkey and went through a day or so of headaches.

[yuna628 9,676]

17 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

He should ban opioids. They kill more people than vaping does.

Opioids are already extremely difficult to obtain, even for legit purposes. My mom has chronic health conditions and the hoops she has to go through in order to obtain her painkiller (which is not even considered a heavy painkiller) and be on the lowest dose possible (which does not always help her either) is ridiculous. All because of the blanket heavy restrictions put on from the government.

16 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

There are a lot of things out there that are addictive and can lead to personal or family ruin.  Should the government ban all of those things?

As I said, the libertarian in me says no, unless it is a state regulation. Most people from MD have an unusual state's rights perspective on addictive habits. Our state heavily regulates everything - from alcohol and how and where you can obtain it, to cigarette purchases, and gambling. We are becoming more liberal on THC. When a smoker smokes, he does not just damage his own body. He damages the bodies of those around him, and their eventual illness and death drives up the cost of healthcare. Should we not ban drunk driving? Seatbelt laws?

15 hours ago, luckytxn said:

The government is not our babysitter and should not be banning things the populace wants. They can put warnings out and let us make up our own minds if we want to risk harming our bodies. Our bodies do not belong to the government so why should they regulate what we want to do with it?

Indeed. But what happens when the item some people wants hurts other people that do not want it? Warnings are good, I'm not sure how much it has statistically helped overall - but vapes have been marketed currently as a way to stop you from smoking (this is simply not true), is a healthier alternative (we are not entirely sure that is true), and in many cases marketed directly to kids (a big no no). We went through the marketing to kids things with cigarettes directly, but vapes seem to be very much about it.

14 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Since we have never banned cigarettes (foul habit and health risk), I don't see how enough support would be raised to ban e-cigs.  Six dead people is hardly an epidemic. 

I agree with you here. I find it so strange that with all the fuss this country has about addiction and deaths, we do not ban the number one substance that does both. It seems silly that vapes would be banned, and it's further ridiculous that six people dying (not from straight-flavored vapes but THC vapes!) is somehow an epidemic. It was my understanding a large majority of vapes causing illnesses are not even the major manufacturers, but more black market and off-label type things (how else of course would you get THC in a vape when that substance is heavily regulated?). I get a little cynical here because I know that cigarette manufacturers might be prone to lobby such a course of action against their major competition - all the while people who purchase cigarettes contribute their money to a mega-industry that kills people every single day and continues to sell cigarettes directly to children in other countries where there is no regulation.

 

[Dashinka 24,505]

32 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Opioids are already extremely difficult to obtain, even for legit purposes. My mom has chronic health conditions and the hoops she has to go through in order to obtain her painkiller (which is not even considered a heavy painkiller) and be on the lowest dose possible (which does not always help her either) is ridiculous. All because of the blanket heavy restrictions put on from the government.

As I said, the libertarian in me says no, unless it is a state regulation. Most people from MD have an unusual state's rights perspective on addictive habits. Our state heavily regulates everything - from alcohol and how and where you can obtain it, to cigarette purchases, and gambling. We are becoming more liberal on THC. When a smoker smokes, he does not just damage his own body. He damages the bodies of those around him, and their eventual illness and death drives up the cost of healthcare. Should we not ban drunk driving? Seatbelt laws?

Indeed. But what happens when the item some people wants hurts other people that do not want it? Warnings are good, I'm not sure how much it has statistically helped overall - but vapes have been marketed currently as a way to stop you from smoking (this is simply not true), is a healthier alternative (we are not entirely sure that is true), and in many cases marketed directly to kids (a big no no). We went through the marketing to kids things with cigarettes directly, but vapes seem to be very much about it.

I agree with you here. I find it so strange that with all the fuss this country has about addiction and deaths, we do not ban the number one substance that does both. It seems silly that vapes would be banned, and it's further ridiculous that six people dying (not from straight-flavored vapes but THC vapes!) is somehow an epidemic. It was my understanding a large majority of vapes causing illnesses are not even the major manufacturers, but more black market and off-label type things (how else of course would you get THC in a vape when that substance is heavily regulated?). I get a little cynical here because I know that cigarette manufacturers might be prone to lobby such a course of action against their major competition - all the while people who purchase cigarettes contribute their money to a mega-industry that kills people every single day and continues to sell cigarettes directly to children in other countries where there is no regulation.

 

Just curious, does MD regulate pornography?  A lot of families have been destroyed by that little addiction.  It is also interesting that THC is being looked on somewhat favorably, based on what I have been reading, most if not all of the vaping related deaths have been caused by folks vaping THC oils.

[luckytxn 2,264]

29 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Opioids are already extremely difficult to obtain, even for legit purposes. My mom has chronic health conditions and the hoops she has to go through in order to obtain her painkiller (which is not even considered a heavy painkiller) and be on the lowest dose possible (which does not always help her either) is ridiculous. All because of the blanket heavy restrictions put on from the government.

As I said, the libertarian in me says no, unless it is a state regulation. Most people from MD have an unusual state's rights perspective on addictive habits. Our state heavily regulates everything - from alcohol and how and where you can obtain it, to cigarette purchases, and gambling. We are becoming more liberal on THC. When a smoker smokes, he does not just damage his own body. He damages the bodies of those around him, and their eventual illness and death drives up the cost of healthcare. Should we not ban drunk driving? Seatbelt laws?

Indeed. But what happens when the item some people wants hurts other people that do not want it? Warnings are good, I'm not sure how much it has statistically helped overall - but vapes have been marketed currently as a way to stop you from smoking (this is simply not true), is a healthier alternative (we are not entirely sure that is true), and in many cases marketed directly to kids (a big no no). We went through the marketing to kids things with cigarettes directly, but vapes seem to be very much about it.

I agree with you here. I find it so strange that with all the fuss this country has about addiction and deaths, we do not ban the number one substance that does both. It seems silly that vapes would be banned, and it's further ridiculous that six people dying (not from straight-flavored vapes but THC vapes!) is somehow an epidemic. It was my understanding a large majority of vapes causing illnesses are not even the major manufacturers, but more black market and off-label type things (how else of course would you get THC in a vape when that substance is heavily regulated?). I get a little cynical here because I know that cigarette manufacturers might be prone to lobby such a course of action against their major competition - all the while people who purchase cigarettes contribute their money to a mega-industry that kills people every single day and continues to sell cigarettes directly to children in other countries where there is no regulation.

 

And as a Libertarian you know that individuals rights end outside ones home. Once one enters into spaces where others are and your actions affects others then laws laws affect you but from local. The Feds need to butt out and not make moral laws as our bodies are our own. If people want to ingest poison then that is one them but in the privacy of their homes.

[yuna628 9,676]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Just curious, does MD regulate pornography?  A lot of families have been destroyed by that little addiction.  It is also interesting that THC is being looked on somewhat favorably, based on what I have been reading, most if not all of the vaping related deaths have been caused by folks vaping THC oils.

Don't quote me on it, but most of that content is sold at adult stores and nowhere else usually in bad areas of town. In the city most of the naughty activity happens at ''the block''. Kind of the same as how all our alcohol is sold only at liquor stores. Internet is fair game I suppose for porn, but that is where MD regulation is even more restrictive when it comes to alcohol. So perhaps we are not so restrictive on porn as other addictive items.

 

It appears and I could be wrong, that the THC in the vapes are black market and off-label.. I'm not sure if there are any official THC vape products that are regulated. Which is kind of how contamination tends to happen... when black market products are purchased that haven't got any sort of regulation or quality control.

Edited September 12, 2019 by yuna628

[Dashinka 24,505]

6 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Don't quote me on it, but most of that content is sold at adult stores and nowhere else usually in bad areas of town. In the city most of the naughty activity happens at ''the block''. Kind of the same as how all our alcohol is sold only at liquor stores. Internet is fair game I suppose for porn, but that is where MD regulation is even more restrictive when it comes to alcohol. So perhaps we are not so restrictive on porn as other addictive items.

 

It appears and I could be wrong, that the THC in the vapes are black market and off-label.. I'm not sure if there are any official THC vape products that are regulated. Which is kind of how contamination tends to happen... when black market products are purchased that haven't got any sort of regulation or quality control.

I think that is why some (not me as I don't really care one way or the other) are wondering what all the hype is about vaping when it comes to actual products.  If folks are dying due to black market products that were never meant to be vaped, then why go after the entire industry.  I wonder if there is an ulterior motive with respect to "sin" taxes.

[laylalex 7,285]

20 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   As long as they contain nicotine, they really can't wean someone off smoking. They just replace regular cigarettes. I know they were promoted that way originally, but I don't actually think you can get over an addiction by continuing to take the substance you are addicted to. 

Thanks, that's what I told him. It's just another crutch. I didn't have a hard time quitting when I did, partially because I think my usage was more psychological than physical -- I picked up the habit from being around him when we were younger, and when we stopped being together, the habit eventually stopped except for times I was under a lot of stress. Eventually I gave it up completely when I was trying for a child and never started again. I appreciate him not stinking as much as he did when he was still smoking cigarettes, but these latest reports have me scared. It has to stop. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

9 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Thanks, that's what I told him. It's just another crutch. I didn't have a hard time quitting when I did, partially because I think my usage was more psychological than physical -- I picked up the habit from being around him when we were younger, and when we stopped being together, the habit eventually stopped except for times I was under a lot of stress. Eventually I gave it up completely when I was trying for a child and never started again. I appreciate him not stinking as much as he did when he was still smoking cigarettes, but these latest reports have me scared. It has to stop. 

Wonder if big tobacco was behind it

[laylalex 7,285]

16 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Wonder if big tobacco was behind it

Vaping itself? Or the reports about the deaths?

 

I really feel for everyone still addicted, like I have compassion for addicts in general. It's no way to live, even with "mild" addictions like caffeine. I love coffee, don't get me wrong -- I drink two cups a day, but I can go without it if I need to. I used to drink a lot more when I was younger, but I kicked the habit.

[yuna628 9,676]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think that is why some (not me as I don't really care one way or the other) are wondering what all the hype is about vaping when it comes to actual products.  If folks are dying due to black market products that were never meant to be vaped, then why go after the entire industry.  I wonder if there is an ulterior motive with respect to "sin" taxes.

Personally I think it's tobacco lobbyists wanting to be rid of their competition.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Thats why thc should be legal 

 

    It is for some of us. 

[laylalex 7,285]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    It is for some of us. 

😇 I don't let my fiance use it because of his visa status but I have been known to buy a few gummies for personal consumption.