Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Just announced, FDA is extending tobacco regulation to e-cigarettes.

I am admittedly not familiar with e-cigarettes, so I have a few questions before I completely formulate my opinion on this, though my gut reaction is that this is bad:

1. Are e-cigarettes the same as the "vaping" shops I see springing up everywhere?
2. Are e-cigarettes (and I don't care if the science is 100% yet - just whatever the general understanding is) considered safer to the human body than say a Marlboro?
3. Does this FDA move mean that the government can vice tax e-cigarettes?
4. Are states doing it already?

It would seem to be entirely counterproductive from a medical standpoint to tax something that is a healthier alternative to smoking. Essentially, you'd be giving people a financial incentive (albeit a negative one) to just go ahead and smoke regular cigarettes.

93henfan wrote:Just announced, FDA is extending tobacco regulation to e-cigarettes.

I am admittedly not familiar with e-cigarettes, so I have a few questions before I completely formulate my opinion on this, though my gut reaction is that this is bad:

1. Are e-cigarettes the same as the "vaping" shops I see springing up everywhere?
2. Are e-cigarettes (and I don't care if the science is 100% yet - just whatever the general understanding is) considered safer to the human body than say a Marlboro?
3. Does this FDA move mean that the government can vice tax e-cigarettes?
4. Are states doing it already?

It would seem to be entirely counterproductive from a medical standpoint to tax something that is a healthier alternative to smoking. Essentially, you'd be giving people a financial incentive (albeit a negative one) to just go ahead and smoke regular cigarettes.

From what I know/read:

1. This is vaping
2. You're still inhaling nicotine

To me, the benefit of the e-cig is that there's no smoke, therefore you can smoke that tacky thing in a restaurant. But, you're still exhaling something that might not be as bad a cigarette smoke, but it's not exactly safe either.


Either way, only dbags use e-cigs.


Sorry, WTAG.

Ibanez wrote:

93henfan wrote:Just announced, FDA is extending tobacco regulation to e-cigarettes.

I am admittedly not familiar with e-cigarettes, so I have a few questions before I completely formulate my opinion on this, though my gut reaction is that this is bad:

1. Are e-cigarettes the same as the "vaping" shops I see springing up everywhere?
2. Are e-cigarettes (and I don't care if the science is 100% yet - just whatever the general understanding is) considered safer to the human body than say a Marlboro?
3. Does this FDA move mean that the government can vice tax e-cigarettes?
4. Are states doing it already?

It would seem to be entirely counterproductive from a medical standpoint to tax something that is a healthier alternative to smoking. Essentially, you'd be giving people a financial incentive (albeit a negative one) to just go ahead and smoke regular cigarettes.

From what I know/read:

1. This is vaping
2. You're still inhaling nicotine

To me, the benefit of the e-cig is that there's no smoke, therefore you can smoke that tacky thing in a restaurant. But, you're still exhaling something that might not be as bad a cigarette smoke, but it's not exactly safe either.


Either way, only dbags use e-cigs.


Sorry, WTAG.

WTAG smokes Kools.





And Poles.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
From what I know/read:

1. This is vaping
2. You're still inhaling nicotine

To me, the benefit of the e-cig is that there's no smoke, therefore you can smoke that tacky thing in a restaurant. But, you're still exhaling something that might not be as bad a cigarette smoke, but it's not exactly safe either.


Either way, only dbags use e-cigs.


Sorry, WTAG.

WTAG smokes Kools.





And Poles.

I thought I informed you that WTAG recently passed. Have some damn respect.

Grizalltheway wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: WTAG smokes Kools.





And Poles.

I thought I informed you that WTAG recently passed. Have some damn respect.

Damn, I must've forgot.
RIP

Ibanez wrote:

93henfan wrote:Just announced, FDA is extending tobacco regulation to e-cigarettes.

I am admittedly not familiar with e-cigarettes, so I have a few questions before I completely formulate my opinion on this, though my gut reaction is that this is bad:

1. Are e-cigarettes the same as the "vaping" shops I see springing up everywhere?
2. Are e-cigarettes (and I don't care if the science is 100% yet - just whatever the general understanding is) considered safer to the human body than say a Marlboro?
3. Does this FDA move mean that the government can vice tax e-cigarettes?
4. Are states doing it already?

It would seem to be entirely counterproductive from a medical standpoint to tax something that is a healthier alternative to smoking. Essentially, you'd be giving people a financial incentive (albeit a negative one) to just go ahead and smoke regular cigarettes.

From what I know/read:

1. This is vaping
2. You're still inhaling nicotine

To me, the benefit of the e-cig is that there's no smoke, therefore you can smoke that tacky thing in a restaurant. But, you're still exhaling something that might not be as bad a cigarette smoke, but it's not exactly safe either.


Either way, only dbags use e-cigs.


Sorry, WTAG.

If you don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best to stay silent.

1. Nicotine is no worse than caffeine. The benefits of e-cigs are that you're not inhaling carcinogens like benzo[a]pyrene, Benzene, and Nitrosamine. You're also not coating your heart and lungs with tobacco tar, either.

2. E-cig juice contains nicotine, propylene glycol - a food additive (it's in your beer and liquor), and vegetable glycerin. You're exhaling something that is completely harmless.

93, your gut is totally right. It's counter productive from a standpoint of common sense. It's just another way for the government to fleece it's citizens and is a disincentive to those who are actually trying to take advantage of healthier alternatives to smoking.

Big Fucking Brother strikes again.

Baldy wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
From what I know/read:

1. This is vaping
2. You're still inhaling nicotine

To me, the benefit of the e-cig is that there's no smoke, therefore you can smoke that tacky thing in a restaurant. But, you're still exhaling something that might not be as bad a cigarette smoke, but it's not exactly safe either.


Either way, only dbags use e-cigs.


Sorry, WTAG.

If you don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best to stay silent.

1. Nicotine is no worse than caffeine. The benefits of e-cigs are that you're not inhaling carcinogens like benzo[a]pyrene, Benzene, and Nitrosamine. You're also not coating your heart and lungs with tobacco tar, either.

2. E-cig juice contains nicotine, propylene glycol - a food additive (it's in your beer and liquor), and vegetable glycerin. You're exhaling something that is completely harmless.

93, your gut is totally right. It's counter productive from a standpoint of common sense. It's just another way for the government to fleece it's citizens and is a disincentive to those who are actually trying to take advantage of healthier alternatives to smoking.

Big **** Brother strikes again.

Fear tactics from the government. That's why you have so many people thinking that when someone vapes it's just as dangerous then everyone gets all butt hurt about somebody smoking an e-cig

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

If we had any lawyers up here I would consult one on this matter.

Good one, Zeus.

Good move

In many states, minors are allowed to buy e-cigs, getting them addicted to nicotine and then on cigarettes.


Another issue is since there is no regulation, there is no labeling or other requirements - while Baldy claims that e-cigs only have those three chemicals, there is no way of knowing that, and tests have shown many other chemicals in them, particularly for flavoring.

It is also another myth that just because something is FDA approved for one use, it is safe for all uses. A product that can be an additive to food change chemical composition when heated and vaporized. Most flavored e-cigs emit high levels of formaldehyde, so claims that the vapor is harmless is false also.

While e-cigarettes do not produce smoke, they do expose others to secondhand emissions. Little is known about these emissions or the potential harm they may cause. Two initial studies have found formaldehyde, benzene and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (all carcinogens) coming from those secondhand emissions. Other studies have shown that chemicals exhaled by users also contain formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and other potential toxins. There is no evidence that shows e-cigarettes emissions (secondhand aerosol) are safe for non-users to inhale.

dbackjon wrote:Good move

In many states, minors are allowed to buy e-cigs, getting them addicted to nicotine and then on cigarettes.


Another issue is since there is no regulation, there is no labeling or other requirements - while Baldy claims that e-cigs only have those three chemicals, there is no way of knowing that, and tests have shown many other chemicals in them, particularly for flavoring.

It is also another myth that just because something is FDA approved for one use, it is safe for all uses. A product that can be an additive to food change chemical composition when heated and vaporized. Most flavored e-cigs emit high levels of formaldehyde, so claims that the vapor is harmless is false also.

While e-cigarettes do not produce smoke, they do expose others to secondhand emissions. Little is known about these emissions or the potential harm they may cause. Two initial studies have found formaldehyde, benzene and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (all carcinogens) coming from those secondhand emissions. Other studies have shown that chemicals exhaled by users also contain formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and other potential toxins. There is no evidence that shows e-cigarettes emissions (secondhand aerosol) are safe for non-users to inhale.

So you're clearly against the legalization/proliferation of marijuana then I take it.

Baldy wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
From what I know/read:

1. This is vaping
2. You're still inhaling nicotine

To me, the benefit of the e-cig is that there's no smoke, therefore you can smoke that tacky thing in a restaurant. But, you're still exhaling something that might not be as bad a cigarette smoke, but it's not exactly safe either.


Either way, only dbags use e-cigs.


Sorry, WTAG.

If you don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best to stay silent.

1. Nicotine is no worse than caffeine. The benefits of e-cigs are that you're not inhaling carcinogens like benzo[a]pyrene, Benzene, and Nitrosamine. You're also not coating your heart and lungs with tobacco tar, either.

2. E-cig juice contains nicotine, propylene glycol - a food additive (it's in your beer and liquor), and vegetable glycerin. You're exhaling something that is completely harmless.

93, your gut is totally right. It's counter productive from a standpoint of common sense. It's just another way for the government to fleece it's citizens and is a disincentive to those who are actually trying to take advantage of healthier alternatives to smoking.

Big Fucking Brother strikes again.

It's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

1. Who is talking about caffeine? Studies have shown that they contain carcinogens and other chemicals like formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. They even have levels of toxic metals. Less harmful than cigarettes, sure. But safe? Not by much. Also, food grade is one thing. Food grade is for INGESTION. Your stomach can tolerate a lot. That is not to say that inhaling a food grade item doesn't contain a risk. It might be perfectly safe. But using the "food additive" line is just naive. Formaldehyde, for example, is normally ok when we ingest it in fruits and vegatables. But when it's inhaled, it can pose problems. And researchers have noticed that the levels in e-cigs aren't necessarily bad, but that's because we don't have years of data and research to make a determination.


2. Again, not completely harmless. See point 1.

There's no long term data on e-cig use so we can't say anything for sure. But it's not as harmless as you have been led to believe.

If we assume that inhaling formaldehyde-releasing agents carries the same risk per unit of formaldehyde as the risk associated with inhaling gaseous formaldehyde, then long-term vaping is associated with an incremental lifetime cancer risk of 4.2×10−3. This risk is 5 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Miyake and Shibamoto shown in Figure 1), or even 15 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Counts et al. shown in Figure 1) as the risk associated with long-term smoking. In addition, formaldehyde-releasing agents may deposit more efficiently in the respiratory tract than gaseous formaldehyde, and so they could carry a higher slope factor for cancer.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069

That's the New England Journal of Medicine. Pretty prestigious.

Ibanez wrote:

Baldy wrote: If you don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best to stay silent.

1. Nicotine is no worse than caffeine. The benefits of e-cigs are that you're not inhaling carcinogens like benzo[a]pyrene, Benzene, and Nitrosamine. You're also not coating your heart and lungs with tobacco tar, either.

2. E-cig juice contains nicotine, propylene glycol - a food additive (it's in your beer and liquor), and vegetable glycerin. You're exhaling something that is completely harmless.

93, your gut is totally right. It's counter productive from a standpoint of common sense. It's just another way for the government to fleece it's citizens and is a disincentive to those who are actually trying to take advantage of healthier alternatives to smoking.

Big Fucking Brother strikes again.

It's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

1. Who is talking about caffeine? Studies have shown that they contain carcinogens and other chemicals like formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. They even have levels of toxic metals. Less harmful than cigarettes, sure. But safe? Not by much. Also, food grade is one thing. Food grade is for INGESTION. Your stomach can tolerate a lot. That is not to say that inhaling a food grade item doesn't contain a risk. It might be perfectly safe. But using the "food additive" line is just naive. Formaldehyde, for example, is normally ok when we ingest it in fruits and vegatables. But when it's inhaled, it can pose problems. And researchers have noticed that the levels in e-cigs aren't necessarily bad, but that's because we don't have years of data and research to make a determination.


2. Again, not completely harmless. See point 1.

There's no long term data on e-cig use so we can't say anything for sure. But it's not as harmless as you have been led to believe.

If we assume that inhaling formaldehyde-releasing agents carries the same risk per unit of formaldehyde as the risk associated with inhaling gaseous formaldehyde, then long-term vaping is associated with an incremental lifetime cancer risk of 4.2×10−3. This risk is 5 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Miyake and Shibamoto shown in Figure 1), or even 15 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Counts et al. shown in Figure 1) as the risk associated with long-term smoking. In addition, formaldehyde-releasing agents may deposit more efficiently in the respiratory tract than gaseous formaldehyde, and so they could carry a higher slope factor for cancer.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069

That's the New England Journal of Medicine. Pretty prestigious.

Yeah, the New England Journal of Medicine. On the front lines of the anti-smoking Nazi Establishment, and the anti-smoking crowd are anti-ecigs.

From your "study":

At low voltage (3.3 V), we did not detect the formation of any formaldehyde-releasing agents (estimated limit of detection, approximately 0.1 μg per 10 puffs). At high voltage (5.0 V), a mean (±SE) of 380±90 μg per sample (10 puffs) of formaldehyde was detected as formaldehyde-releasing agents. Extrapolating from the results at high voltage, an e-cigarette user vaping at a rate of 3 ml per day would inhale 14.4±3.3 mg of formaldehyde per day in formaldehyde-releasing agents.

The standard ecig battery is rated at 3.7 volts. Clearly in the "did not detect the formation of any formaldehyde-releasing agents" category.

At the high voltage levels (5.0V) the "test" used 14-16 watts of energy to come to it's conclusions. The problem with that is most commercial atomizers (the thing that turns the liquid into vapor) will cook and burn the liquid when the wattage that high. So yeah, it might be harmful to a tiny degree is you burn the liquid and vape the smoke. In other words, you would have to heat the liquid to about 600 degrees C to reach those "harmful" levels. Most vaping occurs around 200-260 degrees C. Unrealistic and unnatural levels that no user would every reach .

Junk "science"

It's probably time to abandon this thread Iby.

Baldy wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
It's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

1. Who is talking about caffeine? Studies have shown that they contain carcinogens and other chemicals like formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. They even have levels of toxic metals. Less harmful than cigarettes, sure. But safe? Not by much. Also, food grade is one thing. Food grade is for INGESTION. Your stomach can tolerate a lot. That is not to say that inhaling a food grade item doesn't contain a risk. It might be perfectly safe. But using the "food additive" line is just naive. Formaldehyde, for example, is normally ok when we ingest it in fruits and vegatables. But when it's inhaled, it can pose problems. And researchers have noticed that the levels in e-cigs aren't necessarily bad, but that's because we don't have years of data and research to make a determination.


2. Again, not completely harmless. See point 1.

There's no long term data on e-cig use so we can't say anything for sure. But it's not as harmless as you have been led to believe.



http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069

That's the New England Journal of Medicine. Pretty prestigious.

Yeah, the New England Journal of Medicine. On the front lines of the anti-smoking Nazi Establishment, and the anti-smoking crowd are anti-ecigs.

From your "study":

At low voltage (3.3 V), we did not detect the formation of any formaldehyde-releasing agents (estimated limit of detection, approximately 0.1 μg per 10 puffs). At high voltage (5.0 V), a mean (±SE) of 380±90 μg per sample (10 puffs) of formaldehyde was detected as formaldehyde-releasing agents. Extrapolating from the results at high voltage, an e-cigarette user vaping at a rate of 3 ml per day would inhale 14.4±3.3 mg of formaldehyde per day in formaldehyde-releasing agents.

The standard ecig battery is rated at 3.7 volts. Clearly in the "did not detect the formation of any formaldehyde-releasing agents" category.

At the high voltage levels (5.0V) the "test" used 14-16 watts of energy to come to it's conclusions. The problem with that is most commercial atomizers (the thing that turns the liquid into vapor) will cook and burn the liquid when the wattage that high. So yeah, it might be harmful to a tiny degree is you burn the liquid and vape the smoke. In other words, you would have to heat the liquid to about 600 degrees C to reach those "harmful" levels. Most vaping occurs around 200-260 degrees C. Unrealistic and unnatural levels that no user would every reach .

Junk "science"

It's probably time to abandon this thread Iby.

SO it's ok as long as you don't exceed 3.7 volts?

How many packs do you smoke a day? Or bottles? Or what ever those faggy things are called?

GOD wrote:If we had any lawyers up here I would consult one on this matter.

Btw, I only looked on 1 website but there are batteries that exceed that 3.7 volts number. But that isn't the point. The point is that these things can potentially by dangerous for your health. We all engage in unhealthy activity in one way or another.

It seems odd to me
That anyone would want to control others behavior in regards to something like e-cigs
Education and scientific research - sure - but control..?

Meh...

93henfan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Good move

In many states, minors are allowed to buy e-cigs, getting them addicted to nicotine and then on cigarettes.


Another issue is since there is no regulation, there is no labeling or other requirements - while Baldy claims that e-cigs only have those three chemicals, there is no way of knowing that, and tests have shown many other chemicals in them, particularly for flavoring.

It is also another myth that just because something is FDA approved for one use, it is safe for all uses. A product that can be an additive to food change chemical composition when heated and vaporized. Most flavored e-cigs emit high levels of formaldehyde, so claims that the vapor is harmless is false also.

So you're clearly against the legalization/proliferation of marijuana then I take it.

Nope - not advocating for making e-cigs illegal. Just need regulation. big difference.


If you want to smoke or vape in your own home, go for it, as long as you are an adult.

Chizzang wrote:It seems odd to me
That anyone would want to control others behavior in regards to something like e-cigs
Education and scientific research - sure - but control..?

Meh...

This clean shaven hippie gets it.

Ibanez wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Yeah, the New England Journal of Medicine. On the front lines of the anti-smoking Nazi Establishment, and the anti-smoking crowd are anti-ecigs.

From your "study":

The standard ecig battery is rated at 3.7 volts. Clearly in the "did not detect the formation of any formaldehyde-releasing agents" category.

At the high voltage levels (5.0V) the "test" used 14-16 watts of energy to come to it's conclusions. The problem with that is most commercial atomizers (the thing that turns the liquid into vapor) will cook and burn the liquid when the wattage that high. So yeah, it might be harmful to a tiny degree is you burn the liquid and vape the smoke. In other words, you would have to heat the liquid to about 600 degrees C to reach those "harmful" levels. Most vaping occurs around 200-260 degrees C. Unrealistic and unnatural levels that no user would every reach .

Junk "science"

It's probably time to abandon this thread Iby.

SO it's ok as long as you don't exceed 3.7 volts?

How many packs do you smoke a day? Or bottles? Or what ever those faggy things are called?

No, it's Ok as long as you don't exceed 600 degrees Celsius, which nobody does anyway.

BTW, those faggy things are called Chanticleers.



See the cod sack sitting on it's chin.

Baldy wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
SO it's ok as long as you don't exceed 3.7 volts?

How many packs do you smoke a day? Or bottles? Or what ever those faggy things are called?

No, it's Ok as long as you don't exceed 600 degrees Celsius, which nobody does anyway.

BTW, those faggy things are called Chanticleers.



See the cod sack sitting on it's chin.

Really? That's the best you got? Weak.


So what flavor do you smoke? Bubble gum? Watermelon? Or are you a straight, perfectly harmless nicotine guy?

Btw, I'm the first to talk shit about that chicken so your ballsack jokes aren't hurtful. Or clever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ibanez wrote:

Baldy wrote: No, it's Ok as long as you don't exceed 600 degrees Celsius, which nobody does anyway.

BTW, those faggy things are called Chanticleers.



See the cod sack sitting on it's chin.

Really? That's the best you got? Weak.


So what flavor do you smoke? Bubble gum? Watermelon? Or are you a straight, perfectly harmless nicotine guy?

I don't smoke, Ace.

But, it doesn't surprise me that you're one of those run for the exit because somebody is vaping kinda guy.

Baldy wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Really? That's the best you got? Weak.


So what flavor do you smoke? Bubble gum? Watermelon? Or are you a straight, perfectly harmless nicotine guy?

I don't smoke, Ace.

But, it doesn't surprise me that you're one of those run for the exit because somebody is vaping kinda guy.

Who says I am? I have some friends that vape and it doesn't bother me.

Ibanez wrote:

Baldy wrote:
I don't smoke, Ace.

But, it doesn't surprise me that you're one of those run for the exit because somebody is vaping kinda guy.

Who says I am? I have some friends that vape and it doesn't bother me.

You have gay friends?!?

Shocker!