Not really. The major tobacco manufacturers dominate e-cig marketshare in the US.
The way it benefits them is that smaller players can afford the regulation less, ensuring the tobacco manufacturers can get a total lock on the market.
I'm curious what leads you to believe this? Perhaps they lead in the "gas station disposables" market, but almost no one uses those. Anyone serious about using an ecig uses the larger 650 (minimum) mah batteries with detachable ~atomizers (because nothing smaller than that performs adequately) and those are manufactured almost exclusively by independent Chinese companies and sold via independent websites and retail stores.
All the available sales data, such as this: http://www.journalnow.com/blu-ecigs-brand-has-lost-market-sh...
According to Nielsen data as of May 16, Vuse has a 35.7 percent U.S. market share as measured by all distribution channels for e-cigs. Vuse is available at more than 100,000 retail outlets nationwide.
Blu eCigs was second in market share at 22.7 percent, while Logic was third at 13.8 percent. Logic was bought recently by Japan Tobacco.
There is a lot of data missing from independent vape shops, yes. But the numbers we have indicate Big Tobacco is moving near a billion dollars worth of e-cigs a year.
> Anyone serious about using an ecig uses the larger 650 (minimum) mah batteries with detachable ~atomizers (because nothing smaller than that performs adequately) and those are manufactured almost exclusively by independent Chinese companies and sold via independent websites and retail stores.
People serious about coffee buy their own beans sourced from great growers, get a grinder, etc etc. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the millions of people who buy coffee get it from places like McDonald's and Starbucks and instant coffee containers.
And at any rate, parts and liquids sourced from independent Chinese companies and sold via independent websites sounds exactly like the kind of thing that should be regulated and inspected.
> Nevertheless, the vast majority of the millions of people who buy coffee get it from places like McDonald's and Starbucks and instant coffee containers.
I suppose one might think this is a valid comparison, but it simply is not. Try this: for the next few weeks when you're out and about, pay attention to the types of ecigs people are using in public, I guarantee you it isn't the tiny Blu or Vuse disposables; I see at least 25 people a day using ecigs in the wild, and I have literally never seen anyone using one of these disposables that is being reported on in that statistic.
Or if you are genuinely curious in discovering the correct answer to this question:
https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette
https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/search?q=vuse&...
https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_cigarette/search?q=blu&r...
Based on the virtually unanimous opinion on reddit (or any other ecig forum for that matter) that disposables suck, as well as never seeing them in public, I find that "a little" hard to believe.
Most people don't have Sennheisers.
And college campuses (and the areas around them) are totally a representative cross-section of the general; population on all things, including mechanisms of tobacco consumption, right?
Your tone makes it sound like you're kind of hostile to the very idea, do you have some personal attachment to the matter?
The fact that they are demonstrably not representative of the general population by age, income, education, or, really, just about any other variable that has been studied makes it very unlikely that they'd be, except coincidentally, representative as far as purchasing patterns for any particular good for which a variety of options exists (unless its a good purchases nearly exclusively by college students, but that's clearly not the case here.)
I suppose one might think this is a valid comparison, but it simply is not. Who you encounter isn't a representative sample of the population, its skewed by your own age, location, socioeconomic class, etc.
It was actually incredible to me that e-cigs got away with so little regulation for so long in the first place. The only thing I'm worried about is it's too little, too late: there are a lot of people now who are hooked on nicotine who weren't before, and the constant barrage of marketing claiming they are perfectly safe is only making matters worse.
And yes, I recognize that it possibly has some use in helping smokers quit or move to a nicotine delivery system that is most probably less harmful. If that's the justification for e-cigs, then limit sales to smokers.
E-cigarettes are 100x dorkier than cigarettes and much more annoying to use. Virtually none of my smoker friends stick with them for very long.
I said "who weren't before", i.e., there are new nicotine addicts who became addicted through e-cig usage (and probably would not have become addicted otherwise.) I did not say, and I doubt, that there are more nicotine addicts than before given the general downward trend in smoking.
I generally see two types of people vaping or using e-cigs: middle schoolers and smokers who want an additional fix, often in places they aren't allowed to smoke - for some reason a huge number of vapers, etc. think that no-smoking rules don't apply to them. I've seen people get violent over being asked to stop vaping in a no-smoking area twice.
I guess I'm saying: I'm really skeptical of your claim that e-cigarettes are introducing more people to smoking. Cigarettes already do a pretty amazing job of introducing people to smoking.
† As the parent of someone who was a middle schooler just last year, let me add that I would be flabbergasted to see one of them vaping, but not entirely surprised to see them with a cigarette. If I saw a teenager vaping, "tobacco" would not be my first guess as to the intoxicant involved.
I framed it the way I did because all I have is anecdotes. When I say "a lot of people are addicted to nicotine that weren't before" this is substantiated by my personal knowledge of around three dozen individuals.
> I'm really skeptical of your claim that e-cigarettes are introducing more people to smoking.
There are more than three hundred million people in the US. E-cigs are a multibillion dollar industry. It would be astonishing if there was no one introduced to nicotine by e-cigs.
> vaping indoors was pretty common a couple years ago, it's been more than a year since I saw anyone do it in Chicago.
> As the parent of someone who was a middle schooler just last year, let me add that I would be flabbergasted to see one of them vaping,
Some of this is probably cultural. I've never been to Chicago, but Chicago friends tell me that people are generally much health-focused in Chicago. I live in a southern rural area, and from what a teacher friend tells me and from my own observation, about a third of local middle schoolers vape. I can definitely believe this is an outlier, but even that's too much, in my opinion, considering it didn't have to be that way. There are much fewer smokers, and that's been about constant.
This city is practically made of sausage. Its official vegetable is bacon.
I'm sure someone, somewhere has gotten hooked on nicotine by way of e-cigarettes, but it's nowhere close to cigarettes. A 12 year old can get a pack of cigarettes and hand them out to their friends. Try that with one of those dorky e-cig pens.
> Try that with one of those dorky e-cig pens.
They just pass them around if someone doesn't have one.
[1] http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/cdph/CDP...
I think you're wrong about the general argument you're trying to make about e-cigarettes.
About 2 of every 100 middle school students (2.3%) reported in 2015 that they smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth...
Findings from the 2014 National Youth Tobacco Survey show that current e-cigarette use (use on at least 1 day in the past 30 days) among high school students increased from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent in 2014, rising from approximately 660,000 to 2 million students http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p0416-e-cigarette-use...
PS: Why do you constantly say stuff like this when fact's are clearly not on your side?
During 2000--2009, the prevalence of current tobacco use among middle school students declined (15.1% to 8.2%), as did current cigarette use (11.0% to 5.2%) and cigarette smoking experimentation (29.8% to 15.0%)
I don't smoke or vape, but I really don't see why vaping is so unpopular. Is it just "drugs are bad" again? I again don't get it, as nobody complains about seeing people drinking coffee in public. As far as I can tell, caffeine and nicotine are similar drugs with different delivery mechanisms. Except nobody is worried about high school students getting hooked on caffeine from flavored coffee beverages.
Unfortunately my friends of friends who vape didn't get this memo. People who never would have picked up smoking are now addicted to vaping.
It's also a bluenose idea: Kids are using a mind altering drug! OMG! Other than the approved ones like caffeine in Mountain Dew and Coke, which, with the sugar, are certainly more harmful than nicotine.
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press_releases/post/2016_05_0...
You could say the same thing about most products.
Imagine if every food on the market had to pay a million dollars to get certified.
If the FDA wanted to run a generic study on whether vaping was safe, I would applaud it. Even if it charged ten million dollars across the entire industry to fund that study, that would be fine. But making every manufacturer go through an independent highly-expensive process is a product of regulatory capture, not to keep anyone safe.
Even if the individual drugs have their own certification, mixing them and packaging them together requires a new certification. Now of course, the new cert will rely heavily on the existing docs, so it's not like everything has to be re-proved again, but the interaction & effects thereof are scrutinized a bit more heavily.
Of course this is assuming that the goal of the FDA is to genuinely protect consumers.
I'm aware of at least one component - styrene - which has been linked to cancer and is commonly present in fragrances.
Yeah the date chosen serves PM's needs, but I don't think it hurts public health.
edit: Studies are continually being done, and so far the results are pretty clear: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/08August/Pages/E-cigarettes-95-p...
As to your point, they may be safer than regular cigarettes but what's even safer is not smoking anything around me or my family. I don't how safe they are because there are no regulations [1]. If the vapers think they are safe enough to be used in close proximity to toddlers, then the e-cig companies have done a fantastic job of marketing. I'm totally ok with FDA regulating them.
1. http://www.babycentre.co.uk/x25008143/is-it-safe-to-use-e-ci...
Or you just happened to run into an uneducated/unintillegent/dishonest person smoking an e-cig.
> The emissions discharge water, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nicotine into indoor air at levels far lower than found with tobacco cigarettes (Schripp et al., 2013).
http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_528.php
In addition, e-cigarettes dont always have nicotine and often have lower amounts than cigarettes. Further making the fear of momentarily sitting near someone smoking an e-cigarette outside almost irrational in terms of health risks.
In terms of not wanting vapor being blown in your face, then I agree there is a social etiquette that should be respected.
And yes, if once talked to, someone continues to bathe themselves in scents that gag other people, they need to be let go. The flagrant disrespect for people who have to be around you for 8 hours a day is too much.
And what if the device isn't safe in some way? What if it's likely to explode? Or the way it vaporizes things can tend to produce some sort of unexpectedly toxic chemical, perhaps only with certain vaping fluid?
These kind of concerns are why people want them regulated.
"What's Causing Some E-Cigarette Batteries to Explode?", NBC News, 2 months ago
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/what-s-causing-some...
> Or the way it vaporizes things can tend to produce some sort of unexpectedly toxic chemical perhaps only with certain vaping fluid?
The contents of the fluid was unregulated, so how can you say that's not even a theoretical concern? A quick Google search shows a TON of recipes which could easily cause problems. How can you be sure that some fluid works fine with most e-cigs but when used by one that runs a bit hotter it doesn't cause a fire or have some chemical reaction between components that generates some dangerous gas? What if the fluid somehow reacts with the plastic or metal inside your specific e-cig?
> Dosage of what? The contents of e-cigs has been unregulated until now.
And it's not like anyone has ever seen cases of normally safe products made in an unsafe way put on the market.
http://time.com/107922/china-pet-food-contamination-recall-v...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8944028...
http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/lumber-liquidators-halts-chines...
http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/18/toxic-hair-straighteners-inte...
Of course some batteries explode. Shall we also ban laptops and cell phones?
As for content of the juice, sure there has been a few incidents of chemicals discovered to be potentially unsafe, but that's a far cry from " tend to produce some sort of unexpectedly toxic chemical". (What does that even mean, it sounds like we live in pre-scientific times and the world is a completely mystery to us.)
> How can you be sure that some fluid works fine with most e-cigs but when used by one that runs a bit hotter it doesn't cause a fire or have some chemical reaction between components that generates some dangerous gas?
There is no theoretical basis in chemistry to believe this, and there is extremely widespread usage of ecigs with no incidents.
But sure, anything in the world is possible I suppose considering you cannot prove a negative. I'm going to start wearing safety goggles when using my computer in case the screen explodes, after all, even though there's no theoretical reason to fear this and no incidences of it happening, it could, couldn't it. :)
http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/14771/how-does-...
I am not even talking about toxic common household chemicals - just the food items, directly intended for consumption.
I have no doubt FDA would love to regulate all of the above but it's specifically prevented from this. AFAIK it cannot regulate substances, which were in use when FDA was established. I hope somebody takes them to court since nicotine had been in use long before FDA.
I think people are confusing "regulation" with "I need a doctor's prescription to buy". Caffeine is already regulated by the FDA.
Or maybe we should back up even further. Are you ideologically opposed to all kinds of regulation, including the kind of regulation the FDA already applies to existing over-the-counter and prescription drugs?
Yes I do. The regulation in OP has nothing to do with safety and everything with giving the monopoly to the right people. If you are concerned about safety then the generic food/household chemicals safety protocols are applicable here. Nobody needs to go through FDA approval for the new vintage of every wine on the market. You can even blend different grapes! FDA has no say in this.
More - safety is not a problem now. There are no reports of people suffering en masse from unregulated e-juice or premium cigars. Then, why exactly do they need to be regulated?
In the beginning of the thread, I said that I do not necessarily think the regulations should be the same as cigarettes. In other words, I am not sure if I agree with the regulations that are described in the article. I bring this up because you said "the regulation in the OP has nothing to do..." in a manner that implies to me that you think I am discussing those regulations. I am not.
However, several people have said they want no regulation, which to me seems extreme. That would make the regulation of liquid nicotine less than that of other drugs like caffeine, ibuprofen and aspirin.
I find your wine example to be strange, as wine and alcoholic drinks in general are heavily regulated, just not by the FDA. For wine specifically, see: https://www.ttb.gov/wine/index.shtml
To your question, which is why do I think think these vials should be regulated the same as existing drugs? Because it is a drug, and I think the FDA should regulate all drugs. Drug safety is generally not a problem because of regulation. I also linked to a NYT article which shows that there are problems where children handle the liquid nicotine and get very sick. Liquid nicotine is toxic, which some people don't realize. And it is a problem with "supplements" which the FDA is not allowed to regulate. So, three questions. One, do you support the FDA regulating drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen? Two, if you do, why do you want to treat nicotine differently? Third, are you ideologically opposed to all food and drug regulation?
I ask the third question because if you are ideologically opposed to all food and drug regulation, then there's no point in discussing the particulars of regulating nicotine.
It might be a drug by some definition, but it's not by law and, by the same law, FDA cannot regulate all drugs but only new ones.
>One, do you support the FDA regulating drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen?
In general, I do not support FDA at all and think this agency has long overstepped it's mandate and in need of serious regulations for itself. In particular, I do not see how giving aspirin to FDA is going to do any good. It's not like children never got poisoned by FDA-approved drugs.
>Third, are you ideologically opposed to all food and drug regulation?
No, only pragmatically. If you can show a regulation improving life of anybody other than people administering it on expense of general public then I am all for it.
But, since you are opposed to the FDA in general, then I think our discussion of the FDA regulating this nicotine product is not productive - our disagreement is not on any particular aspect of this particular drug, but in the existence of the FDA, and regulations in general. You object to all FDA regulations, not just nicotine. That is a much larger discussion, which I don't particularly want to engage in right now.
And it's able to do so because these are sold as a cure for smoking i.e. a medicine. If you tried to sell charcoal as a cure for, say, cancer then FDA would be in its right to regulate you as well. I do not oppose FDA overseeing medical claims on principle. More, I think this is exactly what FDA should be doing. And I agree that this discussion is going nowhere, you seem to consider regulation good by itself, which should be enforced no matter the effects.
I think the problem here is that people use "regulation" as a synonym for "hard to get", but that's not what it means. Yes, part of regulation is in controlling consumer access, but regulation also applies to the manufacturing and distribution of the drug.
It's also worth noting that in the future, the FDA may enact stricter controls on powdered caffeine: http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm460...
The majority of mainstream manufacturers are very straightforward about EXACTLY is in their juice, and the industry has been very responsible with self-regulation, such as with diacetyl which seems to be a genuine possible risk and is now largely avoided.
If safer is what matters, then it matters not only whether it leads to a lower volume of smoking but whether the (volume of smoking) × (harm from smoking) + (volume of vaping) × (harm from vaping) is lower under one regime than another. Its possible for the "no vaping" case to be safer in total than the "with vaping" case, even if the harm from vaping is lower and the volume of smoking is lower with vaping available.
We seem to be leaving that world.
There are two issues here.
First, the government has absolutely no right to tell me what I can or can't do "for my own good" at the point of a gun (even though it does so already in many ways), and this is just another attack on my freedom.
Even if you buy into the government's "right" to control the personal behavior of consenting adults behind closed doors titularly because of "public health", this legislation isn't about that.
>Each application could cost $1 million or more
Creating such an expensive and onerous application process insures that the vast majority of e-cigarettes won't ever make it to the "approval process". Only corporations with very deep pockets will have access to this market after this law is passed, and that access has absolutely nothing to do with public health.
That's the issue here
> Philip Morris’s motives notwithstanding, the legislation has broad support from nearly 1,000 advocacy groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which led the negotiations with the company, as well as the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society.
And today public health organizations like the American Lung Association and American Heart Association are welcoming the FDA rule:
http://www.lung.org/about-us/media/press-releases/fda-assert...
http://newsroom.heart.org/news/new-rule-gives-fda-tighter-gr...
Phillip Morris' involvement is not a form of corruption, or social proof the rule is secretly bad for everyone. It's the natural consequence of our system of government, which says that persons and companies subject to new laws are allowed to have a say in the process. Google fought SOPA, for example.
The benefit to Phillip Morris is to deny new entrants to the tobacco market. This is also a benefit to public health, plus health advocates hope that the regulations will help shrink the overall market for tobacco products in the U.S.
Edit: throwaway_yy2Di says the bill is bad for public health based on nothing, and is the top comment. 1,000 public health orgs say the bill is good for public health (in the same story!), and this comment is sitting at 0. I guess that's HN for ya...
No one knows if that is true yet, which is one reason the regulation was created. Again, from the American Lung Association:
> Absent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, there is no way for the public health and medical community or consumers to know what chemicals are contained in e-cigarettes (also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems or ENDS) or what the short- and long-term health implications might be.
http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/tobacco/oversight-and-re...
In addition, e-cig vs. tobacco cig is not a zero sum. E-cig use is growing among youth who have never smoked before. If the e-cig market was all smokers switching to e-cigs, your comment would make sense, but that's not the market.
From what I've read - evidence has been piling up that ecigs are in fact a far healthier alternative to tobacco.
Example (of many): "E-cigarettes are not completely risk free but when compared to smoking, evidence shows they carry just a fraction of the harm. The problem is people increasingly think they are at least as harmful and this may be keeping millions of smokers from quitting."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...
From my point of view, the US government has prioritized tax revenue over public health.
I'm certainly NOT against reasonable laws and health regulation - but overbearing, expensive regulations will most likely kill more people by causing them to continue tobacco smoking. The vast majority of smokers are poor - and fewer of them will be able to afford ecigs under these regulations.
It would be reasonable to expand and federally regulate the current system of third party lab testing to include all liquids and consumer equipment. Almost all domestically produced base liquids and nicotines are FDA approved. Most consumer equipment (coils, batteries, etc) I've seen at shops are also lab tested.
But instead, the government has again aligned with tobacco companies to maintain their tax base and tobacco profits. It's a disgusting abuse of regulatory powers.
Nonsense, reputable manufacturers are very straightforward about what is in their juice. Furthermore, while FDA oversight would undoubtedly increase quality standards to some degree, it doesn't guarantee purity and compliance.
On certain topics some people seem determined to not use common sense.
For safety, there is more to it than the ingredients:
http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/14771/how-does-...
Very interesting, so perhaps there is at least some theoretical risk!
Altria (Philip Morris parent company) was the only tobacco player not to say a word once the Act passed.
Considering the amount of money cigarette manufacturers pay out to the government and states it makes sense that anything that takes their place needs to be proven safe or not safe and then handled accordingly.
Beware status quo bias.
Is alcohol, high-fructose corn syrup, or grilled red meat "proven safe"?