The Jaxson

Community => Public Safety => Topic started by: BridgeTroll on April 08, 2016, 07:58:39 AM

Title: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 08, 2016, 07:58:39 AM
Anyone here Vape?  I did for awhile before I quit nicotine completely...

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/vapings-dirty-little-secret-e-cigarettes-vape-manufacturing-regulations

Quote
A stained concrete floor is littered with cardboard boxes, large plastic jugs half filled with liquid flavorings, and milk crates full of empty containers. A stainless steel cart holds a precarious arrangement of pump-topped bottles, measuring cups, and a pad of folded paper towel stained with candy-colored rings. A bug clings to a mound of plastic lids.

Last fall, images of these scenes surfaced online, depicting the manufacturing facilities of Dr. Crimmy’s, a fast-growing e-liquid company based in Gainesville, Georgia. Many in the vaping community were disgusted, and vowed to drop the brand from their rotation. The company’s owner defended the photos—reportedly taken by a former employee and leaked to Convicted Vapes, an e-liquid review YouTube channel—saying they were not only months old, but also taken out of context, and mostly depicted areas where production was not taking place. The company currently works out of a lab that, at least on the surface, appears to be much more sanitary and controlled.

But the incident was illustrative of a pervasive problem in vaping. Because the industry is federally unregulated, e-liquids can be manufactured just about anywhere: in a controlled, sterile lab, on a tool bench in a garage, or anything in between. With no oversight or governing agency, consumers often have no idea where on this spectrum the lab making their favorite juice falls. It’s only when companies get publicly outed, or post carefully-choreographed lab tour videos, that customers get a glimpse at how the sausage (-flavored e-liquid) is made.

And so the idea of a garage lab has become a part of vaping mythology that’s difficult to shake. As far as I can tell, no company has been publicly exposed for mixing juice in an actual garage, but many in the industry tell me there are some set-ups that are little better.

Though federal regulations are coming, the industry has been attempting to self-regulate for years, both to root out any bad actors and to prepare for the new laws. With hundreds of vaping companies in the US, it hasn’t been an easy task, especially because there’s still no consensus on exactly what a “good lab” should look like.

It’s left the vape industry facing some difficult questions. Will the self-imposed regulations be enough to help the industry quickly meet standards when the axe finally falls? And can vaping ever escape the stigma of the proverbial garage lab?

“We lost customers and we gained customers. As far as overall how it hurt the business? It could have been a lot worse,” Jerry Kramer, general manager and head of operations at Dr. Crimmy's, said about the photo leak last fall. “It was a hard situation. I think everybody learned from it, though.”

Some of the images, the owners said at the time, depicted the commercial facility where they had been making juice, but were snapped during a renovation when no production was taking place. The rest of the images, which show what looks like active production, were of the owner’s basement, where a makeshift lab had been created while the company waited for the renovations to be complete.
(http://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/32278/1459974061795413.jpg)
Since May of last year, Dr. Crimmy’s has been operating out of its newly-renovated commercial facilities which, in a video posted online, appear to be clean and tidy and the company has implemented high cleanliness standards, according to Kramer. The workers don gowns, gloves, and hair nets before entering the mixing room. The work stations are made of stainless steel, and the mixing room walls and floors are coated in an easily-cleaned epoxy. The entire lab is scrubbed and sanitized at least once a day, Kramer said, and none of the liquids are ever unsealed outside the mixing room. They’re also hoping to move to a larger facility with an ISO-certified clean room later this year.

“I can honestly say that if there were regulations and [regulators] wanted to step in this building today, they would have no problem with the way we’re doing things,” Kramer told me.

Regulations are coming. In 2014, the Food and Drug Administration released proposed regulations for e-cigarettes: a preview of the finalized laws that will be released later this year. The proposals include requiring vaping product manufacturing facilities to register with the FDA and be subject to random inspections. All products would also have to provide the FDA with complete and accurate ingredient lists.

“FDA would be able to take enforcement action against any tobacco products that did not meet these basic standards,” the proposal reads. “If a product was produced in insanitary conditions or was contaminated, or if its labeling contained a misleading claim it would be subject to FDA enforcement action, including seizure or injunction.”

The trouble in the meantime is that the definition of "insanitary" changes depending on who you ask. Do e-liquids—which are vaporized, then inhaled into the lungs, and often used as a way to quit smoking—need to be produced to the standards of medical grade products like inhalers? Or, as an alternative to cigarettes, are the kind of standards that the tobacco industry is held to good enough?

"We wanted to show them that we do have control. We do have standards."

There are industry groups trying to figure this out. The American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association (AEMSA) formed in 2012 to sort out these issues and create a framework of best practices for manufacturers to follow. The group updates its list of standards each year. The lengthy, detailed standards include requirements such as having childproof caps on all e-liquids, food-grade working surfaces in labs, and measuring nicotine for mixing using equipment that is calibrated to be either NIST or ASTM compliant.

Companies that pay for membership can become AEMSA certified once they prove that they follow the practices, but since the guidelines are posted online, any company can follow them, and many non-members advertise this choice, although there’s no one verifying it.

“We decided that setting standards for ourselves was absolutely something that we could do and should do,” Scott Eley, AEMSA’s president and one of its founding members, told me over the phone. “The vaping community at the time was billed as a bunch of crazy guys in a basement or bathroom or a garage making this e-liquid in buckets and not having any control. We wanted to show them that we do have control. We do have standards that we’re producing to.”

To create the standards, AEMSA looked to other industries like food production for inspiration, but also consulted with experts like Kurt Kistler, a chemistry professor at Penn State who studies e-cigarettes. Eley told me that the standards were primarily consumer-focused, but are also intended to protect workers who are having to interact with potentially harmful chemicals, such as liquid nicotine, and to prepare for the coming federal regulation.

Some producers go beyond even these standards, opting to invest in ISO-certified clean rooms to mix their juices. ISO—the International Organization for Standardization—will issue certifications for labs that meet the physical requirements for health and safety. This includes things from the type of surfaces in the room, to the type of equipment workers have to wear, but largely focuses on airflow and filtration. The lower the ISO number (for clean rooms, it ranges from 1 to 9), the more strictly the air in the room needs to be controlled. A lab that produces medical implants, for example, would need to have very high ISO certification to ensure nothing is contaminated.

Mitten Vapors, a Michigan-based e-liquid manufacturer, recently invested in upgraded facilities including an ISO-6 certified clean room.

“I believe it’s the highest that anybody in the industry has. There could be a company with a higher [ISO level], but not that I know of,” said Jamie Zichterman, the owner of Mitten Vapors. “I think we need to have certain standards in the industry. Right now there are new companies popping up every day and you don’t know if they’re making juice in a really clean lab or with their buddies out in a garage somewhere.”

It's not just clean manufacturing: Unlike the tobacco and alcohol industries, the vape industry currently has no federal regulations on packaging and marketing (though some states have passed laws on this front). Because of this, one of the biggest criticisms lobbed at vaping is that it’s attracting youth. In the US, more high schoolers use e-cigarettes than any other kind of nicotine product, and the use is increasing. This has legislators concerned, because while vaping has been shown to be much less harmful than smoking, it’s still not harm-free, and it’s not a habit anyone—including the vaping industry—wants teens picking up. There have also been a handful of reports of young children accidentally ingesting e-liquid and getting nicotine poisoning.

This is something the industry is independently working to address, too. Vape Free Youth is a collective of vaping companies committed to finding ways to reduce youth vaping, including child-proof lids, changing logos to be less cartoonish, and being more subtle about candy-flavored liquids.

Still, the specter of the garage lab juice factory still haunts the industry. Texas Rebel Juice, another e-liquid company, faced similar criticism to Dr. Crimmy’s when images of its lab, showing workers drinking and playing cards in the mixing room, were posted online in 2014. A company spokesperson said at the time that the photos were taken after hours, and some images were from before the room was finished and operational, but it still turned some vapers off the brand.

“People can't help but look at that and have some kind of reaction, most of which will be disappointment, confusion, concern,” one forum user wrote. “I saw it and started to wonder if my own vendors were doing the right thing and that had never crossed my mind before.”

Texas Rebel Juice did not immediately respond to Motherboard’s request for comment.

The truth is that lots of juice companies began as grassroots startups by vaping enthusiasts who went from making their own juice, to sharing with friends, to selling in a short period of time. That means that lots of juice companies in the US started off mixing in the owner’s home kitchen. How clean the setup was in that kitchen and how quickly the company moved to a more controlled, commercial space depends on the company. It’s also not unheard of for vape shop owners to slap on a pair of rubber gloves and mix a bottle of juice for a customer right on the store counter. So we’re left with an industry where pretty much anything goes.

“I truly believe, when people are just getting into the business, a lot more of that goes on than people think it does. I know it does,” Kramer told me. Even Dr. Crimmy’s started off in the owner’s kitchen in the beginning, he said.

After the Dr. Crimmy’s images were posted online, the owner and management took part in a live broadcast of Mod Envy, a vaping podcast and YouTube show. In what amounted to the vaping world equivalent of a tribunal, the Dr. Crimmy’s team fielded questions and criticisms from well-known vaping reviewers, who puffed on custom mods and squirmed uneasily at their explanations.

“I feel like I’m being lied to,” said Catelin Powers, an e-liquid reviewer, during the show.

As more information about the impacts of vaping becomes available, concerns over how juice is made and what it’s made of are swirling in the community. Though there will always be those vapers who don’t care what’s in their juice as long as it tastes good, more and more consumers are getting informed and demanding higher standards. The industry has come a long way, but until the formal requirements from the FDA are enacted, there are still plenty of pockets for kitchen-mixed juice companies to hide. As much as the industry has tried to self-regulate, it’s unlikely the spectre of the garage lab will truly be vanquished until federal regulations come into play.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misrepresented the federal cleanroom standards assigned by the International Standards Organization (ISO). The numbers range from 1 to 9, with lower numbers representing cleaner standards, and higher numbers allowing for dirtier conditions.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: spuwho on April 08, 2016, 08:07:26 AM
People actually tried to vape at work inside the building until the company banned them.

Vaping is good for those trying to kick "the Nic" as you can wean yourself down. But as a recreational activity, its a lot of money especially having to replace the coils.

If you like the flavor, then chew gum, but for some people, its an oral fixation issue.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 08, 2016, 08:10:17 AM
People actually tried to vape at work inside the building until the company banned them.

Vaping is good for those trying to kick "the Nic" as you can wean yourself down. But as a recreational activity, its a lot of money especially having to replace the coils.

If you like the flavor, then chew gum, but for some people, its an oral fixation issue.

At first I thought it would help me quit... for me it was exactly the opposite.  It gave me the ability to smoke in the house... in the bar... in the car... and as as true nicotine addict... I took advantage of every loophole possible to get my fix...lol
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Adam White on April 08, 2016, 08:16:45 AM
Vaping is gross. Maybe not any grosser than smoking. But at least smokers know their place.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 08, 2016, 08:23:51 AM
Vaping is gross. Maybe not any grosser than smoking. But at least smokers know their place.

Their "place"?  What is their "place"?
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Adam White on April 08, 2016, 09:22:09 AM
Vaping is gross. Maybe not any grosser than smoking. But at least smokers know their place.

Their "place"?  What is their "place"?

Well, outside or not in restaurants or not on trains, etc. Smokers tend to follow the rules (or the law). Vapists tend to exploit the grey areas, irrespective of whether or not it's bothering other people.

The other day, I was waiting for a train. When it arrived, the door opened and a woman stepped off while blowing her big lungful of vapor in my face. I guess she vaped on the train and was waiting to exhale.

For the record, I am an ex-smoker (which, in part, explains my self-righteousness).  I smoked for about 20 years and finally quit back in 2006.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Downtown Osprey on April 08, 2016, 12:12:42 PM
I've been vaping now for close to 3 years and the thought of a cigarette disgusts me. My breathing has been noticeably better, I don't smell or cough up a lung. In fact, I don't cough at all. Obviously, I know it's still not good for you, but either are a lot of things, like alcohol. But the difference in my mood and body has been night and day.

And for the record, not all people who vape are a-holes. I would never blow smoke in anyone's face. Maybe they were just a-holes to begin with. :)
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Gunnar on April 08, 2016, 12:45:34 PM
Vaping is gross. Maybe not any grosser than smoking. But at least smokers know their place.

Their "place"?  What is their "place"?

Re-education camps if the trend continues....
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Adam White on April 08, 2016, 01:50:55 PM


And for the record, not all people who vape are a-holes. I would never blow smoke in anyone's face. Maybe they were just a-holes to begin with. :)

I'm all about blanket statements!
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 08, 2016, 01:55:11 PM
I've been vaping now for close to 3 years and the thought of a cigarette disgusts me. My breathing has been noticeably better, I don't smell or cough up a lung. In fact, I don't cough at all. Obviously, I know it's still not good for you, but either are a lot of things, like alcohol. But the difference in my mood and body has been night and day.

And for the record, not all people who vape are a-holes. I would never blow smoke in anyone's face. Maybe they were just a-holes to begin with. :)

It certainly "seems" better... easier breathing... no brown loogies... smell.  It is still a nicotine delivery system for nicotine addicts.  Hell I probably would have walked around with an IV stuck in my arm if I could have.  Smokers and vapers do not bother me though... in fact I cant stand the way they are treated sometimes... just another form of social engineering...
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: codemonkey on April 08, 2016, 02:06:11 PM
... just another form of social engineering...

says the consumer of a product intentionally designed to get them addicted...
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Adam White on April 08, 2016, 02:14:27 PM
I've been vaping now for close to 3 years and the thought of a cigarette disgusts me. My breathing has been noticeably better, I don't smell or cough up a lung. In fact, I don't cough at all. Obviously, I know it's still not good for you, but either are a lot of things, like alcohol. But the difference in my mood and body has been night and day.

And for the record, not all people who vape are a-holes. I would never blow smoke in anyone's face. Maybe they were just a-holes to begin with. :)

It certainly "seems" better... easier breathing... no brown loogies... smell.  It is still a nicotine delivery system for nicotine addicts.  Hell I probably would have walked around with an IV stuck in my arm if I could have.  Smokers and vapers do not bother me though... in fact I cant stand the way they are treated sometimes... just another form of social engineering...

I don't like walking through someone's cancer cloud just so I can enter or leave a train station, wait for a bus, enter a shop, etc. I am constantly being forced to breathe other people's cigarette smoke. So I can't stand the way they treat me. Or my kid, for that matter.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 08, 2016, 02:24:10 PM
I feel the same about people walking around with colds and flu... or do not wash their hands after using the restroom... overly perfumed people should also be shunned... we might consider banning peanut eaters and alcohol users too.  Pot smoke wafting through the park ugh... BBQ smoke allowed into the air...blech... not to mention planes trains and automobile exhaust... the list is literally endless... but if we point at smokers and snicker... we can all feel better about ourselves...
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Adam White on April 08, 2016, 02:26:31 PM
I feel the same about people walking around with colds and flu... or do not wash their hands after using the restroom... overly perfumed people should also be shunned... we might consider banning peanut eaters and alcohol users too.  Pot smoke wafting through the park ugh... BBQ smoke allowed into the air...blech... not to mention planes trains and automobile exhaust... the list is literally endless... but if we point at smokers and snicker... we can all feel better about ourselves...

People cannot help being sick.

Forcing people to walk through your smoke cloud because you are standing in front of a door is a lot different. That's anti-social behaviour and it has possible health consequences. Not really the same as someone's perfume being too strong (which I hate and which tends to make me sneeze).
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Adam White on April 08, 2016, 02:31:31 PM
I've been vaping now for close to 3 years and the thought of a cigarette disgusts me. My breathing has been noticeably better, I don't smell or cough up a lung. In fact, I don't cough at all. Obviously, I know it's still not good for you, but either are a lot of things, like alcohol. But the difference in my mood and body has been night and day.

And for the record, not all people who vape are a-holes. I would never blow smoke in anyone's face. Maybe they were just a-holes to begin with. :)

By the way - congrats on your three years away from cigarettes.

Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Tacachale on April 08, 2016, 03:02:39 PM
At UNF we recently went smoke free. The biggest reason was because our surveys showed that the majority of people on campus wanted it - even a lot of self-reported smokers wanted it smoke free. In area where you've got around 20k people in a fairly tight area, coming in and out of the same buildings, walkways, and parking areas all day, second hand smoke is very obnoxious even for people that smoke themselves. Another major reason was one a lot of people didn't think about: the environmental cost. Even people sticking to designated areas were throwing butts all over the place. In addition to being bad for the environment, cleaning up this litter wastes a *lot* of the groundskeepers' time and energy.

One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. If they refuse, we let it go, but most people don't. And we put some more resources into existing health programs to help people quit smoking.

We decided to leave vaping out of the ban. The reason for that was that at the time, no one had established that it was truly bad for you or others, and in general it doesn't have the litter issue. It does appear that there's been an increase in vaping along with the decrease in smoking, and that people vape in areas where they usually wouldn't smoke (including inside or under covered walkways). But if fewer people are smoking cigarettes, I'd consider it a win.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Adam White on April 08, 2016, 03:09:39 PM
At UNF we recently went smoke free. The biggest reason was because our surveys showed that the majority of people on campus wanted it - even a lot of self-reported smokers wanted it smoke free. In area where you've got around 20k people in a fairly tight area, coming in and out of the same buildings, walkways, and parking areas all day, second hand smoke is very obnoxious even for people that smoke themselves. Another major reason was one a lot of people didn't think about: the environmental cost. Even people sticking to designated areas were throwing butts all over the place. In addition to being bad for the environment, cleaning up this litter wastes a *lot* of the groundskeepers' time and energy.

One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. If they refuse, we let it go, but most people don't. And we put some more resources into existing health programs to help people quit smoking.

We decided to leave vaping out of the ban. The reason for that was that at the time, no one had established that it was truly bad for you or others, and in general it doesn't have the litter issue. It does appear that there's been an increase in vaping along with the decrease in smoking, and that people vape in areas where they usually wouldn't smoke (including inside or under covered walkways). But if fewer people are smoking cigarettes, I'd consider it a win.

That sounds completely sensible to me.

As I mentioned before, I smoked for about 20 years.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: coredumped on April 08, 2016, 10:28:35 PM
I'm shocked at how many young people smoke. Anyone under 40 knows how bad smoking is, its amazing anyone even starts.
Noit to mention the cost!
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Gunnar on April 09, 2016, 03:44:01 AM
even a lot of self-reported smokers wanted it smoke free.

I find it hard to believe that a large part of active smokers would welcome a completely smoke free campus (i.e. without any designated smoking areas at all).

One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. 

Yup, that does not sound like disparaging / shunning people at all. 
Quote
"so every member of the campus community can play a part in keeping UNF smoke-free and clear of cigarette butts by reminding smokers that smoking isn’t allowed anywhere on campus.  "

Using the public to police "gently remind" miscreants of the error of their ways is a stronger deterrent than campus police handing out fines.


We decided to leave vaping out of the ban.

Probably for the time being (so that smokers think "I can't smoke but at least I'll be able to vape, so it's not that bad") but  I would bet this is going to be changed at a later time.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Adam White on April 09, 2016, 04:00:20 AM


One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. 

Yup, that does not sound like disparaging / shunning people at all. 




Wait a second... people reminding others of the law or the rules is not "disparaging or shunning". That logic is the same kind of logic supposedly employed by 'social justice warriors' - you hurt my feelings by reminding me I am not allowed to smoke on campus!

The bottom line is that smoking is a habit that, unfortunately, affects more than just the smoker. Ideally, there would be some sort of compromise whereby smokers would be allowed to smoke in designated smoking areas - because, although it is a choice, some smokers struggle going without a cigarette for an extended period of time.

Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Gunnar on April 09, 2016, 05:30:01 AM


One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. 

Yup, that does not sound like disparaging / shunning people at all. 




Wait a second... people reminding others of the law or the rules is not "disparaging or shunning". That logic is the same kind of logic supposedly employed by 'social justice warriors' - you hurt my feelings by reminding me I am not allowed to smoke on campus!

The bottom line is that smoking is a habit that, unfortunately, affects more than just the smoker. Ideally, there would be some sort of compromise whereby smokers would be allowed to smoke in designated smoking areas - because, although it is a choice, some smokers struggle going without a cigarette for an extended period of time.

I agree with you on the second part because the rule as it stands is to eliminate smokers from campus. Sure, they can vape for now but going by experience that option will disappear, as well. 

Regarding your first comment: It is a rule - the UNF is free to establish - but not a law. There is a difference. While it does not bar smokers from being a part of UNF (if they remain closeted), it does establish peer pressure to conform to said rule. And classifying that as being lenient is - at least for me - dishonest.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Adam White on April 09, 2016, 06:31:38 AM


One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. 

Yup, that does not sound like disparaging / shunning people at all. 




Wait a second... people reminding others of the law or the rules is not "disparaging or shunning". That logic is the same kind of logic supposedly employed by 'social justice warriors' - you hurt my feelings by reminding me I am not allowed to smoke on campus!

The bottom line is that smoking is a habit that, unfortunately, affects more than just the smoker. Ideally, there would be some sort of compromise whereby smokers would be allowed to smoke in designated smoking areas - because, although it is a choice, some smokers struggle going without a cigarette for an extended period of time.

I agree with you on the second part because the rule as it stands is to eliminate smokers from campus. Sure, they can vape for now but going by experience that option will disappear, as well. 

Regarding your first comment: It is a rule - the UNF is free to establish - but not a law. There is a difference. While it does not bar smokers from being a part of UNF (if they remain closeted), it does establish peer pressure to conform to said rule. And classifying that as being lenient is - at least for me - dishonest.

I wrote "law or the rules". It may be a law - the term is loose (including such things as byelaws) - but it's not a statute. It is definitely a rule. Either way, relying on the community to enforce the *rules* is less heavy-handed than using the police (not sure if the UNF police would enforce this *rule* as they are sworn police officers - if they do, then it is reasonably considered a law [still not a statute]).

We use 'peer pressure' to stop people making sexist, homophobic or racist comments in 'polite society'. That's established - when someone says something offensive, people speak up and point out that it's not acceptable behavior. That's not considered disparaging or shunning behavior (unless the reaction is excessive, which is not what we're discussing here).
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Gunnar on April 09, 2016, 08:13:43 AM
We use 'peer pressure' to stop people making sexist, homophobic or racist comments in 'polite society'. That's established - when someone says something offensive, people speak up and point out that it's not acceptable behavior. That's not considered disparaging or shunning behavior (unless the reaction is excessive, which is not what we're discussing here).

Peer pressure itself can be used for and against anything. Just as much as it is used against sexism, homophobia and racism it can also be used for them. By its nature, peer pressure (and specifically calling for it) is excessive in that it turns everyone into the "police" (conform or be excluded from the group). Personally, I find this a much more effective than a non-peer group giving out fines.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: I-10east on April 10, 2016, 10:47:43 PM
well eventually, its often hospice with the other cancer patients.
given whats currently known about vaping though, I am grateful for it helping my mom to quit smoking after 48 years.

That's so true. That's exactly what happened to my aunt. They took her to Ludlow Hospice on Sunbeam Rd in 2011; She obviously didn't wanna be be there, and I can only imagine that feeling. That place was the most eerily silent and melancholy I've ever been too, a far cry from those 'sunshine and rainbows' hospice commercials.

Similiar like your Mom Stephen, all of her siblings (excluding my Mom who never liked smoking) quit smoking a long time ago, but she couldn't stop that habit; She would've been here today if only she followed her other siblings.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Tacachale on April 11, 2016, 10:44:15 AM
This is getting beyond the vaping discussion, but I'll respond:
even a lot of self-reported smokers wanted it smoke free.

I find it hard to believe that a large part of active smokers would welcome a completely smoke free campus (i.e. without any designated smoking areas at all).


I saw the surveys, and it's true. Conceivably, even people that smoke don't want to walk through other peoples' second-hand smoke, deal with the litter, etc.

One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. 

Yup, that does not sound like disparaging / shunning people at all. 


I'd submit that it's not, in the way that handing out conduct citations or fines would be.

Quote
"so every member of the campus community can play a part in keeping UNF smoke-free and clear of cigarette butts by reminding smokers that smoking isn’t allowed anywhere on campus.  "

Using the public to police "gently remind" miscreants of the error of their ways is a stronger deterrent than campus police handing out fines.

Having seen this in play for other issues on campus, I doubt it. But if it really becomes a "stronger deterrent", so much the better.

We decided to leave vaping out of the ban.

Probably for the time being (so that smokers think "I can't smoke but at least I'll be able to vape, so it's not that bad") but  I would bet this is going to be changed at a later time.

The vaping issue will be revisited once there's more information. If the studies show that vaping has health concerns, or if it has some other issue, it likely will be banned, or restricted to certain areas.


Wait a second... people reminding others of the law or the rules is not "disparaging or shunning". That logic is the same kind of logic supposedly employed by 'social justice warriors' - you hurt my feelings by reminding me I am not allowed to smoke on campus!

The bottom line is that smoking is a habit that, unfortunately, affects more than just the smoker. Ideally, there would be some sort of compromise whereby smokers would be allowed to smoke in designated smoking areas - because, although it is a choice, some smokers struggle going without a cigarette for an extended period of time.


We used to have designated smoking areas, and they really didn't work. For one thing, the layout of the campus made it hard to find areas that were removed from buildings and common areas that smokers would actually use. And they did very little on the litter issue - people would throw their butts on the ground right next to ash containers.


I agree with you on the second part because the rule as it stands is to eliminate smokers from campus. Sure, they can vape for now but going by experience that option will disappear, as well. 

Regarding your first comment: It is a rule - the UNF is free to establish - but not a law. There is a difference. While it does not bar smokers from being a part of UNF (if they remain closeted), it does establish peer pressure to conform to said rule. And classifying that as being lenient is - at least for me - dishonest.

I wrote "law or the rules". It may be a law - the term is loose (including such things as byelaws) - but it's not a statute. It is definitely a rule. Either way, relying on the community to enforce the *rules* is less heavy-handed than using the police (not sure if the UNF police would enforce this *rule* as they are sworn police officers - if they do, then it is reasonably considered a law [still not a statute]).

We use 'peer pressure' to stop people making sexist, homophobic or racist comments in 'polite society'. That's established - when someone says something offensive, people speak up and point out that it's not acceptable behavior. That's not considered disparaging or shunning behavior (unless the reaction is excessive, which is not what we're discussing here).

There are both laws and university rules governing smoking at UNF. The state law on smoking in enclosed areas covers buildings and many covered walkways, for instance. As far as enforcement, I'd think it's more lenient to not issue fines or conduct violations than to issue them.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on April 28, 2016, 10:59:02 AM
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/vaping-is-about-reducing-harm-not-being-harmless-e-cigarettes-news-royal-college-of-physicians

Quote
Vaping Is About Reducing Harm, Not Being Harmless
 
Written by
KALEIGH ROGERS
STAFF WRITER
April 27, 2016 // 06:01 PM EST

A major public health group has come out strongly in favor of vaping as a way to quit smoking. The UK’s Royal College of Physicians—the same group that, in the 60s, first blew the whistle on cigarettes causing cancer—has released a report heralding vaping as an important public health tool that, the group argues, ought to be promoted far and wide as an alternative to smoking.

“In the UK, the use of electronic cigarettes has exploded and they’ve attracted a huge amount of controversy,” John Britton, the chair of the RCP’s tobacco advisory committee and a professor of epidemiology at the University of Nottingham, told me over the phone. “We were looking to provide reassurance to my colleagues in medicine and public health, but also to smokers and the general public, that these products are actually probably a good thing and we should be learning to manage the opportunity instead of considering prohibiting them.”

This endorsement is a pretty big deal because the safety and effectiveness of vaping as a way to quit smoking is still a point of contention for a lot of public health and anti-tobacco groups. These groups share information with lawmakers and the public, which can have a serious influence on policies and smokers’ choices. But, as the report points out, we’ve spent decades looking for ways to get smokers to switch to products other than cigarettes to get their nicotine fix (like the patch, gum, or pharmaceuticals). It’s still too early to know what kind of long-term effects vaping might have, but there’s no evidence to suggest it’s anywhere near as harmful as smoking, so why not add it to the toolbox?

“Yes, we have to be cautious in saying we don’t know what the long-term hazards are, but the key question is ‘are those long-term hazards likely to be as severe or remotely as common as the adverse effects of smoking?’” Britton said. “Electronic cigarettes, however harmful they are, will be nothing like as bad as smoking. So if you’re a smoker, you should make the switch.”
It’s all based on a theory of harm reduction rather than taking an abstinence-only approach to addiction. Obviously it would be great if every smoker just quit and never used any nicotine product again, but we’ve long understood that this isn’t a realistic expectation. So the next best thing would be to find a way to reduce the harm that nicotine addiction causes to both the smoker and the people around him or her.

Vaping, this report says, is potentially a great way to do that. It’s kind of like methadone for cigarette addicts.

There are some concerns about teens and youth taking up vaping not as a way to quit smoking but, y’know, just for fun. This does happen, and the report emphasized the importance of working to prevent youth access to any nicotine products, but noted the vast majority of youth who have tried vaping already had a history of smoking, and there’s not really any evidence right now that vaping is a ‘gateway’ to smoking.

According to the report, studies show that taking up vaping increases both the likelihood that a smoker will try to quit and that the attempt will be successful. Vaping has also rocketed in popularity as a stop-smoking aid, the report said, outpacing the patch, gum, prescription drugs, and therapy as the most popular tool used by smokers to help a quit attempt—only going cold turkey is more popular:

(http://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/33010/146179049124275.png)

Britton said this is partly influenced by the fact that vaping maintains so much of the behavioural elements of nicotine addiction. Smokers don’t just need a shot of nicotine, they also often crave the feeling of drawing smoke into their mouths, the throat hit, the weight between their fingers, the habit of popping outside for a drag with friends or pairing a ciggy with their morning coffee or nightcap. All of these elements are removed when a smoker tries to go cold turkey or uses something like the patch, but with vaping, they still get it, just with fewer chemicals and no combustion.

One report isn’t going to change the minds of every public health agency and lawmaker, especially here in the US, and there's still lots to learn about how vaping fits into a public health strategy. But this report provides new fodder for the growing number of tobacco addiction experts who believe vaping may just be the solution we’ve long been waiting for.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Dog Walker on April 28, 2016, 04:18:48 PM
One of the best things about vaping is that it doesn't leave behind the little white pellets of poison that cigarettes do.  I would love to see a law outlawing cigarette filters.

Here's a futile request:  "Smokers, please don't throw you burned out cigarettes on the ground.  The filters last for years and are full of the poisons that belong in your lungs."
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 03, 2016, 08:33:22 AM
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/what-is-the-cdc-implying-with-this-vaping-psa-e-cigarettes-smoking-tobacco

Quote
What Is the CDC Implying with this Vaping PSA?
 
Written by
KALEIGH ROGERS
STAFF WRITER
May 2, 2016 // 12:40 PM EST

Is vaping partly to blame for Kristy’s lung collapsing? That’s the question you might be asking after seeing this ad:

https://www.youtube.com/v/zwfC63Icczk

That’s a screengrab of an in-app ad for a Centers for Disease Control campaign called “Tips from Former Smokers,” which has been going on since 2012. The ad was captured and shared by a vaper on Reddit. The “tips” ads are part of a pretty powerful campaign that shows the real life effects of smoking, but this particular ad—released last year—puts a bizarre emphasis on smoker Kristy’s e-cigarette use.

Kristy, a 35-year-old truck driver from Tennessee, started smoking when she was 13, according to the CDC’s site. At the age of 33, suffering from shortness of breath and a nasty cough, she tried switching to vaping but continued smoking at the same time. Eventually, Kristy went back to only smoking cigarettes, and soon after her lung collapsed. She has since quit smoking.

This isn’t exactly a shocking tale. If you smoke regularly for 20 years, there’s a risk your lung might collapse. In fact, that’s why so many vapers switch to e-cigarettes: to quit smoking and reduce their risk of events like that. But if you just glance at the CDC’s ad copy, it makes it sound like vaping had something to do with Kristy’s health issues.

There’s a chance the copy in the app’s ad wasn’t written by the CDC (I reached out to the CDC’s press office but have not yet heard back), but even still, the language of the campaign on the CDC’s website puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that Kristy wasn’t able to quit smoking by vaping.

“I thought I could quit smoking if I was smoking an electronic cigarette because it’s the same thing, they said, minus all the chemicals,” Kristy says in one of the campaign videos. “It wasn’t any better for me. I never did quit.”

The tagline for Kristy’s ads are that “cutting back isn’t enough,” which in general is true. Studies have shown that smoking even just five cigarettes a day doubles your risk of dying from heart disease, compared to never smoking.

But for a lot of vapers, continuing to smoke—called “dual use” in public health lingo—is just a phase, a stepping stone on the way to giving up cigarettes completely. One study showed that 46 percent of dual-users will quit smoking within a year, and another showed that cutting back on cigarettes per day increases a smoker’s likelihood of quitting by up to 290 percent.

The CDC has a history of being skeptical about vaping and—unlike some public health groups in the UK—has yet to embrace it as an aid to quitting smoking. It’s also flubbed up some vaping facts in the past, like that e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, and there’s no evidence showing they’re a “gateway” to smoking, according to Dr. Michael Siegel, a tobacco researcher at Boston University who runs a fact-checking blog on public agency statements about vaping.

"I think their main purpose here is to demonize e-cigarettes," Siegel told me over the phone. "What they're talking about is the importance of quitting and the fact that this one person tried to use e-cigarettes to quit and failed does not mean every smoker in the country should not even try."

In general, it’s understandable that the CDC would be hesitant about enthusiastically promoting a relatively new technology that’s still unregulated in the US and for which we still don’t know the long-term effects. But there’s a difference between being hesitant and casting e-cigarettes as a useless threat that could lead to your lung collapsing.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Houseboat Mike on May 05, 2016, 10:04:37 AM
I will just leave this here....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/05/feds-expected-announce-final-e-cigarette-rule-could-nearly-ban-them/83951786/
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Gunnar on May 06, 2016, 08:11:04 AM
Do you find that in any way surprising ?
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Murder_me_Rachel on May 06, 2016, 08:24:54 AM
(https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xfa1/t51.2885-15/e35/916495_1704125079831247_388757055_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on May 06, 2016, 09:56:16 AM
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/five-ways-the-fdas-new-regulations-with-transform-the-vaping-industry-e-cigarettes

Quote
Five Ways the FDA's New Regulations Will Transform the Vaping Industry
 
Written by
KALEIGH ROGERS
May 5, 2016 // 03:50 PM EST

Dear vapers: you probably want to stock up on your favorite juice flavors, because under the new Food and Drug Administration regulations, they may not be around much longer.

The vaping industry was prepared for the FDA’s final rules governing the manufacturing and sale of e-cigarettes, e-liquid, and other vaping products, which were released Thursday. Now, as companies start poring over the new rules to figure out exactly what is required, it’s quickly becoming apparent that the market is about to undergo significant changes. That’s not necessarily a bad thing: most of the the FDA rules are common sense and actually supported by the industry, like banning the sale of e-cigarettes to youth under the age of 18 and requiring childproof packaging on e-liquids. But it also means every vaping product must be registered through an expensive, time-consuming process called a Premarket Tobacco Application (PMTA) that will cost some companies millions, and push others out of business.

Good or bad, the vaping industry is about to look very different. Here are five ways the new rules will transform the vaping industry:

1) Prices will go up

It’s still too early to say exactly how much prices might be affected, but it’s likely the companies whose products remain on the market will have to bump up prices a bit. The FDA estimates the PMTA process will require 1,500 hours per product (that’s every flavor and every nicotine level of e-liquid). Further, the process will cost “several hundred thousand” dollars per application, according to Mitch Zeller the director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. The cost of registering multiple flavors of e-liquid will almost certainly trickle down to the consumer.

“That’s always a possibility,” said Jamie Zichterman, the owner of Mitten Vapors, a small e-liquid manufacturer based in Michigan. Zichterman said the company’s lawyer is reviewing the new regulations to prepare to start filing PMTAs.

“It’s like anything else. When you get a pizza one day and it’s a couple more dollars, it’s because the cost of cheese went up,” Zichterman told me over the phone. “If it’s the cost of doing business, sadly we’ll have to [raise prices]. But we’ll try to be as economical as possible.”

2) Selection will go down

As expensive as PMTAs will be to file, many companies simply won’t be able to justify the cost and will shutter. The FDA estimates it will only receive about 750 PMTAs each year and since companies only have the next two years to apply for their existing products, that works out to about 1,500 PMTAs. Keep in mind these are per product, not per company, and the FDA estimates there are more than 4,000 vape manufacturers in the US.

Keep in mind that most manufacturers produce dozens of flavors and nicotine levels. Take Apollo E-cigs, a popular manufacturer: it makes 12 different varieties just in its fruit flavor category, each with five different nicotine level options. Just to keep making all of its fruit flavors, Apollo would need to file 60 different PMTAs.

While the FDA said it will be looking for ways to reduce this impact—such as letting manufacturers file one PMTA for multiple flavors—it’s inevitable that the market will shrink from thousands of flavors and products to fewer than 2,000 in the next few years. Manufacturers will be able to keep applying for new products in the future, but it will take a long time to crawl back to where we started out.

3) Custom mods will go extinct

If you’re not a vaper, you might think all electronic cigarettes are created equal, but there is a ton of variety for ways to get your vape on. You are probably familiar with the cig-a-like e-cigarettes sold at gas stations, which look like cigarettes, are completely sealed, and are disposable. But most vapers use vape pens or mods, which are reusable and can be customizable, allowing vapers to build their own unique units to their specifications.

Under the new FDA regulations, companies that sell the separate hardware vapers currently use to build their mods face a major headache trying to register all of the different parts. The regulations state that manufacturers will need to prove that every possible configuration of the different parts would still make a safe product, and notes that the “FDA expects that it may be difficult for manufacturers to make the showing necessary to meet the statutory standard, given the great extent of possible variations in combinations of hardware components.” The regulations even discourage manufacturers from trying, and suggest only applying for closed-system models that are not customizable.

"We can’t make policy at a national population level on the basis of hypothetical individuals."
4) A black market for vaping will emerge

The internet is a big place and there are lots of other countries that don’t have vaping regulation pumping out e-liquid flavors. Though these products are, understandably, questionable, some vapers may opt to risk it if their favorite US-made flavors start disappearing. DIY juice makers might also start selling under the table to help fill the gap, and you can imagine the market for beloved flavors and mod parts that go extinct. There’s no good scientific data on this question, but an informal poll of 1,651 readers on one vaping blog in the UK found that 66 percent said they would buy e-liquid on a black market if there was a ban, and it’s been discussed in the online vaping community many times as regulation loomed. If people can find a way to buy guns and drugs online, they can definitely find a way to get their e-juice.

5) We will finally start getting some more vaping research

There’s been lots of studies on the effects of vaping, on vaping as a tool to quit smoking, on teens’ vaping habits—enough for public health agencies in other parts of the world to start embracing the technology. But the FDA isn’t satisfied with any of the evidence so far, and that may well be a good thing for the industry. There’s still a lot we don’t know about vaping’s personal and public health costs and benefits, because it just hasn’t been around long enough for the experts to find out. Now that the FDA is tasked with regulating and monitoring the industry, it has already launchedseveral surveys and studies to start collecting data on this front.

“We can’t make policy at a national population level on the basis of hypothetical individuals or anecdotal reports of benefit,” said Zeller, of the Center for Tobacco Products, during a press conference. “We need to have enough evidence at a population level to make this net assessment. Finally these products are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the FDA and over time we will get answers.”

The Royal College of Physicians in the UK recently put out a report calling for vaping to be promoted as a tool to quit smoking. The FDA isn’t there yet, but maybe with more evidence, specifically focused on US vapers, it will get there.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on June 29, 2016, 08:01:18 AM
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/vaping-helped-an-estimated-61-million-smokers-quit-study-says

Quote
Vaping Helped an Estimated 6.1 Million Smokers Quit, Study Says
 
Written by
KALEIGH ROGERS
June 28, 2016 // 02:30 PM EST

An estimated 6.1 million Europeans have quit smoking by switching to vaping, according to a paper published online this week in Addiction.

Though only an estimation, the study highlights the need for more data on how useful vaping may be as a stop smoking aid. It's especially crucial as new e-cigarette regulations roll out across the EU and the US—rules that some say threaten the entire e-cig industry.

In the paper, researchers did a close analysis of data collected back in 2014 and released last year through the European Commission. It found that only 2 percent of respondents are currently using e-cigarettes, and just 14 percent had been able to quit smoking completely by switching to vaping. However, this included any smoker who had even tried one puff of an e-cigarette (not exactly a sustained effort to quit). In the Addiction paper, the researchers broke down the numbers a little further and found a much more impressive success rate.

When you only look at respondents who were currently using e-cigarettes, 35 percent were former smokers who had successfully quit. And there was a correlation with higher use: Of respondents who vaped daily, 30.6 percent had quit smoking, compared to 8.9 percent of respondents who said they vaped once a week or less.

To put this in perspective, the researchers then extrapolated the representation to the total EU population and estimated 6.1 million people had quit through vaping, and 9.2 million had been able to cut back on smoking by becoming dual users.

Of course, by that same logic, millions of Europeans have tried and failed to quit using e-cigarettes as well, but that’s also true of all smoking cessation tools. Prescription drugs—our most effective stop smoking aid—are about 23 percent effective, while treatments like nicotine patches and gum only work 6 percent of the time.

In the fall, Pfizer representatives told me its stop-smoking drug Chantix had been prescribed to 22 million unique patients around the world since it came on the market. With a 23 percent effectiveness rate, that means an estimated 5 million people will have stopped smoking by taking the drug, putting vaping on par with some of our best smoking cessation technology.

Unfortunately for the vaping evangelists, this kind of analysis has its limitations. The 6 million people is an extrapolated estimate. The survey only interviewed 27,801 people and since it was interview style, it’s all self-reported. As the analysis authors note, “Although surveys and studies of users have shown that many smokers succeed in quitting smoking with the use of e-cigarettes, randomized controlled trials have shown modest effects and the efficacy of e-cigarettes in smoking cessation and reduction has been questioned.”

It’s far from irrefutable proof of some magic, stop-smoking effects of vaping, but the authors argue these indicators show further research needs to be done, and perhaps we need to approach it in a different way than we have in the past.

“It is not reasonable to expect experimentation or occasional use to be substantially effective in smoking cessation,” the authors wrote. “Other surveys fail to differentiate between regular and occasional use or experimentation, which results in overestimation of the prevalence of use and underestimation of their efficacy in smoking substitution.”
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on July 07, 2016, 09:45:29 AM
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/strict-new-regulations-are-forcing-vapers-to-go-diy

Quote
Strict New Regulations Are Forcing Vapers to Go DIY
 
Written by
KALEIGH ROGERS
STAFF WRITER
July 6, 2016 // 02:35 PM EST

Clive Bates doesn’t vape, but he recently ordered a bottle of 99 percent pure liquid nicotine online from China—the stuff used by DIY vapers to make their own e-liquid at home. Bates, who has a background in government and now runs a blog on public policy, was trying to prove a point: The new regulations in the US and Europe aren’t going to do what they were designed to do.

The new rules were intended to regulate and create a more tightly-controlled market, not to create prohibition. But if consumers can’t get the same products they’ve grown accustomed to legally, they’ll find other workarounds. Overregulation could very likely lead to a blossoming black market that otherwise wouldn’t need to exist.

“The Food and Drug Administration is off in some weird dream world in which they think they control everything,” Bates told me over the phone. “The truth is the consumers control everything.”

Earlier this year, both the European Union and the FDA released official regulations governing which vaping products can be made and sold, and how. Many in the vaping industry have criticized these rules as being too strict and believe the expensive application process now required could drastically reduce the number of products on the market. But many long-term vapers say they’re not worried about their personal habit.

“After trying to figure out a way to quit smoking for so long, and finally seeing success with vaping, there is no way I go back to smoking,” one Redditor told me. “DIY or the black market will be what I go to if I must.”

Bates demonstrated how easy it is to do just that by ordering the nicotine for himself. He wrote that the 10ml bottle he purchased cost $32 including shipping. It arrived in less than a week, and would last a vaper anywhere from three to nine months, depending on how much and how often he or she vaped. Most DIY vapers buy already diluted nicotine because it’s safer to handle and because it’s less likely to get you in trouble. The new EU regulations, for example, prohibit e-liquids with nicotine strength higher than 2 percent. But Bates, who is based in the UK, wanted to show that it’s easy to get your hands on even high concentrations.

“The very strong nicotine liquid is usually regarded as a poison and starts to become covered by regulation, but you don’t have to buy at that full strength,” Bates said. “And the idea that customs officers are going to whip these little bottle out that cost a few dollars and test the strength of them and then take some sort of action accordingly is implausible.”

The rest of the ingredients used to make e-liquids—food grade flavoring, vegetable glycerin, and propylene glycol—are even easier to purchase. These ingredients aren’t regulated under the FDA’s new rules and can be bought legally on site including Amazon. The parts needed to build a vape device are also readily available online.

But it’s the nicotine that’s the clincher, because even diluted it’s a very dangerous chemical to have around the house. It’s flammable, can cause skin or eye irritation, and can be deadly if accidentally ingested. Just a teaspoon of the liquid at a high enough concentration could kill a child, and just a little bit more could kill an adult. When rolling out these rules, the FDA had an idea of a smaller market with a limited selection of tightly controlled products. Instead, it may be opening the door to an entire population of consumers hoarding dangerous chemicals and mixing up liquid drugs in their kitchen sink. There’s no question this industry needed some regulation, but over-regulation may have some unexpected consequences too.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on August 09, 2016, 09:04:05 AM
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/vaping-regulations-are-now-in-effect-heres-what-that-means-for-vapers

Quote
Vaping Regulations Are Now in Effect, Here’s What that Means for Vapers
 
Written by
KALEIGH ROGERS
August 8, 2016 // 12:05 PM EST

Vape stores and ice cream shops have had one thing in common for years now: free samples. Just like an ice cream shop lets you try a spoonful of any flavor before choosing your double scoop, vape shops often let customers sample e-liquid flavors before buying a full bottle. But those days have officially ended in the US, as the Food and Drug Administration’s regulations on e-cigarettes came into effect Monday.

As of Monday, retailers can no longer give away free samples, sell products in a vending machine (except in adult-only facilities), or tell customers that vaping is less harmful than smoking—even though all of the scientific evidence we have so far shows that it is. This is a major sore spot for lots of vape companies.

“I'm no longer allowed to share the story of our best success: a 65 year old woman who smoked three packs a day for nearly 20 years, who quit smoking and vaping altogether in a little less than six months with the help of electronic cigarettes,” one vendor lamented on Reddit.

It’s also now officially illegal to sell e-cigarettes to minors, although this was already the case at the state level. It took some states longer than others (Montana’s law banning the sale of e-cigarettes to minors only came into effect this year), but every state had already made it illegal to sell vapes to kids, with some states even banning the sale to anyone under 21.

Many in the industry were fully supportive of these age restriction, but as of Monday retailers will also have to verify the age of customers. In a brick-and-mortar shop, that’s as simply as checking the customer’s ID. But for online retailers, it gets more complicated.

“It’s not just ‘check this box if you are above the age of 18,’ it’d be awesome if it was that simple,” Tim Mechling, the assistant brand manager for Mt. Baker Vaping, one of the largest US vaping companies, told me. “We have to do this arduous service called BlueCheck, in which people actually have to take a selfie with their ID and put the last four digits of their social security number, which a lot of our customers are not cool with.”

Mechling told me Mt. Baker introduced this age verification system for customers in California after the law changed to require it, and the company’s sales in that state have since dropped by 50 percent.

“Nobody wants to take that stupid selfie,” he said, noting it was both time consumer and a security concern for some customers.

Regulation in this industry is important and necessary, both to keep the products out of the hands of teens—who are increasingly interested in vaping—and to ensure the safety of the products adults are using. But the industry is worried over-regulation could put up too many barriers and limit the number of smokers who are able to get the harm reduction benefits of vaping.

One of the biggest concerns isn’t these immediate changes, but the long-term ramifications of the new rules. Manufacturers now have two years to file lengthy, expensive paperwork to register their products. Each flavor and nicotine strength of a company’s e-liquid (many companies produce hundreds of flavors and nicotine combinations) has to be registered.

The FDA has relaxed the requirements, now allowing manufacturers to submit all their products under one application, and the agency estimates these applications will cost between $117,000 and $466,000, not the millions it had previously estimated. But it’s still a lengthy and expensive process that many vape businesses simply can’t afford. This means the variety and size of the market is likely to shrink dramatically over the next two years.

There’s a chance that could change if Congress passes a law to amend a date in the deeming regulations that would grandfather-in all the existing vape products. There have been a few bills introduced to do just that, and many in the industry continue to lobby for the change. But for now, everybody must accept the new climate: a stricter, more structured vaping market. And no free samples.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: spuwho on August 09, 2016, 11:59:51 AM
 Vaping does have some health risks.  The delivery of the flavor when the coil is hot is done via glycol. The same stuff used for anti-freeze. Thats why a vape exhale cloud is so large and lasts longer.

Per the EPA:

Ethylene glycol has many uses, including as antifreeze in cooling and heating systems, in hydraulic brake fluids, and as a solvent.  Acute (short-term) exposure of humans to ethylene glycol by ingesting large quantities causes three stages of health effects: central nervous system (CNS) depression, followed by cardiopulmonary effects, and later renal damage.  The only effects noted in one study of individuals exposed to low levels of ethylene glycol by inhalation for about a month were throat and upper respiratory tract irritation.  Rats and mice chronically (long-term) exposed to ethylene glycol in their diet exhibited signs of kidney toxicity and liver effects.  Several studies of rodents exposed orally or by inhalation showed ethylene glycol to be fetotoxic.  An epidemiologic study on renal cancer mortality did not find an increased risk for workers exposed to ethylene glycol.  EPA has not classified ethylene glycol for carcinogenicity.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on September 09, 2019, 08:46:01 AM
Soooo... Three years after I began this topic...  This shit is scary.  This product is totally unregulated or monitored... especially the THC juice.

https://www.businessinsider.com/timeline-of-vape-related-illnesses-and-deaths-2019-9

Quote
The mysterious spate of vape-related deaths and illnesses continues to grow, confounding experts. Here's what officials knew and when.
Jeremy Berke 6m

The mysterious spate of vaping-related illnesses and deaths continues to grow.

On Friday the Center for Disease Control announced that at least 450 possible cases of vape-related illnesses have been reported in 33 states across the US. The illnesses have reportedly claimed at least five lives already, and doctors and other health experts fear their could be more on the way.

"While the investigation is ongoing, CDC has advised that individuals consider not using e-cigarettes, because as of now, this is the primary means of preventing the severe lung disease," Dr. Dana Meaney-Delman of the CDC said on a Friday press call, reports Business Insider's Hilary Brueck.

While it's not yet clear what exactly is causing these illnesses, it seems to affect younger people — mostly men — who are vaporizing cannabinoids like THC.

The culprit, according to some experts, are chemicals like vitamin-E acetate that are used to emulsify THC and CBD in illegal, unregulated vaporizers.

"Even if most lung-injury cases are traced to chemicals used to emulsify THC or CBD into illegal vaping "juices," it doesn't let legally sold, nicotine-based e-cigs off the hook. They must do more to ensure safety of their products by engaging review process and ending youth use," Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner, said on Friday.

"Legitimate e-liquids are generally based on chemicals that are water-soluble, not oils that can cause acute lung injury. High levels of vitamin E acetate were found in nearly all cannabis-containing vapes tested by NYS Department of Health. Nobody should use illegal vape products," Gottlieb said.

Here's what officials knew when. We'll update this as more information comes to light:

August 17:

CDC officials say they are actively investigating almost 94 cases of vape-related illnesses in 14 states. That number would grow to 200 cases in 22 states.

Officials haven't yet determined the specific causes of the illness, but it is thought that oils and chemicals used to emulsify THC, CBD, and nicotine in illicit vapes is to blame.

August 23:

The first vape-related death is reported in Illinois.

The person, who has remained unnamed, was hospitalized with severe breathing difficulties, according to officials. He was reportedly using e-cigarettes to consume nicotine.


September 3:

Oregon's Health Authority says it is actively investigating the death of an individual with a severe respiratory illness following the use of an e-cigarette.

While officials have not yet determined the root cause of the middle-aged person's illness, he had reportedly fallen ill after vaporizing marijuana oil purchased at a legal cannabis dispensary, reports The Associated Press.

September 4:

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner, writes an editorial in The Washington Post urging federal officials to take action in investigating the causes of these illnesses and deaths.

"Bright lines must be drawn between less-harmful ingredients and those that cause undue risk. That would arm regulators with the information to crack down on illegal and dangerous vape juices. It's also time to end the political ambivalence that allows THC and CBD to evade oversight," Gottlieb wrote.


September 6:

Indiana health officials confirm a third vape-related death. Shortly afterward, officials in Minnesota confirm a fourth, and then a fifth in California.

Like the other deaths, officials have yet to determine a root cause. However, the 65-year old Minnesota man had a history of lung disease. He fell ill after vaping an "illicit" THC product, The New York Times reports.

September 6:

Acting FDA Chief Ned Sharpless says "Our investigation into the concerning reports of respiratory illness and deaths associated w/ vaping is a top priority for FDA and our federal, state, local health partners. We're working tirelessly to gather and analyze information about these incidents," on Twitter.

Sen. Minority Whip Dick Durbin pushed Sharpless to act quicker in a letter addressed to Sharpless on Friday.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on September 09, 2019, 08:55:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/v/0DymNZd1n-0

Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Tacachale on September 10, 2019, 02:45:04 PM
BT, what do you think of the proposed bans?
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on September 11, 2019, 07:34:19 AM
I think it is clear that stopping the sale of the "juice" cartridges is in order... especially the THC cartridges.  Something in these things is causing severe respiratory distress, damage, and deaths.  The THC market is like the wild west... who tests what is going into the juice?  Who certifies it's safety?  I believe it is... no one.  The drumbeat for years leading to decriminalization and legalization was how safe this stuff is.  The only thing regulating the safety of these products is the growers, the sellers, and the manufacturers.

I was a vaper prior to finally quitting nicotine completely a few years ago.  I cannot confirm nor deny that I may have "experimented" with other forms of vape products at one time or another.  I do not believe either of the products is "harmless".  I firmly believe personal responsibility plays a large role here... the facts are largely unknown EXCEPT that people who use these products are getting very sick and dying from them.  Seems like "Russian Roulette" to me...   :(
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: acme54321 on September 11, 2019, 03:15:10 PM
I think people vaping look stupid, but so is smoking, and that kills a whole lot more people.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Tacachale on September 11, 2019, 04:27:04 PM
^That's my issue. I'd hate for there to be an all-out ban on vaping, like what's happening in San Francisco, only to have people go to cigarettes instead. It also increases the chances that there will be a black market, which is perhaps the very worst part of the way we handle drugs currently (and the prohibition of booze before that). The federal ban that's being proposed makes more sense to me - banning the flavored cartridges and cracking down on companies that market to teenagers, not vaping entirely.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Peter Griffin on September 11, 2019, 04:40:14 PM
banning flavored liquids is BS. a lot of these measures are rooted partially in "safety for the consumer" but are really heavily backed by the likes of Juul (owned 35% by Altria, previously known as Phillip Morris of cigarette production fame) who would benefit greatly from a single-use pod system and a near-monopoly because they'll be able to buy the FDA licenses required to sell e-liquids and e-cigs.

now we move to the next phase of vaping: corporate manufacture. neoliberal croney capitalism under the guise of public safety, brought to you by the same people who still manufacture and approve the sale of cigarettes.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: BridgeTroll on September 14, 2019, 07:58:35 AM
Lol... If only they were just "flavored liquids"... we all know they aren't.
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: bl8jaxnative on September 14, 2019, 10:16:01 AM
If you want to understand how crazy the regular human brain is, we freak out over a dozen deaths in a country of 330 million.  Why?  It's unusual.   But the 40,000 deaths by a car year are routine don't get the public freaked out. 
Title: Re: Vaping's Dirty Little Secret
Post by: Kerry on September 14, 2019, 03:18:58 PM
I think people vaping look stupid, but so is smoking, and that kills a whole lot more people.

Smoking kills people over years - this stuff is killing people in days and hours.