Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge Gives E-Cigarette Makers 10 Months to Seek FDA Review

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 132 posts

Re: Judge Gives E-Cigarette Makers 10 Months to Seek FDA Review

#71

Post by anonytrary »

I've sat in on a few court cases, and also in a jury for a murder trial. It is honestly very scary to me how a judge, a single person, can decide something that affects so many people.

To me this seems like a flaw in the US's democratic consensus algorithm. It is literally no different than if Bitcoin's algorithm allowed a single node to decide what to do with 100k BTC flowing across the network. That much decision-making power should never reside with a single person, no matter how many people voted that person to that position.

When you think about it, it's pretty scary how even something like a democracy works in practice. It's not a great system but I guess it's better than all the rest?

Re: Judge Gives E-Cigarette Makers 10 Months to Seek FDA Review

#72

Post by KUcxrAVrtI »

Nas808 wrote: post #50
d1zzy wrote: post #3

I hope this doesn't result in e-cigs getting banned in the US because that would be terrible. I live in the same house with someone who has been smoking since they were a teenager (quite common where we're from) and e-cigs has allowed them to stop smoking cigarettes which may or may not benefit them that much but it most certainly benefits me (no smell of smoke in the house, no second hand smoking, etc). They have tr…

I smoked for 15 years and tried all the usual quitting aids many times. E-cigs were the only thing that worked for me, but I’m a bit concerned about the long term affects of vaping.

Have you stopped smoking really?

To me is sounds like someone saying "I don't smoke any more, I just use cigars instead".

Re: Judge Gives E-Cigarette Makers 10 Months to Seek FDA Review

#73

Post by wisty »

d1zzy wrote: post #3

I hope this doesn't result in e-cigs getting banned in the US because that would be terrible. I live in the same house with someone who has been smoking since they were a teenager (quite common where we're from) and e-cigs has allowed them to stop smoking cigarettes which may or may not benefit them that much but it most certainly benefits me (no smell of smoke in the house, no second hand smoking, etc). They have tr…

Nicotine has a very non-linear impact on health. While ecigs are about 10x better in terms of the amount of 2nd hand nicotine, I wouldn't call them safe. IIRC it takes extremely low nicotine levels to cause (temporary) circulatory problems.

Re: Judge Gives E-Cigarette Makers 10 Months to Seek FDA Review

#74

Post by [deleted] »

axaxs wrote: post #52
d1zzy wrote: post #3

I hope this doesn't result in e-cigs getting banned in the US because that would be terrible. I live in the same house with someone who has been smoking since they were a teenager (quite common where we're from) and e-cigs has allowed them to stop smoking cigarettes which may or may not benefit them that much but it most certainly benefits me (no smell of smoke in the house, no second hand smoking, etc). They have tr…

I'm happy for you, and those who've stopped smoking. That said, for me personally, ECigs have been a detriment. My city basically outlawed smoking, which was generally great. Then ECig users started smoking everywhere in place of cigarettes, and even less respectfully. I had people in my office constantly smoking them, even. My thoughts on both are the same - do what you want as long as it doesn't bother me. ECig use…

[deleted]

Re: Judge Gives E-Cigarette Makers 10 Months to Seek FDA Review

#75

Post by madaxe_again »

mc32 wrote: post #10
d1zzy wrote: post #3

I hope this doesn't result in e-cigs getting banned in the US because that would be terrible. I live in the same house with someone who has been smoking since they were a teenager (quite common where we're from) and e-cigs has allowed them to stop smoking cigarettes which may or may not benefit them that much but it most certainly benefits me (no smell of smoke in the house, no second hand smoking, etc). They have tr…

I think they should remain available to adults and for minors by Rx (if they got hooked on tobacco). But I certainly would like to see this better understood and regulated. I don’t think they should be outright banned like SF is doing, but some regulation and understanding (sci studies) would be good.

Surely tobacco should only be available by prescription, by the same argument?

I mean, what argument is there for e-cigarettes to be banned or heavily regulated when anyone can go buy cigarettes?

If they ban both, fine. If they just go after e-cigarettes, this is the work of the tobacco lobby, end of.

Re: Judge Gives E-Cigarette Makers 10 Months to Seek FDA Review

#76

Post by stan_rogers »

KUcxrAVrtI wrote: post #72
Nas808 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I smoked for 15 years and tried all the usual quitting aids many times. E-cigs were the only thing that worked for me, but I’m a bit concerned about the long term affects of vaping.

Have you stopped smoking really? To me is sounds like someone saying "I don't smoke any more, I just use cigars instead".

As in "no longer inhaling combustion products", certainly. I'll admit it's still a damned silly thing to do... unless it's compared to sticking dead plant matter into your face-hole and setting fire to it.

I started smoking at age eleven (it was perfectly legal, and I'd been buying cigarettes legally for more than half of my life by that point - it was as much a normal part of an errand as picking up a quart of milk or a loaf of bread), and can't say I put a lot of consideration into it at the time. Over then next four and a half decades, I tried quitting, unsuccessfully, dozens of times. Vaping means I haven't been inhaling burning plant matter for years. I'm happy with the harm reduction. The "quit or die" attitude is what needs to die.

Re: Judge Gives E-Cigarette Makers 10 Months to Seek FDA Review

#77

Post by DanBC »

fromthestart wrote: post #37
andykx wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the dangerous thing is that people who have never smoked are using vapes more and more. I'm 26 and the vast majority of my friends have never been smokers, but are consistent vapers. I agree that they can help smokers, but I think the primary audience for these products never smoked.

>I think the dangerous thing is that people who have never smoked are using vapes more and more I have yet to see any indication that vaping is dangerous, beyond changes in the brain from addiction. There are typically a handful of non-toxic* ingredients, and nicotine is not known to be harmful. *For consumption, not inhalation. Still, compared to cigarettes, this seems a bit like hysteria.

If you're comparing vaping to smoking then obviously vaping is many times safer. So, if smokers convert to vaping we don't mind, we're pleased.

But if you're comparing vaping to not vaping, in young people, well vaping is going to be a bit more harmful (because everything has risks) than not vaping.

We don't know what the risks are for young non-smokers who take up vaping. We do know that there is some risk they'll become addicted to nicotine, especially because some companies have focussed on making their product more addictive.

This, combined with pre-frontal cortex development in young people, makes it harder for them to make an informed choice.

Re: Judge Gives E-Cigarette Makers 10 Months to Seek FDA Review

#78

Post by darkpuma »

throwawaycert wrote: post #58
darkpuma wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same industry, same shameless marketing to kids.

NRT is also used to treat people suffering (and I do mean suffering, it's a horrid burden) from ulcerative colitis. Maybe don't spend too much energy shitting on one of the only forms of relief available to them?

Doing good in other respects doesn't nullify their crimes. I'm not saying the substance should be banned; I'm saying this industry needs vigilant regulation.

Re: Judge Gives E-Cigarette Makers 10 Months to Seek FDA Review

#79

Post by LoSboccacc »

Symmetry wrote: post #18
4ntonius8lock wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> obviously nothing will be banned Tobacco: 500,000 Alcohol Deaths: 88,000 All Non Alcohol Drug Overdoses (including prescriptions): 64,000 Marijuana Deaths: 0 Yearly statistics for the USA. Seems your 'obvious' might not be so obvious for the rest of us. But then again, I think many 'obvious' things for you are not obvious to the rest of us. Like the muddled thinking related to children: 1st, it's already illegal to…

Nobody dies from Marijuana overdoses but having smoke in your lungs is having smoke in your lungs whether it comes form a cigarette or a joint or a campfire and it's pretty much equally bad each way. Users tend to spend less time smoking joints than cigarettes but I'd be very surprised if the incidence of lung cancer from marijuana was zero.

it's not the tobacco per se, even if it's a factor, the primary cancirogens are the other shit they mix in to get it burning easily, reliably and timely

Re: Judge Gives E-Cigarette Makers 10 Months to Seek FDA Review

#80

Post by maccard »

VoiceOfWisdom wrote: post #25
Symmetry wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody dies from Marijuana overdoses but having smoke in your lungs is having smoke in your lungs whether it comes form a cigarette or a joint or a campfire and it's pretty much equally bad each way. Users tend to spend less time smoking joints than cigarettes but I'd be very surprised if the incidence of lung cancer from marijuana was zero.

Because there definitely isn't any other way to consume marijuana other than smoking it.

There are alternative ways to consume tobacco too
Post reply on HN