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

121–130 of 132 posts

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

#121

Post by 4ntonius8lock »

CryoLogic wrote: post #53
pessimizer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having smoke in your lungs is having smoke in your lungs whether it comes form a cigarette or a joint This is not a thing that's true, it's a thing you assume. Having different smokes or vapors in your lungs can have different effects, just as drinking different liquids can have different effects. Tobacco smoke causes cancers. The more elements in another smoke that are shared with tobacco (or other plants that cau…

From what I have read any type of smoke you put in your lungs is carcinogenic, Marijuana included. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23846283?dopt=Abstract

Incredible how the same people who denounce edibles also then go ahead and assume all weed is smoked.

It's like they want it both ways.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

jokowueu wrote: post #59
inlined wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vaping doesn’t even involve burning vegetable matter Actually the substrates are PG or (more popularly) VG. That’s propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin. The latter is obviously plant based and studies have even measured the concentration vapers breathe as meeting OSHA standards. The real dangers of vaping are: the vasoconstriction of nicotine, the flavoring (which famously caused issues when a substance that was…

Then ceramic coil ftw

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by ppseafield »

acollins1331 wrote: post #108
dageshi wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people actually. Most people who light a cigar will finish the entire thing.

In my experience most people will smoke a 1/3 or 1/2 of it and put it back. Then you clip the burnt part off and continue later. Maybe I only smoke around lightweights.

That's not my experience. Relighting a cigar tastes awful, and half-smoking it can dry out the other half. Most folks smoke at least one full cigar in a single sitting.

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

#124

Post by stuntkite »

AdamHede wrote: post #97
FDSGSG wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the number of younger people starting to smoke cigarettes because of it ? Just ban cigarettes if that is the problem.

Kids really shouldn't be smoking e-cigs either. E-cigs are only better than cigarettes because "cigarettes are so legendarily bad for you". I can accept them as cessation devices, but all their value in this realm should be weighted against the new users they introduce, chief among them: Kids.

Won’t somebody please think of the children and ban flavored vodka, energy drinks, McNuggets, porno, offensive books, unconventional masturbation, weed gummy bears and regular gummy bears.

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

#125

Post by laretluval »

double0jimb0 wrote: post #40
laretluval wrote: post #35

Nicotine is a wonderful stimulant with minimal health risks. The problem with smoking is the smoke.

Wow. I think you are going to want to investigate that a bit more if you are banking your own health on that statement.

I’ve read the peer-reviewed literature. There are mild problems in rats given enormous doses, and maybe it raises your blood pressure a bit. No worse than caffeine overall.

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

#126

Post by Mirioron »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #89
Mirioron wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the point of this is to reduce competition from smaller companies?

I think the point is to make sure that no one dies or is hurt - the FDA takes a very strong view on preventing injury and death, not always weighting the opposite side of the coin of people who are already dying or being hurt (ex. taking years to approve drugs that have a high likelihood of helping more people than they hurt, but not doing so until being as close to totally sure as possible to try to prevent new deat…

Basically, what you're saying is that the FDA likes keeping their jobs, because the only thing that can threaten them is them screwing up. It doesn't matter if approval is expensive or takes a long time, because they have no competition or incentive to do better.

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

#127

Post by KUcxrAVrtI »

buildzr wrote: post #116
KUcxrAVrtI wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely respect your rights to smoke whatever you feel like, and your wish for a better healthier way of doing it, or hell even suing the people who targeted you at 11, but my issue is that it hasn't been proved to my satisfaction that vaping is healthier than cigarettes. The history of smoking is one of killing people more efficiently, ecigs feel like a continuation of that great tradition.

Are you seriously suggesting that the removal of basically every compound in tobacco found to be cancer causing and the addition of ones with a much lower likelihood of harm that have already been in use for well over a decade is going to be more dangerous? With the exception of certain nasty flavoring agents and such, I think this is quite unlikely. There's certainly no evidence to support it.

Were they so harmless proof they they are shouldn't be hard to find. The studies I have looked at point an ambivalent picture. Unlike the case for marijuana which seems to not cause any lung cancers contrary to people looking for a link for 50 years now.

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

#128

Post by anonytrary »

acjacobson wrote: post #92
anonytrary wrote: post #71

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-m…

Well, the theory says that the judge can only apply the current law as is written. And as written his interpretation is that the FDA has regulatory jurisdiction (and therefore obligation) over E-Cigarettes. But the judge doesn't create the law. If Congress wants to change the law they can. There is nothing legally that prevents Congress from passing a law that specifically exempts E-Cigarettes from FDA approval. I am…

You can "fix" a memory-blowup bug by just auto-restarting the server when the memory usage hits a threshold. It temporarily alleviates the problem, but it doesn't actually fix the bug. The bug is still there, and will happen again and the server will have to be restarted again, ad infinitum. The only way to solve the issue is to find out what code is not releasing memory properly.

One judge can interpret law-v1 on a whim, thereby affecting millions of people, and the only way to "fix" the bug is to get Congress to update the law to v2, which potentially takes years, which is going to leave an entire generation screwed for that time. That still doesn't solve the problem because some judge will eventually interpret law-v2 in a shifty way and this will lead to law-v3, ad infinitum. It's a bug, not a feature.

Laws are closer to guidelines. The real power seems to reside with judges who get to decide the realized consequences of violating a law, and in many cases, the nuances of what causes a law to be violated. At the end of the day, a person's life can sometimes be affected because of a decision made by a single judge.

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

#129

Post by lotsofpulp »

jadel wrote: post #104
lotsofpulp wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They shouldn’t be eating chips, breads, candy, soda, and sitting around watching garbage YouTube/Netflix media and superhero shows. Solution isn’t always to ban something. They shouldn’t be marketed to kids, just like sugary snacks in my opinion, but education is better than banning it for all adults. Just slap the same 21 year old restriction as alcohol and move on.

I don't see the argument. Bad effect from things that are relatively non-addictive (at least physically) suggest that things that are addictive needs to be even more controlled. If anything there is now a disparity between what science tells us about "junk food" and digital media, and what how we treat them. The idea that you can teach people faster than dangers can appear without boundaries doesn't seem to be suppor…

Considering 70% of US population is overweight, and 30% is obese, I would say the foods I listed are addictive. Regardless of definitions of addictiveness, I still think education is a better force than prohibition for most vices.

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

#130

Post by loeg »

madaxe_again wrote: post #75
mc32 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's the puritans, not big tobacco. Big tobacco loves ecigs, they're its future.
Post reply on HN