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

Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 164 posts

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#151

Post by ljw1001 »

scriptkiddy wrote: post #52
alistairSH wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible Not true. Big Tobacco owns (partially or outright) most of the big players in the vaping industry. Vuse is owned by Reynolds, Vype is owned by BAT, and Altria has a massive stake in Juul. It's in Big Tobacco's interest to ensure vaping is easy and viewed as an alternative to cigarettes. It's also in their interest to keep the product i…

Most people who vape here in southern California don't use Juuls, or Blus or whatever, they use box mods with tank atomizers and juices that come in bottles made by smaller privately owned companies.

Pretty unlikely that most people aren't buying the products of the big producers. Otherwise they wouldn't be the big producers.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#152

Post by objectivetruth »

celdon25 wrote: post #135
scriptkiddy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From my understanding, many of the flavored juices contain Vitamin E That is incorrect; specifically the "many" part. Vitamin E Acetate was found is black market(illegal) THC cartridges in the midwest. Vitmain E acetate is used in THC oils to increase potency. Legitimate THC oil producers in legal states do not use Vitmain E Acetate in their oils. Nicotine juices are a completely different industry.There would be n…

>I understand why you would be misinformed though, because the articles on the subject have been very reactionary and exaggerated in order to stir up media frenzy and drive views and clicks. It would have been great if we could have had this conversation without going there. One could easily say the same about some of your claims regarding the Vitamin E only being found in black market samples, and only in the midwes…

One "could easily say" all sorts of stuff, but the parent was correct.

You can't suddenly shift the burden of proof to them to defend the nonsense non sequitir "every company out there that has a product in a supermarket follows every single law and regulation on the books."

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#153

Post by partialrecall »

DanBC wrote: post #72
mfoy_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, I know people who started vaping without ever having touched cigarettes before.

The English (maybe rest of UK too I dunno) approach is a voluntary code of practice for shops that sell vapes and juices to check that people have been smokers before selling to them. I think this is the right approach for the UK. I'm not sure it'll work in the US.

How does that work in practice? Honor system? Asking to see a receipt from a cigarette purchase?

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#154

Post by partialrecall »

DanBC wrote: post #77
ilikehurdles wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confident there are significant numbers of people (read: kids) who would have never taken up cigarettes but took up vaping as the cool new way to get cancer.

What cancer causing ingredients are there in vape liquids?

Possibly nicotine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553893/

>Tobacco use is considered the single most important man-made cause of cancer that can be avoided. The evidence that nicotine is involved in cancer development is reviewed and discussed in this paper. Both tobacco smoke and tobacco products for oral use contain a number of carcinogenic substances, such as polycyclic hydrocarbons and tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNA), which undoubtedly contribute to tobacco related cancer. Recent studies have shown that nicotine can affect several important steps in the development of cancer, and suggest that it may cause aggravation and recurrence of the disease. TSNA may be formed from nicotine in the body. The role of nicotine as the major addictive component of tobacco products may have distracted our attention from toxicological effects on cell growth, angiogenesis, and tumor malignancy. Effects on cancer disease are important aspects in the evaluation of possible long-term effects from sources of nicotine, such as e-cigarettes and products for nicotine replacement therapy, which both have a potential for life-long use.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#155

Post by homonculus1 »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #101
cglace wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are an integral part of our culture and economy and are regulated in every conceivable way. E-cigs are a relatively new vice. Hardly comparable.

Not to mention the things we take for granted in cars today that are there due to regulations - bumpers, seatbelts, airbags, minimum safety standards, etc.

Those are requirements, not bans.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#156

Post by ciupicri »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #101
cglace wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are an integral part of our culture and economy and are regulated in every conceivable way. E-cigs are a relatively new vice. Hardly comparable.

Not to mention the things we take for granted in cars today that are there due to regulations - bumpers, seatbelts, airbags, minimum safety standards, etc.

Right because regulations created all these things, not manufacturers like Mercedes and Volvo trying to offer better cars to their customers.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#157

Post by parenthesis »

alistairSH wrote: post #39
scriptkiddy wrote: post #10

I understand that we don't want our kids vaping or smoking, but banning flavored juices is the wrong way to go about it. All it's going to accomplish is deregulation of the flavored juice market. People will buy unflavored juices and add their own (possibly dangerous)flavoring agents at home. Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible. Think about it, all these cities with vape…

Also, it is in Big Tobacco's best interest to make vaping as difficult as possible Not true. Big Tobacco owns (partially or outright) most of the big players in the vaping industry. Vuse is owned by Reynolds, Vype is owned by BAT, and Altria has a massive stake in Juul. It's in Big Tobacco's interest to ensure vaping is easy and viewed as an alternative to cigarettes. It's also in their interest to keep the product i…

(And Reynolds is now wholly owned by BAT.)

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#158

Post by celdon25 »

freehunter wrote: post #147
celdon25 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legality of THC has little to do with the fact that ingredients of many household products across the board are not scrutinized to the level of safety that would have prevented this kind of outbreak from happening in the first place. Can you provide any details on what federal agency & team is inspecting nicotine cartridge production lines or imports in the US?

I'd argue the legality does matter, since people have been vaping nicotine for years without a huge rash of deaths being associated with it, while THC vape carts have started killing people very recently and in increasing numbers. Something about THC carts is more deadly than nicotine carts. Whether anyone is inspecting nicotine carts or not, people aren't dying from nicotine carts and tons more people use nicotine c…

This whole argument is built on the premise of the items being black market products, yet I still have trouble understanding what that exactly means here. What is defined as black market? Where is the line drawn, if there is a line?

Marijuana was 100% illegal for nearly a century, it's more legal now, yet the deaths are recent. I am very certain that there is some level of consumer bias toward buying supposed "underground lab" vaping products, having a higher amount of trust in them because marijuana is "legal" now. See where this might get confusing?

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#159

Post by Causality1 »

ameister14 wrote: post #149
Causality1 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's this have to do with high schools? Booze and vaporizers are both illegal for minors and minors get their hands on both anyway. The proposed law is an outright ban on flavored liquids even for adults.

Sure, but I still don't think that banning candy flavors is going to result in a mass of people brewing their own, a la prohibition. People didn't make their own flavored cigarettes, when those were banned.

The most popular flavored cigarette, menthol, wasn't banned. Cigarettes in flavors other than menthol never had the type of popularity vapes do now. Making e-juice is already a hobby/cottage industry and banning it won't make it go away.

Re: Michael Bloomberg launches $160M initiative to ban flavored e-cigarettes

#160

Post by squilliam »

yifanl wrote: post #69
magashna wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the parent's responsibility in this? As a childless adult, why do I lose out because they want a nanny state? I love my candy flavored vape juice and I, as an adult, accept whatever issues come with it. The same with alcohol, smoking cigarettes, etc.

So, from my perspective, everyone except a few high level corporate people would be better off if we never got people addicted to smoking tobacco. Obviously we can't change the past, but we came very very close to doing the next best thing: make it culturally unacceptable to smoke. We lose out on all that all over again, except replace tobacco with candy vape juice. I guess again the genie's out of the bottle and it'…

>So, from my perspective, everyone except a few high level corporate people would be better off if we never got people addicted to smoking tobacco.

The tobacco trade was hugely influential to the development of the early US colonies. If there was no demand for tobacco, the early colonist would've most likely starved as the soil was not particularly suited for food crops, but they could at least trade tobacco for food.

Post reply on HN