Vaping-related lung injuries primarily linked to black-market products • Hacker News Board

Re: Vaping-related lung injuries primarily linked to black-market products

#71

Post by SturgeonsLaw » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

Gatsky wrote: post #58

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulate the same way the FDA regulates all other products. As someone outside the US who has to work with the FDA, Americans should be very proud of how thorough FDA inspectors are at auditing and how good they are at identifying non-conformances and just plain criminal lack of due diligence. There is a database of 'offenders' that are no longer allowed to sell their products it's seriously scary what some companies…

Why should the FDA use up government resources to regulate vaping? Put another way, why do we think the solution for people with no integrity or no clue or both trying to make money out of vaping (Juul included) is to spend taxpayers money helping them behave themselves? I find this attitude pretty crazy to be frank. Consider that whatever happens from here, however much joy everybody gets from vaping and blowing smo…

> Why should the FDA use up government resources to regulate vaping?

Precisely because people are putting adulterants in black market cartridges.

> however much joy everybody gets from vaping and blowing smoke in the future, it isn’t ever going to be worth 50 dead people.

However much joy everybody gets from swimming in a pool, it isn't ever going to be worth 3,536 dead people.

If you're advocating for banning vaping, you're advocating for the creation of a black market. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, it's not working for drugs, and it won't work for vaping.

Re: Vaping-related lung injuries primarily linked to black-market products

#72

Post by mistermann » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 1:33 PM UTC

berbec wrote: post #69

mistermann wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any plausible theoretical basis for a cancer risk from vaping?

Nicotine is a carcinogen

Anything I've read on the matter suggests this is not the current understanding, although I've read various theories that it may contribute to the development of cancer.

Do you have any convincing articles you could share?

Re: Vaping-related lung injuries primarily linked to black-market products

#73

Post by Gatsky » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 1:36 PM UTC

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #71

Gatsky wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the FDA use up government resources to regulate vaping? Put another way, why do we think the solution for people with no integrity or no clue or both trying to make money out of vaping (Juul included) is to spend taxpayers money helping them behave themselves? I find this attitude pretty crazy to be frank. Consider that whatever happens from here, however much joy everybody gets from vaping and blowing smo…

> Why should the FDA use up government resources to regulate vaping? Precisely because people are putting adulterants in black market cartridges. > however much joy everybody gets from vaping and blowing smoke in the future, it isn’t ever going to be worth 50 dead people. However much joy everybody gets from swimming in a pool, it isn't ever going to be worth 3,536 dead people. If you're advocating for banning vaping…

That’s correct, we should ban the ability to profit from selling harmful products. The swimming pool analogy is completely off base.

You are supposing that prohibition won’t work. But it is the easiest and cheapest approach. All the problems with prohibition apply equally to regulation, but with much greater complexity and cost. Eg there will still be a black market for cheap unregulated vape juice, just like there is for cigarettes. So just put a moratorium on sale for 5 years, and if the pros outweigh the cons, ban it permanently. If not then come up with some other solution, regulation, whatever.

Re: Vaping-related lung injuries primarily linked to black-market products

#74

Post by hurricanetc » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 2:42 PM UTC

Gatsky wrote: post #70

hurricanetc wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could apply this to virtually any product category. Liquor, beer, tobacco, soda, meat, toothpaste, soap, on and on and on. Well you don’t need soda it’s a vice so we aren’t going to regulate it and make sure products are safe. Who defines the start and end for what should be regulated? You? Legal products in the US should be safe to purchase. If marijuana is legalized it should be safe to purchase also.

I don’t see your point. I argue vaping should be banned. All those other things you list are already in widespread use, it’s irrelevant.

You actually didn’t argue that.

Alcohol and tobacco are in use but surely we could save money by making them illegal. Why waste money and continue to regulate?

Again, who is deciding? Is it you? It should be illegal because... reasons? Reasons that don’t apply to other vices because... reasons?

Re: Vaping-related lung injuries primarily linked to black-market products

#75

Post by thebean11 » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 4:00 PM UTC

Gatsky wrote: post #70

hurricanetc wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could apply this to virtually any product category. Liquor, beer, tobacco, soda, meat, toothpaste, soap, on and on and on. Well you don’t need soda it’s a vice so we aren’t going to regulate it and make sure products are safe. Who defines the start and end for what should be regulated? You? Legal products in the US should be safe to purchase. If marijuana is legalized it should be safe to purchase also.

I don’t see your point. I argue vaping should be banned. All those other things you list are already in widespread use, it’s irrelevant.

> All those other things you list are already in widespread use, it’s irrelevant.

I'm guessing you don't live in a major city or college town? I can't walk two blocks without seeing someone with a Juul.

Re: Vaping-related lung injuries primarily linked to black-market products

#76

Post by thebean11 » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

Gatsky wrote: post #73

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should the FDA use up government resources to regulate vaping? Precisely because people are putting adulterants in black market cartridges. > however much joy everybody gets from vaping and blowing smoke in the future, it isn’t ever going to be worth 50 dead people. However much joy everybody gets from swimming in a pool, it isn't ever going to be worth 3,536 dead people. If you're advocating for banning vaping…

That’s correct, we should ban the ability to profit from selling harmful products. The swimming pool analogy is completely off base. You are supposing that prohibition won’t work. But it is the easiest and cheapest approach. All the problems with prohibition apply equally to regulation, but with much greater complexity and cost. Eg there will still be a black market for cheap unregulated vape juice, just like there i…

> there will still be a black market for cheap unregulated vape juice, just like there is for cigarettes

Is there a sizable black mark for unregulated cigarettes? My guess would be that the black market for vapes has already surpassed it multiple times.

Re: Vaping-related lung injuries primarily linked to black-market products

#77

Post by LocalH » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

Gatsky wrote: post #70

hurricanetc wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could apply this to virtually any product category. Liquor, beer, tobacco, soda, meat, toothpaste, soap, on and on and on. Well you don’t need soda it’s a vice so we aren’t going to regulate it and make sure products are safe. Who defines the start and end for what should be regulated? You? Legal products in the US should be safe to purchase. If marijuana is legalized it should be safe to purchase also.

I don’t see your point. I argue vaping should be banned. All those other things you list are already in widespread use, it’s irrelevant.

Why do you hate individual freedom?

Re: Vaping-related lung injuries primarily linked to black-market products

#78

Post by bcrosby95 » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #65

bcrosby95 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumption is there because in the US, things are generally assumed to be safe until proven it isn't. I don't see people asking if the cups they buy are safe to drink from (e.g. many BPA free cups are worse than BPA cups but no one seems to care), or the food they eat. They don't ask for proof their humidifier is safe. The reason why people are concerned is because vaping is a smoking replacement and people hate…

Care to share some info about those dangerous non-BPA cups/plastics?

I don't have any links handy, but there's been a slow stream of articles over the past decade or so talking about how what some companies used to replace BPA have similar or worse chemical characteristics than BPA. There's been studies showing BPA replacements are still bad, including one within the past month, but I don't know the veracity of them.

My general view is that glass has been used for thousands of years and is well understood when compared to plastics. So when I had my kids I bought glass everything. After using glass bottles with 3 kids, only 1 of them ever broke one.

Re: Vaping-related lung injuries primarily linked to black-market products

#79

Post by parliament32 » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

berbec wrote: post #69

mistermann wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any plausible theoretical basis for a cancer risk from vaping?

Nicotine is a carcinogen