The regulators are going to have to move beyond the cancer related health argument to an assertion that nicotine addiction is, itself, a negative health consequence. That seems like a reasonable position to me.
They should have stepped on the neck of tobacco back in 1996, but they just had to keep it around to make all of gr8 that tax money. Now it is coming around to bite the government in the butt. Now they are not even going to get the tax money.
I predict that a mechanism will be derived within a few years for the vapers to pay their protection money to the government in the form of an excise tax. Whatever pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo is needed will be produced, probably by the EPA, or perhaps the CPSC. If the government is completely shameless, they will have the FDA produce the shank, and sacrifice their last remnant of scientific credibility.
It is hard to bet against “completely shameless”...
I could substitute caffeine for nicotine in your sentence. The two substances are nearly identical in their molecular structure and their health consequences are very close too. Do you really think that banning coffee is a reasonable position?
Really?
>>an assertion that nicotine addiction is, itself, a negative health consequence.
What are the negative health consequences? Lower incidence of Alzheimer’s and thus fewer Dem voters?
How about the government not step on the neck of anything.
Instead cut of all government subsidized health care and let people choose what they will engage in and bear the costs for that.
It is any old concept called freedom.
Not very popular these days, even on this site.
Every person I've seen argue against e-cigs really just can't stand that people can have a habit they don't like. Like you, I think they will simply come up with some bogus studies like they did with second hand smoke and pimp it as hard as they can. And again, in the end, anyone who is anti-smoker will pile on. This is about control and money, not health. I smoked for over 30 years and quit using a vaporizer. Never felt better. I take serious offense to anyone who thinks this is a product that should regulated. the choad in this video article is even going overboard. But his goals are to crush the small vendors and eliminate competition, not public safety. about the only thing I DO agree on is requiring ID for adult sale only.
I'm damn tired of anti-smoking nazis and now they are simply PO'd that smokers found a non-harmful substitute. Regulation and eventually "sin taxes" will ultimately make it just as expensive as cigarettes for no other reason that they can. I'm really fed up with militant lobbyists, the self-righteous and nannys.
‘Pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo’ is dead accurate. The FDA ‘study’ of e-cigs totally FAILED TO MEASURE THE CARCINOGENIC TAR from e-cigs in comparison with cigarettes.
The Feds have already sacrificed their last shred of scientific credibility.
THEY should have minded their own damned business back in 1996 the same as THEY should do today! I am sick of government intrusion into our lives. I guess you are not.