FDA Chief Considers Ban of All Flavored E-Cigarettes (wsj.com) 341
Calling a surge in teen use of e-cigarettes an epidemic, the head of the Food and Drug Administration says he is considering pulling all flavored e-cigarettes from the U.S. market. From a report: After years of declining U.S. smoking rates, sales of e-cigarettes have jumped in the past year, fueled in part by online startups selling vaporizers and nicotine-laced liquids. The most popular brand, Juul, sells refills with mango, cucumber and creme flavors. Each $4 pod contains as much nicotine as a pack of cigarettes. "The number of teenagers we believe are now using these products... has reached an epidemic proportion," said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who is expected to announce new measures Wednesday to curb underage use. Dr. Gottlieb said he believes that certain flavors make the products appealing to teens. "The availability of e-cigarettes cannot come at the expense of addicting a new generation of youth onto nicotine, and it won't," he said in an interview. Alternative source, and official announcement.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Milking It (Score:5, Insightful)
They do seem to be milking this situation in the most hypocritical way.
On the one hand, restrict, preach, shame.
On the other, tax, tax, tax.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is suppression through taxation hypocritical? It's one of several methods of discouragement. Hypocritical because people benefit?
Re:Milking It (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like when you don't take all your antibiotics. The infection never really goes away and eventually comes back stronger.
In this case, they are supposedly trying to suppress it through taxation, but they never tax enough to effectively kill it. Instead, they only tax to the point where there is minimal black market activity. So...keeping it alive. or course they still allow the manufacture and sale of cigarettes.
Re: (Score:3)
Tax even more, and you'll encourage people to smuggle.
Re: (Score:2)
they only tax to the point where there is minimal black market activity.
Yes.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Why is it that people believe taxing tobacco reduces people's desire for smoking, but that taxing income doesn't reduce people's desire to work?
Re:Milking It (Score:4, Informative)
Because the consequences of abandoning tobacco are far less dire than the consequences of abandoning employment.
Re: (Score:3)
Not if you can qualify for welfare and food stamps and your rent is fairly cheap. Not everyone is proud.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it that people believe taxing tobacco reduces people's desire for smoking, but that taxing income doesn't reduce people's desire to work?
That's a false comparison. To make the comparison valid, you'd have to either change the first part to "Why is it that people believe taxing tobacco reduces farmer's desire to grow tobacco" or the second to "but that taxing income doesn't reduce companies desire to hire people".
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes are a necessary EVIL that funds our government and government services.
It should NEVER be used to try to manipulate human behavior.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Milking It (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is suppression through taxation hypocritical? It's one of several methods of discouragement. Hypocritical because people benefit?
Thanks to the "deal" with big tobacco companies, a lot more revenue comes in to state and federal governments for cigarette sales. Banning e-cigarettes is a way to create greater demand for (much more dangerous) cigarettes.
It's interesting that the British NHS service is lately encouraging the use of e-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy, while in the US, due to funding streams and corruption, health agencies are producing propaganda claiming that e-cigarettes are just as bad as cigarettes.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not hypocritical if you think it in ways of doing the most political expedient way.
e-Cigarettes those are the things for those Millennial that everyone seems to hate, and it doesn't help that the jerkiest among them like to adjust their e-Cigarettes to puff vapor at a crazy level. But every generation had Jerks, like those Gen Xers who drive down the streets with cars with the mufflers modified to not muffle, with the bass on the radios shaking the town. Of those Boomers back in the 1960's with their
Re:Milking It (Score:4, Funny)
with the bass on the radios shaking the town
You know, that never bothers me. But what does bother me is not bothering to put basic dampening on your trunk. It's the rattling metal that's annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
with the bass on the radios shaking the town
You know, that never bothers me. But what does bother me is not bothering to put basic dampening on your trunk. It's the rattling metal that's annoying.
Ironic, considering the conversation - back in the day we used rolled-up cigarette packs stuffed behind the license plate to muffle the rattling. Worked really well with soft packs.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not ban flavored sodas? It's being show that sugar and even diet sodas have harmful effects on our teens and population at large, let's ban those flavored items, eh?
Geez, keep on this track and they'll be banning ALL things flavored that are bad for you, and that list is LOOOOooonggg.
Re: (Score:3)
In Philly they taxed soda and it indeed reduced consumption, as expected.
Cheap beer sales rose.
Pubic heath win!
Re:Ban cigs (Score:5, Insightful)
Ban cigarettes while your at it dipshit.
That's not going to happen.
As a matter of fact, all this hand-wringing about teens vaping is just smoke to cover the fact that the government wants to find an excuse to ban e-cigs and vaping because it's seriously cutting into tobacco sales and especially hurting the creation of new teen smokers, not to mention all the federal and State tobacco & cigarette taxes the government is losing out on, and stands to see even more losses if teens take up vaping instead of smoking tobacco.
The government would much rather see Dick and Jane. See Dick and Jane with a 3-pack-a-day habit. See Dick and Jane pay thousands in tobacco taxes every year. Watch Dick and Jane get lung cancer and spend many tens of thousands on medical treatment and hospice costs. See the Government and healthcare providers run away with pockets bulging with cash. Run, merchants of death, run!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. And honestly, if you are a teen vaping to look cool, you are in a much better situation than smoking cigarettes simply do to the fact that you can use a 0 level nicotine juice and skip the addicting factor all together.
It's much easier to be a "social vaper" than a "social smoker."
Re:Ban cigs (Score:4, Funny)
...you can use a 0 level nicotine juice and skip the addicting factor all together.
My vape cartridge is 0 nicotine. Plenty of THC though. I wish I could have brought that with me to high school.
Re: (Score:3)
You're in a better situation, but I'd hardly call ingesting a carcinogen a much better situation.
Nicotine is not a carcinogen.
Re: (Score:2)
See Dick and Jane with a 3-pack-a-day habit. See Dick and Jane pay thousands in tobacco taxes every year. Watch Dick and Jane get lung cancer and spend many tens of thousands on medical treatment and hospice costs. See the Government and healthcare providers run away with pockets bulging with cash. Run, merchants of death, run!
My library must not have stocked this particular book. Do you know which one [wikipedia.org] this was featured in?
Re: (Score:2)
Ban cigarettes while your at it dipshit.
Freedom, fuck yeah. Also, you're the dipshit it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they are banning flavored e-cigarettes not all e-cigarettes. As a non-smoker while I would love to see all smoking stopping. There is still too much of an economy behind tobacco to ban it. It is easier to ban small markets that are harmful then large ones which may be more harmful.
Besides, they are too many smokers who would rebel.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulate Nicotine as the addictive non-medicinal drug it is. If it was introduced today it would be lumped in with cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.
Re: (Score:3)
Regulate Nicotine as the addictive non-medicinal drug it is. If it was introduced today it would be lumped in with cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.
Says the ignorant authoritarian fascist. Are you planning to regulate tobacco by spraying the fields with paraquat? You going after eggplants, potatoes, tomatoes, and the other plants that also contain nicotine? You planning to ban it and neonicotinoids from being used as insecticide (one of the safest in use, BTW)?
As far as your "non-medicinal" claim, nicotine has been shown in many studies, such as this one [medicalnewstoday.com], that it is useful treatment for schizophrenics.
But, hey, screw those guys, right, Right? Better
Re: (Score:2)
I personally welcomed e-cigarettes as a way for people addicted to smoking, who cannot or do not want to give up their habit not affecting bystanders.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck I am surprise they do not hand you one when you are born and another at 18.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"specified"? "Ban cigarettes" and "ban adulteration of tobacco" are very different things. I'm satisfied as long as I have an effective way to get the pot off my breath, and any smoldering tobacco will do that just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
you could always try not smoking pot
Well that's one idea that I hadn't considered. Switching to vaping or edibles would do a fine job of keeping the pot off my breath, but the gods designed weed to be smoked and I don't like to upset them.
Re: (Score:2)
...10 times worse because nicotine is 10x more addictive...
And sugar is more addictive than cocaine. I don't believe it. I dropped cigarettes for about 15 years while I was in a relationship with a non-smoker and the cravings were mostly relieved by "smoking" pen caps. When I dropped alcohol, I went into fucking seizures. The cravings were unbearable. Everyone's different, but that's my experience.
That's not the only reason that I don't think a smoking ban would create 10x Prohibition-level violence. Black market, sure; violence, probably; but not like the 20s.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish i could quit sugar as easily as I quit coke, since that's going to cause plenty of problems itself, probably soon now, since I'm 35 in both years and BMI now.
Oh, don't worry. That problem will sort itself out, and you'll die a few years from now, with high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes, popping pills and more pills against the pills, feeling miserable.
The problem isn't you being addicted to sugar, but you being too weak willed to burn the sugars that you eat. Add a thousand calories or two worth of exercise a day. Work with your body, and stop blaming it for you being lazy.
Sounds good to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Insightful)
No one wants to walk though your cloud of second-hand blueberry fumes!
No they don't, but I don't want to listen to someone's rap music playing out a car window, or smell someone with BO, or taste ketchup that was put on my burger.
Not wanting to experience something that other people do want to experience is not reason for it to be illegal. Banning flavoured vapes because some teens are getting it illegal is not right in my opinion. Target people illegally selling it, or giving it to kids if you want. Tax the stuff if you want.
I don't like smoke or vaping- but I'm not for making it illegal. If they do it in the privacy of their own properties and don't expose others- and are well-informed of the consequences, then people should be allowed to smoke or vape if they want. I don't approve of banning things just because they're unpopular with the masses.
One day, something I like doing which is unpopular with the masses might be next on the chopping block. Let people have their vices if it isn't hurting anyone else. And yeah... do things to keep it out the hands of underage teens who have not yet reached adult age.
Re: (Score:2)
Not wanting to experience something that other people do want to experience is not reason for it to be illegal.
There's ample reason to ban it in public, though. And also for all ingredients in anything you put into your body to be listed on the packaging. That would mean a major change for the alcohol market, but so what?
Re: (Score:3)
There's ample reason to ban it in public, though.
Name one.
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Informative)
There's ample reason to ban public cologne and perfume as well, but it hasn't happened. At least the vapers stop emitting the vape when they go inside.
Re: (Score:3)
The great thing about America is that if you are free to not stand next to someone who smokes, if you don't like smoke
That's a nice idea, but it's horse shit. Smokers will walk up to you while smoking, forcing you to run away if you don't want to breathe their pollutants. That's assault by any reasonable measurement.
that does not mean you have a right to stand next to smokers just so you can bitch about the freedoms they enjoy that you disagree with.
It's illegal in all the places I go in California to smoke within 20 or 30 feet (depending on where you are) of a door or operable window belonging to a restaurant, health clinic, or a lot of other places, but they do it anyway. Then their smoke comes inside of buildings I'm in and I have to breathe it, because
Re: (Score:2)
Ban fast food as well, correct? I know more teens addicted to McDonald's than vaping.
Alcohol too right? I know more adults that drink alcohol than vape. I know more people that have lost a loved one due to a drunk driving incident than of lung cancer.
Honestly, banning something for adults because teens are illegally using a substance is insane.
Re: (Score:3)
Nor do I. But I do approve of banning things that are addictive, designed specifically to appeal to kids, and are incredibly difficult to actually prevent kids from getting.
Just smoke your regular vape/cigarettes that taste terrible to kids inititially. The reason they ban the damn things is BECAUSE teen smoking rates are now skyrocketing.
Vaping and smoking aren't the same things. Alcohol also appeals to kids, especially alcopops, should that be made illegal too, especially considering how harmful alcohol is to society on the whole not just the individual. Something tells me that might not work so well so better to have something sensible like an age limit. Maybe you could do that with vaping products and anyone selling to an underage would get the same as selling alcohol or cigarettes to underage customers do. Also kids, really like sweets
Re: (Score:3)
The Cheesecake Factory doesn't lace their cakes with heroin or other addictive substances...
I heard they were lacing their cheesecake with sugar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:4, Informative)
I was sitting out on a patio at a restaurant last week, with a college-aged guy doing some form of smoking at the table next to us. We had maple-bacon smoke wafting over us for the better part of 30 minutes as he blew big, billowing plumes for his own amusement.
Maple-bacon scented patios may sound like some people's idea of a pleasant evening, but as someone with asthma, it's not unusual for me to feel my airways closing up when I'm exposed to strong scents, which I've had happen before with e-cigs and vaporizers. Thankfully, nothing happened this time, so it was little more than a random thing that happened that evening, but I don't want to see a return to the way things were a few decades ago. People always talk about the big risks when it comes to this stuff—addiction, cancer, death—but we shouldn't forget that there's a significant decrease in the quality of life for others when being able to breathe easily is something they need to concern themselves with.
A waste of time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FDA has no authority to regulate if the juice contains no nicotine and teens who don't already spoke don't use the nicotine juice. You can make any flavor with or without it, the nicotine is an add on.
Its the FDA, not just the DA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People that sell liquids for fog machines are always talking about how their ingredients are all approved by the FDA. That doesn't mean the FDA regulates those at all, but I just thought it was an odd thing to advertise. There is no one that regulates the health of vaporized chemicals, especially propylene glycol. This is one thing where you have to do your own research if you don't want long term health problems rather than counting on a government agency to issue warnings.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it counts as a "drug" ?
That will work for some but not all products. (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, maybe I missed it but... (Score:2)
Mine is a sweetish tobacco flavor with vanilla in it. Will that be banned?
I agree (Score:5, Funny)
I have to say I agree with this.
There's nothing worse than smelling donuts or cotton candy, and you turn the corner thinking "Mmmm I'm gonna treat myself to something tasty!"
But no... It's just Brad and his cloud of LIES.
How does this compare? (Score:2)
Okay, you have 2million kids now using e-cigs.
How does that compare to before e-cigs were available? How many kids were cig smokers in the past?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want e-cigs to help smokers stop smoking, that's one thing, but to have it generally available to everyone is just crazy.
That's a LARGE part of the market, the overwhelming majority of people I know who vape do so specifically as a way to quit smoking. They start reducing the amount of nicotine in the juice over time, and eventually can reduce to zero. Then it's just a regular habit instead of a full blown addiction.
Re:Why have nocotine at all? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Helped me quit too. Vaping is the first thing that really worked. Those patches, gum, etc. are fucking worthless. But vaping let me draw down my nicotine usage until I didn't need it at all anymore.
I suspect that's why to government wants to ban vaping. If people quit smoking, then goodbye tobacco tax revenues. Vaping scares the tobacco industry and politicians, because it actually WORKS in getting people off their over-taxed cancer sticks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So....here we have a situation where:
1). People want the nicotine.
2). Companies have an incentive to provide it.
So what's baffling about these e-cigarettes having nicotine?
The baffling and just crazy part is you thinking it is any of your business.
Re: (Score:2)
[ Full disclosure: former cigarette smoker ]
I don't think (1) is as clear cut as you make it. Lots of smokers will tell you (simultaneously) that they want a cigarette and also want to quit smoking. Or pedantically, they want( ! want(smoke) ), which is odd in a kind of recursive wanting-about-wanting sort of way. You can model this in all sorts of fancy mathematical ways -- nested desires, temporal inconsistencies, hyperbolic discount factors, but intuitively, we all kind of grok the idea that human 'want'
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. I support everyone's right to inject, insert, snort, absorb, consume or inhale any substance they wish into their own bodies.
What I AM in favour of is regulating behavior that puts others at risk. So while you are free to use whatever drug you want as far as I am concerned, I'll happily regulate your right to drive a vehicle, go to work, or whatever else that may put someone else at risk over your foolishness.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they don't.
Sure they do. Plenty of people like the high it provides them. Just like coffee drinkers like the high that it provides, or that alcohol drinkers like the effects that alcohol has on them.
The baffling part is how you and your ilk are willing to sell-out society because you cling to the idea that nothing should stand in the way of a company making a profit.
I'm not selling out anybody. I've got no profit motive here. And I don't even care if someone else is making a profit. That's the point. My perspective is not based on profits.
This isn't about personal freedoms
That is EXACTLY what it is about.
it's about protecting people who are scientifically proven to not possess all the faculties to make an informed decision which will most definitely negatively impact their future.
One of the most important freedoms you have is to make your own decisions about your life - and that includes maki
Re: (Score:2)
You can but the juices at any nictone level including 0.
I use it instead of smoking cigarettes.
This ban is a shitty idea. It's already illegal to sell to teens.
Re:Why have nocotine at all? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's really baffling that these e-cigarettes have nicotine in the first place.
No it's not. The idea of the product was seen as a way of weening people off actual cigarette use. To achieve that they need to get the withdrawal problems under control and to create a "healthier" alternative without fighting underlying addiction the nicotine needs to be part of the product. If you want to quit there actual options for liquids whereby you can slowly reduce the nicotine content over time with the same flavour you vape, and there are also nicotine free options readily available.
What you see
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the marketing is aimed at getting new people into that truly filthy and medically self destructive habit. In this case, cigarettes hardly ever get fruit flavouring, thus smokers can't be accustomed to that, and the argument about helping them drop the habit is pure bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that the marketing is aimed at getting new people into that truly filthy and medically self destructive habit.
Citation Needed
In this case, cigarettes hardly ever get fruit flavouring, thus smokers can't be accustomed to that, and the argument about helping them drop the habit is pure bullshit.
I actually started smoking originally when the Camel Crema, Izmir Stingers, and other flavored cigarettes were around. I switched to cloves after those were dropped. The thing with flavored e-Cigs is that they they actually taste good and smell good. It was a good alternative to smoking and it made me smell better. Anecdotally, majority of the people who vape at my local shop are all ex smokers. Yeah, there are a few kids chasing the fad, but they are the minority.
Mind if I ask yo
Re: (Score:2)
The marketing by Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, et. al. is of course aimed at getting new people into the habit. They are attempting to maintain their classic role as tobacco monopolists. They are also way behind the technology curve and are playing catch up to the innovators in the vaping market space who have developed these products as an alternative for smokers.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Don't condemn smokers like me who have used this technology to quit cigarettes. Teen smoking has b
Re: (Score:3)
It helped me quit. Do you think I'm bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the marketing is aimed at getting new people
Cool story. Nothing at all to do with my direct reply on why nicotine is there in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry I must apologise I didn't give your comment the reply it deserved. Let me try again.
Except that the marketing is aimed at getting new people
Yeah and? You asked why nicotine is in there. Why are you now blabbering on about marketing other than drastically moving goalposts after the ball has already been netted?
getting new people into that truly filthy and medically self destructive habit
Except there's nothing filthy of medically self destructive about the new habit. So way you either missed the point, or never understood what you're talking about in the first place.
In this case, cigarettes hardly ever get fruit flavouring
Absolute horseshit. Flavoured cigarettes were produced by every m
Re: (Score:2)
They were in some weird line that only came in tins - It was this line [ebay.com]
Re:Why have nocotine at all? (Score:5, Informative)
Why stop there? Ban all caffeine too! It is addictive and has the same risk factors as nicotine. Plus all those sugary caffeinated drinks are clearly marketed solely to get children addicted.
Nicotine in vape liquid is not "to get people addicted". It is because people want nicotine. People like nicotine because it is a stimulant. Nicotine is addictive because it is a stimulant and because people like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The person sitting next to me at work has a box mod and takes "smoke" breaks every hour or so. It seems like addictive behavior to me.
The people I know with wax pens and oil cartridges? They only use them during the lunch break.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty. Probably not as addictive as caffeine.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
it's well documented that Nicotine is the primary addictive ingredient in tobacco. But it's health risks are minimal. If you can get the nicotine without the tobacco it's far better for your body.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've stopped using caffeine on a couple of occasions. It was no big deal, so the addictive effect is very mild.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It gives the most commonly claimed benefit of cigs, the stimulation of the Nicotine) without the poisons. Of course it makes sense to include nicotine.
Re: (Score:2)
They are only a gateway to smoking if we ban them.
No one is voluntarily going to go from a tasty $50 a month habit to a $150-$200 a month habit that also tastes terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of these taste exactly like candy, so idiot kids don't know any better.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure the kids know exactly what they are doing. Kids smoke actual cigarettes too- and those taste like shit.
Do we have to ban all flavoured alcohol as well? Caffeinated drinks? Unhealthy foods?
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, who would ever pick up smoking?
Simply because they're morons who:
1). Are sheep (submit to peer pressure).
2). Think it makes them look cool.
3). Think it is a sign of rebelling against authority.
4). Do not have a forward-thinking mentality.
5). Fail to do a simple cost/benefit analysis.
I really doubt ANY non-smoker looks at a cigarette and thinks, "Oh, hey, I should smoke that so I can get me some nicotine."
Re: (Score:2)
For point 1 and 2, the advantage to vaping over smoking is you can get nictone free liquids and no one is the wiser.
Obviously the better solution is for kids to not care about social pressure but I agree that's easier said than done.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I will sue the FDA if they do this.
No you won't.
Re:Controls a 3 pack a day habit.... (Score:4, Informative)
Here here. This move completely ignores the fact that sales are only for those over 18, and the science on the issue: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review
Nicotine on its own is much like caffeine: highly addictive, but not that harmful. It's the other crap in cigarettes that kills you. Vaping has no carcinogens.
But don't let science get in the way of some good political FUD, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Nicotine on its own is much like caffeine: highly addictive, but not that harmful. It's the other crap in cigarettes that kills you. Vaping has no carcinogens.
That is a lie. Vape smoke has less carcinogens than tobacco smoke, but not none.
Re: (Score:2)
But don't let science get in the way of some good political FUD, eh?
Then how do you explain new results that show vaping to be nearly as harmful as smoking, just in very different ways?
So, uhm, I'd consider looking whether either of the studies got some kind donations from nice guys so interested in making people healthier...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But don't let science get in the way of some good political FUD, eh?
Then how do you explain new results that show vaping to be nearly as harmful as smoking, just in very different ways?
Propaganda, from sources that prefer people to smoke cigarettes because that benefits them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd put it
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Cigarettes are not legal for kids. Not anywhere civilised.
Nor should e-cigarettes with addictive components be but the law was slow to catch up.
Nicotine dependence isn't something to encourage in children especially if they are being given the message "this stuff doesn't harm you" which is what e-cigarettes are claiming (though give it 30 years and that might turn out to be a mistake).
I don't think you can argue that children shouldn't be consuming something known to be highly addictive, which shouldn't be
Re: (Score:2)
Caffeine addiction is nowhere near as severe as nicotine addiction.
Literally, grown adults will be reduced to neurotic, screaming, shaking wrecks because they don't get their fix of nicotine. I've never ONCE met a smoker who "could give it up any time" who then actually does. Even ones where they were told it was killing them, where they had bits of their body REMOVED because it had killed them (lung cancer, etc.) and still they kept smoking.
Caffeine? You get a headache and a bit cranky. You know how I
Re: (Score:2)
Breathing PG vapor is a health concern. Much safer than smoke, but not a good daily habit with no long-term studies to know just how bad.