FDA Bans Production, Sale of Fruit- and Mint-Flavored Vape Pods (engadget.com) 159
In an attempt to curb teen vaping, the FDA has officially banned most fruit- and mint-flavored, cartridge-based vaping products. Companies that manufacture, sell and distribute such products have 30 days to comply. Engadget reports: The new restrictions make some important exceptions. First, they permit tobacco- and menthol-flavored goods. They also apply only to cartridge-based products, which the FDA says are easier for teens to acquire and conceal. Tank-based vaping devices, like those sold in vape shops that typically cater to adult smokers, are not restricted by the new rules. The FDA says it is ready to take action against those who continue to manufacture and sell the unauthorized products. It will "prioritize enforcement" against those who target youth, whether they do so through kid-friendly labeling and advertising or promoting how easy it is to conceal or disguise their product. "The United States has never seen an epidemic of substance use arise as quickly as our current epidemic of youth use of e-cigarettes," said Department of Health and Human Service Secretary Alex Azar. The ban on fruit- and mint-flavored vape products is an attempt to ensure vaping products "don't provide an on-ramp to nicotine addiction for our youth" while also maintaining e-cigs as a potential off-ramp for adults using traditional tobacco products, Azar added.
Been there before (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Been there before (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Been there before (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the thing, the people who were getting lung injuries, and those dying from lung injuries were affected by Vitamin E Acetate, that some people making black market THC vapes used as a medium to carry the THC in.
The great steaming pile of bullshit in the room is that this was well known about a week into the "crisis", but the anti-tobacco media spent three months propagandizing against vaping before the CDC came out last week and attributed ALL of the recent deaths and injuries to the black market THC vapes.
The truly mountainous pile of bullshit is that the anti-smoking crusaders have latched onto vaping because they are losing BILLIONS of dollars a year as people switch from smoking to vaping, and the ONLY way to keep the cash flow coming in is to convince people that vaping is dangerous.
This is demonstrated to be an Earth-shattering level of hypocrisy by Public Health England, who states that vaping is 95% safer than smoking tobacco [www.gov.uk]
So a few lessons here:
1. criminalizing things like THC lead to people being killed by dangerous black market products and full legalization is the best way to provide safe, regulated products.
2. nicotine vapes should be available to adults and not to children. Laws regulating and enforcing prohibitions on sales to MINORS seem more appropriate than taking products away from adults
3. Organizations never want to die when their core mission is accomplished. The anti-smoking people should be lauded for their work on preventing heart disease and cancer, but it is not a free pass to fear monger on safe products that replaced tobacco.
I will lead it to the gentle reader to outline the best path forward
Re: (Score:2)
The important lesson to learn here is that if the government and media are lying to you, you know that they are lying to you, they know that you know they are lying, and you know that they know that you know they are lying to you, they will still look you right in the eye and lie to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Bill, everybody lies to everybody and it is in our fate to just try and sift through the lies the best we can and attempt to convey some usable information with our own lies
Re: Been there before (Score:2)
Yea i dont get the war on vaping. Im kinda in the anti-smoking group merely because being around smoke is extremely unpleasant to my lungs. They feel like they are on fire unless i have had at least 4 drinks. So my anti-smoking stance is primarily a -keep it away from me and stop forcing me to breathe it- stance. None of this impacts me with vaping. As long as I am not perceiving myself to being harmed I could not give a shit what a grown-ass adult does to themselves just as long as they are the only ones i
Re: (Score:2)
5% as bad as smoking still seems pretty bad to me.
According to the CDC website [cdc.gov]: More than 16 million Americans are living with a disease caused by smoking and cigarette smoking causes about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.
Re: (Score:2)
The primary causes for disease from smoking tobacco products (the CDC paper you reference) are Carbon Monoxide (from the burning ash) and volatile organic compounds released from the burning tobacco. Nicotine itself has little negative health effect as compared to the rest of the cigarette and EVIDENCED by the existence of multiple nicotine products like gum and patches that do not even require a prescriptions
Trying to compare smoking and vaping as equivalents is just plain lying
Re: (Score:2)
The truly mountainous pile of bullshit is that the anti-smoking crusaders have latched onto vaping because they are losing BILLIONS of dollars a year as people switch from smoking to vaping, and the ONLY way to keep the cash flow coming in is to convince people that vaping is dangerous.
I'm lost, how do anti-smoking crusaders lose money? Explain only if you have time, since I know you're a busy guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point kackle, let me explain myself
Take a look at the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement [wikipedia.org]
Along with dissolving the pro-tobacco lobbying groups and eliminating the ability of tobacco companies to advertise, they levied taxes on tobacco sales and granted that money to organizations that advertise AGAINST tobacco.
These anti-tobacco advertisers include anti-smoking researchers, as well as advertising agencies.
Sometime around 2009 they observed a decline in tax money coming from cigarettes as people took up
Re: (Score:2)
we may want to require tracking all purchases
The immediate effect of that would be to create a black market in vaping fluid for people who don't want to be tracked. Once the black market is established, it will be easier for kids to buy the juice as well, since the sellers are already outside the law.
The most obviously way is your insurance company could use it to increase your premiums.
Or perhaps reduce your premiums, since at least you aren't smoking or getting oral cancer from snuff.
Re:Been there before (Score:4, Informative)
WTF?
Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about smoking or vaping?
Basically, it would be tracked so that non smokers wouldn't unnecessarily be paying more for smokers to harm themselves.
If you are in fact, trying to talk about vaping... then this is just lunacy:
If it turns out long term that certain products really don't cause significant health problems that we thought did, well you can adjust the numbers.
because as I cited above, vaping is 95% less dangerous than smoking
Maybe you just can't follow a link, here read this:
Our new review reinforces the finding that vaping is a fraction of the risk of smoking, at least 95% less harmful, and of negligible risk to bystanders. Yet over half of smokers either falsely believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking or just don’t know. [www.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, now you pricks want to start restricting it because you haven't even bothered to read the literature. I so suspect you're a lefty..
But also, the nicotine content in the UK was lowered to a manageable % compared to what is sold in the US. Don't underestimate the effect of having smoked an entire cigarette at every puff. The UK have very limited research and is going under the assumption that it can't be worst than cigarettes. Don't use a stance that is barely credible, with limited empiric evidence and is based on having a way different product on their market. In the UK, they are limited to 20mg/ml of nicotine. In the US, Juul has
Re: (Score:2)
And while we're at it, all of you idiots who engage in rock climbing or mountain biking will need to disclose said activities to your insurance companies as well. That way they can jack up your rates above the norm.
The insurers already charge more for many at-risk populations, including smokers, people who live in flood plains, and folks who have a pilot's license. Hell, they even wanted to charge me more when I disclosed to them that I had scheduled a Mt. Rainier summit attempt via one of the tourist ro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Been there before (Score:2)
They arent prohibiting every form of vaping, only forms that are gear towards or more likely to be abused by underage smokers.
Re: Been there before (Score:4, Interesting)
When I was vaping (I stopped after it helped me quit smoking) mint flavors were one of the most common, I do not see why it was targeted. It really helps clear your sinuses and lungs when you have a cold, kinda like Vicks mentho rub.
There is simply no reason to think that mint is targeted at children. As far as that goes, most adults, ok lots of the women, at vaping meet-ups used whole ranges of flavors that the enjoyed and shared with each other
Once again, just like other tobacco products, limit the sale to adults and prosecute people who sell to children...
But no, always with the 'for the children' arguments that end up killing people with black market products (the actual problem here), or like in the case of cannabis, lock people away for decades for growing, selling and using a plant
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, don't they already ban flavored tobacco in cigarettes? I've only seen normal and methol for them, whereas loose tobacco for pipes has more flavors.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they ban the flavoring of cigarettes for similar reasons (they appeal to kids).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The war on drugs pretty much was a follow-on to alcohol prohibition and really heated up as the former Prohibition Agents formed up under Harry J Anslinger to fight them bad old drugs like 'Marihuana', a name that they made up since everybody in America was familiar with Cannabis and Indian Hemp as over the counter medicines.
Organizations that fulfill their missions (or ultimately fail to deliver like Prohibition) tend to linger on and come up with make-work to justify their existence. We have every right t
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand the history of alcohol prohibition, a significant contributing reason alcohol prohibition got passed into law was the political faction of proto-evangelicals. The emphasis on "Christian" in "Women's Christian Temperance Union" can't be underestimated.
Giving jobs to Anslinger and his ilk was a way of buying off this group to get prohibition ended, especially at the start of the depression where the government wanted the excise taxes and keeping these guys employed kept them out of everyone's
Re: (Score:3)
You over-simplify when you lump all drugs together
Cannabis, which has not practical lethal dose in humans, is schedule 1, as most dangerous drug
Opiates, which can kill a person with a slight increase in dose, are schedule 2-4, and less dangerous than Cannabis
In addition, psilocybin and MDMA have actual medical and psychological uses, but need special permission to be studied, much less prescribed
We need to put our big boy (or girl) pants on and study the short and long term effects without prohibitionist fe
Re: (Score:2)
Taxation does work. Tax it double the cost of the harm it causes. They should also pay tax for addictive qualities, so people addicted can apply for 'FREE' anti-addiction services, they made you addicted, they can pay to end your addiction and to make sure, taxed right at the get go. 100% to 1,000% tax what ever it costs to remediate the harm caused and extended custodial rehabilitative sentences for those caught cheating on the tax, with confiscation of assets to cover all losses to the public. See make it
Re: Been there before (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty limited. The vast majority of cigarettes are sold from retailers that pay the tax (and add the cost to the product).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder if that report is actually true? As much as I would like to agree with the "Tax Foundation", I immediately become skeptical of their research, since they do have an axe to grind. That goes for any think tank or political action group. 60.9% seems pretty high.
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder if that report is actually true?
Seems to be true. At very least there is a thriving black market for cigarettes in New York, and that is widely attested across a number of sources if you're willing to look.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK government thinks it loses 14% of tobacco tax revenue to the black market [service.gov.uk]. That's down from over 20% 10 years ago.
A surprising (to me) amount is lost on rolling tobacco. The breakdown is like this:
Cigarettes
2006: 16%
2014: 11%
2018: 9%
Rolling tobacco
2006: 60%
2014: 40%
2018: 32%
Re: (Score:2)
14% seems more probable than a 60.9% (maybe the UK's taxes are more lenient than New York's). Any tax regime is going to create some cheats. You take what you can get and enforce where you can . . . it's never going to be perfect. Interesting that their compliance rates are getting better over time, though. Wonder why?
Re: (Score:3)
so people addicted can apply for 'FREE' anti-addiction services
Vaping is an anti-addiction service.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't true. Cigarette taxes are paid faithfully by those who sell cigarettes. Why do you think vape taxes wouldn't be paid the same way? There are some black-market cigarettes, but people still buy packs a-plenty in stores that still sell them.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of medical bills is far higher than the tax you pay on a lifetime of cigarette smoking. Remember, he said to tax at twice the harm and the simplest proxy for that is medical bills.
QED. I'm speaking from having watched people die of it.
CT and NY (the highest) tax at $4.35 on top of the federal $1.0066/20 cigarette pack. That's $5.3566. Say you're a pack a day smoker for 30 years.
365 * 30 * 5.3566 = $58,654.80
That's not going to cover treatment of a terminal illness. Thus we see that the tax is set l
Re: (Score:2)
They're addicts. They'll still pay the tax. Eventually they might to black market, and at that point it becomes a law enforcement proposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Take it up with the tax man. That ship sailed ages ago. What I do or don't want the tax man doing is completely irrelevant since neither you nor I can solve that particular issue.
Nicotine addicts are a tax farm for the United States and likely the same for authorities in other countries that apply similar taxes. Anyone who breaks tax law gets a visit from the cops:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/... [thedailybeast.com]
Who I do or don't call is of precious little importance. They wouldn't listen to me anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
It won’t work.
For the first 6 months of the UK 2019-2020 tax year, tobacco tax revenues (income to the UK treasury) is £5.26Billion, while the annual cost to the NHS is held to be, by the government, £2.5Billion per year.
For the 2019-2020 tax year, smokers in the UK are estimated to pay 5 times what they cost the NHS.
And smokers are willing to pay that. Your plan of doubling the costs in tax simply won’t work...
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, I don't want to tax them double. That's the argument I'm rejecting!
Re: (Score:3)
>"That's not going to cover treatment of a terminal illness"
1) That is on top of money already they pay for health insurance. It is not the totality of the income for their care.
2) Cigarette smokers usually die earlier/sooner, reducing other costs (like continued other health services, social security, etc).
3) Not everyone has the worst of the outcomes. Hence, the concept of insurance.
4) Heart disease has been and still is the worst heath crisis, mostly caused by being fat through overeating, and junk
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh. You're violently agreeing with me.
You might have noticed my argument was designed to show that they spent more on health care than in taxes on cigarettes. Also, my numbers include insurance, but you didn't read the citation, did you...
Lung cancer-attributable costs were estimated by subtracting each patient's own pre-diagnosis costs. Costs were estimated as the sum of Medicare reimbursements (payments from Medicare to the service provider), co-insurance reimbursements, and patient-liability costs (deductibles and `co-pays' that are the patient's responsibility). Costs and patient-liability costs were fit with regression models to compare trends by calendar year, adjusting for age at diagnosis.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Also, my numbers include insurance, but you didn't read the citation, did you..."
I did not.
Re:Been there before (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost of medical bills is far higher than the tax you pay on a lifetime of cigarette smoking.
You are only looking at costs and ignoring savings.
Smokers live ten fewer years than non-smokers. That is ten years of not collecting social security and not using medicare benefits. That is a huge saving and outweighs all of their lifetime medical expenses.
If you only want to consider the financial impact, smoking should be subsidized and encouraged, rather than taxed.
Tobacco-Related mortality [cdc.gov]
Re:Been there before (Score:4, Insightful)
That is an abuse of statistics. Smokers live 10 fewer years but the last years of their life are invariably an incredibly expensive burden on the system compared to someone who lives 10 years longer and drops dead from a heart attack. Based on your own link the vast majority of smoking related deaths are due to cancer.
Try to prolong the life of someone with cancer is far more expensive than having them live for 10 years and then suddenly dying of a heart attack.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Smokers live 10 fewer years but the last years of their life are invariably an incredibly expensive burden on the system compared to someone who lives 10 years longer and drops dead from a heart attack."
But not any more expensive, perhaps, than someone who lived several years longer and then, themselves, ended up with some expensive health mess unrelated to smoking cigarettes. That happens quite regularly, too. And some of the smokers die suddenly, without expensive treatment or prolonged expense (li
Re: (Score:2)
Learning requires active intelligence and a will to see facts. Bith are at an all-time low in the current US administration, but they were never very high to begin with.
Successful prohibitions (Score:2)
Prohibition works for a lots of things. If you are prohibiting something that enough people are addicted to (opiods) or is too easy for people to make on their own (alcohol) there are real issues. On the other hand, the government has successfully prohibited automatic weapons (except old existant ones), which is why they are not used in mass shootings. It successfully prohibited heroin, driving use way down, until a legal form readdicted people to opiods.
doubt there's going to be sufficient profit to g
Re: (Score:2)
Heroin prohibition was never successful. Up until maybe the late 1980s, it was a product that originated in the Middle East or Southeast Asia yet was never eradicated in the US. It got cheaper and more plentiful as the Latin American drug cartels began moving into that market and found out they had the climate to grow their own poppies.
We also don't know much about the diversion market for legal opioids prior to the first oxycontin "hillbilly heroin" scare. I suspect it was probably pretty easy to find "
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't generalise. Prohibition does work in many cases. The problems with *the* prohibition was lack of alternatives to something common along with a large adult population seeking to continue to do something by illegal means.
People aren't going to go out and create an illegal underground market for the purposes of a non-mind altering mint flavour. Banning a niche product is quite different from banning addictive drugs or a blanket ban on a practice.
Re: (Score:2)
It does work. That's why, during the original prohibition on alcohol in the USA, the incidence of domestic violence, malnutrition and alcohol related disorders dropped massively.
The fact that middle class people in cities could still buy the stuff is kind of irrelevant.
Other things very successfully prohibited in the USA include lead in paint and gasoline, toys in sweets, and supersonic passenger flight.
https://www.vox.com/the-highli... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
mint and menthol... (Score:3, Informative)
Ok. Mint-flavored is banned. Menthol-flavored isn't. You know what "menthol-flavored" means? Mint-flavored.
As substance-abuse scandals go, this is only moderately ludicrous, given "Reefer Madness".
"The United States has never seen an epidemic of substance use arise as quickly as our current epidemic of youth use of e-cigarettes," said Department of Health and Human Service Secretary Alex Azar, should get him fired and given a mental-health evaluation, in that order. Epidemic of WHAT? You twart. Those things are WATER next to their parent's pills that the kids are gulping down.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Menthol is only one component of mint flavor, while "mint flavored" things also tend to add extra sweetness that would appeal to children.
And while there's certainly more serious immediate problems to address, there's a big difference between some children deciding to to explore recreational pharmaceutical use, and *all* children being intentionally targeted for manipulation by an incredibly refined and well funded marketing department that's trying to get them hooked on one of the most addictive drugs in t
Re: (Score:2)
Menthol is only one component of mint flavor, while "mint flavored" things also tend to add extra sweetness that would appeal to children.
Sweet things also appeal to adults, and teens have smoked tobacco and menthol cigarettes for decades (centuries?), so obviously, the flavor is not an impediment.
Alcohol (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Alcohol (Score:3)
That shit is dangerous. No burn, tastes liek coolaid. You can go from zero to liver damage in a few minutes. I make a point to only use it in martinis. If you were distracted and had the 750 in your hand you could likely drink the whole thing by accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is moral panic over "alcopop" type drinks, like Bacardi Breezer, Vodka Cruiser, Smirnoff Ice, etc. Sweet, fruity flavours, with the alcohol barely noticeable. People complain that they're a way to get kids into drinking.
Re: Alcohol (Score:2)
No they exist to get young college female adults drunk at parties so theyâ(TM)re easier to get their panties off. Nobodyâ(TM)s looking to fuck a fifteen-year-old except maybe Jeffrey Epstein. Barely noticeable flavored alcoholâ(TM)s are intended for people who wouldnâ(TM)t like the taste of stronger drinks. Those would be people with very little drinking experience.
Re: (Score:2)
What about flavored alcohol?
I believe there was some controversy regarding Four Loko a while back (Banned in 2010) It wasn't the flavoring, it was the stimulants in the Four Loko.
Most of the hospitalizations/deaths were from vaping tainted "THC" which of course is already illegal in most states... None of these cases could be traced to nicotine based liquids.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um all alcohol is 'flavored', otherwise you'd be drinking 200 proof ethanol, aka moonshine/white lightning.
No sir. 190 Everclear is about as quickly as you can retard yourself, given that 100% alcohol draws moisture straight out of thin air... that's why it burns your throat. It's sucking moisture out of you on the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
You damned well know what I mean.
Re: Alcohol (Score:2)
The definition of a quality vodka makes it odorless and tasteless. They are perfect for infusions and mixed drinks because they do not add any flavor of their own to your alchemy concoction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Alcohol (Score:2)
Donâ(TM)t start with that gateway bullshit. That is based on statistics that say that people that use hard drugs also used product X as well. I guarantee you 100% of all heroin atticâ(TM)s have consume caffeinated beverages in their fucking life. Theres probably a clear link between coffee and smoking as well. That doesnt fucking make it the cause. Correlation does not equal causation. Theres a clear link between eating and pooping and by your logic pooping makes you hungry.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm gonna need some citations, buddy, since I've never heard of anyone moving to smoking from vaping. Have seen quite a few go the other way.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
>The result? big tobacco gets to drill the kneecaps of an up-and-coming competitor that rhymes with fool instead of having to compete directly in any way.
You twit. Big Tobacco OWNS half of the vape companies. They're not in competition with themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Altria bought Juul. Well, a 35% stake in them anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100% of the reports of people injured by "vaping" you mentioned have been people doing pot / THC which is mixed up by some guy in his kitchen. And which is (still) illegal under federal law.
Zero of those people have been injured by legally-produced vape. None.
Is vaping "healthy"? Probably not. Those 24 people were doing weed, not nicotine vapes. People got hurt by illegal weed mixed up by some drug dealer, the government came after legal nicotine vape producers.
And ironically, the law exempts "fill-it-yourself" cartridges, which are the ones that people fill with their kitchen-made THC/Honeycut mix and sell on the black market to teens. So this law actually makes it more dangerous, since there will be no obvious distinction between safe and unsafe products on the market.
Re: (Score:2)
i think his point was "mixed up by some guy in his kitchen", more than the THC specifically. of course it has to be some guy in his kitchen because THC is illegal in most places.
I like fruit and mint flavors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
About the best we could hope for (Score:2)
Translation.... (Score:2)
.....they're too young to vote so fuck 'em. Because it's completely unforeseeable that the youth could switch from cartridges to oil canisters.
2,500 youth get sick from underground manufacturers and the FDA loses their mind.
400,000+ die from using tobacco the way it was intended and the FDA shrugs.
'Merica!
Re: (Score:2)
And the kicker is that making something illegal generally means a rise in "underground" incarnations of that thing. So kids that would have gone to the local Sleven to grab a Juul pod will instead go to some shady character on the street distributing pods with who knows what in them. Good job, FDA. Good job.
Re: (Score:2)
There can certainly be an increase in the "underground" form. Ban you name a case where making an addictive substance increased its _net_ use? I don't think you can point to a net increase in alcohol during prohibition, or in marijuana when it's been criminalized.
Re: (Score:2)
Right?
"People are getting sick from huffing black market vapes. So to fix it let's create......even more......black market vapes."
"Brilliant!"
Trump supporters out there (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
HILLARY DID BENGHAZI AND 9/11
Re:Trump supporters out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they'll go to buying illegal blackmarket street carts like the THC ones that killed so many this last year.
As I said, bass-ackwards and while I support Trump I don't agree with this move. But then I've never found a politician whom I agree with 100%. So Trump doesn't have to follow my plan for the country 100% for me to still support him. The economy is rocking and he's appointing conservative justices. I'm happy. I just wish on this they'd not gone to trying to ban the most effective tobacco cessation tool found to date.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe without any vaping access at all, some future cohort of teens may try smoking, but I'm skeptical.
The cohort of kids who have only vaped I don't see getting into tobacco. I smoked for years, switched to vaping, and find smoking appalling now. And I *liked* smoking. Plus it's a lot harder to get away with smoking -- the smell, the butts, the total lack of places where you can smoke unobserved.
The same thing kind of holds true for new, never-vaped before teens. Society has more or less made it really
Re: Trump supporters out there (Score:2)
"The economy is rocking and he's appointing conservative justices."
I'm not going to get into a debate over what those actually mean... but literally any other R in that seat would have the same results in those categories, with less volatility in the stock market over the past two years. If those are why you are on team-Republican I get it, but team-Trump, heh... wooooo boy.
How about Cheetos flavored? (Score:2)
Adults like them too (Score:2)
The problem with banning the nice-flavoured vape pods is that it reduces the incentive for adults to shift over as well. If a vape pod tastes better than a cigarette, and produces similar pleasant after-effects, then people will tend to chose the vape pod over the cigarette. This is a good thing.
Pointless (Score:2)
Yeah, and teens will just switch to tank-based vapes, acquired the same way they bought the pod based ones. Prohibition doesn't work, but we already knew that.
This will kill (Score:2)
Fucked up. Tobacco industry puppets. (Score:2)
Seriously? You allow the two flavors that taste absolute shit and that everybody moves away from, first thing they get an e-cig?
The two flavors that enable kicking the damn addiction in the first place, by getting your mind off of tobacco!!
For the product that has more people gotten off of cigarettes than anything ever before!
Who profits from this,
except for the for-profit MASS-MURDERERS of the tobacco industry?
(Selling hard drugs legally is condsidere d the same as grave assault or murder. Tobacco is not a
Less used flavors (Score:2)
I guess this is our last chance to stock up on chicken and waffles vaping liquid and cartridges.
There goes the tenth (Score:2)
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
OK Kids back to Tobacco (Score:2)
As to teen use, of course we'd rather see them not use any but given the choice I'd rather they vape than smoke, or chew. Limiting flavors only punishes those seeking to escape the carcinogens of tobacco while getting the nicotine they need.
Why limit this way? (Score:2)
Why limit only fruit flavoured vapes?
I agree that they should stay out of hands of kids (and adults, but that is another discussion), so just enfore an age limit like you do on alcohol.
The dangerous bit is the nicotine, it doesn't matter if the taste is nice, if they can still get their hands legally on 'plain' vapes they will just use those instead.