Let the state go after the businesses promoting and selling e-cigs to kids—and levy astronomical fines against them. Sponsor PSAs that scare kids away from doing it. Educate everyone on the potential risks. If these “kids” are 18, they’re adults, so let them do as they please.
Cigarettes don’t require a prescription to get hooked on them. Adults should be free to recreationally use e-cigs just as much as cigarettes, weed, alcohol, and plenty of other substances. It’s their body. Increase taxes on them to try and discourage it and pay for PSAs against vaping. Whatever. But let’s dispense with the think-of-the-children crap, and let adults be adults.
Or try taking some strychnine because it's an alkaloid like nicotine and caffeine and see how well that works out.
Since you picked coffee as an example, most of the studies I've seen indicate probably health benefits from it. Nicotine it's not.
So back in reality where we're talking about banning e-cigs; why should they be subject to a prescription?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664775/
> Despite scientific uncertainty regarding the safety of inhaling aerosol and flavorant substances from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) relative to inhaling smoke from traditional cigarettes, some consumers and vape shop employees suggest that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) designation of constituents provides clear evidence of overall e-cigarette safety.
> Although the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) has clarified that the GRAS program only assesses product safety for ingestion in food, not inhalation, public confusion appears to continue.
Nicotine isn't even on the GRAS list at all. Some of the additives (like glycerol) and flavorants are.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=GR...
I know exactly what GRAS means. Why do you assume otherwise? I never claimed that vaping is safe; you'd have to be an idiot to make that argument. That doesn't mean you ban it.
I could have sworn it was on the list... but either way, it doesn't change the fact that nicotine is, by itself, not significantly harmful. What argument are you trying to make here?
It seems like all you want to do is nitpick and completely avoid the subject at hand. Why should nicotine and/or e-cigs be more tightly controlled than coffee, cigarettes, beef, alcohol, etc?
I "assume otherwise" because trying to bring GRAS into the discussion about vaping at all indicates a lack of understanding of what GRAS applies to.
Contrary to your assertions, nicotine isn't "not significantly harmful": https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/vdp/2005/00000002...
> Why should nicotine and/or e-cigs be more tightly controlled than coffee, cigarettes, beef, alcohol, etc?
As linked up-thread, e-cigs appear to have slowed or halted the progress of smoking cessation efforts, and are seeing substantial uptick in teens. They're a major public health danger.
Coffee does not appear to be harmful, as we previously discussed in this comments thread. Cigarettes should be further restricted alongside e-cigs. Beef isn't addictive. Alcohol abuse is a serious problem, but societal acceptance makes it a difficult to tackle one on a practical level. Whataboutism isn't a great approach to medical issues, either.
>In this paper we review these implications of nicotine use and also examine the role of nicotine in the development of several cardiovascular diseases.
That would be nice to read. I can't find anything conclusive that would suggest it is a significant risk factor such that should be outlawed in the name of protecting adults from themselves.
>As linked up-thread, e-cigs appear to have slowed or halted the progress of smoking cessation efforts, and are seeing substantial uptick in teens. They're a major public health danger.
Yep, they have, and it's a shame. That doesn't mean the correct course of action is to take it away from adults. I am all for further regulation of companies who make the liquid. I am not for banning them, scheduling them, or outlawing flavors that don't taste like crap.
I started smoking when I was very young. E-cigs are the only thing that helped me to quit. You take them away and, guess what? People go back to smoking cigarettes. Some of us just like to smoke and will always do it.
>Beef isn't addictive
You sure about that? Perhaps not chemically, but there are many examples of food addiction. Why not ban everything that is potentially harmful?
I understand that food and nicotine aren't on the same level, just as you knew heroin and nicotine aren't. It's not "whataboutism" to hold the opinion that freedoms shouldn't be handed over at the first sign of a negative affect Your argument seems to boil down to "but think of the children!".
Drug class is irrelevant in this situation.