Trump moves to ban flavored e-cigs after six die from "vaping disease"

The Trump administration is finalizing a ban on flavored e-cigarettes after the outbreak of a vaping-related illness that's sickened 450 people and resulted in at least six deaths.

"We can’t allow people to get sick and we can’t have our youth be so affected," President Donald Trump said during an Oval Office meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless. "People are dying from vaping, so we’re looking at it very closely."

Democrats and increasing numbers of Republicans in Congress have pressed for flavor bans, age restrictions and other curbs on the sale of vaping products. They've urged the FDA to move faster to investigate and regulate e-cigarettes, which have been touted by manufacturers as a way to wean people from traditional cigarettes but have also led to what the FDA calls an “epidemic” of youth vaping of nicotine.

Public health officials haven't established a firm cause for the vaping-related respiratory illnesses. Counterfeit or black-market vapes may be playing a role, but legal vapes haven't been ruled out. Many of the cases have been linked to vaped forms of marijuana and its component, CBD.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/11/trump-weighs-ban-on-flavored-e-cigarettes-1489507

I'd love to see how libertarians who've been inclined to like Trump will respond to this idiotic move, banning a whole class of product to address six deaths among 300 million Americans when the product hasn't even been definitively linked to their deaths.

Oh, and it's amazing how fast the government moves to ban something six people possibly died from, as long as that something doesn't start with G and end with UNS.

Ben Reilly wrote:Oh, and it's amazing how fast the government moves to ban something six people possibly died from, as long as that something doesn't start with G and end with UNS.

Okay I get what you’re saying but it’s not necessarily a bad thing if it stops people getting sick. Perhaps he should have said “We need to look into this further because it’s important”

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Oh, and it's amazing how fast the government moves to ban something six people possibly died from, as long as that something doesn't start with G and end with UNS.

Okay I get what you’re saying but it’s not necessarily a bad thing if it stops people getting sick. Perhaps he should have said “We need to look into this further because it’s important”

I agree, the disease should definitely be studied, and I wouldn't mind if Trump announced a big campaign to get to the bottom of it, but this seems like killing a fly with a machine gun.

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Trump administration is finalizing a ban on flavored e-cigarettes after the outbreak of a vaping-related illness that's sickened 450 people and resulted in at least six deaths.

"We can’t allow people to get sick and we can’t have our youth be so affected," President Donald Trump said during an Oval Office meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and acting FDA Commissioner Ned Sharpless. "People are dying from vaping, so we’re looking at it very closely."

Democrats and increasing numbers of Republicans in Congress have pressed for flavor bans, age restrictions and other curbs on the sale of vaping products. They've urged the FDA to move faster to investigate and regulate e-cigarettes, which have been touted by manufacturers as a way to wean people from traditional cigarettes but have also led to what the FDA calls an “epidemic” of youth vaping of nicotine.

Public health officials haven't established a firm cause for the vaping-related respiratory illnesses. Counterfeit or black-market vapes may be playing a role, but legal vapes haven't been ruled out. Many of the cases have been linked to vaped forms of marijuana and its component, CBD.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/11/trump-weighs-ban-on-flavored-e-cigarettes-1489507

I'd love to see how libertarians who've been inclined to like Trump will respond to this idiotic move, banning a whole class of product to address six deaths among 300 million Americans when the product hasn't even been definitively linked to their deaths.

If they are inclined to like Trump, they are not libertarians.

As a libertarian, I'm inclined to say this is stupid.

But Trump is known for not having any sort of compass and just winging it, so this is no surprise.

Agreed; it's been said that his opinion usually matches whoever he spoke to last.

I guess I meant the fake libertarian sort -- the people who thought Trump would be better for businesses, and support him whether he intervenes in markets or not, because of this pathological need to elevate business interests over everything else that you see from some who call themselves libertarians.

Ben Reilly wrote:Agreed; it's been said that his opinion usually matches whoever he spoke to last.

I guess I meant the fake libertarian sort -- the people who thought Trump would be better for businesses, and support him whether he intervenes in markets or not, because of this pathological need to elevate business interests over everything else that you see from some who call themselves libertarians.

They weren't fake libertarians, but hypocritical republicans.

What's also odd is how people who generally support government looking out for us, are not supporting this move by Trump.


It's just another example of the hypocrisy that can be found on the left and the right.

Maddog wrote:What's also odd is how people who generally support government looking out for us, are not supporting this move by Trump.


It's just another example of the hypocrisy that can be found on the left and the right.

I never support solutions in search of a problem. I'd have called up Obama for doing the same thing.

Nicotine kills...

All that 'vaping' does is to dilute the intake of nicotine..

Excessive vaping will negate any perceived 'benefits', while any new lethal 'side effects' is simply providing another way to bump off even more nicotine addicts.

"Darwinism in action"..

'Wolfie wrote:

Nicotine kills...

All that 'vaping' does is to dilute the intake of nicotine..

Excessive vaping will negate any perceived 'benefits',  while any new lethal 'side effects' is simply providing another way to bump off even more nicotine addicts.

"Darwinism in action"..

Lots of stuff people put in their bodies will eventually kill.

But more and more, ownership of one's body is becoming a myth.

Maddog wrote:What's also odd is how people who generally support government looking out for us, are not supporting this move by Trump.


It's just another example of the hypocrisy that can be found on the left and the right.

I can’t say I disagree with you, actually.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:What's also odd is how people who generally support government looking out for us, are not supporting this move by Trump.


It's just another example of the hypocrisy that can be found on the left and the right.

I can’t say I disagree with you, actually.

I can generally guess where someone stands on something, based on what politician supports it, not based on their professed stances.

Illicit cannabis vaping products have been identified as a possible cause of hundreds of cases of severe lung illness in the US.

A sixth person died on Wednesday as officials urgently try to find out what killed them.

New York's state health department said "Dank Vapes" and "Chronic Carts" contain vitamin E acetate, a thickening agent in THC oil - the psychoactive compound in cannabis.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found 24 of 41 people with the lung illness reported using Dank Vapes.

The effect of vitamin E acetate on the lungs in unclear and the US Food and Drug Administration has advised people to stop vaping THC oils and using unofficial products sold outside of shops.

https://news.sky.com/story/illicit-cannabis-vaping-products-could-be-behind-us-deaths-11809159

Maddog wrote:What's also odd is how people who generally support government looking out for us, are not supporting this move by Trump.


It's just another example of the hypocrisy that can be found on the left and the right.

Six deaths not even conclusively caused by vaping, leading to a possible ban on something that is a safer alternative to smoking cigrettes. Not hard to see why people would not yet be entirely on board.

And which companies stand to benefit most from banning the thing keeping hundreds of thousands from smoking cigarettes I wonder

Do some of these " Vapes" contain Nicotine ?

nicko wrote:Do some of these " Vapes" contain Nicotine ?

Yup. That's why smokers switch to them.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:What's also odd is how people who generally support government looking out for us, are not supporting this move by Trump.


It's just another example of the hypocrisy that can be found on the left and the right.

Six deaths not even conclusively caused by vaping, leading to a possible ban on something that is a safer alternative to smoking cigrettes. Not hard to see why people would not yet be entirely on board.

And which companies stand to benefit most from banning the thing keeping hundreds of thousands from smoking cigarettes I wonder

What more important is who is implementing the ban. That's how folks decide to get on board.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:What's also odd is how people who generally support government looking out for us, are not supporting this move by Trump.


It's just another example of the hypocrisy that can be found on the left and the right.

Six deaths not even conclusively caused by vaping, leading to a possible ban on something that is a safer alternative to smoking cigrettes. Not hard to see why people would not yet be entirely on board.

And which companies stand to benefit most from banning the thing keeping hundreds of thousands from smoking cigarettes I wonder

What more important is who is implementing the ban.  That's how folks decide to get on board.  

Maybe that's more important to you, but not to me -- I care more about the reasoning behind the ban.

That's what a lot of people don't get about me -- if Trump came into office and started making sound decisions and backing policies that helped the country, I wouldn't criticize him. It's not about who he is, it's about what he does.

It's like if I were to start talking about what a sick man Ted Bundy was for killing all those women, and people saying I just hated him because of who he was.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What more important is who is implementing the ban.  That's how folks decide to get on board.  

Maybe that's more important to you, but not to me -- I care more about the reasoning behind the ban.

That's what a lot of people don't get about me -- if Trump came into office and started making sound decisions and backing policies that helped the country, I wouldn't criticize him. It's not about who he is, it's about what he does.

Yeah. And maybe you have been hacked.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What more important is who is implementing the ban.  That's how folks decide to get on board.  

Maybe that's more important to you, but not to me -- I care more about the reasoning behind the ban.

That's what a lot of people don't get about me -- if Trump came into office and started making sound decisions and backing policies that helped the country, I wouldn't criticize him. It's not about who he is, it's about what he does.

Yeah. And maybe you have been hacked.  

You don't know me very well. I'm more than willing to sing the praises of a conservative when he or she does something good. Eisenhower with civil rights and interstate highways; Nixon with the creation of the EPA; Reagan beating acid rain (with a policy the Republicans who came after him would have called "cap and tax").

Even W. designated a lot of pristine U.S. territories off-limits to mineral exploration, for which I was very happy.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah. And maybe you have been hacked.  

You don't know me very well. I'm more than willing to sing the praises of a conservative when he or she does something good. Eisenhower with civil rights and interstate highways; Nixon with the creation of the EPA; Reagan beating acid rain (with a policy the Republicans who came after him would have called "cap and tax").

Even W. designated a lot of pristine U.S. territories off-limits to mineral exploration, for which I was very happy.

I know your posts well.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah. And maybe you have been hacked.  

You don't know me very well. I'm more than willing to sing the praises of a conservative when he or she does something good. Eisenhower with civil rights and interstate highways; Nixon with the creation of the EPA; Reagan beating acid rain (with a policy the Republicans who came after him would have called "cap and tax").

Even W. designated a lot of pristine U.S. territories off-limits to mineral exploration, for which I was very happy.

I know your posts well.  

Don't assume things that aren't in my posts, then.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:What's also odd is how people who generally support government looking out for us, are not supporting this move by Trump.


It's just another example of the hypocrisy that can be found on the left and the right.

Six deaths not even conclusively caused by vaping, leading to a possible ban on something that is a safer alternative to smoking cigrettes. Not hard to see why people would not yet be entirely on board.

And which companies stand to benefit most from banning the thing keeping hundreds of thousands from smoking cigarettes I wonder

What more important is who is implementing the ban.  That's how folks decide to get on board.  

You have absolutely no way of substantiating that opinion, which means that's all it is.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Six deaths not even conclusively caused by vaping, leading to a possible ban on something that is a safer alternative to smoking cigrettes. Not hard to see why people would not yet be entirely on board.

And which companies stand to benefit most from banning the thing keeping hundreds of thousands from smoking cigarettes I wonder

What more important is who is implementing the ban.  That's how folks decide to get on board.
 

You're an idiot.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What more important is who is implementing the ban.  That's how folks decide to get on board.  

You have absolutely no way of substantiating that opinion, which means that's all it is.

Of course I don't. It's simply an observation on the predictability of people.

Let's take this thread. It could have been started based on whether banning these products is a good idea. But it's really about the person doing the banning.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What more important is who is implementing the ban.  That's how folks decide to get on board.  

You have absolutely no way of substantiating that opinion, which means that's all it is.

Of course I don't. It's simply an observation on the predictability of people.

Let's take this thread.  It could have been started based on whether banning these products is a good idea.  But it's really about the person doing the banning.  

I made it about the person doing the banning because I really didn't think there was a substantive debate to be had over whether banning something used by millions of people because six of them died was a good idea or a bad idea, to be fair.

E-cigarettes marketed at teenagers contain potentially cancerous levels of artificial flavouring, new research has found.

The study of menthol and peppermint vapes revealed high concentrations of a carcinogenic additive called pulegone that US watchdogs recently banned in food.

Even moderate use of the increasingly popular products - available in the UK in supermarkets, specialist stores and online - put users significantly outside the “safe” threshold.

The tests were performed on e-liquids including the V2 Menthol and V2 Peppermint ranges, manufactured by WMR Products, a company since bought by Juul.

The pulegone additive, a constituent of oil extracts from mint plants, is believed to cause liver cancer if absorbed in high enough quantities.

While scientists behind the study do not know if pulegone is absorbed at the same rate through vaping as it is when eaten, they last night urged regulators to take precautionary action.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/09/16/e-cigarette-cancer-warning-new-study-finds-highlights-mint-menthol/

Meanwhile, 480,000 Americans die every year from cigarettes. I wonder if Trump is looking to ban them?

Ben Reilly wrote:Meanwhile, 480,000 Americans die every year from cigarettes. I wonder if Trump is looking to ban them?

No.

Has any politician that you can think of?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Meanwhile, 480,000 Americans die every year from cigarettes. I wonder if Trump is looking to ban them?

No.

Has any politician that you can think of?

No, nor has any politician I can think of tried to ban anything that had only killed six people out of millions. This isn't whoaboutism, it's common sense.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:


No.

Has any politician that you can think of?

No, nor has any politician I can think of tried to ban anything that had only killed six people out of millions. This isn't whoaboutism, it's common sense.

It's not whataboutism.

Or about Trump.

It's just showing that it's not dead Americans that matter, but the politics surrounding the product that was related to their death.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:


No.

Has any politician that you can think of?

No, nor has any politician I can think of tried to ban anything that had only killed six people out of millions. This isn't whoaboutism, it's common sense.

It's not whataboutism.

Or about Trump.

It's just showing that it's not dead Americans that matter, but the politics surrounding the product that was related to their death.

I think I agree with you. But! It does seem a pretty big statement to make (whomever made it) when it’s six just deaths and seemingly they’re linked to cannabis oils in e-cigs rather than e-cigs themselves.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Meanwhile, 480,000 Americans die every year from cigarettes. I wonder if Trump is looking to ban them?

No.

Has any politician that you can think of?

Exactly. Too much Fucking money to be made from tobacco and tobacco-related illnesses and deaths.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


No.

Has any politician that you can think of?

Exactly. Too much Fucking money to be made from tobacco and tobacco-related illnesses and deaths.

Both sides act the same and yet people will spend hours on here trying to prove one has the moral high ground.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


No.

Has any politician that you can think of?

Exactly. Too much Fucking money to be made from tobacco and tobacco-related illnesses and deaths.

Both sides act the same and yet people will spend hours on here trying to prove one has the moral high ground.  

Oh I know that.

I didn't say I or the left have the moral high ground, I said Trump is doing something stupid.

Ben Reilly wrote:I didn't say I or the left have the moral high ground, I said Trump is doing something stupid.

You fixate on one source of stupidity.

You brought up smoking as a comparison, not me.

You mentioned smoking kills thousands a year.

Shouldn't that be reason to ban it?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I didn't say I or the left have the moral high ground, I said Trump is doing something stupid.

You fixate on one source of stupidity.  

You brought up smoking as a comparison, not me.  

You mentioned smoking kills thousands a year.  

Shouldn't that be reason to ban it?

Well, this might surprise you, but I'm a bit libertarian myself when it comes to things like this.

I would rather allow tobacco smoking, but continue to warn people about its dangers, than ban it. Because personal choice is important.

So, as someone who wouldn't ban cigarettes despite the death toll, can you finally see that my problem with this move to ban something that has *maybe* killed six people has nothing to do with my dislike of Trump?

Can you maybe infer from that fact that the reason I don't like Trump has nothing to do with who he is, or the R beside his name, and everything to do with his actions?

Can you acknowledge that my values are vastly more important to me than political parties, and that if Republicans acted like Democrats and vice-versa, I'd switch to the Republican party?

I'm not shallow. I didn't pick a team to support to the end, right or wrong. I picked a vehicle I felt was most likely to enact the values I think would make America better.

I don't want to keep justifying myself -- I shouldn't have to -- but the first time I voted for president, I picked the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. And if it had been Colin Powell running against Gore in the same race, I might have voted for Powell, simply because he has always exuded calm leadership, whereas Gore was far more squirrelly back then.

I am all for people doing what they want to do with their own bodies, but I also believe they should understand the risks.

In nearly 20 years as a pulmonologist, Hasmeena Kathuria has never been so alarmed as she is by recent cases of severe lung problems and deaths linked to vaping.

https://www.futurity.org/vaping-deaths-injuries-2171272/

A 17-year-old boy from the Bronx died of vaping-related illness, becoming the New York's first fatality, Governor Andrew Cuomo said Tuesday.

He announced the death following an unrelated news conference, according to the Albany Times Union.

The US vaping crisis has now claimed 22 lives across 19 states.

Some 110 people in New York have vaping-related illnesses but the boy, who was treated at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, according to the New York Post, was the first to die in the state.

Of those, 21 are in New York City, according to the state's health department.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7551343/New-York-confirms-boy-17-die-vaping-state.html

How long could he have even been vaping, if he's only 17? He wasn't even getting his supplies legally -- legal tobacco age is 18 in the U.S.

I've been vaping for eight years now, and my body's response has shown me that it's better for me than smoking.