Here We Go: NY Times Editorial Board Wants Massive Regulation On E-Cigs

When we refer to the left as Progressives, what we are talking about, as Jonah Golberg wrote in his book Liberal Fascism, is that they are nice fascists. They’re just here to help. With massive government control. This is why Jonah put a smiley face on the cover. Transfats are bad for you, so they must be controlled and/or banned. Salt? Same. School lunches. You name it, they have their hands in it, because You Don’t Know Better. Except abortion. Then they want zero regulations or restrictions. Anyhow, I mentioned yesterday an opinion piece masquerading as an article about how nicotine is “poison by the barrel”, which followed an editorial about e-cigs, both at the NY Times. Now the EB steps in again

Lethal Liquid Nicotine

As little as a teaspoon of liquid nicotine — the key ingredient in electronic cigarettes — can kill a small child and less than a tablespoon, at high concentrations, can kill an adult. Yet some vendors are offering to sell the lethal product over the Internet by the gallon or barrel, with little control over how it is handled, as reported by Matt Richtel in The Times on Monday.

Nice coordination. Nice hysteria. I wonder how many products are sold over the Internet that could be considered “lethal”? Maybe we should just shut all commerce on the web down. Anyhow, if companies are selling crappy product, people will buy elsewhere. That’s the way it works.

Regulation is much tighter in Europe and other advanced countries. The European Parliament limits the amount of nicotine in e-cigarettes to 20 milligrams per milliliter, or a 2 percent concentration, which can cause sickness but is rarely fatal in children. It also requires childproof and tamper-proof packaging and graphic health warnings. Canada goes even further and regulates liquid nicotine and e-cigarettes under the strict rules that govern the safety of drugs; the manufacturers must submit scientific evidence demonstrating safety, quality and efficacy.

By all means, let’s replicate the notions of countries that have crummy economies, that do all they can to stifle commerce, all for “your own good”, before the facts are in. This is the default position of Progressives: if it moves, regulate it. And tax it. And cause its price to artificially increase.

Now, the Times does browbeat Obama for failing to move regulations forward via executive action and agency rule making quite a bit in the article. Moving on

The use of electronic cigarettes has soared in recent years because of the claim that they allow smokers to satisfy their nicotine addictions without inhaling the tars and other toxins found in tobacco smoke. But the devices carry some risks, like extreme addictiveness for young people just starting to smoke, harmful side effects at high doses and toxic ingredients caused by quality control problems in some factories. And now the potential dangers seem to be growing. An Israeli toddler died last year after drinking from a small bottle of liquid nicotine that her grandfather used to refill his e-cigarette.

I’m sorry a child died, and some have been harmed, but life is inherently risky. People, including kids, are harmed and killed every day from all sorts of products, even ones that are heavily regulated. How many die from cars? Wind turbines killed 14 people in England alone in 2011. There have been other deaths and injuries from wind turbines. A turbine just killed two people in the Netherlands in October 2013. Wind turbines are known to cause “headaches, ringing in her ears, insomnia and dizziness” (though more research needs to be done to establish this as more than a casual health issue). By Progressive, and NY Times, standards, they should be heavily regulated and even banned.

It’s time that the Obama administration allowed the F.D.A. to propose rules and begin taking public comment. The F.D.A. should limit the amount of liquid nicotine in any container sold to consumers, stop sales on the Internet, require childproof packaging and ban labels and flavorings that appeal to children. It will be crucial to prohibit the sale of liquid nicotine in very high concentrations; 10 percent and 7.2 percent solutions are widely available on the Internet and are lethal even in small quantities.

This is what Conservatives refer to when they talk about Big Government, and Progressive love of Big Government. American Conservative doctrine, which is more like Classical Liberal theory, discusses that the government that governs least governs best, and understands that there are times when the government should become involved, but they should use a light touch. Don’t go overboard. That’s not what the Times’ EB is proposing, as you read. Stop sales on the Internet? That’s insane. Ban all fun flavors? Those flavors make vaping fun, which helps people quite real cigarettes. And are individual choice. Limit concentrations? Limit size? This is the heavy hand of Progressivism.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “Here We Go: NY Times Editorial Board Wants Massive Regulation On E-Cigs”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Yes, only a fascist would consider regulating highly addictive, candy-flavored or fruit-flavored poisons sold over the internet.

    Let the market decide! If enough children die, sales will slow and the invisible hand will force the sellers to self-regulate or lose money.

    Freedom!!

  2. John says:

    Teach is probably still upset over mandatory seat belts
    Teach feels that the government should really only make regulations concerning what happens inside a woman’s uterus

  3. Nighthawk says:

    And according to you two, everything BUT a woman’s uterus should be regulated.

    Yes, the seat belt laws are ridiculous. Tell me it makes sense to mandate seat belts while riding in a fully enclosed, steel vehicle yet allow people to zip around on a two wheeled, non enclosed vehicle without a helmet or restraints while wearing just shorts and flip-flops.

    Neither of you will be happy until the government controls every aspect of our lives. From how large a soft drink you can buy, to how much sleep you require, to how many pieces of toilet paper you can use.

    Some of us are perfectly capable of deciding what is best for ourselves and enjoy the freedom to make those decisions and will defend that freedom. Others, it is obvious, not so much.

  4. Stosh says:

    Government bans and regulations fix everything…..LOL

    Why not go after some of the problems that have killed far more persons.

    Consider ….

    Dogs – 30-35 people are killed each year in the U.S. Fido isn’t always your best friend. BAN dogs??
    Deer – 130 people killed across the U.S. by deer, almost exclusively because drivers hit the deers with their cars. That saying “a deer in the headlights” came about for a reason. BAN Driving?
    Cows – 22 people are killed in the U.S. every year from these seemingly docile creatures. Ban Milk?

  5. Stosh says:

    Yes, only a fascist would consider regulating highly addictive, candy-flavored or fruit-flavored poisons sold over the internet.

    If you don’t want them around you, don’t buy them. Guess you really can’t fix stupid.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    Teach is probably still upset over mandatory seat belts

    Please tell us john, what business is it of the government to mandate or regulate something that will only impact the person who is making the decision to use or not use a seat belt?

    No, the seat belt regulations went from a “people need to realize that seat belts save lives” to “hey! If a person is not wearing a seatblet wr can stop them and look for other things!” Seat belt laws long went past the idea of “saving lives” and went directly to “the government demands to know what you are doing in your car.”

    Teach feels that the government should really only make regulations concerning what happens inside a woman’s uterus

    And you think that murder is acceptable.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Stosh,

    One way to mitigate the results of stupid is to limit stupid people’s access to dangerous items and to make certain that stupid people shoulder the responsibility for their stupid actions. Also, you can insist that those selling a dangerous product is responsible for the actual cost to society. That would mean incorporating the cost of damages in the selling price. Would you agree that the seller of concentrated nicotine that kills a child shares a part of the blame? It’s certainly not the child’s fault. You can blame the parents of the child for letting them go to a vapers house. Would you prosecute the vaper and the parents? Life in prison sounds fair.

    Frankly, if you’re stupid enough or weak enough to start smoking as an adult, you garner little sympathy. But in a modern, complex and interconnected society, individual actions can have societal consequences. 1) If a smoker or a vapid develops heart disease, lung disease or cancer from their bad habits, our charitable society will not let you suffer and die unattended. If you can’t pay for your own care (and most can’t – and see how much private insurance wants a smoker for a customer), you sponge off the rest of us for your end of life care. This year alone, some 400,000 Americans will die prematurely from smoking. Bin Laden only killed about 3000, and only did it once. The cost in terms of human suffering and finances is staggering. But most smokers do not start when they are adults, but start as teenagers. So, 2) why should we give carte blanche to a business that wants to peddle a fruit-flavored addictive poison to children to get them addicted to nicotine? Few grown-ups smoke for the first time. The nicotine and tobacco industry need teenagers. The younger, the better.

    So-called libertarians are upset because they believe they have an unfettered “right” to concentrated fruit-flavored, nicotine solutions?

    About 250,000 Americans will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year, 90% will be smokers or former smokers. Over half will be dead with a year of diagnosis, and nearly all will die within 5 years, after much suffering and expense.

    To me, this seems like a significant societal problem.

    Please explain why we should make it easier for people to get rich selling addictive poisons to kids that will result in their painful death years later? If your only answer is some perverted sense of liberty, you are going to lose this argument.

  8. Whew! Those are some pretty darned heavy strawmen John has fabricated.

    But, let’s see: I have no problem using a seatbelt, I always have. Dad taught me safety and defensive driving. I’d use one even if it wasn’t the law, and I always tell my passengers to put them on.

    As far as the uterus goes, let’s see if John can answer the question Jeff has ducked several times: would you be OK with placing a restriction that a woman must be 18 in order to get an abortion without the consent of a parent/guardian? I think that’s fair.

    How about doing away with late term abortion except in cases where a doctor will certify that the mother’s life is in severe danger?

    How about regulations dealing with the cleanliness and operations of abortion facilities, in order to make sure women are not put in danger? We certainly want to protect the health of women, right?

    How bout a 24 hour waiting period? We have to wait 7 days for a handgun permit. Certainly waiting 24 hours is reasonable, right?

    Frankly, if you’re stupid enough or weak enough to start smoking as an adult, you garner little sympathy.

    Do you drink, Jeff? Alcohol is much worse for you than tobacco. BTW, you called Obama stupid and weak. Do you support marijuana?

    So-called libertarians are upset because they believe they have an unfettered “right” to concentrated fruit-flavored, nicotine solutions?

    No, not a right, but why does Government have to constantly tell us how to live our lives? And there was a time not that long ago when Liberals felt the same way. Now they can’t wait to put their finger in our business.

  9. Kevin says:

    Teach, I have to say I’m baffled by why you still smoke some small amount of cigarettes each day. If there is some sense of non-fulfillment or loss by not smoking real smokes, you are simply using the wrong type of e-cig. You should not be wanting real cigarettes anymore.

    Have you tried the one that’s called the EGO, Tornado, EGO-C or Tornado EGO-C? They all blow regular cigarettes away. You should never want to smoke a real cigarette again. Don’t use the kind where the battery is the diameter of a cigarette. They’re too weak. Use the kind where the battery is the diameter of about 2 cigarettes (650mAh min, 1000mAH preferred). Ignore Jeffrey and quit smoking those damn tobacco sticks!

  10. Jeffery says:

    “the question Jeff has ducked several times: would you be OK with placing a restriction that a woman must be 18 in order to get an abortion without the consent of a parent/guardian?”

    The majority of states require consent or notification of a parent or guardian before the procedure. These states also have a judicial bypass (you know, in case the father is also the father).

    http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PIMA.pdf

    I agree with the Supreme Court that the laws that require notification/consent are OK as long as they have a judicial bypass.

    “Alcohol is much worse for you than tobacco.”

    Nonsense. Each year, tobacco kills ten times more Americans than alcohol.

    “BTW, you called Obama stupid and weak.” But only if he started smoking as an adult; I called him stupid OR weak.

    “Do you support marijuana?” I supported decriminalizing it. We shouldn’t be putting people in jail for using drugs. Marijuana is much less dangerous than tobacco.

  11. gitarcarver says:

    The majority of states require consent or notification of a parent or guardian before the procedure.

    Jeffery ducks the question.

    Here’s the question:

    would you be OK with placing a restriction that a woman must be 18 in order to get an abortion without the consent of a parent/guardian?

    “Notification” is not the same as “consent or notification” but he knew that.

    Oh, and by the way Jeffery, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.

    Actions speak louder than words Jeffery.

  12. Exactly, GC, he ducked it again. And where’s John?

    Thing is, Kevin, I like to smoke. It’s my only vice. I rarely drink, drugs do not interest me. I won’t even take a quick toke if offered. I find pot to be boring. I might stop smoking real ones sometime soon. For the moment I have just significantly cut down. I get a pretty good hit off my e-cig. It’s the wanting to quit totally from real ones that’s the problem.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5650 access attempts in the last 7 days.