It has already happened in New York in which e-cigarettes have been banned. I recently stumbled across a news article:
----
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/06/28/prsd0628.htm
"Chicago -- Testing and safety information on electronic cigarettes is limited, the American Medical Association said, and the devices should be restricted.The AMA House of Delegates adopted policy at the organization's Annual Meeting in June recommending that e-cigarettes be classified as drug delivery devices that are subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, state legislatures should prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes and all other nicotine devices that are not FDA-approved, and the products should be covered by smoke-free laws, the policy says.
"I want them subject to [FDA] regulations so people know exactly what they're inhaling," said Atlanta internist Sandra Fryhofer, MD, a member of the AMA Council on Science and Public Health.
The FDA said it detected diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans, during examination of a small sample of cartridges from two leading e-cigarette brands. In several other samples, the agency identified carcinogens in the cartridges, including nitrosamines, which can be found in tobacco smoke."
-
Courts have ruled that the FDA is not allowed to regulate e-cigarettes. Now, politicians are clamoring to get them to regulate it again. Sure, some of us may think that this a good thing. But not if they stop shipments from China, or even outright ban them.
Also, New York law states no longer allows for the sale of e-cigarettes until the FDA tests them. This disregards mountains of scientific evidence and toxicology analysis that proves that they are safer than analogs.
To give them a little credit, it's true that no long-term study has been done concerning their health effects. But whats so bad about 2 or 3 carcinogens that they may potentially find in e-cigs as opposed to the thousands found in analogs? Why not target tobacco rather than a safer alternative?
----
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/06/28/prsd0628.htm
"Chicago -- Testing and safety information on electronic cigarettes is limited, the American Medical Association said, and the devices should be restricted.The AMA House of Delegates adopted policy at the organization's Annual Meeting in June recommending that e-cigarettes be classified as drug delivery devices that are subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, state legislatures should prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes and all other nicotine devices that are not FDA-approved, and the products should be covered by smoke-free laws, the policy says.
"I want them subject to [FDA] regulations so people know exactly what they're inhaling," said Atlanta internist Sandra Fryhofer, MD, a member of the AMA Council on Science and Public Health.
The FDA said it detected diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans, during examination of a small sample of cartridges from two leading e-cigarette brands. In several other samples, the agency identified carcinogens in the cartridges, including nitrosamines, which can be found in tobacco smoke."
-
Courts have ruled that the FDA is not allowed to regulate e-cigarettes. Now, politicians are clamoring to get them to regulate it again. Sure, some of us may think that this a good thing. But not if they stop shipments from China, or even outright ban them.
Also, New York law states no longer allows for the sale of e-cigarettes until the FDA tests them. This disregards mountains of scientific evidence and toxicology analysis that proves that they are safer than analogs.
To give them a little credit, it's true that no long-term study has been done concerning their health effects. But whats so bad about 2 or 3 carcinogens that they may potentially find in e-cigs as opposed to the thousands found in analogs? Why not target tobacco rather than a safer alternative?
RSS Feed