EU wants to ban e-cigs - part 2

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:58 pm UTC

Me neither. That's why I ask.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:01 pm UTC

Now I'll have to go look up journal articles about C14 glucose.
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:51 pm UTC

Whelp, from the wiki:
The different isotopes of carbon do not differ appreciably in their chemical properties. This is used in chemical and biological research, in a technique called carbon labeling: carbon-14 atoms can be used to replace nonradioactive carbon, in order to trace chemical and biochemical reactions involving carbon atoms from any given organic compound.
So, actually, I wager there is nothing wrong with doing this.

Man, I feel stupid now given that pulse-chase experiments are a thing.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby nitePhyyre » Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:25 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Whelp, from the wiki:
The different isotopes of carbon do not differ appreciably in their chemical properties. This is used in chemical and biological research, in a technique called carbon labeling: carbon-14 atoms can be used to replace nonradioactive carbon, in order to trace chemical and biochemical reactions involving carbon atoms from any given organic compound.
So, actually, I wager there is nothing wrong with doing this.
Except for the 'being radioactive' part, I'd imagine?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:28 pm UTC

Biologically irrelevant half life, my guess is the amount of damaging radiation you're actually exposed to is pretty low?

Actually, the wiki says this:
Since essentially all sources of human food are derived from plants, the carbon that comprises our bodies contains carbon-14 at the same concentration as the atmosphere. The rates of disintegration of potassium-40 and carbon-14 in the normal adult body are comparable (a few thousand disintegrated nuclei per second).[27] The beta-decays from external (environmental) radiocarbon contribute approximately 0.01 mSv/year (1 mrem/year) to each person's dose of ionizing radiation.[28] This is small compared to the doses from potassium-40 (0.39 mSv/year) and radon (variable).

Carbon-14 can be used as a radioactive tracer in medicine. In the initial variant of the urea breath test, a diagnostic test for Helicobacter pylori, urea labeled with approximately 37 kBq (1.0 µCi) carbon-14 is fed to a patient (i.e. 37,000 decays per second). In the event of a H. pylori infection, the bacterial urease enzyme breaks down the urea into ammonia and radioactively-labeled carbon dioxide, which can be detected by low-level counting of the patient's breath.[29] The 14-C urea breath test has been largely replaced by the 13-C urea breath test which has no radiation issues.


So, yeah, I guess not. Neat.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby jseah » Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:27 am UTC

Biochemist who has worked with c14, d2 nmr:
The carbon 14 is probably fine but deuterium is most definitely not.

Heavier atoms take more energy to break bonds formed with them. For c14, this effect is not significant as the proportional increase in mass governs the magnitude of this effect.
For deuterium, it will have a major effect on protein catalysis and stability.

Even for relatively hardy bacteria, you have to grow them in successively higher concentrations of deuterium media or they'll die/fail to adapt. The chance that this could work for a mouse would be very low to nil. (Aka show me that paper! Would love to read about that if it could work)
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

dii
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: 60.17°N 24.94°E

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby dii » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:57 am UTC

Oh great, they're at it again. Now the commission wants to go totally against what the parliament has already voted on, and wants to apply truly draconian restrictions to e-cigarettes, which if applied, would effectively kill the whole concept of e-cigarette.

http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1655#more-1655

Late last week the European Commission circulated a confidential new proposal for regulating e-cigarettes. The document was sent only to those negotiating the future of e-cigarettes behind closed doors in Brussels – representatives of the European Parliament and European Council. This isn’t a final proposal, but it provides the negotiators with something to discuss. The Nicotine Science and Policy website has obtained the document, and it is here. It is quite frankly appalling – lacking any legitimacy in public health or internal market policy-making… Make no mistake, if implemented this proposal bans every product on the market today and would severely limit options for future products - and may make it commercially unviable to develop in future.

The main troubling features include:

Allows only single-use cartridges. No refillable units or tanks will be permitted and so the most effective devices will be removed from the market.
Allows only flavours already approved for use in NRT. Hands control to pharma companies and against the view of the Parliament that recognised the importance of flavours.
Limits nicotine density to 20mg/ml maximum with no justification, cutting out the stronger liquids that appeal more to heavily addicted smokers and those just switching
Limits nicotine content of any container to just 10mg/unit – this is extremely low and arbitrary (see new paper on lethal doses for nicotine) and makes no sense
Allows only devices that “deliver nicotine doses consistently and uniformly” – a completely unnecessary, severe and limiting technical challenge derived from medicines regulation – unlike with medicines, e-cigarette users control the dose.
Bans advertising in press or printed publications (except trade), on radio, TV and other audiovisual services and the internet (through “information society services“) – this just protects incumbents (tobacco industry) and those who can rely on established distribution channels (tobacco industry)
Bans e-cigarette sponsorships that have cross border impact (e.g. anything that might be shown on TV) – reduces competitiveness of disruptive technology
Applies onerous and unnecessary warning, labelling and leaflet requirements that may be impractical and are disproportionate to risk deterring smokers who may wish to switch
Bans cross border distance sales (internet etc) in clear contravention of the aims of the internal market
Requires manufacturers to track so-called ‘adverse effects’ even though nicotine is widely used and understood
Requires the submission of large quantities of seemingly irrelevant technical and commercial data despite recent high level commitments to reduce red tape
Asserts (against the evidence) that e-cigarettes “simulate smoking behaviour and are increasingly used and marketed to young people and non-smokers” continuing the European tradition of smearing valuable harm-reduction option, notably snus, to the detriment of health in Europe.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby davidstarlingm » Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:47 pm UTC

curtis95112 wrote:I'd love it if there was some kind of minimum standard for laws. One that requires that every law spell out its purpose and the evidence be at least in favor of the law doing what it's ostensibly intended to do.
It's one thing when the people want to kill all the [insert race here] and legalize genocide, at least they're doing what they're trying to do. And with a population like that any form of democracy is doomed anyway. But it's a completely different thing when people decide to reduce crime by banning violent video games and reduce terrorism by spending billions on the TSA.

Holy crap. This.

"You are not allowed to make any laws unless you explain the process whereby you think the law will achieve the specific purpose for which it is enacted."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban e-cigs - part 2: Revenge of the commissi

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:51 pm UTC

"And if in a case the law is working contrary to original intent, a judge shall make an exception to the law"

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: EU wants to ban e-cigs - part 2: Revenge of the commissi

Postby Zamfir » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:04 pm UTC

And judges will be infallible and bring no personal political viewpoints to the table when making those decisions. Also, no one will try to influence the selection of judges now that they have this powerful political role. We could use the US supreme court as example.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban e-cigs - part 2: Revenge of the commissi

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:43 am UTC

Hey! No bringing in rational cynicism into my pipe dreams!

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: EU wants to ban e-cigs - part 2: Revenge of the commissi

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:51 am UTC

Why not just build perfectly neutral judge-bots? I will be happy to program them all to always deal out proper judgment.*


*While proper judgment is subjective, if it is questioned we can bring the judge-bot before a judge-bot to judge whether the judge-bot gave proper judgment (checks and balances and all that).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: EU wants to ban e-cigs - part 2: Revenge of the commissi

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:51 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Hey! No bringing in rational cynicism into my pipe dreams!

Pipe dreams. Heh.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: EU wants to ban e-cigs - part 2: Revenge of the commissi

Postby leady » Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:14 pm UTC

Or you could make the judging ciriteria objective in the law, preferably with a negative consequence to the sponsoring politician

"i want to ban X, that I can reduce Y by Z% and I'm stake 50% of my politician salary for the year on it"

ah bliss...

johnie104
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: EU wants to ban/restrict e-cigarettes

Postby johnie104 » Sun Dec 01, 2013 12:42 pm UTC

dii wrote:Oh great, they're at it again. Now the commission wants to go totally against what the parliament has already voted on, and wants to apply truly draconian restrictions to e-cigarettes, which if applied, would effectively kill the whole concept of e-cigarette.

http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1655#more-1655

Late last week the European Commission circulated a confidential new proposal for regulating e-cigarettes. The document was sent only to those negotiating the future of e-cigarettes behind closed doors in Brussels – representatives of the European Parliament and European Council. This isn’t a final proposal, but it provides the negotiators with something to discuss. The Nicotine Science and Policy website has obtained the document, and it is here. It is quite frankly appalling – lacking any legitimacy in public health or internal market policy-making… Make no mistake, if implemented this proposal bans every product on the market today and would severely limit options for future products - and may make it commercially unviable to develop in future.

The main troubling features include:

Allows only single-use cartridges. No refillable units or tanks will be permitted and so the most effective devices will be removed from the market.
Allows only flavours already approved for use in NRT. Hands control to pharma companies and against the view of the Parliament that recognised the importance of flavours.
Limits nicotine density to 20mg/ml maximum with no justification, cutting out the stronger liquids that appeal more to heavily addicted smokers and those just switching
Limits nicotine content of any container to just 10mg/unit – this is extremely low and arbitrary (see new paper on lethal doses for nicotine) and makes no sense
Allows only devices that “deliver nicotine doses consistently and uniformly” – a completely unnecessary, severe and limiting technical challenge derived from medicines regulation – unlike with medicines, e-cigarette users control the dose.
Bans advertising in press or printed publications (except trade), on radio, TV and other audiovisual services and the internet (through “information society services“) – this just protects incumbents (tobacco industry) and those who can rely on established distribution channels (tobacco industry)
Bans e-cigarette sponsorships that have cross border impact (e.g. anything that might be shown on TV) – reduces competitiveness of disruptive technology
Applies onerous and unnecessary warning, labelling and leaflet requirements that may be impractical and are disproportionate to risk deterring smokers who may wish to switch
Bans cross border distance sales (internet etc) in clear contravention of the aims of the internal market
Requires manufacturers to track so-called ‘adverse effects’ even though nicotine is widely used and understood
Requires the submission of large quantities of seemingly irrelevant technical and commercial data despite recent high level commitments to reduce red tape
Asserts (against the evidence) that e-cigarettes “simulate smoking behaviour and are increasingly used and marketed to young people and non-smokers” continuing the European tradition of smearing valuable harm-reduction option, notably snus, to the detriment of health in Europe.


I'm usually for regulating harmful substances, but this is just completely stupid. There is finally a way smokers can change their addiction to a more healthier one, and then they do this... I wonder if this was inspired by the tobacco lobby, I guess they have incentives to prevent E-smokers from becoming mainstream.

Anecdotal: My uncle and aunt who have been smoking (A LOT) for 30 years have both switched to E-smokers. They smoke less now, and my aunt even likes the taste better then normal cigarettes (she tried one recently, and really didn't like the taste anymore). Next to that their house smells way better, and I can actually sit next to them without feeling my throat getting smaller.

I guess we simply can't have nice things.
Signature removed because of it's blinding awesomeness.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests