Singapore MOH to ban emerging tobacco products

[maxcjs0101]

SINGAPORE: A ban on emerging tobacco products in Singapore will kick in on Tuesday (Dec 15), said the Ministry of Health (MOH).

MOH had earlier announced in June this year that the ban on emerging tobacco products would be implemented in two phases.

The products in the ban are currently unavailable in Singapore. The ban would be "to ensure they do not gain a foothold or become entrenched in the Singapore market, which could stimulate demand for and increase the prevalence of tobacco consumption", said MOH.

The products that will be banned in the first phase include:

MOH also said the ban will be effected via the Prohibited Tobacco Products Regulations made under Section 15 of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act.

• Smokeless cigars, smokeless cigarillos or smokeless cigarettes;
• Dissolvable tobacco or nicotine;
• Any product containing nicotine or tobacco that may be used topically for application, by implant or injected into any parts of the body; and
• Any solution or substance, of which tobacco or nicotine is a constituent, that is intended to be used with an electronic nicotine

Those found to have contravened the ban face a fine of up to S$10,000 or up to six months' jail, or both. The second or subsequent conviction carries a fine of up to S$20,000 or up to 12 months' jail, or both.

The second phase of the ban, which is on emerging tobacco products that are in the local market, will take effect from Aug 1, 2016. The products include nasal snuff, oral snuff, gutkha, khaini and zarda.

Members of the public who have information on the import, distribution, sale or offer for sale of such emerging tobacco products may call 6684 2036 or 6684 2037 during office hours to report it, the ministry added

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/emerging-tobacco-product/2345382.html

Im pretty sure that the vaping/e-cigarettes issue in Malaysia has indirectly contributed to the decision for the ban. I wonder if this will eventually affect the cigar market/sales in Singapore.

[NSXCIGAR]

Looks like it excludes traditional cigarettes/cigars although Singapore had been mulling over a complete ban on smoking for anyone born after 2000. It apparently didn't get any traction. It's the height of hubris for anyone to think any industrialized country could actually stop people from smoking cigarettes by passing a law or even raising taxes. Can never and will never happen. But of course some people believe passing laws magically makes the problem go away.

This war on e-cigs and vaping drives me absolutely bananas. There is very little research on any of these products, let alone data indicating they're harmful. Since when does a supposedly free society start banning things first and asking questions later? Maybe they are bad, maybe they aren't--the point is we don't know. So let's at least wait and find out...?

While these morons think they're actually saving people from themselves the cigarette companies are laughing all the way to the bank. So much for that new market threat. Classic protectionism if I've ever seen it. Ban something that may be harmful but keep something we know is harmful.

This ban prevents any new tobacco product from being introduced which means potentially safer reformulations of existing products will also be banned. Good job, wise overlords of Singapore.

[CdnLimitada]

Looks like it excludes traditional cigarettes/cigars although Singapore had been mulling over a complete ban on smoking for anyone born after 2000. It apparently didn't get any traction. It's the height of hubris for anyone to think any industrialized country could actually stop people from smoking cigarettes by passing a law or even raising taxes. Can never and will never happen. But of course some people believe passing laws magically makes the problem go away.

This war on e-cigs and vaping drives me absolutely bananas. There is very little research on any of these products, let alone data indicating they're harmful. Since when does a supposedly free society start banning things first and asking questions later? Maybe they are bad, maybe they aren't--the point is we don't know. So let's at least wait and find out...?

While these morons think they're actually saving people from themselves the cigarette companies are laughing all the way to the bank. So much for that new market threat. Classic protectionism if I've ever seen it. Ban something that may be harmful but keep something we know is harmful.

This ban prevents any new tobacco product from being introduced which means potentially safer reformulations of existing products will also be banned. Good job, wise overlords of Singapore.

How about studying the product before it even goes on the market? Maybe they are bad and maybe they aren't? Wait and see? Glad you don't run things. Why don't we wait till the e-cigarettes have their own lobbyists and have a stronger foothold so that if they do prove to be dangerous, we have a real hard time getting rid of them? Kind of like the cigarette companies.

[NSXCIGAR]

How about studying the product before it even goes on the market? Maybe they are bad and maybe they aren't? Wait and see? Glad you don't run things. Why don't we wait till the e-cigarettes have their own lobbyists and have a stronger foothold so that if they do prove to be dangerous, we have a real hard time getting rid of them? Kind of like the cigarette companies.

The ingredients in these products were studied and analyzed by the manufacturers and found to contain ingredients considered safe for ingestion by governments around the world before ever being sold. They meet all government certification procedures and requirements now and at the time (which are not trivial). In nearly 10 years on the market the only harm that has come from these products are minor burns. If the products should indeed prove harmful the manufacturers of course should be held liable. If they're worried, put a warning statement about it's uncertainty on the box. But let me decide for myself, please.

And how much testing should be required before allowing products like this? 10 years? 20? 50? Do you think that kind of onerous approval and testing process might have any effect on entrepreneurs' willingness to develop new products at all? What if they do cause cancer but at a much lower rate than cigarettes? What if they're only 10% safer than cigarettes? Should they then be allowed? This is a very complex set of issues that no government agency even has the ability to resolve.

What if e-cigs ultimately prove to be safe? Think of all the people who will have died from cigarettes because the safer alternative wasn't available until years of testing proved they were safe, not to mention that the extensive approval process increases the final cost of the product. There's always trade-offs. And to not let the consumers make those trade-offs isn't what a free society or free markets are about. Big Macs kill more people than anything else on earth. You have to let people make their own choices. Being free means having the freedom to make bad decisions as well as good ones.

Banning things first and requiring extensive and costly testing is not how free society operates. That's guilty until proven innocent. Regulatory agencies like the FDA generally just create barriers to entry and do very little in terms of actual, quantifiable safety. There's a large amount of research and analysis showing that the FDA has likely killed many more people than they have saved. The market itself does a decent job of protecting consumers as long as companies are held liable for harmful actions, if any.

And if lobbying causes corruption that's not the fault of the companies or the products they make. If most people had a big business and could buy political favors they'd do it too. The people are supposed to vote in less corrupt politicians...

[Dara]

If they could tax e-cigarettes and vaping devices then I'm sure they wouldn't be so quick to ban them.

Problem is the liquid solution and the electronic devices are hard to tax.

Also it's a knee-jerk reaction because while they take the time to study these products and their affects, they're already in the markets and gaining a foothold.

As for the power of big tobacco, some of the big tobacco companies already own at least half of the major e-cog companies as they see them as a complimentary revenue stream allowing smokers to consume the product while at bars, on public transport and even on some airlines....the places were people already can't smoke cigarettes!

[maxcjs0101]

The reason for one to use e-cigarette/vape in my opinion is not a very good one. If one wants to reduce the dependency on tobacco related products, he/she might look into other alternatives such as nicotine patches, gum, etc while further studies on the safety on vapes are being done.

My concern is that this ruling might ultimately affect the premium tobacco businesses such as cigars and we will one day have no rights as a cigar smoker.

[perkinke]

"The market does a good job of protecting customers"? Ohhhh, so THAT'S why Coca-cola used to contain cocaine, make-up had arsenic, toys and paint were lead-based, and mercury was sold as a home remedy! It wasn't the market that stopped those sales, it was proper medical testing and legislation.

I think a permanent ban is premature, but I think a moratorium on sales until proper testing is completed is reasonable. And the big tobacco's ownership in the e-cig business is a perfect reason not to trust them. How often have they blatantly lied about their products and methods?

[CdnLimitada]

The ingredients in these products were studied and analyzed by the manufacturers and found to contain ingredients considered safe for ingestion by governments around the world before ever being sold. They meet all government certification procedures and requirements now and at the time (which are not trivial). In nearly 10 years on the market the only harm that has come from these products are minor burns. If the products should indeed prove harmful the manufacturers of course should be held liable. If they're worried, put a warning statement about it's uncertainty on the box. But let me decide for myself, please.

And how much testing should be required before allowing products like this? 10 years? 20? 50? Do you think that kind of onerous approval and testing process might have any effect on entrepreneurs' willingness to develop new products at all? What if they do cause cancer but at a much lower rate than cigarettes? What if they're only 10% safer than cigarettes? Should they then be allowed? This is a very complex set of issues that no government agency even has the ability to resolve.

What if e-cigs ultimately prove to be safe? Think of all the people who will have died from cigarettes because the safer alternative wasn't available until years of testing proved they were safe, not to mention that the extensive approval process increases the final cost of the product. There's always trade-offs. And to not let the consumers make those trade-offs isn't what a free society or free markets are about. Big Macs kill more people than anything else on earth. You have to let people make their own choices. Being free means having the freedom to make bad decisions as well as good ones.

Banning things first and requiring extensive and costly testing is not how free society operates. That's guilty until proven innocent. Regulatory agencies like the FDA generally just create barriers to entry and do very little in terms of actual, quantifiable safety. There's a large amount of research and analysis showing that the FDA has likely killed many more people than they have saved. The market itself does a decent job of protecting consumers as long as companies are held liable for harmful actions, if any.

And if lobbying causes corruption that's not the fault of the companies or the products they make. If most people had a big business and could buy political favors they'd do it too. The people are supposed to vote in less corrupt politicians...

The one thing I can at least get behind in the above is some sort of warning like these products have not been adequately tested.

The whole idea that both the regulatory testing of products or the market place will sort it out is crazy to believe in my opinion. How many cases of things being approved by the supposed regulatory body turned out to be harmful or deadly? Ever hear of Monsanto? Most people still consume some of their chemicals in everyday food that is slowly killing them (now proven and not conjecture) or making them sick. DDT (also partly Monsanto), thalidomide, cigarettes, BPA in plastic and on and on...how many whistle blowers are needed to start questioning regulatory bodies on what is safe?

Because something is 10% healthier than smoking is not a good reason to continue it unless it is adequately advertised as such. Even some medications (which many I consider more harmful than beneficial) have warning labels. Some, though rarely, are even taken out of production because of the damage caused but only after years of use.

I am not sure I understand the point of the last 3 sentences. Are you suggesting that companies are not responsible for their product safety? If a company knowingly produces a product harmful but has strong lobbyists to protect said product, the company is free and clear? I happen to think both the system and the company are at fault not just one of them. This level of thinking also says that big business should also pay the lowest taxes and get the most tax breaks compared to the small business that doesn't have the politicians in hand. "Don't blame the big business, blame the system". Big business IS the system these days in the US and is spreading to many parts of the world.

Look, we all use a product that has questionable health implications attached to it but at least we are aware of the risks. These new products we really have no idea. I would say 15-20 years of ACTUAL studies (independent parties with no financial ties) would be good. You still need even longer term studies in many products to know full impact but at least it is a start. If you still want to sell the product in the meantime (but no earlier than 5-10 years after adequate studies), label it as "health consequences unknown". I really hope they are safe but I certainly wouldn't bet my health or my life on a questionable product just because the market place is selling it.

[NSXCIGAR]

"The market does a good job of protecting customers"? Ohhhh, so THAT'S why Coca-cola used to contain cocaine, make-up had arsenic, toys and paint were lead-based, and mercury was sold as a home remedy! It wasn't the market that stopped those sales, it was proper medical testing and legislation.

I think a permanent ban is premature, but I think a moratorium on sales until proper testing is completed is reasonable. And the big tobacco's ownership in the e-cig business is a perfect reason not to trust them. How often have they blatantly lied about their products and methods?

We should probably familiarize ourselves with some actual history before throwing out examples that inadvertently bolster my position. Let me address each of these bad examples one by one.

The amounts of cocaine in Coca-cola were trace. By 1929 ...the amount of ecgonine [an alkaloid in the coca leaf that could be synthesized to create cocaine] was infinitesimal: no more than one part in 50 million. In an entire year's supply of 25-odd million gallons of Coca-Cola syrup, Heath figured, there might be six-hundredths of an ounce of cocaine. And when the negative publicity surrounding cocaine became widespread the Coca-cola co. immediately began voluntarily working to remove the ingredient as quickly as they could without any legislation mandating they do so. There's also no evidence oral consumption of cocaine is harmful in any way in such low amounts. Cocaine and heroin had been relatively safe, over-the-counter products in both Europe and the US for decades resulting in significant problems for only hundreds, not even thousands, of people. Alcohol caused and still causes far more problems for far more people. Furthermore, cocaine's inclusion in the Harrison Act of 1914 was an afterthought and almost totally propelled by false claims and racist propaganda and had almost nothing to do with actual consumer concern or safety.

Lead-based paint was actually highly endorsed by the US, state and local governments and specifically recommended for government buildings until the mid-1970s despite many well-known harms and warnings by the manufacturers like Sherwin-Williams since the early 20th century. The fact is lead-based interior paint was almost entirely out of use decades before the federal government got involved in 1971. They'd like to take credit for eliminating it but the plain reality was that it was voluntary action by the manufacturers that accounted for the decline in its use. By the late 40s and early 50s lead-paint poisoning in children had virtually vanished according to the JAMA with no state or federal government regulations yet in place.

Lead paint in toys has been virtually eliminated for decades but here's how effective the government has been at protecting the consumer: In 2006, a 4-year-old Minneapolis boy died after swallowing a trinket made by Reebok, which contained more than 90% lead. The incident brought to light the fact that many American toy companies have been violating federal safety standards for almost 30 years, according to Scott Wolfson of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Why has the government failed to hold these companies accountable as they should be? Is this the agency you trust to keep you safe?

Arsenic and white lead were almost entirely out of use in makeup by the early 1800s. Their toxic effects in makeup were common knowledge well before the US government even existed. New, non-toxic products evolved naturally in the market and without any legislation.

Mercury was not mainly used as a home remedy but was prescribed and used by professional physicians in the mid-late 19th century. The damage caused by this treatment resulted in a huge backlash against the entire medical profession as the so-called cure mimicked the disease and doctors began losing credibility. This situation lasted only a decade or two and well before 1900 the medical use of mercury had all but ceased except for use in dental fillings. Again, all voluntarily and not because of legislation of any kind.

The one thing I can at least get behind in the above is some sort of warning like these products have not been adequately tested.

The whole idea that both the regulatory testing of products or the market place will sort it out is crazy to believe in my opinion. How many cases of things being approved by the supposed regulatory body turned out to be harmful or deadly? Ever hear of Monsanto? Most people still consume some of their chemicals in everyday food that is slowly killing them (now proven and not conjecture) or making them sick. DDT (also partly Monsanto), thalidomide, cigarettes, BPA in plastic and on and on...how many whistle blowers are needed to start questioning regulatory bodies on what is safe?

Because something is 10% healthier than smoking is not a good reason to continue it unless it is adequately advertised as such. Even some medications (which many I consider more harmful than beneficial) have warning labels. Some, though rarely, are even taken out of production because of the damage caused but only after years of use.

I am not sure I understand the point of the last 3 sentences. Are you suggesting that companies are not responsible for their product safety? If a company knowingly produces a product harmful but has strong lobbyists to protect said product, the company is free and clear? I happen to think both the system and the company are at fault not just one of them. This level of thinking also says that big business should also pay the lowest taxes and get the most tax breaks compared to the small business that doesn't have the politicians in hand. "Don't blame the big business, blame the system". Big business IS the system these days in the US and is spreading to many parts of the world.

Look, we all use a product that has questionable health implications attached to it but at least we are aware of the risks. These new products we really have no idea. I would say 15-20 years of ACTUAL studies (independent parties with no financial ties) would be good. You still need even longer term studies in many products to know full impact but at least it is a start. If you still want to sell the product in the meantime (but no earlier than 5-10 years after adequate studies), label it as "health consequences unknown". I really hope they are safe but I certainly wouldn't bet my health or my life on a questionable product just because the market place is selling it.

There's an astonishing lack of evidence that DDT was toxic or harmful to the environment on a measurable scale. It was banned almost entirely due to perceived public fear and kooky theorizing by one late-60s activist named Rachel Carson that resembled Ralph Nader's late 60's fear-mongering and demonstrably false theories about the Chevrolet Corvair in "Unsafe at Any Speed." In reality, the number of people saved from starvation, malaria and bubonic plague by DDT far exceeds those that could have ever come to harm directly from the chemical.

Thalidomide was a very small, localized problem that had nothing to do with the US or the FDA. The US had the power to prevent it from ever becoming available in the first place. Used in Germany and the UK for only 4 years, it was available without prescription and was safer than the alternative (mainly barbiturates) which likely prevented much harm in adults who used it properly. In fact, it is currently approved by the FDA and quite effective when used properly under a doctor's care. Incidentally, the original German manufacturer Chemie Grunenthal were let off the hook for the harm caused because of political corruption. That is the government not protecting you.

BPA has been deemed safe by the FDA multiple times. Little or no evidence exists of it being harmful in amounts that could seep into food from containers. But manufacturers have yet again voluntarily reduced its use because of recent public concern--a classic case of marketplace regulation. Just the hint of harm causes these companies to backpedal.

My point in addressing all these one-by-one is to bring attention to the myths many of us, including me, have been spoon-fed from birth that the world is full of problems and scary things that big bad, greedy businessmen try and sell us and that the only possible way to be safe is to have the government and its wise technocrats establish some sort of regulatory agency that carefully analyzes everything and passes along their scientifically impeccable, unbiased and impartial results to the wise, unbiased, impartial politicians who then have the authority to pass legislation allowing the police to arrest anyone who makes or uses such product or tax it to an arbitrary degree. This model, we're told, results in it disappearing from the market. But as we know, things rarely, if ever, disappear from the market--particularly the black or gray ones.

The truth is that companies have the forces of market regulation constantly tugging at them. Almost all of the harmful products over the last 200 years have been eliminated via market regulation and liability laws. Companies actually pay organizations like Underwriters Laboratories who have arguably done more for the safety of consumers than any government agency could ever dream of. The UL standards typically exceed the standards of all regulatory agencies and once tested, products are insured and guaranteed by UL.

I'm not saying products should not be tested or researched. Of course not. I'm saying let the market dictate the level of testing necessary and who does it. And as long as you have a fair and reasonable court or justice system that holds the manufacturers accountable for harm or negligence (what didn't happen in the Thalidomide case and unfortunately doesn't happen in many cases.) Government banning something outright and mandating 10, 15 or 20 years of costly research is a recipe for products never even being developed. It sounds good until it's your product you can't get to market or raise capital for. And if it does ever get to market how expensive is it going to have to be to cover R & D costs? No one could afford it!

You suggest 15-20 years of research for e-cigarettes? The FDA's drug approval process is only a decade or so and requires such outrageous levels of testing it costs $1 billion to get the damn thing to market. Europe's approval process is a fraction of that and there's never been any significant safety difference between Europe and the FDA. A product like e-cigarettes simply does not warrant a level of testing on par with pharmaceuticals.

Using that logic literally anything could be banned until 20 years of testing proves it worthy. It would be absurd to ban things like GMO foods that have saved literally millions of lives because we haven't researched them for 20 years. Sure, GMOs may kill you in 20 or 30 years but they are allowing people to live now that otherwise wouldn't have at all. I'd rather live to 35 and die of cancer than die at the age of 3 from malnutrition and/or disease. Everything's a trade-off. People should be able to make those trade-offs themselves.

[TheGipper]

I'm always dismayed that a lot of the same crowd who bash the ADMs, Monsantos, DuPonts of the world (synthetic is bad, because FRANKENSTEIN ARGICULTURE, DUH) are eating at places like Chipotle (I want manure on my food, BECAUSE ORGANIC, DUH).

[CdnLimitada]

This response is sort of my point. Personally, I don't trust most of the groups that claim to be keeping us safe. I wish we could have unbiased testing on these products. In today's corporate profit world that is next to impossible. I know I have trust issues

Basically I try to avoid (and especially my family) being the guinea pig for corporations that push products on to the market simply because there is a market for it. I understand why others are okay with it. It can drive you crazy with all the label reading and research.

It is quite difficult to fully know if something is safe and unless we all want to go live in the woods and grow our own food, we are at some risk. I just want to minimize the risk if I can.

We should probably familiarize ourselves with some actual history before throwing out examples that inadvertently bolster my position. Let me address each of these bad examples one by one.

The amounts of cocaine in Coca-cola were trace. By 1929 ...the amount of ecgonine [an alkaloid in the coca leaf that could be synthesized to create cocaine] was infinitesimal: no more than one part in 50 million. In an entire year's supply of 25-odd million gallons of Coca-Cola syrup, Heath figured, there might be six-hundredths of an ounce of cocaine. And when the negative publicity surrounding cocaine became widespread the Coca-cola co. immediately began voluntarily working to remove the ingredient as quickly as they could without any legislation mandating they do so. There's also no evidence oral consumption of cocaine is harmful in any way in such low amounts. Cocaine and heroin had been relatively safe, over-the-counter products in both Europe and the US for decades resulting in significant problems for only hundreds, not even thousands, of people. Alcohol caused and still causes far more problems for far more people. Furthermore, cocaine's inclusion in the Harrison Act of 1914 was an afterthought and almost totally propelled by false claims and racist propaganda and had almost nothing to do with actual consumer concern or safety.

Lead-based paint was actually highly endorsed by the US, state and local governments and specifically recommended for government buildings until the mid-1970s despite many well-known harms and warnings by the manufacturers like Sherwin-Williams since the early 20th century. The fact is lead-based interior paint was almost entirely out of use decades before the federal government got involved in 1971. They'd like to take credit for eliminating it but the plain reality was that it was voluntary action by the manufacturers that accounted for the decline in its use. By the late 40s and early 50s lead-paint poisoning in children had virtually vanished according to the JAMA with no state or federal government regulations yet in place.

Lead paint in toys has been virtually eliminated for decades but here's how effective the government has been at protecting the consumer: In 2006, a 4-year-old Minneapolis boy died after swallowing a trinket made by Reebok, which contained more than 90% lead. The incident brought to light the fact that many American toy companies have been violating federal safety standards for almost 30 years, according to Scott Wolfson of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Why has the government failed to hold these companies accountable as they should be? Is this the agency you trust to keep you safe?

Arsenic and white lead were almost entirely out of use in makeup by the early 1800s. Their toxic effects in makeup were common knowledge well before the US government even existed. New, non-toxic products evolved naturally in the market and without any legislation.

Mercury was not mainly used as a home remedy but was prescribed and used by professional physicians in the mid-late 19th century. The damage caused by this treatment resulted in a huge backlash against the entire medical profession as the so-called cure mimicked the disease and doctors began losing credibility. This situation lasted only a decade or two and well before 1900 the medical use of mercury had all but ceased except for use in dental fillings. Again, all voluntarily and not because of legislation of any kind.

There's an astonishing lack of evidence that DDT was toxic or harmful to the environment on a measurable scale. It was banned almost entirely due to perceived public fear and kooky theorizing by one late-60s activist named Rachel Carson that resembled Ralph Nader's late 60's fear-mongering and demonstrably false theories about the Chevrolet Corvair in "Unsafe at Any Speed." In reality, the number of people saved from starvation, malaria and bubonic plague by DDT far exceeds those that could have ever come to harm directly from the chemical.

Thalidomide was a very small, localized problem that had nothing to do with the US or the FDA. The US had the power to prevent it from ever becoming available in the first place. Used in Germany and the UK for only 4 years, it was available without prescription and was safer than the alternative (mainly barbiturates) which likely prevented much harm in adults who used it properly. In fact, it is currently approved by the FDA and quite effective when used properly under a doctor's care. Incidentally, the original German manufacturer Chemie Grunenthal were let off the hook for the harm caused because of political corruption. That is the government not protecting you.

BPA has been deemed safe by the FDA multiple times. Little or no evidence exists of it being harmful in amounts that could seep into food from containers. But manufacturers have yet again voluntarily reduced its use because of recent public concern--a classic case of marketplace regulation. Just the hint of harm causes these companies to backpedal.

My point in addressing all these one-by-one is to bring attention to the myths many of us, including me, have been spoon-fed from birth that the world is full of problems and scary things that big bad, greedy businessmen try and sell us and that the only possible way to be safe is to have the government and its wise technocrats establish some sort of regulatory agency that carefully analyzes everything and passes along their scientifically impeccable, unbiased and impartial results to the wise, unbiased, impartial politicians who then have the authority to pass legislation allowing the police to arrest anyone who makes or uses such product or tax it to an arbitrary degree. This model, we're told, results in it disappearing from the market. But as we know, things rarely, if ever, disappear from the market--particularly the black or gray ones.

The truth is that companies have the forces of market regulation constantly tugging at them. Almost all of the harmful products over the last 200 years have been eliminated via market regulation and liability laws. Companies actually pay organizations like Underwriters Laboratories who have arguably done more for the safety of consumers than any government agency could ever dream of. The UL standards typically exceed the standards of all regulatory agencies and once tested, products are insured and guaranteed by UL.

I'm not saying products should not be tested or researched. Of course not. I'm saying let the market dictate the level of testing necessary and who does it. And as long as you have a fair and reasonable court or justice system that holds the manufacturers accountable for harm or negligence (what didn't happen in the Thalidomide case and unfortunately doesn't happen in many cases.) Government banning something outright and mandating 10, 15 or 20 years of costly research is a recipe for products never even being developed. It sounds good until it's your product you can't get to market or raise capital for. And if it does ever get to market how expensive is it going to have to be to cover R & D costs? No one could afford it!

You suggest 15-20 years of research for e-cigarettes? The FDA's drug approval process is only a decade or so and requires such outrageous levels of testing it costs $1 billion to get the damn thing to market. Europe's approval process is a fraction of that and there's never been any significant safety difference between Europe and the FDA. A product like e-cigarettes simply does not warrant a level of testing on par with pharmaceuticals.

Using that logic literally anything could be banned until 20 years of testing proves it worthy. It would be absurd to ban things like GMO foods that have saved literally millions of lives because we haven't researched them for 20 years. Sure, GMOs may kill you in 20 or 30 years but they are allowing people to live now that otherwise wouldn't have at all. I'd rather live to 35 and die of cancer than die at the age of 3 from malnutrition and/or disease. Everything's a trade-off. People should be able to make those trade-offs themselves.

[deejank]

i dont' think traditional tobacco products will be banned, too many older generation citizens smoke there including the law makers. they probably wanted to ban vaping because they don't know what the hell it is!

[El Presidente]

I know I have trust issues

I remember how sad it was when I told my kids when in their early teens to trust no one bar immediate family.

Governments don't even come in the top 100 of "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to trust.