FDA takes historic action against e-cigs/vaping: Why does S.O. want to allow vape and hookah lounges?

bettyd said:
Maybe a couple check cashing places too.

 If combined with a Payday loan store, it would better fit community needs.


So predatory lending = body art?


BG9 said:
Wonderful, isn't it? This concern for our children. And this is from a FDA with a Trump Republican appointee.
So unusual. Trump's appointees have shown they don't care about the environment or health concerns. But here we see an exception.
Or do we?
I'm reminded of Republican congressman Tauzin who helped push Medicare Part D through, the drug benefit program. So caring for the seniors. Or was he?
Tauzin arranged to include in the law a prohibition that that prevented Medicare Part D from negotiating drug prices. In other words, charge senior the full price. After he left office he earned 2 million a year as president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical lobbying group.
Was his agenda helping senior or getting a new lucrative market for big Pharma, a market which could not be negotiated and then being rewarded with a 2 million a year job from big pharma.
How do we know there is no hidden agenda here? Is it possible the very lucrative nicotine patch market is hurt by vaping?

When watching FDA Commissioner, Scott Gottleib, on The News Hour last night, I thought EXACTLY the same thing -   With an Trump appointee there HAS to be a hidden agenda?    Another dystopian self realization:  I have become suspect of anything that appears to be in the best interest of the public regarding health, education, environment, etc. - I have lost trust in ANY appointed official - even though Dr. Gottleib was intelligent, articulate and convincingly sincere and his arguments clearly compelling.    

In regard to the vaping lounge question: IMO, IF there is an age limitation, then it would be similar to a bar, or cigar store/lounge and should not be restricted.   (BTW, during the FDA interview, my freshman at Columbia High said that vaping is "everywhere" at school).

History has proved that there is an ongoing market for "vices" (chuckle)... and humans will search them out in many forms.  Can't wait for the future MOL threads on NJ weed legalization and dispensaries!   As far as the tattoo parlors, I am with many others as to why they would be limited in our artistic and progressive community (as long as they meet health and safety standards)?   I feel like I am the only one without tats at my gym... are all these other executives going to the "den of iniquity" to get their ink? Doubt it.  I would argue that tattoos are no longer considered a vice, and clearly you can find both tattoo parlors & vape lounges in upscale communities throughout the USA (Breckenridge CO, Napa CA, Newport RI, Montclair NJ etc.).


bettyd said:
Concerns are exploding over the newly discovered health risks of vaping.  SO does not need these places and should not want them  Way to go SO.

Like they didn’t know exactly what they were doing and what the risks were. They got us again. Hooked a whole new generation on smoking. Marketed it to children with the flavors and packaging. And “we” (society) let them do it all over again.


Ban is too strong but they never should have been allowed to market this like they did and target the teen audience. 


At Maplewood’s last town meeting Mayor De Luca mentioned that there will be an approved marijuana dispensary on Springfield Ave.


Are there any studies as to whether vaping is less/more/equally dangerous than cigarette/cigar smoking?

TomR


even if the answer is “less”, doesn’t mean you market it to start a whole new generation smoking. 


A side issue is the cost to school systems. When a tyke is caught vaping, the school system pays to send the student for a drug screening. That is because marijuana is vaped.

I wonder if the board has figures on the amount of $ spent on such drug testing that resulted from instances of vaping.


conandrob240 said:
even if the answer is “less”, doesn’t mean you market it to start a whole new generation smoking. 

 I'm gonna take that as an "I dunno what I'm talking bout"


galileo said:
At Maplewood’s last town meeting Mayor De Luca mentioned that there will be an approved marijuana dispensary on Springfield Ave.

 Not will but may be.  The State is limiting the number of marijuana dispensaries.  It remains to be seen whether the SA proposal will be one of them.


Tom_R said:


conandrob240 said:
even if the answer is “less”, doesn’t mean you market it to start a whole new generation smoking. 
 I'm gonna take that as an "I dunno what I'm talking bout"

 Three problems with tobacco.  Nicotine, tar and the chemical carcinogens that tobacco companies will not disclose under the guise of "trade secrets."


With vaping, nicotine is present. That is the purpose of the device. Tar? Maybe. Carcinogens? We don't know if the cigarette carcinogens have been replaced with other carcinogens to facilitate the efficacy of the vaping device.


So, even if we don't know the comparative safety of vaping vs tobacco, do you think vaping does anything good for kids?


Tom_R said:


conandrob240 said:
even if the answer is “less”, doesn’t mean you market it to start a whole new generation smoking. 
 I'm gonna take that as an "I dunno what I'm talking bout"

Nice try. I’d imagine that the initial studies show its LESS damaging than cigarettes which is how they tricked the market again to hook a bunch of teens.ill also bet that newer studies show its far more dangerous than those original studies. 


But, smoking awareness was actually working and the # of people (teens) that smoked cigarettes was down from years ago. So it’s not like these teens “traded” cigarettes for vaping. They started smoking because of the marketing of this product.


I’ve gotta say that some of the recent BOT decisions/proposals have been very odd: chickens, dog poop in the park, hookah lounges, college dorm on valley street. Just don’t get it. These seem like very niche issues benefiting a sliver of our population. I’d much rather have more focus on lowered taxes. So far all these new residential developments have not lowered my taxes. How about you?


conandrob240 said:




But, smoking awareness was actually working and the # of people (teens) that smoked cigarettes was down from years ago. So it’s not like these teens “traded” cigarettes for vaping. They started smoking because of the marketing of this product.

 The increase in tobacco from vaping is because vap offers less throat irritation. Add the "flavors" and kids are happy to try it.


Oh, also, it's cool.


annielou said:
I’ve gotta say that some of the recent BOT decisions/proposals have been very odd: chickens, dog poop in the park, hookah lounges, college dorm on valley street. Just don’t get it. These seem like very niche issues benefiting a sliver of our population. I’d much rather have more focus on lowered taxes. So far all these new residential developments have not lowered my taxes. How about you?

 Wow.  You didn't think this through, did you?  First, the BOT works on a lot of things at once.  Quality of life issues are some of those.  Encouraging new businesses in town fills storefronts.  If those buildings become more valuable as a result they will pay higher taxes.  The college dorm proposal , while still not settled, would bring around $600,000 in taxes in annually.  What this can do is lower the rate of tax increases, much as the Third and Valley project has done.  58% of our taxes go to the schools, not the town, and our schools need work, so don't look for savings there.  This is an expensive area, and I applaud the BOT for trying to control the rate of increase.


I'm thinking of taking up vaping to make me look younger. cheese 


annielou said:
I’ve gotta say that some of the recent BOT decisions/proposals have been very odd: chickens, dog poop in the park, hookah lounges, college dorm on valley street. Just don’t get it. These seem like very niche issues benefiting a sliver of our population. I’d much rather have more focus on lowered taxes. So far all these new residential developments have not lowered my taxes. How about you?

 Sorry it is one of Newton's Laws of physics: taxes do not go down. Get used to it.


FilmCarp said:


annielou said:
I’ve gotta say that some of the recent BOT decisions/proposals have been very odd: chickens, dog poop in the park, hookah lounges, college dorm on valley street. Just don’t get it. These seem like very niche issues benefiting a sliver of our population. I’d much rather have more focus on lowered taxes. So far all these new residential developments have not lowered my taxes. How about you?
 Wow.  You didn't think this through, did you?  First, the BOT works on a lot of things at once.  Quality of life issues are some of those.  Encouraging new businesses in town fills storefronts.  If those buildings become more valuable as a result they will pay higher taxes.  The college dorm proposal , while still not settled, would bring around $600,000 in taxes in annually.  What this can do is lower the rate of tax increases, much as the Third and Valley project has done.  58% of our taxes go to the schools, not the town, and our schools need work, so don't look for savings there.  This is an expensive area, and I applaud the BOT for trying to control the rate of increase.

 I guess I just don’t understand how chickens, dog poop, hookah, and dorms up in residential neighborhoods increases the quality of life here in South Orange. I get needing new businesses but a hookah lounge? Why not a dispensary? It seems like other towns are jumping on that one while we muse about hookah and dog poop.


you misunderstand the dispensary issue.  The state decides where to allow dispensaries.  Towns, including ours, are applying to the state to say we would welcome one. If the state decides we can have one here then a private company can open one in an approved area.


annielou said:


FilmCarp said:

annielou said:
I’ve gotta say that some of the recent BOT decisions/proposals have been very odd: chickens, dog poop in the park, hookah lounges, college dorm on valley street. Just don’t get it. These seem like very niche issues benefiting a sliver of our population. I’d much rather have more focus on lowered taxes. So far all these new residential developments have not lowered my taxes. How about you?
 Wow.  You didn't think this through, did you?  First, the BOT works on a lot of things at once.  Quality of life issues are some of those.  Encouraging new businesses in town fills storefronts.  If those buildings become more valuable as a result they will pay higher taxes.  The college dorm proposal , while still not settled, would bring around $600,000 in taxes in annually.  What this can do is lower the rate of tax increases, much as the Third and Valley project has done.  58% of our taxes go to the schools, not the town, and our schools need work, so don't look for savings there.  This is an expensive area, and I applaud the BOT for trying to control the rate of increase.
 I guess I just don’t understand how chickens, dog poop, hookah, and dorms up in residential neighborhoods increases the quality of life here in South Orange. I get needing new businesses but a hookah lounge? Why not a dispensary? It seems like other towns are jumping on that one while we muse about hookah and dog poop.

 I'm confused about the dog issue. I went to the BOT meeting last night and the newly considered ordinance would attempt to enforce scooping. I literally do not have a dog in this fight but if you are referring to letting dogs walk through the park on a leash, I thought it seemed reasonable. I did hear one thing that surprised me, and that was the claim that children lick grass. And here I thought they smoked it. Who knew?


Tee hee. But I think the obvious problem is residual poop left on the grass.  Regardless of how well the owner cleans up ( if in fact this could even be regulated ), stuff left on the grass isnt so great for kids who just want to run and play in the park.


If we agree e-cigs are a problem, the only solution I see is, restrict them to prescription distribution.


Formerlyjerseyjack said:
If we agree e-cigs are a problem, the only solution I see is, restrict them to prescription distribution.

 Then we should do the same for tobacco and alcohol.


well, they could start by not marketing to children. No kiddie flavors. Posting the risks like with cigarettes. Raising buying age to 21 and enforcing it. 


Or by prescription only for current smokers but that’s a pretty extreme step.


conandrob240 said:
well, they could start by not marketing to children. No kiddie flavors. Posting the risks like with cigarettes. Raising buying age to 21 and enforcing it. 


Or by prescription only for current smokers but that’s a pretty extreme step.

 CVS and other enlightened vendors have eliminated tobacco from their stores........a logical step on their part.  Why  cure them and then help kill them ?


conandrob240 said:
well, they could start by not marketing to children. No kiddie flavors. Posting the risks like with cigarettes. Raising buying age to 21 and enforcing it. 


 I have no issues with any of these suggestions


author said:


conandrob240 said:
well, they could start by not marketing to children. No kiddie flavors. Posting the risks like with cigarettes. Raising buying age to 21 and enforcing it. 


Or by prescription only for current smokers but that’s a pretty extreme step.
 CVS and other enlightened vendors have eliminated tobacco from their stores........a logical step on their part.  Why  cure them and then help kill them ?

I agree. I think the ONLY case that can be made for this crap is that it’s better than cigarettes so maybe possibly useful as a step down tool. Really, though, I can’t believe they let this even get to this point. Should have stopped this in its tracks years ago. 


spontaneous said:


Formerlyjerseyjack said:
If we agree e-cigs are a problem, the only solution I see is, restrict them to prescription distribution.
 Then we should do the same for tobacco and alcohol.

 The difference is that tobacco and booze are "established." Vap is not. 

The history of Walgreens involves prohibition. The laws for prohibition allowed the sale of alcohol for medicinal purposes. I believe it was one pint per month. I don't know if it required a prescription. This was the case, even though there was no known medicinal use for alcohol at the time.


Anyways, Walgreens saw the increase in medicinal alcohol sales as an opportunity and opened numerous branches in the Chicago area. Medicinal whiskey became their best seller.


Adults enjoy it, and should be allowed to continued to do so.

I don't drink much at all, a few times a year if even that much.  I don't smoke.  If alcohol and tobacco were outlawed tomorrow it wouldn't change my lifestyle in the least.  Alcohol use does affect many lives, the person who abuses it, the family of the abuser, and in many cases third parties such as DUI accident victims.  Yet I still don't feel that making alcohol illegal is a step we need to take.  And in a similar vein, even though I don't smoke cigarettes, cigars, marijuana, or vape, I don't feel that those substances need to be made illegal.

Marketing to children should not be tolerated.  When Spuds Mackenzie and Camel Joe were popular, the answer wasn't to outlaw beer and cigarettes.  It was to take steps to stop advertising from marketing to children.

Marketing towards children and teens is an issue, but shouldn't be thrown in with adults choosing to enjoy these substances. 



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.