What to watch for as the FDA’s vaping laws are implemented

Anyone shocked that the FDA regulations make it harder for small scale vape shops would be well served to look at the history of the agency.  The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which created the FDA was created as a result of the danger of small drug manufacturers.  Pharmacies made tinctures that contained opium, alcohol and other substances to make a patient feel better, regardless of medical value.  Poisonous concoctions could be mixed and sold as medicine while endangering the lives of patients, not to mention creating addicts.

The parallels between gilded age opium and 21st century smoking fads are clear.  At its most simple, modern vape shops are mixing a potentially deadly poison without oversight.  On top of that, modern smoke shops all have special brews, not unlike the cocaine peddlers of yesteryear.  To further complicate matters, the regulations on packaging are not yet evolved.  The drug can be sold in a package easier to open than a standard bottle of baby aspirin.  As a result, it is not surprising that the FDA has stepped in to clean up the business.

There will be three things to watch for to see where the smokeless tobacco industry evolves, whether the industry will evolve, whether proof will be found or whether like an old soldier, e-cigarettes just fade away.  These questions will certainly impact the way that e-cigarettes are regulated in the next round of of rules.

Will a hybrid mixing business arise?

One of the questions that arose for me is how people will respond to a change in the rules.  The small smoke shops live in fear that the new regulation will lead to their demise, but it could be possible that they adapt.  One question will be whether there will be a way around the rules, with smoke shops buying the liquid and making smoking devices that include flavor chambers.  Regulatory loopholes often lead to new markets, and it is easy to imagine a new market arising out of the current rules.

Will there be any conclusive proof on the health effects of vaping?

The uncomfortable truth is that right now, there is no conclusive proof on the public health impacts of vaping.  The two sides have made their arguments, but neither is persuasive.

Advocates point to the fact that e-cigarettes do not have tar and the fact that tobacco usage has declined in the last decade among high school age children.  If the groups are correct, e-cigarettes should be encouraged.  However, the evidence is far from conclusive.  The danger of smoking is often not found for decades after a person starts using a product and liquid tobacco has only been on the market since 2006.  Similarly, a decline in tobacco usage, while a welcome trend could be explained by many things besides the new product.  Restrictions on smoking in restaurants and an increase in cigarette prices are also strong explanations.

Conversely, opponents of the new products see e-cigarettes as a candy-flavored gateway drug.  Already, 15% of high school age children use the product and 5% of middle school aged children use them.   They also point out the danger of the liquid and the fact that nicotine is still deadly.  In spite of everything, their fears are not yet borne out.  There is no conclusive evidence on the long term effect of the products and there is similarly nothing to suggest that the users of the product will move on to cigarettes.

Regardless of which side seems correct now, it is reasonable to guess that the next generation of tobacco laws will be governed by better research.  At the very least, a collection of 20-year vapers will be a group to study.

Will people just move on?

The third key question is whether vaping will just go away.  Tastes change, and while e-cigarettes could become commonplace, they could also be forgotten.  Fewer people are using cocaine today than in the days of Scarface, and it is entirely possible that vaping becomes less popular.  This could be an organic trend, simply tastes evolving, or the law really could have a severe impact.  If it becomes harder for 15 year olds to get the vapor, way fewer may use it.

And of course, there is the possibility that people move on to more dangerous usages for the product.  In truth, shooting up modern heroin is far more deadly than simply drinking a few drops of opium and it isn’t hard to imagine e-liquid being injected or turned to powder and snorted.  If the use of the product evolves in that direction, it is easy to imagine the FDA increasing its regulation on the products, in particular how it would regulate cartridges.  Regardless, no one knows what the future of vaping will look like.

How to Spanish-ize the internet

An investigation into how to make the internet more available for Spanish Speakers

During my time in Chile, a translation error put me in an upper-level history class.  I quickly discovered a problem: Wikipedia does not have a lot of information on minor players in Chilean History.  While a reader could find out about General San Martin, what about Nicolas de la Cruz y Bahamode?  More broadly, the question of how more information may be made available to Spanish speakers and conversely how to package Latin American Culture for Yanquis remains uncertain.

There are three obvious solutions to this problem.  First, users can rely on internet translation services.  While I was in Chile, I often relied on this service.  To be sure we are no longer in the days of Alta Vista Babelfish, which would translate, word for word, regardless of grammar.  Modern Google translate can actually get a reader pretty close to the proper meaning.   Based originally on translations done of EU documents, the system is able to sort through language to do translations.

Of course, this is inherently imperfect.  Google translate is based on translations of EU documents.  In Chilean Spanish, the term ser mono, means to be beautiful.  However, typed into google translate, the result in English would be to be a monkey.  More broadly, there is an inherent unreliability of translation services.  If a person were reading a translated article on the history of Puerto Montt Chile, certainly the translator would get the reader to 90% of the way there, but what about the remaining 10% accuracy? And of course, as more and more information becomes available by video, how will translators work to bring videos to speakers of different languages.

A second option might be called the Canadian approach, forcing publishers of work in English to write in Spanish.  While this option seems farfetched, it might not be unrealistic.  Already, the FCC requires the closed captioning of television shows, how much more work would it be for large publishers, major newspapers, websites to be required to publish in Spanish?  Currently, in the United States there are about 10 million hard of hearing (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177267) but 41 million Spanish Speakers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language_in_the_United_States) .  It stands to reason that an accommodation could be reached for this group.

Ignoring the obvious political problems, this strategy would still fall short for two reasons.  First, this could be a huge financial burden.  While certainly papers like the New York Times have Spanish Speakers on staff, in the thin-margined world of journalism, this could be a devastating regulation.  A second problem would be that this still pushes the readership towards big named sites.  Sites like this one would not be able to handle language changes.

A third option might be to set up a group of translators as a form of scholar in residence.  This would work by bringing in recent international college graduates or American hispanohablantes and commission them to translate anything they want online for a year.  Such a program would allow them to expand the reach of scholarly articles or Buzzfeed in the hopes that they might be able to let the internet, in all its incarnations be read in Spanish.  In addition to providing an honest, random sampling of the internet, this might also usher in a development in modern linguistics.  One of the current questions in Spanish is whether to translate English internet terms to their literal Spanish equivalent.  For example, should the web be referred to as its translation el red?  By providing a large database of translated pages, there would be a ready draft of how neologisms are translated.

Moving forward, a serious discussion needs to be had about the next front of internet accessibility.  In order to correct for this, there are several ways that major language of the internet can be made available in other languages.  Moving forward, it is likely that a combination of approaches will need to be taken.