Attorneys general ask FDA to regulate e-cigarettes

If it looks illegal, but really isn't, should we ban it anyway?

That's one of the questions we're facing with the growing popularity of electronic cigarettes.

The problem is, while smoking has been banned in most public places, including inside work places, "vaping" with an e-cigarette has not.

If you're not familiar with them, e-cigarettes consist of a cartridge containing nicotine and water, a heating element and a battery, and most of them look like a real, filtered cigarette. When a smoker puffs on them, the heating element vaporizes the water and nicotine, and the mist is taken into the lungs.

Health officials worry that e-cigarettes will addict a new generation to nicotine, thanks to cartridges that come in a variety of flavors from cherry, grape and strawberry, to others like rose, green tea and plum. The cartridges also come in a variety of nicotine strengths, ranging from 0 to 34 mg. Cartridges are equivalent to about half a pack to 11⁄2 packs of cigarettes.

Forty state attorneys general sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday urging the agency to regulate e-cigarettes the same way it does tobacco products.

So why hasn't the FDA done something?

It turns out the FDA has no regulatory powers over the devices unless the manufacturers claim they offer therapeutic benefits, such as help in quitting smoking. For now, the FDA's Center for Tobacco Product regulates only cigarettes, cigarette and roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco.

Also, most states haven't caught up with the technology, allowing them to be sold to minors.

While nicotine, a tobacco plant's natural pesticide, is dangerous mostly because it addicts smokers to tobacco, which carries many other harmful substances when burned, it carries its own risks.

Nebraska's Smoke-Free Air Law doesn't prohibit e-cigarettes, since the product is not "lit," and they can legally be used indoors.

However, state health officials say "it may be in the best interest of a business (especially bars) to prohibit their use because their appearance is so similar to conventional cigarettes, which could cause confusion about whether or not the business is following the law."

In other words, ban it first, ask questions later.

A slim majority of people who responded to a recent online poll at mccookgazette.com answered "yes" when asked "Should smoking electronic cigarettes be allowed where regular cigarettes are not." The poll showed 133 votes, 48.2 percent in favor, 44.9 percent, 124 votes, against, and 19 votes, or 6.9 percent "don't care."

We have no problem with rules that attempt to keep children from becoming addicted to nicotine -- a problem that usually occurs in the middle teen years.

Outlawing something simply because it looks like something else, however, is going too far.