Talk:Regulation of electronic cigarettes

Multiple ban claims incorrect
This article makes multiple factually incorrect claims.

- It states that E-Cigarettes are banned in Bahrain, citing a Telegraph article about a Fatwa. But Fatwas are not legally binding (as is correctly stated in the Regulation section of Malaysia), and indeed there seem to be Vape Shops in Bahrain: https://www.vapeinbahrain.com

-It states that nicotine-containing e-cigarettes have been banned in Japan since 2010, which is simply untrue. The corresponding source also does not state anything of the sort, quite the contrary.

-It states that vaping is legal in the Philippines, when Duterte has already announced a complete ban.

- On the European map it lists Finland, Norway and Sweden as having a complete ban on the sale of nicotine-carrying liquids. This is also incorrect.

These are just a couple mistakes I have found as I scanned this article for my own research. There might be a lot more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.108.10 (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree that the facts are wrong IffyMohammed (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Policy evaluation studies section
, regarding this removal of the "Policy evaluation studies" section, I'm afraid I'm not following your reasoning. Could you explain what makes this content off-topic? -- Beland (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources are unreliable and mostly primary studies. The content is about how taxes effect the use of electronic cigarettes and how restrictions effect prenatal smoking. That's about usage rather than specific facts about regulation.
 * See "Studies[183][184][185][186][187] that examine the impact...". See "Along the same line, another study found[188] that e-cigarette...". See "Regarding indoor vaping regulations, one study[189] found that it increased prenatal smoking by...". The text even states they are studies. Studies or primary sources are unreliable. QuackGuru ( talk ) 14:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Studies that measure the impact of taxes on usage are incredibly relevant to the regulation of electronic cigarettes, because they are measuring what the effects of different policy choices are. While secondary sources would be preferred, primary sources for economic questions as long as they are characterized accurately, which it seems they are. I have restored this section. -- Beland (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)