Cities Banning Electronic Cigarettes

[Nebor]

Link

This was in a North Dallas suburb. I can't wait for this to gain traction in Dallas itself. I hate sitting next to someone at a bar puffing away on their e-cig pipe thingamajigs with a smug look on their face like they're finally sticking it to the man by smoking in a bar.

 

[dmcowen674]

Same here. Smokers suck

 

[MagickMan]

Since you don't smell it, why would you care? Because they look smug? What's worse are obese people, they stink and it isn't even from cigs. D:

 

[ivwshane]

I don't see the big deal with e-cigs (other than people who use them look like douches), the main issue I had with regular cigarettes was the smell and second hand smoke and e-cigs do away with that.

If we start having so many restrictions on the act of smoking (e-cig or not) and we know how unhealthy they can be then why not just ban them? Make a law where you can only smoke what you grow kind of thing.

 

[dawp]

Since you don't smell it, why would you care? Because they look smug? What's worse are obese people, they stink and it isn't even from cigs. D:

not true, they still have an odor, not as bad as tobacco, but they still smell. a lot depends on the drops used.

 

[rudder]

Can't an establishment just put up a no e-cigs sign? Seems everything needs legislation. As a consumer you can just take your business to the non e-cig places.

 

[Genx87]

Can't an establishment just put up a no e-cigs sign? Seems everything needs legislation. As a consumer you can just take your business to the non e-cig places.

Oh god no! People like the OP dont want people to have the freedom of choice. They want to ban something because the people using it look "smug".

 

[FerrelGeek]

Can't an establishment just put up a no e-cigs sign? Seems everything needs legislation. As a consumer you can just take your business to the non e-cig places.

Oh god no! People like the OP dont want people to have the freedom of choice. They want to ban something because the people using it look "smug".

This. But again, it's the usual suspects that need laws to protect them from the things they don't like; but don't you dare go doing that to them. Let individual establishments decide and then let people vote with their wallets.

 

[Nebor]

The health effects of second hand vapor are still unknown. Furthermore, I don't like smokers, and I really don't like them playing "gotcha" with a new technology that skirts existing laws. It'd be like if someone invented a ray gun and brought it to school and then shot it around all over the place saying, "Hurr durr, it's not a gun!"

It wouldn't take much of a change to most places' existing laws regarding cigarettes in public spaces. Just make the e-cigs and other vapor devices a kind of cigarette legally.

 

[GoPackGo]

So they should ban the nicotine gums and patches as well...since we don't know the effects of second hand gum breath or second hand patch sweat.

 

[Genx87]

The health effects of second hand vapor are still unknown. Furthermore, I don't like smokers, and I really don't like them playing "gotcha" with a new technology that skirts existing laws. It'd be like if someone invented a ray gun and brought it to school and then shot it around all over the place saying, "Hurr durr, it's not a gun!"

It wouldn't take much of a change to most places' existing laws regarding cigarettes in public spaces. Just make the e-cigs and other vapor devices a kind of cigarette legally.

No, it wouldn't be like bringing a gun to school.

 

[Newell Steamer]

So they should ban the nicotine gums and patches as well...since we don't know the effects of second hand gum breath or second hand patch sweat.

Next, if a smoker so much as TOUCHES anything (like a package being delivered from a UPS/FedEx delivery person who smokes, you food being prepared by someone who smoked up to 2 hours ago) - incinerate them,.. the smoker.

 

[soulcougher73]

Can't an establishment just put up a no e-cigs sign? Seems everything needs legislation. As a consumer you can just take your business to the non e-cig places.

Probably cause that never happens in reality. It could happen, but rarely if ever do you see it in action. If allowed all bars would allow e-cigs. So legislation is brought in to make it happen. Its just the way the world works.

 

[Nebor]

Probably cause that never happens in reality. It could happen, but rarely if ever do you see it in action. If allowed all bars would allow e-cigs. So legislation is brought in to make it happen. Its just the way the world works.

Not for libertarians it's not.

 

[Nebor]

No, it wouldn't be like bringing a gun to school.

You're right, it'd be like bringing an unknown chemical weapon to school.

These things shouldn't even be allowed for sale until they've been thoroughly vetted by the Surgeon General's office, much less allowed in public exposing non-consenting adults and children to their potentially dangerous vapors.

 

[Genx87]

You're right, it'd be like bringing an unknown chemical weapon to school.

These things shouldn't even be allowed for sale until they've been thoroughly vetted by the Surgeon General's office, much less allowed in public exposing non-consenting adults and children to their potentially dangerous vapors.

Your analogy got worse and more desperate.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

not true, they still have an odor, not as bad as tobacco, but they still smell. a lot depends on the drops used.

This. We had two techs here that stunk the office up with their ecigs. Thankfully the bossman told them to go outside.

 

[Nebor]

Your analogy got worse and more desperate.

Shall we take bets on whether e-cigs are banned from public use much like cigarettes in the next 5 years? I'm not desperate, I'm on the winning side.

 

[Genx87]

Shall we take bets on whether e-cigs are banned from public use much like cigarettes in the next 5 years? I'm not desperate, I'm on the winning side.

Oh I am sure they will be banned. That is what you nanny staters do. But that doesn't mean your analogies weren't terrible.

 

[MrPickins]

The health effects of second hand vapor are still unknown. Furthermore, I don't like smokers, and I really don't like them playing "gotcha" with a new technology that skirts existing laws. It'd be like if someone invented a ray gun and brought it to school and then shot it around all over the place saying, "Hurr durr, it's not a gun!"

It wouldn't take much of a change to most places' existing laws regarding cigarettes in public spaces. Just make the e-cigs and other vapor devices a kind of cigarette legally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUEjnoWpdao

 

[artvscommerce]

The health effects of second hand vapor are still unknown. Furthermore, I don't like smokers, and I really don't like them playing "gotcha" with a new technology that skirts existing laws. It'd be like if someone invented a ray gun and brought it to school and then shot it around all over the place saying, "Hurr durr, it's not a gun!"

It wouldn't take much of a change to most places' existing laws regarding cigarettes in public spaces. Just make the e-cigs and other vapor devices a kind of cigarette legally.

They actually are known; Have you ever been to a concert with a fog machine? It's the same "vapor". All that's in these e-juices are propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and food flavorings. These are all things people have been ingesting for years and are known to be safe.

If you think there is a serious concern here you are being manipulated by the misinformation put out there by the media and tobacco lobbyists.

Bottom line- If there's a legit reason to ban it, that's fine; but it shouldn't be compared to smoking. There is no smoke or combustion taking place. If the issue for people is the smell, I find many peoples perfumes or colognes to be far more offensive than most ecig vapor odors.

 

[moonbogg]

Can't an establishment just put up a no e-cigs sign? Seems everything needs legislation. As a consumer you can just take your business to the non e-cig places.

Ridiculous. Stop spewing legitimate common sense in the forums.

 

[momeNt]

Not for libertarians it's not.

You ever think that the reason this wouldn't be the case, is because it isn't actually supported by a majority of the market? In this case bar-goers?

It's supported by those who make their voices very loud and complain a lot, and politicians appease those who complain.

Not enough people care enough to make an establishment voluntarily ban e-cigs, but since you care a whole lot, you think its a good thing that your minority opinion is reflected in the law? That's foolish.

 

[thraashman]

Oh god no! People like the OP dont want people to have the freedom of choice. They want to ban something because the people using it look "smug".

Cigarettes make sense to ban in a lot of public settings because there is a legitimate health risk for those who aren't making the choice to smoke. But since that second hand risk isn't there for e-cigs, banning just makes no sense. It helps a lot of people get away from smoking. If they're going to be forced to go outside anyway, that takes away a lot of the motivation smokers have to move to e-cigs.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So they should ban the nicotine gums and patches as well...since we don't know the effects of second hand gum breath or second hand patch sweat.

spoken like a true idiot......