Cities Banning Electronic Cigarettes

[master_shake_]

Is that water vapor!!

Fuck you smoker!

 

[woolfe9998]

The FDA did a chemical analysis on samples of the liquids used in e-cigs. There are ~70 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke. They found 1 of them in the e-cigs, and that in a concentration of 1:10,000 of the concentration found in cigarettes. You get more carcingens breathing the air near a public road, by far.

So far as the smell goes, it is very faint at best, and does not persist more than a few seconds.

There is no reason to ban or restrict e-cigs. None at all.

 

[BudAshes]

I have ecigarettes, but its not nicotine in them

 

[JEDIYoda]

Care to elaborate?

his example is bogus at best...that is such a ridiculous premise......

 

[BoomerD]

Banned at almost every place in downtown san diego worth going to. I approve. You usually get one warning from the bouncer then get kicked out.

AFAIK, that's state law in CA.

Some states have e-cigs regulated exactly the same as regular cigarettes...some haven't regulated them at all...yet.

Washington state hasn't done anything on the state level...YET, but they're looking to put a 70% tax on them. That will pretty much kill the industry here.
Right now, it's a city-by-city and county-by-county issue. Some have banned them inside buildings/workplaces...some haven't. Many local businesses have banned their use inside...which, IMO, is how it should be handled.

I used e-cigs to quit smoking over a year ago. I still use mine...and I vape a heavy nicotine level of juice...but even my non-smoker, smoker-hater wife doesn't object to the e-cig.

Is there some smell? Yes...but depending on the liquid, it may actually be pleasant. I use blueberry and pina colada in my vaporizers...they smell NOTHING like tobacco and the smell is acceptable...and to many non-smokers, actually smells good.

It's been my experience that many who bitch about e-cigs are just "I hate all smokers" types and manufacture a hatred of the e-cigs even though they either don't actually smell them...or at worst, the smell is just a bit unpleasant.

What's next? Banning beer and booze because they smell terrible? I admit, stale beer smell is damned disgusting.

Bunch of fucking whiny nancy-boys in this thread.

"I don't like something, so I think it should be banned."

 

[MagickMan]

The FDA did a chemical analysis on samples of the liquids used in e-cigs. There are ~70 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke. They found 1 of them in the e-cigs, and that in a concentration of 1:10,000 of the concentration found in cigarettes. You get more carcingens breathing the air near a public road, by far.

So far as the smell goes, it is very faint at best, and does not persist more than a few seconds.

There is no reason to ban or restrict e-cigs. None at all.

This.

/thread

 

[gingermeggs]

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.

If you really want people to be off nicotine for good, yes you should!

all the real facts are here- http://www.amazon.com/Allen-Carr/e/B001XSUEK4

 

[gingermeggs]

sad thing is diesel fuel smoke is more toxic, but nobody cares.......

 

[soulcougher73]

sad thing is diesel fuel smoke is more toxic, but nobody cares.......

What does that have to do with cigarettes or e-cigs? Nothing. Stick to the topic. If you want a ban on diesel smoke than take it up with your politicians and its own thread.

I dont know why so many of you find it so hard to talk about one thing without wanting to equate it with said other random thing. And they arent even apple to apple comparisons for F's sake.

 

[zinfamous]

Bunch of fucking whiny nancy-boys in this thread.

"I don't like something, so I think it should be banned."

Can I join you in the shotgun riot against these nancy boys?
Am I old enough? ...What if I told you that I have lingering back pain?

 

[moonbogg]

The FDA did a chemical analysis on samples of the liquids used in e-cigs. There are ~70 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke. They found 1 of them in the e-cigs, and that in a concentration of 1:10,000 of the concentration found in cigarettes. You get more carcingens breathing the air near a public road, by far.

So far as the smell goes, it is very faint at best, and does not persist more than a few seconds.

There is no reason to ban or restrict e-cigs. None at all.

Yep, this should be a thread killer, but it won't be. Then again, there's no greater killer than cigarettes and people seem to feel the need to ban the only reasonable alternative. Mind boggling. I'm speechless when confronted with such heartless, dangerous stupidity.

 

[Kadarin]

I love e-cigs. The few people I know who still smoke can do so to their heart's content around me while I don't get cigarette smell in my hair and clothes, and I can breathe. I have no objection to them at all and think that those who do just want to be the morality police.

 

[OutHouse]

Op the poison you are drinking at the bar is far more harmful to you than the vapor of a ecig. How about you just stfu.

 

[zinfamous]

Op the poison you are drinking at the bar is far more harmful to you than the vapor of a ecig. How about you just stfu.

well, when you dig into it, the OP's only real complaint about ecigs is the assumed smugness from what he perceives as douchey hipsters being the only ones that use them. Such horribly biased and skewed perceptions can only come from an ignorant mind.

OP should look in the mirror, methinks.

fwiw: I hate cigarettes and their smoke and would rather not deal with them. But they really don't bother me that much and even with cigs, I'm not going to judge and hate on someone for relaxing in the way they see fit. I don't know a single smoker that prefers to smoke inside and is unwilling to accommodate any non-smoker--much less smoke around others purely out of spite (Seems to be the opinion of the OP).
To then go on about ecigs, ignorantly proclaim them just as bad and project one's own inadequacies on those that use them, well that's a special species of douchecanoe.

 

[hal2kilo]

I have ecigarettes, but its not nicotine in them

Yep, noticed not much nicotine being smoked in the ecigs in the smoking area of the bar I go to. Of course it is Washington.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The FDA did a chemical analysis on samples of the liquids used in e-cigs. There are ~70 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke. They found 1 of them in the e-cigs, and that in a concentration of 1:10,000 of the concentration found in cigarettes. You get more carcingens breathing the air near a public road, by far.

So far as the smell goes, it is very faint at best, and does not persist more than a few seconds.

There is no reason to ban or restrict e-cigs. None at all.

According to politicians and fearful people there is and it is......."THE CHILDREN !! THINK OF THE CHILDREN !!! WHY DO YOU HATE THE CHILDREN !!! Do you want them to get hooked on e-cigs and die!!!????"


To be serious for a moment. This is a money grab. Cities want to impose the same taxes on e-cigs as are found on regular cigarettes and are attempting to paint e-cigs in the same light to do so and get that gravy train of tax dollars rolling. So no this isn't about "Protecting the children" or evidence of actual public health related concerns.

 

[BoberFett]

To be serious for a moment. This is a money grab. Cities want to impose the same taxes on e-cigs as are found on regular cigarettes and are attempting to paint e-cigs in the same light to do so and get that gravy train of tax dollars rolling. So no this isn't about "Protecting the children" or evidence of actual public health related concerns.

That is the most likely answer.

Sin taxes are popular, so if people can avoid the insane taxes on tobacco products and still get their nic fix, they will. I would imagine this is the first step to counter that loss in tax revenue.

 

[MagickMan]

According to politicians and fearful people there is and it is......."THE CHILDREN !! THINK OF THE CHILDREN !!! WHY DO YOU HATE THE CHILDREN !!! Do you want them to get hooked on e-cigs and die!!!????"


To be serious for a moment. This is a money grab. Cities want to impose the same taxes on e-cigs as are found on regular cigarettes and are attempting to paint e-cigs in the same light to do so and get that gravy train of tax dollars rolling. So no this isn't about "Protecting the children" or evidence of actual public health related concerns.

Ding, ding, ding! Correct answer.

 

[Nebor]

The FDA did a chemical analysis on samples of the liquids used in e-cigs. There are ~70 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke. They found 1 of them in the e-cigs, and that in a concentration of 1:10,000 of the concentration found in cigarettes. You get more carcingens breathing the air near a public road, by far.

I'm aware of that. But I don't like people blowing smoke or vapor around me. So I'm willing to use any angle to push them into the same legal realm as cigarettes. Health hazards, tax evasion, "Gateway drug," etc.

 

[zinfamous]

lol gateway drug.

that isn't even a real thing.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm aware of that. But I don't like people blowing smoke or vapor around me. So I'm willing to use any angle to push them into the same legal realm as cigarettes. Health hazards, tax evasion, "Gateway drug," etc.

Do you realize there's water vapor in every breath? Do you want to ban breathing?

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm aware of that. But I don't like people blowing smoke or vapor around me. So I'm willing to use any angle to push them into the same legal realm as cigarettes. Health hazards, tax evasion, "Gateway drug," etc.

This is a misuse of government to further one's private agenda. I can't think of a more irresponsible or less civic minded attitude. I even think government can sometimes do good things, but banning e-cigs isn't one of them. It may just cause millions of premature deaths.

 

[woolfe9998]

According to politicians and fearful people there is and it is......."THE CHILDREN !! THINK OF THE CHILDREN !!! WHY DO YOU HATE THE CHILDREN !!! Do you want them to get hooked on e-cigs and die!!!????"


To be serious for a moment. This is a money grab. Cities want to impose the same taxes on e-cigs as are found on regular cigarettes and are attempting to paint e-cigs in the same light to do so and get that gravy train of tax dollars rolling. So no this isn't about "Protecting the children" or evidence of actual public health related concerns.

The real trouble is cultural. For decades NGO's like the American Cancer Society were educating the public about the harm of cigarette smoking, and for quite a while this was a good thing, with smoking now being half as frequent as it used to be. The problem is, somewhere along the way, people began to view smoking as a moral issue rather than a health issue. Cigarettes and nicotine became "evil" - not just merely a health hazard.

Along comes e-cigs and other harm reduced alternatives which are helping the incorrigible smokers get away from cigarettes, and the general public treats them with extreme suspicion. As soon as they hear that they contain nicotine, it is presumed that they are somehow deadly, because nicotine is satanic, right? Never mind that on its own it is completely harmless - addictive, to be sure - but otherwise harmless. The average person is shocked to learn this. Decades of education has caused half the smokers to quit, but has also caused the general public to oppose safer alternatives for the other half, the ones who had the biggest trouble quitting. And the NGO's are part of the problem. They literally lie about e-cigs on their websites because they too have begun to view this as a moral issue. They've forgotten their Hippocratic oaths and obligation to promote health and have become something more akin to religious crusaders.

So far as politicians and the moves to ban e-cigs, these are just following the current zeitgeist.

 

[ivwshane]

This is a misuse of government to further one's private agenda. I can't think of a more irresponsible or less civic minded attitude. I even think government can sometimes do good things, but banning e-cigs isn't one of them. It may just cause millions of premature deaths.

I agree and just like banning guns we shouldn't do it unless we have real science behind the reason for the ban.

 

[blackangst1]

The real trouble is cultural. For decades NGO's like the American Cancer Society were educating the public about the harm of cigarette smoking, and for quite a while this was a good thing, with smoking now being half as frequent as it used to be. The problem is, somewhere along the way, people began to view smoking as a moral issue rather than a health issue. Cigarettes and nicotine became "evil" - not just merely a health hazard.

Along comes e-cigs and other harm reduced alternatives which are helping the incorrigible smokers get away from cigarettes, and the general public treats them with extreme suspicion. As soon as they hear that they contain nicotine, it is presumed that they are somehow deadly, because nicotine is satanic, right? Never mind that on its own it is completely harmless - addictive, to be sure - but otherwise harmless. The average person is shocked to learn this. Decades of education has caused half the smokers to quit, but has also caused the general public to oppose safer alternatives for the other half, the ones who had the biggest trouble quitting. And the NGO's are part of the problem. They literally lie about e-cigs on their websites because they too have begun to view this as a moral issue. They've forgotten their Hippocratic oaths and obligation to promote health and have become something more akin to religious crusaders.

So far as politicians and the moves to ban e-cigs, these are just following the current zeitgeist.

Well said, woolfe.