- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
(NECN: Brian Burnell, Hartford, Conn.) - Electronic cigarettes, known as e-cigarettes, are a nicotine delivery system designed to be used in places from which smokers are banned because the vapor from it isn't smoke.
Cheryl Richter runs Cherryvape, an e-cigarette company. She says what comes out is "Basically water vapor. There's no particulates. There's no second hand smoke like there would be with a cigarette."
Despite that, there is a proposal in the Connnecticut legislature to treat e-cigarettes the same as tobacco cigarettes and banish users to designated smoking areas. Why?
NECN.com ~ Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban
I've been hearing about this kind of thing more and more lately. What are your thoughts?
Personally I think it is hypocritical and disgusting. Many people switch to e-cigarettes to try and stop smoking...something tons of anti-smokers want to happen and are pushing for. And now they are trying to ban one of the things that help with this?
The reason is because the e-cigarette industry refuses to regulate, and most companies blatantly lie about what they are, as Richter from Cherryvape did in that article.
It is not water vapor, and it has been proven to carry particles -- many of which are of unknown toxicity. I guarentee you that she knows this, because there ISN'T any water in e-cigarette juice. So how exactly do you get "water vapor" when there's no water? From your ass?
I can also tell you that many of these companies have conducted private studies on safety, and buried the results when they turned out to be unfavorable.
I'm assuming that you have proof?
NECN.com ~ Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban
I've been hearing about this kind of thing more and more lately. What are your thoughts?
Personally I think it is hypocritical and disgusting. Many people switch to e-cigarettes to try and stop smoking...something tons of anti-smokers want to happen and are pushing for. And now they are trying to ban one of the things that help with this?
Well, how about you take a look at Cherryvape's website, where they give the ingredients themselves.
Electronic | E- | Smokeless | Cigarettes | Cigs | Cherry Vape
Please note the absence of water.
My NDA expires in 6 months. I have posted here what I can.
I would also encourage you to look at my e-cigarette break-down here.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-t...-tobaccos-next-big-move-4.html#post1061921670
Here's the study that vapor carries metal residue, and other things, which are known to be harmful.
PLOS ONE: Metal and Silicate Particles Including Nanoparticles Are Present in Electronic Cigarette Cartomizer Fluid and Aerosol
I have known this for years. The public is only finding this out now.
You can decide for yourself whether I sound like I know what I'm talking about. You can also look more into the issue.
Where is the "ban" part comming from? The article seemed to indicate that the puffing of e-cigarettes would simply be treated the same as smoking regular cigarettes, much like restricting bicycles to paved driving surfaces instead of allowing sidewalk use.
Well...read through what you had to say and frankly...much of it sounds like a conspiracy theory. You even admit a few times that you "just don't know" or some variation there of. I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm not readily agreeing with you either. You haven't produced any evidence to back up your claims. No links, nothing.
As for the mechanical/electronical portions, if true it wouldn't surprise me. There is always some sort of danger with electronics.
Huh?
I provided you with a link to the site for the company Richter owns. She claimed it's "water vapor" in that article. And I proved to you with her own ingredients list that there is no water in e-cig juice, therefore she is blatantly lying.
I provided you with a link to a peer-reviewed study proving there are metal nanoparticles in e-cigarette vapor, some of which are known to be harmful to human health.
And I'm a "conspiracy theorist" who provided "no links"?
Whatever you wanna believe, man...
She said "basically water vapor" not that it was water vapor. There is a difference. When I read it I took it to mean "just as harmless as water vapor" since I already knew that basic ingrediants.
Underlined: Which I did not see. Must have added it in the edit that you did. I've noticed that when you go to edit something to add soemthing it will be added to the reply post despite a person not initially seeing it. Did you add that part in an edit? If not then I guess I missed it. But I will take a look at it. But beside that I was mainly talking about what you wrote in your link to your other post in the "E-cigarettes: Big Tobacco's next big move?....." thread.
And I didn't call you a conspiracy theorist...I just said it "sounded" like a conspiracy theory. Too many "just don't know" on that post in that other thread.
Well...considering they are wanting to treat them like regular cigarettes I would imagine the "ban" part would be the same as regular cigarettes. IE: Restaurant, bars, (in the case of NY damn near everywhere except your home), etc etc.
NECN.com ~ Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban
I've been hearing about this kind of thing more and more lately. What are your thoughts?
Personally I think it is hypocritical and disgusting. Many people switch to e-cigarettes to try and stop smoking...something tons of anti-smokers want to happen and are pushing for. And now they are trying to ban one of the things that help with this?
Well, how about you take a look at Cherryvape's website, where they give the ingredients themselves.
Electronic | E- | Smokeless | Cigarettes | Cigs | Cherry Vape
Please note the absence of water.
My NDA expires in 6 months. I have posted here what I can.
I would also encourage you to look at my e-cigarette break-down here.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-t...-tobaccos-next-big-move-4.html#post1061921670
Here's the study that vapor carries metal residue, and other things, which are known to be harmful.
PLOS ONE: Metal and Silicate Particles Including Nanoparticles Are Present in Electronic Cigarette Cartomizer Fluid and Aerosol
I have known this for years. The public is only finding this out now.
You can decide for yourself whether I sound like I know what I'm talking about. You can also look more into the issue.
Where is the "ban" part comming from? The article seemed to indicate that the puffing of e-cigarettes would simply be treated the same as smoking regular cigarettes, much like restricting bicycles to paved driving surfaces instead of allowing sidewalk use.
Huh?
I provided you with a link to the site for the company Richter owns. She claimed it's "water vapor" in that article. And I proved to you with her own ingredients list that there is no water in e-cig juice, therefore she is blatantly lying.
I provided you with a link to a peer-reviewed study proving there are metal nanoparticles in e-cigarette vapor, some of which are known to be harmful to human health.
And I'm a "conspiracy theorist" who provided "no links"?
Whatever you wanna believe, man...
Again, your link showed a reason for concern for the smoker. I do think that they should attempt to make it better. As a pot smoker I have known for a long time not to use metal pipes as there may be some risk, especially with copper, of some harmful effects that do not occur when you smoke from a glass pipe. I would imagine they may need to require the use of safer materials for the vaporizing, but the reality is you are going to have a certain level of crap that gets into your system from doing this. You need to make a choice. If anyone thinks it is neutral they need to have their heads examined because clearly you take stuff into your body. Everything you take into your body has to be processed, and the reality is you breathe in nanoparticles no matter what you do. They are in front of you right now, and you are breathing them. If you are worried about this sort of amount you might want to be really concerned about that thing you are reading this on because that emits particles of carcinogenic nature also. The same nanoparticles of metal are coming from that machine, and you can bet that is not the only thing in your house doing it. What you need to show is that the levels are dangerous and maintained over distances. The things about particles that small is they travel fairly quickly. Which means they dissipate very quickly.
The biggest problem is that this is what they are told by the e-cigarette industry -- that it's completely inert.
The second biggest problem is that the harms and risks of e-cigarettes are compounding to a point where I don't believe it's a sane option for anyone attempting to quit who is under the age of 40, and not fully understandable for anyone under 60.
There is a big difference between the risks of air and the several dozen known harmful agents that come from e-cigarettes, some of which are completely unique to them.
If the industry were honest, I wouldn't care. But it isn't.
It is probably healthier than smoking, but I do not see them advertising it as completely harmless. Relative to smoking it may be fairly harmless, but the reality is nicotine itself is physically harmful. Seriously, if at this point you are not aware that taking drugs is harmful the gene pool is probably better off without you anyway. I am not bothered with people providing the information, but to blame use of these products on some perceived lie that they are completely harmless really removes desire and personal responsibility from the mix. People are not using these because they think they are healthy, they are using them because they want nicotine. There is also the flavor and enjoyment of the gestures of smoking.
That is fine that you think it is something you do not care to do. however, I have a mom already, and I do not need you to ban things i enjoy. If you wish to spread the word these things are not healthy please feel free. If you want to ban them because they are supposedly harming other people i would like proof that the vapor travels to other people. I agree with the bans on cigarette smoking and I am a smoker. I understand smoke travels and not everyone enjoys it as I do. Even though many people are rude and think I need to have my environment polluted with their crappy music, children crying, and telephone conversations about anal warts I do not feel I need to smoke inside and disturb the mannerless twits of the world. However, unlike cigarette smoke the vapor from these things does not travel like that, and even the smell is not noticable from a few feet away. So please do show us why they need to be banned because it pollutes at an unacceptable level. Before you go telling me any pollution for my entertainment is unacceptable i will expect you to ban SUVs and pickup trucks before you go after these things as they pollute far worse than these things do.
Again, this is not about banning their use, it is about keeping them from polluting other people's space. They have bad stuff in them, but the user has a choice to use, and the information is out there. Put better warnings on the product, I don't care, but that is not a reason to ban them. Because i would like to know if these things really send large amounts of harmful crap towards others like cigarettes, please do show us the second hand comparisons.
There is a certain amount of thinking people have to do for themselves, and if you cannot figure out that sucking on thing that puts out a substance into your lungs that makes you high is probably not neutral for your health, you are a moron and I don't care if you die. They are not advertising them as health additives, and I would be really amazed to find out they are more harmful than smoking. What I am not surprised about is people who feel a need to spout crap because they disapprove of the habit. I make my choices, you can make yours, life is awesome that way, and neither of us has to be the other one's mother.
Yep. So, that would be wrong because you assert that proof of "possible" harm to others must precede that "ban"? Can it be proved that harm to others exists with a simple "Caution: smoking permitted on premises" sign? You are then free to enter at your own risk. This solves the public health problem as well, IMHO; you are warned thus the gov't has done its job (like cigarette packages now do) and the business is still free to see if that policy helps or hinders its sales (or its ability to find/keep employees). The goofy idea that the huge nanny state may make everywhere into some magical nerf land, in which nobody can accidentally harm themselves, is silly. Once you allow them to ban X, it is only a matter of time before the list of banned things grows.
You have no basis upon which to assert that, and the evidence against that claim is mounting.
How many decades did it take us to figure out cigarettes harm people?
What is and isn't a "drug" is subjective. You could classify sunlight as a drug.
When a completely new substance is introduced to the market, and the industry DOESN'T present it as a drug, and they have ZERO regulation, perfectly reasonable people could very well believe all of that. Millions do.
Dude. Said evidence is cited in the study. Try reading.
Where have I said we should ban them?
Gee, I'd love to, except the e-cig industry refuses to subject itself to such investigations, because they are well-aware that it won't go well for them.
Sure. I'm ok with a commercial subtly implying their cereal will make you thinner.
I am not ok with the owner of a company claiming her products produce "water vapor" when there isn't even any WATER in the product. That is blatant lying. That is illegal.
It is not the same. Vaporizing is not the same as smoking. I am actually for the bans of cigarettes because of the nature of smoking. Vaporizing is much different and the effects are much more localized than a drifting trail of smoke.
First let me state that I support legalization of drugs and the rights of each individual to poison themselves with drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes to their hearts content. However, we also know that each of these vices has certain hazards. In the case of cigarettes and marijuana we have second-hand smoking effects and the hazard of burning people or their property. (For you marijuana smokers who claim "no second hand smoke" problems...consider "contact high" and STFU!)
So while I support each individual's right to kill themselves, I do not support the right of such people to harm their fellow non-drug, non-alcohol, and non-cigarette using peers.
Prior to the bans, people like myself were exposed to massive amounts of second-hand smoke when we went to bars, nightclubs, and restaurants. People who smoke are dehydrating themselves, and so they tend to buy more liquor when smoking at a bar or nightclub. Where are the major profits at bars and nightclubs? Alcohol sales; so of course without a ban almost all would allow smoking. Restaurants are no different. In fact, that used to be the case when the law allowed businesses to decide whether to allow smoking or non-smoking; the vast majority allowed smoking.
So when you allow businesses to post a sign you are effectively stating that everyone who'd like to go out and have some fun or eat a nice meal has to either face the hazard of second hand smoke "of their own free will," or search for severely limited alternative options. Not only that, they'd have to face the risks of burning themselves or their clothing due to smoker's inconsiderate handling of their vice.
On the other hand, banning smoking does not deprive smokers of their right to smoke. It only limits it to places where second hand smoke (and the hazards of burning others) is significantly reduced. Everyone can eat at the restaurant. Smokers can go outside and smoke. Everyone can dance and drink in the club. Smokers can go outside and smoke. Everyone gets to enjoy themselves, smokers are slightly inconvenienced.
Having said all THAT, as long as these "e-cigs" are considered safe (i.e. the water vapor does not hang around in the air as long as regular smoke) then I have no problem with their use in places regular cigarettes are banned. However, if it can be shown to have a second-hand effect on non-smokers, then they should be banned the same way regular smoking is.
Tobacco-Free Campus | The University of Texas at AustinOn April 9, 2012, The University of Texas at Austin became a tobacco-free campus. The use of any tobacco products is prohibited in university buildings and on university grounds within the state of Texas, including parking areas and structures, sidewalks, walkways, and university owned buildings.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?