• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
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? :confused:
 
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? :confused:

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.
 
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?
 
I'm assuming that you have proof?

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.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057987

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.
 
Last edited:
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? :confused:

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, 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.

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.
 
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...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.
 
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...
 
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.

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.

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...

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.
 
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.

That is not how the public understands it, you and she both know that, and it is a blatantly misleading comment. There is also no evidence to support it, even as a analogy in terms of safety.

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.

Yes, I did ETA.

The "we just don't know" part is the part that people should be concerned about. The fact that the people MAKING juice don't know either should be even more concerning.

But there are plenty of things we DO know that are plenty bad enough on their own, and the fact that every company is trying to minimize, ignore, or lie about them is something consumers should take seriously.

There is nothing at all surprising about a totally unregulated industry wanting to make money on the ignorance of others. It's the most mundane conspiracy of all time.
 
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.

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.
 
Since there is uncertainty to the amount of harm they will need to take the slow road and make sure there is significant justification to do a ban.
 
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? :confused:

Smokers have better get used to it. They're a dying breed. (Pun intended.)
 
If people are willing to risk their health to smoke (or whatever you do with an e-cig) then let them be. Though I do think the companies have an obligation to be open wth customers of what the contents really are.
 
Perhaps people should know what is in their E-Juice. I have no problem with requiring that.

Mine contains

Ejuice- Commonly simply referred to as “juice”A consumable liquid that consist of a combination of nicotine, propylene glycol, flavoring, and vegetable glycerin and is available in several different flavors and strengths, this is the stuff that you vaporize.

The acute oral toxicity of propylene glycol is very low, and large quantities are required to cause perceptible health damage in humans; propylene glycol is metabolized in the human body into pyruvic acid (a normal part of the glucose-metabolism process, readily converted to energy), acetic acid (handled by ethanol-metabolism), lactic acid (a normal acid generally abundant during digestion),[16] and propionaldehyde (a potentially hazardous substance).[17][18][19]

Serious toxicity generally occurs only at plasma concentrations over 1 g/L, which requires extremely high intake over a relatively short period of time.[20] It would be nearly impossible to reach toxic levels by consuming foods or supplements, which contain at most 1 g/kg of PG. Cases of propylene glycol poisoning are usually related to either inappropriate intravenous administration or accidental ingestion of large quantities by children.[21] The potential for long-term oral toxicity is also low. In one study, in 1972, 12 rats were provided with feed containing as much as 5% PG in feed over a period of 104 weeks and they showed no apparent ill effects; no data on offspring was offered.[22] Because of its low chronic oral toxicity, propylene glycol was classified by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration as "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) for use as a direct food additive.


In foods and beverages, glycerol serves as a humectant, solvent, and sweetener, and may help preserve foods. It is also used as filler in commercially prepared low-fat foods (e.g., cookies), and as a thickening agent in liqueurs. Glycerol and water are used to preserve certain types of leaves.[6] As a sugar substitute, it has approximately 27 kilocalories per teaspoon (sugar has 20) and is 60% as sweet as sucrose. It does not feed the bacteria that form plaques and cause dental cavities. As a food additive, glycerol is labeled as E number E422. It is added to icing (frosting) to prevent it setting too hard.

As used in foods, glycerol is categorized by the American Dietetic Association as a carbohydrate. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) carbohydrate designation includes all caloric macronutrients excluding protein and fat. Glycerol has a caloric density similar to table sugar, but a lower glycemic index and different metabolic pathway within the body, so some dietary advocates accept glycerol as a sweetener compatible with low carbohydrate diets.


Benefits of Nicotine

The primary therapeutic use of nicotine is in treating nicotine dependence in order to eliminate smoking with the damage it does to health. Controlled levels of nicotine are given to patients through gums, dermal patches, lozenges, electronic/substitute cigarettes or nasal sprays in an effort to wean them off their dependence.

However, in a few situations, smoking has been observed to be of therapeutic value. These are often referred to as "Smoker’s Paradoxes".[82] Although in most cases the actual mechanism is understood only poorly or not at all, it is generally believed that the principal beneficial action is due to the nicotine administered, and that administration of nicotine without smoking may be as beneficial as smoking, without the higher risk to health due to tar and other ingredients found in tobacco.

For instance, studies suggest that smokers require less frequent repeated revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).[82] Risk of ulcerative colitis has been frequently shown to be reduced by smokers on a dose-dependent basis; the effect is eliminated if the individual stops smoking.[83][84] Smoking also appears to interfere with development of Kaposi's sarcoma in patients with HIV.[85][86]

Nicotine reduces the chance of preeclampsia,[87] and atopic disorders such as allergic asthma.[88][dubious – discuss] A plausible mechanism of action in these cases may be nicotine acting as an anti-inflammatory agent, and interfering with the inflammation-related disease process, as nicotine has vasoconstrictive effects.[89]

Tobacco smoke has been shown to contain compounds capable of inhibiting monoamine oxidase, which is responsible for the degradation of dopamine in the human brain. When dopamine is broken down by MAO-B, neurotoxic by-products are formed, possibly contributing to Parkinson's and Alzheimers disease.[90]

Many such papers regarding Alzheimer's disease[91] and Parkinson's Disease[92] have been published. While tobacco smoking is associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease,[93] there is evidence that nicotine itself has the potential to prevent and treat Alzheimer's disease.[94] Nicotine has been shown to delay the onset of Parkinson's disease in studies involving monkeys and humans.[95][96][97] A study has shown a protective effect of nicotine itself on neurons due to nicotine activation of α7-nAChR and the PI3K/Akt pathway which inhibits apoptosis-inducing factor release and mitochondrial translocation, cytochrome c release and caspase 3 activation.[98]

Studies have indicated that nicotine can be used to help adults suffering from autosomal dominant nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy. The same areas that cause seizures in that form of epilepsy are responsible for processing nicotine in the brain.[99]

Studies suggest a correlation between smoking and schizophrenia, with estimates near 75% for the proportion of schizophrenic patients who smoke. Although the nature of this association remains unclear, it has been argued that the increased level of smoking in schizophrenia may be due to a desire to self-medicate with nicotine.[100][101] Other research found that mildly dependent users got some benefit from nicotine, but not those who were highly dependent.[102]

Research at Duke University Medical Center found that nicotine may improve the symptoms of depression.[103] Nicotine appears to improve ADHD symptoms. Some studies have focused on benefits of nicotine therapy in adults with ADHD.[104]

While acute/initial nicotine intake causes activation of nicotine receptors, chronic low doses of nicotine use leads to desensitisation of nicotine receptors (due to the development of tolerance) and results in an antidepressant effect, with research showing low dose nicotine patches being an effective treatment of major depressive disorder in non-smokers.[105]

Nicotine (in the form of chewing gum or a transdermal patch) has been explored as an experimental treatment for OCD. Small studies show some success, even in otherwise treatment-refractory cases.[106][107][108]

The relationship between smoking and inflammatory bowel disease has been firmly established, but remains a source of confusion among both patients and doctors. It is negatively associated with ulcerative colitis but positively associated with Crohn's disease. In addition, it has opposite influences on the clinical course of the two conditions with benefit in ulcerative colitis but a detrimental effect in Crohn's disease.[109][110]

Note that most if not all of the negative affects of smoking are related to tobacco smoke. Nicotine in high concentrations is dangerous to pregnant women as it has been show to show a relation to increased birth defects, however that particular case was using gums/patches to induce the nicotine. I would say if a woman is pregnant, then she probably shouldn't use E-cigs but then, how much would a person actually be able to intake from someone using an e-sig at the next table.

The are odorless, so no nasty smell. The vapor dissipates very quickly so no cloud of smoke hanging around. No smokers hack and lung function is improved (based upon personal experience and testimonies only).

So, with all the positive benefits from E-Juice and the fact that only the nicotine has been proved in anyway to be harmful, and then only in high concentrations, what is the big deal about it? I use it for medicinal purposes even. Sounds like more idiots who want to tell others what they can and cannot do than anything that is provably harmful.

I personally use it to replace smoking. The nicotine helps with some nerve issues I have such as tremor's and involuntary muscle movements. I also use mostly mint flavors as they help with keep my sinuses working and clear (at least to the level they can function anyway).

I would totally support any FDA or similar governmental rule to label the contents, no problem. But a total ban? Go find something to do and leave us alone.
 
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.

That is great for showing that the inhaled vapor has elements that can be harmful to a smoker. however, the ban in public places is for second hand smoke. The reality is that yes there is water vapor in there, and because you asked vapor can occur merely due to changes in temperature. I am not saying this is necessarily the case here, but water is present in the air around you in enough quantity to create vapor. So claiming there is no water present is false. not to mention evaporating substances can cause a vapor which this could also be. Yes, there has to be some form of non-water element within the vapor because that is the point, and if there is a claim that what is there is just water then that claim is incorrect because you do not get nicotine from fog. However, there is a difference in how the effects dissipate and mix within the air. You may get those levels from a direct inhale from the e-smoke, but being a foot away seems to drastically change the concentrations to the point where they are no longer visible. Not to mention that a cigarette burns constantly which contributes to second hand smoke. This system is much more direct and all materials pass through the human lungs of the initial user making it that the concentration of particles exhaled are much different than those which are directly coming out of the device.

Your information is certainly important for users to make an educated choice for their use, but it does not actually support a ban due to health hazards for people within the area of the smoke. The reality is that even on a basis of pure odor these devices produce far less effect than a heavy perfume or fragrance. The concentrations at a distance may return to a nominal state. The same cannot be said for cigarettes which do smoke up an area with a visible concentration of particles. If this is more vaporous as compared to a smoke the dissipation factor where the particle levels are reduced to similar levals to clean air would be much greater for an e-smoke. It should be noted that this is supported by the nature of the exhaled vapors being vapors and not actual smoke. Yes, i am well aware one of the carcinogens in e-smokes is nicotine. The substance itself is carcinogenic so any method of intake would promote cancer. Still there would have to be some more information provided that would show that 2nd hand vapor was harmful.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The biggest problem is that this is what they are told by the e-cigarette industry -- that it's completely inert.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
If the industry were honest, I wouldn't care. But it isn't.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.

Dude. Said evidence is cited in the study. Try reading.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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?

I am pretty sure that people have known smoke was bad for them for a while, but some people like to forget common knowledge. Maybe i am a brilliant super genius, but I can pretty much tell you smoking is bad for your lungs fromk very early in my life. Long before i even knew anything of biology, drugs, and science. It was pretty much that coughing thing that let me figure it out, but I guess i am just smart that way.
What is and isn't a "drug" is subjective. You could classify sunlight as a drug.

Now you are getting into absurdities. Nicotine is a drug. You use e-cigs to take nicotine. It is also pretty common knowledge due to anti-smoking advertisements that nicotine is a carcinogen and is going to have negative physical consequences. I am not sure why you have to head off into the absurd here.
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.

None of the ingredients are new. Aside from nicotine you can find the other substances in other products you use on or in your body. Nicotine is certainly not new either as smoking has been around for years. Even the process of vaporizing something is not new as certain methods of taking THC involve the vaporization of oils (namely hash).


Dude. Said evidence is cited in the study. Try reading.

Your studies did cite evidence, just not evidence that there was harmful levels at a distance for people who were not directly inhaling. Again, finding those particles in the air you breathe regularly is not odd, and your body is capable of processing certain levels of these things as we would need to because pollutants exist even without these devices. What needs to be proven is that these devices produce the harmful secondary levels of pollutants that cigarettes do. The reality is that cigarettes in a closed space will fill the area up with smoke and leave a noticeable smell and film to show their use. These devices do not act anywhere near that level and i know because we have tried to smoke out a room like one would do with tobacco products and despite actually trying to do so were not able to accomplish it with e-cigs. So yes in an easy scientific study of being in an enclosed mostly sealed room these devices do not produce the noticeable effects that the same same number of people smoking cigarettes would. Which means that though there may be a presence of something it is not in the same level as cigarettes which means the judgment on whether or not this is something the body can deal with as it does normally with low levels of pollutants or it actually harms the people in the enclosed environment other than the user needs to be proven. People agree with you that the smoker will have negative physical effects from the use of a product containing nicotine.


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.

That is why the government should investigate them. I am not for banning them, but any health risks, plus the truth about the methods should be made available, and it should be done by a neutral party. I do not expect a company to trash it's own product. Why people expect that to happen in america i do not know.


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.

Like I said, the air around contains enough water to create vapor, it just needs a temperature shift to do so. This also goes back to my point that a state change from liquid particles to gas is a massive change in concentration of a substance which you do not seem to understand. That is actually vapor coming out of their product, though it is not all water. It is probably propolene glycol if i were to guess because it would be easy to push into a vaporous form without the warmer temperatures required to boil water. However, when the vapor dissipates as it becomes gaseous the concentration of it becomes less very rapidly and the molecules actually spread at rates that would really amaze you.

here is a little description. UCSB Science Line sqtest

This is why gasses are able to dissipate so quickly to a nominal state. So just claiming they are present at the source does not mean they are in the same concentration a few feet away especially considering those particles will move in every direction available. Within 5 feet of someone you would not even take in one percent of the released particles due to the reality that gasses move differently than smoke.
 
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.

So you think that things cannot drift if they are not visible? That would make car exhaust quite safe.
 
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.

Well isn't that considerate of you. Unless, of course, you consider leaving a climate controlled space, missing the football game or musical performance and letting your drink get hot or meal get cold just part of the "enhanced experience" offered to those that smoke.

Once the no smoking law is established, it soon grows to include outside as well - now defined (in Austin, TX) as at least 15 feet from the door, thus a deck patio must greatly exceed that limit. If you build a deck, even with the door in the corner, that means painting off an arc of 15 feet and desigating that as non-smoking (wasted space?) as well.


On 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.
Tobacco-Free Campus | The University of Texas at Austin
 
Back
Top Bottom