California declares vaping a public health risk.

[pnwmom]

For the record, I don't care if adults vape in private places. But vaping and e-cigs should be regulated in public and work spaces, because those exposed to the vapors have no way of knowing what they might contain -- and it's not all harmless.

Here is a link to the state's report, followed by a couple recent articles about this.

http://cdph.ca.gov/programs/tobacco/Documents/Media/State%20Health-e-cig%20report.pdf

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/e-cig-stigma-california-declares-vaping-public-health-risk-n295766

E-cigarettes represent a rising public-health risk that threaten to unravel progress made on tobacco by "re-normalizing smoking behavior" and luring a new generation into nicotine addiction, California health officials said Wednesday.

Based on the "toxic" chemicals inhaled — and exhaled — by e-cig users as well as recent spikes in teen vaping rates and the numbers of kids poisoned by e-liquids, California health officials issued a public health advisory, urging the state's residents to avoid or stop using e-cigs.

"As we have done with other important outbreaks or epidemics, we are taking this formal step of warning Californians about the health risks of e-cigarettes," said Dr. Ron Chapman, State Health Officer and director of the California Department of Public Health.

E-cigs, also called "vape pens" and "e-hookahs," contain a liquid solution, commonly called "e-juice," which when heated emits "a toxic aerosol, not a harmless water vapor," Chapman said.

SNIP

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/E-cigarettes-come-under-fire-from-California-6046806.php

Over the past 25 years, California’s smoking rate has dropped to just 11.7 percent, the second lowest of all states behind Utah. Meanwhile, e-cigarette use in the state has skyrocketed, particularly among young people, the report said. Vaping among people 18 to 29 years old has risen from 2.3 percent of that population in the state in 2012 to 7.6 percent in 2013. Critics are most concerned about new young smokers.


“E-cigarettes represent a new public health challenge and threaten to undo and reverse the progress we’ve made by renormalizing smoking behavior,” said Dr. Ron Chapman, state health officer and director of the Public Health Department, during a media call Wednesday.

SNIP

California poison centers are seeing a surge in calls related to exposures to “e-juice,” or the liquids inside e-cigarettes, in many instances involving youngsters who may be attracted to the flavors. Among children younger than five, incidents of e-cigarette poisonings from the liquid increased from seven in 2012 to 154 in 2014, according to the report.

The Public Health Department’s effort follows the introduction Monday of legislation by state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, that would ban e-cigarettes from the same places that smoking is prohibited, including schools, work, restaurants, bars and other public spaces.

SNIP

[Egnever]

1. Sad

When the person in charge of the state health system bases his decisions on bad science
In California no less.

[GummyBearz]

2. More likely

the decision was based on tobacco $$

[meow2u3]

4. Even more likely

The decision was based on kickbacks from the drug companies that make their smoking cessation drugs, which are useless at best and dangerous at worst.

[CreekDog]

96. They used science, you aren't using science to criticize them

Nicotine is addictive and using an e-cigarette can cause an addiction to tobacco. Strike 1.

The byproducts of the vaporization process typical of e-cigarettes would cause someone to inhale formaldehyde, a carcinogen, in higher concentrations than if they hadn't used the e-cigarette. Strike 2.

People in the presence but not consuming the e-cigarettes will be exposed to the same chemicals and compounds that the consumer is exposed to. Strike 3.

Regulation, good idea for a product with dangers.

That is all.

Try science next time if you're going to lecture someone about it.

[cliffordu]

108. And I'd like a couple citations

That you are basing your 'science' on.

I can make a few 'scientific' claims, too.

And watch out for that craft beer/ acetaldehyde link, it's a killer for sure.

[CreekDog]

122. ok, here are some basic ones:

1) Formaldehyde is a carcinogen

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/formaldehyde

2) Nicotine is addictive

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/nicotine-dependence/basics/definition/con-20014452

3) Formaldehyde, among other chemicals, can be produced by e-cigarette ingredients and use:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069

(those are the three points I made in my first response to you and these are three citations of these very basic scientific findings)

[jayfish]

126. That NEJM Study Has Been Throughly Destroyed.

Spreading fear and confusion with misleading formaldehyde studies

That's the only "science" you've posted.

[CreekDog]

128. Care to debate honestly or not?

Formaldehyde is a carcinogen. That is science. If you want to pretend it's not, then you don't want to debate honestly, which makes this exchange pointless.

Second, a blog posting by "Clive Bates" doesn't invalidate a study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

And if you want to deny that "Nicotone is addictive" is science, then you aren't arguing in good faith --or that you literally do not know even the most basic science on the topic you're arguing.

[Egnever]

167. Good links but... and this is long

In the first link Formaldehyde is a carcinogen..

It says formaldehyde is a carcinogen and I will not dispute that. Formaldehyde is also produced naturally by our bodies however and exhaled in our breath.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/intheworkplace/formaldehyde

Formaldehyde is normally made in the body. Enzymes in the body break down formaldehyde into formate (formic acid), which can be further broken down into carbon dioxide. Most inhaled formaldehyde is broken down by the cells lining the mouth, nose, throat, and airways, so that less than a third is absorbed into the blood.

According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, formaldehyde is normally present at low levels (less than 0.03 parts per million) in both indoor and outdoor air. Materials containing formaldehyde can release it as a gas or vapor into the air. Automobile exhaust is a major source of formaldehyde in outdoor air.

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/formaldehyde.pdf

Formaldehyde is also produced endogenously in humans and animals.

snip

Formaldehyde is ubiquitous in the environment and has been detected
in indoor and outdoor air, soil, food, treated and bottled drinking water,
surface water, and groundwater (NTP 2010). The general population
can be exposed to formaldehyde primarily from breathing indoor
or outdoor air, from tobacco smoke, from use of cosmetic products
containing formaldehyde, and, to a more limited extent, from ingestion
of food and water. For the general population, the major sources
of airborne formaldehyde exposure include combustion sources, offgassing
from numerous construction and home-furnishing products,
and offgassing from consumer goods. Formaldehyde gas is produced
from the oxidation or incomplete combustion of organic material.
Combustion sources include automobiles and other internal combustion
engines, power plants, incinerators, refineries, forest fires,
wood stoves, and cigarettes. Formaldehyde is also formed in the early
stages of decomposition of plant residues in soil

So yes while I will agree formaldehyde is classified a carcinogen. I think levels of exposure are important to the conversation.


As far as nicotine being addictive, I doubt anyone will argue with that but does that make it a public health risk? Caffine is addictive I suppose coffee is a public health risk as well?

And lastly the NEJM report.

This report has lots of problems. First and foremost it doesn't provide enough data to be taken too seriously. They neglect to tell you what equipment is used other than a generic "tank" This leaves out a crucial piece of information when it comes to the volts they measured at as we dont know the coil resistance in the tank. The coil resistance can make the difference between boiling and burning.

If you look at the study even with its flaws. Low voltage resulted in no detectable formaldehyde.

At low voltage (3.3 V), we did not detect the formation of any formaldehyde-releasing agents (estimated limit of detection, approximately 0.1 μg per 10 puffs)

That is important because....



http://www.vapertrain.com/page/utvvb

To understand the difference, let us take a look at the specifications of a standard electronic cigarette;
most devices use 3.7 volt batteries and 2.4Ω atomisers / tanks, and so producing a little under 5.5 watts of power.

So most devices are working at a voltage at which NO formaldehyde was detected. I guarantee there are no cigarette like ecigs out there pushing anything higher than that.

So what they did essentially was heat the coils in their test to the point of burning and low and behold they started burning...

From your own links

For the general population, the major sources
of airborne formaldehyde exposure include combustion sources

Of course they produced formaldehyde as would nearly any other substance they heated to that point.

Here is a chart of voltage recommendations notice that even if they used a "standard' setup with 2.4 ohm coils they are well in the red at 5 volts at that point the ejuice would be burning and taste foul no one would vape at that setting.



So can you see my problems with this "science" they used to classify vaping a public health threat?

[cliffordu]

184. You'll not get any argument from the hysterics on this one because

There are none. Nice job.

[meow2u3]

3. California anti-vaping fanatics are using scare tactics to impose their ideology on the rest of us

My apologies to California DUers in advance.

The aim of some of those nicotine prohibitionists in California is to stigmatize and punish people who didn't quit smoking the way they dictate: either cold turkey or with useless, expensive pharmaceutical smoking cessation products, some of which cause serious if not deadly side effects. This anti-vaping hit piece is nothing but propaganda designed to protect Big Tobacco and Big Pharma from threats to their bottom lines.

I'm sick of prohibitionists' scare tactics, junk science, pseudoscience, and sensationalist hype because of nothing but fear of the unknown, e.g., the false claim that e-cigs are skyrocketing among teens and young adults, to turn the public, especially current smokers, against the harm reduction method that are e-cigs and nicotine vaporizers. I am also living proof that e-cigs are not as toxic as the alarmists allege. If they're so toxic, why has my lung capacity improved since I switched from smoking to vaping? And by the way, what the hell ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Thank God I live in Pennsylvania, where we aren't so ban-happy.

[pnwmom]

5. Or maybe they just don't want to have to deal with vapers in public spaces,

or worry about their teens getting addicted to nicotine.

If you have links disproving the Board of Health's claims, please provide them.

[meow2u3]

6. Why should I have to disprove their claims?

Wouldn't that be shifting the burden of proof, a logical fallacy?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

[pnwmom]

7. Because the health department has cited peer-reviewed research studies

as opposed to your wishful thinking.

[Egnever]

9. Please link to these peer reviewed studies

Thanks

[pnwmom]

12. Here is the state's report. The references begin on page 19.

http://cdph.ca.gov/programs/tobacco/Documents/Media/State%20Health-e-cig%20report.pdf

[Egnever]

36. Thanks for the link

It makes one wonder if he read his own references, this is from his first reference I wont bother going through the rest as this report clearly had less to do with science than an agenda.

The levels of toxicants in the
aerosol were 9-450 times lower than the same volume cigarette smoke, supporting the idea that
e-cigarette aerosol is much less hazardous than cigarette smoke (Table 2). Goniewicz et al. also compared the e-cigarette aerosol to the aerosol delivered by the nicotine inhaler, a medicine marketed but not widely used to aid smoking cessation. Depending on brand, some toxicants were found in the e-cigarette aerosol at higher levels than the nicotine inhaler (e.g.,o- methylbenzaldehyde and formaldehyde).

The report put out seems to be based on the What about the children theory of government, instead of on the actual science.

I doubt you will find anyone advocating selling them to children nor will you find many that have a problem with regulating where they may be used the same as cigarettes. The crusade that you and this California health official( who embarrasses himself with this report in my opinion) is misguided.

[pnwmom]

38. The e-cig companies are marketing them to children, whether or not anyone

"advocates" that. They are sold in vending machines children have access to, and in many states children can even buy them in stores.

[Politicalboi]

40. Booze is marketed to children

3 cute frogs telling your 3 year old about Bud-Wis-Er or Bud Bowl with dad on Super Bowl Sunday. Monster drinks are preparing kids for drinking. Why not ban those too. Or better yet maybe these children need better parenting so the rest of us can enjoy being adults and making up our OWN minds without worrying about children that aren't even ours.

[pnwmom]

41. There are laws that restrict the sale of alcohol to children, and there should be

similar laws in every state prohibiting the sale and marketing of vaping products to children -- but there are not.

[krawhitham]

55. 41+ states prohibit ENDS sales to minors

Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems



http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6349a1.htm#Tab

According to the CDC that leaves

Oregon
Nevada
Montana
North Dakota
New Mexico
Texas
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
Maine


The National Conference of State Legislatures states Nevada now bans E-cigs to minors and Michigan has passed a law also doing so but the Governor has not signed it yet

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/alternative-nicotine-products-e-cigarettes.aspx#1

[pnwmom]

56. Last I heard there were 50 states. 41+ isn't enough. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

60. You know why Oregon has no established age restrictions? When we went to make such restrictions

the 'anti vape' crowd refused to establish age limits by law unless all regulations applied to tobacco use and sales were applied to vaping. This was unreasonable and thus, no law got made at all.
So. All the local Vape shops post and enforce 18 year old only rules voluntarily. One local maker of Vape Juice puts this verbiage on their label "Selling this product to anyone under 18 is a shitty thing to do."

Anyone who wants to learn a more fact based view could, if they wanted to, go to this link from the National Health Service of Great Britain and read what is there and follow the links and see actual current best science, best guesses, things that are actually known and things that we do not yet know. They are in a process of regulating the products in such a way that will permit the NHS to pay for e-cigs as a stop smoking method starting in 2015.
Here is a sample, it just sounds so different from the American rhetoric about it:

"First, e-cigarettes don’t contain any tobacco – only nicotine, which is highly addictive but much less dangerous. For this reason, smoking e-cigarettes (known as "vaping&quot is generally regarded a safer alternative to smoking for those unable or unwilling to stop using nicotine.

Also, while the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found the liquid and vapour to contain traces of toxins (PDF, 237kb), including cancer-causing chemicals nitrosamines and formaldehyde, the level of these toxins is about one thousandth of that in cigarette smoke.

We cannot be certain that these traces of toxins are harmless, but tests on animals and a small study of 40 smokers are reassuring, providing some evidence that e-cigarettes are well tolerated and only associated with mild adverse effects (slight mouth or throat irritation, a dry cough).

Public health charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is cautiously optimistic, concluding in its January 2013 briefing (PDF, 447kb) that "there is little evidence of harmful effects from repeated exposure to propylene glycol, the chemical in which nicotine is suspended".
www.nhs.uk/news/2013/06june/pages/e-cigarettes-and-vaping.aspx

[jschurchin]

176. You know what happened to all the Califonians with Common Sense?

They moved to Oregon.

Great post my Friend!!

[krawhitham]

70. 15 to 41 states banning minors in 18 months, some people applaud progress but not you it seems

And what parents have no responsible is this?

Raise your kids right and it is a non issue

The other 9 states have laws working through state legislature and should see it enacted before long. Not to mention the FDA will use the ban hammer in the next couple months beating some of those remaining states

When we reach 50 states will you stop bashing Vapors?

[pnwmom]

85. I will continue to call for regulation of vaping, including making

public and work spaces vaping-free; and also regulating the production of the devices for safety.

[JonLP24]

49. I don't ever see any e-cig ads, I'm sure they exist

but I think they target tobacco smokers "A safer alternative" i bet you anything that's a tagline. '

Anyways, the only times I see e-cigs or e-cig logos is when I walk into the smoke shop, 18 years to enter one and purchase what battery, filter, flavors of juice.

[pnwmom]

57. My 19 year old niece was selling them in a kiosk in a mall. And they were mostly

candy flavored -- definitely marketed to young people. She'd been a cigarette smoker, so vaping was better for her than cigarettes. But it's better not to get addicted to nicotine in the first place.

[krawhitham]

69. That is a bullshit argument

Please tell me at what age I should start disliking candy flavors since they are for the young only


Is this aimed at minors?




If you have no issue with candy flavored alcohol then you should have no issue with candy flavored E-cigs in 41 states (Yes I know not all 50), or you are a hypocrite

[jberryhill]

82. She does this regularly

If e-cigs don't taste like brussels sprouts, beef liver, garlic and old socks, then it is clear their only market is infants.

It is well known that adults do not like sweet flavors.

[laundry_queen]

110. LOL, I noticed the same thing. nt

[meow2u3]

19. The burden of proof lies with those making the assertion

Not with those who disprove it. It's up to those who claim e-cigs are dangerous to prove it beyond a doubt, and all I read from the anti-vaping crowd is speculation. For instance, "X might cause harm", "could have toxic chemicals", etc. are examples of propaganda. If there's anyone engaging in wishful thinking, it's you. Do you want e-cigs criminalized and vapers in prison?

Don't expect the pro-vaping camp to prove a negative.

If that won't satisfy you, I'll give you a link that shows that e-cigs aren't as dangerous as the hype would suggest:
http://vaporawareness.org/ecig-facts/


Here are a couple of pieces documenting the logic, or lack thereof, of anti-smoking groups:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/01/why-are-anti-smoking-groups.html

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/01/anti-smoking-groups-propaganda-campaign.html


Did it ever occur to you that the California Board of Health just might have a financial conflict of interest? I'm inclined to believe some of those "public health" groups have been corrupted by drug company money.

If this won't convince you, then your mind is already made up.

[pnwmom]

39. No, it's not up to regulators to prove they're dangerous "beyond a doubt."

That isn't the standard.

[Egnever]

11. Here's a site with plenty of rebuttal to this ridiculousness.

http://www.ecigalternative.com/smoking-vs-vaping.htm



And here is a study of one brand of ecig. Of course there are many different brands and it is quite possible that there are less reputable sources using bad ingredients but that in no way disputes the fact that time after time when tested ecigs are found to be thousands of times less harmfull than Tobacco if not completely harmless.

http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinEcigBenchtopHandout.pdf

[pnwmom]

13. But the non-smoker has no way of knowing what's in the vapor of any particular user. n/t

[zappaman]

17. Yes, people could be vaping mustard gas and not telling anyone!

[pnwmom]

29. Scientists have measured formaldehyde and nano-particles of metals in various

devices. Different devices pose different risks, and the second-hand vaper has no way of controlling these risks.

[snooper2]

53. I had some nano-particles of cow shit in my weed, but smoked it anyway

[uponit7771]

116. Same could be found in a 30 day old burnt steak, they took extreme edge case that would burn

... the mouth of anyone vaping and said THERE POISON at the top of their lungs

[Egnever]

20. Oh boy

Lisa Waddell, who leads community health and prevention at the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. "The issue of real concern here is we really don't know everything that's in these products, and you are seeing the rise of the use of these products in our children as well as our adults."

So call me crazy but when there is so much evidence of the efficacy of these things the answer is not to ban them but to regulate them correctly. Set standards for ingredients not ban outright.

Clearly there are lots of studies of various brands that have found those brands to be orders of magnitude safer than cigarettes

Ruyan® V8 nicotine e-cigarette users do not
inhale smoke or smoke toxicants. The modest
reductions recommended in 2008 by WHO’s
Tobacco Regulation committee for 9 major
toxicants in cigarette smoke, in line with Articles 9
and 10 of the FCTC (WHO Framework
Convention Tobacco Control treaty), are already
far exceeded by the Ruyan® e-cigarette, as it is
free of all accompanying smoke toxicants.
Absolute safety does not exist for any drug, but
relative to lethal tobacco smoke emissions, Ruyan
e-cigarette emissions appear to be several
magnitudes safer. E-cigarettes are akin to a
medicinal nicotine inhalator in safety, dose, and
addiction potential.
E-cigarettes are cigarette substitutes. If they can
take nicotine market share from cigarettes, and that
is the big question, they will improve smoker and
population health. They may also have a secondary
role as medicinal nicotine inhaler quitting aids.
Further trials of acceptability, addiction potential,
clinical safety, and quitting efficacy are needed.

[pnwmom]

30. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT BANNING THEM.

What they are talking about is regulating them, which you say you support.

[meow2u3]

21. There are 5 main ingredients in e-liquid

USP propylene glycol, USP vegetable glycerin, USP nicotine, distilled, purified water, and FDA approved flavorings.

All these ingredients are FDA approved and are all "good", so why all of a sudden it's not OK when they're all combined into nicotine refill liquid?

[pnwmom]

33. They also have been found to contain contaminants such as formaldehyde

and nanoparticles of metals.

And some "flavorings" that might be fine when ingested are not safe to inhale.

[JonLP24]

48. It depends on who & where you buy from

Ingredients vary.

[pnwmom]

94. That doesn't help the second-hand vaper, does it?

That person has no idea what's in the vapor s/he's being exposed to.

Which is why I'm fine with individuals vaping in their own private places, but not in public and work spaces.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. This is from the UK's National Health Service, which next year will start paying for e-cigs as

tobacco replacement for smoking cessation:

"Also, while the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found the liquid and vapour to contain traces of toxins (PDF, 237kb), including cancer-causing chemicals nitrosamines and formaldehyde, the level of these toxins is about one thousandth of that in cigarette smoke.

We cannot be certain that these traces of toxins are harmless, but tests on animals and a small study of 40 smokers are reassuring, providing some evidence that e-cigarettes are well tolerated and only associated with mild adverse effects (slight mouth or throat irritation, a dry cough)."

I posted a link upthread but it did not post 'hot' I will try again...
[link:http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/06june/pages/e-cigarettes-and-vaping.aspx|

[pnwmom]

107. Right, you posted that they will now be regulating e-cigs and vaping devices now,

whereas before they weren't. And they will be licensed as smoking-cessation devices.

That's fine with me because they're clearly safer than regular cigarettes.

[X_Digger]

105. Oh my gawd, nanoparticles?!??!?! *gasp*

You know what else has nanoparticles of metals? The vegetables in your supermarket!

Some in the dirt on them, but some right there in them! Iron! Magnesium! Sodium! Potassium! Copper!

And aldehydes, formalin, cyanide even! Right there in those peaches, I tell ya!

[pnwmom]

109. Are you inhaling the veggies in your supermarket? That's quite an achievement.

Most people can't do it with veggies, but they could inhale the vapors from an e-cig or vape pen.

And in that case, any contamination with nano-particles could be a concern.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3266021/

Nanotechnology holds the promise of revolutionizing our society, bringing numerous beneficial innovations to improve structural materials, electronics, energy, medical imaging, and drug delivery, among other applications. However, nanomaterials present potential safety concerns, and there is accumulating evidence to suggest that nanoparticles may exert adverse effects on the lung and other organ systems. This article will overview the potential risks of engineered nanoparticles and nanotechnology on the respiratory system and highlight recent findings related to pulmonary and systemic effects of inhaled nanoparticles. Special emphasis will be given to carbon nanotubes and the possibility that these nanoparticles could represent an emerging risk for environmental and occupational lung disease, especially in individuals with pre-existing respiratory diseases such as asthma.

[uponit7771]

117. Same can be said for Sugared Cereal, it's disenginuous to inject edge cases into the position

... as if they're a viable proffer

[zappaman]

16. No offense taken.

I don't smoke or vape nicotine, but this is a bullshit ban

[sabrina 1]

81. Prohibition is the goal. We already have one dead American due to these fanatics. With the horrific

War on Drugs under attack, the vision of the money drying up and even people like Meese finally admitting that it was a total failure (not really, it made an awful lot of people very, very rich and powerful in our government, Private Prison Industry, MIC et al, they need a NEW Prohibition.

It's so obvious you wonder why ANYONE would be willing to promote it.

[pnwmom]

95. Not true. Regulation is the goal.

Right now, it's the wild west as far as production goes. Many of these products are made in China and there's very little attention to safety. Other are carefully made in the US. The methods can and should be regulated, as should the locations where vapors can use their products. They should be kept out of indoor spaces just as cigarettes are.

[sabrina 1]

100. Yes, heard all that regarding the devastating so-called Reagan 'War on Drugs'. Tell that to Garner's

loved one, murdered by police in the new prohibition 'war on smoking'. It has already begun. The profiteers, the PIC are salivating at the prospects. Anti Democratic proponents are preparing new 'laws' to take away even more of our 'freedoms'.

But hey, it will as always, be mostly African Americans who end up dead or in jail, due to the fanatacism of the anti-dr, I mean anti-smoking zealots. And really, who cares about them? for the sarcasm impaired.

You just keep on helping them to create their new 'war on (fill in the blank) if you wish. I will do my best to ensure that this country will not succumb to the latest Prohibition which will, as is intended, target the most vulnerable among us, and create some new brutal cartels, see the 'anti Drug fanatics creation, who will now be murdering for cigarettes as well as for cigarettes. Wow, if I had no conscience, I might be salivating at the potential profits myself.

But I do have a conscience and I don't forget history, so won't be helping to repeat it.

RIP to one of the first victims of this lates 'war' on people's personal choices. And yes, he WAS African American.

[pnwmom]

101. Where are all these reports of people going to jail for smoking? I haven't seen any.

So you're not only against regulating vaping -- you think people should be able to smoke cigarettes everywhere they want.

Sorry, we don't need to go back to those dirty days.

[sabrina 1]

102. Are you seriously asking that question? Have you missed the now-familiar excuse for the police

murdering an African American man, only this time, instead of MJ, it was Cigarette 'laws' he was murdered for?

Unfortunately, he didn't even make it to jail for his 'crime'. He was choked to death, because, well we have LAWS!

Keep up the good work.

I will also continue to oppose any more laws helped by the anti-smoking smoking fanatics, probably inadvertently though that is really no excuse, that will, without a doubt, lead to more murders and more enslavement of the African American community in this country.

What's interesting now, is to see one of the worst 'anti-drug' warriors, Edwin Meese, admit, way, way too late for all the lives destroyed, that 'we went too far' now working with his former arch enemy, the ACLU, to try to rescind the very policies HE helped put in place.

'Useful idiots' helped him of course during his drug warrior days.

I refuse to be a useful idiot for the next 'War' or the next.

We can deal with with a little passive smoke in the air, hell, we breathe in so many poisons every day it's a wonder we are all still here to talk about it.

What this country can't survive as a democracy, is any more Prohibition on whatever the target happens to be, that steal our rights and demolish our Constitution.


If there is another 'war' on anything, it should be, and hopefully it will be, on those who are promoting these policies which have destroyed this country and so many, many of its citizens, in the name of 'righteousness'.

[pnwmom]

103. That was a crime against him -- but it wasn't for his smoking, it was for his selling.

No, we can't all deal with passive smoke in the air. Back in the bad old days, I had to work in a room with half a dozen chain smokers and I ended up with pneumonia. Twice. And cigarette smoke is an asthma trigger for many people.

[sabrina 1]

104. Wow! Just 'Wow'!

Garner's life doesn't matter then. Such a cavalier statement here considering the human life lost for 'violating the LAW, Drug LAW/Cigarette Law'. I guess it was worth it so that those few among us who are so sensitive to our poisoned air they can discern a little cigarette smoke from all the carcinogens and poisons in the air.

Seriously, think about what you are saying.

I have friends who are allergic to perfume. But they are intelligent enough to know that any effort to illegalize what affects THEM would have the most dire consequences for society as a whole.

People DIE fighting to protect freedom. What a waste their lives were, no? Freedom V 'my issue'??

I have my own issues but do not in any way want to risk the most precious rights we have so that I, ME, am not slightly inconvenienced.

Of course those who want to profit from these egregious un-Constitutional WARS, and who want to create a new 'slavery', will USE the selfish among us, those who care only about themselves, to accomplish their nefarious goals.

Hopefully this time the majority will stop them before we lose more precious lives.

Btw, I am curious, was the life of Garner worth it to you? There will be many more, so, are you prepared to risk OTHER PEOPLE'S lives so that you can be more comfortable?? Clearly your life isn't threatened, so I assume you are simply interested in your own comfort level?

Just hoping to find some understanding as to why anyone would be willing to let people DIE or lose their precious freedom, so that they can feel comfortable.

[Logical]

8. Good! Remember how many idiots in the 60s and 70s said 2nd hand smoke was OK!! Better to rule on....

the safe side!

[meow2u3]

10. I say better to err on the side of choice and freedom

than to ban first and ask questions later.

[Logical]

14. Like leaded gasoline and DDT and Vioxx and Thalidomide?? nt

[meow2u3]

24. Irrelevent

Leaded gas has nothing to do with FDA approved ingredients such as pharmaceutical grade propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings.
You're assuming danger where it hasn't been proven. Leaded gas has been proven dangerous; e-cigs have not been, despite claims to the contrary.

[Logical]

26. And we never should've started using leaded gasoline! Get it? nt

[JonLP24]

47. The disaster was with the wrong isomer

the right still has risks but safer and still prescribed as a prescription.

[jberryhill]

77. DDT isn't particularly harmful to humans

It was banned because its effects on birds.

[pnwmom]

15. Better to err on the side of clean lungs, at least for non-users.

I lived through years of having so put up with second-hand cigarette smoke, in the days when it was considered only a mild "irritant."

Not again. No thanks!

[meow2u3]

23. What about smokers looking to quit?

What are they supposed to to, suffer? That's not very liberal an attitude.

[pnwmom]

27. They can vape in the same places they can smoke cigarettes.

No one's asking them to suffer unnecessarily.

But smokers who want to quit should understand why non-smokers don't want children and teens to get addicted to nicotine.

[meow2u3]

31. Vapers don't want to be around smokers

Why do you overprotective puritans want to banish me with smokers? I don't like the smell of smoke

BTW, why the prejudice against e-cigs because of a pack of lies peddled by anti-smoking groups, who're blinded to the truth about e-cigs?

[pnwmom]

35. Then they should understand why non-vapers don't want to be around vapers.

Please read the California report before saying that there is a "prejudice" against e-cigs. It's linked in the OP.

[meow2u3]

37. The OP is a propaganda piece

The truth is here: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/01/california-department-of-health.html

[cbayer]

72. This is exactly the point.

[JonLP24]

44. I certainly don't want anyone to get addicted to nicotine

I'm not sure about e-cigs but tobacco based nicotine is near Heroin as far as addiction & harm to your health.

[pnwmom]

58. Nicotine is just as addictive whether it's in cigarettes or in vape pen devices or hookahs.

The health advantage to the latter is that you can get your nicotine fix without inhaling as much other junk, such as tar.

[jayfish]

120. Do you have any citations to back-up that assertion?

To help you out; don't bother posting if your citation is deals with combusted tobacco? I won't waste my time revisiting for a relevant reply because none will be forthcoming.

[pnwmom]

123. Nicotine is addictive. Period. Full-stop. Big Tobacco lost that argument years ago,

and the e-cigarette industry isn't going to succeed


http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/electronic-cigarettes-e-cigarettes

Although they do not produce tobacco smoke, e-cigarettes still contain nicotine and other potentially harmful chemicals. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug, and recent research suggests nicotine exposure may also prime the brain to become addicted to other substances. Also, testing of some e-cigarette products found the vapor to contain known carcinogens and toxic chemicals (such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde), as well as potentially toxic metal nanoparticles from the vaporizing mechanism. The health consequences of repeated exposure to these chemicals are not yet clear.
Another worry is the refillable cartridges used by some e-cigarettes. Users may expose themselves to potentially toxic levels of nicotine when refilling them.

[jayfish]

125. Garbage!

Next...

[beevul]

121. Thats a bullshit claim thats been debunked here numerous times.

But please, continue as if you've never been told about MAOIs in tobacco which don't exist in vapes.

[pnwmom]

124. People addicted to nicotine are grasping at straws. n/t

[beevul]

134. Wow. Thats just the sort of thing one expects to hear from a drug warrior type.

That's some swell company right there.

[JonLP24]

45. It really isn't the same thing

after a week or so, after I get the tobacco completely out of the system I can smell a trace of tobacco smoke from a half mile away. Not like that when I smoke tobacco. There is like a fruity aroma or whatever smell of the flavor but it isn't like that trace smell from tobacco.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. I also remember idiots then and now that claim cannabis is the same as heroin, the FDA for example..

That 'safe side' claim is pretty dubious. Alcohol kills lots of people, they have ads for fruit flavored booze all over the place where is that 'safe side' in that case? On skid row? In rehab? The grave?
'Alcohol is safe, marijuana kills' they said. They were and are incorrect. But they still restrict cannabis while allowing TV commercials for Strawberry Booze....

[Bonobo]

18. Entirely unsurprising from the state most representative of Puritanism from the Left. nt

[meow2u3]

25. Agreed 110%

I'm in Pennsylvania, where they don't have that far-left puritanism abounding.

I, for one, would not want to live in California. Their prohibitionist attitude towards recreational nicotine rivals the prohibitionist sexual attitudes of the Religious Right: they both believe in abstinence or severe punishment.

[MindPilot]

86. Usually I get defensive at wholesale criticism of my state.

Last edited Thu Jan 29, 2015, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

But in this case you are 100% correct.

The nanniest of the nanny states.

ETA, as I've mentioned before, I'm actually surprised that the state is not embracing e-cigs if for no other reason that the fire safety issue. Nobody ever started a wildfire tossing an e-cig out the window.

[Comrade Grumpy]

177. Right. This is the state that warns me I can get cancer in the parking garage or dentist's office.

It's scary out here!

[OregonBlue]

22. Hogwash. There is not one credible report that proves there is any danger to others in 2nd hand

vapor. If there was I guarantee every single newspaper in the country would publish it. Quite the contrary, there have been repeated studies in Europe, especially Sweden and Denmark where ecigs have been used for a long time that says the exhaled vapor contains substances in such incredibly low numbers as to be totally harmless and often not even measurable.

They maybe concerned about young children getting into ejuice that contains nicotine but they really shouldn't lie about the studies of the vapor. It's like the old marijuana scare and they just make themselves look foolish.

[pnwmom]

28. Not true. I've read reports from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

here at U.W., as well as from researchers at U Cal/ Riverside, both of which found risks for second-hand vapers.

And the State of California report that I linked to in the OP has references to research starting on page 19.

[OregonBlue]

92. If those reports were conclusive they would be all over the national news. Please go and take a look

at the numerous Swedish and Dannish studies. They've been researching this for 15 years and have yet to come up with any evidence that there is anything harmful in 2nd hand vapor, and in most cases, that there is anything even measurable. There are no more pollutants in 2nd hand vape than the regular city air you breath every day.

People who are morally opposed to smoking will jump on any reason, even one that is not well researched, to try to ban ecigs. I have used them to quit a 25 year habit and my son and his wife did the same. They are a very valuable tool in kicking the habit and much more effective that nicotine gum or patches.

When the government makes false claims, they just make themselves look dishonest. Like the old marijuana scare. If you don't want people vaping around you just say so but don't try to use inaccurate data to convince people that it is something it is not.

It should be a health thing. Not a morals thing.

[pnwmom]

93. They don't have to be absolutely conclusive. We're not talking about banning vaping,

just regulating it and limiting its use to private spaces.

They argued for decades that second hand cigarette smoking wasn't harmful, and meanwhile millions of people were exposed. Not again, please.

[Oilwellian]

32. Here's a link to many of the European studies

http://www.ecigalternative.com/ecigarette-studies-research.htm

European scientists and doctors state ecigarettes will save millions of lives in this century because it is a far safer alternative to tobacco. This is a terrible step backward for a product that has helped many stop smoking completely.

[meow2u3]

34. California e-cig health risk claim is all a pack of lies

California Department of Health Services Lies to the Public About Electronic Cigarettes

The California Department of Health Services (CDHS), under a grant funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has produced a brochure entitled "Protect Your Family from E-Cigarettes: The Facts You Need to Know."

Here are some of the "facts" being disseminated by the CDHS:

1. "The aerosol is a mixture of chemicals and small particles that can hurt the lungs just like cigarette smoke."

2. "E-cigarettes are just as addictive as regular cigarettes."

3. "People can become addicted to nicotine from e-cigarettes and they may start using regular cigarettes."

4. "Studies show that e-cigarettes do not help people quit smoking cigarettes."

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/01/california-department-of-health.html

Warning: this excerpt is the pack of lies peddled by the California Dept. of Health. The truth is at the link.

[dilby]

42. e-cigs scare the shit out of me that is why I stick to good

Old fashion tobacco, smoke 10 a day easily. Have a coworker who vapes she says it's healthier than my proven cancer sticks. Will wait till she doesn't have cancer till I switch. Oh fuck I will be honest I tried the e-cig my issue was it did not taste the same as a ritual smoke.

[JonLP24]

43. Certainly keep it away from kids under 5

that would also include cigarettes & dip tobacco. Also doses of caffeine should kept to a minimum.

[Jesus Malverde]

46. The key to this is the master tobacco settlement where 2 dollars of every carton

Of cigarettes go to health officials. This revenue stream is threatened by people switching to e cigs, and the anti tobacco forces see their futures dimming.

[Dawgs]

50. Sorry, but e-cigs are for weak people that aren't strong enough to quit cold turkey.

I did it after being a full time smoker for 15 years and it was only slightly difficult for the first month. After that it was easy.

I wonder how long these people that us e-cigs continue to stay with them. I know my Aunt has been using them for a few years.

[Mariana]

67. Would you prefer that "weak people" continue to smoke?

I think every smoker who quits deserves respect, regardless of how they go about it.

[Dawgs]

74. No. They should quit 'cold turkey'. It's not that hard.

And, I don't see it as quitting. I see it as a temporary break. The habit isn't broken with e-cigs.

[Mariana]

75. If someone doesn't smoke anymore, they've quit.

Vaping is not smoking, by definition, regardless of how you see it.

[Dawgs]

79. No. Someone that stops smoking FOREVER quit.

Vaping, in my opinion, is only a temporary break before they start smoking again.

[jayfish]

83. I've been off them for four years.

27 years smoking and 25 chewing. When do you surmise I'll get back to the real thing?

[Dawgs]

112. I don't know. But, in my experience, you will at some point. n/t

[jayfish]

119. Ahhh... Yeah...

[Mariana]

133. We're talking about a vast amount of experience, here.

IIRC, a few months ago this poster said knew ONE person who had tried e-cigs, and that ONE person had gone back to smoking. So of course it follows that you will smoke again, too. At some point. Can't be avoided. It will happen.

How can you possibly argue with that?



Congratulations on four years! I've got three and a half.

[n2doc]

174. Not that hard- for you

Too bad you have no empathy for those who have a harder time quitting. Sounds like the same argument people make for why some are homeless- they just aren't trying 'hard enough'

[jberryhill]

78. Weak people should be punished

Same thing with railings on stairs.

If you can't keep your balance, don't use them.

[Dawgs]

80. I don't disagree.

My point about vaping was not an opinion on what California is doing.. just that it was a good place to vent.

[Mariana]

88. Why are you "venting" in the first place?

You seem to be very angry at people who choose to stop smoking a different way than you did. Why is that?

[Dawgs]

111. Pretty simple. I don't think vaping helps people quit.

I know many that have stopped smoking and started vaping. Every one of them has gone back to smoking. It happens every time, at least with the people I know.

The others I know that stopped "cold turkey", quit for good.

[Mariana]

114. My experience is the opposite.

Among my family, friends, and acquaintances, those who attempted cold turkey have relapsed more frequently than those who switched to e-cigs. Most of those who went cold turkey have tried and failed multiple times. Nevertheless, I don't feel the need to "vent" about attempts at cold turkey quitting.

If someone stops smoking, it's a good thing no matter how they go about it. Even if they relapse, they've learned things that will help them the next time.

Congratulations for quitting smoking, by the way. I haven't smoked for 3 1/2 years now. Isn't it great?

[Oilwellian]

159. Vaping helped my husband and I quit...

after forty years of smoking. It's the only thing that has worked and we've been smoke-free for 17 months now. I also know four other people who have also stopped smoking thanks to vapes. The trick is getting the more powerful vape, not those over the counter types made by cigarette companies that guarantee you'll go back to smoking. They just don't satisfy like the more powerful vape will.

[Mariana]

165. This may sound a little out there

but I have to wonder if the tobacco companies are deliberately making such inferior vaporizers for the over the counter market, to turn smokers off vaping. They put them in all the places where people usually buy cigarettes, knowing that smokers will try them, not like them, figure all e-cigs are that bad, and just continue to smoke.

[OregonBlue]

183. You make my point beautifully. It's not about whether they are safe, it's a morals thing.

It should be a health thing and the government should not be pushing phone studies. There have been many in-depth studies in Europe and none has concluded that exhaled vapor is in any way dangerous.

[Trajan]

51. Ah ... the prohibition is strong with this one ...

Our own Carry Nation, right here in DU, wielding her ax and slashing and hacking away at our freedom based on specious evidence ...

The crusader lives ...

[raouldukelives]

52. We have these giant, four wheeled vapers all over town here.

They seem to slow down and stop at lights and then blow vape all over the place when they take off. Serious health risk alert! Someone even said they are why things are getting warmer but that seems crazy. Still, can't be good for us non-vapers.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

54. You'd think they could come up with some sort of category of 'vape products'

that had passed regulatory checks to show that they contained a limited set of ingredients deemed 'safe' on public spaces, and not any weird, off the cuff chemicals that had no reason to be in the product.

Then just pop a logo on those products similar to the 'GMO-free' labels that are showing up in groceries, more and more.

[Mariana]

115. It wouldn't matter.

E-cigarettes represent a rising public-health risk that threaten to unravel progress made on tobacco by "re-normalizing smoking behavior"...

The problem, as they see it, is that someone vaping an e-cig looks similar to someone smoking a cigarette. The ingredients in the fluid or the composition of the vapor aren't relevant.

[HappyMe]

59. Next up -- prohibition of alcohol.

I'm glad I don't live there.

[Prism]

61. The anti-science nanny state relies on fear again

This is tiresome. Again and again, these prohibitionist fanatics rely on false claims, twisted statements, selective studies, and over the top hyperbole to ensure fear fills in the void of ignorance most people have about e-cigs. This isn't about health. This is about money and control. Money, because cigarettes have long been a government cash cow, and control in that some people just plum want to control other people's habits.

My personal favorite by far is that formaldehyde study where, turns out, they had to jack the voltage way up to burn the liquid in order to get the hazardous chemicals they were looking for. Imagine that! Inhaling something you've scorched is bad for you!

Nictoine addiction isn't amazing, but neither is caffeine addiction. And frankly, it's no one's damn business. But, where's the crusade against that? We were told the whole reason people were against cigarettes was because of the dangerous cancer causing materials in them. Remove them and . . . people are still against it. Hmmm. This is about health, huh? Hmmm.

And of course, "But the children!" Yes, the children. Always the children. Don't have a leg to stand on? Invoke the children.

"But candy flavors!" Yeah! When I put something in my mouth, I'd rather have it tasting good. Weird, right? Do adults not get to have nice tasting things because some kid might like it? Better start banning schnapps, people.

But we don't. Because this isn't about "the children" but rather adults who don't like it when other adults may be enjoying themselves.

Friggin puritanical lunatics.

[B2G]

62. Complete and utter horeshit. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

64. From the National Health Service of Great Britain...

"Electronic cigarettes are to be licensed and regulated as an aid to quit smoking from 2016, it has been announced.

E-cigarettes – battery-operated devices that mimic cigarettes – are to be classed as "medicines", which means they will face stringent checks by medicine regulator the MHRA and doctors will be able to prescribe them to smokers to help them cut down or quit.

This move has been widely welcomed by medical experts and officials, as tighter regulation will ensure the products are safe and effective."

Currently in the UK, no regulations of any kind. Once standards are in place, the NHS will start paying for e-cigs for smokers in the UK who want a safer alternative while quitting smoking. The National Health Service is going to buy them for people....

[pnwmom]

99. That makes sense. They're being licensed and regulated for a good purpose.

Not allowed to be used by anyone in public spaces.

[Orrex]

65. This will result in an even greater health problem IMO

Kneejerk outrage can cause severe patella damage, while exploding heads carry a significant risk of skull-shrapnel injury.

[hughee99]

68. I think California should outlaw both smoking and vaping all substances anywhere in the state.

Even in the privacy of your own home, the police could kick down your door at any time on a raid, and second hand smoke would be harmful to them. They shouldn't have to be subjected to other people's poison while working.

[MindPilot]

87. Pepper spray would be most appropriate, don't you think?

[cbayer]

71. It should be prohibited wherever smoking is prohibited.

I think it's great that people are able to quit smoking using these things, but I divested myself of my nicotine addiction 7 months ago and I can tell when there is nicotine in the air.

It is arrogant for people to think that they should be able to vape anywhere and anytime they like.

[pnwmom]

98. Congratulations to you, cbayer!

That must feel like quite an accomplishment. I know it was for my grandfather and uncle.

[cbayer]

131. Thanks pnwmom!

I was the person who told people they would have to take me out in a black bag before I quit smoking. What really got me to do it was the realization that I was a tool of an industry that couldn't care less if I lived or died as long as I kept smoking.

Rage at the man is what did it!

[pnwmom]

137. That sounds like my father-in-law.

Who ended up dying of pneumonia and chronic pulmonary disease.

I'm so glad you were able to pull free. Best of luck on your continued health.

[abelenkpe]

127. Exactly

And congratulations

[cbayer]

130. Thank you. I never believed it would happen, but it has.

[bighart]

138. Cigarettes are not banned in public places due to nicotine, why should these be?

[cbayer]

142. Cigarettes are banned in public places because they put shit

in the air that people don't want to be exposed to.

I don't want to be exposed to nicotine in the air if I can avoid it.

Why do you think that vaporizers should be allowed in places that cigarettes aren't? Do you make any exceptions? Planes, hospital rooms, grade schools?

This is not difficult. They should be prohibited where cigarettes are prohibited.

[bighart]

144. Smoking is banned in public places due to SECOND HAND SMOKE

there is no SMOKE with an e cig. Cigarettes are not banned anywhere in the US because of nicotine, they are banned because of the other known cancer causing chemicals and SMOKE that they produce.

[cbayer]

147. Your point is very weak, imo.

I don't want e-cigs banned, just regulated.

Cigarettes are banned because they put all kinds of things in the air, including nicotine. Nicotine is not a benign substance. While vaping is most likely much safer than smoking, it still just a nicotine delivery system.

You should have the right to use it and I should have the right not to be exposed to it.

I am nicotine free and exposure to nicotine makes me crave it. Even touching things, like my steering wheel, can do it. I know when someone is vaping near me and I don't want it near me.

What's the problem? Why would you need to vape in places where you can't usually smoke.

This demand to make it ok to do it anywhere is going to be the death knell of this.

[bighart]

149. Cigarettes are banned because they produce

second hand smoke, not because "they put all kinds of things in the air, including nicotine".
I never said nicotine is benign but the fact is nicotine is not the justification cited in the laws and regulations creating smoking bans.

A cusory review of the justification of smoking bans point out the risks of second hand tobacco SMOKE. I am not advocating for a free for all on the use of e cigs but also believe any ban that references in any form that the use of these things "looks" like smoking or "normalizes smoking behavior" is suspect and is an emotional reaction and not based on science.

Ultimately there is not enough hard data to conclude that e cig vapors poses a public health risk and nicotine is not the driver in any anti smoking law that I have seen.

Should new drugs be kept off the market because they might be harmful?
We eat gmo foodstuffs everyday that we don't really know or understand the risks of.

I believe the burden of proof always should lie with those that want to prohibit and not on those that want to allow. If it can't be shown there is a known risk there is no justification for a ban on things.

[cbayer]

150. You keep saying that, but it's not factual.

There are lots of reasons for banning cigarettes. FWIW, smokeless tobacco is generally banned in places where smoking is banned, and it doesn't even put nicotine in the air.

Interesting aside. They outlawed the smoking of tobacco in the Netherlands but continued to permit the smoking of MJ. The problem was that most people mixed their MJ with tobacco, so this created quite a dilemma. At any rate, they outlawed tobacco because of the nicotine and did not outlaw smoking.

You can scream SMOKE all you want, but I am objecting to the nicotine. I think it is foolish to insist that vaping should be permitted in places where smoking is prohibited. I sat next to someone on a plane last year who thought it was just fine to vape. People have come into my home and my car and seen no reason why they shouldn't vape there, even though they would never think of lighting up a cigarette.

No one is advocating that these things be taken off the market, just that they be regulated. I want my smoke free environment to be nicotine free. Smoke isn't a problem for me, nicotine is.

There is a risk that I might cave to my addiction, and, frankly, that's enough evidence for me.

Vape all you want, just don't do it in public places where you wouldn't or couldn't smoke. Honestly, the childish insistence that people should be able to vape anywhere and anytime they want is driven by the addiction. I made my choice to leave that behind.

[bighart]

151. Can you point me to the laws and regulations that cite nicotine

as the reason for the ban?

I did a quick search and saw references to second hand tobacco smoke over and over but none that cited nicotine as the reason.

I understand your aversion to nicotine and smoke since you are a former smoker. If someone was to vape around you using a 0 nicotine liquid would you still be offended?

I would never vape in someone's home or car without asking first.

[cbayer]

154. You don't get it. I don't want nicotine in the air in places

where smoking is prohibited. I don't want it around kids or me or other people that may have sensitivity to nicotine.

As to your question about 0 nicotine liquids, I would not object in general, though I think it would be technically very difficult to draw the line there. I don't object when people chew nicotine gum or wear a patch. It doesn't affect me. I don't object to people smoking MJ around me either, but others might.

Why is it that ex-smokers who were limited in where they could smoke now think it should be ok to vape anywhere they want? Doesn't that seem really arrogant?

[bighart]

155. As i stated I am not advocating for use any where

The reason smokers or ex smokers get a bit obnoxious about this is the reason the bans are in place in the first place. Smoking bans from everything I have seen are predicated on the fact that second hand smoke is dangerous to non smokers. I concede that point without question. If there is no public health threat from e cigs there is no justification for a ban.

You show me where nicotine is cited as the driver behind a smoking ban and I will concede the point. I have looked and can not find such a citation. If second hand smoke is the driver for smoking bans then it has nothing to do with e cigs.

From the CDC:
Smoke-Free Policies Improve Health
Exposure to secondhand smoke from burning tobacco products causes disease and premature death among nonsmokers.1 There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke, and even brief exposure can cause immediate harm.1 Studies have shown that smokefree laws that prohibit smoking in public places like bars and restaurants help improve the health of workers and the general population.1-17 Some of these improvements in health outcomes, such as reductions in hospital admissions for heart attacks, begin to be realized shortly after the laws take effect.

If your aversion is to the nicotine why not with the gum? People exhale nicotine when they chew it.

[cbayer]

156. It doesn't matter what you do or do not concede.

There is likely no evidence because it wasn't an issue previously. Things are changing and the new regulations are going to have to do with nicotine and whatever other shit there might be in vaporizing.

The tobacco companies used, abused and killed massive numbers of people and the key ingredient in their ability to do this was the addictive nature of nicotine. They hid it and denied it for as long as they possibly could. I was a victim of them and I suspect you were too. You may still be, I don't know.

I trust the makers of this new nicotine delivery system just about as much as I trust the tobacco companies.

My general impression is that this new delivery system is less hazardous than the previous delivery system, but that doesn't mean it is harmless either to those using it or those exposed to it.

The reason smokers get a bit obnoxious about this is that they are addicted. You have every right to stay addicted and I have the right to not be exposed to your drug of choice.

Sorry, in this case, the burden of proof is on those who want to claim this is safe. In the meantime, I think they should be regulated the same way other nicotine delivery systems are regulated. That means age restrictions, no marketing to children and much more study into the potential drawbacks as well as benefits. It also means that their use should be restricted in places where other nicotine dispensing products are restricted.

[Mariana]

158. In my state, the public smoking ban defines "smoking"

so as to require combustion of a material and the emission of smoke. Therefore, e-cigs aren't included.

[Mariana]

148. Well, that's what they said, isn't it?

The smoke is dangerous, causes cancer and other health problems and people shouldn't be subjected to it in public, which I agree with, BTW. Now we know that with some people, that was a lie all along. Now, OMG it's the nicotine. And if everyone who vapes starts using nicotine-free fluid (many do already) they'll just find something else to squawk about. Some few have been honest and admitted they object to vaping because it looks like smoking.

[cbayer]

152. I don't object to vaping because it looks like smoking and I am

very happy for those that have been able to switch from cigarettes to what appears to be a much safer nicotine delivery system.

I am a nicotine addict. I don't want nicotine in the air if I can avoid it. I don't think it's ok for people to vape in places where smoking is prohibited. If I go into a non-smoking environment, I expect it to be nicotine free.

I know when someone is vaping around me well before I ever see it, and I object.

If ex-smokers were able to confine their smoking to certain places before, why in the world would they think they shouldn't have to do the same with vaporizers?

[Mariana]

157. Do you object to people vaping around you

with nicotine-free liquids?

Do you have the same when people use nicotine gum near you? They exhale nicotine. Do you think they should be required to use their gum in smoking areas only?

I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with your addiction. I know it can be very difficult. Have you considered eliminating foods that contain nicotine from your diet? Maybe that would help reduce the cravings.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

163. I don't care what's in it. I don't want people blowing their vape on my food or the back of my neck.

I was in a restaraunt/bar last year an some ignorant fuckwad was turning his head toward our table to blow his shit away from his own table and friends. I kept seeing a cloud go past out of the corner of my eye.

My partner grabbed the waiter and they told him to take it outside. My first inclination was to sneeze on the back of his neck and on his food to see how he liked his food crop dusted.

[cbayer]

173. I already remarked on this above, but will repeat it.

I don't mind when people vape non-nicotine products around me. My only concern in terms of regulation would be the difficulty in really determining who was doing what. I see a big mess of intrusive oversight that no one is going to want to enforce. In the meantime, I think the simplest solution is to restrict it from places where smoking is restricted.

I'm not having a hard time with my addiction at all. I'm free and I couldn't be happier about it. I was a tool for 45 years and I have chosen not to be a tool anymore.

I'm sorry that other people are having such a hard time with their addiction that they think they have the right to impose their drug of choice on others wherever they want instead of simply doing what they had to do when they smoked - keep it out of defined public areas.

Why is it so important to you to be able to vape wherever you want? Do you draw the line anywhere? Planes? Day care centers? ICU's?

[Logical]

161. They are banned because they are annoying to be around!! nt

[lancer78]

73. The fascination

of some "progressives" with "for the children" votes and nanny-stateism, costs us hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes every election cycle.

[pnwmom]

84. Progressives have long been interested in air quality, both outdoors and indoors.

And most progressives don't smoke or vape and would rather not have to breathe in the contents of other people's smoke or vapor.

[MindPilot]

91. A lot of us are concerned about global warming too.

And the hot air you're delivering is enough to melt a glacier.

[Demit]

129. Most progressives don't smoke or vape? Citation, please.

You are free to pursue your crusade, but stick to facts that are verifiable, please.

[Vinca]

76. It's amazing to me that people waste their money on this crap.

[Demit]

140. Quitting smoking is a good use of money.

And quitting without prescription products saves a HUGE amount of money.

[Vinca]

153. But isn't this just a replacement nicotine delivery system that will keep you hooked?

You might not be inhaling the tar, but you're subjecting your lungs to formaldehyde and other chemicals. A few years down the road I wouldn't be surprised to hear this was worse than the cigarettes they replaced. I used to smoke, so I'm not totally out of line commenting on this. Go cold turkey. It doesn't hurt forever.

[Demit]

160. No.

It's a system where you can gradually reduce the nicotine, which I am doing.

What I did, in the last year and change, was break the habit of reaching for a cigarette and lighting up. The vaping helped me get down to four a day. Then, when I finished the last bag of tobacco (I'd been stuffing my own) I stopped smoking. The habit of inhaling smoke was broken. Now I am working on reducing the nicotine content. I'm down to low.

I'm doing it my way. It doesn't hurt forever either.

And if I ran my life by what I subjected my lungs to, I'd never go to a barbecue, I'd never walk down the street where cars & buses go, I'd never go into a fabric store again (formaldehyde off-gassing on that last, dontcha know).

Edited to add: You have to want to quit, of course. Which I do. None of the systems are magic.

[Vinca]

170. Congratulations. I hope you manage to get off both regular and ecigs.

You should worry about your lungs. Years ago I watched an autopsy of a heavy smoker. I'll never forget the black rocks they told me were lungs. Your lungs never go back to normal after quitting, but they can get a whole lot better and need to be protected. Recently I ran into a woman I used to work with about 30 years ago. This was before smoking in the workplace was banned and she always had a lit cigarette in hand. The woman looked worse than someone you might see laid out in a coffin. Amazingly, she was driving . . . with cannulas up her nose and a giant green oxygen tank in her back seat. It was horrible. When I see kids smoking on the street I wish I could scoop them up and taken them to her house for a visit.

[Demit]

171. I told you I quit smoking.

And I have to tell you, scolding stories like yours are patronizing and annoying and thus absolutely ineffective. Especially to someone who JUST TOLD YOU they have quit smoking. So, if I could offer a little advice of my own, stop with the lectures. Smokers have heard them all. They might please you to give them, but that's all they do.

[Demit]

172. And by the way, if you've ever watched the autopsy of someone who never smoked,

you would have observed they were just as dead. We all die of something, no matter how virtuously we live our lives.

[Vinca]

175. Suit yourself. I would think suffocating is a horrible way to go out.

[Demit]

178. If you know the secret of how to guarantee a painless death,

kindly share it.

Men dying of prostate cancer waste away before your eyes, in pain, lingering for months. People with pancreatic cancer suffer terribly before they die. People with Lou Gehrig's disease lose their bodily functions, the ability to walk, to speak, to swallow, before they succumb.

What measures should people take to avoid dying those ways?

[Mariana]

181. Sorry, man, smokers deserve lectures and condescension

even after they've quit. It doesn't matter that you saw the error of your ways and have repented and stopped it. You're an inferior human being because you used to smoke. You deserve zero respect.



Congrats on quitting smoking. Well done. And fuck anyone who would put you down for it.

[Mariana]

180. Suit yourself?

Aren't you paying attention? You're talking to someone who has ALREADY QUIT SMOKING. Why on earth are you lecturing someone who has already quit smoking? What exactly are you trying to accomplish by doing that?

[Demit]

182. Vinca is superior to us b/c he will have lovely lungs at his autopsy.

Isn't that what everyone strives for? The coroner smiling down in approval on your corpse?

[Logical]

162. You know some people are starting with e-cigs who have never smoked? Correct? nt

[Demit]

164. I don't know any, no.

I doubt adults would do that. If kids are doing it, well, kids experiment. There are kids who experiment with sex, and kids who experiment with their parents' liquor, and kids who experiment with stealing, and smashing mailboxes with baseball bats, and so on and so on and so on. It's what kids do. When I was an older teen back in the 70s, a younger acquaintance told me about how she and her friends were all into vanilla extract. Well, at least it wasn't huffing freon out of refrigerator coolant. She went on to be a nurse, btw. Kids experiment.

[Nevernose]

166. I quit smoking after 27 years thanks to vaping

This summer I literally could not walk up a flight of stairs without resting at the top so I could wheeze some crap out of my lungs.

Two weeks ago I ran my first 10k. I had horribly addictive nicotine in my bloodstream, but not a single speck of carcinogenic tar in my lungs, and it was all due to vaping.

[Vinca]

169. Congratulations. I'm glad it worked for you.

[MindPilot]

89. The phrase "re-normalizing smoking behavior" tells you all you need to know.

There is no talk of prohibiting the use of "smokeless" tobacco which has not only some very bad health effects, but also is way more disgusting than a cigarette, not to mention the second-hand hazard of spit.

The act of inhaling something other than air seems to deeply offend some. Nobody really cares that you may damage your health or what you do it with as long as it is not "smoking behavior".

[pnwmom]

97. If you want to damage your own health, that's up to you.

But you shouldn't be able to vape in public spaces till the products are proven safe -- and that hasn't happened yet. Instead, researchers are finding formaldehyde, nanoparticles of metals, and other contaminants in some types of products that are used. And the second-hand user has no way of knowing what is in the vapor someone else is putting into the air.

From the U.of. W's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center:

http://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2014/04/FDA-expand-authority-electronic-cigarettes.html

While they do not contain many of the known carcinogens that traditional cigarettes do, nobody knows whether they present any health hazards. There have been few evidence-based studies about them.

“The fact is, this is not just a way to deliver nicotine,” said Jonathan Bricker, psychologist and smoking cessation researcher in the Public Health Sciences division of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. “The nicotine is being delivered in combination with other chemicals that cause the ‘smoke.’ And those chemicals are potentially carcinogenic.”

Until those chemicals are studied, no one can say whether they are hazardous to inhale.

“We won’t know for a while,” Bricker said. “We need to do extensive laboratory research and have to observe their effects over time on the human body. Cancer doesn’t show up immediately. It takes years to develop.”

[bighart]

132. I don't understand your position when this is from your own post:

"While they do not contain many of the known carcinogens that traditional cigarettes do, nobody knows whether they present any health hazards. There have been few evidence-based studies about them.

You claim they pose a health risk via second hand inhalation and yet the very quote you post says that nobody know whether they do or don't present a health risk.

[pnwmom]

135. That's what they used to say about cigarettes, too. We finally, after decades of work,

got the government to recognize the dangers of second-hand smoking, and OSHA and others now regulate indoor air pollution.

We shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel on this. People shouldn't be able to pump any substance they wish into the air and put the burden on the rest of us to prove it's not safe.

And it wouldn't be possible. A second-hand user doesn't know what's in the product you're using, and researchers who have tested them have found a wide variety of results -- because they're not regulated.

[beevul]

136. Nor should zealotry disguised as objectivity be grounds for public policy. N/T

[bighart]

139. I don't know what's in your particualr cars exhaust either,

should you be banned from using it in public spaces?

[pnwmom]

141. Yes you do, actually, because it gets tested every year at Motor Vehicles. And it's always

within the mandated limits.

There are no limits on e-cigs and vaping devices and that's why we need regulations.

[bighart]

143. There is no exhaust testing where I live.

And there are many known chemicals with many know health risks in car exhaust. Are you saying you would rather breathe car exhaust than vapor from an e cig? If a vaper holds their breath for a few seconds before exhaling there is no visible sign of what they are doing.
If it is proven that the levels of potentially harmful chemicals are within "mandated limits" in e-cigs would your position change on them?

[pnwmom]

145. There should be a law where you live. I would rather be outside breathing the relatively clean air

of my area -- where car exhaust IS carefully regulated -- than stuck indoors in a room with people vaping all day, as I used to be with smokers before indoor smoking laws here stopped them.

Been there, done that, no thanks.

Depending on the regulations on e-cigs and vape products, i could consider supporting them. But right now there is no uniformity and no regulations. There is no way to evaluate the safety of anything anybody's puffing.

[bighart]

146. And once a year testing on car exhaust means that a car that fails the test

could have been on the road producing excess levels of controlled pollutants for many months risking the health of everyone exposed to it.

I am all for sensible regulation. I have read many studies and opinions about vaping and the truth is which ever side of the argument you are on you can find "studies" to support your position.
I do tend to think the burden of proof is on those who claim potential harm, not a big fan of regulating something because it "might" be a problem.

I will give props that you are not just harping on nicotine as there are many 0 nicotine vape liquids on the market that would shoot that complaint down in a fast second.

[workinclasszero]

90. OMG vaping is soooooooo DANGEROUS!!1!!1!

Shit thousands of people are using these debil devices from hell to...GASP...STOP SMOKING!!!!!

We need to nip this horror in the bud NAO!!!!!!!!

[Jamaal510]

106. Like you,

I don't have an issue with people vaping (and smoking) in their own homes, but I do have an issue with people doing that stuff in public areas (especially bus stops). It's even more annoying for me to deal with because I have asthma and can't take much second-hand smoke. A point was mentioned earlier that people would have their freedom taken away with a possible ban, but what about the freedom of the rest of us to inhale clean air outside? To me, it's selfish of people to do something that could put other people's lives at risk, and if it is something that they can easily do within their own homes.

[rock]

113. I strongly suspect the correct verb is "claims"

Even a state cannot "declare" what is not true.

[Waiting For Everyman]

118. They should just prohibit exhaling altogether.

Because you never know what has been in other people's exhaled lung air. I for one, don't want to inhale ANY air that has been in sombody else's lungs EVER. Who knows what gross stuff could be in that mess!!!

The law should require everybody to live in a contaminant-containing bubble.

[Budgies Revenge]

168. A proposal that gets down to brass tacks!

Exhaling is the REAL danger here--and is dangerous to second hand breathers! Teeming with carbon dioxide, proven to transmit disease, sometimes smelly, irritating when someone invades your space and breathes on your neck--We must bring the ban hammer down on this scourge once and for all.

[Agnosticsherbet]

179. A win for public health.