Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 67

Thread: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

  1. #11
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,685

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    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.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  2. #12
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    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.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  3. #13
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    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?
    Smokers have better get used to it. They're a dying breed. (Pun intended.)
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  4. #14
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    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.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    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.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    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-to...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.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    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.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    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.

  9. #19
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    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.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •