Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67

Thread: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

  1. #21
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    It is probably healthier than smoking, but I do not see them advertising it as completely harmless. Relative to smoking it may be fairly harmless, but the reality is nicotine itself is physically harmful. Seriously, if at this point you are not aware that taking drugs is harmful the gene pool is probably better off without you anyway. I am not bothered with people providing the information, but to blame use of these products on some perceived lie that they are completely harmless really removes desire and personal responsibility from the mix. People are not using these because they think they are healthy, they are using them because they want nicotine. There is also the flavor and enjoyment of the gestures of smoking.
    You have no basis upon which to assert that, and the evidence against that claim is mounting.

    How many decades did it take us to figure out cigarettes harm people?

    What is and isn't a "drug" is subjective. You could classify sunlight as a drug.

    When a completely new substance is introduced to the market, and the industry DOESN'T present it as a drug, and they have ZERO regulation, perfectly reasonable people could very well believe all of that. Millions do.

    That is fine that you think it is something you do not care to do. however, I have a mom already, and I do not need you to ban things i enjoy. If you wish to spread the word these things are not healthy please feel free. If you want to ban them because they are supposedly harming other people i would like proof that the vapor travels to other people. I agree with the bans on cigarette smoking and I am a smoker. I understand smoke travels and not everyone enjoys it as I do. Even though many people are rude and think I need to have my environment polluted with their crappy music, children crying, and telephone conversations about anal warts I do not feel I need to smoke inside and disturb the mannerless twits of the world. However, unlike cigarette smoke the vapor from these things does not travel like that, and even the smell is not noticable from a few feet away. So please do show us why they need to be banned because it pollutes at an unacceptable level. Before you go telling me any pollution for my entertainment is unacceptable i will expect you to ban SUVs and pickup trucks before you go after these things as they pollute far worse than these things do.
    Dude. Said evidence is cited in the study. Try reading.

    Again, this is not about banning their use, it is about keeping them from polluting other people's space. They have bad stuff in them, but the user has a choice to use, and the information is out there. Put better warnings on the product, I don't care, but that is not a reason to ban them. Because i would like to know if these things really send large amounts of harmful crap towards others like cigarettes, please do show us the second hand comparisons.
    Where have I said we should ban them?

    Gee, I'd love to, except the e-cig industry refuses to subject itself to such investigations, because they are well-aware that it won't go well for them.

    There is a certain amount of thinking people have to do for themselves, and if you cannot figure out that sucking on thing that puts out a substance into your lungs that makes you high is probably not neutral for your health, you are a moron and I don't care if you die. They are not advertising them as health additives, and I would be really amazed to find out they are more harmful than smoking. What I am not surprised about is people who feel a need to spout crap because they disapprove of the habit. I make my choices, you can make yours, life is awesome that way, and neither of us has to be the other one's mother.
    Sure. I'm ok with a commercial subtly implying their cereal will make you thinner.

    I am not ok with the owner of a company claiming her products produce "water vapor" when there isn't even any WATER in the product. That is blatant lying. That is illegal.

  2. #22
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,545
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Yep. So, that would be wrong because you assert that proof of "possible" harm to others must precede that "ban"? Can it be proved that harm to others exists with a simple "Caution: smoking permitted on premises" sign? You are then free to enter at your own risk. This solves the public health problem as well, IMHO; you are warned thus the gov't has done its job (like cigarette packages now do) and the business is still free to see if that policy helps or hinders its sales (or its ability to find/keep employees). The goofy idea that the huge nanny state may make everywhere into some magical nerf land, in which nobody can accidentally harm themselves, is silly. Once you allow them to ban X, it is only a matter of time before the list of banned things grows.
    First let me state that I support legalization of drugs and the rights of each individual to poison themselves with drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes to their hearts content. However, we also know that each of these vices has certain hazards. In the case of cigarettes and marijuana we have second-hand smoking effects and the hazard of burning people or their property. (For you marijuana smokers who claim "no second hand smoke" problems...consider "contact high" and STFU!)

    So while I support each individual's right to kill themselves, I do not support the right of such people to harm their fellow non-drug, non-alcohol, and non-cigarette using peers.

    Prior to the bans, people like myself were exposed to massive amounts of second-hand smoke when we went to bars, nightclubs, and restaurants. People who smoke are dehydrating themselves, and so they tend to buy more liquor when smoking at a bar or nightclub. Where are the major profits at bars and nightclubs? Alcohol sales; so of course without a ban almost all would allow smoking. Restaurants are no different. In fact, that used to be the case when the law allowed businesses to decide whether to allow smoking or non-smoking; the vast majority allowed smoking.

    So when you allow businesses to post a sign you are effectively stating that everyone who'd like to go out and have some fun or eat a nice meal has to either face the hazard of second hand smoke "of their own free will," or search for severely limited alternative options. Not only that, they'd have to face the risks of burning themselves or their clothing due to smoker's inconsiderate handling of their vice.

    On the other hand, banning smoking does not deprive smokers of their right to smoke. It only limits it to places where second hand smoke (and the hazards of burning others) is significantly reduced. Everyone can eat at the restaurant. Smokers can go outside and smoke. Everyone can dance and drink in the club. Smokers can go outside and smoke. Everyone gets to enjoy themselves, smokers are slightly inconvenienced.

    Having said all THAT, as long as these "e-cigs" are considered safe (i.e. the water vapor does not hang around in the air as long as regular smoke) then I have no problem with their use in places regular cigarettes are banned. However, if it can be shown to have a second-hand effect on non-smokers, then they should be banned the same way regular smoking is.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 09-10-13 at 06:44 AM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  3. #23
    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
    You have no basis upon which to assert that, and the evidence against that claim is mounting.

    How many decades did it take us to figure out cigarettes harm people?
    I am pretty sure that people have known smoke was bad for them for a while, but some people like to forget common knowledge. Maybe i am a brilliant super genius, but I can pretty much tell you smoking is bad for your lungs fromk very early in my life. Long before i even knew anything of biology, drugs, and science. It was pretty much that coughing thing that let me figure it out, but I guess i am just smart that way.
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    What is and isn't a "drug" is subjective. You could classify sunlight as a drug.
    Now you are getting into absurdities. Nicotine is a drug. You use e-cigs to take nicotine. It is also pretty common knowledge due to anti-smoking advertisements that nicotine is a carcinogen and is going to have negative physical consequences. I am not sure why you have to head off into the absurd here.
    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    When a completely new substance is introduced to the market, and the industry DOESN'T present it as a drug, and they have ZERO regulation, perfectly reasonable people could very well believe all of that. Millions do.
    None of the ingredients are new. Aside from nicotine you can find the other substances in other products you use on or in your body. Nicotine is certainly not new either as smoking has been around for years. Even the process of vaporizing something is not new as certain methods of taking THC involve the vaporization of oils (namely hash).


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


    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Where have I said we should ban them?

    Gee, I'd love to, except the e-cig industry refuses to subject itself to such investigations, because they are well-aware that it won't go well for them.
    That is why the government should investigate them. I am not for banning them, but any health risks, plus the truth about the methods should be made available, and it should be done by a neutral party. I do not expect a company to trash it's own product. Why people expect that to happen in america i do not know.


    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Sure. I'm ok with a commercial subtly implying their cereal will make you thinner.

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

    here is a little description. UCSB Science Line sqtest

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

  4. #24
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,563

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    It is not the same. Vaporizing is not the same as smoking. I am actually for the bans of cigarettes because of the nature of smoking. Vaporizing is much different and the effects are much more localized than a drifting trail of smoke.
    So you think that things cannot drift if they are not visible? That would make car exhaust quite safe.
    “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

  5. #25
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,563

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    First let me state that I support legalization of drugs and the rights of each individual to poison themselves with drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes to their hearts content. However, we also know that each of these vices has certain hazards. In the case of cigarettes and marijuana we have second-hand smoking effects and the hazard of burning people or their property. (For you marijuana smokers who claim "no second hand smoke" problems...consider "contact high" and STFU!)

    So while I support each individual's right to kill themselves, I do not support the right of such people to harm their fellow non-drug, non-alcohol, and non-cigarette using peers.

    Prior to the bans, people like myself were exposed to massive amounts of second-hand smoke when we went to bars, nightclubs, and restaurants. People who smoke are dehydrating themselves, and so they tend to buy more liquor when smoking at a bar or nightclub. Where are the major profits at bars and nightclubs? Alcohol sales; so of course without a ban almost all would allow smoking. Restaurants are no different. In fact, that used to be the case when the law allowed businesses to decide whether to allow smoking or non-smoking; the vast majority allowed smoking.

    So when you allow businesses to post a sign you are effectively stating that everyone who'd like to go out and have some fun or eat a nice meal has to either face the hazard of second hand smoke "of their own free will," or search for severely limited alternative options. Not only that, they'd have to face the risks of burning themselves or their clothing due to smoker's inconsiderate handling of their vice.

    On the other hand, banning smoking does not deprive smokers of their right to smoke. It only limits it to places where second hand smoke (and the hazards of burning others) is significantly reduced. Everyone can eat at the restaurant. Smokers can go outside and smoke. Everyone can dance and drink in the club. Smokers can go outside and smoke. Everyone gets to enjoy themselves, smokers are slightly inconvenienced.

    Having said all THAT, as long as these "e-cigs" are considered safe (i.e. the water vapor does not hang around in the air as long as regular smoke) then I have no problem with their use in places regular cigarettes are banned. However, if it can be shown to have a second-hand effect on non-smokers, then they should be banned the same way regular smoking is.
    Well isn't that considerate of you. Unless, of course, you consider leaving a climate controlled space, missing the football game or musical performance and letting your drink get hot or meal get cold just part of the "enhanced experience" offered to those that smoke.

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


    On April 9, 2012, The University of Texas at Austin became a tobacco-free campus. The use of any tobacco products is prohibited in university buildings and on university grounds within the state of Texas, including parking areas and structures, sidewalks, walkways, and university owned buildings.
    Tobacco-Free Campus | The University of Texas at Austin
    “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

  6. #26
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,545
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Well isn't that considerate of you. Unless, of course, you consider leaving a climate controlled space, missing the football game or musical performance and letting your drink get hot or meal get cold just part of the "enhanced experience" offered to those that smoke.

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

    Tobacco-Free Campus | The University of Texas at Austin
    Are you kidding me? You have to be joking. If not, let me address your central issue.

    YES, I consider your minor inconvenience based upon an oral fixation which compels you to smoke of less merit than harming your peers during a period of shared communal activity. So if you absolutely MUST smoke, you have the "free choice" you speak of in your original post to get up and depart the communal gathering in order to feed your habit. You also have the choice to sit there and chew gum or do something else which does not affect your peers in their enjoyment of this shared event.

    Your rights end where mine begin; and since we share the right to breathe fresh air without having to suffer the smoke of others, that trumps YOUR right to smoke in our shared presence at a public venue.

    As for the "outside limitations?" You are a voter, you can organize and take action like any other special interest group. If you think there is a problem with "outside limitations" (and there may well be) work to change it. I have no problem with that at all.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 09-10-13 at 09:50 AM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  7. #27
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    I am not ok with the owner of a company claiming her products produce "water vapor" when there isn't even any WATER in the product. That is blatant lying. That is illegal.
    How much water is in gasoline? It also puts off water vapor.

    The study you posted about metals tested one brand. Ok, so it was an unethical brand perhaps, but then we don't even know which brand it was. Also, a study based upon a single brand does not tell the story for a whole industry. Perhaps E-cigs are mostly made in China, cannot confirm or deny that, but a large number of Vap products are also made in the US.

    I can tell you the design shown is nothing like the design of the cartimizers used with Vap products. Vapor is different from E-Cigs in that E-Cigs come prepackaged and you just change out the little tip that contains the nicotine/flavor vs Vaping where you buy the juice and refill.

    Show a broader study of the harmful affects caused by "secondhand" vapor, then you might start actually having a point.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  8. #28
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,563

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Are you kidding me? You have to be joking. If not, let me address your central issue.

    YES, I consider your minor inconvenience based upon an oral fixation which compels you to smoke of less merit than harming your peers during a period of shared communal activity. So if you absolutely MUST smoke, you have the "free choice" you speak of in your original post to get up and depart the communal gathering in order to feed your habit. You also have the choice to sit there and chew gum or do something else which does not affect your peers in their enjoyment of this shared event.

    Your rights end where mine begin; and since we share the right to breathe fresh air without having to suffer the smoke of others, that trumps YOUR right to smoke in our shared presence at a public venue.

    As for the "outside limitations?" You are a voter, you can organize and take action like any other special interest group. If you think there is a problem with "outside limitations" (and there may well be) work to change it. I have no problem with that at all.
    Smokers are a minority so they have no way to overturn the will of the majority. Owners of a business, that no longer have a say in the use of their property, have had something taken from them, often reducing sales by 15% or more yet that is also ignored.
    “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

  9. #29
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,545
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Smokers are a minority so they have no way to overturn the will of the majority. Owners of a business, that no longer have a say in the use of their property, have had something taken from them, often reducing sales by 15% or more yet that is also ignored.
    So you recognize my point about the pitfalls of allowing it to be merely a "business owners" choice? LOL

    Vocal minorities have often been able to achieve their ends over the will of the silent majorty. We see this over and over again. If your concerns about "outside limitations" have merit, they can be achieved. I've never had a problem with businesses serving the public having an easily accessible outside "smoking area." I also have no problems with "hookah dens" and private "smoking clubs" like the old gentlemen clubs in Britain and US history...

    Again, you know very well I support individual rights to personal excess of any kind...as long as it does not harm me or anyone else. However, I do not agree that business owners should be allowed to discriminate in the way you are advocating. It is a MINOR inconvenience for a smoker to step outside for a smoke. It is a MAJOR inconvenience for a shopper, or diner, or club-goer, etc. to find a venue where they can avoid your habit.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  10. #30
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,563

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    So you recognize my point about the pitfalls of allowing it to be merely a "business owners" choice? LOL

    Vocal minorities have often been able to achieve their ends over the will of the silent majorty. We see this over and over again. If your concerns about "outside limitations" have merit, they can be achieved. I've never had a problem with businesses serving the public having an easily accessible outside "smoking area." I also have no problems with "hookah dens" and private "smoking clubs" like the old gentlemen clubs in Britain and US history...

    Again, you know very well I support individual rights to personal excess of any kind...as long as it does not harm me or anyone else. However, I do not agree that business owners should be allowed to discriminate in the way you are advocating. It is a MINOR inconvenience for a smoker to step outside for a smoke. It is a MAJOR inconvenience for a shopper, or diner, or club-goer, etc. to find a venue where they can avoid your habit.
    Why is that exactly? If 70% are non-smokers, what is the harm in permitting some smoking allowed establishments to exist? It seems that you wish to say if even one person objects to smoking allwed that the law should bend to their wishes. If non-smoking establishments are such a good idea than why did so few exist before the gov't mandate?
    “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

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •