Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 67

Thread: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

  1. #41
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,958
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    She said "basically water vapor" not that it was water vapor. There is a difference. When I read it I took it to mean "just as harmless as water vapor" since I already knew that basic ingrediants.
    To say "basically water vapor" when there is no water vapor is a mis-leading characterization of e-cigs at best. It implies that the vapor is largely steam.
    If you have to use a weasel words defense of someone, you should realize that there's an attempt to mis-inform going on.
    #shadesofRumsfeld
    I may be wrong.

  2. #42
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,958
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    The acute oral toxicity of propylene glycol is very low...
    Oral toxicity of water is very low. But inhaling water leads to some different effects. It's possible that inhaling pg has different consequences than consuming it orally.
    Also, the chronic effects of inhaling, as opposed to the acute effects should be considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    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.
    Bypassing the digestive tract and putting pg into the blood stream directly can be dangerous apparently.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    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.
    Also not relevant to inhaling pg.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    So, with all the positive benefits from E-Juice
    You haven't cited anything about e-juice.

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    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.
    I think that the "total ban" is instead a move to treat it like other tobacco products.
    I may be wrong.

  3. #43
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,598
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    What if I want a smoking establishment? I am a cigar smoker and unless I go to a cigar friendly city I cant own an establishment that caters to cigar smokers. Your rights end at MY property line.
    That depends on what you mean by "smoking establishment." If by that you mean a cigar store where you exclusively sell cigars, cigarettes, and smoking paraphenalia wherein you allow your customers to sample and/or lounge smoking? I'd have no problem with that at all as long as you forbid minors from entering.

    If you mean a club, restaurant, or other regular store or shop? Then no, and I've already explained why as you've seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    So I take it your rights also trump my rights to cater to whom ever I please as a business owner?
    Absolutely correct. The same way we regulate businesses who pollute the environment even if they do it on their "own property." The same way we regulate businesses who choose to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc. even if they claim it is their "right" as a business owner. Even as a libertarian I recognize we do not live in a state of complete anarchy; we live in a society which forces us to restrict some individual rights in order to reduce harms and conflicts. That's the nature of social agreements.

    I believe that you are free to set up smoking allowed businesses in many locations outside of cities with restrictive laws protecting consumers. Feel free to exercise your individual rights by setting up shop in such places; if you build it people who share your vice will come. Problem solved.
    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.

  4. #44
    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 PirateMk1 View Post
    Not all cartomizers or vaporizers are the same. You get what you pay for. My brothers into this big time and knows the in and outs. He tells me that cheap is NOT the way to go.
    And I was the kind of person your brother learned from, or bought from.

    Only as far as function goes. As far as safety? It makes no difference at all.

    And actually, in e-cigarette land, you get the opposite of what you pay for, in certain cases. Any starter kit that costs more than $70 is junk, for example. Cheaper is better in that case.

    Anyway, there's nothing on the market he could buy made of materials that have been put through their paces. Even if you're buying a hand-made/US made atomizer or something, that isn't really any better. It's made from industrial parts not designed for that purpose, by a total amateur who knows little or nothing about component stability.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 09-11-13 at 01:57 PM.

  5. #45
    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 ChuckBerry View Post
    Propylene Glycol, Industrial (PGI) Grade, is a high purity material produced by the high temperature and pressure hydrolysis of propylene oxide with excess water.

    http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedL...romPage=GetDoc

    hydrolysis is a chemical process in which a molecule of water is added to a substance

    Hydrolysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There's your water. This is for industrial grade propylene glycol, but I can't imagine that pharmaceutical grade PG would eliminate water from its manufacturing process.

    I found the source of water in "e-juice" after only a few minutes of searching.
    Did you read what you just quoted? PG is a byproduct, not a producer.

    And besides that, PG is not subjected to much pressure, or even especially high temperatures, during vaping.

  6. #46
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,361

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    The reason is because the e-cigarette industry refuses to regulate, and most companies blatantly lie about what they are, as Richter from Cherryvape did in that article.

    It is not water vapor, and it has been proven to carry particles -- many of which are of unknown toxicity. I guarentee you that she knows this, because there ISN'T any water in e-cigarette juice. So how exactly do you get "water vapor" when there's no water? From your ass?

    I can also tell you that many of these companies have conducted private studies on safety, and buried the results when they turned out to be unfavorable.
    So, since they aren't going to ban cigarettes they must think the vapor cigarettes are more harmful? Or are they just loony lawmakers trying to cast for votes?

  7. #47
    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 fmw View Post
    So, since they aren't going to ban cigarettes they must think the vapor cigarettes are more harmful? Or are they just loony lawmakers trying to cast for votes?
    No one is trying to ban them, nor am I advocating that they should.

    I don't know what the motivation for it is. My point is very simple: there is no evidence determining what the safety threshold is for e-cigs, so it's hard to argue for them.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

    If the release of noxious vapors is ban-worthy, I'd never be able to step inside another Taco Bell ever again.

  9. #49
    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
    So you think that things cannot drift if they are not visible? That would make car exhaust quite safe.
    I think that you will have to prove that these things emit those levels of pollutants. You actually exhale pollutants all the time. Particles of water and germs come out of your moth which are known to cause infections and even lead to the spread of disease and death. Perhaps we should ban breathing? Or maybe we should just push anyone who wants to breath outside. You know that grill that cooks food for restaurants emits smoke and carcinogenic vapors. Why do we allow restaraunts to cook inside when i am positive much more pollution is being pushed into their environment from that grill? While we are at it we can ban fragrances people wear, farting which certainly emits harmful pollutants into the air, and why do we even allow people to go into public when they stir up all those dust particles?

    There is a certain amount of pollution in the air all the time, and we are pretty much expected to deal with it. If you wish for perfectly clean filtered air the outdoors is bad for you. So this idea that just because some nanoparticles are floating around that it is dangerous to your health and unreasonable is a load of crap. That happens. If it is to the level of cigarette smoke then I am all for doing it outside. It should be noted that unlike a tailpipe in your example people do not die from sucking directly off of these things like they would a tailpipe. Not to mention since they do not actually burn they do not emit CO2 or carbon monoxide. So thank you for the bad example, but as I have pointed out water vapor is also invisible most of the time, but yet present in the air around you, and just try to survive in a water vapor free environment. So not every particle you do not see is deadly. Seriously how hard is it to measure concentrations of pollutants in air at different distances and show us the actual dissipation and pollutant levels that are emittied by a user? Why are we waiting for the manufacturers to get around to it when we could have some interns or science fair kid do it for us? Are we to think that the only people out there with the technology to make an actual scientific measurement of this so we can get to the truth are the people at the companies that manufacture it? It sounds to me that the people covering stuff up are not just those at the e-cig place when their opponents avoid releasing their own easily obtained data showing us how harmful these things are to the people around them. Even if you cannot yet show their link to cancer or health problems because of the short term use of them you certainly could show what levels they increase pollutants and at what distance.

    In the end I would have to imagine sucking off of one of these things directly is a large bit safer than breathing in the summer in many cities around the country, but all that study of real pollution is imaginary science and we would not want to lend it credibility by actually using it to prove what levels of pollution these things make.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    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?
    I smoke e-smoks just because smoking indoors is banned in Illinois. However I do smoke regular cigarettes as well.

    These fascists have absolutely ZERO reasoning to ban e-smokes because e-smokes are nothing more than vaporized nicotine - its not smoke at all.... You can't get cancer from vaporized second hand nicotine - not only that but you can hardly smell it....

    The truth is the fascists just love being fascists...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 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
  •