Conn. lawmakers consider e-cigarette ban

ttwtt78640 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Captain Adverse said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ttwtt78640 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Captain Adverse said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

ttwtt78640 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the exception then becomes the rule as I'll discuss below. Besides which it is not "one person," since as you already admit it is a MAJORITY of persons many of whom have gotten fed up with smoker's inconsiderate ways.

ttwtt78640 said:

If non-smoking establishments are such a good idea than why did so few exist before the gov't mandate?

Click to expand...

There are a lot of "bad ideas" maintained because they are profitable. We've both pointed out many such in other issue threads

As previously explained, most public establishments (bar, clubs, restaurants) are all about food and drink profit. Smokers buy more liquid refreshment, my dad taught me that when he owed a bar. Therefore, looking at things from a "purely profit motive," every establishment that makes a profit from alcohol and drink sales (soda, bottled water, coffee, etc.) would cater to the needs of the minority knowing that their competition would be doing the exact same thing. After all, if there are few alternative choices even non-smokers will come and endure the hardships imposed by smokers in order to dance, eat, drink, etc.

No one sees immediate effects of smoking, it takes time for the harms to reveal themselves. Yet purely to support your own habit you would expose pregnant women, children, and other adults to your brand of poison. Beyond that, I can't tell you how many times I've been burned, or my had clothing destroyed by some a-hole smoker back when smoking was legal in clubs and restaurants. Somehow an insincere "sorry" just didn't cut it. Beyond THAT, how many fires have been caused by smokers in various business establishments leading to how many lives lost and burn victims?

Sorry, your right to smoke poses both health and safety hazards the rest of us don't need to face. For the third and final time, your MINOR inconvenience does not trump the dangers smoking poses to the rest of us. Feel free to smoke, just make sure its in a safe location that does not endanger the rest of us.

DVSentinel said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dude, you don't get it.

All these atomizers are made in the SAME place.

And cartomizers are even worse offenders. They also burn away the polyfill, which you then inhale, in addition to the shoddy, degrading metals in the heating coil. You can confirm this one for yourself. Just open up one of your own cartomizers that you've used.

The threshold of evidence for people who simply don't want to see is always just one step higher than the threshold of evidence that currently exists. I am not going to trouble myself with that willfully ignorant mindset. I just hope you luck.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Dude, you don't get it.

All these atomizers are made in the SAME place.

And cartomizers are even worse offenders. They also burn away the polyfill, which you then inhale, in addition to the shoddy, degrading metals in the heating coil. You can confirm this one for yourself. Just open up one of your own cartomizers that you've used.

The threshold of evidence for people who simply don't want to see is always just one step higher than the threshold of evidence that currently exists. I am not going to trouble myself with that willfully ignorant mindset. I just hope you luck.

Click to expand...

Dudette, get updated.

CASAA: New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk

Your FDA study was done in 2009, when a much smaller selection was available and was done on the e-cig types that come prepackaged and are not refillable. Funny that your test you linked earlier that only released the results of one brand (did they only test one brand? Or only release the results of one brand?) and the FDA study. If one brand of ketchup had something bad found in it, would you then claim that it was in all brands of ketchup?

I have looked at mine after use. After washing off the build up on them, the threads were slightly discolored from heating. The wire running through them looked exactly the same as a new one.

What evidence do you have that all the atomizers are made in the SAME place? Some articles say most are made in China, while others pointed out that there are currently more than 100 companies making vapor products in the US.

I agree with some regulation being imposed to ensure quality and ingredients, however, other than the test, which the FDA itself says was limited, and the one you posted, there is no reason for banning them. the American Lung Association warns against them because the effects are unknown, not because they have been proven harmful.

Also, the whole FDA trying to control flavors I definitely do not agree with. Sure, kids might like the different flavors, but hey, so do some adults.

Does anyone else keep hearing the beginning of the Black Sabbath song Paranoid when reading some of the posts against vapor products?

DVSentinel said:

Dudette, get updated.

CASAA: New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk

Your FDA study was done in 2009, when a much smaller selection was available and was done on the e-cig types that come prepackaged and are not refillable. Funny that your test you linked earlier that only released the results of one brand (did they only test one brand? Or only release the results of one brand?) and the FDA study. If one brand of ketchup had something bad found in it, would you then claim that it was in all brands of ketchup?

I have looked at mine after use. After washing off the build up on them, the threads were slightly discolored from heating. The wire running through them looked exactly the same as a new one.

What evidence do you have that all the atomizers are made in the SAME place? Some articles say most are made in China, while others pointed out that there are currently more than 100 companies making vapor products in the US.

I agree with some regulation being imposed to ensure quality and ingredients, however, other than the test, which the FDA itself says was limited, and the one you posted, there is no reason for banning them. the American Lung Association warns against them because the effects are unknown, not because they have been proven harmful.

Also, the whole FDA trying to control flavors I definitely do not agree with. Sure, kids might like the different flavors, but hey, so do some adults.

Click to expand...

And what you linked me to is basically the e-cig industry's lobby. And of course, they're represented this in a pretty dishonest way.

First of all, this is not a study. It's a review.

Second, if you go down to methods, you'll see CASAA was intimately involved with putting this "review" together. Gee, color me shocked.

Third, seeing as how there are no studies on e-cig's overall safety to humans with on-going use, that means nothing in this could possibly address that.

Fourth, it says right in the abstract that they included un-reviewed reports in their "data." They even go as far as to say they pay special attention to it. In other words, their review is based on stuff that isn't science.

Fifth, this is out-rightly false even with what very little we do now: some e-cig companies still put diacetyl in their juice. There is no safe threshold for this substance. It is considered one of the most dangerous inhalants one could encounter, as far as lung health. There is no mention of it in this "review."

Sixth, it leaves out an entire component of e-juice, which is flavoring. Flavoring can contain dozens of different ingredients, many of which are known to be harmful to the lungs... like diacetyl.

And this is just what I got from a quick scan and search. I'm sure there's more gems in there. Did you even read this, or did you just lap it right up?

Try again.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Well, how about you take a look at Cherryvape's website, where they give the ingredients themselves.

Electronic | E- | Smokeless | Cigarettes | Cigs | Cherry Vape

Please note the absence of water.

My NDA expires in 6 months. I have posted here what I can.

I would also encourage you to look at my e-cigarette break-down here.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-t...-tobaccos-next-big-move-4.html#post1061921670

Here's the study that vapor carries metal residue, and other things, which are known to be harmful.

PLOS ONE: Metal and Silicate Particles Including Nanoparticles Are Present in Electronic Cigarette Cartomizer Fluid and Aerosol

I have known this for years. The public is only finding this out now.

You can decide for yourself whether I sound like I know what I'm talking about. You can also look more into the issue.

Click to expand...

I'm going back to Marlboro's.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

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.

Click to expand...

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/Published...ycol/pdfs/noreg/117-01540.pdf&fromPage=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 have known this for years. ...You can also look more into the issue.

Click to expand...

I found the source of water in "e-juice" after only a few minutes of searching.

Captain Adverse said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Dude, you don't get it.

All these atomizers are made in the SAME place.

And cartomizers are even worse offenders. They also burn away the polyfill, which you then inhale, in addition to the shoddy, degrading metals in the heating coil. You can confirm this one for yourself. Just open up one of your own cartomizers that you've used.

The threshold of evidence for people who simply don't want to see is always just one step higher than the threshold of evidence that currently exists. I am not going to trouble myself with that willfully ignorant mindset. I just hope you luck.

Click to expand...

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.

Captain Adverse said:

The problem is that the exception then becomes the rule as I'll discuss below. Besides which it is not "one person," since as you already admit it is a MAJORITY of persons many of whom have gotten fed up with smoker's inconsiderate ways.



There are a lot of "bad ideas" maintained because they are profitable. We've both pointed out many such in other issue threads

As previously explained, most public establishments (bar, clubs, restaurants) are all about food and drink profit. Smokers buy more liquid refreshment, my dad taught me that when he owed a bar. Therefore, looking at things from a "purely profit motive," every establishment that makes a profit from alcohol and drink sales (soda, bottled water, coffee, etc.) would cater to the needs of the minority knowing that their competition would be doing the exact same thing. After all, if there are few alternative choices even non-smokers will come and endure the hardships imposed by smokers in order to dance, eat, drink, etc.

No one sees immediate effects of smoking, it takes time for the harms to reveal themselves. Yet purely to support your own habit you would expose pregnant women, children, and other adults to your brand of poison. Beyond that, I can't tell you how many times I've been burned, or my had clothing destroyed by some a-hole smoker back when smoking was legal in clubs and restaurants. Somehow an insincere "sorry" just didn't cut it. Beyond THAT, how many fires have been caused by smokers in various business establishments leading to how many lives lost and burn victims?

Sorry, your right to smoke poses both health and safety hazards the rest of us don't need to face. For the third and final time, your MINOR inconvenience does not trump the dangers smoking poses to the rest of us. Feel free to smoke, just make sure its in a safe location that does not endanger the rest of us.

Click to expand...

So I take it your rights also trump my rights to cater to whom ever I please as a business owner?

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

DVSentinel said:

The acute oral toxicity of propylene glycol is very low...

Click to expand...

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.

DVSentinel said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bypassing the digestive tract and putting pg into the blood stream directly can be dangerous apparently.

DVSentinel said:

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.

Click to expand...

Also not relevant to inhaling pg.

DVSentinel said:

So, with all the positive benefits from E-Juice

Click to expand...

You haven't cited anything about e-juice.

DVSentinel said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think that the "total ban" is instead a move to treat it like other tobacco products.

PirateMk1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

PirateMk1 said:

So I take it your rights also trump my rights to cater to whom ever I please as a business owner?

Click to expand...

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.

PirateMk1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ChuckBerry said:

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/Published...ycol/pdfs/noreg/117-01540.pdf&fromPage=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.

Click to expand...

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.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

fmw said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

ttwtt78640 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Kal'Stang said:

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?

Click to expand...

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...