jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (34 posts)

Ban E-Cigarettes Hurrah for NYC and Chicago

  1. GA Anderson profile image84
    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

    I heard the headline story about NYC and Chicago's e-cigarette bans going into effect tomorrow - 4/29/14

    First I thought it was stupid...
    Then I thought the citizens of NYC and Chicago get what their votes deserve.

    So I Googled a few articles...
    Then I considered... OMG! then is going to the national level!
    Mr. "I-know-what's-best-for-you" Dick Durbin has a bunch of co-sponsors on federal level e-cig. legislation.

    Banning e-cigarettes because they "look" like smoking.
    Regulating them just like cigarettes - to "protect the kids"
    Taxing them like cigarettes - because we can...

    What the hell is wrong with us that we allow ourselves to be treated this way?

    From Pelosi's FREE Pampers, (Ok, Ok, it's free disposable diapers, not just Pampers), to free cell phones, to social engineering via taxation - it appears now that all it takes for the government to feel an obligation to protect us is... appearances!

    It looks like smoking, so lets regulate it, tax it, and in liberal havens like NYC - Ban it.

    I try hard not to get carried away with Democrat or Republican generalizations, but when you look at those two cities leading the way on this issue, and there is talk that Los Angeles following right behind them, sometimes it is harder than others. Geez!

    The hell with this. I going to start Googling off-the-grid land in the Rocky Mountains.

    GA

    1. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good luck in the Rockies, but after you buy a property and a cabin there, some feds or state people will pull an eminent domain, to preserve the "open space" or save an endangered Canadian Open Pit Mine Rat.

      1. GA Anderson profile image84
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I did consider those possibilities, but I think I can reduce that probability;

        I will put everything in my wife's name - then they will be going after a woman - bad PR

        She is 1/128th Cherokee, with the possibility of a dash of Negro, (oops, Black? African American?) blood - then they would be persecuting a female member of two minority groups - more bad PR

        She has agreed to get ordained by one of those Internet divinity courses, and declare our cabin to be her church, (I will volunteer to be her congregation) - religious persecution - possible Federal Church/State litigation - really bad PR

        Plus, I will make sure we pick a site near some endangered species habitat and I will run a "rescue operation" sanctuary for that species - just imagine them trying to spin that.

        And of course we will both be NRA members and ardent Tea Party supporters.

        As a final touch, I will make sure our income level qualifies us for welfare support - nobody in the government bothers the poor.

        GA

    2. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Greetings, GA, a most timely forum topic, indeed.

      More of my red has to show in this case. I could understand the ban if the vapors are shown to be as harmful to others as second hand smoke. After reading an article or two on the topic, this does not seem to be case. To make this imposition on people just because of mere appearance to others is not justified and is an example of the nanny government that we both deplore.  Municipal legislators have gone too far this time.

      1. GA Anderson profile image84
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I am not surprised by your view, I think most sensible people see it that way too. That's why this one was harder for me to refrain from calling it just another example of liberal Democrat hubris. (oops, I fell for that trap of stooping to stereotypical generalizations. but am I wrong?)

        As an aside, I was hoping you might have an opinion of my game plan for protecting myself when I go off-grid in the Rockies.smile

        GA

        1. Lizolivia profile image88
          Lizoliviaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          My guess is .. the legal purpose has solely to do with the tobacco industry and decline in stock revenues that's caused lobbying and revolving door antics by tobacco stock holders. A competitive turf war from which the tobacco industry, as already financially established, has the resources to 'stomp out' competition.

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            All three of the giants in the tobacco industry are heavily invested in making and selling e-cigarettes.  So... yeah, I doubt they are trying to kill that market.

          2. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That is a point "vapor" shop owners are raising too. It might be a valid one.

            GA

            1. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              So companies that are heavily invested in e-cigs are trying to kill them? That was be very masochistic of them.

              1. GA Anderson profile image84
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

                The speculation involved the possible legislative support, (ie. FDA regulations, regulated distribution channels, and sales regulations, etc.) of the big tobacco companies might be due to the fact that they already have those infrastructures in place, and it would be prohibitively expensive for "mom and pop" level vapor businesses to be able to comply - with the probable end result being the elimination of competition via government actions.

                I did not mean to imply that the tobacco companies supported banning e-cigs.

                GA

                1. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  As it places them under the same rules as burning tobacco products I would see this as making things simpler and easier to comply with?  This is not like wooden toys or blankets.  Mom and pop organizations are not generally making high tech like this. I expect anyone able to make it would be able to comply fairly easily. In fact the overall regulatory burden probably goes down with these rules.

                  The only real change is for individual people who want to smoke these things in public spaces, because they can't do it anymore.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image84
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    They are not cigarettes. They do not use tobacco. You do not light them. They do not produce smoke. They are not a tobacco product.

                    A small shop entrepreneur can easily assemble/manufacture the delivery devices.

                    But they are not a tobacco product, (I mentioned that already didn't I?), so why do you feel they should be regulated as cigarettes are?

                    GA

        2. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          GA, Colorado's front range is kinda of busy these days, if you want splendid isolation you need to take the Rockies up toward Wyoming, Idaho (Grand Tetons) or up into Montana. As for Montana, I can say from experience no one with hassle you there!!

          1. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Good advice. I was planning on really heading for the hills, so it would be the deep end of the Rockies I would check out. Maybe even deep enough to become an e-cig. moonshiner.

            I can see it now... an e-cig customer leaning close to the counter person's ear, whispering, You got any more of Gus' Rockie Mountain Lightning mix?"

            GA

        3. bethperry profile image89
          bethperryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I think going off the grid is a good idea. The feds, for some time anyway, are going to have their hands full getting the cities "under control". As for the imminent domain thing, look for a state that has put in some measures protecting ordinary citizens against federal theft of personal property. Good luck, too. I am sick of the Nanny State.

          1. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Ok, I will ask my wife if you and yours can come along too.

            GA

            1. bethperry profile image89
              bethperryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Kewl beans smile

  2. profile image0
    Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago

    Fascinating.

    Marijuana use, sales, and distribution may soon become legal...because, you know, SMOKING a joint doesn't look like anything unhealthy.  But using an electronic cigarette, often for the purpose of quitting smoking...that's just wrong and must be STOPPED.

    1. GA Anderson profile image84
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What a great idea! let's put THC in the e-cigs instead of nicotine - then the regulation and taxation can be justified.

      GA

    2. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      As far as I know, smoking grass in public is still illegal in all states.  So actually the two are being treated just the same.  Or one could equate them to other therapeutic products--which is what they are meant to be. The FDA permits them as a stop smoking aid, not as just another form of smoking.  So putting some limits on their use might be quite consistent with their legal purpose.

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Limits are one thing.  Banning completely is another.

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And what is happening here is a limit, not a ban. It treats e-cigs exactly the same as cigs. Neither is illegal to buy and use, but there are regulations about where you can do it.

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Thought about that after I posted.  smile Sorry for the confusion.  I am personally for limiting them solely to the use of adults, in the case that they contain nicotine.  Beyond that, I feel that there are none of the health risks that one associates with regular cigarettes, and because not ALL of them contain the nicotine additive, then they should NOT be limited or connected to any higher taxation.  If indeed, they are meant to be used as a stop smoking aid, and that is their only draw, they should be prescribed like the majority of other smoking cessation tools and covered by health insurance.

            1. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The big tobacco companies are clearly trying to market e-cigs as a way to smoke, even a way to star smoking--rather than to stop.  Look at the sexy designs and flavors.

              IMHO it is premature to say e-cigs are 'safe' just because they are less toxic than burning tobacco. We are already seeing an uptick in poisonings with kids and pets from the liquid nicotine capsules.

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Keyword being "nicotine."  I'll jump right up on the bandwagon when they stop selling any and all energy drinks to anyone under 18. 

                The same issues happen with nicotine lozenges, gum, and patches.  Again, if they can prove to me that the ones that don't contain nicotine are any more dangerous than someone's cell phone, I'll be more concerned.

                I do agree completely with what you're saying about the tobacco industry's love for e-cigs.  In the end, though, it's only about the addiction factor.  The ones that do not contain nicotine will never face that issue.

          2. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Welllll.... Looking at NYC, which is the most encompassing - which did ban e-cigs exactly as they banned smoking, and Chicago which  banned them just like cigarettes too, except not completely in ALL public places.... that looks like banning to me. Of course if considering it not to be a total ban because you can still "smoke" them in single dwelling houses, or in an apartment closet, then maybe it could be said that aren't really banned.

            There doesn't appear to be any data yet that they can be harmful. So it still appears, at this point, to be a reaction based on fear and appearance.

            That is not sufficient basis for government control to me.

            GA

            1. bethperry profile image89
              bethperryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I feel the "reaction" isn't really a reaction, but just an excuse to tax us. Just like the biased, gov't sponsored data on any and all substances they deem to tax..

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                How is reducing where something can be used going to produce more tax?

  3. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    Pure nicotine is clearly less hazardous--but I suspect that long term vapor use with have specific health issues we have yet t discover.

    1. GA Anderson profile image84
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So you are OK with government regulation and control based on suspicions? I respect your right to your own opinions and perspective, but I sure do disagree with them.

      Imagine the regulated society of the future where anything can be controlled or banned  based solely on suspicions and fears. Sounds like the future in the movie Minority Report, and if you are familiar with that you will remember there was a scoundrel behind that premise too.

      GA

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      According to my cardiologist, when I had a heart attack and inquired about the e-cigarette, those things are nothing but a drug delivery method - a drug (nicotine) that causes heart disease.  While smoking produces tar, particulates and other things that cause lung cancer and diseases, it also produces nicotine, which causes heart disease.  Which is what the e-cigarettes do.

      I WOULD have a hard time believing that vapor filtered through a set of human lungs is dangerous to any real degree, and an e-cigarette doesn't sit there producing vapor all the time.

      1. GA Anderson profile image84
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        A delicious fat veined Prime Rib can contribute to heart attacks too. As well as a daily diet of eggs, or pork chops, or... or...

        Should that logic get them banned and regulated too?

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well, the same logic (government knows what's best for us) got the Big Gulp banned...  And candy vending in schools...  And cigarettes...  And, if the naysayers have their way, all GMO's they don't like themselves... 

          But I gotta quit.  The page fills too quickly with what govt. has banned "for our own good".

  4. profile image83
    Education Answerposted 2 years ago

    http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR163oYaTdjjwJWI0z4OIOexBJiugDoIIduVMgjEbFxyiEUO8ti

 
working