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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is a point "vapor" shop owners are raising too. It might be a valid one.
So companies that are heavily invested in e-cigs are trying to kill them? That was be very masochistic of them.
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.
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.
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, 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!!
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?"
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.
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.
What a great idea! let's put THC in the e-cigs instead of nicotine - then the regulation and taxation can be justified.
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.
Limits are one thing. Banning completely is another.
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.
Thought about that after I posted. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
Pure nicotine is clearly less hazardous--but I suspect that long term vapor use with have specific health issues we have yet t discover.
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.
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.
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?
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".
by Raymond D Choiniere 12 years ago
Hey Hubbers,I know everyone has their own view about it, but I'd like to get your view about it.Is the taxation on business too much?Please realize- any taxation business incurs is passed along to you the citizen.So, technically, you pay taxes twice on certain products.Recently, in Mass the price...
by Stacie L 11 years ago
Sales of electronic cigarettes rise, and so does criticismAFPSales of electronic cigarettes rise, and so does criticism AFP/ANP/File Makers of electronic cigarettes are reporting strong growth in sales as anti-tobacco laws force European Â¦by Marie-Noelle Blessig Marie-noelle Blessig ...
by Jayesef 9 years ago
Should a government allow cigarette sales knowing well that cigarette smoking causes cancer?Every cigarette smoker knows smoking causes lung cancer, yet he or she smokes. Isn't this suicidal? By letting open trading in cigarettes, is a government abetting suicides? If opium producers pay the...
by Ralph Schwartz 3 years ago
A bipartisan bill is being floated in the Senate today that would raise the legal age to buy tobacco across the nation to 21 - this would include members of the military, who to this point have been exempted from similar laws.Some say this is a direct attack on the vaping/e-cig industry and a...
by Twenty One Days 11 years ago
We can all agree, smoking tobacco inside is quite unhealthy and annoying. Parks, school grounds -heck even church grounds, were added to the "city limits" as for smoking.today, however, Mayor Bloomberg has legally enacted a city wide no Public Smoking Ban.Keep in mind, nearly 4 million...
by Miss M 13 years ago
Do they have enough power to do it, or do some MPs smoke themselves?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|