General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCA: Bill introduced to legally equate e-cigs to cigarettes.
California: Attempt to Add E-Cigarettes to "Smoking" Ban -- SB 648
If enacted, this bill would:
Ban the use of vapor products wherever smoking is banned. Among those provisions most likely to impact users are those that would:
Permit landlords to ban e-cigarette use in private homes. (Section 2)
Ban e-cigarette use inside or within 20 feet of any public building or in a vehicle owned by the state. (Section 5)
Ban e-cigarette use in hospitals and medical facilities, except in specifically defined rooms where smoking is allowed (Sections 7 and 8)
Declares that the use of electronic cigarettes “is a hazard to the health of the general public,” and would include e-cigarettes in all future smoking bans passed in California. (Section 14)
Ban e-cigarette use in workplaces. Violations would be punishable by fines of $100, $200, and $500. (Section 15)
Ban e-cigarette use in railroads and air carriers. (Section 16)
Here's a link to the actual bill:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_648_bill_20130222_introduced.html
ETA: Last time I was on Amtrak or an airline we passengers were scolded that all the no-smoking rules included e-cigs.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
haikugal
(6,476 posts)I haven't checked the link yet but I'm wondering who thought this one up and what they're basing it on...what factual need there is for such a law.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)I'm a little suspicious of this story so close to April 1st, but if this is a hoax, it's a darn good one.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)I checked her out and posted below. Something tells me this is real but it has nothing to do with health or safety. I want to know what it's based on.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)they want to tax it like cigarettes even though they aren't the same thing at all. You'll see some really silly remarks below by smug knee jerk reactionaries that are good for laughs if nothing else.
trayfoot
(1,568 posts)
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)And they won.
They wanted to be classified with tobacco products so they wouldn't have to go through other FDA regulation (as other drugs do.)
So they're trying to have it both ways. They want it to be regulated with tobacco when it suits them, but not when it doesn't.
http://gothamist.com/2013/01/22/e-cigs_e-cigarettes_njoy_vaping_vap.php
But NJOY's rise to becoming the most popular e-cigarette brand in the country stemmed from a lawsuit they filed to prevent their product from strict government oversight, and they continue to reap profits in a vacuum where no regulation currently exists.
In 2010 NJOY sued the FDA to prevent electronic cigarettes from being regulated as a drug device that provided the "therapeutic benefit" of quitting smoking. Nicotine devices must undergo rigorous and costly testing before they can market themselves as products to help smokers quit. NJOY won the lawsuit, and the right to keep selling their product as a type of tobacco product. E-cigarettes were ordered to be regulated under the historic Tobacco Control Act of 2009.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)
alp227
(33,280 posts)It's not being a CONTROL FREAK it's about respecting everyone else's right to breathe!!!!
Matariki
(18,775 posts)that's absurd.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)alp227
(33,280 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)There is nothing harmful to you if someone has an Ecig near you. Nor is there any smoke, so places are still smokefree.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Since e-cigarettes are smoke free, how does this violate any laws?
aikanae
(202 posts)There's a ton of "proof". They just won't admit it.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)no one is purposely blowing smoke at you, that would be assholish. 
Paul E Ester
(952 posts)Seems to me they are not equal to cigarettes.
Mariana
(15,623 posts)People who are using them are not smoking, by definition. There is no smoke. There is no ash. Nothing is burning. Anyone who claims they are the same is ignorant or dishonest.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)If that poison can be breathed second-hand, this might be worthy of a bill, but otherwise this legislation seems so over-the-top to me and I'm someone who gets ill from cigarette smoke and needs to live and work in smoke-free buildings.
Mariana
(15,623 posts)Except, of course, the ones with nicotine-free liquid obviously do not.
I do know the vapor, whether or not it has nicotine in it, doesn't hang around in the air like smoke does. When the vapor is visible at all (it isn't always) it vanishes within seconds, just like you'd expect it to - the same way the water vapor from boiling water does. It doesn't leave any residue on surfaces, either. It's very likely you have already had people using e-cigs around you, discreetly, and you haven't noticed. Most people don't.
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)is because the manufacturer sued the government and won?
Otherwise, the FDA would be regulating them as they do other non-tobacco nicotine products.
Either it's a tobacco product, and restricted as such, or it's not. They insisted that it's a tobacco product. They can't have it both ways.
beevul
(12,194 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)I read the bill and there is no reasoning given...none. If someone else finds any facts that require this law please post them. I even went to her web page but didn't find any thing there about this law. It's total BS...totally!!
Skittles
(171,653 posts)cite lots of folk COUGHING if they see them - yes, their allergies kick in due to non-existent "smoke"
haikugal
(6,476 posts)"if they see them"...
tavalon
(27,985 posts)She has an autoimmune disorder that requires that she quit smoking and she's tried everything so I got her the E Cig. She loves it and she's already tapering her dose and I have a highly sensitive nose and I cannot smell anything. I told her she could feel free to use it in my car. I've never let anyone smoke in my car.
Vaporizing, whether it is cigarettes or pot, is a thousand times healthier and I suspect that's going to put a lot of panties in a wad.
Skittles
(171,653 posts)but I definitely would have tried them 
Response to Skittles (Reply #23)
Post removed
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Much like car exhausts.
Anyone who seriously thought that they wouldn't be considered a health hazard to others are fooling themselves.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Nicotine is less toxic than caffeine.
Its the other crap in tobacco smoke that cause harm.
We're also aware that the vast majority of the nicotine is absorbed by the "smoker". And that studies have shown no effect on bystanders.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)What the addicted don't get, is that people don't give a fuck what you put in your bodies, people just don't want it spewed into our personal space.
Go hit some snuff or chew. Better yet, slap on a patch. Keep it to your own body.
Knock yourself out.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Again, the 'smoker' absorbs the nicotine. And that's not "the addicted" talking. It's people running actual blood tests on those bystanders.
I don't smoke. Never have. My objection to this bill is it's as anti-science as requiring creationism in schools.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)All the nicotine?
They much be magic!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So....why on earth would people 'smoke' these if they don't get the nicotine into their bloodstream?
'Cause that's the entire point of smoking one of these, or even a real cigarette - nicotine into the bloodstream. And you don't exhale most of that nicotine. Even from a real cigarette.
I'm sorry you can't be bothered with reality, but exhaled e-cig 'smoke' is almost entirely water vapor, as shown by tests. Want to prove 'em wrong? Show your own test results.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)the e-cig hurts no one, especially me. You and your arrogant dismissal can shove it. Knock yourself out...it would be different if you knew what you were talking about. Please post something to back up your claims. I really want to know.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)Or so it seems.
However, I could suggest that you look at some of the great videos online that show via silhouette just how much of you you are not keeping in your body and how far you spew it by simply talking, breathing, sneezing, etc.
By your logic, I could rightfully demand that everyone have to wear face masks to protect me from the copious amounts of fluids, (and bacteria and potential disease) that they naturally emit.
Do you know how toxic a bad fart is, BTW?
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Nothing like coffee breath.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You then apply the same standard to colognes and perfumes, or does your bias compel you hold one to a higher standard than the other due to convenience?
"The analysis,... found that many top-selling fragrance products contain multiple chemicals that can set off allergic reactions or disrupt hormones. Many have never been tested for safety on humans.
http://www.rodale.com/perfume-ingredients
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)So is it ok if I spit in your personal space? I know nothing excites me more than a hocked loogie on a sidewalk. 
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If it were an i-cigTM Apple, you'd be all for it.
*snort*, couldn't resist.
SoCalNative
(4,613 posts)without Nicotine as well as with.
We have studies on car exhaust but I've seen no studies to support your claim. I assume you think they put dangerous levels of toxic chemicals in the air so you must know something I don't. Please link me up. Thx.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Its the same shit used in fog machines. Its also used in many medical products for delivering inhaled medications. I suggest you actually go learn something about it before making definitive statements on something you obviously know nothing about.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Much like car exhausts".
How many car exhausts have you seen, that expel a vapor made up of food flavoring, a tiny amount of nicotine, and a germicide, and do it without combustion?
Automobiles in general would probably be multiple times better, if that's all they emitted as exhaust, and I'd wager just about everyone here would agree with that.
"Considered a health hazard" by puritanical control freaks, and "actually IS a health hazard", are two very different things.
If I were to translate this:
"Anyone who seriously thought that they wouldn't be considered a health hazard to others are fooling themselves."
My translation would say:
Anyone who thought that finding a safe way to get their nicotine fix without harming others meant finding a way to be left alone about it by the usual zealots, was fooling themselves.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)This is one of those rare exceptions where you have to write the words out
ROFLMAO
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)Do you believe Jesus walked with the dinosaurs as well?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
msongs
(73,726 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)First off, the actual toxic and carcinogenic materials associated with smoking are produced by combustion, and are not present in e-cig vapor.
The very large majority of nicotine produced is absorbed by the smoker. the trace amounts exhaled are in such small quantity that they were undetectible in controlled experimental conditions with normal amounts of smoking. If one were to inhale all of an e-cig smoker's exhalation, after about 300 puffs (!), you'd have roughly the equivalent of one low-dosage stick of nicotine gum. You might get that much nicotine in a room packed full of e-cig smokers in about half an hour...maybe.
Legislators panicking and acting in utter ignorance of what they're passing laws about...gosh, what a surprise. 
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
— H L Mencken
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Nailed it in one...well done!
haikugal
(6,476 posts)this kind of crap drives me nuts!
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Good to see that's not the case - here anyway.
"Legislators panicking and acting in utter ignorance of what they're passing laws about...gosh, what a surprise."
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)with tobacco products, in an effort to skirt FDA regulation.
http://gothamist.com/2013/01/22/e-cigs_e-cigarettes_njoy_vaping_vap.php
But NJOY's rise to becoming the most popular e-cigarette brand in the country stemmed from a lawsuit they filed to prevent their product from strict government oversight, and they continue to reap profits in a vacuum where no regulation currently exists.
In 2010 NJOY sued the FDA to prevent electronic cigarettes from being regulated as a drug device that provided the "therapeutic benefit" of quitting smoking. Nicotine devices must undergo rigorous and costly testing before they can market themselves as products to help smokers quit. NJOY won the lawsuit, and the right to keep selling their product as a type of tobacco product. E-cigarettes were ordered to be regulated under the historic Tobacco Control Act of 2009.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)...according to Princeton.
http://www.definitions.net/definition/Nicotine
The list of attributes includes "intensely poisonous", "highly toxic", "used in insecticides", etc. It is the highly addictive chemical found in conventional cigarettes. "Highly addictive" generally means, when it comes to drugs, that it screws your brain and body over, big time. It took me a year to get back to normal operational mode, mentally, after quitting myself.
People are allowed to smoke and that's ok - same as drinking, it has its place and people are allowed. If e-cigs are used as cigarettes, as "nicotine delivery devices", then I don't see any problem with treating them like cigarettes.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But that's a little like idiot global warming deniers who talk about how bicycling is bad for the environment because it increases the amount of CO2 released by people who breathe hard.
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)You probably should have gone to see a neurologist.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)they also deliver nicotine.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)I just think that its reasonable for e-cigarettes, which are used like cigarettes, to be treated like cigarettes.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)So treating e-cigarettes like cigarettes = banning from use in public places. So why is it that you want them banned from use in all public places? How exactly do they hurt you?
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)Its not a matter of physically harming me, its matter of reasonably regulating a self-destructive activity and an addictive substance, because of its health risks. Heart disease is the primary risk. I wouldn't want my kids teachers to smoke in class, smokeless or not, and I wouldn't want to see nicotine more freely available or socially acceptable to openly use. Its a nasty addiction.
Nicotine addiction has been decreasing due to regulations on use, and I wouldn't want to see that reverse.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"If heroine were legal, I still wouldn't want to see people shooting up in the park"
Uh huh, because what you see when someone takes a puff and exhales vapor, is in the same category as seeing someone stick a needle in their arm and shoot up, right? Hyperbole much?
How "self destructive" are they? You asserted it, you need to substantiate it.
"I wouldn't want my kids teachers to smoke in class, smokeless or not, and I wouldn't want to see nicotine more freely available or socially acceptable to openly use. Its a nasty addiction."
When you remove the tobacco and the combustion, and reduce it to vapor, theres nothing nasty about it.
"I don't want to see it/I don't want my kids to see it" - which is the only thing really substantiated by you thus far, doesn't cut it.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)about 600,000 deaths per year. Estimates vary, and ultimate cause may be argued, but an unbiased estimate is that about 20% of those are directly caused by nicotine consumption.
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/guide/smoking-heart-disease
Nicotine has other effects that don't cause death, and of course plenty of harm can be done to a person short of death. Most people are familiar with the effects of mental addiction. One way or another, becoming addicted to something that will run your life and then, either possibly or probably, kill you, can be fairly called "self destructive".
beevul
(12,194 posts)It says "smoking". It does not say "vaping". They are two very different things.
"about 600,000 deaths per year. Estimates vary, and ultimate cause may be argued, but an unbiased estimate is that about 20% of those are directly caused by nicotine consumption."
Nicotine consumption via tobacco. At best.
I suggest you look into the differences in how nicotine is absorbed between the two different methods of nicotine delivery.
And theres also the matter of the growing number of people that vape a nicotine free solution.
How do they fit into your view?
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)and how you put the nicotine into your bloodstream is secondary. Except of course that you have lung cancer on top of heart disease to worry about if you smoke conventional cigarettes.
All the obfustication reminds me strongly of how, back in the 60's and 70's, the tobacco industry tried (successfully, for awhile) to convince people that smoking was nothing to worry about. That nicotine wasn't really a powerful addictive poison that hijacked and hamstrung your brain's pleasure centers, made you sick and then killed you - how it was really all about choice, individuality and freedom.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Studies have been done in Greece on the effects of ONLY nicotine ingested through vapor, and they did not indicate what you say these other tests/studies indicate.
As to the tobacco companies...well...Vaping product do not contain maoi inhibitors, which at the very least go hand in hand, jacking the brain's pleasure centers. those maoi inhibitors were added/enhanced by big tobacco. Also, such an argument, also ignores the scores of Doctors who are getting behind vaping, even so far as instructing patients in hospitals to use them, and the doctors using them themselves.
Without the maoi inhibitors, nicotine is a bit closer to caffeine in its addictive properties than heroine.
Besides that, theres the backwards logic underlying the whole works:
Its ok to do something regularly as long as you're not addicted, but if you're addicted, well, boy howdy, something needs to be done.
If its not hurting anyone else, leave it alone.
I can only wonder what you think of people that smoke MJ.
Response to bhikkhu (Reply #113)
tones fucyes This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)That would be more equivalent to this, only with way fewer negative side effects.
It is NOT SMOKING, and no one is suggesting teachers do it openly in their classrooms 
I'm sorry you find it a 'nasty' addiction and 'socially unacceptable'. I feel the same way about Cheetos but I don't want to see them banned.
People recognize how difficult heroin is to kick. For some individuals it is basically impossible. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. Otherwise they wouldn't be addicts.
So doctors prescribe methadone, and clinics are available for people to have it administered. Because despite being it is a significant harm reduction, an arguably major improvement over shooting up street heroin, it is still quite dangerous, can be abused, etc.
In addition, methadone helps on a more macro level, in terms of overall public health, health care costs, rehab costs... It benefits the public overall. We condone methadone use. In some places, we really encourage it.
Nicotine is also incredibly difficult to kick.
It also bears very high costs to public health, both in terms of individual health and massive financial costs too. Second-hand smoke can be extremely dangerous to nonsmokers. We all know these things are true.
The difference is that nicotine, unlike the drug methadone, has very few side effects. It isn't some heavy weight you carry with you at all times like opiates. The vast majority of the damage from *smoking* comes from *the smoking*, not the nicotine itself.
We now have a new way to deliver nicotine. A way that completely removes the smoking, but still provides a similar enough experience for those who have smoked for a gazillion years to 'get their fix' in terms of not just the nicotine but the process - the feeling, the puffing, or the fiddling, or the oral fixation, or whatever. A way with no known harm for other people.
And best of all, IT WORKS. For people who have tried and succeeded and relapsed, and tried and failed and tried and failed to quit, and struggle with this for years, in depression and sickness, and this may be the ONE THING that works for them. And even if they never manage to kick the nicotine, they can vape forever. It may not be perfect but it is remarkably safer for everyone around. MASSIVE HARM REDUCTION. It has the potential to do more than the gums and the patches and the Chantix combined have accomplished. More than what methadone does for heroin addicts.
We need to encourage this and study it and make it MORE available to MORE people for the benefit of EVERYONE.
The evidence that is already available about the substances involved point to it being incredibly safe. These aren't mysterious chemicals. They are well-known substances that are used in a variety of food and other products for human use, fog machines, freaking *asthma inhalers*.
There is no doubt that additional study would be great, necessary even. Standardization of nicotine amounts would be good. There seems to be a lot of integrity among those making the juices and selling the equipment, but there is a huge amount of scam out there too.
Banning this is so incredibly fucked up.
sigmasix
(794 posts)The drinking of coffee around others should be illegal as well. Caffeine addicts should be treated the same way, according to your faulty reasoning. no one is exposed to nicotine by being around e cigs, but you think it's offensive for other people to satisfy thier nicotine addiction in public, so you want it made illegal to do it in public. caffeine is a dangerous stimulant that toxifies within the individual. Drinking coffee or other caffeine-enhanced beverages in public ought to be made illegal as well. Do people even think before they post this type of glib-ly ignorant stupidity? Or is this reply supposed to be based in ignorance and willful stupidity? Just because you find offense in what others choose to put in thier bodies, doesnt meen you get to restrict adults from doing it- especially since it brings you absolutely no harm in any way- every scientific study says there is no danger to bystanders- but you still want it restricted because you find the use of nicotine by anyone to be offensive (not hurting anything to do with you except your desire to tell others how to live) I wonder why you dont have the same problem with people drinking caffiene? The chance of being injured by the coffee drinker's caffiene is the same as the danger from an E cig- why aren't you as offended by caffeine addicts satisfying thier addiction? Hipocrisy much?
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)Caffeine is one of the more harmless of addictive substances, so it is much more lightly regulated.
sigmasix
(794 posts)the existing level of regulations on cigarrettes meets your standard, and since e vap sticks aren't cigarrettes, they aren't and shouldn't be subject to the same restrictions. I'm happy to see that you stressed that the regulations for cigs are fine, and therefore no need for further expanse of the defintion of "cigarrette". Cool heads and applied pragmatism are some of the reasons for America's great-ness.
TeamPooka
(25,577 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)and both of those afflictions can be self destructive yet more people do that than smoke. I actually know a man who had a severe sinus infection. It went into his brain and he ended up with metal plates in his head. chewing gum can rot your teeth and if you chew sugarless, the synthetic sweeteners can cause health problems long term. And no, nicotine addiction has not been decreasing. Many smokers are now closeted.
There is potential for abuse with any substance whether you smoke it, drink it or eat it. We can't and shouldn't regulate everything people choose to consume. I don't like nose pickers or gum chewers, but I would never deny someone the right to do it. It is their business what they do with their bodies.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Damn! Nothing reasonable or factual about it.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)For some it's just the smoke and movement. The idea is to start with nicotine, and gradually work your way down to 0. When I use mine, I use Tasy Puf Rasta Root Beer, and the smell is nice, and the taste is good.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Did the bill's authors actually bother to learn the slightest fucking thing about e-cigs (or vaporization in general)?
Rhetorical question, obviously...
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)
Is that a Molly Ivins-ism, or your own creation?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It's mine...but to have someone think it could have been from the late, great Ms. Ivins has me grinning ear to ear!
Bryn
(3,621 posts)those idiotic Arkansas Legislative.. lol they voted against women's rights, banned sky lanterns, but almost no regulations for guns, against Equal Rights, etc.
legislative fuckwittery lol
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)No shortage of situations to apply it to, alas...
Moses2SandyKoufax
(1,290 posts)California should strive to be more like Texas or Mississippi...
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)... obviously means everything else they do is also wrong.
Moses2SandyKoufax
(1,290 posts)implies that you find fault with other laws passed by our G.A.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)I've got a banjo around here for you somewhere...shucks, must've left it near my overalls. Welcome to the club, California. It's always good to see another fresh face in backwardsville. Oh, wait...unless every state is backwards in one thing or another. Naw...that's just some of that silly southern talk coming out.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Excellent (and probably very accurate) observation...
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)vapor that does not extend far from your person and is probably no more harmful than the junk you breath, sneeze and cough out of you when it sprays naturally from your orifices.
The burden of proof should be based on studies that show harmful effects on others. Otherwise, just another waste of time, money and resources on an issue that distracts us from what is freekin' important right now.
What is most ridiculous is that their is no obvious scent or residue produced by these devices that I have noticed. So, how would you enforce that? If they get rid of the "lights" that make the device more obvious, you are not going to have much evidence unless you get more gestapo on people.
The landlords would either have to instal a video camera in your home or come in and check on you regularly to see if you were breaking the lease.
I don't think the authors of this bill have the slightest idea what they are talking about.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Mariana
(15,623 posts)Also, many e-cig models don't even vaguely resemble cigarettes. People use e-cigs in public all the time and almost always, nobody notices.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)I vape with something similar to one of the ones in the middle of this pic:
Nobody is ever going to mistake it for a cigarette lol.
Mariana
(15,623 posts)Mine looks rather like an ordinary black pen. I use 901 atomizers with KR808 batteries - primitive, to be sure, but it works for me. The batteries I use in public have black covers on the LED's, so they don't attract attention that way. I don't hold it like a cigarette at all. If someone sees me taking a drag, they really don't "see" a person who is smoking. The only people who ever pay any attention are other vapers!
beevul
(12,194 posts)My SO and I started out the the 808s. They weren't bad, but we had to charge them far more often than we were happy with. Normal 808s have something like a 280 mah capacity, and we just got so burned out on the battery shuffle.
We moved up, to a slightly larger 808, which was slightly better, but still left us doing the battery shuffle.
What we have now, is...1200 mah on mine, and 1300 mah on hers, which is pretty decent duration, but still semi-frequent charging. We were heavy heavy smokers.
I'm patiently waiting for one of these to come back into stock:
With one of those, I can set wattage, and forget it when swapping between tanks with coils of different resistance levels. And, I can run batteries between 2000 and 3000 mah, for long term vaping without charging.
FWIW, do you refill your own cartos? If so, I'd strongly and highly recommend vermillion river e-juice out of MN, theirs tastes so so good, and is very clean. I vape cinnamon Danish flavor as my all day vape, and it is delicious.
Switching from smoking to vaping has definitely been a learning and trial and error experience, and its sad that so many seem eager to stamp it out, or treat it like smoking, without really knowing the facts involved with it. If they only knew how effective it was compared to the patch or other alternatives...
Mariana
(15,623 posts)I'll give it a try. Thank you. Cinnamon danish is exactly the kind of thing I would like.
The battery shuffle has never been a problem for me. I worked out a routine early on. One thing I did right in the beginning was to buy TWO starter kits, so I had two chargers and plenty of batteries from day one. I've done some simple but effective mods. One day I'll upgrade, but for now, I'm happy with my rig.
You know, some of these people don't hate smoking, they hate smokers and want them to suffer, even after they've quit. Knowing some people have quit painlessly with e-cigs just pisses them off to no end. There was a jackass on a fairly recent thread who actually told a poster they should continue smoking rather than try to switch to e-cigs. That's some serious hate.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)I just ordered my very first starter kit with an eGo-C and a Vision Spinner, a couple clearos, some juices, etc.
I have smoked for more than 20 years and this is the first time I've ever even thought about quitting in at least 10. These devices are amazing. I tried some cheap disposable once and was so turned off but I've done a lot of research lately and I am so ready to figure out what works for me.
This devices should be ENCOURAGED, not banned.
The impact on public health could be amazing.
I think studies need to continue on safety and standardization of ingredients, nicotine content etc may be a good idea but ultimately these are SO MUCH BETTER for people.
If we support methadone clinics we can surely support e-cigarettes. Nicotine, while addictive as hell, is waaaaay less harmful than methadone, ffs!
Bryn
(3,621 posts)My house smells good again. I don't cough anymore and can breathe much better so this makes no sense. Vapor is water..flavored with various stuff like fruit, coffee, tobacco, etc. With or without nicotine. Little or high nic. Vapor is a huge difference from smoke. Just like fog instead of smoke.
Logical
(22,457 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Can't even manage to read the summary in the OP? Or are you operating under the illusion that "home" and "landlord" are unrelated terms?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)and harm you!!!!!
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)Many of the so called Liberals in DU are quite happy to impose prohibitions on citizens without the slightest empirical basis on which to found justification for that prohibition ...
You equate E-cigs with actual cigarettes because they may or may not have nicotine, and may or may not look like cigarettes ... Now HURRY UP AND BAN THEM!!!
Really ... we could do with less wannabe Carrie Nations in our midst ....
I hope they do everything possible to put a halt to this baseless nonsense ....
trayfoot
(1,568 posts)This is ludicrous! Everything I have read on this topic (extensively), says that E-Cigs are harmless. They help people get off harmful cigs, so what is the problem? Chemicals? Don't look now, but every breath you take has chemicals in it - nicotine is NOT one of the harmful ones!
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Utah has enacted very similar laws already and in this very very red state, I doubt anyone would consider it a "nanny state". That tends to be a term Republicans like to use against Dem politcies. In this case the shoe just doesn't fit.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I could have sworn that vapers made a huge stink about it, and were excluded from the legislation.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)
and info on Utah passage for 2012 legislation http://udohnews.blogspot.com/2012/05/law-banning-e-cigarettes-and-hookah-in.html
and more clearly, the CA bill closely mimics Utah passage of a bill in 2012 http://www.protectlocalcontrol.org/resource.php?id=10784
beevul
(12,194 posts)bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)I don't see why treating them like cigarettes is a problem.
trayfoot
(1,568 posts)If I used gum instead of cigs, then by your logic, it would be right to ban gum along with cigs?????????
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)I've never had any problem with gum 
trayfoot
(1,568 posts)you have had a problem with "water vapor"?
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)but I am still happy to see cigarettes regulated as nicotine delivery systems, whether they also delivery cancerous smoke or not. I have kids, and I know what the addiction is like. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, and there's enough problems with addicted kids as it is without expanding the options and making it openly fashionable again.
Mariana
(15,623 posts)To use a cigarette, you have to light it and it has to burn, causing it to emit smoke. An e-cig vaporizes liquid with power from a battery.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)Cigarettes are nicotine delivery systems, to maintain the levels of nicotine in the systems of people who are addicted. E-cigs do nothing other than that, though perhaps they do it more fashionably and without the smell.
Mariana
(15,623 posts)Many e-cig users reduce their nicotine intake to zero, but continue to use their e-cigs with nicotine-free liquid just because they enjoy it. When you see someone using one, you can't tell whether they're taking nicotine or not.
energumen
(76 posts)By extrapolation, if an e-cig is being legislated as merely a nicotine delivery system, I should be allowed to vape anywhere
At worst, since my wife claims it is my adult pacifier, it should be legislated identically to pacifiers
TeamPooka
(25,577 posts)I'm not being snarky, I am asking a legit question because after all your responses here I really believe you do not think there is a difference between water vapor/fog and smoke from burning leaves.
So here is the simple explanation for you as to the differences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
Water vapor or aqueous vapor is the gas phase of water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke
Smoke is a collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases emitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis, together with the quantity of air that is entrained or otherwise mixed into the mass.
As to your bad analogy:
If you look like a criminal I don't see why treating you like a criminal is a problem.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)These things are bad. I tried them and they made me cough...and I could smell them when other people were smoking them.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And, yes... at first, you might cough more but anyone who has ever quit smoking will tell you that once you stop breathing in the tar from tobacco, your coughing will increase as your lungs try to clear themselves.
So, your increased coughing was a symptom of your lung trying to heal.
Since I started e-cigs, I have decreased my nicotine intake by half even though I can use them anywhere.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)I can't smell it at all.
tridim
(45,358 posts)It doesn't smell at all, and the vapor dissapates before in gets above my cubical wall.
Mariana
(15,623 posts)If it doesn't look like a cigarette, and you don't hold it like one, and you don't blow huge clouds of vapor around, no one pays any attention.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)that you are sensitive or even allergic to the propylene glycol which is often used in the liquid that carries the nicotine and flavor, but you can get liquids made blended with or purely of vegetable glycerine which doesn't have this reaction.
This difference has an effect on the amount of vapor and the strength of the 'throat hit', and there are a variety of other reasons why one may be preferred over the other, but the liquids are available in a zillion blends, flavors, and some vendors will do custom made (eg pick your flavor, pick your nicotine level, pick VG or PG or blend%).
It's really quite amazing from what I have seen.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)The "smoke" from e-cigs is little more than water vapor, and certainly doesn't have the tar, carcinogens and toxic shit that's in real tobacco smoke.
More authoritarian dumbfuckery.
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)There's also a few armchair DU experts exhibiting some "dumbfuckery" on this thread.
Doremus
(7,273 posts)We have way too much water vapor in the air and I'm tired of breathing it in!!
We've become a nation of nanny-dependent ninnies.
haikugal
(6,476 posts) WTF indeed...(love the gif)Doremus
(7,273 posts)Thanks haikugal!
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)This is where far right and far left meet.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)to that dynamic nor is "center", for that matter. Life is too complex for a single axis. It is surely too easy to bullshit and misrepresent politics and policy that way.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm an e-cig user, and have been for a few months now.
My other half and I switched, after both smoking analogues for between 20 and 30 years.
Before we switched, we did a great deal of research into what is in E-cig juice.
Propylene glycol. Known as PG for short in vaping circles. This is one of the things used in nebulizers for asthma and in lung transplant recipients. It is a germicide. Not harmful for inhalation first or second hand.
Vegetable glycerin. Known as VG for short in vaping circles. Used in foods, make up, pharmaceuticals, and a whole lot of other things. Not harmful what so ever.
Some e-juices are pure PG. Some are pure VG. Most are a blend. because one of them gives good throat hit, and one produces good vapor - so they get mixed to produce both, in a lot of cases. Some juices, like "Boba's bounty" are pure VG and thick like syrup lol.
Flavorings. I wouldn't think there should be much objection to these. They have aromas far more pleasant than most perfumes or aftershave. I vape cinnamon danish flavored juice as my all day vape, and strawberry flavored occasionally. The cinnamon has a cinnamon scent, though not strong, and the strawberry has a strawberry scent. I have been told repeatedly, that both are pleasant, both by smokers and non-smokers alike.
Nicotine. Stigmatized because of tobacco. "poison", some call it. Roughly equivalent to caffeine in its effect at dosages that people vape. Tests have shown that people get no appreciable amount second hand, from people vaping.
So what you have, is puritanical objection to a behavior that the objectors disagree with, and whatever justification can be contrived to support it. Even in cases where someone is vaping a non nicotine vape, which many do.
I urge everyone to play this video, and go to the 35 minute mark, and watch. Its an anecdote, but it is representative of so many RL and online anecdotes from those with asthma and allergies that I've run into.
Joanie Baloney
(1,357 posts)who is behind this bill? I know Corbett introduced it, but who is funding it? My money's on big tobacco. They don't look kindly on anyone who tries to take away from their profits.
Sux.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)what could possibly be the logic behind it other than to help the likes of Phillip Morris? (or whatever they are calling themselves today.)
SoCalNative
(4,613 posts)are probably behind it. I'd wager if you check out Ms. Corbett's campaign donors, all will be revealed.
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)and for good reason in many places since second hand smoke is nasty and is a public health issue.
But in this case, you have people trying to quit or having quit and the state is giving them shit? E-cigs emit a vapor, which is not at all like smoke. I think the legislators should think twice before voting for this idiotic bill.
madville
(7,847 posts)Money, tax revenue, that's the answer. Cigarettes are a cash cow for taxes, these things will cut into that revenue.
dkf
(37,305 posts)And that would save medical bills and keep people alive longer.
Instead all they care about is money. How ironic.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)It does nothing but fulfill every negative stereotype of nanny-state-ism and excessive regulation.
Gives the other side a grenade they can pull the pin out of and throw back.
And yes you are very correct; in a sane world, e-cigs would be actively encouraged as a method to quit SMOKING. But as we are seeing so clearly now, the concern is not for people's health or well-being, it is once again the authoritarians who--through bought & paid for politicians--use the power of government to micromanage others lives.
OnionPatch
(6,328 posts)There ought to be a damn good reason to take any freedoms away. There's not even a reason here, let alone a damn good one.
Festivito
(13,884 posts)Yikes!
OregonBlue
(8,211 posts)the flavorings. I was able to quit but still need the crutch of having something to do with my hands so I don't eat constantly. What I am exhaling is only water vapor. It does have a little of the flavoring odor but nothing more. Even when you are using nicotine in your ejuice, what is actually exhaled is so infinitesimal as to be harmless. This is just an attempt to make money off of ecigs.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Going back to the real thing might be calming.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Your remedy: make a joke about how these people should switch back to a product that, if used correctly, kills. You might want to stop while you're just kind of being a jerk.
beevul
(12,194 posts)But hey, I guess we should just go back to the more harmful real thing, so that the legitimacy of their complaints is restored...
TeamPooka
(25,577 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Maybe you need a ciggy break.
TeamPooka
(25,577 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)We should be *encouraging* the use of these products, not banning their use.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)One of the biggest disappointments in watching both Fukushima and the Gulf oil spill, was how little all the authoritarian-environmental laws citizens had increasingly been forced to follow after 1960s, paled in comparison to the big companies and their accident-proven pollution rates. Specifically, how little the penalties were for the big companies when they pollute, and how much relatively larger the penalties are for citizens.
With this news item I see the game of such lying continues.
Dragonbreathp9d
(2,542 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Dedicated non-smoker and anti-smoking advocate checking in.
Exhaled vapor from e-cigs is not even remotely like cigarette smoke.
BalancedGoat
(261 posts)Exhaling vapor directly into a 10-l glass emission test chamber showed an estimated per puff dosage of .2 micrograms. That is .02% the 1 mg dose absorbed from 2 mg nicotine gun (nicotine gum usually comes in 2 or 4 mg - per Wikipedia).
It is worth noting that no nicotine was detected in the other half of the study that used a 8 cubic meter stainless steel test chamber.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Mariana
(15,623 posts)We KNOW what happens to people exposed to that. They die, and they do it pretty damn quickly, too. Anyone who seriously makes that comparison, that e-cig vapor is like car exhaust, is delusional.
Edited for clarity.
Sharpie
(64 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)FDA tried to initially control the products as a 'drug delivery vehicle' and because it was being marketed as a smoking cessation product. Something the FDA would normally regulate to ensure ingredients safety and that the product actually does what the promoter says it does.
The original e-cig mfg went to court and successfully won a suite claiming that the FDA does not have jurisdiction over the product. The judge agreed and because the product does contain tobacco (in some cases) and the addictive additives that made tobacco so harmful and difficult to resist, the judge said instead that it could and should be regulated like tobacco.
http://changelabsolutions.org/tobacco-control/question/are-e-cigarettes-regulate
The court’s decision limits the FDA’s ability to test NJOY e-cigarettes for safety and prohibits it from banning e-cigarettes entirely. However, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) expressly allows state and local governments to regulate the sale or use of tobacco products, which would include e-cigarettes.[3]
With that in mind, I think states were forced to regulate the product along the same lines as tobacco (since it could not be regulated as a drug) that contains the addictive properties of nicotine.
Most e-cigs are made in China and the safety is so unregulated that several countries incluing liberal old Australia has banned them completely.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2129550/Safety-fears-electronic-cigarettes-unclean-unregulated.html#ixzz2PVYuP9Rj
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)be smoking more cigs per day.
SoCalNative
(4,613 posts)for the e-cig manufacturers as she introduces other legislation in 2010 against their marketing practices and who they could sell to.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)
shanti
(21,799 posts)i'm a nonsmoker, never have smoked, but my sister is 56 and has smoked since she was about 20. she just started the e-cigs about 3 weeks ago, and hasn't had a real ciggy since. she said she hasn't even had the desire for one, and is even cutting back on the e-cigs. for her own health, i'm really hoping these work for her and she quits cigs for good!
Mariana
(15,623 posts)without any misery from withdrawal or nasty side effects from medications. Some people eventually stop using the e-cigs after awhile. Some gradually cut down the nicotine strength in the liquid they're using, all the way to zero, but contine to use their e-cigs because they enjoy it. Even those few who never reduce their nicotine levels are far, far better off than when they were smoking.
Your sister is off to an excellent start. She's about at the point where she'll start to notice some real changes going on in her body as it begins to heal itself.
TeamPooka
(25,577 posts)MindPilot
(12,693 posts)Can't even send the Senator an email from her web page. Because I'm not in her district...that's the message I get when I click the "submit" button. Bet I could call and say I am with XYZ Tobacco company, and I would get right through.
I would have thought that the California State Senate Majority Leader represented the entire state and not just her own district.
Oh well, I long ago realized that contacting an elected offical is about as effective as hitting a pile of rocks with a stick.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)So very very lame.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)stupid. and I say this as someone who has never smoked and is allergic to cigarette smoke.
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)that required the FDA to do so.
Otherwise, they would have had to subject their products to the same FDA oversight as other drugs -- and they didn't want that.
So don't blame the government for this -- the manufacturers forced the govt. to treat e-cigs like tobacco.
http://gothamist.com/2013/01/22/e-cigs_e-cigarettes_njoy_vaping_vap.php
But NJOY's rise to becoming the most popular e-cigarette brand in the country stemmed from a lawsuit they filed to prevent their product from strict government oversight, and they continue to reap profits in a vacuum where no regulation currently exists.
In 2010 NJOY sued the FDA to prevent electronic cigarettes from being regulated as a drug device that provided the "therapeutic benefit" of quitting smoking. Nicotine devices must undergo rigorous and costly testing before they can market themselves as products to help smokers quit. NJOY won the lawsuit, and the right to keep selling their product as a type of tobacco product. E-cigarettes were ordered to be regulated under the historic Tobacco Control Act of 2009.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)The reason for banning smoking is about second hand smoke. I think people forget that's the reason sometimes.
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)The result of the lawsuit is that e-cigs are defined as tobacco products.
They can't have it both ways.
If their products are so risk free and the research shows that, they should be happy to submit the research to the FDA. But for some reason they'd rather just be classified with tobacco.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)There's no excuse or reason for this but ass backward puritanism.
A person can chew tobacco in public. Chewing tobacco is a 'tobacco product'. The ban on public smoking isn't because cigarettes are 'tobacco products' but because of second hand smoke. E-cigarettes don't produce second hand smoke, no matter how they're 'classified'.
You can see where this line of reasoning you're following fails.
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)E-cigs are officially a tobacco product, after the manufacturers won their lawsuit to have them declared as such.
If it is true that there's nothing in the vapor that's a health risk, why don't the manufacturers submit the data so it can be classified like other nicotine products, such as patches?
By the way, it's not true that the vapor is pure water. Different manufacturers use different formulations, but they all contain elements that could be classified as "irritants." If the amount of those elements is negligible, then they should demonstrate this and get these products reclassified by the FDA.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)I just think it's ridiculous and puritanical.
I don't particularly like the way smoking 'looks' either, along with not liking when people walk around with toothpicks stuck in their mouths and a bunch of other personal pet peeves and minor vexations. I'm not about to try to get laws passed again the things I simply don't like aesthetically or 'morally'. It's stupid and busybodying.
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)At the worst point, I was working in a room (maybe 15 x 25 ft.) with 16 other people, 9 of whom were chain smokers. And three windows provided the only ventilation -- except they were never opened when the heat or air-conditioning was on. Those were the bad old days.
Back then, the common claim was that cigarette smoke was "just an irritant" -- which a lot of people think is a synonym for "annoying." It isn't. For people with asthma, an "irritant" is a substance that can trigger asthma.
Now the manufacturers want us to believe that all that's in the e-cig vapor besides water are innocuous "irritants." Well, let them prove that.
I would think we would have learned enough from Big Tobacco by now to not blindly trust their claims and their research.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/11/4079010/vaporware-why-we-still-dont-know-if-e-cigarettes-are-safe
Actually, the FDA tried to provide a definitive answer in late 2009, when it tested 18 varieties of e-cigarette cartridges from a pair of manufacturers, NJoy and Smoking Everywhere. The study produced mixed results: it found TSNA carcinogens (cancer-causing particles) in five of the cartridges, and traces of diethylene glycol — a highly toxic substance — in one cartridge produced by Smoking Everywhere. Other substances that are thought to be linked to cancer were found in 13 of the cartridges, with only Smoking Everywhere’s "no nicotine" cartridges getting a complete pass. And those "no nicotine" cartridges? All but one contained traces of nicotine.
SNIP
If the FDA’s initial study proved anything, it’s that right now there’s no way regular people can hope to know what’s in their e-cigarettes. While manufacturers and advocacy groups claim e-cigarettes are safe when compared to nicotine-replacement products and (especially when compared to traditional cigarettes), we've heard similar claims from vested interests before, and they should be treated with due skepticism. What's needed is a full and thorough investigation into all of the brands on sale in the US, and consistent rules for future products in this category. Until it does, consumers are left having to assume that e-cigarettes are probably safer than regular smoking, trusting their lungs to vaporish claims of the companies that make them.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)I would much rather be in a room with a a dozen people vaping than one person spitting.
But for some reason spitting tobacco juice in public is perfectly acceptable.
I fail to understand.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Along with spitting on the sidewalk. Uuuugggh.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Is it really necessary?
Yeah .. they DID win that case in court, but that doesn't make it good or just ...
So please ... Stop pimping this corporate legal dodge as some sort of metaphysical truth .... It was all about MONEY, and had nothing to do with the FREEDOM of citizens to pursue something that harms NOBODY ....
I stand with FREE citizens who expect prohibitions to be justified, and not simply a whim of those who fancy themselves experts of anything other than their own passions ...
You stand with ? ... Devious corporate lawyers who found another loophole to exploit ...
Sorry pwnmom, although I normally agree with you in here, this is way off base ...
The truth is: E-Cigs WILL save lives, and is no more dangerous than bad breath.
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)Stop pimping the corporate nicotine sellers, please. Most of them are connected with either Big Tobacco or Chinese manufacturers, neither of which have a safety record we should blindly accept.
I didn't say that the ruling was "good and just." I strongly disagree with it. But they can't have it both ways: on the one hand, insist that their products be classified with tobacco products; but when faced with laws regulating tobacco products, say their devices should be an exception.
If there is good research that proves there is nothing in the vapor that would harm other people, let them prove it. So far, all they want to do is skirt FDA regulation by getting their products classified with tobacco.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)IIt's about US, your fellow citizens who are using this product as a means of saving their own lives ... Without having some "do gooder" try to eradicate this product from the commons based on a whim. without research or a foundation of empirical data that proves the product causes harm to others ... Without a body of data to rely on as evidence of the need to prohibit, then there should be no public prohibition ...
I am smoking one this very moment, and so I am not smoking a real cigarette ... Can you not understand the immediate benefit of this fact?
We will not stand idly by and let's others define this issue without medical science to back them up:
No evidence of harm? ... no prohibition ...
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)to less toxic substances using e-cig than tobacco.
I'm only concerned with the potential risks to second-hand smokers, and so I'm only concerned with bans in public or work spaces.
As I told another poster, I once had to work in a small room with 9 chain smokers. Before I have to work in a room with 9 e-cig smokers, I want the FDA to assure me that there are no health risks. And so far they haven't.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Those who would ban should bear the burden of proof ...
If you can show that a mere preponderance of scientific information points towards public harm from E-Cigs, then I will be on board, as I was for removing real cigarettes from the workplace and restaurants ...
That being said, we do expect everybody to play fair ...
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)that produce an off-gas need to meet all the usual FDA, EPA, and OSHA standards. If they want to slip in via the back door of a tobacco exception, then they need to accept the limitations that other tobacco products are subject to.
The different manufacturers are all using their own ingredients and processes, which are not subject to FDA oversight or even full disclosure because of the tobacco exception. Do you seriously expect the FDA to have to conduct separate research on each and every e-cig product to prove whether they're safe? That should be up to the manufacturers -- and would be, if they hadn't succeeded in getting the tobacco exception.
Why should I have to sit on a plane with 1/3 of the passengers smoking these things? Or sit at a desk surrounded by chain smokers. That's what the norm used to be. Either the e-cig manufacturers need to drop their insistence that e-cigs are a tobacco product and subject themselves to FDA regulation, OR they need to accept the fact that tobacco products are restricted in public settings.
http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/article.aspx?articleid=1187104
Electronic Cigarettes:
No Such Thing as a Free Lunch…or Puff
Mark V. Avdalovic, MD; Susan Murin, MD, FCCP
As practitioners of pulmonary and cardiac medicine, many of us have no doubt been asked by our patients who smoke about so-called “electronic cigarettes” (e-cigarettes). These devices, termed electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) by the World Health Organization, have been available in the US market since 2007. Our patients have likely heard far more about these devices through marketing, chat rooms, and word of mouth, than we as physicians have through the medical literature. Because ENDS are not currently regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as medical devices— recent court decisions, denied the agency the right to such oversight—manufacturers of ENDS have not been required to establish either safety or efficacy, and we have had few data with which to answer our patients’ queries about these products. Are e-cigarettes a smoking cessation tool? Are they a harmless alternative to cigarettes, as manufacturers claim?
jamiea99
(16 posts)They didn't try to skirt FDA regulations. There have been more than 3000 applications to the FDA by companies for modified-risk tobacco harm reduction products. It is the FDA who chooses not to act on these applications.
Further, the reason they didn't want to be regulated as smoking cessation products is that it takes years and millions of dollars for medical clinical trials to prove that THE PRODUCT PROVIDES TOTAL NICOTINE ABSTINENCE. Obviously that is not the purpose of modified-risk tobacco harm reduction products and/or tobacco and smoking alternative products.
Stop pretending you know what you're talking about. You don't.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Secondhand smoke harms others besides the smoker, secondhand water vapor is completely harmless. This proposed law is pure ignorance, and I am saying that who supports most of the other tobacco restrictions.