Assembly Considering Legislation to Restrict Use of E-Cigarettes and Smokeless Vaporizer

[antiquie]

CAL Legislative Alert - Oppose Bill To Ban Vaporizers In Non-Smoking Areas (SB 648)

A bill that would ban smokeless e-cigarettes and vaporizers in non-smoking areas will be heard by the California Assembly Governmental Organization Committee on Aug. 14th (SB 648-Corbett). Scientific studies have shown that vaporizers provide valuable "harm reduction" benefits to medical marijuana patients and eliminate second-hand smoking hazards. SB 648 would make it impossible for patients to vaporize in most public or private rental spaces, conference rooms, restaurants, hotels, etc., and would encourage local governments and landlords to include vaporizers in anti-smoking rules covering private apartments and multi-unit dwellings. Tell the legislature that restricting vaporizers is harmful to consumer health.

via email
California NORML
2261 Market St. #278A, San Francisco CA 94114
http://www.canorml.org

[msongs]

1. "vaporize" = force everyone else to inhale byproducts in the name of drug addiction poison

[bunnies]

2. What byproducts would those be?

[snappyturtle]

3. ..................

There is no evidence that vaporizers pose an appreciable second-hand smoking risk to the public. Users are known to vaporize in elevators and crowded rooms without any detectable odor or adverse notice. Bystanders are routinely exposed to worse emissions from kitchens, grills, garden plants, buses, chimneys, detergents, room deodorizers, gas stations, etc.

[antiquie]

4. How so?

I take it you favor the ban.

[nebenaube]

12. as long as you own and operate a motor vehicle...

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from being an asshole when it comes to what other people breath.

[antiquie]

14. Thank you.

Good suggestions are always welcome.
For the record, I have one, but I am not one, how about you?

[msongs]

5. what is sucked in is also blown out. nicotine sucked in is also blown back out. nt

[Sirveri]

8. There is no evidence that vaporizers pose an appreciable second-hand smoking risk to the public.

FROM THE ARTICLE.

If it isn't shown to affect others, it needs to be left alone.

[nebenaube]

13. Your car

Your car spews carbon monoxide, short chain hydrocarbons and asbestos dust.

[antiquie]

15. Pardon?

One of the problems with the legislation we are discussing is the use of vaporizers in private rental spaces. It should not be illegal to take one's medication in a hotel room, for example.

[Politicalboi]

6. But you can own a gun in a rented house or apatment

Even though you jeopardize the neighbors. Or you can be the Kock brothers spewing toxic smoke over an entire city, but you can't vaporize in public. USA! USA! USA!

[louis-t]

7. I'd settle for a ban on those stupid vanilla air fresheners

or the plug-in ones with the little fan. God, those things stink. Someone in my office building plugs one in once in a while and stinks up the whole 3,000 sq ft building.

[antiquie]

11. I would support that

and all the other lab-produced scents.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. What a stupid bit of legislation, counter to the public good and just priggish.

With all the enormous problems California faces, this is what they are doing in Sacramento? Unreal.

[antiquie]

10. Maybe Congress is their model.

Fiddling while Rome burns.