Do smoking bans apply to e-cigarettes?

[beevul]

129. We proceed from two different standpoints.

"I'm old enough to remember when cigarettes were marketed as a healthy product. Now they're trying the same thing with e-cigarettes."

Says you.

"But they have not done the research to show that their product doesn't harm non-smokers and they have avoided going to the FDA for approval."

I proceed from the standpoint, that if you want to modify my behavior, or that of anyone else based on the idea that you will be harmed otherwise, then you need to prove that harm will be done to you.

You need to justify restriction, I do not need to justify lack of one.

The burden is on you, as it should be. That's how things work in a free society where all things are allowed except that which is forbidden via due process which hopefully, is based on fact, rather than suspicion, bias, and distain. I also proceed from the standpoint, that if it doesn't effect you any more than any of the other things you choose to be exposed to in your daily life, like cooking dinner over a gas range or a host of other things, that its simply none of your business, regardless of whether you like it or not.


And heres where I get the "suspicion and bias" from:

"they have avoided"

Not "they have not", but "they have avoided". You make it sound like they're hiding. knowing a bit about the industry, how it works, and whats going on within it, ...well, lets just say your choice of words does not accurately describe the state of things.

You are trying to paint a picture here, or at the very least, you sure look like you are. I get a very distinct "I don't like it, and I'm searching for justification to loudly oppose it without looking like I oppose it because I don't like it" vibe from you. And I would bet a pile of gold that I'm not alone in that.

And see this:

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728




Context: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have earned considerable attention recently as an alternative to smoking tobacco, but uncertainties about their impact on health and indoor air quality have resulted in proposals for bans on indoor e-cigarette use.

Objective: To assess potential health impacts relating to the use of e-cigarettes, a series of studies were conducted using e-cigarettes and standard tobacco cigarettes.

Methods and materials: Four different high nicotine e-liquids were vaporized in two sets of experiments by generic 2-piece e-cigarettes to collect emissions and assess indoor air concentrations of common tobacco smoke by products. Tobacco cigarette smoke tests were conducted for comparison.

Results: Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. From these results, risk analyses were conducted based on dilution into a 40 m3 room and standard toxicological data. Non-cancer risk analysis revealed “No Significant Risk” of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids (A-D). In contrast, for tobacco smoke most findings markedly exceeded risk limits indicating a condition of “Significant Risk” of harm to human health. With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor sample from e-liquids A-D exceeded the risk limit for either children or adults. The tobacco smoke sample approached the risk limits for adult exposure.

Conclusions: For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.



http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728