General Discussion

beevul

(12,194 posts)

232. No.

Fri May 24, 2013, 03:05 AM

May 2013

We already restrict some tobacco products in public places based on studied well established "harm to others" parameters.

While these may be classified as "tobacco products", those harm parameters have not been proven by the proposers of a ban.

Hence, no scientific justification for modification of public policy, like there is with those other "tobacco products".

I don't doubt they can be "legally banned", however, if its done, it will be with contrived justification, because no such scientific justification like what is established with those other tobacco products which are restricted in public places, exists.

Get it? You want a ban in public places, without scientific justification for it. That's a fact.

If we start getting our nicotine in our e-cigs from tomato plants, or that shrub in Australia with 6 times the nicotine content of a tobacco plant, we can call it "non-tobacco-nicotine" and then it wont be a tobacco product right?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

386 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do smoking bans apply to e-cigarettes? [View all] The Straight Story May 2013 OP

I don't know, don't even know if it should... Chan790 May 2013 #1

Nicotine is not the agent in cigarettes that causes health problems. Doremus May 2013 #160

Hooray for you. It is not easy to quit smoking. iemitsu May 2013 #328

Gratz! beevul May 2013 #332

There is no rationale for bannage from a scientific viewpoint Trajan May 2013 #2

They don't seem to emit any noxious smoke or odor BainsBane May 2013 #20

The manufacturers sued to have them classified as tobacco products, pnwmom May 2013 #26

we have had this discussion before ... Trajan May 2013 #34

They are beneficial for smokers. But not for second-hand smokers, who are also human. pnwmom May 2013 #36

Exposure to what? Luminous Animal May 2013 #40

To chemicals in the vapor, which is not pure H2O. pnwmom May 2013 #41

Smoking bans don't generally apply to tobacco products Mariana May 2013 #44

They produce a vapor that is not pure H2O. pnwmom May 2013 #46

But they don't emit smoke Mariana May 2013 #61

You are going to die from bad breath nebenaube May 2013 #64

Not even secondhand smoke. It's vapor. Mariana May 2013 #67

Vapor gets into the lungs, and this vapor has not been studied with research pnwmom May 2013 #118

Yes, it has, by the New Zealand Department of Health jberryhill May 2013 #251

Any company which wants to get FDA approval needs to conduct their own research pnwmom May 2013 #257

Only if its classified as a drug or drug devise. N/T Tyhanna May 2013 #267

Right -- if they DON'T want it to be classified as a tobacco product. pnwmom May 2013 #269

So does hot coffee. N/T beevul May 2013 #74

and cars... but people "need" cars... ScreamingMeemie May 2013 #313

Wrong... opiate69 May 2013 #45

They are in a special category of regulation that allows them to escape pnwmom May 2013 #167

Nice backpedal Floyd_Gondolli May 2013 #242

It's what I've been saying all along but you apparently can't read. nt pnwmom May 2013 #245

I can read fine Floyd_Gondolli May 2013 #246

Not where I work. NaturalHigh May 2013 #3

Smoking bans should apply to ........... smoke DJ13 May 2013 #4

What YOU said. . . n/t annabanana May 2013 #5

Right on. SirRevolutionary May 2013 #9

I don't want to be around either. Use them at home. n-t Logical May 2013 #11

Can you explain why? bighart May 2013 #15

Not logically. Luminous Animal May 2013 #19

For my part, I dislike them only slightly less than cigarettes bhikkhu May 2013 #37

So you are against alcohol being drunk in public. After all.. Luminous Animal May 2013 #43

Nicotine is the cause of heart disease bhikkhu May 2013 #66

Not lack of exercise or poor diet, just nicotine? tridim May 2013 #137

nicotine level unrelated to risk jbond56 May 2013 #211

You don't have to go al the way back to 1983 bhikkhu May 2013 #238

okay jamiea99 May 2013 #370

No increased risk compared to what behavior? bhikkhu May 2013 #375

not true Tyhanna Jun 2013 #378

very misleading jamiea99 May 2013 #367

Many e-cig users use liquids with zero nicotine. Mariana May 2013 #49

If that's so then I wouldn't have any issue with it bhikkhu May 2013 #68

It is so. Mariana May 2013 #71

LOL La Lioness Priyanka May 2013 #53

Have you ever watched a person die from heart disease? bhikkhu May 2013 #70

yes and clearly judging addicts to the degree you do, is the very BEST La Lioness Priyanka May 2013 #138

Well let's just legislate everything that ohheckyeah May 2013 #76

I agree ryan_cats May 2013 #142

AFAIK, nicotine is about as harmful as caffeine. RedCappedBandit May 2013 #181

I don't know how harmful caffeine is bhikkhu May 2013 #189

And the FDA limits caffeine levels. pnwmom May 2013 #288

Should coffee be banned from public use as well? RedCappedBandit May 2013 #176

Why, has it killed anyone? bhikkhu May 2013 #190

It's on par with nicotine, from what I've read. RedCappedBandit May 2013 #191

Studies, research, links? bhikkhu May 2013 #192

I'm finding quite a few sources going either way. RedCappedBandit May 2013 #193

Good points, and "addict" is unfair as a derogatory remark bhikkhu May 2013 #199

I've actually quit both cigarettes and caffeine.. RedCappedBandit May 2013 #204

They don't have any TAR... Spitfire of ATJ May 2013 #212

Nicotine has the same health risk as caffeine Alan Selk Jul 2013 #383

seriously? NRaleighLiberal Jul 2013 #384

Its not a matter of opinion bhikkhu Jul 2013 #385

And your opinion of addiction is........ Alan Selk Jul 2013 #386

Oh good grief.... ohheckyeah May 2013 #25

The vapor isn't pure H2O. The manufacturers refuse to do the research pnwmom May 2013 #39

Do you even know what is used besides water? ohheckyeah May 2013 #77

It is a lung irritant when vaporized, and people with asthma pnwmom May 2013 #111

just a side note energumen May 2013 #139

An asthma inhaler doesn't HEAT propylene glycol, producing formaldehyde. pnwmom May 2013 #147

Uhh, the vapor is mostly not h20 at all. beevul May 2013 #78

Propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin!!!!!! ohheckyeah May 2013 #83

I know, right? LOL N/T beevul May 2013 #88

It just makes me weary. ohheckyeah May 2013 #90

it is a confirmation of sorts, to me, of that which I already know too well. beevul May 2013 #94

Which, when heated, forms formaldehyde -- not an innocuous substance. pnwmom May 2013 #188

My workplace treats them like cigs sweetloukillbot May 2013 #6

You'd Probably Not Even Know When Someone Is Vaping... KharmaTrain May 2013 #7

"Vaping?" nt Deep13 May 2013 #59

What "Smoking" An Electronic Cigarette Is Called... KharmaTrain May 2013 #69

And pot smokers are called "vipers," owing to the hissing... Eleanors38 May 2013 #98

That's Already Happened... KharmaTrain May 2013 #113

The politics of stigmatization. A good topic for discussion... Eleanors38 May 2013 #131

I have been on them for over two years. Have vaped at work regularly and on planes, trains, and in Malikshah May 2013 #180

Sadly, yes. The anti-smoker warriors want to ban the very idea of smoking SirRevolutionary May 2013 #8

So are you for or against? Iggo May 2013 #14

Against an ecig ban? I'm against it. SirRevolutionary May 2013 #18

yes because they blow out nictotine which poisons the non-drug addicts in the room nt msongs May 2013 #10

LOL that's not the justification for smoking bans. FAIL. nt DevonRex May 2013 #12

Untrue. Occulus May 2013 #153

You show up every e-cig thread Capt. Obvious May 2013 #248

Why do you spout this lie every time this discussion comes up? TransitJohn May 2013 #301

I'm curious as to how much nicotine the "smoker" exhales customerserviceguy May 2013 #13

Smoking bans aren't due to nicotine exhalation. It's the DevonRex May 2013 #22

The vapor from e-cigs can carry contaminants into the lungs just as smoke can. pnwmom May 2013 #256

My lab tested this, though we haven't published it yet. politicat May 2013 #24

Any idea when this will be published? beevul May 2013 #82

Best bet is late next year. politicat May 2013 #148

Thanks customerserviceguy May 2013 #136

Please do let us know when it is published LadyHawkAZ May 2013 #262

Oh, hell. Yippee. Another battle. politicat May 2013 #16

I call mine a vaporizer, if someone asks. Mariana May 2013 #55

They shouldn't but I'm sure the smoke nazis will get their way. MrSlayer May 2013 #17

The manufacturers SUED to have them classified with tobacco products pnwmom May 2013 #27

The patch is sold almost everywhere,as is the gum. virgogal May 2013 #30

Yes, and the patches are subject to FDA rules, pnwmom May 2013 #33

I just think it's stupid to ban a harmless product. MrSlayer May 2013 #32

Since the research hasn't been done to show what's in the vapor pnwmom May 2013 #35

It seems self-evident. MrSlayer May 2013 #38

What could be in the vapor? ohheckyeah May 2013 #79

Stay Clear Of Restaurants Then... KharmaTrain May 2013 #108

They sued because they did not want to be a smoking cessation product. jeff47 May 2013 #89

AND because they didn't want to have to provide the safety research pnwmom May 2013 #92

Its important to note... beevul May 2013 #194

If they WANTED to provide the safety research pnwmom May 2013 #247

Except time. beevul May 2013 #263

The lawsuit was four years ago, and the products were already in existence then for years. pnwmom May 2013 #266

Once again, you show everyone whos reading that you know nothing... beevul May 2013 #333

You are demonstrating your ignorance of the difference between measuring pnwmom May 2013 #341

can you say Tyhanna May 2013 #344

It isn't that "nobody wants to look at these studies." pnwmom May 2013 #347

I already linked you one. beevul May 2013 #346

Why don't you or someone else send it to the FDA? pnwmom May 2013 #348

LOL@"multi-billion dollar industry". beevul May 2013 #352

How do you know? Tyhanna May 2013 #353

no doubt you are correct jamiea99 May 2013 #371

"...they're regulated." With "second-hand smoking" laws? Explain. Eleanors38 May 2013 #102

No -- nicotine patches are regulated by the FDA pnwmom May 2013 #105

No. Current law regarding use is through secondhand smoke. Eleanors38 May 2013 #135

kind of but not quite jamiea99 May 2013 #372

it was illegally confiscated Tyhanna Jun 2013 #381

Second time Floyd_Gondolli May 2013 #243

I hope not, since I just switched over two weeks ago.. opiate69 May 2013 #21

The insurance company is correct. They are legally classified as tobacco products pnwmom May 2013 #29

they make cartomizers for thc delivery now.. frylock May 2013 #23

e-doobies! Buns_of_Fire May 2013 #132

I can't imagine how they could justify banning them. It was second hand smoke that virgogal May 2013 #28

They classify themselves as tobacco products in order to avoid pnwmom May 2013 #31

i think they are regulated by the FDA Boom Sound 416 May 2013 #42

Tobacco products are not regulated by the FDA??? opiate69 May 2013 #56

If they were regulated the same as other products, they would be off the market. pnwmom May 2013 #60

I know I'm right. And you have been consistently wrong in this discussion. opiate69 May 2013 #63

Congratulations, Opiate!!! Mariana May 2013 #75

Thanks, Mariana! And yep ... it feels awesome! opiate69 May 2013 #150

good luck Boom Sound 416 May 2013 #84

Vapor can also be inhaled by non-smokers. pnwmom May 2013 #47

So we ban stuff that is not proven harmless? Quite a leap, there. Eleanors38 May 2013 #104

We are justified in banning public smoking of e-cigarettes pnwmom May 2013 #106

Yours is a declaration of danger until proven otherwise, Eleanors38 May 2013 #134

So I suppose you're also against the Environmental Protection Agency pnwmom May 2013 #156

No. The EPA makes its case on pollutants, THEN proceeds to regulate. Eleanors38 May 2013 #171

The EPA has already made the case on formaldehyde, for example, pnwmom May 2013 #172

Yeah...stuff from 09 when the industry was in its infancy...thats what I thought. beevul May 2013 #196

Nothing important has changed since 2009 except they've sold millions pnwmom May 2013 #202

And with a single post, you lose what illusion of credibility you had. beevul May 2013 #205

You've consistently refused to produce any links to any research pnwmom May 2013 #207

Uh huh. beevul May 2013 #216

Bully for you! I'm glad you found a safer product for your own use. pnwmom May 2013 #217

LOL. beevul May 2013 #220

No, the onus is not on me because it's already classified, by the manufacturer's choice, pnwmom May 2013 #222

ROFL. beevul May 2013 #227

ROFL. We ALREADY restrict tobacco products in public spaces. pnwmom May 2013 #229

No. beevul May 2013 #232

Not all Tyhanna May 2013 #284

From your own county ordinance: bighart May 2013 #240

The use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited in public and work places. pnwmom May 2013 #289

not in all places in the US Tyhanna May 2013 #292

True. We were out in front banning regular cigarettes in public and work spaces here pnwmom May 2013 #294

uggg Tyhanna May 2013 #298

It IS up to the FDA to approve them because the FDA regulates anything containing NICOTINE. pnwmom May 2013 #309

you still dont get that Tyhanna May 2013 #312

I wouldn't trust the regulatory agencies either. iemitsu May 2013 #339

I have no problem with vapers as long as they keep their vapors away from me. pnwmom May 2013 #340

Reading your county ordinance if I were to vape in a bar that were leased bighart May 2013 #365

wow from 2009 Tyhanna May 2013 #335

so you believe that gasp is truthful? Tyhanna May 2013 #338

You don't "smoke" an e-cigarette Cal Carpenter May 2013 #155

Whether the contaminants come in smoke or vapor is not important. pnwmom May 2013 #157

It is extremely important in the context Mariana May 2013 #158

No, because any ban can be written as simply as the one I posted above. pnwmom May 2013 #162

Why do you continue to lie, when your assertions have been proven wrong? opiate69 May 2013 #163

They supported the lawsuit of the manufacturer who sued the FDA pnwmom May 2013 #164

Still wrong... opiate69 May 2013 #168

No, I already posted the link so I'm not going to do it again, pnwmom May 2013 #169

Bans can be written that way, but most of them haven't been. Mariana May 2013 #179

Many of them apply to smoke and vapors. NJ for example. pnwmom May 2013 #183

where there is no fire there is no smoke, so hence you cant smoke something that doesnt smoke. Tyhanna May 2013 #305

E-Cigs take state cig tax revenue away. They dont like them ErikJ May 2013 #48

Why should they? They sued to be classified as tobacco products, pnwmom May 2013 #107

OMG. Tax the rich not the e-cigs! ErikJ May 2013 #109

But they aren't cigarettes Mariana May 2013 #116

They are legally now classified as tobacco products pnwmom May 2013 #117

Certainly they can be taxed. Mariana May 2013 #119

Many smoking bans DO apply to e-cigarettes. pnwmom May 2013 #120

Sure they do. Mariana May 2013 #123

Washington was one of the first states to have public smoking bans. pnwmom May 2013 #126

See, you have it backwards. beevul May 2013 #195

No, you do. Nicotine is already a regulated drug. That's been the case for decades. pnwmom May 2013 #307

you just dont get it Tyhanna May 2013 #311

I'm not questioning the legal power... beevul May 2013 #319

Nothing but " hokey biased justification" for selling these products has been offered up so far. pnwmom May 2013 #320

And here again, is the difference. beevul May 2013 #323

I'm not a libertarian, I'm a Democrat and a progressive. pnwmom May 2013 #326

interesting you think this... Tyhanna May 2013 #330

What the fuck does libertarian Democrat or progressive have to do with it? beevul May 2013 #331

how many times do I have to say this Tyhanna May 2013 #324

Every time someone posts a thread related to e-cigs Mariana May 2013 #336

You're right. beevul May 2013 #337

Thanks! Tyhanna May 2013 #345

FDA cant do that Tyhanna May 2013 #325

I really want to see someone challenge the legality of such laws. bighart May 2013 #144

Since the manufacturers have failed to provide safety data to the FDA pnwmom May 2013 #146

When "smoking" is legally defined as: bighart May 2013 #152

It all depends on how the ban is worded. No one has objected to it in my state. pnwmom May 2013 #165

smokeless tobacco is also tobacco products to Tyhanna May 2013 #306

Researchers at the University of California say they pose health risks. pnwmom May 2013 #50

In CA they label Ambulances as health risks The Straight Story May 2013 #51

Even Keyboards cause cancer: The Straight Story May 2013 #52

These researchers are pointing out that there are design flaws in the products pnwmom May 2013 #57

Are they worse than cars? The Straight Story May 2013 #62

LOL! Allow nicotine to "leak into the environment!" OMG! What, like a nuclear reactor leak? DevonRex May 2013 #65

I haven't switched the argument. This product is different. pnwmom May 2013 #72

For smokers they simply have to be safer than cigarettes. As far as secondhand DevonRex May 2013 #73

Formaldehyde is a carcinogen, and it has been found in the vapor pnwmom May 2013 #93

Who tested e-cigs vapor and found formaldehyde? ohheckyeah May 2013 #80

This pro-e cigarette researcher explains it. pnwmom May 2013 #100

Ahh yes, that study... beevul May 2013 #124

Yes, they're lower than cigarette smoke. That's great for the smoker pnwmom May 2013 #125

Like I said, two different standpoints. beevul May 2013 #130

Dont think you read this link at all. Tyhanna May 2013 #274

I read the whole thing and you're not understanding my point at all. pnwmom May 2013 #291

how many studies do you want done? Tyhanna May 2013 #293

I want whatever studies need to be done to comply with FDA regulations pnwmom May 2013 #295

what regulations?? Tyhanna May 2013 #299

Formaldehyde? Cite it. beevul May 2013 #87

The manufacturers are refusing to do the testing, pnwmom May 2013 #97

You keep saying that, and continue not to substantiate it. beevul May 2013 #110

No e-cigarette manufacturer has applied to the FDA for approval. pnwmom May 2013 #112

My that must have been heavy.... beevul May 2013 #114

The real question is which one of them has done the testing? pnwmom May 2013 #115

No. The real questions are... beevul May 2013 #121

My agenda is that I don't want to be exposed to your vaporized chemicals. pnwmom May 2013 #122

We proceed from two different standpoints. beevul May 2013 #129

See post 100 above. pnwmom May 2013 #101

I fill my own cartridges and LOL at how little juice I use in a day. tridim May 2013 #141

I think some of them just can't stand the idea Mariana May 2013 #145

you might want to read this before getting all scared Tyhanna May 2013 #315

This has been a big question. Lady Freedom Returns May 2013 #54

Depends on the wording of the statute. Deep13 May 2013 #58

Electric cigs don't produce smoke so they aren't ohheckyeah May 2013 #81

Exactly. Mariana May 2013 #85

Truly. ohheckyeah May 2013 #86

They're catering to the idiocy of some passengers Mariana May 2013 #96

So, not combusted, ergo, not smoke. Gotcha. nt Deep13 May 2013 #95

Vapor also gets into lungs and can also contain formaldehyde and other pnwmom May 2013 #127

Didn't say it was harmless. ... Deep13 May 2013 #151

Legally, there is no significant difference between "smoke" and "vapor." pnwmom May 2013 #290

wow just wow Tyhanna May 2013 #296

E-cigarettes HEAT chemicals and can produce formaldehyde and other toxins. pnwmom May 2013 #297

with asthma don't live in a big city then Tyhanna May 2013 #300

As you say, there is no place where an asthmatic person can live pnwmom May 2013 #310

hum Tyhanna May 2013 #314

very low trace quanitys of formaldehyde Tyhanna May 2013 #303

no formaldehyde was found Tyhanna May 2013 #308

The difference is the combustion. nt Deep13 May 2013 #317

So does carpet jberryhill May 2013 #252

True. But carpet doesn't have supporters claiming it will help stop smoking. n/t pnwmom May 2013 #255

No, but they're vaporizing formaldehyde and other substances pnwmom May 2013 #103

Can you explain why the nicotine inhalers which have been approved Live and Learn May 2013 #342

Of the e-cigs that have been studied, pnwmom May 2013 #350

you do realize.. Tyhanna May 2013 #354

You cannot prove that because no data has been submitted to the FDA showing that pnwmom May 2013 #358

around and around we go Tyhanna May 2013 #359

So, if ecigs were "researched" and given approval Live and Learn May 2013 #361

Just chuckles. beevul May 2013 #91

I would ban them. They are teaching kids it's okay to smoke graham4anything May 2013 #99

you would ban something that may help people quit smoking La Lioness Priyanka May 2013 #140

I quit smoking in 1983 from one minute to the next. Just do it. graham4anything May 2013 #143

Cool story bro. NutmegYankee May 2013 #166

yes, because you are the only person in the world whose experience matters La Lioness Priyanka May 2013 #173

This may not have ocured to you, but... beevul May 2013 #197

Only about 5% of smokers Tyhanna May 2013 #283

You left out genes. Research has shown that Live and Learn May 2013 #343

Perhaps, but have you ever tried to light up a carrot? Buns_of_Fire May 2013 #187

no its up to parents to teach their kids not to smoke and why not to n/t Tyhanna May 2013 #285

This is why I dip Recursion May 2013 #128

Not necessarily.... MADem May 2013 #133

And gross. n-t Logical May 2013 #177

Should be. I don't want to breathe in exhaled nicotine. cbdo2007 May 2013 #149

Well...try this (thought experiment only) and let me know what ya think The Straight Story May 2013 #154

That's great....but it's a different issue. cbdo2007 May 2013 #159

The core issue though is The Straight Story May 2013 #182

+1 nt Live and Learn May 2013 #360

I totally agree.. Tyhanna May 2013 #362

I don't want to breathe the Hydrogen, carbonyl sulphide, and hydrogen sulphide from it!!! yawnmaster May 2013 #161

Shouldn't. "Smoke" from e-cigs is little more than water vapor. backscatter712 May 2013 #170

just a few days ago the economist wrote an article about this La Lioness Priyanka May 2013 #174

People who are really opposed to smoking Mariana May 2013 #184

There's no research out there that shows these products are helping people quit. pnwmom May 2013 #186

Is the only thing that will satisfy you research? beevul May 2013 #198

Even the manufacturers are not claiming that millions of people have quit pnwmom May 2013 #200

Do you know why they aren't? beevul May 2013 #201

Oh really? College students can't use these products? pnwmom May 2013 #203

Try to follow along, it isn't that hard. beevul May 2013 #206

Your vaping community is anecdotal evidence that does absolutely nothing pnwmom May 2013 #208

Read your own cite, and stop projecting obtuseness onto others. beevul May 2013 #209

The e-cig manufacturers got EXACTLY the court ruling that they sought. pnwmom May 2013 #214

Really? Studies? Tyhanna May 2013 #219

These companies are making LOTS of money. Their products aren't exactly cheap. pnwmom May 2013 #221

Who are these companies you speak of??? Tyhanna May 2013 #235

Welcome To DU... KharmaTrain May 2013 #237

You are perfectly right that they don't have to submit research pnwmom May 2013 #241

I have noticed e cigs being advertised on TV, something you can't do bighart May 2013 #366

Not a smoking cessation product Tyhanna May 2013 #213

You picked the wrong person to try that out on. pnwmom May 2013 #215

not sure what your looking for... Tyhanna May 2013 #223

What I'm looking for are the usual safety and effectiveness studies that companies pnwmom May 2013 #225

Its not classified as a drug delivery system... Tyhanna May 2013 #233

I have said over and over that they are classified as a tobacco product pnwmom May 2013 #244

Just because they are doesnt mean its right Tyhanna May 2013 #258

Thank you so much for such an informative and truegrit44 May 2013 #261

Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin May 2013 #239

Is there nicotine in the exhaled vapor, and is it harmful? RedCappedBandit May 2013 #175

The manufacturers have not done the research to show what is in the vapor, pnwmom May 2013 #218

Research on air quality around vapers has. RESEARCH HERE! beevul May 2013 #224

Great. An actual study. So they should submit this and other required data pnwmom May 2013 #226

Things don't need a reason to be allowed in public. beevul May 2013 #230

Wrong. We have clean air laws that form the basis of the public bans. pnwmom May 2013 #231

Good grief. beevul May 2013 #234

No one's filed suit against these laws because a good attorney pnwmom May 2013 #236

No lol. beevul May 2013 #264

I posted what their OWN attorney said in the lawsuit: these devices are inherently dangerous. pnwmom May 2013 #265

NO link? of proof that this was said Id like to see this. Tyhanna May 2013 #268

I gave the link here at least twice but I'm not going to search for you. pnwmom May 2013 #270

Wrong! Tyhanna May 2013 #275

Of course it's regulated. Just because the products are sold over the counter pnwmom May 2013 #286

Any adult can Tyhanna May 2013 #302

Yes, any adult can buy nicotine -- but the SELLING of nicotine products is FDA regulated. pnwmom May 2013 #318

Nico-water Tyhanna May 2013 #322

I haven't said nicotine is "illegal" -- I've said that it is regulated. And that's a fact. n/t pnwmom May 2013 #327

NJGASP. Now theres an objective source. beevul May 2013 #321

That person quoted is the attorney for the e-cig manufacturers, pnwmom May 2013 #329

obsessive posting is unhealthy jamiea99 May 2013 #368

still havent found that link you said you put up. Tyhanna May 2013 #304

You keep saying that. Have you ever heard of google? It took me about 5 seconds. pnwmom May 2013 #374

read that again Tyhanna Jun 2013 #377

If it was "old news" why did you act as if you'd never heard of such a thing? pnwmom Jun 2013 #379

What difference does it make to you? You are a non-smoker Tyhanna Jun 2013 #380

just because.. Tyhanna Jun 2013 #382

you should read this Tyhanna May 2013 #316

A study ...... Tyhanna May 2013 #228

Chewing tobacco HockeyMom May 2013 #178

LOL. i do wonder how many people do every other thing that takes one to be healthy La Lioness Priyanka May 2013 #185

People are mostly using them to quit. I say, let them be everywhere. Spitfire of ATJ May 2013 #210

As I said upthread Mariana May 2013 #249

I come from a generation that saw EVERYONE smoking.... Spitfire of ATJ May 2013 #250

What kills me is the animosity toward Mariana May 2013 #253

"What kind of person tries to discourage someone from quitting?" Spitfire of ATJ May 2013 #254

yes, they are a minority jamiea99 May 2013 #369

Yup gulliver May 2013 #349

I checked and it looks like it's cheaper than regular smokes too. Spitfire of ATJ May 2013 #356

I alerted a conductor on a train the other day of a guy trying to hide his. onehandle May 2013 #259

That guy was an asshole. Mariana May 2013 #260

I've also found discretion to be important. Buns_of_Fire May 2013 #273

My rig is black, too. Mariana May 2013 #276

Mine don't look anything like cigarettes union_maid May 2013 #279

It would be better for everyone Mariana May 2013 #281

You ought to see the looks I get with this... beevul May 2013 #334

Put it out? There is no fire or smoke how could you put it out? Tyhanna May 2013 #271

There are people who hate smokers so much Mariana May 2013 #277

Please include ordering information when advertising. nt onehandle May 2013 #278

Not sure what you mean there.. Tyhanna May 2013 #282

No one is condemning them, just use there where you used to smoke! Just... Logical May 2013 #351

we dont want to be around smokers Tyhanna May 2013 #355

For some people, it's about punishing smokers. Mariana May 2013 #357

Well, hopefully you will continue to need to stay away from non-smokers. n-t Logical May 2013 #363

why ? Tyhanna May 2013 #364

I think the locality has to specify union_maid May 2013 #272

That's true. My state defines smoking Mariana May 2013 #280

Right, it is false union_maid May 2013 #287

i wish that were the case jamiea99 May 2013 #373

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #376