Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hasn't the time come to outlaw the sale of tobacco products? [View all]madokie
(51,076 posts)20. Here's a link
http://www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/10-chemicals-identified-so-far-e-cig-vapor-are-california-prop-65-list-carcinogens-and-reproductive
10 chemicals identified so far in e-cig vapor that are on the California Prop 65 list of carcinogens and reproductive toxins
Submitted by sglantz on Sat, 2013-07-20 09:25
California's landmark Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, was enacted as a ballot initiative in November 1986. The Proposition was intended by its authors to protect California citizens and the State's drinking water sources from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to such chemicals.
Proposition 65 requires the Governor to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.
Products containing chemicals on the Proposition 65 list are required to carry the following warning in California: "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm."
The following compounds that are on the Proposition 65 list have already been identified in mainstream or secondhand (sidestream) e-cigarette vapor:
Acetaldehyde (MS)
Benzene (SS)
Cadmium (MS)
Formaldehyde (MS,SS)
Isoprene (SS)
Lead (MS)
Nickel (MS)
Nicotine (MS, SS)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS)
Toluene (MS, SS)
As the two papers linked above note, there are other toxic chemicals in the vapor as well as ultrafine particles, that likely have cardiovascular effects.
E-cigarettes do not deliver "pure nicotine" and "harmless water vapor."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
144 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Please cite the statistics showing how many people have become addicted to asbestos.
WillowTree
Feb 2014
#53
Just can't get enough of the banning, can you? We banned one thing, so let's ban some more!
WillowTree
Feb 2014
#143
The fat could counter argue that they have to pay for the knee replacements for the joggers
OmahaBlueDog
Feb 2014
#4
I don't want to ban alcohol, but I'd love to see overservers taken to task
OmahaBlueDog
Feb 2014
#44
I don't want to ban alcohol, but I'd love to see overservers taken to task
OmahaBlueDog
Feb 2014
#45
Smokers' younger deaths improve Social Security's and Medicare's actuarial strength
Recursion
Feb 2014
#70
Add to that that there is now a smoke-free way to fulfill a nicotine addiction
OmahaBlueDog
Feb 2014
#37
Regulations that limit where people can smoke and protect the health of those who don't smoke
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2014
#30
It wouldn't bother me, but it would never be done for economic reasons.
Agnosticsherbet
Feb 2014
#28
Oddly, the Constitution allow the possesion of firearms and the state-controlled sale of alcohol
OmahaBlueDog
Feb 2014
#41
no and if we did it wouldn't work. People would go back to growing their own tobacco
liberal_at_heart
Feb 2014
#33
Nope, it is time to grow up and accept other people's choices with their bodies.
TheKentuckian
Feb 2014
#35
I think you missed the bit where "you are only doing this for the children"
Lost_Count
Feb 2014
#117
And create a black market that would increase organized crime and couldn't be taxed?
TroglodyteScholar
Feb 2014
#107
if you have a dream to make pot legal you damn well better not ban cigs first
dembotoz
Feb 2014
#118
Making smoking socially unacceptable has done a better job than Prohibition ever would
Hekate
Feb 2014
#129
no. i am generally against telling adults what to do with their bodies.
La Lioness Priyanka
Feb 2014
#131