It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

E-cigarettes banned in workplaces in Boston, and city prohibits sales to minors

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   

E-cigarettes banned in workplaces in Boston, and city prohibits sales to minors


www.boston.com

The new Boston regulations require that e-cigarettes be placed behind store counters, like tobacco products, and that they not be sold to anyone under age 18. The workplace ban includes restaurant patios and decks, and loading dock.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
bostonglobe.com



+5 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
In a way I can understand their concern over the few bad chemicals in the vapor, but by no means are there as many as a real cigarette. I also agree to not sell to anyone under 18 as that is just common sense right there.

Now about e-cigs, I know many folk who have successfully quit smoking because of e-cigs. People are more productive because that need for many smoke breaks on the job is lessened. It's not harming anyone and could keep someone from having a nic fit in a movie theater, job, subway, anyplace where normal smoking is not allowed. I mean a LOADING dock???? What harm is an e-cig going to do on a LOADING dock? People are just getting more and more uppity about things which in this case honestly do NOT affect them what so ever.

So the sight of someone holding a 3 inch long tube to their mouth is offensive? Please. It's about time the people start minding their own business. I could see an outrage if it was a real smoke. OF COURSE. I'm a smoker and even I understand that right to not breathe in cig smoke. But come on. Vapor from an e-cig is basically harmless. So i guess we should ban winter now since we breathe out vapor when we exhale.

God forbid.

www.boston.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


+12 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Are they also gonna prohibit wearing strong perfumes because to me it seems they also produce a lot of vapors.

Knowing the gov rats I guess not.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by no special characters
Are they also gonna prohibit wearing strong perfumes because to me it seems they also produce a lot of vapors.

Knowing the gov rats I guess not.


star for that because perfume gives me a headache! seriously!



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I know many people that switched to these in the past year and I am considering making the switch as well. I don't see any reason for them to not be used in workplaces, restaurants, bars etc since.... Get this..... There is no actual "smoke"!!!! The main chemical compounds are: Propylene Glycol (or Vegetable Glycol), Nicotine, some natural flavor or another, and water.

The government is pissed that they aren't going to be able to make another fortune off these things so it's time to declare them "bad". The only thing "bad" is the Nicotine and since that's going in to my body and not anyone else's, who am I hurting other than myself?

They can't get rich so get rid of it. That's the way the US government operates.....

SOURCE



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
I think this is where the US and UK differ... if my memory serves me correctly from the onset the sale of e-liquid to the under-age was illegal (as is the sale of most harmful substances)

However the UK Gov has decided to work with the e-cig industry to define what regulations should be in place (if any) and what products are safe to use.

So much so that it looks like the UK Gov will nudge people into trying them.. as they feel it may save 10s of thousands of lives each year (plus save them £100m).. and as an e-cig user I say Yeay for the UK gov...
(one of the few times in my life I have been able to say that!)


Try smokeless nicotine cigarettes, says government

Cabinet office 'nudge unit' encourages use of product banned in many countries, in bid to reduce smoking-related deaths

www.guardian.co.uk...


edit on 2/12/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
This is ridiculous. E cigs are a life saver and the vape exhaled doesn't harm anyone.

I have been smoking for 15 years and have tried to quit several times with no success. I am only 32 but I started to have short breath and no endurance when doing 2 min of sports and running 300 meters was the most I could do.

Someone started a thread here about e cigs, so I decided to give it a try. It has been two months now and haven't touched a real cig since then. I feel sooooo much better, and my teeth are becoming white again.

This is the best invention ever, and should be supported by the health officials. It would undoubtly save lives.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
I absolutely love mine, but, anyone sees a puff of vapor, or you inhaling, and you're going to get kicked out of wherever you are. I know, i tried it on a train once. I might as well have been caught smocking wacky tabacki
I learned fast. Smoking one is not accepted anywhere i've been.
Although, i may try smoking my pink one at Walmarts. Ya think?



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by sarra1833
 





In a way I can understand their concern over the few bad chemicals in the vapor


I don't understand it at all. Patio's and loading docks banned?

Go stand aside a freeway and let me know how the breathing is there.
Same for the loading dock if there are semi's idling.

I can see in the workplace as to how it could affect your job if you use your hands and around machinery.
edit on 12/2/2011 by mugger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
So they figured out that f they can't find a reason to tax it, they'll fine it. Just a money grab.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
it was only a matter of time till they banned them..

Anything that in any way, shape or form can be fun, relaxing or enjoyable can and will be banned by the damn little hitlers who want to control everyones lives there.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by DJDigitalGem
 


Hit the nail on its head right there.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
After 10 years of smoking, I was beginning to slowly inch past the pack-a-day mark, my former swimmer's lungs would be exhausted after a slight hill or more than 8 stairs, I started to dread long days/weekends with the in-laws (HOW AM I GONNA GO OUT EVERY HOUR AND A HALF??!), and became decreasingly productive at work because I was either mid-nic-fit, or out on break. Admittedly, I was slightly skeptical of the e-cig but had failed on the patch 3 times, and the gum made me sick, and I just wanted to get out of my self created hell...



Yeah. After 3 days, my sense of smell (that I didn't even know was DULLED to hell) came back, I could BREEEATHE, smelled lovely, and had three more hours per day to do better things than sit outside and smoke.

While I know that it is in no way harming anyone around me, I am aware of the way judgy, anal people tend to freak out when they see a cloud emerge from your mouth or nose. I try to be discreet and respectful of those around me, and don't openly flaunt what I'm doing to their face. While I do use it on a plane (flights are so pleasant now... ahhhh), most around me don't see it go to my lips, and I hold it in until there's no vapor when I exhale. I have avoided fits in this way and actually ENJOYED the symphony, airplanes, and car rides with my cancer-survivor mom.

It's funny how people don't mind, notice, or care what's going on until they see it, and then all of a sudden it's bothering them, when they couldn't smell it, see it, hear it before.

I HIGHLY reccommend it to smokers, because I have yet to find a SINGLE negative to the switch. Yeah. Not ONE. (breathes contented sigh) And i recommend the government pull that log out their ass, and get behind something that's actually benefitting their citizens, whether they're getting paid or not. Or freakin jump on the bandwagon and invest, and quit 'yer bitchin'.




posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by godWhisperer
 


Star to both of you as teenies with too much axe body spray gives me a headache.
Seriously though, how can yu ban these E cigs?
I had a buddy who was a janitor at one of the local schools and went to gab with him one night.
I took my new e-cig and right there in the classroom took a puff in front of em.
Boy did he almost crap himself!!

I showed him what it was and explained the vapor just dissipates, heck it woouldn't even set off the smoke detectors.
So, how are they gonna tell, unless someone continually puffs and by some twist of chemistry hotboxes a room.
Will we search folks for these WMD's??



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
I think this is where the US and UK differ... if my memory serves me correctly from the onset the sale of e-liquid to the under-age was illegal (as is the sale of most harmful substances)

However the UK Gov has decided to work with the e-cig industry to define what regulations should be in place (if any) and what products are safe to use.

So much so that it looks like the UK Gov will nudge people into trying them.. as they feel it may save 10s of thousands of lives each year (plus save them £100m).. and as an e-cig user I say Yeay for the UK gov...
(one of the few times in my life I have been able to say that!)


Try smokeless nicotine cigarettes, says government

Cabinet office 'nudge unit' encourages use of product banned in many countries, in bid to reduce smoking-related deaths

www.guardian.co.uk...


edit on 2/12/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



Seriously I had to highlight your entire post. I'm USA but seeing this gave me a slight bit of hope in Governments. Slight. But my gosh. They're actually doing something GOOD for the people? We truly need that in the USA.
That's nice to see, for real.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Well, the vapour does still contain nicotine. Imagine if someone you work with smoked these all the time in the workplace, maybe you would get a significant dose of nicotine, too.

But yeah, e-cigs are much better than conventional cigs on all accounts, and their use among smokers instead of normal cigarettes should be encouraged.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Anyone else think the tobacco lobbiests have anything to do with it?
They are a very powerful force in DC and I don't see how they are going to let the e-cig succeed like it should. They couldn't care less about saving lives and they stand to lose ALOT of cash if this trend continues. Prepare to see alot of mmm hit pieces on the e-cig.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sarra1833
 


As an E-Cig user myself I have been worried which side the UK gov would fall on... worried as my gov is not known for being this supportive and that we would see a ban on all products.. thank fully they seem to be going the other way.

and it does make a world of difference media spin wise when a Gov is not opposed to something.... instead of negativity I get positive responses to my E-Cig and pats of the back for quitting.. which makes such a difference as giving up is hard enough as it is.

There is hope as it'll open the door to some positive studies/research/products which I think will go a long way to supporting you guys in demonstrating E-Cigs are not bad



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neysa
Anyone else think the tobacco lobbiests have anything to do with it?
They are a very powerful force in DC and I don't see how they are going to let the e-cig succeed like it should. They couldn't care less about saving lives and they stand to lose ALOT of cash if this trend continues


See, if they were smart, they would quit pouting in their smoky corner about the money they're going to lose from this burgeoning product, jump on the bandwagon, and invest rather than just try to eliminate them all together. Times change, and businesses have to change with them every now and again. This whole analogy makes me think of why there aren't more electric cars (thanks to oil companies, who haven't thought to just build up a bunch of charging stations) or the cotton industry (who would rather "hippy-ize" the hemp idea), rather than just morphing their business models to fit the evolving needs of society.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
When public smoking bans started throughout the states, the ban was justified by the health effects of second hand smoke on non-smokers. Which made some sense as non smokers prior to the ban were being exposed to a toxin that could damage their health against their will, and even with smoking and non-smoking segregation, the second hand smoke could still drift into non-smoking areas. Although I do believe those laws were a bit over reaching as they prevented business owners from catering to smokers if they wanted (places such a bars etc)

While the health effects of second hand smoke provided justification for smoking bans, it was also clear that a vocal majority who were more intent on their dislike of smoking, smokers or anything that looked like a cigarette, than the health effects used to justify the ban played a roll in the implementation of smoking bans.

That said, I am not surprised to see that although the e-cigarettes do not expose non-smokers to the health effects of inhaling second hand smoke used as justification for the public smoking bans, the hatred of smokers, smoking and anything to do with cigarettes by some have fueled the consideration and acceptance of laws imposing public bans on e-cigarettes. I do though have to wonder if this ban has any justifiable grounds other than people just don't like to see it?

My comments regarding the hatred of smoking as opposed to the health implications are based on my own personal experiences as smoking bans were implemented. I personally have no problem with cigarette smoke one way or another, but I do have a life threatening sensitivity to certain chemical fumes which include paint, adhesives, and even fingernail polish. The company I was working for at the time made their ban of smoking in the workplace a very public issue, touting their concern for the health of their employees. I myself along with some other co-workers who had sensitivities to heavy colognes and hairsprays that impacted their health although to a lesser degree than the severity of what I experience decided to request that the company in keeping with their concern for the health of their employees simply ask their employee's to limit their application of hairsprays, spraying perfumes, and polishing their fingernails preferably to their personal grooming at home in light of the heal effects these elements could have on others. The company refused stating that they felt it was far to over reaching to expect this of their employees. I actually responded to their refusal stating.....but I could actually die as a result of someone polishing their nails at a desk in my vicinity, but this received no response.

A co-worker of mine at the time who fake coughed, waved her hands around and rolled her eyes anytime she was within viewing distance of smoker, and used the health issue as justification for her behavior, was a primary motivation for my request that the company at least ask their employees to limit the above activities, as she had a habit of polishing her nails a couple of times a week at her desk, forcing me to relocate to whatever free workstation could be found sufficiently distant from her desk and my normal workstation to protect myself.

After the company refused any assistance, I took it upon myself to request that she not polish her nails around me, and explained to her just how drastic the fumes could effect me, (This is so severe that I had Dr Certification of this, had a reasonable accommodation in place at my apartment complex, and attempted to work with my employer to design reasonable measures to protect my health). For all her theatrics in view of smokers, she responded to my request with a firm NO, it was her right to polish her nails as the company didn't ban this at work, that my request was ridiculous and that I was exaggerating my sensitivity to the fumes since she had never heard of anyone having a problem with fingernail polish! I was taken from work by ambulance to the hospital twice due to her fingernail polish and she couldn't have cared less.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join