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: 6
19
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


All I have to say is bravo for a well thought out post. It is very true: would people prefer a cigarette with thousands of chemicals - or an ecig that has NO chems, as much nicotine to zero nicotine as personal preference, and is something you could do in front of anyone anywhere and no one would even notice?

Sadly some folk you just can't bother talking with. I"m sure it's the word 'cig' in E-cig that turns them catty and stuff. Ridiculous.

Kind of like how you say 'POLITICS' and here come the roaring masses. A shame how a single word can breed such hostility.
So, 3000 chems being exhaled or something the equivalent to a humidifier with a touch of nicotine which isn't being exhaled too much anyway for going into the blood? derp Not that hard to figure out. Safe or not safe? I think I'd choose safe and be SO happy that smokers want to QUIT.




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Obedient workers are only allowed to take speed (caffeine) or ultra-downers (alcohol). Anything else, and you're no longer a productive cog in the oiled machine.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I don't eat any of those foods.

It's not even a diet.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


The thing is. If Tobacco Companies and the Goverments got thier hands on E-Cigs, will they go the same way as cigerettes? Being horrendously overpriced and full of poisons.

The same with Big Pharma, would they want to make an honest buck. Or would they makesure that the Vapor is horrendously overpriced and full of poisons?

The reason i say this, is because the Goverments know full well what goes into cigerettes, yet they still allow them to trade because the receive so much tax from them.

So what's to stop the Tobacco companies and Big Pharma (if they got in on the act) doing the same with the E-Cig?


edit on 9-12-2011 by skitzspiricy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sarra1833
 

Thanks sarra.

We tend to use the term 'Mod' when referring to 'E-Cigs' these days.

I think the term E-Cigs remains because many people are still unaware they exist (i only found them 7 months ago, but they've been around for years), and it's descriptive for them.

I am against the mods that are 'cig-a-likes', that is, they are designed to look like an analogue cigarette...because they cause people, both smokers and non smokers to associate mods with cigarettes, which apart from nicotine delivery (the same as patches and nicotine inhalation products) have absolutely nothing else in common with.

It's detrimental to link the two delivery methods tbh...one kills you and helps to injure those around you, the other doesn't.

'Vaping device' or 'Mod' (or even E-Mod) is a much better term to use, and the majority of the mods available look NOTHING like an analogue cigarette.

Cheers for a great thread.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by skitzspiricy
reply to post by spikey
 


The thing is. If Tobacco Companies and the Goverments got thier hands on E-Cigs, will they go the same way as cigerettes? Being horrendously overpriced and full of poisons.

The same with Big Pharma, would they want to make an honest buck. Or would they makesure that the Vapor is horrendously overpriced and full of poisons?


Poisons would be out, for governments and tobacco companies and Pharma to adulterate E-Liquid with harmful chemicals, where none currently exist in the product would be a criminal offense. They would be shown to be deliberately trying to harm their customers and people, and it would be easily provable they were doing so.

E-Liquid is a very simple product. It contains only two or three ingredients, generally speaking these are either VG (Vegetable Glycerin /Glycerol) or PG (propylene Glycol) and food flavourings.

VG and PG make the bulk of the liquid, both of which are proven harmless to human health and are ubiquitous in modern society. These things are main ingredients of products ranging from shampoos, toothpastes, face creams, moisturizers, hand gels, candy (sweeties), fog machines at concerts and show, childrens toys and too many more to list. Because VG and PG are everywhere, extensive safety testing has been done over many years, and countless studies performed...the result is no damage to human health, animal health or the environment.

Governments would earn in tax revenues for sales, that alone would expand their coffers substantially, much more so than they earn from Pharma corporation taxes from the sale of 'give up smoking' products.

When looked at in the round, Governments would save money on health care, on lost work days, on controlling the obesity epidemic currently sweeping the Western world, and in many other associated areas.

I'd hazard a guess that they'd make more money (with the savings and taxes) that they currently make from taxing tobacco in the form of cigarettes.

Tobacco corporations would also make more money, they already own the tobacco plantations and factories, they would have much less processing and manufacturing involved in producing E-Liquid, so much less costs, no payout or lawsuits, the list goes on.

Pharma turning an honest buck is a novel idea in my mind, but one that would be an earner for them if they got in on the act soon. At the moment, over 80% of the worlds E-Liquid is manufactured in China, and they are making an absolute fortune selling it...if our countries Pharma corps decided to do the right thing and start producing E-Liquid and promoting it, the Western markets could be worth Billions to them (and a large amount to government in taxes)

Whether they want to do the right thing or not is another story though...at the moment it looks like they are lobbying hard to remove competition to their own nicotine delivery methods, even though they are proven to be terribly ineffective and very costly in terms of costs to government and health services, and ultimately to human life because they generally don't work as a satisfactory replacement to tobacco, and people return to the poisonous cigarettes, which help to kill and injure them.



edit on 9/12/2011 by spikey because: Added info



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

FASCINATING FACTS ABOUT ALBERT EINSTEIN...


Did Einstein smoke?
He smoked cigar and pipe despite his wife Elsa and his doctors forbid him to smoke .

www.einstein-website.de...

p.s. I don't smoke - nor take drugs - but would not take away anyone's right to do so.

p.p.s. If a high - apart from a natural one - is needed then do your research and source a government-legal less harmful high.
edit on 9-12-2011 by neotech1neothink

because: added ps's
edit on 9-12-2011 by neotech1neothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by neotech1neothink
 


Back in his day, the dangers from smoking were not appreciated by the users of tobacco...it was even promoted as a health kick at one point in time.

Even a genius in theoretical physics doesn't know everything.




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join