New york to amend health bill, trying to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes!!!

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+7 more 
posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
how can they do this? surely if they ban e cigs they would have to ban the sale of real cigarettes? here is the link to the forum where the new york vapers are trying to rally support-

e-cig forum

there justification is pure BS the liquid contains propylene glycol not diethylene
glycol and the e cig that exploded was moddified device that was homemade (6 million deaths from tobacco).

here is some relevant info

totally wicked blog

and the msm's take on it

CBS

i'd just like to say that i QUIT smoking the day i got my PV (personal vapourier, i'm moving away from the term e cigarette as are a lot of "vapers") and haven't looked back, the health benefits were noticable after 2 weeks and i no longer smell like an ashtray. if anyone wants anymore info on PV's checkout these links.

E-Cig Reviews
totally wicked
www.stevevape.com...


the tobacco companies will surely be behind this, these devices will only improve the health of a population. peace and love



CX

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
My girlfriend has been on e-cigs for about 3 weeks now, is already using the weaker strength ones and has not had a real cig the whole time.

Her house smells nice, i don't come away smelling of smoke, and best of all, her breathing is better and her chest doesn't have a gravely heavyness to it any more when she lies down.

To ban these would be stupid.

CX.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by josephamccoy
 

Vaporisers are not a new idea and are much better for the lungs than smoking but I do have one major reservation. It is a fact that commercially grown tobacco contains radioactive compounds (specifically radium, lead 210, and polonium 210—which are known radioactive carcinogens), this is why people get lung cancer. If the nicotine in the e-cigs is extracted from the same commercially grown tobaccos as Marlboro or all the other major brands it still is potentially carcinogenic.
edit on 17/6/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Clarification


ETA Love your avatar.
edit on 17/6/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Am 32 years old, have been smoking since I was 14. Have tried several times to stop smoking to no avail.

Was introduced to e-cigs 8 months ago, and have NOT smoked a cigarette since............

And now am only using the e-cig occasionally and my health has dramatically improved . My girlfriend that used to be a smoker tried it and also quit regular cigarettes .

This product is a life saver !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit : Just wanted to add my opinion as to why they try to ban it. My guess is that they know the success it has in making people completely stop smoking. Cigarette taxes in NY are the highest in the US and an important source of revenue.......
edit on 17-6-2012 by Monte-Carlo because: Something to add



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 

i can't say for sure where the base nicotine is sourced from but i'm pretty sure phillip morris wouldn't supply a genuine threat to their product. that is only an assumption though, on totally wicked they say that they use the "highest pharmaceutical grade nicotine".

edit;just noticed on the wikipedia page regarding tobacco that electonic cigarettes were not noted in "tobacco's uses" and there was no page for pharmaceutical grade nicotine.
edit on 17/6/2012 by josephamccoy because: too add



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The ONLY reason they would try banning these is because they can't tax them as much, nor can the profit a massive health bill when regular smokers end up getting ill from analog cigarettes.


If they were so concerned about public health (like they're claiming one reason why they want the ban), then the FDA would go behind these to make sure that they ARE safe.

They aren't "concerned" about anything but their own pockets.



edit on 17-6-2012 by Isabelx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Isabelx
 

the uk already taxes them via VAT. they are a serious threat to the cigarette industry, the msm is misinforming the general population about them and their justification for the ban is weak, really weak.

while the US government collects $7 Billion a year in cigarette taxes the personal vapouriser will continue to be put down.
edit on 17/6/2012 by josephamccoy because: add link



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Its QUITE CLEAR that this would be BANNED simply because it ISNT PROFITABLE to some fat-cat scum-bags in high places with political pull. The safety or well-being of the public is of ZERO concern of these BASTARDS. ITS all about MONEY.

If I had enough MONEY, I can buy out politicians and get things like air, water, common-courtesy and good-manners BANNED as well. The planet has gone to HELL.

BASTARD$!!!!!!!!!!


edit on 17-6-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


The move to ban e-cigs is not backed by the tobacco companies. One tobacco company just bought the company that makes one brand of e-cigs (Lorillard buys blue e cig)

online.wsj.com...

The move to ban e-cigs is backed by the same companies that have been funding anti-smoking all along - Big Pharma. The reason for banning the e-cig is NOT heath concerns. Its competition concerns. E cigs are a form of alternate nicotene delivery system. So are the patch, sprays, inhalers sold by big Pharma

E cigs also compete with smoking cessation medication - like Champix and Welbutrin - all manufactured and sold by Big Pharma

By the way - the reason Big Pharma funds anti-smoking is because Big Pharma sells alternate nicotene devices. Big Pharma wants in on smokers' dollars. Its a straight up anti-competition move.

As for the lady who thinks the radioactivity in tobacco leaves is responsible for lung cancer.

PLEASE - do you think EVERYBODY in the world is absolutely STUPID? Does it not occur to you that it has been known that tobacco leaves ( along with every edible plant in the world) is contaminated with Polonium 210 for about the last 50 years.

Polonium 210 is a naturally occuring form of radiation. It is ubiquitous to the environment. Its in dirt that food grows in - its in the dust you breathe. It has a half-live of about 138 days.

AND it has been intensely investigated to see if it is the cause of lung cancer in smokers. IT IS NOT!!!! The
concentration of Polonium 210 in tobacco leaves (which are cured for 2 or 3 years) is TOO LOW to cause lung cancer. Despite what you may have read that Big Tobacco "covered up" the existance of Polonium 210 in tobacco, public health and scientists have known about it for decades but the risk was dismissed because the concentration was too low to cause lung cancer and certainly was not much different that the concentrations of Polonium 210 that EVERYONE is exposed to.

It has been said by public health that smoking caused mouth and throat cancers for at least 50 years. We have been seeing commercials of smokers with holes in their throats for decades. However, it has recently been determined that the HPV virus causes the majority of such cancers. It was also said that smoking caused cervical cancers. It has recently been admitted that cervical cancer is caused by the HPV virus.


Mouth, throat and cervical areas of the human body all of one thing in common. They are covered in a mucous membrane and are open to the environment and thus may be invaded by sexually transmitted viruses. The lungs are also covered by mucous membranes and are also open to the environment and may be invaded by sexually transmitted viruses.

The lung cancers associated with smoking generally have P53 mutation with a heavy preponderance of G to T tranferance in the DNA string. The P53 mutation is also an indication of INFECTION by a virus.

My money is on the HPV virus as being the cause of lung cancer.


Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
At one point I was smoking five packs per week. My fiance was smoking 3-5 cigarettes per day. A little over a year ago we both started using electronic cigarettes, funny enough, from the totally wicked link the OP posted, and have not smoked a regular cigarette since.

They work, and they're cheaper than the real thing. Far, far healthier too. In fact health-wise, they don't even compare. Anyone who wants to ban electronic cigs while not banning real, far worse cigarettes needs their head examined and the obvious reason why anyone would take such a stand in money/competition, not our health. It's never been about health.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 

that was extremely informative thanks for posting, i too am tired of control freaks. i agree with you on the patches side of things! with PV's being in my opinion the most instant way to quit smoking (yes they are that good, an ego c is the best place to start) and are far superior to every other nicotine replacement therapy it is hardly suprising the FDA wants them gone. i wasn't even planning to quit i just went along to the shop with my friend and had a go and that was it i bought a starter kit there and then! if they introduce a tax on PV's they would surely have to include the patches, gum, spray and all the other NRT's in the that tax bracket! it makes more sense that they would try and ban PV's, then they could have their cake and eat it! i hate control!



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


I have a friend who's dad died of cancer, I believe it started in the Colon.
The doctor asked him if he had ever smoked in his life, and he did many years ago when he was younger.
The doctor promptly rubber-stamped and labeled the cause of cancer as from smoking.


That is how these people work. If you ever smoked a cig, they automatically label any conditions you get as caused from smoking, in order to keep the money rolling in under their big lie.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MysticPearl
 


I was a pack a day smoker.
I made the transition to ecigs about 2 years ago and have never looked back.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by josephamccoy
 


I started with the KR808D then onto the EGO and now have a Popular MOD that blows the ego out of the water.

The Mod that blew up in the guy's face in Florida used 2 batteries in series and he also had it charging via the USB charger.
One battery was probably already overcharged with the other not there yet, and bamo!



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Money and control are the only reasons behind these things.. Your health is not and will never be a concern for the people behind bans such as this.

As long as they remain in direct competition for the gum, patch or other NRTs, lawmakers in the FDA and the Pharmaceutical companies' pockets will continue to push for bans on them.

Banning ecigarettes while allowing regular cigarettes to remain legal is stupid. Any moron knows that and they know it but, again, it's all about the money and control.

As far as the whole exploding ecig thing--well, I once got electrocuted by a faulty plug extension. Soon as I plugged it the wall, plugged my lamp into it, I got zapped, it burned my finger (had a black fingernail for a while) and it fried my lamp. So, let's ban, immediately, ALL outlet extensions. People might get hurt, boo-hoo.
edit on 17-6-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: addressed another part



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by josephamccoy
 

I think I can safely say Philip Morris is a major commercial tobacco producer, even if they don't produce it themselves. As for nicotine, the only plant nicotine occurs in sufficient quantity is tobacco as far as I am aware. I stand open to correction though. I would be even more suspicious of synthetic nicotine in light of recent reports about synthetic cannabis and those new bath salt/ecstasy/speed imitations. I read just yesterday that someone died from synthetic drugs. Or was it 2 people? It's madness. I think one person literally jumped out of her _



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 

Links? Sources?


ETA And here's yer polonium 210. Pfff1 Deadly
edit on 17/6/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA


Perhaps I should take it further but I'll let wiki do the talking:

By mass, polonium-210 is around 250,000 times more toxic than hydrogen cyanide (the actual LD50 for 210Po is less than 1 microgram for an average adult (see below) compared with about 250 milligrams for hydrogen cyanide[35]). The main hazard is its intense radioactivity (as an alpha emitter), which makes it very difficult to handle safely: one gram of Po will self-heat to a temperature of around 500 °C (932 °F).[4] Even in microgram amounts, handling 210Po is extremely dangerous, requiring specialized equipment (a negative pressure alpha glove box equipped with high performance filters), adequate monitoring, and strict handling procedures to avoid any contamination. Alpha particles emitted by polonium will damage organic tissue easily if polonium is ingested, inhaled, or absorbed, although they do not penetrate the epidermis and hence are not hazardous as long as the alpha particles remain outside of the body.


Toxicity
edit on 17/6/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by josephamccoy
 


I have to say that, as a smoker, I agree with this ban.

These things have not been thoroughly researched and tested. You are still inhaling a mixture of things into your lungs.

I have given up previously with the traditional inhalators, which are far safer when it comes to their supply and previous testing.

The best way to give up smoking is to simply stop. I know how hard that is, but it can be done. The best way to do it, whatever other methods you're using (if your stubborn like I am), is to realize that a corporation is taking your money and deliberately shortening your life for their profit. That enrages me, and it should enrage others too.

The main fact of the matter is that, just like other dodgy medications, these can be bought on the internet, manufactured by some random company in China, with little or no regulation.

People don't think about the stuff they breathe in. Look at all the aerosols and fresheners there are out there, people fill their homes with them, breathing in chemicals that are constantly pumped into the air... it's frightening!

These things do need to be controlled, tested properly, and then supplied under proper controls and guidance.

In ten years when people are dropping from mysterious lung problems this thing will appear as a possible cause, I almost guarantee it.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


they have been around for over 8 years and the first users are still going strong, as far as i can tell all the negativity has been brought about by the companies that sell the NRT's and they contain nicotine just like e cigs. the other ingredients are propylene glycol and food flavourings. there is also vegetable based glycol.

about the fluid



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


LightSpeedDriver

I am very very interested in why you didn't post the second paragraph of your Wikileaks reference?

Acute effects

The median lethal dose (LD50) for acute radiation exposure is generally about 4.5 Sv.[36] The committed effective dose equivalent 210Po is 0.51 µSv/Bq if ingested, and 2.5 µSv/Bq if inhaled.[37] Since 210Po has an activity of 166 TBq per gram (4,500 Ci/g)[37] (1 gram produces 166×1012 decays per second), a fatal 4.5 Sv (J/kg) dose can be caused by ingesting 8.8 MBq (238 microcuries, µCi), about 50 nanograms (ng), or inhaling 1.8 MBq (48 µCi), about 10 ng. One gram of 210Po could thus in theory poison 20 million people of whom 10 million would die. The actual toxicity of 210Po is lower than these estimates, because radiation exposure that is spread out over several weeks (the biological half-life of polonium in humans is 30 to 50 days[38]) is somewhat less damaging than an instantaneous dose. It has been estimated that a median lethal dose of 210Po is 0.015 GBq (0.4 mCi), or 0.089 micrograms, still an extremely small amount.[39][40]

NOte the dosages - 2.4 ugSv/Bq if inhaled. That means all at once!

Now let us look at the dosage that smokers are exposed to:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The annual effective doses were calculated on the basis of (210)Po and (210)Pb intake with the cigarette smoke. The mean values of the annual effective dose for smokers (one pack per day) were estimated to be 193 and 251 microSv from (210)Po and (210)Pb, respectively.

That is the dosage PER YEAR!!! And again Polonium 210 has a half-life of 138 days.

Nice try - but its the same trick used over and over again. The fact remains: The poison is in the DOSE. Not the substance. Even water is toxic if you drink enough of it.

I would really like to know if you are deliberately trying to mislead people and instill fear or if you honestly believe that the Polonium 210 in tobacco is at sufficient quantities to cause death?

If the Polonium 210 in tobacco were at sufficient quantities to cause death - then every smoker would develop lung cancer and die. The fact is that a hard-core, heavy smoker still has only a 17 % lifetime chance of developing lung cancer.

Tired of Control Freaks





new topics
top topics
 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum