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.

 

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

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by josephamccoy
 


I have been smoking e cigs for a little over 4months. It has been the best things for me. I smoked analog cigs for 15 years and now I barley smoke. It is a complete different addiction, I did gain some weight without realizing but at least I am not goiing to die super early! I can really quit now though since it is no big deal to me.

Smoke no longer has to be the first thing I do when I : wake up, eat, drink, smoke ;o ) , get angry, happy, whatever. Now I only smoke when I see my e cig pack. Just a few suggestions, smoke blu or American made since there are no government regulationson on hem.
edit on 6/18/2012 by Djayed because: I'm a math/science type of guy!




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 



Lightspeedreader

And does your "source" also consider that since Polonium is in the air and dust, that it also "settles" in hot spots in the bronchi?????

Instead of just quoting an unreliable source - why don't you use your common sense to think just a little bit about what they are saying and whether or not it is a reasonable thing to be saying?

Billions and billions of dollars have been spent trying to prove that smoking CAUSES lung cancer. This has been going on for the last 50 years. Here is a fact - the countries with the highest rates of smoking have the lowest rates of lung cancer (Japan, Greece) There might be a clue in there somewhere

Tired of Control Freaks


Do Japan and Greece soak their tobacco in sugar solution? Sugar IS EXTREMELY addicting, more so than nicotine. And, sugars are Cancer's FAVORITE food. Probably one of the FIRST facts an oncologist learns...Sooo what do we THINK is going to happen when we deposit large amounts of it over time into our lungs via cigarette or e-cig use?
edit on 19-6-2012 by Opportunia because: clarification



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by josephamccoy
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


They want things that promote population REDUCTION (like GMOs & weaponized vaccines) not things that promote health.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by Opportunia
reply to post by josephamccoy
 


My issue with these AND regular cigarettes is the sugar content. YES that's right. Did you know that nicotine isn't really that addictive. And many are saying it's actually the sugar that the tobacco is soaked in to make it taste better. Sugar is cancer's FAVORITE food and EVERY vape user and cigarette smoker are depositing cancer food into their lungs. Not only that it is also known to cause teeth damage. My niece recently started and had BEAUTIFUL teeth. Now she has staining in the front. They say it is from vaping. People are getting cavities from it who've never had dental problems before vaping.

Why invite problems you're trying to get rid of? It's the SUGAR that is so addictive and THAT is why it's so easy for you to switch to vaping, since there is probably MORE sugar in the vape cartridge contents. Sugar IS more powerful than even coc aine and does NOTHING positive for your body ingested in this fashion. It is ONLY going to give you cancer and rot your teeth, YUK.


There is NO SUGAR in E-cigs !!!!

Sugar burns at low temps, much lower than e-cigs use. It would turn to carbon as your trying to vape it and choke you creating smoke at that point. Yes, some e-liquids are sweet, but sugar is Not used.. it would be impossible to use sugar in e-cigs.

highdesertecigs.com...

www.e-cigarette-forum.com...

www.vaportalk.com...

E-cigs do NOT burn they VAPORIZE. That is FOG, a MIST. Also, Sugar BURNS or turns to Carbon at 350° F, E-cigs are much lower between 160 and 250 ° F. So you see, Mr. Phoenix, E-Cigs DO contain sugar which causes MEGA problems where people who are sensitive to it VAPE. AND the e-cig temps are low enough for you to suck tons of sugar water right into your LUNG TISSUE. So...where's YOUR proof?

Sites used for extra data:
E-cig temps: www.e-cigarette-forum.com...

Sugar carbonization temperature: www.exploratorium.edu...



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia
 

I never understood all the flavourings thing. I like pure, pure beer, pure tobacco, pure food. Oh, and if you start to add sugary syrups to my coffee, I may have to offer your body to the scary devil in the sky.

"Do you have regular, coffee-flavoured coffee?"

*twitches nervously...*



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia
 


Lightspeeddriver

That is what filters on a cigarette is for. E cigs don't contain sugar!

As I previously pointed out - Smokers, representing 20 % of the population get 20 % of lung cancers, former smokers, representing 60 % of the population get 60 % of lung cancers, never-smokers, representing 20 % of the population get 20 % of the lung cancers.

Just where is it that you see "extra cancers" caused by the sugar in cigarettes? Even if sugar is introduced into the lungs, there is still a natural defense mechanism, mucous traps the sugar and you cough it out.

FYI - Canadian tobacco has no sugars or any other additives

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 

You must have an extremely thick skull skin. 1 in 2 smokers die as a result of smoking related diseases, 94% of people that get lung cancer die, radiation causes cancer, ignorance is dangerous. All scientific facts.


ETA I'm happy for Canadian smokers, unfortunately most of the rest of the world does not have that rule as far as I am aware. I can speak for France, Belgium, Holland, Germany and the UK at least, possibly Spain, Italy and Portugal too.
edit on 19/6/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by Opportunia
 

I never understood all the flavourings thing. I like pure, pure beer, pure tobacco, pure food. Oh, and if you start to add sugary syrups to my coffee, I may have to offer your body to the scary devil in the sky.

"Do you have regular, coffee-flavoured coffee?"

*twitches nervously...*


Yessir, even though I shouldn't, I have regular COFFEE, and it's not coffee "flavoured", lol GOOD ONE! I use natural coffee, not the fake stuff. I used to use flavouring but, eww, not any more.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia
 

Yeah, it was a reference to a Denis Leary routine. Epic...
Coffee flavoured coffee
Slightly off topic but related to flavourings which are in most commercial tobaccos. And some coffees!



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Opportunia
 


Lightspeeddriver

That is what filters on a cigarette is for. E cigs don't contain sugar!

As I previously pointed out - Smokers, representing 20 % of the population get 20 % of lung cancers, former smokers, representing 60 % of the population get 60 % of lung cancers, never-smokers, representing 20 % of the population get 20 % of the lung cancers.

Just where is it that you see "extra cancers" caused by the sugar in cigarettes? Even if sugar is introduced into the lungs, there is still a natural defense mechanism, mucous traps the sugar and you cough it out.

FYI - Canadian tobacco has no sugars or any other additives

Tired of Control Freaks


What I love most about your post is YOU SHOW ZERO proof of what you say. Also, IF the filter stops the sugar what the HELL would be the point of putting it in there? IT IS THERE FOR THE TASTE...so obviously it gets through to your lungs.

JUST FOR YOU...here is a link DIRECT FROM OTTOWA, Ontario! (I "think" that is STILL in Canada or have I missed some big change up there?) This pdf says, YES, even Canadian cigarettes have 5-20% SUGAR in them.
www.graceplacewellness.com...

Also, IF you are reading closely you will also see that in 1972, the BBC reported that sugar is one of the main reasons for lung cancer, they based this statement on statistics
showing that lung cancer is less frequent in areas where tobacco products contain less sugar.


If you had done your homework BEFORE posting, you would have found, that tobacco leaves naturally contain sugars and gain more as they are cured, THEN they add MORE, JUST FOR YOU! Gosh, looks like YOU ARE WRONG!! :O
HERE is a nifty link for THAT INFO:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

A couple more to help add to your KNOWLEDGE base:
en.wikipedia.org...
Here's even a nice video about it:
www.youtube.com...

Here's the rub, sugar addicts are the MOST stubborn of all. They are in a constant state of denial and self justification to tell themselves they NEED to have sugar no matter what. It's just like any other addictive substance, with one exception, it is one of the MOST POWERFUL. articles.nydailynews.com...
edit on 19-6-2012 by Opportunia because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-6-2012 by Opportunia because: the edit was a grammar issue.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 

You must have an extremely thick skull skin. 1 in 2 smokers die as a result of smoking related diseases, 94% of people that get lung cancer die, radiation causes cancer, ignorance is dangerous. All scientific facts.


ETA I'm happy for Canadian smokers, unfortunately most of the rest of the world does not have that rule as far as I am aware. I can speak for France, Belgium, Holland, Germany and the UK at least, possibly Spain, Italy and Portugal too.
edit on 19/6/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA


So 1 in 2 smokers die as a result of smoking related diseases - presumably then the other one is immortal?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Opportunia
 


Opportunia

You must be right! I must be absolutely stupid! Of course tobacco naturally contains sugar. All plants do!

But now - I will repeat - current smokers, who represent 20 % of the population, get 20 % of the lung cancers. Never smokers, who represent 20 % of the population, get 20 % of the lung cancers. Former smokers, who represent 60 % of the population get 60 % of the lung cancers.

So would you please explain, just for stupid old me, where are all the lung cancers CAUSED by all the sugar in tobacco?????


Tired of Control Freaks.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Would everyone please note how anti-smokers work. They started off telling me that Polonium 210 and radiative lead was the cause of lung cancers in smokers. The only "proof' they offered was a very unreliable Wiki link and they didn't bother posting any part of the reference that disagreed with their assertions.

When I destroyed that argument...they never acknowledged my links and references. They never admitted that perhaps it wasn't Polonium 210 that was the CAUSE of lung cancer in smokers.

They never, ever acknowledged that current research is showing that lung cancer is distributed evenly throughout the population with smokers, never-smokers and former smokers all getting lung cancer in proportion to the percentage of population that they represent. They didn't want to discuss that!

They certainly didn't want to discuss HPV being the root CAUSE of lung cancer. Which in fact, it does!!! And here is a study that proves that assertion

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

NOT AT ALL - Now they have decided that no - its sugar that causes lung cancer???? And now comes the ad hominum attacks. I, of course, am merely "stupid"

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Tired....alot of good info you posted, thank you....have you seen the truth that came out about the WHO study (not studies) just one study they used from 1993 that started this whole banning of smoking? They lied, omitted findings and messed with the statistics to make it look they way they wanted (just like global warming) and have been running with it ever since. They actually found that children raised in a smoking household had a 20% DECREASED rate of lung cancer. Hmmmm.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Here is a link showing how Big Pharma is funding anti-smoking through the well known charities. These charities are the ones pushing to have e-cigs banned.

The reason why Big Charity/Big Pharma wants e-cigs banned is because they are more a threat to the smoking cessation drugs than to real cigarettes. It is Big Pharma who is funding most of the anti-smoking campaigns because they want smokers to buy their smoking cessation drugs. The smoking cessation drugs are generally useless with a less than 2 % effective rate. E-cigs are in direct competition with Big Pharma nicotene inhalers.

Smokers want real tobacco. People who want to quit smoking are the ones turning to e-cigs, not the people who want to continue smoking.

I have also previously posted a link showing that Lorillard spent 135 million buying an e-cig company.

www.canada.com...

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Time to Think

I have been reading studies on smoking and second hand smoke for about 12 years now. Are you referring to the 1992 UN study on second hand smoke?

OH I see the one you are talking about. That was actually done by IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) which is a branch of the World Health Organization. It was a study on second hand smoke. It did find that there was a 20 % decrease in the incidence of lung cancer among children whose parents are smokers! However we have to remember that a 20 % protective decrease is no more significant than if they had found a 20 % increase. In order for the results of an epidimiologic study to be considered significant in more than just a mathematical way, the increase or decrease in relative risk MUST be at least 200 % and actually its better if its 300 %.

But its fun to tease the anti's with it, isn't it?

Actually, there has never been a study on second hand smoke that found that there was any significant risk to people exposed to second hand smoke. However, and this is real, there is a protective effect on the children of smokers for the risk of childhood asthma and atopy (allergies). And scientists have discovered that this effect is directly caused by nicotene!

Tired of Control Freaks
edit on 20-6-2012 by TiredofControlFreaks because: adding information



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


That is probably the same one...let me find the info ...I hope I saved it.




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I live in NYC been vaping for a little over 2 years and this bill sucks. They tried to pass a bill 2 years ago but it didn't get signed. If they pass this bill it's a jump off point to get all other states to do the same. If you smoke ecigs, have family that does, or just don't like gov controlling every aspect of our lives please go to the link below and spam the $hi* out of these punks.

I can see why they want to pass this Senator Kemp Hannon is in bed with the tobacco companies and I can vape all month for the price of a pack of regular cigs ($12) On top of that I miss out on all that cancer causing carcinogenic bile you get from the analogue cigarettes, they don't like that, they want the population nice and dying.

Sorry if I'm ranting here, just a little peeowed.

Ecig Freedom
edit on 20-6-2012 by PrestonSpace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PrestonSpace
 


PrestonSpace

Please read the whole thread. E-cigs are no competition to Big Tobacco. Lorillard owns and e-cig company. You should be upset with Big Pharma who is funding the campaign to ban e-cigs through the Big Charities. E-cigs are competition for smoking cessations devices sold by Big Pharma. That is a 2 billion dollar a year market!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 



www.davehitt.com...

This is the website where I found the info....pretty interesting.




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join