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.

 

California wants to treat 'E Cigarettes' like normal cigarettes.

page: 6
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
With respect, I don't have much choice than to breathe in car fumes. It follows, naturally, that I should ask everyone to stop driving for my benefit.




posted on May, 26 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I think it's more a law to protect non-smokers from temptation. Even if it's a vapor stick, it looks like a real cigarette, and every time I see someone with one I think I want some of that too. Other ex-smokers might have similar temptations. Nicotine addiction is very hard to get over so every minute not thinking about smoking matters.

Like banning cigs in media like TV and movies. There is no second-hand smoke coming out of the TV set or the magazine, but it promotes the use of tobacco products, even when they might not be tobacco products.

Then here is where I can be a meanie: so, why don't they just have nothing in that vapor stick and wear a patch on their arm? Or chew some nicotine gum? How about they make a vapor model that doesn't look like a cigarette? They could make one that looks like a kazoo.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Sandalphon
 


Patches, gum and lozenges did nothing for me. I could be sucking on a lozenge and still crave a cigarette the entire time. Plus the darn things burned like I was eating fresh jalapenos.

They have personal nicotine vaporizers made out of all kinds of things, sucrets and altoids tins, some are little wooden or plastic boxes. Mine are metal tubes with metal atomizers that look absolutely nothing like a cigarette. I'm pretty sure making them look like kazoos would send the "It's about keeping children safe!!!" crowd into absolute fits, lol.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
It's all about the money.

End of discussion.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bootyac
 


Whoever thought of this bill should be removed immediately. Shows that individual will go to great lengths to create taxes on stuff that doesn't make sense to tax.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Oddly, I read a very interesting article taking the whole "cigarettes" cause cancer to task. The real reason cigarettes were demonized was to take the public's mind off of the real culprit which was the known cause of lung cancer being radiation particles that are in our environment in abundance due to the open air atomic blast tests. In fact, one of the scientists who wrote up their findings and found that the only thing they found that prevented lung cancer in the thousands of lab rats they tested was cigarettes!

Yes you read that right. They tested thousands of rats on radiation dust particles and they got lung cancer 100% of the time. That same lab started testing tobacco / cigarettes on thousands of rats and they did not get cancer. Then in a glitch, those same cigarette tested rats mistakenly got into the "radiation" test batch and suddenly only 60% of so came up with cancer. The scientists were dumbfounded and discovered that these were the smoking rats! The research documentation was buried and one scientist when testifying before congress stated that the only known prevention for cancer they had discovered was smoking!

You can read it here.

Think what you want. I am sure smoking impacts oxygen intake, and causes COPD, but cancer? Think how many hundreds of cigarettes people smoked before 1940 and cancer was the the problem. And before you say, "That was different tobacco", apparently it wasn't, because the scientists used regular cigarettes with all their chemicals.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
What next, do not fart signs? Because we all know that a small spark of someone’s azz gas will cause a nuclear reaction and blow-up the freakin world!



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Power_Semi
It's all about the money.

End of discussion.


this.


second line.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
mispost
edit on 26-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)


I was making an entry for this thread.

which discusses the topic as a whole, in a generalized way, and compares it with actions in the 17th century against a familiar substance, on par with nicotine.
edit on 26-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
This is just lovely. I actually was just recently able to cold turkey quit a pack a day habit thanks to e-cigs. I use ones that are owned by Newport though, so that being part of big tobacco, I wonder about those getting banned. Doesn't really help the tobacco companies to lobby to ban their own product. I personally love my e-cig set up. I got a little upset the day and decided I was gonna smoke a real one, and after being used to the flavors of the e-cigs, the cigarette wasn't doing it for me. They're fantastic if you want off of cigarettes, I think.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by JackBateman
This is just lovely. I actually was just recently able to cold turkey quit a pack a day habit thanks to e-cigs. I use ones that are owned by Newport though, so that being part of big tobacco, I wonder about those getting banned. Doesn't really help the tobacco companies to lobby to ban their own product. I personally love my e-cig set up. I got a little upset the day and decided I was gonna smoke a real one, and after being used to the flavors of the e-cigs, the cigarette wasn't doing it for me. They're fantastic if you want off of cigarettes, I think.


Big tobacco is just going to ask for it to be regulated I imagine. They probably want to see the same profit margins they are currently getting on regular tobacco. And I imagine they will want tough enforcement, licensing and regulations that can easily be met by large corporations, but are hard to meet for individual, small retailers.

ie... Tobacco seller certification ticket XYY3834 must be gained before legally producing eliquid and selling electronic vaporizing devices.

It just so happens that to do this will require XYZ training, or the ticket costs a million dollars that's held in bond while you are licensed, but you get it back when you sell or return your license....etc.

I'm not saying that is exactly what will happen, just that they will push for some type of regulation that eliminates the competition... But allows them to continue selling. And I'm sure they want to see equal or more profit off these ones, because it threatens their regular tobacco sales/profits.
edit on 26-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
The pesticide nicotine whether in Nat ciggies or e ciggies is an addictive drug and should be taxed like one;
just wait till they figure out GMO corn makes the stuff too:
Once they get rid of that pesky competition from safe REAL corn, wait till you see the taxes on the GMO stuff



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
As a tobacco user, I could care less. People are arguing about the logic in this bill, but where is the logic in using tobacco? Also, I myself am allergic to all brands of these electronic cigarettes, so I'd rather them be kept away from me. My roommate started using his outside, when my face and throat would start swelling and my body would break out in hives.

I just wonder what it is that they're puting in these e-cigs that I'm allergic to, since I have no history of allergies and I mainly use chewing tobacco and sometimes smoke a cigarette when I drink, with no problems.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   


Just ban being a tool, being an asshole, being a complete dick to people. Then you don't have to make stupid bans on everything that can be used responsibly if one so chooses.

Yes, people are provocative with esmokes, because of the knee-jerk reactions the brainwashed masses have. Some people are just so sick of self-righteous, morally indignant idiots who think they are Captain America, Wonder Woman.... Can you blame them all?


Imagine how much better the world would be if we could ban jerks instead!

slightly off topic but...
I can't say I've never drawn attention with my ecig. A group of us were at a restaurant once and I realized the waitress was over by our table sniffing the air after seeing me vape. For the rest of the visit, if we needed a refill or to order dessert, I would just puff some vapor in the air and she would come immediately, trying to be the hero and catch me smoking. By the time she got there, the vapor would be gone and of course no cigarette in sight. She didn't want to confront us, so she'd just act like she was checking on the table. Most attentive service I got in a long time.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


That's exactly right. The tobacco industry doesn't want to get rid of e-cigs. Blu is owned by BT as well as the Vuse that's going to come out. There are some of these messed up bills (if not all) being sponsored by BT. They see a lot of money in pre-filled disposable e-cigs like you can find at the gas stations now. The problem is, these don't cut it for most people. The technology is the same in the bigger personal vaporizers (PV's), but the larger battery and endless amounts of flavors make a big difference for a lot of people.

With the bigger devices, you can also have the juice however you want it. Some people are allergic to Propylene Glycol, so they make juice that is 100% Vegetable Glycerin based.

It's also extremely cheap to go the DIY route. Less than $50 a month. One thing that's already been mentioned, is that all the ingredients are already FDA approved. Many of us are stocking up on nicotine as we speak. That's the only unknown, can they/will they ban nicotine liquid. If they do, we'll be forced to use BT's worthless cigarette sized models.

Basically, yeah BT wants the market for itself now. Another concern besides money and effectiveness, is who knows what other chemicals those companies will add...right now it's only 3 base ingredients and flavorings. Although some go flavorless....it's really the only unknown....but a risk we are wiling to take.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by anicetus
As a tobacco user, I could care less. People are arguing about the logic in this bill, but where is the logic in using tobacco? Also, I myself am allergic to all brands of these electronic cigarettes, so I'd rather them be kept away from me. My roommate started using his outside, when my face and throat would start swelling and my body would break out in hives.

I just wonder what it is that they're puting in these e-cigs that I'm allergic to, since I have no history of allergies and I mainly use chewing tobacco and sometimes smoke a cigarette when I drink, with no problems.


Propylene Glycol or the food flavorings. PG is in a LOT of products, but it's not inhaled. That's probably the culprit. There's only 2 base ingredients that your body isn't used to inhaling, PG and VG. There's only a couple ingredients...



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by anicetus
As a tobacco user, I could care less. People are arguing about the logic in this bill, but where is the logic in using tobacco? Also, I myself am allergic to all brands of these electronic cigarettes, so I'd rather them be kept away from me. My roommate started using his outside, when my face and throat would start swelling and my body would break out in hives.

I just wonder what it is that they're puting in these e-cigs that I'm allergic to, since I have no history of allergies and I mainly use chewing tobacco and sometimes smoke a cigarette when I drink, with no problems.


E-cigs contain:
Vegetable Glycerin,
Propylene Glycol,
nicotine.

So I'm a little surprised, or perhaps I simply don't believe you have allergic reactions that make your face swell. Because it's more than likely you consume all the ingredients on a daily basis. (You admitted to one, and the rest are common food additives.)

I take back what I said. There is a rare allergy to propylene glycol.


Research has suggested that individuals who cannot tolerate propylene glycol probably experience a special form of irritation, but that they only rarely develop allergic contact dermatitis. Other investigators believe that the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis to propylene glycol may be greater than 2% in patients with eczema.[35]
Patients with vulvodynia and interstitial cystitis may be especially sensitive to propylene glycol. Women suffering with yeast infections may also notice that some OTC creams can cause intense burning.[36] .[37]


en.wikipedia.org...

You should ask your roommate to switch to a 100 VG solution and see if that stops your allergy.



Propylene glycol is considered Generally Recognized As Safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and it is used as an humectant (E1520), solvent, and preservative in food and for tobacco products, as well as being the major ingredient in the liquid used in electronic cigarettes (along with vegetable glycerine and, more rarely, PEG 400). It is also used in pharmaceutical and personal care products.[4] Propylene glycol is a solvent in many pharmaceuticals, including oral, injectable and topical formulations, such as for diazepam and lorazepam that are insoluble in water, use propylene glycol as a solvent in their clinical, injectable forms.[7]
*


In foods and beverages, glycerol serves as a humectant, solvent, and sweetener, and may help preserve foods. It is also used as filler in commercially prepared low-fat foods (e.g., cookies), and as a thickening agent in liqueurs. Glycerol and water are used to preserve certain types of leaves.[6] As a sugar substitute, it has approximately 27 kilocalories per teaspoon (sugar has 20) and is 60% as sweet as sucrose. It does not feed the bacteria that form plaques and cause dental cavities. As a food additive, glycerol is labeled as E number E422. It is added to icing (frosting) to prevent it setting too hard.
As used in foods, glycerol is categorized by the American Dietetic Association as a carbohydrate. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) carbohydrate designation includes all caloric macronutrients excluding protein and fat. Glycerol has a caloric density similar to table sugar, but a lower glycemic index and different metabolic pathway within the body, so some dietary advocates accept glycerol as a sweetener compatible with low carbohydrate diets.
*

edit on 26-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



By the way, you advocating the banning of ecigarettes because of a irritating albeit harmless allergy to one of the ingredients, is the equivalent of someone asking for a ban on peanuts because of a peanut allergy...
edit on 26-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by anicetus
 


As someone who wants to stay off cigarettes, I care.

I also want to see others have the same opportunity as I did. Many of us have enough liquid nicotine to last us years. We could be selfish and not care what regulations are put in place, but we're fighting for everyone who may want to quit smoking in the near future.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by anicetus
As a tobacco user, I could care less. People are arguing about the logic in this bill, but where is the logic in using tobacco? Also, I myself am allergic to all brands of these electronic cigarettes, so I'd rather them be kept away from me. My roommate started using his outside, when my face and throat would start swelling and my body would break out in hives.

I just wonder what it is that they're puting in these e-cigs that I'm allergic to, since I have no history of allergies and I mainly use chewing tobacco and sometimes smoke a cigarette when I drink, with no problems.


E-cigs contain:
Vegetable Glycerin,
Propylene Glycol,
nicotine.

So I'm a little surprised, or perhaps I simply don't believe you have allergic reactions that make your face swell. Because it's more than likely you consume all the ingredients on a daily basis. (You admitted to one, and the rest are common food additives.)

I take back what I said. There is a rare allergy to propylene glycol.


Research has suggested that individuals who cannot tolerate propylene glycol probably experience a special form of irritation, but that they only rarely develop allergic contact dermatitis. Other investigators believe that the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis to propylene glycol may be greater than 2% in patients with eczema.[35]
Patients with vulvodynia and interstitial cystitis may be especially sensitive to propylene glycol. Women suffering with yeast infections may also notice that some OTC creams can cause intense burning.[36] .[37]


en.wikipedia.org...

You should ask your roommate to switch to a 100 VG solution and see if that stops your allergy.



Propylene glycol is considered Generally Recognized As Safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and it is used as an humectant (E1520), solvent, and preservative in food and for tobacco products, as well as being the major ingredient in the liquid used in electronic cigarettes (along with vegetable glycerine and, more rarely, PEG 400). It is also used in pharmaceutical and personal care products.[4] Propylene glycol is a solvent in many pharmaceuticals, including oral, injectable and topical formulations, such as for diazepam and lorazepam that are insoluble in water, use propylene glycol as a solvent in their clinical, injectable forms.[7]
*


In foods and beverages, glycerol serves as a humectant, solvent, and sweetener, and may help preserve foods. It is also used as filler in commercially prepared low-fat foods (e.g., cookies), and as a thickening agent in liqueurs. Glycerol and water are used to preserve certain types of leaves.[6] As a sugar substitute, it has approximately 27 kilocalories per teaspoon (sugar has 20) and is 60% as sweet as sucrose. It does not feed the bacteria that form plaques and cause dental cavities. As a food additive, glycerol is labeled as E number E422. It is added to icing (frosting) to prevent it setting too hard.
As used in foods, glycerol is categorized by the American Dietetic Association as a carbohydrate. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) carbohydrate designation includes all caloric macronutrients excluding protein and fat. Glycerol has a caloric density similar to table sugar, but a lower glycemic index and different metabolic pathway within the body, so some dietary advocates accept glycerol as a sweetener compatible with low carbohydrate diets.
*

edit on 26-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



By the way, you advocating the banning of ecigarettes because of a irritating albeit harmless allergy to one of the ingredients, is the equivalent of someone asking for a ban on peanuts because of a peanut allergy...
edit on 26-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)


Good "research". Your surprisal and simply not believing me, is irrelevant to me and my annoyance of the allergic reaction I have when using or being around the electronic cigarettes, which I have no reason to lie about due to the fact that I am a heavy tobacco user. I really wish I could use these electronic cigarettes, since I really want to quit using tobacco and I love the flavor of the one I tried. Good to know what they say are in these electronic cigarettes. I'm not advocating anything, I'm simply implying that "I could care less.". You do know what the word "advocate" means, right? Well, if you did, you would understand that I'm not advocating anything, I'm simply giving a personal opinion and experience to do with the subject at hand.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Cigarettes here in Australia are Satanically expensive!

Pack of 20's are $19.00
Pack of 25's are $23.00
Pack of 30's are $27.00
Pack of 40's are $33.00
Pack of 50's are $45.00

YEP!



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join