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: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BanTv
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.


I understand your point and I do agree with you. But is it that they're going to be banned from all states in the US, or they are going to be treated as actual cigarettes? I read the article and was responding to the first couple pages of responses. I don't agree to them being banned, but it's not the last hope for people to quit. I understand completely how hard it is to quit, since I'm trying to myself. In my opinion, and a very obvious one as well, you don't need these to quit, they just make it a whole lot easier to a degree and for some people, not all. Anyone can stop their tobacco use, if they have the mind power to do so.
edit on 10/12/10 by anicetus because: Forget a letter in a word.




posted on May, 26 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
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


I believe taxes are fair, RAPING is NOT. They want to tax e-cigs the same as cigarettes. Which is WRONG. I'm not very educated on this aspect of regulations, but tobacco tax is a "sin tax" right? Isn't it taxed higher than other things? Do you think the device that can help people QUIT should be taxed to death?

I'm for fair taxes. I'm against rape.

Oh and we KNOW what other plants contain nicotine. Believe that!

We've discussed synthetic nic and nic from other plants. It's not viable right now, but if they give us too much hell (for quitting smoking of all things), I have a feeling genetic modification of another plant to increase nic (because they have much much less than tobacco) might just have to happen.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Often times politicians show their ignorance of various matters by passing legislation like this. It just shows how far removed they are from not only reality, but the ideas and beliefs of the population. I supported the banning of smoking in public places simply because it has been proven that the carcinogenic substances released posed great risk to those who were nearby, and thus it is more than the smoker who is being affected. They are affecting those around them, so in fact it is not something that they do that has no affect on anyone else.

But with that said, the water vapor released from these electronic devices poses no such risk, as far as I am aware. There are no carcinogenic substances being released, so where is the danger? I am curious as to what happens to the nicotine. Is there any released in this water vapor that is absorbed into the air of the location where the device is being used? Can nicotine even exist as an aerosol like this? There are questions that I have, but from what I think I know I cannot determine that this would be dangerous to anyone.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by anicetus
 


"it's good to know what they say are in electronic cigarettes"

There really are only those few ingredients. How do I know? I make my own juice, like many thousands of others. With "commercial" juice, the only unknowns are what food flavorings go into a "recipe". That's the truth.

Now, when the tobacco industry controls all cigarette sized models, who knows what they'll put in them.

If you want to quit smoking, I promise there are ways to make it work for you. Check out e-cigarette-forum, and please let me know if you need any help



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by anicetus
 


You are correct, and at this point they won't be banned. They do want them taxed as high as cigarettes, which is morally wrong in my opinion. The other big problem is if they ban liquid nicotine. That would force us to use the ineffective cig sized models. For those already into this, it doesn't matter.

The issue comes when someone wants to quit next year, they try the gas station models, and go back to smoking thinking that e-cigs are junk. Yes, people can quit with "will-power", but not many. Cigarettes physically change your brain. Your brain produces less dopamine, probably permanently. I really hate it when anti-tobacco folks (not you) seem to think it's just a psychological addiction that can easily be overcome with will-power. There's a lot of physical stuff going on. Real physical chemical addiction.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Snaffers
 


star for your gif, LOL!!



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bootyac
 


Well a growing and disturbing trend is that I've seen children starting to smoke these very often since they are starting to say it's not a 'real' cigarette. I think the more this is in public the more children seem to think it's acceptable to do. Not saying I completely agree with the legislation but the act of 'smoking' something indoors leads to a trend of it being acceptable.
edit on 26-5-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus


But with that said, the water vapor released from these electronic devices poses no such risk, as far as I am aware. There are no carcinogenic substances being released, so where is the danger? I am curious as to what happens to the nicotine. Is there any released in this water vapor that is absorbed into the air of the location where the device is being used? Can nicotine even exist as an aerosol like this? There are questions that I have, but from what I think I know I cannot determine that this would be dangerous to anyone.

 


Seems like second hand worriers needn't be worried:


Method. Analysis of published data on nicotine absorption, and informal comments of
bystanders, and observation of e-cigarette smoking indoors.
Results. Cigarette smoke is a mixture of sidestream smoke and exhaled mainstream
smoke. In constrast, the e-cigarette generates no sidestream smoke from its (artificially
lit) tip. Any exhaled PG mist visibly dissipates to vapor within seconds. Non-smoking
bystanders do not find the mist unpleasant. The mist is odorless, and those close by
quickly realize it does not have the odor of smoke or the irritating quality of tobacco
cigarette smoke.
Comments. Inhaled nicotine in cigarette smoke is over 98% absorbed 6, and so the
exhaled mist of the e-cigarette is composed of propylene glycol, and probably contains
almost no nicotine; and no CO. (see Figure 3.5) Lacking any active ingredient or any
gaseous products of combustion, the PG mist or ‘smoke’ is not harmful to bystanders.
The ‘smoke’ or mist is not tobacco smoke, and not from combustion – no flame is lit –
and is not defined as environmental tobacco smoke. E-cigarette “smoking” would be
permitted under New Zealand’s Smoke-free Environments Act 1990.33


www.healthnz.co.nz...



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
They're even banning the use of any and all tobacco use on college properties! They want to put temporary smoking places in the ghetto where students can get robbed at gun point. It's our right to smoke outside when I'm paying 30k to attend this property. But I find it even more ridiculous that we can't even use the e cig on campus.
Some colleges are going so far as to write you a ticket. How ridiculous.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Bootyac
 


Well a growing and disturbing trend is that I've seen children starting to smoke these very often since they are starting to say it's not a 'real' cigarette. I think the more this is in public the more children seem to think it's acceptable to do. Not saying I completely agree with the legislation but the act of 'smoking' something indoors leads to a trend of it being acceptable.
edit on 26-5-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



When I was a kid it was normal for people to smoke indoors, everywhere. Just because they did doesn't mean kids were allowed to. And I can take my nephew to a restaurant, drink a beer, but he can't order one. How the hell is it any different?



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by anicetus


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.


 


If you're allergic to PV you can try a 100% VG mixture, (just make sure there is no trace amounts of VG in the flavouring) and you can use it. If that's where your allergy is.

You haven't explored the possibility of whether or not you can use it.

And frankly, apathy may as well be advocating regulation or a ban...

I gave up smoking for esmokes. But frankly, I would be fully against anything happening to people who choose to continue with tobacco products.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Keep in mind this is coming from someone with CF:

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people who smoke cigarettes responsibly, and I am getting "fed" up with the heavy handed tactics employed that punish everyone for the transgressions of the inconsiderate few. It would be nice if there was some self-policing amongst those who enjoy, but that is at best a "pipe dream".

The idea of treating e-cigs like regular cigarettes is indeed perplexing ... I mean, is it a marketing thing? If they completely removed the word "cigarette" altogether and just called it something else, would most people even pay it any attention?

There are other motivations at work here, many of the ones mentioned in this thread are probably very close to the truth indeed.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
dbl post
edit on 27-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Bootyac
 



Some of the vapors or nicotine emitted by the e-cigarettes may pose health risks


I've wondered the same myself.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


I have to say, at least they are being consistant. The real evil is these scumbags wanting to ban e-cigs while cigarettes remain readily available.

With that said...interesting that a nicotine addiction isn't allowed on campus. Are students allowed to wear the patch, chew the gum, or take dangerous Chantix? I bet they are.

Are students allowed to have a caffeine addiction? Is soda, tea, and coffee banned? I bet not.

Are there many students on legal METH (Adderall) during their entire stay or at least during finals? I bet there are.

So much hypocrisy. I really am curious about the NRT's (big pharma nicotine replacement therapy). Please check that out if you can. If they allow those but not e-cigs, we know there's some $$$ involved.
edit on 27-5-2013 by BanTv because: TEA!



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Bootyac
 



Some of the vapors or nicotine emitted by the e-cigarettes may pose health risks


I've wondered the same myself.


If by "pose health risks" they mean a lower chance of developing Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease, then yes.

I'll definitely take that horrible health risk


IF there is any nicotine in the exhaled vapor, it's so minute that it's probably not even detectable. We're talking tiny tiny amounts. You might just get more nicotine in your system if you eat tomatoes, potatoes, eggplant, or peppers. Which....is a GOOD thing. Research (not funded by an e-cig company) is showing that nicotine is beneficial. It's just burning smoke that is not healthy to anyone.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Bootyac
 


Well a growing and disturbing trend is that I've seen children starting to smoke these very often since they are starting to say it's not a 'real' cigarette. I think the more this is in public the more children seem to think it's acceptable to do. Not saying I completely agree with the legislation but the act of 'smoking' something indoors leads to a trend of it being acceptable.
edit on 26-5-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)


I think it's fair to say that MOST of us e-cig users do NOT approve of anyone under 18 using them. Now, if someone started smoking at 12-14 and then a few years later used an e-cig to QUIT, and then quit the e-cig after tapering down to 0 nic for a year....I would turn my head. That's GOOD. The "cool" thing though? No way. We know what it's like to be a slave to addiction. It's not fun and e-cig use by ADULTS who never had a cigarette addiction is even looked down upon by some.

When I was a minor and smoked, guess what? I got tickets when I got caught smoking in public by the law. There are laws going into effect about sales to minors, and we all agree it's perfectly fine. If there's a loop-hole with minors using them in public, it should be closed as well. Anything else though, as far as taxing them to death, banning on-line sales, or banning them out right, is wrong.

That reminds me of reading an article about kids being able to buy blunts in some city, and how the colorful packaging was directed at kids. If minors are able to buy tobacco products, you don't demonize the packaging. You set up sting operations and revoke the tobacco license of any store selling to minors. There are laws in place already, the police need to utilize them. I found it funny though, the anti-tobacco zealots are so out of touch with reality, they actually think blunts and sweets are smoked....when the evil tobacco is being THROWN AWAY!

edit on 27-5-2013 by BanTv because: sweet



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyb0nz
I think the e-cig is crap, you want to breathe something other than air, do it in your own area. Don't add nicotine to my breathing environment, I don't care what carcinogens you "think" aren't present. If I decide to vaporize some crack and blow it into your airspace, you may have some issues with that, but this is ONLY nicotine we're talking about, nothing harmful right? You're inhaling AND exhaling the substance that took me and many others an eternity to quit, fighting still to this day. It's a substance unnecessary for survival and if someone was puffin an e cig near my child I'd have something to say.


It doesn't work like that.

You're thinking along the lines of 'secondhand smoke', which is certainly not the case with ecigs and the vapour the e-liquid produces.

With cigarettes and tobacco products, yes...the smoke filling the room is dangerous..we all know it, or should by now. It contains MANY dangerous chemicals and substances that are breathed in by people who share the immediate environment with a smoker...at least 69 of the chemicals found in secondhand or exhaled smoke are proven to be carcinogenic, many others contain other unhealthy attributes almost 7000 chemicals in total.

With ecigs, the device vapourises the e-liquid (juice, smokejuice, e-juice etc) and the result is nicotine laced water vapour, and perhaps a small quantity of flavouring.

That's it.

When inhaled, the vaper absorbs all but tiny trace amounts of the suspended nicotine through the mouth, throat and to a lesser extent, the lungs. In fact, your kids will be exposed and ingest MORE nicotine through eating other vegetables and plants naturally containing higher levels of nicotine..like tomatoes for example, which are naturally relatively high in nicotine.

What BanTV says above is perfectly true...nicotine is becoming considered a beneficial substance in many areas, not least the recent decision to prescribe it to overweight and obese kids to lower appetite.

What is exhaled is for all intents and purposes...plain water vapour.

Your argument about being near a smoker is perfectly valid...but it is totally wrong when applied to vapers using ecigs...no smoke is produced by ecigs, no combustion, no secondhand anything is generated...apart from water vapour...like the stuff that comes out of your electric kettle, or a pan of heated water on the stove.


edit on 27-5-2013 by MysterX because: added text



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
not least the recent decision to prescribe it to overweight and obese kids to lower appetite.


Really?! Now that's interesting! It's gotta be better than some other stimulants and chemical cocktails used as weight loss solutions. Cool. Thanks for that.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join