We are seeing the "no smoking" signs replaced with "no tobacco use on this property" signs in my area of travel. The work questionaire no longer asks if you smoke; it asks if you use tobacco.
It's grossly unfair, since hazards are not equal, but all tobacco users are being herded into the same corral with cigarette smokers. I've seen anti messages with the simple slogan "There is no good tobacco product."
We don't want to go there.
....I had no idea.
I can understand banning smoking because it has adverse effects on those around the smoker. But at this point, it is a direct assult on personal choice. I am surprised no one has sued anyone for forbiding smoke-free alternatives.
Ok, pardon the little rant, but what sucks about all of this is that we even have to discuss it. Living in NY I can tell you the government seems to be all about telling us how to live and continue to take away the freedoms that our constitution gave us. They ban trans fat stuff, the make us wear motorcycle helmets, they talk about putting cameras in to catch those who run red lights (why? Not to make things safer! But to raise more money for the government!).
Smoking bans, should have only effected government buildings! The owner of a business should have the choice as to weather to make their business smoke free or not. They have literally ruined businesses up here, from bars, to bowling alley's, etc.. I can see laws to protect minors (smoking, alcohol, seat belts, etc..), but you shouldn't write laws to protect people from themselves. If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, then it should be your call!
Also, since when does something have to be proven SAFE first? Innocent until proven guilty! Proven it harmful and we will stop, assuming it is more harmful then analogs, which common sense says, no way! I don't trust 'them' anyways now days. Whoever 'them' is. First they say coffee and caffeine is good, then a study says it combats alzheimer's, then another study will figure something out. Science, the media and our 'many' politicians corrupt and no one really seems to know the truth anymore.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to quickly surmise that vaping HAS to be safer than smoking tobacco! Although it would be nice to know, who has been vaping (as we know it) the longest. Do we have someone out there that has been vaping liek we do for years now? What is the history of vaping? I should go ask my doc for a chest x-ray, even though I have only been off analogs for 17 days. Because last time I had a chest x-ray I don't think they liked it. I know I can take a nice deep breath now without gasping or coughing, so it would be nice to have a comparison.
Ok, sorry for the rant, but this is frustrating because the conversation is not rational. Arguing (rational debate) with people who are not rational is impossible! But my nature refuses to give up in trying to make these people think rationally.
I generally agree with you, and Florida recalled its mandatory helmet law, but strictly enforces mandatory seat belt use. The weird part? Migrants (and even kids) ride in the back of pickup trucks. Why? Big Agriculture rules in Florida. Big Agriculture needs to move migrants.Smoking bans, should have only effected government buildings! The owner of a business should have the choice as to weather to make their business smoke free or not. They have literally ruined businesses up here, from bars, to bowling alley's, etc.. I can see laws to protect minors (smoking, alcohol, seat belts, etc..), but you shouldn't write laws to protect people from themselves. If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, then it should be your call!
For many years when that something is a drug that hasn't been previously approved. E-liquid is an unapproved mix of ingredients that constitutes a new drug to the FDA, which has unquestioned and long-standing authority to say "prove it" before a new drug can be put on the market. That demand for scientific proof safeguards everyone from unscrupulous snake oil salesmen.since when does something have to be proven SAFE first?
With drugs, you don't "surmise" anything in seeking approval to sell. Drugs require scientific proof of safety and efficacy. Your experience means nothing to anyone but you.
That's the reality, like it or not. It's the same in most civilized nations. E-cigs are being banned in every country where they are being scrutinized. Why? Because proper, long-standing rules weren't met.
While I agree testing for long term effects needs to be done, we need to remember that cigarettes have been exhaustively tested, declared unsafe, and yet are still sold with a warning label. I believe that e-cigs should be allowed to be sold with a warning that they have not been tested for long term effects nor FDA approved yet. Also, consider that the only real drug in SOME of the e-liquid is Nicotine, which has been tested.
Since this product is not sold to anyone under 18, I believe that with the warning, it should be allowed for sale to any adult who wants to partake, after all that is what they do with analogs and they claim they have been proven unsafe.
Analog free in Montana since 3/23/09
The FDA doesn't set the rules for cigarettes. It can't ban them. It doesn't have regulatory authority -- yet -- to set regulations on them. It never has.
And cigarettes aren't the issue anyhow. Only e-cigs and e-liquid are the issue for the FDA to rule on. They can either be proven safe by manufacturers or they face a ban.
Personally, I don't care one way or another if I'm allowed to vape in the movie theatre or in the grocery store or at the bowling alley. My main concern, right now, is to make sure that we are allowed continued access to the products that have changed our lives. If that means lumping us in with tobacco to keep the FDA from shutting us down completely, so be it. I know, without a doubt, I'll go back to analogs if they yank these things. I don't want that and I'm willing to keep my vaping private as long as I can still get my stuff to vape.
If I may add to Bob's comment, it is not so much of "prove safe or get banned." New drugs are by default banned (not permited to be sold in the market), until their manufacturer obtain new drug approval (NDA) from FDA. In fact, I believe we are not allowed to do any human trials, until FDA gives an approval for clinical trials on human subjects.Originally Posted by TropicalBob
So, in my view, what we need is a moratorium on the FDA enforcement of the provisions that takes e-cigs off the market while it is going through the FDA new drug approval process.
Last edited by WillPower; 04-05-2009 at 08:14 AM. Reason: typo - "prevent" removed.
Agreed 1000% - AMEN!!!!
Hello all, another first time poster although not new to e-cigs or the general issues around SHS.
I have debated with Bill on and off for sometime and though we often disagree at least we agree that e-cigs are less harmful than cigs, though nonplussed as to why the comparison is needed.
I do though disagree that they should be treated alongside other tobacco products and have argued this point on other forums. They are something apart.
There are at least three (probalby more) things that, I think, set e-cigs apart. Vaping does not seem to be harmful to others (the main reason given for smoking bans), they do not need to contain nicotine (though ok if they do) and they are an alternative to smoking rather than some sort of NRT. They can be used to cut down or quit but so what?
I do agree that some regulation is needed wrt to quality control and further testing on long term health effects would be useful as with most products for consumption.
I am appaled at the way things have developed (and so fast). It seems some people are just against smoking or anything that resembles it, I prefer choices.
Anyways, an interesting and informative forum, with many points of view.
west
----
Posting Permissions
1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks