Online and biased poll for SHowever, by treating the e-cigs like traditional cigarettes, says the Weekly, the FDA is "making it that much easier for l

[Traver]

I wonder if this is true

However, by treating the e-cigs like traditional cigarettes, says the Weekly, the FDA is "making it that much easier for local politicians to justify a blanket restriction on e-smokers. "

You don't have to register. To vote and read the article go to:
If E-Cigarettes Are Just Like Regular Cigarettes, Should SF Ban Them From Public Places? (Poll): News: SFAppeal


Below is another article to comment on without registering


FDA backs down on 'e-cigarettes' - UPI.com

 

[Vocalek]

The majority of the votes are for the last option. I commented.

 

[Traver]

The majority of the votes are for the last option. I commented.

By 80 percent so far.

Posted my comment too.

 

[kristin]

Voted and commented:

Why does it matter if it "looks like a cigarette" and delivers nicotine? The law is an indoor use ban against SMOKING, not a ban of use of "things that look like cigarettes but don't create smoke" or "things that contain nicotine." A pipe looks nothing like a cigarette, yet it's use is banned because it is SMOKING. FDA-approved patches, gums and inhalers contain nicotine, too - will using those be banned, as well?? A nicotine inhaler is even long, white and the user inhales nicotine. What? No ban there? Hmmm....

E-cigarette cartridges are even available without nicotine - so where is the justification of banning the use of those? Just because it "looks like smoking?" Most people I know use e-cigarettes that look nothing like a cigarette - they look like black or silver mini flashlights. So, where is the justification to ban the use of a black/silver, flashlight-looking device with a blue light switch and no nicotine?? It doesn't look like a cigarette, has no nicotine and doesn't act like a cigarette - no smoke. Justify THAT.

Ignorant, illogical people shouldn't be allowed to make laws.

 

[dee5]

Kristin, you always know how to say it just the right way! (you too Elaine!)

 

[Vocalek]

Ignorant, illogical people shouldn't be allowed to make laws.

So why don't you tell us how you really feel, Kristin?

 

[kristin]

So why don't you tell us how you really feel, Kristin?

LOL! You hit 'em with facts, Elaine, and I'll hit 'em with the sarcasm, lol! I've lost all patience with these people!!

 

[kristin]

I did think the pipe/NRT comments were relevant, though. Their logic is it needs to be banned because it looks and acts like a cigarette and has nicotine. Well, pipes don't look like cigarettes, why are they banned then? FDA-approved inhalers have nicotine and act like cigarettes (inhaled) - why AREN'T they banned?

Because the law has nothing to do with what it looks or acts like - it's about the SMOKE! Argh!!

 

[Traver]

LOL! You hit 'em with facts, Elaine, and I'll hit 'em with the sarcasm, lol! I've lost all patience with these people!!

Took you long enough.

 

[kristin]

Meh - I lost patience with them a long time ago. I just finally stopped hiding that fact! LOL!

Took you long enough.

 

[mwa102464]

I did think the pipe/NRT comments were relevant, though. Their logic is it needs to be banned because it looks and acts like a cigarette and has nicotine. Well, pipes don't look like cigarettes, why are they banned then? FDA-approved inhalers have nicotine and act like cigarettes (inhaled) - why AREN'T they banned?

Because the law has nothing to do with what it looks or acts like - it's about the SMOKE! Argh!!

Exactly !!! Someone driving down the road drinking a can of soda gets pulled over because the cop thought it was a bear, but it wasnt, it was a soda Yet they treat vapor as smoke it just cracks me up, next there gonna ban steam and tax it !!!

 

[house mouse]

OK. This is totally off topic, but it just helps to illustrate what a lunatic asylum SF is becoming.
San Francisco may vote on banning male circumcision - Yahoo! News

 

[Traver]

I was interested in what effect this announcement will have on state and local legislation. Will FDA regulation produce more bans or will it help us. Will saying e cigs are a legal regulated product make a difference?

 

[kristin]

It should help greatly in the fight against outright ban attempts that are based on e-cigs getting FDA-approval as a smoking cessation treatment, since the FDA now considers them tobacco products. (ie. such as a couple of bills on the table in New York) Now Rosenthal cannot demand e-cigs get FDA approval as NRTs anymore than she can demand cigarettes or snus gets NRT approval for sale!

Yolanda (CASAA's Legal Director, who is based in NY) would have a better grasp of that, though.

We may get even more attempts at indoor use bans, but our arguments against those haven't changed - smoking bans are for smoke. They don't apply to other smokeless tobacco or nicotine products, so they shouldn't apply to e-cigarettes unless there is definitive proof that they cause harm to bystanders.

 

[meems]

Kristin..it's not good to hold it in hon...

 

[Traver]

It should help greatly in the fight against outright ban attempts that are based on e-cigs getting FDA-approval as a smoking cessation treatment, since the FDA now considers them tobacco products. (ie. such as a couple of bills on the table in New York) Now Rosenthal cannot demand e-cigs get FDA approval as NRTs anymore than she can demand cigarettes or snus gets NRT approval for sale!

Yolanda (CASAA's Legal Director, who is based in NY) would have a better grasp of that, though.

We may get even more attempts at indoor use bans, but our arguments against those haven't changed - smoking bans are for smoke. They don't apply to other smokeless tobacco or nicotine products, so they shouldn't apply to e-cigarettes unless there is definitive proof that they cause harm to bystanders.

My thinking is that we can say it is a legal FDA regulated product. They can still say it is a tobacco product containing addictive nicotine. I should also add that my focus is in convincing the public.

 

[Audio Weasel]

I did think the pipe/NRT comments were relevant, though. Their logic is it needs to be banned because it looks and acts like a cigarette and has nicotine. Well, pipes don't look like cigarettes, why are they banned then? FDA-approved inhalers have nicotine and act like cigarettes (inhaled) - why AREN'T they banned?

Because the law has nothing to do with what it looks or acts like - it's about the SMOKE! Argh!!

So can we get around that if we all buy box mods?

 

[DC2]

LOL! You hit 'em with facts, Elaine, and I'll hit 'em with the sarcasm, lol! I've lost all patience with these people!!

I think that you all have a great synergy.

Elaine is awesome.
And you bring the hammer.