e cig NJ workplace Ban...whats the big deal?

[PhiHalcyon]

Be honest. Do you really think that the vapor you are exhaling is harmful to the people around you? Do you actually believe that?

Generally speaking, no, I do not believe that my second-hand vapor is particularly harmful to others. All I am saying is that absent the existence of multiple non-conflicting studies which show that second-hand vapor is harmless, we do not have the right to make decisions for others on the basis of our beliefs.

 

[Zofryer]

Claiming the harmlessness of second-hand vapor (when no long-term studies of the harmlessness of first-hand vapor have even yet to be done) is simply not a credible position to take in the context of imposing that second-hand vapor on others.

Hmmmm.

Claiming the harmlessness of theatrical smoke machines (when no long-term studies of the harmlessness of theatrical smoke machines have even yet to be done) is simply not a credible position to take in the context of imposing those theatrical smoke machines on others.

Claiming the harmlessness of tea kettle steam (when no long-term studies of the harmlessness of tea kettle steam have even yet to be done) is simply not a credible position to take in the context of imposing that tea kettle steam on others.

Claiming the harmlessness of Glade® Plugins (when no long-term studies of the harmlessness of Glade® Plugins have even yet to be done) is simply not a credible position to take in the context of imposing Glade® Plugins on others.

Claiming the harmlessness of Asthma Inhalers (when no long-term studies of the harmlessness of Asthma Inhalers have even yet to be done) is simply not a credible position to take in the context of imposing those Asthma Inhalers on others.

Claiming the harmlessness of medicinal medicine vapor delivery devices (when no long-term studies of the harmlessness of medicinal medicine vapor delivery devices have even yet to be done) is simply not a credible position to take in the context of imposing medicinal medicine vapor delivery devices on others.

Claiming the harmlessness of a truckstop cook burning carcinogenic raw meats on a grill (when no long-term studies of the harmlessness of a truckstop cook burning carcinogenic raw meats on a grill have even yet to be done) is simply not a credible position to take in the context of imposing a truckstop cook burning carcinogenic meats on a grill on others.


http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/egpg/


*the finger*

I'm trying very hard to be succinct.

 

[PhiHalcyon]

Zofryer,

Well, you failed in being succinct. But, at least you were correct five times.

 

[Mac]

Generally speaking, no, I do not believe that my second-hand vapor is particularly harmful to others. All I am saying is that absent the existence of multiple non-conflicting studies which show that second-hand vapor is harmless, we do not have the right to make decisions for others on the basis of our beliefs.

Why not? The city of Rahway (NJ) did it when the built an incinerator a mile from my aunts house. (she died of cancer and never smoked) They are calling for smoking bans after many years of research and scientific evidence that tobacco smoke DOES. Why should our so called second hand vapor (I have yet to see any proof that such a thing exists) be any different? This notion that because it looks like smoke it is smoke is horribly flawed and has no logical basis whatsoever. I cannot tell you how many non smokers have personally thanked me for providing their friend/spouse/neighbor etc with a means to enjoy their nicotine without them having to breathe it. How can you be so sure that they are wrong? All the evidence seems to point in a different direction. Several months ago I made a poll asking if smokers found an improvement in respiratory function. Over 200 people voted. 85% reported Drastic improvement in respiratory function. Do you think it is a coincidence? At some point we have to stand up for ourselves. At some point we have to call BS when something obviously is.

what say you?

 

[Zofryer]

Zofryer,

Well, you failed in being succinct. But, at least you were correct five times.

"

• Propylene glycol, which is much less toxic than ethylene glycol, is metabolized to compounds that are normal constituents of the citric acid cycle.
• No health effects have been reported in persons chronically exposed to ethylene glycol or propylene glycol at levels found in the environment."

A simple "I was wrong" would have sufficed.

 

[PhiHalcyon]

what say you?

I've already stated my position in my first post. We know that the concern about second-hand vapor is most likely psychological rather than factual, but until there are scientific studies to back this belief up, we have no right to take a stand. I say to save this fight for another day. We need to worry about keeping the ecig available at this point; not where we can use it.

 

[PhiHalcyon]

A simple "I was wrong" would have sufficed.

Your correctness I affirmed validated, rather than refuted, my own.

 

[Zofryer]

I've already stated my position in my first post. We know that the concern about second-hand vapor is most likely psychological rather than factual, but until there are scientific studies to back this belief up, we have no right to take a stand. I say to save this fight for another day. We need to worry about keeping the ecig available at this point; not where we can use it.

Look, if you want someone, like anyone, to spend ten seconds on google to show you the results of actual studies of the effects of REAL second hand smoke, then draw some conclusions based upon the REAL effects of second hand cigarette smoke in comparison to something that produces roughly 3,000 less carcinogens, and lingers in the air for less than a twentieth of the time, then you too will understand how pathetically stupid the smoking bans themselves are.

 

[PhiHalcyon]

Second-hand smoke does not need to be harmful in order to be perceived as offensive or unwanted. A little common courtesy is not, in my opinion, such a dreadful thing to ask.

 

[rothenbj]

On an added note I lived in NJ for years and saw first hand the huge toxic black clouds of smoke pumping out of exxon's chimneys. Where is the ban on that?

That's not smoke or vapor, currently heavily controlled by the garden state. What you were observing was EMMISIONS, so much nicer a word.

 

[rothenbj]

You need evidence that the constituents of 'evaporated vapor' do not vanish into non-existence?!?

Where do you think they go? Down some worm-hole to a parallel universe?

A little experiment. Take you 510, inhale and hold for a couple seconds. Release the button right after your inhale. What comes out? NOTHING. What do you have? A nicotrol inhalor.

You can smoke these things without any sign of visible vapor, but there could be a faint smell of coffee, chocolate or cherry. What a society we have created.

On a positive note, the ban in NJ will give a new meaning to the bathroom break, at least until the cameras are installed in the Johns.

 

[TheBoogieman]

<< If the workplace ban is passed that doesn't mean a dozen more laws will be passed to the point that PV's will be outlawed. Thats xfiles BS.>>

They changed the definition of "smoking''. A dozen laws don't have to be passed against the PV. All they have to do is pass a law banning or restricting "smoking" and what would have been only applied to Tobacco, will now also be applied to your PV.

NJ Senate passes bill to restrict e-cigarettes | APP.com | Asbury Park Press

The bill expands the definition of "smoking'' to include e-cigarettes and extends the ban on smoking by minors to include them.

WAGNER & VOSS LEGISLATION TO COMBAT E-CIGARETTES APPROVED BY SENATE | Politicker NJ

and include e-cigarettes in the New Jersey Smoke Free Air Act

 

[rothenbj]

Generally speaking, no, I do not believe that my second-hand vapor is particularly harmful to others. All I am saying is that absent the existence of multiple non-conflicting studies which show that second-hand vapor is harmless, we do not have the right to make decisions for others on the basis of our beliefs.

If I'm understanding you right, we should pass a law prohibiting tyvek because it could be the next asbestos 20 years down the road. Cell phone sales and usuage should be banned until there is a consensus that they are safe. At a minimum they should be banned in close proximity to non users until non-conflicting studies of long term effects can be established.

Basically all new products- plasma, lcd, led, light bulbs should have laws passed against them until we're positive about health effects?

 

[Our House]

Basically all new products- plasma, lcd, led, light bulbs should have laws passed against them until we're positive about health effects?

No. He, for some reason (and I can't figure out what that reason is yet), feels that ecigs should be held to a different standard than everything else.

 

[PhiHalcyon]

What is so difficult to understand? If people are uncomfortable in our use of an ecig in their presence, then it is appropriate that we respect that, rather than be pompous idiots about it.

Not that it matters anyway. The FDA's ecig welcome party is most likely being planned as we speak.

 

[sherid]

What is so difficult to understand? If people are uncomfortable in our use of an ecig in their presence, then it is appropriate that we respect that, rather than be pompous idiots about it.

Not that it matters anyway. The FDA's ecig welcome party is most likely being planned as we speak.

People are uncomfortable about everything these days. They are phobic and will probably die prematurely because of the panic under which they lead their lives. Frankly, I would never want to be among a group of people who feared the sight of something that looked like smoking. The world is a very strange place. To buy into their phobias is equally disturbing.

 

[PhiHalcyon]

What is disturbing is the despicable lack of character exhibited in this thread.

 

[rothenbj]

What is so difficult to understand? If people are uncomfortable in our use of an ecig in their presence, then it is appropriate that we respect that, rather than be pompous idiots about it.

Not that it matters anyway. The FDA's ecig welcome party is most likely being planned as we speak.

That I can totally agree with you on, as a drug or more likely as a tobacco product since the immediate tax benefit will help our misserable economy.

 

[Kate51]

I have to agree that bundling e-cigs in the same smoke-filled room with cigarettes is a very very ominus sign.
Ignorance is so dangerous.

 

[TropicalBob]

Can you be certain that orange glow you see across a darkened bar is an e-cig? Or could it be someone violating a no-smoking regulation? Maybe another customer thinks this bar is exempted from a smoking ban, so that person lights a real cigarette. That's trouble.

The trouble began not because of a phobia, but a perception, because the e-cig can easily be mistaken for a real one.

Would you be comfortable in a restaurant where a bunch of jokers walked around with realistic looking Glock 9mm pistols tucked into the front of their pants? Man, those things look real! But they're toys. Aren't they? How do you know? Would anyone be comfortable in such a setting?

E-cigs are realistic fakes. And it's the perception of smoking that dooms e-smoking to even more bans.

People don't "fear" the sight to e-smoking. They know what's legal and what isn't -- and e-smoking is blurring the line in a way non-smokers and authorities aren't going to tolerate.