ConsumerAffairs.com draws the line on the LA ban

[Rickajho]

ConsumerAffairs.com (not affiliated with Consumer Reports) seldom has anything positive to say about e-cigs at all, citing the typical re-regurgitated stuff we see about "we don't know what's in there", "exploding batteries" - while providing no real background as to what really happened. You know - just reiterating what everyone else spits out without any added insight.

But when it came to the recent LA ban staff writer Jennifer Abel had enough, and called out the ban for what it really is about:

Magical beliefs spawn e-cig bans

"Neither Martinez nor Jonathan Fielding nor anyone else mentioned in that LA Times article explained how or why e-cig water vapor, rather than gasoline exhaust from millions of cars, is the main barrier standing between Nuny Martinez and her right to choose to breathe “clean air.”

Chances are the reason is purely pragmatic: stigmatizing car owners is neither politically nor economically feasible in Los Angeles, whereas stigmatizing tobacco smokers has already been done. And now, thanks to the power of sympathetic magic (backed by the power of City Council decisions), anyone who so much as looks like a tobacco smoker can be stigmatized the same way."

Comments are welcome. Ms Abel can also be contacted by phone from the site.

 

[chapeltown]

It is very nice to see some support, especially from unexpected sources. Thank you for sharing, Rick!

 

[Hulamoon]

Couldn't let that one go, specially as my comment directly follows that nitwit Rausher from Chicago uni

Magical beliefs spawn e-cig bans

Excellent article Jennifer. There have also been major scientific reports that prove e-cigarettes are no more dangerous, and actually have less chemicals in them than the prescription nicotrol inhalers - and those are approved for children over 12! These reports are never quoted by the rabid no-smoking Aunt Fannies. The fact is that junk scientists paid by big pharma or political dollars from our taxes are nothing more than that.

Note how these so-called scientists always yap about "may contain" and "potentially harmful". They have no proof and the ludicrous little study done years ago did not actively compare any water vapor chemicals to something meaningful (i.e. bad breath alone, yes really... or even the massive auto pollution you so wisely mention). Think about this. Vaping has been around for at least a decade - if there were ANY such thing as known dangers, I can guarantee you that big pharma and real science would be all over it like moss on a log. yet, fully 10 years later they can produce nothing.

I for one am sick and tired of the corruption of these babbling idiots.

Another point I take huge exception to are blanket rhetorical statements that it is a gateway to smoking for children. We have had cigarettes around for plenty long enough to know for a fact that many children smoke and are addicted before the age of 18. It isn't a happy fact, but it is a solid one and has been as long as cigarettes have been around. What I find absolutely stunning is that these same "think of the children" persons would much rather see children smoke arsenic ammonia MAOI's and tar, given their gnashing demands to make vaping illegal. Oh yes, - nicotine is a gateway drug. Ban it, they say! Hmph. I guess that bawling about banning tomatoes or eggplant doesn't have the same impact, nor does using it for Parkinson's or Alzheimers.

Finally, if these collective well-compensated Aunt Fannies were sincere about "the children," how about getting to grips with the myriad of truly illegal substances that abound and do meaningful lobbying action on those? How about lobbying against all the wonderful mixed alcoholic drinks out there because they are aimed at "the children".

Not interested guys? Ah.... I see.....no federal and state tax money or Pfizer/Glaxo payouts for those. Your gravy train ride is at an end.

Expect these same idiots to show up same time next year telling us all about the dangers of soda, sugar, fat, meat because the government and big pharma wants to either/or tax those/derive more profits - because cigarette sales continue to plummet in favor of vaping.

ConsumerAffairs.com (not affiliated with Consumer Reports) seldom has anything positive to say about e-cigs at all, citing the typical re-regurgitated stuff we see about "we don't know what's in there", "exploding batteries" - while providing no real background as to what really happened. You know - just reiterating what everyone else spits out without any added insight.

But when it came to the recent LA ban staff writer Jennifer Abel had enough, and called out the ban for what it really is about:

Magical beliefs spawn e-cig bans

"Neither Martinez nor Jonathan Fielding nor anyone else mentioned in that LA Times article explained how or why e-cig water vapor, rather than gasoline exhaust from millions of cars, is the main barrier standing between Nuny Martinez and her right to choose to breathe “clean air.”

Chances are the reason is purely pragmatic: stigmatizing car owners is neither politically nor economically feasible in Los Angeles, whereas stigmatizing tobacco smokers has already been done. And now, thanks to the power of sympathetic magic (backed by the power of City Council decisions), anyone who so much as looks like a tobacco smoker can be stigmatized the same way."

Comments are welcome. Ms Able can also be contacted by phone from the site.

 

[rothenbj]

You have to wonder if the negative commentators are regular people or ANTZ selling their agenda to the masses. I find it funny that they use the unregulated product argument when the FDA has had a minimum of at least that long top do just that. However, it's the industries responsibility.