Not great news, but not the end of the world. Click the link for the article:
Use of e-cigs not allowed on US flights - Yahoo! Finance
Use of e-cigs not allowed on US flights - Yahoo! Finance
Dept. Of transportation bans e-cigs on airlines
- Thread starter Docliv
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution vapor pro
- Status
I'm not really surprised. I can see a whole bunch of reasons why they wouldn't allow it. If it became common enough, it would only be a matter of time before some idiot snuck a "e-cig" explosive device on a plane without being detected.
Yep..already read this.....Electronic Cigarettes Banned On U.S. Flights
Huffington Post
Huffington Post
What a PITA, ignorance rules yet again.
Stealth vaping in the restrooms, into a cup of coffee or water to suppress the vapor, would not set off smoke alarms, just that it is ridiculous to even have to think of doing that. (not that people should do such a thing, of course)
Stealth vaping in the restrooms, into a cup of coffee or water to suppress the vapor, would not set off smoke alarms, just that it is ridiculous to even have to think of doing that. (not that people should do such a thing, of course)
I completely agree with this.
Also, while I love vaping, have to admit that smelling all the aromas on a plane would be no better than smoking on a plane. And the vapor could lead to missing a burning device. Just better to be safe. Sorry to disappoint, but I can see "lighting" something with a e cig.
The ban has nothing to do with taking ecig batteries, or liquids (following the 1 quart ziploc TSA rule), on board, unless you have read something different than I have. You are actually supposed to take those lithium batteries on as carry-on, not packed for the cargo hold.
i had to log in and leave a comment on that article. here's what i said:
"THIS IS BOGUS.
e-cigs are NOT cigarettes. the vapor produced by an e-cig is no different than the steam coming off a cup of coffee.
obviously the FDA, front for big tobacco, is putting pressure to minimize the expansion of popularity for e-cigs.
Last edited by a moderator:
"I understand from an airline's point of view the hassles it could create," said Healy, whose company has partnered with a luxury charter jet company to provide free e-cigs on private flights. "It's not the actual product, it's the disruption and explaining to everyone else that it's not smoke."
This is my biggest concern with vaping in public. I just feel like we should be considerate of others. I know that from a smoker's perspective, two months ago, being on a flight for four hours would have absolutely killed me if the guy next to me would have been vaping. I think I would have just about come out of my skin wanting a cigarette. You know, sort of that "in your face" reminder that you're gonna be in the air for four hours without a cigarette. Uggghhhh!!!
From a non-smoker's perspective (and that's hard because I haven't been a nonsmoker for 27 years), I can't imagine getting on a plane and seeing a bunch of people "smoking" and not understanding what was going on. Then the flight attendant would have to explain it, or there would have to be a general announcement, so forth and so on.
I just don't think most of the general public is knowledgable about e-cigs enough to start trying to vape on planes, buses, trains, etc.
This is my biggest concern with vaping in public. I just feel like we should be considerate of others. I know that from a smoker's perspective, two months ago, being on a flight for four hours would have absolutely killed me if the guy next to me would have been vaping. I think I would have just about come out of my skin wanting a cigarette. You know, sort of that "in your face" reminder that you're gonna be in the air for four hours without a cigarette. Uggghhhh!!!
From a non-smoker's perspective (and that's hard because I haven't been a nonsmoker for 27 years), I can't imagine getting on a plane and seeing a bunch of people "smoking" and not understanding what was going on. Then the flight attendant would have to explain it, or there would have to be a general announcement, so forth and so on.
I just don't think most of the general public is knowledgable about e-cigs enough to start trying to vape on planes, buses, trains, etc.
I think you may have read something different. Looks like the article cited is specifically about people vaping on board a plane, from what I can gather from it.
I can totally understand the ban onboard a flight. A ton of people crammed into an airborne tin can with recirculating air... and 99% of them have little to no knowledge of the safety of PV's. I'm sure some people were quite alarmed to see others vaping on planes.
I love vaping, but I wouldn't want to be on an airplane with people vaping all different kinds of eliquid. And with the majority of folks being unaware of the safety of ecigs; and with the possibility that yes! some one could use it for a terrorist device, I can agree with the ban.
I think that what bothers me sometimes about this whole debate is that because we vape and because its safer and healthier for us; we automatically think that we should be able to do it in all the places where smoking analogs has been banned. I think that there could be a backlash from our sense of "entitlement" for lack of a better word. I DO tell smokers about this safer way of nicotine; but I think we could be setting ourselves up. Just sayin . . .
I think that what bothers me sometimes about this whole debate is that because we vape and because its safer and healthier for us; we automatically think that we should be able to do it in all the places where smoking analogs has been banned. I think that there could be a backlash from our sense of "entitlement" for lack of a better word. I DO tell smokers about this safer way of nicotine; but I think we could be setting ourselves up. Just sayin . . .
Air travel was a fight we were destined to lose. Stepping into an airport is like stepping into the Twilight Zone. Rhyme and reason go out the window and paranoia rules....
However, we should not appear to be too accomodating...lest others point to this ban to enact similar bans on city transportation services and the rest of the slippery slope.
However, we should not appear to be too accomodating...lest others point to this ban to enact similar bans on city transportation services and the rest of the slippery slope.
the problem i have with the ban is that it's unreasonably catering to ignorance and fear, rather than offering a reasonable explanation, which actually exists.
sure, vaping has a little scent. so does every perfume and cologne sprayed on in the morning by passengers. are they going to ban perfumes? no. but then again, people aren't breaking out bottles of perfume to spray themselves with in their airline seat. but they may in the restroom. last time i checked, there was no restrictions on stinkin' up the restroom on a plane with any "vapor", and i've been in some that i'm sure were more toxic than ecig vapor! haha
so i'd rather they not be banned, where someone could be criminally charged, but instead be airline POLICY that they're not allowed for use in the seats freely, which may be offensive to the neighboring passenger. now that is a VALID REASON for restricting use. heaven forbid we did anything with REASONABLENESS anymore. seems rational thinking went obsolete with the 20th c.
but saying that "people may think its smoke", or "people may not know what it is" is not justifiable. each person, vaper and non vaper, have equal rights. one person's ignorance of vaping is not justification for curtailing use of a safe product. and there's no reason to ban something that hasn't yet been proven harmful. innocent unless proven guilty, thanx.
summarily equating the use of PVs with cigs is just plain WRONG. THAT attempt should be outright FOUGHT by the vaping community. we need to emphasize the difference now more than ever. e-cigs are not an extension of smoking, and shouldn't be linked to its stigma as a "dirty habit". vaping is a completely new activity, that duplicates certain experiences of smoking, without the same impact or consequences. it is a far more positive activity, overall, and deserves to be recognized as such.
vaping is what it is, and should be afforded restrictions based upon what it is, not what it is similar to, or what it is mistakenly associated with.
IMHO.
sure, vaping has a little scent. so does every perfume and cologne sprayed on in the morning by passengers. are they going to ban perfumes? no. but then again, people aren't breaking out bottles of perfume to spray themselves with in their airline seat. but they may in the restroom. last time i checked, there was no restrictions on stinkin' up the restroom on a plane with any "vapor", and i've been in some that i'm sure were more toxic than ecig vapor! haha
so i'd rather they not be banned, where someone could be criminally charged, but instead be airline POLICY that they're not allowed for use in the seats freely, which may be offensive to the neighboring passenger. now that is a VALID REASON for restricting use. heaven forbid we did anything with REASONABLENESS anymore. seems rational thinking went obsolete with the 20th c.
but saying that "people may think its smoke", or "people may not know what it is" is not justifiable. each person, vaper and non vaper, have equal rights. one person's ignorance of vaping is not justification for curtailing use of a safe product. and there's no reason to ban something that hasn't yet been proven harmful. innocent unless proven guilty, thanx.
summarily equating the use of PVs with cigs is just plain WRONG. THAT attempt should be outright FOUGHT by the vaping community. we need to emphasize the difference now more than ever. e-cigs are not an extension of smoking, and shouldn't be linked to its stigma as a "dirty habit". vaping is a completely new activity, that duplicates certain experiences of smoking, without the same impact or consequences. it is a far more positive activity, overall, and deserves to be recognized as such.
vaping is what it is, and should be afforded restrictions based upon what it is, not what it is similar to, or what it is mistakenly associated with.
IMHO.
<rant>
At some point the fearmongering needs to be curtailed. I'm still reading the article, but to me this logic dosen't completely track. Yes in the realm of possibility it could happen, but so it could with dozens of phones, PDA's, laptops, and other electronic devices and their spare batteries.
(and yes I understand the can make you test items, but anything is circumventable.) </rant>
At some point the fearmongering needs to be curtailed. I'm still reading the article, but to me this logic dosen't completely track. Yes in the realm of possibility it could happen, but so it could with dozens of phones, PDA's, laptops, and other electronic devices and their spare batteries.
(and yes I understand the can make you test items, but anything is circumventable.) </rant>
Of course the logic doen't track. It's Senator Lautenberg!
I left a comment asking how it is scientifically possible for exhaled vapor to cause harm to bystanders, given the fact that 90% of the people who inhale the vapor report that their health has improved.
What I'm reading here is that we should just accept that whatever regulations have been passed for cigarettes should apply to E Cigs. Yes, it's not good to vape on a plane because.... Yes, we really shouldn't vape where smoking is not permitted, because..... Yes, we should not be able to get a job because..... Yes, we should be subject to outside bans on beaches and in parks because...... BECAUSE WHY?
Look, this really doesn't matter in the least to me. I'm constantly being asked where my PV is because most of the time it doesn't come out of my pocket anymore. However, when I was vaping I was vaping anywhere and everywhere I went and I educated people around me. I got a lot of people to look into them and some bought and most fell back on cigarettes because they didn't "get it" and weren't willing to spend the time to.
You've got to look at what you're doing and decide if you want to accept the plan that the government and the ?non-profit?"health" organizations have for your new found hobby. These will be effectively banned, back door as it seems to be occurring lately, wherever cigarettes are banned. Hopefully IVAQS will be completed and show there is no harm from SHV, but I would quess that in short order the antis will create their own studies that will negate the results of a totally user financed one.
This isn't about potential harm, it's about control and inch by inch they're winning. Tuesday will be one year since I had a puff on a cigarette and maybe a month since I pulled my PV out of my jacket pocked. None of this is going to matter to be personally, but I sure hate to see those of you that still like using your PV but under the same umbrella with smokers.
Look, this really doesn't matter in the least to me. I'm constantly being asked where my PV is because most of the time it doesn't come out of my pocket anymore. However, when I was vaping I was vaping anywhere and everywhere I went and I educated people around me. I got a lot of people to look into them and some bought and most fell back on cigarettes because they didn't "get it" and weren't willing to spend the time to.
You've got to look at what you're doing and decide if you want to accept the plan that the government and the ?non-profit?"health" organizations have for your new found hobby. These will be effectively banned, back door as it seems to be occurring lately, wherever cigarettes are banned. Hopefully IVAQS will be completed and show there is no harm from SHV, but I would quess that in short order the antis will create their own studies that will negate the results of a totally user financed one.
This isn't about potential harm, it's about control and inch by inch they're winning. Tuesday will be one year since I had a puff on a cigarette and maybe a month since I pulled my PV out of my jacket pocked. None of this is going to matter to be personally, but I sure hate to see those of you that still like using your PV but under the same umbrella with smokers.
Last edited:
Vocalek is correct - it's Sen. Lautenberg, who represents New Jersey where Johnson and Johnson is headquartered (makers of smoking cessation drugs). Lautenberg is also the one who first wrote the FDA asking e cigs be banned; now he's written the DOT asking they be banned from airlines. It's Big Pharm trying to nip this upstart competition in the bud.
On the other hand, until the general public is fully aware of e cigs and the FDA's fearmongering is squelched, pulling one out on a plane is very likely to cause a stir among the other passengers and crew who have no idea what it is. Until the truth is known of their safety and what a PV really is, vaping on an aircraft - at least in the passenger section - might not be the best idea at the moment.
On the other hand, until the general public is fully aware of e cigs and the FDA's fearmongering is squelched, pulling one out on a plane is very likely to cause a stir among the other passengers and crew who have no idea what it is. Until the truth is known of their safety and what a PV really is, vaping on an aircraft - at least in the passenger section - might not be the best idea at the moment.
- Status
Similar threads
