Dang it ... we need that IVAQS test run bad .. with that we will know conclusively whether the vapor poses any dangers to the general public or if, as we are fairly sure, it poses no risk at all.
Dept. Of transportation bans e-cigs on airlines
- Thread starter Docliv
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution vapor pro
- Status
I wish it were that easy. But the truth is that this really isn't about the science any more . . . it's largely about perception and agenda.
Hehe ... we're working on that as well slowly but surely as we continue to educate the general public.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
US Congress enacted the law banning smoking on all airline flights around 1990 (as I generated many letters and calls to Congress to do so). I'll see if I can track down the text of that law (in my old files), but I'd be shocked if the definition of smoking in that law would also apply to e-cigarette usage.
Congress has also authorized the DOT to ban/restrict the use and/or possession of other things on airlines that can pose safety risks (e.g. usage of cell phones/computers, possession of knives, other weapons).
About a year after 911, DOT banned the possession of matches and cigarette lighters in airline cabins (because they pose risk of fires/explosions), but has subsequently repealed that rule.
It would be helpful to know what legal authority DOT is citing for banning e-cigarette usage on airlines.
When I attended Vapefest in Fredricksburg VA last year, when/after nearly 100 people vaped in the same room for more than 12 hours, the only thing I could smell was a slight fragrance in the air (probably due to various scents added to e-cigarette products). But it smelled pleasant (like fresh flowers) and was significantly less intrusive than odors emitted by most perfumes.
Has DOT banned the use of perfumes on airlines? Didn't think so.
Congress has also authorized the DOT to ban/restrict the use and/or possession of other things on airlines that can pose safety risks (e.g. usage of cell phones/computers, possession of knives, other weapons).
About a year after 911, DOT banned the possession of matches and cigarette lighters in airline cabins (because they pose risk of fires/explosions), but has subsequently repealed that rule.
It would be helpful to know what legal authority DOT is citing for banning e-cigarette usage on airlines.
When I attended Vapefest in Fredricksburg VA last year, when/after nearly 100 people vaped in the same room for more than 12 hours, the only thing I could smell was a slight fragrance in the air (probably due to various scents added to e-cigarette products). But it smelled pleasant (like fresh flowers) and was significantly less intrusive than odors emitted by most perfumes.
Has DOT banned the use of perfumes on airlines? Didn't think so.
Well, to take it down a level ( I do that well)...
A couple of years ago - before the airlines printed in their in air mag - I asked the flight attendant if I could vape... she said that "technically" I could but she didn't want to explain to everyone else on the flight what "that smoke was". I told her I was more than happy to get on the PA and let everyone know what all that smoke was about..... but no avail to her.... annyhoo....
So, I find it odd that when we sit on a tarmac for hours breathing in JET FUEL FUMES (lungs), not moving for hours (cardiovascular) and not being able to visit the restroom (kidneys)...
what part of our health and welfare is a concern?
Ohhhhh, that's right. My wallet.
A couple of years ago - before the airlines printed in their in air mag - I asked the flight attendant if I could vape... she said that "technically" I could but she didn't want to explain to everyone else on the flight what "that smoke was". I told her I was more than happy to get on the PA and let everyone know what all that smoke was about..... but no avail to her.... annyhoo....
So, I find it odd that when we sit on a tarmac for hours breathing in JET FUEL FUMES (lungs), not moving for hours (cardiovascular) and not being able to visit the restroom (kidneys)...
what part of our health and welfare is a concern?
Ohhhhh, that's right. My wallet.
The higher level is still trying to figure out the definition of smoke.
Well said.
I actually find the technology that goes into building planes exceptionally fascinating. Flying, on the other hand, appears to have become a social experiment to see how much people will put up with.
throatkick" data-source="post: 2658121" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">throatkick said:
Speaking of which, there was a humorous article in Parade Magazine today, "Making the Skies a Bit Friendlier". He brings up smelly feet (people who take off their shoes), smelly food ("Fried onions will not stop smelling at 23D."), kids who kick the back of your seat without Mom and Dad telling them to stop. About crying babies, he says, "...at least pretend you're trying to keep him quiet. Don't hide behind an US Weekly."
Making the Skies a Bit Friendlier | Parade.com
There is a link on the page inviting you to share your thought--and in-flight experiences--with the magazine at Facebook.
Left this comment.
Last edited:
Crumpet, I want your permission to use this as my next Christmas letter. That was so good I can't stop laughing....accent on the "smartest, most unique snowflake ever". 
Aunt Esther is in complete agreement with everything you said. If we accommodate too much then we are, at least complicitly, validating the fear mongering. It is correct (from an eariler poster) that the FDA is trying to nip e-cigs in the bud before too many people get wind of them and love them like we do....and they know that will happen. Same with all these bans: banning should NEVER be the default, only a last resort. If the antis can get these banned (in public, on planes, etc) then they send a subliminal message to Joe Public that these things must be bad, otherwise why would they be banned? It is an attempt to squelch the popularity to avoid loss of revenue to BP or BT since the Federal court has forbidden them from banning them out of existence. So, fear mongering is the next best thing.
Also, I'm sick of all the pearl clutching going on in this increasingly alarmist culture we live in, and I do not just blame the government or the media. Our citizens simply became too comfortable, and they started taking things for granted. They became less diligent and therefore less informed. Somewhere along the line someone sent out a memo that if you do everything by the book and never, ever color outside the lines then you will live to be 1,000 years old and nothing bad will ever happen to you. If you read Shakespeare to your unborn child, stay at home full-time, breastfeed exclusively for at least 4 years, never let them play outside, teach them 7 languages by the time they enter kindergarten, only feed them organic food and don't let them ever see someone puffing on a stick then you will be the proud parent of the smartest, most unique snowflake ever which of course makes you the best parent ever. Then you can micromanage every aspect of their lives while they try to grow up: put them in 5 daily after school activities until they graduate, then you can go and sit with them in class when they go to college and you can argue with their professors when they don't make straight As.
It's hyperbolic for sure, but isn't this the same kind of micromanaging, helicopter parenting we're getting increasingly from our own government? Yes, I blame the public. I blame them for being lazy and naive and wanting to be spoonfed sanitized information delivered in a pretty, Hollywood style package, sensationalism included. I blame people for not being more willing to question what they hear and read and for being stupid enough to think that their government would never be guilty of propoganda, greed, and lies like in all those 'bad' countries. Then, they are the first to ..... about their rights after they've already lost them and demand to know how such a thing could happen.
exit soapbox........
Crumpet, I want your permission to use this as my next Christmas letter. That was so good I can't stop laughing....accent on the "smartest, most unique snowflake ever".
Please do! Just double check spelling b/c sometimes when I write in a hurry I can get sloppy, lol.
From what I can find, the law banning smoking on airplanes is Federal Law 106-181, Sec. 252.3. In checking that, it simply states that "smoking" is banned on all domestic flights (which is why I no longer fly). It does not contain a definition of "smoking". However, Smokefree.gov does have what is the only government defintion of smoking I've been able to find so far. To find this definition, you must go to smokefree.gov, then scroll to the bottom where you will see "dictionary" - click on that and, when the page comes up, scroll down to find 'smoking', which is defined as follows:
"Smoking The act of drawing in or inhaling smoke of burning tobacco in a cigarette, pipe or cigar and exhaling it."
According to that definition, "smoking" most certainly would not apply to e cigs......
"Smoking The act of drawing in or inhaling smoke of burning tobacco in a cigarette, pipe or cigar and exhaling it."
According to that definition, "smoking" most certainly would not apply to e cigs......
Whose agenda is it ? What are they doing? Who is actually fighting it?
Last edited:
The agenda of the prohibitionist anti-tobacco/anti-recreational nicotine groups. Members of the ALA, ACS, CTFK, etc.
They are spreading lies and twisting facts about the health effects and youth use of reduced harm tobacco alternatives and recreational nicotine products in an attempt to denormalize nicotine users and get all nicotine products (that are not a nicotine cessation pharmaceuticals) banned from public use and off the market. They are so delusional they think they will eventually get ALL people off nicotine and all tobacco/recreational nicotine products banned. For them, smokers are a lost cause and the means justify the end. Other members of these same groups PRETEND to be acting for public health, but have made deals with the tobacco industry, which basically protect the most deadly form of tobacco while allowing bans of inconsequential (to public health) products such as flavors and smokeless to make them look effective. This protects the future of their organizations by creating an artificial need for the anti-smoking groups to continue to "fight" the "evils" of smoking.
The tobacco harm reduction proponents, smoker advocates, smokeless tobacco advocates, real scientists and e-cigarette advocates are fighting it.
I sometimes find it hard to believe because of how malicious the "Medical Mafia" with its agents in government and corporate power positions have become in this manufactured jihad they have declared on "demon tobacco". But the horrifying truth that seems like a wild conspiracy theory is undeniable if you stop and think about it: With every cigarette purchased, a large portion of the price funds the Master Settlement Agreement--this money is gleefully collected as punishment for the sin of addiction and then distributed to each state's budget to fund the holy war against tobacco--including helping to purchase smoking cessation drugs from heroic-looking pharmaceutical companies.
Once smokers submit to the persecution and attempt to quit using 'FDA approved' drugs, they are indirectly funding donations to 3 and 4-letter organizations to promote the anti-tobacco (rather than smoking) agenda that merely prolongs the war and ensures that smoking-related morbidity will continue: Deceive smokers into believing that they must completely quit using tobacco or face certain death--socially or otherwise. This mentality practically ensures that a certain percentage of the population will continue to purchase cigarettes and/or pharmaceuticals (funding their own persecution either way) when 98% resume smoking within 20 months of nicotine abstinence. As long as Pharmaceutical and Healthcare corporations and their "friends" in government and "non-profit" public health agencies continue to financially benefit from all sides of this war that causes casualties and collateral damage to millions of tobacco users, they are deeply financially vested in ensuring that this war continues.
The really scary thing is we aren't just talking about the relative pittance of the Master Settlement Agreement that Big Tobacco was happy to "pay" (or rather, be 'forced' to raise the price of cigarettes to pay) or the "400 thousand annual deaths", but the REAL money that is spent on drugs and healthcare to treat the 8.6 Million smokers who report chronic illnesses associated with smoking, or the millions that are spent to extinguish forest fires that aren't started by combustion-free tobacco products, and the countless other products and services that are directly and indirectly benefit from "treating" the harms of tobacco and "fighting" the war! The system is inherently corrupt because the very same people who we are paying to "fight" the war ALSO profit from the sale of the ammunition AND they are paid to treat the wounded and afflicted. They really don't care if any individual succeeds or fails because they are practically assured their pound of flesh either way...just as long as the misguided war on tobacco continues, What if e-cigarettes actually allowed adults to to make their own educated choices about tobacco use without all the hazards and mess of combustion and thus fixed the "tobacco problem" potentially ending the war???
That is the makings of a Global Revolution that the defenders and profiteers of the status quo simply cannot afford...UNLESS, they feel strongly enough that adults should be free to make an educated choice about non-therapeutic tobacco and nicotine products and thus "risk" ending the profitable war on tobacco, accepting the financial losses from fewer smoking-related deaths and illnesses.
Anyone who is truly concerned about the potential or known hazards of lighting things on fire and inhaling the byproducts should be encouraging ways to avoid it, like switching to smoke-free alternatives like e-cigs or other smokeless tobacco products. For the record, that is not paid medical advice, it is free common sense.
In a nutshell, the problem isn't that the "war on tobacco" can't be won, it's that it should never have been fought in the first place.
Last edited:
There's no doubt that it is a globally organized WHO conspiracy. You can watch the steps taking place. They might not be able to legally take cigarettes off the market, but WHO has an answer for that, make it illegal to take a puff just about everywhere. Coming to a state near you-
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...t-level-america-were-next-ot.html#post2716442
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...t-level-america-were-next-ot.html#post2716442
Yup. What Kristin said.
In addition, these groups have been pushing for bans on smoking that are simply not even a little bit based on science. For example, there is absolutely no indication that second-hand smoke is a a problem in the wide open outdoors, yet they seek bans on outdoor smoking. In many parks, smokers cannot smoke because (1) littering of cigarette butts (ummmm--enforce littering laws?), (2) non-smokers have the right to a smoke-free environment (ummm--maybe the non-smoker could move away from the smoker--they're outdoors, after all?), and (3) we don't want to expose our children to the SIGHT of smoking (ummm--live in the real world much?). But it's not just the children--the rabid antis find smoking so disgusting that they want to live in a world where they don't have to see smokers. Yes, the sight of smoking is that upsetting to them.
And why should we care? After all, many of us are no longer smokers. Well, vaping is getting caught up in all of this anti-smoking hysteria.
We exhale a visible vapor, and that looks like smoking. Therefore, in their minds, all the public policy arguments against smoking should apply to us . . . we normalize smoking; we are a gateway to smoking; we convince children that smoking/vaping is okay (and cool); we confuse smokers so that they'll smoke in non-smoking areas when they see people vaping; we are nicotine addicts, and we must be cured of our addiction . . . I could go on. So which of those issues is based on science?
This stopped being about the science a long time ago.
Speaking of the tobacco master settlement, this was in yesterday's Washington Times.
BADER: Tobacco tax hike was a backroom deal - Washington Times
BADER: Tobacco tax hike was a backroom deal - Washington Times
It is also interesting to note that this happened in 1998, right around or just before the time that David Goerlitz claimed that things really started to go downhill. Pharmaceutical and health care companies make money by selling "ammunition" (in the form of drugs, devices, therapies, and combinations) to fight disease. The Master Settlement Agreement extracts money from the Tobacco Industry to fund the "war" against infidel tobacco. Is it any wonder why corporations who sell ammunition might want the war to continue? Why should we be surprised that the FDA is so quick to approve unsafe and ineffective drugs that attempt to eradicate the recreational use of tobacco, but quickly attempt to ban smoke-free recreational nicotine/tobacco products while the products responsible for over 99% of all the harms associated with tobacco continue to be sold (with the majority of MSA funds going to companies who just happen to have friends in the FDA)???
Well, duh! I first posted this at the end of the wrong thread. Here it is where it belongs:
Thad:
You are famous now on Twitter:
TobHrmReduct THRorg team
Good letter on smokers financing their own oppression; http://......./dMXI3n
2 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply
If you fill in the "......" with "bit" dot "ly", you will be taken to response #54 in this thread.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ation-bans-e-cigs-airlines-6.html#post2716171
You can also see the Tweet here: Tobaccoharmreduction.org
Look in the scrolling black box under
Like our Twittering? Keep it going by signing up. We could use the feedback!
Thad:
You are famous now on Twitter:
TobHrmReduct THRorg team
Good letter on smokers financing their own oppression; http://......./dMXI3n
2 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply
If you fill in the "......" with "bit" dot "ly", you will be taken to response #54 in this thread.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ation-bans-e-cigs-airlines-6.html#post2716171
You can also see the Tweet here: Tobaccoharmreduction.org
Look in the scrolling black box under
Like our Twittering? Keep it going by signing up. We could use the feedback!
while I understand what everyone is talking about here I am not sure what to do. I vape, I am traveling next week by plane and will be gone for a week. I am checking 1 piece of luggage, one carry on plus a purse. Where should I put my batteries and Carts supply?. All I was planning to have on my person (purse) is 2 batteries and 2 carts. Will those pass security or be taken away?
- Status
Similar threads
