Electronic Cigarettes Won’t Find a Home at Walmart, New York

[xg4bx]

For thousands of Americans, electronic cigarettes (or e-cigs as they are sometimes called) have been a “miracle” that has helped them quit smoking, or, at the very least, drastically reduced it. But not everyone is a fan of electronic cigarettes and lawmakers in New York are hurriedly attempting to ban the sale of them in the state. Hearing the anti-electronic cigarette news from state lawmakers across the country, retail giant Walmart has backed away from the sale of the controversial items.

Walmart was rumored to carry electronic cigarettes and store them in the smoking section behind one of the checkout aisles. It’s the same place traditional smokes are kept and sale of the devices would be to those over the age of 18.


“If I can quit without e-cigarettes, then anybody can do it,” says New York Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, a Democrat.

Electronic Cigarettes Won’t Find a Home at Walmart, New York


not only is that rosenthal broad ignorant, she's a smug ****. it's not about quitting, dummy.

 

[hippiebrian]

If everyone could do it, the recovery rate for smokers after a year would be much higher than 2%. I hate arrogant es-smokers almost as much as I hate politicians! And this woman's a double loser...

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Yeah, Rosenthal is so up herself it's unbelievable. I commented.

 

[JohnKing]

Don't mess with the money! NY is so broke they can't afford any assault on ciggie "revenue". Next thing you'll be hearing will be how the kids won't have books if we make those e-cigs legal.

Save the kids! e-cigs bad!

 

[Vocalek]

I really, really wish that those who leave comments would try to make them fit the story they are commenting upon and also check to make sure that they have a very clear understanding of the facts.

Mike B went on and on and on in his comment about "antifreeze" and how safe Propylene Glycol (PG) is.

Problem #1: Antifreeze wasn't even mentioned in the story. Neither was Propylene Glycol. Why give the opposition new ideas to argue about?

Problem #2: What the FDA actually said was that they found 1% Diethylene Glycol, which they described as "an ingredient in antifreeze," in one of 18 cartridges tested.

Diethylene Glycol (DEG) is very toxic, and the FDA sets limits on how much can be in a product as a trace element. A number of people were poisoned a few years back by toothpaste where all of the PG that was supposed to be an ingredient had somehow been replaced by DEG.

I believe (but am not positive) that the 1% of 1 ml of liquid exceeds the FDA guidelines, but I do know that 0.01 ml of DEG is too small an amount to cause any harm whatsoever. Assuming that all of the DEG made it into the vapor (which may or may not be true--no lab has ever reported finding DEG in vapor, not even the FDA), you would need to use up over a hundred cartridges to reach the miniminally toxic dose (the dose that makes you feel sick). If you weigh 150 pounds, you would need to use 6,600 cartridges to be fatally poisoned. DEG clears the body very quickly, so you would have to use them all in one day.

 

[Cee_Jay]

Don't mess with the money! NY is so broke they can't afford any assault on ciggie "revenue". Next thing you'll be hearing will be how the kids won't have books if we make those e-cigs legal.

Save the kids! e-cigs bad!

Something the Seneca Nation is sadly aware of.

 

[JohnKing]

Something the Seneca Nation is sadly aware of.

Yes, and Mr. "gun-control" Bloomberg told the guv to go up there with shotguns to get the tax money. It is pathetic.

A Native American tribe is calling on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to either apologize or resign after he said on a radio show that Gov. David Paterson -- who's trying to rustle up millions in cigarette taxes from the tribes -- should grab "a cowboy hat and a shotgun" and demand the money.

Seneca Nation Wants Bloomberg Out Over 'Cowboy Hat and a Shotgun' Comment - FoxNews.com

these guys are very serious about these things, don't be fooled.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Seneca Nation Wants Bloomberg Out Over 'Cowboy Hat and a Shotgun' Comment - FoxNews.com

these guys are very serious about these things, don't be fooled.

Yeah. Replace 'Seneca' with 'Israel', and guns and cowboy hats with gas and confinement, and you have a very close analogy. Bloomberg should resign with immediate effect. Disgraceful behaviour by an elected official.

 

[ropetrick]

I really, really wish that those who leave comments would try to make them fit the story they are commenting upon and also check to make sure that they have a very clear understanding of the facts.

True, and noble, and one can't argue with your take-the-high-road approach. But in a political arena, it's a sure-fire means of going the way of honorable politicians: straight into retirement.

I've certainly heard many refer to PG as an element of antifreeze that's also found in e-cigs. The politically expedient thing to do is stick to your own talking points and, as Mike B seemed to do, carefully shoot down the other side's rhetoric. No one's going to win a PR war simply replying to the points Linda Rosenthal makes about her experiences with quitting cigarettes.

There's plenty of skepticism here and everywhere about government actions and motives. Fighting fire with fire is only fair. Not to mention alliterative.

 

[ScottinSoCal]

I've certainly heard many refer to PG as an element of antifreeze that's also found in e-cigs.

Well, to be fair, PG is an element of some antifreeze that's also found in e-cigs. Specifically, the safe antifreeze that's been marketed as a response to people (like me) who have had bad luck in the past with the regular stuff. It's all I'll use in my cars, since a very loved little pooch got a single lick of the bad old stuff and died as a result.

But you're right, those who say anything used in a car can't be good for people, so we'll just ban it all... Well, that's ridiculous. They use magnesium as an additive in some engine oils - should we start raiding health food stores and take their mineral supplements off the shelf?

 

[kristin]

The problem is, when politicians, health groups and media are making the claim about antifreeze being in e-cigarettes, they are referring to the diethylene glycol the FDA found in it's test, NOT propylene glycol. I have only seen vapers talking about PG as antifreeze, because they mistakenly think that is what the antis are referring to and they have no knowledge that the FDA found DEG in one sample. That is what Elaine means about getting the facts straight.

And sticking to the topic has nothing to do with being noble. If the story doesn't even mention PG or anti-freeze, the commentor looks foolish to be ranting about it. Keep in mind that to most of the public, we just sound like addicts defending our addiction and off-topic rants only confirm this perception in their minds.

True, and noble, and one can't argue with your take-the-high-road approach. But in a political arena, it's a sure-fire means of going the way of honorable politicians: straight into retirement.

I've certainly heard many refer to PG as an element of antifreeze that's also found in e-cigs. The politically expedient thing to do is stick to your own talking points and, as Mike B seemed to do, carefully shoot down the other side's rhetoric. No one's going to win a PR war simply replying to the points Linda Rosenthal makes about her experiences with quitting cigarettes.

There's plenty of skepticism here and everywhere about government actions and motives. Fighting fire with fire is only fair. Not to mention alliterative.

 

[kristin]

I commented, as well.

Ms. Rosenthal’s motivation for banning e-cigarettes is inherently flawed. She assumes that smokers who chose to switch to e-cigarettes are trying to cure their nicotine addiction. This is not the case. E-cigarette users simply want a low-risk source for nicotine and to still be able to feel like they are smoking. No other product currently on the market does this and that is why 93% of smokers using gums and patches end up returning to tobacco cigarettes. Now there is a low-risk alternative that tens of thousands of smokers have successfully switched to and Ms. Rosenthal wants to ban them, while leaving tobacco cigarettes readily available to smokers.

She has also been quoted as saying, “If people want the easy way to just get addicted to another nicotine delivery system, I hope soon they’ll have to look elsewhere.”

Where exactly, Ms. Rosenthal? E-cigarette users are former smokers already addicted to nicotine and have tried using patches and gums and everything else to get off of tobacco cigarettes. NOTHING has worked for them except e-cigarettes. Is this about the danger of smoking or about addiction for her? A comment like this shows she has no understanding of reduced harm alternatives. If an addictive product like nicotine e-cigarettes or caffeine carry low health risks, what is the point of opposing them simply because they are addicting?

If Ms. Rosenthal succeeds with her bill, the only “elsewhere” e-cigarette users in New York will have is tobacco cigarettes – the most dangerous source of nicotine there is.

 

[JohnKing]

Organizations including the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association and the City of New York have issued memos of support on behalf of Assemblymember Rosenthal’s legislation. The bill has been introduced in the New York State Senate by Senator Jeff Klein (D-Bronx/Westchester).

http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=067&sh=story&story=37565

That guy is a money magnet: 1.8 mil for state senate seat?!

Total amount: $1,811,483...

Contributions to KLEIN, JEFFREY D | Follow The Money

 

[Vocalek]

New York State Assembly - Member Section

That guy is a money magnet: 1.8 mil for state senate seat?!

Total amount: $1,811,483...

Contributions to KLEIN, JEFFREY D | Follow The Money

Can you also look up contributions to Rosenthal? I wonder if any of the board members of the ACS, ALA, AHA, and CFTK are donors.

 

[ScottinSoCal]

My message to Mrs. Rosenthal (I found her webpage on a google search):

After reading through the positions you hold on so many issues that I hold near and dear to my heart and finding myself 100% in agreement with them, I am astounded that you would be sponsoring a bill aimed directly at reducing the likelihood of New Yorkers giving up cigarettes.

As a 30 year smoker who tried every possible way to quit, I applaud you on your ability to quit cold turkey. Maybe I’m just weak-willed, but that didn’t work for me. It also didn’t work for anyone within hearing distance of me when I tried it.

So what did work? My “e-cigarette”. After 30 years of smoking I tried one. After my first puff from an e-cigarette, I lit three regular ones. The last one I couldn’t finish, it was just too nasty. My personal vaporizer (it looks nothing like a cigarette) has allowed me to sleep better at night, wake without coughing, avoid my annual case of bronchitis, improve my lung function, lower my blood pressure, and lower my triglyceride level. It has measurably – and almost immediately – reduced my likelihood of a heart attack. I know this because my company gives me an annual physical, including blood oxygenation level and lung capacity function. They've all shown immediate and drastic improvement since I gave up cigarettes.

I still have three cartons of cigarettes sitting in my cupboard at home. I have no desire to smoke them. I use my PV both at home and at work. The Environmental Health & Safety officer from my company checked out my new PV and made a point of swinging by my office to tell me I was welcome to use it while sitting in my office - I hadn't asked, he offered. If my doctor, my company nurse, and my company's EH&S officer all want to congratulate me for finding a much safer alternative to cigarettes, why in the world is a woman with your credentials and your belief in preventive medical care so against them?

 

[Bill Godshall]

Was this story written by the same person who several weeks ago created/reported a rumor claiming that Wall Mart was going to begin selling e-cigarettes (but who provided zero evidence to substantiate the sensationalized claim in the article's title)?

There is no evidence in this article indicating that Wall Marts in NY won't sell e-cigarettes (as the sensationalized title claims)

Posting sensationalized headlines that aren't substantiated (while repeating accurate, but unrelated, statements from other news articles) isn't journalism, and doesn't deserve commenting on.

 

[Petrodus]

Was this story written by the same person who several weeks ago created/reported a rumor claiming that Wall Mart was going to begin selling e-cigarettes (but who provided zero evidence to substantiate the sensationalized claim in the article's title)?

There is no evidence in this article indicating that Wall Marts in NY won't sell e-cigarettes (as the sensationalized title claims)

Posting sensationalized headlines that aren't substantiated (while repeating accurate, but unrelated, statements from other news articles) isn't journalism, and doesn't deserve commenting on.

Many many news-style pages on the Net are nothing more than plagiarized older articles. Many are cleverly disguised commercial E-cigarette pages pointing to their commercial websites. Real breaking news E-cigarette news articles are not common. There are tons of news articles regarding the recent event in NY and most of those are basically the same with different headlines.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Just as I suspected, the web posting claiming that Wallmart was going to start selling e-cigarettes (but that provided no evidence whatsoever) at Walmart to Begin Selling Electronic Cigarettes? was written by the same Rachel Daley who wrote this web posting claiming that Wallmart won't be selling e-cigarettes in NY (but that provided no evidence whatsoever).

 

[JohnKing]

Can you also look up contributions to Rosenthal? I wonder if any of the board members of the ACS, ALA, AHA, and CFTK are donors.

I posted in another thread..I'm getting confused with all these NY- e-cig threads !

here is the link to the post

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-york-sales-ban-next-steps-2.html#post2560010