what at great news!
Oh my gosh, they're even including smoking areas with ashtray thingies! Nobody is being persecuted. :faint:
Cooper for president!
Finally Some Common Sense Legisation
- Thread starter Katcandoo
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
what at great news!
Oh my gosh, they're even including smoking areas with ashtray thingies! Nobody is being persecuted. :faint:
Cooper for president!
And there's always one ATNZ......
"Commissioner Bill Sargent is pleased with the ban, but he wouldn't mind if it was a little stricter and included e-cigarettes."
Delaware 105.9 - AUDIO: Smoking ban extended in Rehoboth Beach
"Commissioner Bill Sargent is pleased with the ban, but he wouldn't mind if it was a little stricter and included e-cigarettes."
Delaware 105.9 - AUDIO: Smoking ban extended in Rehoboth Beach
Wow, a common sense regulation! YEAH! 
....
And it never ceases to amaze me how a Cancer Society can be so vehemently opposed to a product which does not cause cancer but which instead replaces a product that is definitely said to cause cancer.
Hm... on the other hand, Cancer Societies receive a lot of grant money when there is a lot of cancer, do they not? So they stand to lose when the incidence of cancer decreases, do they not? Maybe their opposition to that virtually harmless, non-cancer-causing product is not so amazing after all. Follow the money.
....
And it never ceases to amaze me how a Cancer Society can be so vehemently opposed to a product which does not cause cancer but which instead replaces a product that is definitely said to cause cancer.
Hm... on the other hand, Cancer Societies receive a lot of grant money when there is a lot of cancer, do they not? So they stand to lose when the incidence of cancer decreases, do they not? Maybe their opposition to that virtually harmless, non-cancer-causing product is not so amazing after all. Follow the money.
Last edited:
Wow, a common sense regulation! YEAH!
....
And it never ceases to amaze me how a Cancer Society can be so vehemently opposed to a product which does not cause cancer but which instead replaces a product that is definitely said to cause cancer.
Hm... on the other hand, Cancer Societies receive a lot of grant money when there is a lot of cancer, do they not? So they stand to lose when the incidence of cancer decreases, do they not? Maybe their opposition to that virtually harmless, non-cancer-causing product is not so amazing after all. Follow the money.
I remember that FDA study that the Cancer Society is quoting.
The pdf of it was online for a long time... it may still be.
If you read it thoroughly, the carcinogens they talked about were in such small amounts that they couldn't even quantify them. And the quantities compared to those same chemicals' quantities in the nicotine patch.
Further, if I am remembering the right publication, they showed a photo of an ecig in its charger, only they had the wet end of the cig in the charger instead of taking it apart and only charging the battery. They really had no idea what they were even talking about at that point.
Yes I know.
And I bet the ones who keep disseminating that crap know as well. They deliberately hide the fact that the carcinogens found in that one sample were minuscule amounts - and the same amounts that are found in NRTs. NRT's which are FDA-approved for long-term use. Duh...
Those repeating that crap, well, mostly they do not know. They simply parrot nonsense. Without doing any research of their own. Without even reading - or understanding - that old study from 2009.
Like sheep. "E-cigs baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad"
- And I loved the picture of the e-cig in the charger. Stuck in there the wrong way. *giggles* What better way to show that they have no idea what the heck they are talking about
I wouldn't be too quick to celebrate. Just because this legislation exclude e-cigarettes doesn't mean it's a good thing. Ordinances of this type were originally intended to protect people from health issues due to exposure to second-hand smoke. From there it just morphed into bans even when there is no health risk. It's evolved from a health issue to a behavior control issue. Smoking outside is posing no health risk to anyone so it's not much of a stretch to extend it to e-cigarettes in the future as well. If we bought it for cigarettes why would we object when it's applied to e-cigarettes. Both bans would be for the same reason. Of course we can cite the occasional hyper sensitive person who goes into uncontrollable coughing spams when they get a whiff of smoke from 3 blocks over, but we can get those involving vapor too. This legislation is a foot in the door.
Anjaffm, I had forgotten about that until I read your post. I was a relative newbie (actually pretty green) when that report came out, but even I noticed that almost immediately. Fools!
Wouldn't this be a Very Good Opportunity to write the City Council Members and tell them that you Approve of this type of Fair Use e-Cigarette Policy?
Because I am sure they will get some Letters/e-Mails from people say'n that they Don't.
Thank you. But actually it was mbolack who pointed that out. Honor where honor is due
And gosh, I was not even vaping in 2009. I started in Nov 2011.
- And learned a whole lot in a very short time, due to a massive disinformation campaign in my country starting in December 2011. Started by the Cancer Research Center, of all places. Against a product that does not even cause cancer - but that replaces a product which definitely causes cancer. Yes, THAT German Cancer Research Institute that claimed, among other things, that glycerine is an oil and causes lipoid pneumonia when inhaled.
I shudder to think about the quality of "research" in an allegedly scientific institution that does not know / pretends not to know that glycerine is an alcohol and by no means an oil. - Good point.
It is very useful to let them know how you feel. Vapers are voters.
And yes, it is a lovely idea to say "Thank you" when one is pleased. Don't we all like a "thank you" when we have done something well?
The locals are very "live and let live". Easy going bunch. Unfortunately, being a small resort area close to the metro DC area, there has been an influx of big government type people with summer places. They tend to try to vote in similar regulations from their home location. :-(
All this legislation in this country is bull crap! Its all about control. Where I live in Florida you can smoke and vape in most of the bars. If you don't like it then don't come in here! It's as simple as that. Why does there always have to be some law created to tell people what they can and cannot do! I do not trust any legislation period. Once a new law is passed, it is just a stepping stone for further control.
This may be way off topic but I just wanted to say something to hear myself speak. We really only need three or four states to drop the hammer and back us vapors 100% to make the rest if the country wake up. The very fact that many bills banning and taxing Vaping have already been shot down is proof enough to know that bp and bt hasn't gotten their grubby worthless hands on all politicians. If I had the resources I'd start marching state to state screaming at the politicians to investigate and learn before they shoot first and ask questions later.
Sent while on the move with Tapatalk
Sent while on the move with Tapatalk
- Status
Similar threads
