Long Island Ban
- Thread starter Spikey
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I liked Schneiderman... here is his quote.
Legis. Jay Schneiderman (I-Montauk), who voted for the bill before changing his position to abstain after the vote total was announced, said he doesn't believe electronic cigarettes are as dangerous as traditional cigarettes.
"This may be one of the best ways to quit smoking," said Schneiderman, a hotel owner. "It might be good for the economy to create vapor lounges as well."
Legis. Jay Schneiderman (I-Montauk), who voted for the bill before changing his position to abstain after the vote total was announced, said he doesn't believe electronic cigarettes are as dangerous as traditional cigarettes.
"This may be one of the best ways to quit smoking," said Schneiderman, a hotel owner. "It might be good for the economy to create vapor lounges as well."
Well Spikey, at least you and your team gave it your best shot---at least you tried and that is all that anyone can ask. Thanks for all the hard work and effort as it is appreciated.
Sun
Sun
Spikey, I'm sure you're frustrated, mad, and discouraged. We all know how tireless you are in fighting the fight. I agree with Sun...your efforts are sooooooo appreciated.
Sorry to hear the bad news.. I see that the "targeting to kids" BS was a factor in their decision.
This makes as much sense as closing shopping malls during school hours to cut down on the truency rate. Again, the dollar though I suspect some politicians on a local level don't have a clue, expecially if they are non smokers .. they're not paying attention but sure looks like smoking therefore, must be smoking, so let's ban. IF vaping wasn't so convincing in appearance to an analog it may not be an issue to a non smoker. I've had some major management approach situations, all become an educational experience, some gathering "students", then FAQ time. I love it!
We found 2 or 3 major errors in the legislation... but we are choosing NOT to post here because it is publicly available to them and they have TWICE now read here of ways we can get around it and amended the law... please edit your post... we do know about the errors.. but we DON'T want them to!!!!
Sorry about that! Edited, and I think it was only up four about five minutes...
Wow...
"They will be free to use these in the privacy of their own homes, but they will no longer be able to subject innocent people around them to these dangers," he said."
Not only are we "not regular" people, it now appears that we are also "guilty" of something since we are not innocent.
"They will be free to use these in the privacy of their own homes, but they will no longer be able to subject innocent people around them to these dangers," he said."
Not only are we "not regular" people, it now appears that we are also "guilty" of something since we are not innocent.
Thx
It is not being paranoid when they actually ARE out to get you LOL! I .........e in the privacy of my own home and that doesn't harm anyone... but in public.. it would be a big problem. I think he was using rationale along those lines...
How incredibly naive I have been throughout my life.
I never would have believed anyone who tried to tell me that pseudo-science, fabrication, and flat out lies could actually be used to convince sane and intelligent lawmakers to do something that makes no sense whatsoever, and causes only harm while bringing absolutely no good.
Well, here's what that mo-mo's statements have taught us.
1) He does not understand the difference between second hand smoke and vapor
2) He does not know that nicotine is not carcinogenic.
3) He is worried by the fear of the unknown, the "other" ingredients in pv juice - which, unfortunately for his perspective, we do know. And we know its safe.
I'm thinking this needs to be the focus. Vapor is not second hand smoke. The tar and chemicals produced from the burning of tobacco is what causes cancer, not nicotine. The ingredients used with the nicotine to make PV juice has been deemed safe by the FDA for many years, and is used in food products. Anyone who has been to a broadway show and seen a fog machine has been exposed to vapor.
Also, no study has ever shown pv use to be harmful.
I should also mention mass production of PG produces trace elements of DEG - this is regardless of any product PG is used in, and is a bi-product of the manufacturing process. Some DEG is found in food products out on the market today. This is why the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations allows up to 0.2% of diethylene glycol in polyethylene glycol.
While DEG was found in the cartridge, the FDA did not specify what percentage was discovered. If I'm wrong, let me know - but I looked through the entire lab, and only saw "Detected".
Just to throw that into the mix.
1) He does not understand the difference between second hand smoke and vapor
2) He does not know that nicotine is not carcinogenic.
3) He is worried by the fear of the unknown, the "other" ingredients in pv juice - which, unfortunately for his perspective, we do know. And we know its safe.
I'm thinking this needs to be the focus. Vapor is not second hand smoke. The tar and chemicals produced from the burning of tobacco is what causes cancer, not nicotine. The ingredients used with the nicotine to make PV juice has been deemed safe by the FDA for many years, and is used in food products. Anyone who has been to a broadway show and seen a fog machine has been exposed to vapor.
Also, no study has ever shown pv use to be harmful.
I should also mention mass production of PG produces trace elements of DEG - this is regardless of any product PG is used in, and is a bi-product of the manufacturing process. Some DEG is found in food products out on the market today. This is why the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations allows up to 0.2% of diethylene glycol in polyethylene glycol.
While DEG was found in the cartridge, the FDA did not specify what percentage was discovered. If I'm wrong, let me know - but I looked through the entire lab, and only saw "Detected".
Just to throw that into the mix.
Lol, we are carrying weapons of mass destruction in our pockets.
I hate to play devil's advocate, because I truly believe in vaping, but I'm wondering if part of the problem is our own community's fault.
We are on a forum right now called e-cigarette-forum.com. We use terms like e-cigs, electronic smoking, electronic cigarettes, smoke, etc. Personally, I think we need to get rid of all the "smoking" and "cigarette" references. Until we do, we will continually be grouped into that evil sadistic world of cigarette smokers! Oh no!
If what we do and the products we believe in HAD NEVER BEEN KNOWN by those other things, and if we just used the terms vaping, vapor, personal vaporizers, and nicotine delivery device it would be viewed differently, IMHO.
Look at Smoking Everywhere. Think about just the name of the company. FU I'm going to smoke anywhere I want. The name itself is combative.
People are going to think cigarettes are evil no matter if they are tobacco, electric, wind powered, or solar. When they hear "cigarette" a preconceived conclusion has already been made.
We are on a forum right now called e-cigarette-forum.com. We use terms like e-cigs, electronic smoking, electronic cigarettes, smoke, etc. Personally, I think we need to get rid of all the "smoking" and "cigarette" references. Until we do, we will continually be grouped into that evil sadistic world of cigarette smokers! Oh no!
If what we do and the products we believe in HAD NEVER BEEN KNOWN by those other things, and if we just used the terms vaping, vapor, personal vaporizers, and nicotine delivery device it would be viewed differently, IMHO.
Look at Smoking Everywhere. Think about just the name of the company. FU I'm going to smoke anywhere I want. The name itself is combative.
People are going to think cigarettes are evil no matter if they are tobacco, electric, wind powered, or solar. When they hear "cigarette" a preconceived conclusion has already been made.
to me it doesn't sound like a health and safety issue, its an anti-smoking issue, their not concerned about health and safety, its an image thing, that or there just completely ignorant.
Tobacco has gotten such a bad rap that even the appearence of smoking is considered wrong, and immoral.
But at least they weren't totally banned. partial victory?
Tobacco has gotten such a bad rap that even the appearence of smoking is considered wrong, and immoral.
But at least they weren't totally banned. partial victory?
I spoke 3 times in front of them along with Spike and I 100% agree with you. I believe that it is an "image" issue.
If the law makers would have taken the time out to read OUR data, I believe that the vote would have been different.
One of them asked me if I thought that the electronic cigarette was the same as a regular cigarette. I stated "no" and for confirmation let's pull out a webster's dictionary and look up the word cigarette and we'll see that based on that definition that there is a difference!! He then went on to say, "What if I were to tell tell you that the lawyer for Smoking Everywhere was quoted saying that it was in his opinion that the electronic cigarette is the same as a regular cigarette"? I said to myself Sheesh!!! This guy is a lawyer?? My answer to him was..."You have a dictionary handy?"
Seems as if these people already had their minds made up.
I think you may be right here. Also, this is sad evidence that SE's legal efforts ARE NOT going to help. Their arguments will be used AGAINST us time and time again in cases like this.
Its funny that everbody in the legislative process feigns ignorance and then pull out these wonderful nuggets of info only available to those who have already done plenty of research....
- Status
Similar threads
