Storyspinr --- you've got that absolutely right. Are you sure you're not from NJ???
Please read - action needed - New Jersey E-Cig Ban!!
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
With the word "cigarette" attached to the name, how much digging do you think they did? That word alone is what condemned it, no matter the benefits to us or the surrounding 2nd hand inhalers. Besides the J&J support $ for re-election and when voters look at their records on issues, they'll see the key words "cigarette" and "ban", they'll say that that guy was looking out for me and my well being.
Just my opinion.
Just my opinion.
Does anybody know what the penalty for vaping in public will be in New Jersey? It may be worth the effort to "test" the law. I am sure it violates some protection included in the state constitution? If not, one could easily argue that it violates the U.S. Constitution.
Unless, or until, Johnson and Johnson and co. or Philip Morris or the FDA or anybody for that matter can demonstrate that e-cigarettes could harm somebody else, the right to use them should be protected.
Nicotine is not an illegal substance (at least not yet) and neither is propylene glycol.
Didn't someone say there was a state that had implemented a ban and has since lifted it? From the text of the legislation, it seems this ban would be difficult to enforce, especially since it would seem to apply to the use of any kind of inhaler, including oxygen, in a public place, like for example a hospital!
In the circumstances it is a toss-up whether it might be better to fight the ban via the courts or insist on its full enforcement. Someone might want to write to the NJ Attorney General and insist that everyone on oxygen be tossed out of the hospitals immediately! How's the weather up there?
Unless, or until, Johnson and Johnson and co. or Philip Morris or the FDA or anybody for that matter can demonstrate that e-cigarettes could harm somebody else, the right to use them should be protected.
Nicotine is not an illegal substance (at least not yet) and neither is propylene glycol.
Didn't someone say there was a state that had implemented a ban and has since lifted it? From the text of the legislation, it seems this ban would be difficult to enforce, especially since it would seem to apply to the use of any kind of inhaler, including oxygen, in a public place, like for example a hospital!
In the circumstances it is a toss-up whether it might be better to fight the ban via the courts or insist on its full enforcement. Someone might want to write to the NJ Attorney General and insist that everyone on oxygen be tossed out of the hospitals immediately! How's the weather up there?
One thing I have found very effective in dealing with the uninformed (or misinformed) is to state nicotine isn't what causes cancer from cigarettes. There is usually silence - it is amazing how many don't know that. I then drive them over the cliff by casually mentioning nicotine occurs in tomatoes, potatoes, tea....and ask if they knew that. The inevitable answer is a very quiet "No". I LOVE doing that - it really screws 'em up. It will probably work on politicians, too, because they top the list of the uninformed.
Storyspnr,
Too true!! Also, I find very few people know about the therapeutic effects of nicotine. Based on my own family history - which is riddled with Alzeheimers, depression and ADD - I honestly do not want to give up nicotine. To me, the PV is a way I can stay productive without killing myself (literally) to do it! My personal goal is to reduce the nicotine in my carts to a very low level over time.
However, if the choice becomes one of risking the consequences of smoking or suffering from Alzeheimers, I would very likely choose the early death. It is far less burdensome on others.
Too true!! Also, I find very few people know about the therapeutic effects of nicotine. Based on my own family history - which is riddled with Alzeheimers, depression and ADD - I honestly do not want to give up nicotine. To me, the PV is a way I can stay productive without killing myself (literally) to do it! My personal goal is to reduce the nicotine in my carts to a very low level over time.
However, if the choice becomes one of risking the consequences of smoking or suffering from Alzeheimers, I would very likely choose the early death. It is far less burdensome on others.
38-0
One day soon, we should do a U-Turn on this road to Hell.
I'm so tired of my self-appointed Masters in WA telling me what to f*****g DO! Rep or Dem, they're all the same.
Vote Libertarian, this whole "lesser of two evils" thing isn't working. I think that's going to be my new sig...
Wow. I am actually so angry I want to beat the life out of someone lol.... the sheer hypocrisy and BS that fills the article I just read (Gordon/Vitale ?E-Cigarette? Ban Approved By Senate | Politicker NJ) is just infuriating. I work and go to school in Paramus, NJ, so as you can imagine, being at ground zero for all of this isn't going to be much fun. I'll still use just the same as I always did. I don't give a good .......n what those ...... in the Senate think are "healthy" for me. If only people listened to reason in this country, it would be such a better place. It has the potential to be the most amazing country but now due to bureaucracy and "political correctness", this country is circling the drain in comparison to what it could be doing. writing "feel good" laws and BS minority power plays (Sotomayor comes to mind) are what's ruining this country.
I'm posting this on the aforementioned Politicker NJ article:
OK, so an electronic cigarette device, whose only chief chemical, besides nicotine, is Propylene Glycol (PG), is MORE harmful and potentially dangerous than a tobacco cigarette? Even though a tobacco cigarette contains countless carcinogens and toxins, whose effect on the human body is catastrophic and WELL documented, and has been responsible for millions of deaths. Yet this remains legal, approved as SAFE, even, by the FDA. They will ban E-Cigs for containing a (as in ONE) "known irritant", but for smokes that contain (among MANY other toxins) arsenic, formaldehyde, ammonia, benzene, and hydrogen cyanide, which is used in gas chambers to kill people. Yes PG is used in antifreeze, so is Dihidrogenmonoxide. (A.K.A H20, water) I don't see them banning water anytime soon. So by their logic, if it's in something bad, it's automatically bad as well? Do they even realize how dumb this is making them look? PG is in everyday products ranging from toothpaste to food coloring. Ever been to a concert or musical that has fog effects? Yep, you were inhaling Propylene Glycol, the main ingredient in "fog juice". That PG, of course, is of a commercial nature, and is not as refined as the PG used in E-cigs, but it has the same molecular compound, the same chemical makeup, so for all intensive purposes, it is the same. Ever heard of en entire crowd at a concert admitted to a hospital for breathing in this "irritant"? It would not appear so. Propylene Glycol has been declared safe by the FDA for general consumption (though who knows now, this may change now to back more ridiculous legislation) And honestly, do they REALLY think a kid is going to spend $100-$150 for an E-cigarette over a $7-$8 pack of smokes, which are DEFINITELY more readily available?
In short, this only goes to show that interests of third parties have, once again, moved the hand of public officials and legislators against the very people who elected them. I'm sure the Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the Nicorette gum, patches and other quit-smoking aids, are very pleased with this, as are big tobacco companies like Phillip Morris, who is currently trying to buy out the original patents to E-cigarettes (whether they intend to make their own or make everyone else stop making theirs is unknown). Either way, this is a sickening use of power and it's a real shame, because I use an electronic cigarette. I haven't felt better in years. and now I have the government telling me it's SAFER to smoke tobacco than to use this product as an alternative to using cigarettes. They should be ashamed.
OK, so an electronic cigarette device, whose only chief chemical, besides nicotine, is Propylene Glycol (PG), is MORE harmful and potentially dangerous than a tobacco cigarette? Even though a tobacco cigarette contains countless carcinogens and toxins, whose effect on the human body is catastrophic and WELL documented, and has been responsible for millions of deaths. Yet this remains legal, approved as SAFE, even, by the FDA. They will ban E-Cigs for containing a (as in ONE) "known irritant", but for smokes that contain (among MANY other toxins) arsenic, formaldehyde, ammonia, benzene, and hydrogen cyanide, which is used in gas chambers to kill people. Yes PG is used in antifreeze, so is Dihidrogenmonoxide. (A.K.A H20, water) I don't see them banning water anytime soon. So by their logic, if it's in something bad, it's automatically bad as well? Do they even realize how dumb this is making them look? PG is in everyday products ranging from toothpaste to food coloring. Ever been to a concert or musical that has fog effects? Yep, you were inhaling Propylene Glycol, the main ingredient in "fog juice". That PG, of course, is of a commercial nature, and is not as refined as the PG used in E-cigs, but it has the same molecular compound, the same chemical makeup, so for all intensive purposes, it is the same. Ever heard of en entire crowd at a concert admitted to a hospital for breathing in this "irritant"? It would not appear so. Propylene Glycol has been declared safe by the FDA for general consumption (though who knows now, this may change now to back more ridiculous legislation) And honestly, do they REALLY think a kid is going to spend $100-$150 for an E-cigarette over a $7-$8 pack of smokes, which are DEFINITELY more readily available?
In short, this only goes to show that interests of third parties have, once again, moved the hand of public officials and legislators against the very people who elected them. I'm sure the Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the Nicorette gum, patches and other quit-smoking aids, are very pleased with this, as are big tobacco companies like Phillip Morris, who is currently trying to buy out the original patents to E-cigarettes (whether they intend to make their own or make everyone else stop making theirs is unknown). Either way, this is a sickening use of power and it's a real shame, because I use an electronic cigarette. I haven't felt better in years. and now I have the government telling me it's SAFER to smoke tobacco than to use this product as an alternative to using cigarettes. They should be ashamed.
You folks in NJ should flood the major newspapers with editorial letters similar to what freedomendured wrote above...
Only changes I'd make:
- is replace the word 'dumb' with 'uninformed'
Leave out the first part of the last paragraph (since there is no real proof of this), making the last paragraph:
"This is a sickening use of power and it's a real shame, because I use an electronic cigarette. I haven't felt better in years. Now I have the government telling me it's SAFER to smoke tobacco than to use this product as an alternative to using cigarettes. They should be ashamed."
JMHO
Only changes I'd make:
- is replace the word 'dumb' with 'uninformed'
Leave out the first part of the last paragraph (since there is no real proof of this), making the last paragraph:
"This is a sickening use of power and it's a real shame, because I use an electronic cigarette. I haven't felt better in years. Now I have the government telling me it's SAFER to smoke tobacco than to use this product as an alternative to using cigarettes. They should be ashamed."
JMHO
Actually a march may be exactly what is needed. It is writing them e-mails or letters or even calling, that has no affect. I keep saying that the only groups that get anywhere nowadays are the ones who make the most noise and get right in their faces.
This is a copy of what I e-mailed.
Dear Senators,
I know you have been informed of the many ex-smokers who have reaped the benefits of e-cigs. I know you are aware that there is no smoke, nothing burning with an e-cig.
I am not an e-cig user who is going to beg you to let me keep my e-cig and be able to vape it in a smoke free area but I am an e-cig user who would like to point out a few facts to you.
First and foremost, there is nothing in an e-cig that has not already been FDA or U.S.A. governmentally approved.
Propylene Glycol? FDA approved in cosmetics, hair products, shampoo, perfume, toothpaste, mouthwash, commercial fog machines, artificial flavorings. The list goes on and on. Cosmetics, hair products, shampoo, toothpaste, mouthwash and perfume are all absorbed into your body. The smell from hair spray, shampoo and perfume is inhaled by others around the person wearing the aforementioned which often leads to feeling ill. Commercial fog machines emit an artificial fog which is inhaled by the audience. Artificial flavors include most candies, bakery goods and anything else that is “artificially” flavored. Again all FDA approved. If you ban e-cigs due to propylene glycol without also banning the above, that is discrimination.
By all means prohibit the sell of e-cigs to kids under nineteen although in reality there is nothing in them that they don’t already use. Refer to above comments. But if you are going to use the excuse that they are being catered to in order to ban e-cigs, then you must also ban all cosmetic commercials, all perfume commercials, all deodorant commercials, all…..well I think you get my drift. If you don’t take steps to ban those, you are discriminating against e-cig users.
So, do you understand that it is a matter of discrimination just because an e-cig resembles a tobacco cigarette? That is the only common factor and most of them don’t even look like an actual cigarette.
You people have not done your research well. If, as you say, health benefits are the driving force behind this proposed ban, there is no way you can approve bill S-3053.
If on the other hand you do approve the bill, we will know that once again you are deserving of the term liars who do not have the general public’s best interests at heart, but only your own.
When I say the general public, I include people who have never smoked. How can that be you might ask? Well, let me tell you, if we are forced to go back to cigarettes we will find a way to smoke them and when people complain we will also make sure they know why they are still being subjected to second hand smoke.
We should also not be forced to vape in the same area as smokers as that puts our health at risk just as it would a person who never smoked.
Dear Senators,
I know you have been informed of the many ex-smokers who have reaped the benefits of e-cigs. I know you are aware that there is no smoke, nothing burning with an e-cig.
I am not an e-cig user who is going to beg you to let me keep my e-cig and be able to vape it in a smoke free area but I am an e-cig user who would like to point out a few facts to you.
First and foremost, there is nothing in an e-cig that has not already been FDA or U.S.A. governmentally approved.
Propylene Glycol? FDA approved in cosmetics, hair products, shampoo, perfume, toothpaste, mouthwash, commercial fog machines, artificial flavorings. The list goes on and on. Cosmetics, hair products, shampoo, toothpaste, mouthwash and perfume are all absorbed into your body. The smell from hair spray, shampoo and perfume is inhaled by others around the person wearing the aforementioned which often leads to feeling ill. Commercial fog machines emit an artificial fog which is inhaled by the audience. Artificial flavors include most candies, bakery goods and anything else that is “artificially” flavored. Again all FDA approved. If you ban e-cigs due to propylene glycol without also banning the above, that is discrimination.
By all means prohibit the sell of e-cigs to kids under nineteen although in reality there is nothing in them that they don’t already use. Refer to above comments. But if you are going to use the excuse that they are being catered to in order to ban e-cigs, then you must also ban all cosmetic commercials, all perfume commercials, all deodorant commercials, all…..well I think you get my drift. If you don’t take steps to ban those, you are discriminating against e-cig users.
So, do you understand that it is a matter of discrimination just because an e-cig resembles a tobacco cigarette? That is the only common factor and most of them don’t even look like an actual cigarette.
You people have not done your research well. If, as you say, health benefits are the driving force behind this proposed ban, there is no way you can approve bill S-3053.
If on the other hand you do approve the bill, we will know that once again you are deserving of the term liars who do not have the general public’s best interests at heart, but only your own.
When I say the general public, I include people who have never smoked. How can that be you might ask? Well, let me tell you, if we are forced to go back to cigarettes we will find a way to smoke them and when people complain we will also make sure they know why they are still being subjected to second hand smoke.
We should also not be forced to vape in the same area as smokers as that puts our health at risk just as it would a person who never smoked.
Our legislators seem to have done NO research at all.
Theirs was a strictly emotional decision, aimed directly at the special interest groups who will finance their next campaigns, and the sheep who will reelect them.
Theirs was a strictly emotional decision, aimed directly at the special interest groups who will finance their next campaigns, and the sheep who will reelect them.
- Status
