Why are Governments trying to BAN e-cigs when they are actually helping people!?

[bcalvanese]

I think the growing number of people that are vaping compared to how slow the studies are being done are causing alarm. I don't think any government in their right mind is going to allow vaping in public places without knowing the effects.

If they did, could you imagine how hard it would be to reverse it?

Ever hear of the "Prohibition"?

Also, we as a community are not helping matters at all. Just reading posts on this forum alone, I can see a growing number of people who think that they have the right to vape anywhere they want, and if confronted about it, they escilate the situation, and some even claim they will resort to violence.

We are becomming one of our own worst enemies.

 

[AegisPrime]

IAlso, we as a community are not helping matters at all. Just reading posts on this forum alone, I can see a growing number of people who think that they have the right to vape anywhere they want, and if confronted about it, they escilate the situation, and some even claim they will resort to violence.

Assuming no regulations or laws are in place, they do have a right to vape wherever they choose to - they're not smokers.

 

[ibanez]

Good comment. The same people who hate vaping are the same people who want tobacco users to pay extra for NHS treatment.
Except, the revenue from smoking is greater than the cost to the NHS. Smokers make the NHS cheaper for non-smokers.

I don't think the "ban" is just down to money, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies. It's about people controlling other people (and the money, but not entirely the money).
They don't see Vaping as giving up smoking "properly".... in other words, we are cheating the system.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[generic mutant]

Assuming no regulations or laws are in place, they do have a right to vape wherever they choose to - they're not smokers.

You know perfectly well it doesn't work like that

I have the right to listen to music. That doesn't mean music can't be a public nuisance. It doesn't mean I can come and sit in your tea-room and play gangsta beats at max volume on my ghetto blaster.

 

[zoiDman]

Assuming no regulations or laws are in place, they do have a right to vape wherever they choose to - they're not smokers.

I don't like the Word "Right".

That implies that the place where the vapers wants to vape does Not have the Ability to Deny Vaping. Because there is No Law Against something does not Grant "Rights".

At least not in the USA.

 

[BillyWJ]

At the end of the day, when all is said and done, it comes down to money.

For BT and BP, it's revenue forever lost (I know BT will never get my money again).

And yet, BT is starting to ramp up commercials for their OWN e-cigs now (who owns that NJOY brand?)

Money, money, money..to hell with your health; just keep that money coming in.

Big Tobacco has also looked offshore from North America for new profit centers, watch the documentary by Vice.com "Tobaccoland", where they look at Indonesia, where tobacco advertising is blanketing the country, 90%+ of the country now smokes, BT sponsors concerts and youth events, and the lying scumbags of the tobacco companies reap the profits.

 

[AegisPrime]

You know perfectly well it doesn't work like that

I have the right to listen to music. That doesn't mean music can't be a public nuisance. It doesn't mean I can come and sit in your tea-room and play gangsta beats at max volume on my ghetto blaster.

My personal perspective is that what I'm doing is no more offensive or harmful to someone than breathing - the only difference being that they can see it.

They're free to fart, belch, have hygiene issues, halitosis and poor taste in fragrances around me but there's people seriously suggesting on this forum that I have no right to exhale vanilla-scented vapour near someone. Sorry, I disagree.

Does that mean I deliberately go out of my way to inflict my vanilla vape on people? No. But neither does it mean I feel I should take special precautions to 'protect' them from it.

 

[generic mutant]

Well, my post was intended to be a more serious analogy than it might first appear.

Listening to music in public can mean many things. With my MP3 player and IEMs, I can listen to music at an uncomfortably loud volume without anyone around me noticing: I can do it on a bus, and it bothers nobody.

But twits playing R&B out of the speakers on their phone on the bus bother everyone (why is it *always* R&B? )

Which is why you can't say you have an unqualified right to listen to music in public, or that it's a nuisance - too many factors to generalise.

Which is why, at the end of the day, vaping and music are going to have to come down largely to 'manager's discretion'.

You can't explain mathematically what means somebody's being a twit about it. But you know somebody's being a twit when you see them.

 

[BillyWJ]

I can say that I'd be wary of what they're filling those cartos with. After all, look at what they did to cigarettes. Highly engineered, paper addiction sticks, in which they showed absolutely no thought for the health of their consumers. Vaping may not be addicting enough for them. I know that since I started vaping, I don't need a cigarette first thing in the morning.

This, this, THIS. I don't TRUST Big Tobacco. Not anymore.

 

[Tinkiegrrl]

I think the growing number of people that are vaping compared to how slow the studies are being done are causing alarm. I don't think any government in their right mind is going to allow vaping in public places without knowing the effects.

If they did, could you imagine how hard it would be to reverse it?

Ever hear of the "Prohibition"?

Also, we as a community are not helping matters at all. Just reading posts on this forum alone, I can see a growing number of people who think that they have the right to vape anywhere they want, and if confronted about it, they escilate the situation, and some even claim they will resort to violence.

We are becomming one of our own worst enemies.

Violence is not going to get anyone anywhere. I do think that those with ideas like that are those who are politically opposed to most government regulation though. It isn't just about vaping for them. It's the whole system. Vaping is just what is relevent on this board. It's their entire political stance.

 

[Free6413]

I have said for years that the fastest way to bring the government to the realization that there are real people out here that THEY WORK FOR is to quit smoking, drinking and buying gasoline. I bet they will listen then. The tax revenue from these three commodities generate so much revenue that the Federal Government cannot afford to listen to the people over the lobbyists. That is why the Government is so scared of the silent majority on this issue. They know the patches and gums have a high failure rate and won't cause the revenue to suffer enough to get too excited about them. If they worked as well as vapor, this conversation would be on another topic. Now there is something that actually WORKS! Got 'em thinking now! What if actually all smokers actually did quit. Where will that leave us? BROKE IN NO TIME is the answer to that question. It's just like anything or anyone else. If it is feeding you why try to stop it. Saying one thing and doing another is "old hat". We see it every election. We are just so acclimated to it that we all vote for the lesser of the evils. Sorry to rant but this gets me going. When Government regulates every little thing that threatens their cash cow steams my behind!

 

[AegisPrime]

I don't like the Word "Right".

That implies that the place where the vapers wants to vape does Not have the Ability to Deny Vaping. Because there is No Law Against something does not Grant "Rights".

At least not in the USA.

Actually, I guess the right word is freedoms - there are many things in life that aren't legislated against and this is where our freedom lies - until recently, vaping was one of our freedoms.

But twits playing R&B out of the speakers on their phone on the bus bother everyone (why is it *always* R&B? )

Yeah - that bugs me immensely - but there's no law against it (good luck getting someone busted for public nuisance with that one) and irrespective of how annoying you find it, it's that person's right (freedom?) to be an ... if they want to.

 

[BillyWJ]

Violence is not going to get anyone anywhere. I do think that those with ideas like that are those who are politically opposed to most government regulation though. It isn't just about vaping for them. It's the whole system. Vaping is just what is relevent on this board. It's their entire political stance.

Valid points, but don't forget, this country was founded after a revolution over disgust of a monarch, and the snapping point was taxing people's tea.

 

[zoiDman]

Actually, I guess the right word is freedoms - there are many things in life that aren't legislated against and this is where our freedom lies - until recently, vaping was one of our freedoms.

...

I think Ability is a Better Word.

If I go into a Place of Business like a Restaurant, I do Not Feel I have the Right or the Freedom to Vape if the Owner of the Business does not Allow it.

But I do have the Right not to give him my Money and choose to go someplace that does Allow Vaping.

BTW - The Fight and the Compromises shouldn't be Focused on Businesses. Because they will be Granted the Right to Refuse people who Vape.

The Fight and the Compromises should be Focused on the Workplace.

 

[skoony]

It's hugely contentious though. I can't see it happening, personally.

In another few years there'll be *a lot* of people who have quit using them, and the picture surrounding gateway effects will be a lot clearer. I suspect statistically, the number of people quitting cigarettes will dwarf any possible flow in the other direction.

I'd like to see regulation on the juices though - there's some in the UK already, as I understand it (same as foodstuffs, or something), but it'd be good if there were agencies specifically monitoring and researching what was lung-safe etc. I think that's unlikely to come from anything other than government, because the industry shows no sign of wanting to do it.

the whole gateway argument is felicitous any way.
young people do these things because they are forbidden,not to get hooked.
the gateway could be anything if it even exists.
your dads liquor cabinet.moms stress pills.sneak a smoke from uncle bobs pack.
that hot cup of tea or coffee gramps gave you when you were 8 on a cold winters day.
remember when you took a big swig of beer when you were 3 and you thought no one was
looking?its just manipulation of the statistics to get the result they want.

regulate ejuice?they allready know whats in them.
the same thing as any medical inhaler minus the medicine,now add nicotine and flavoring.
all completly tested as safe for the user and by-standers.

regards
mike

 

[Free6413]

Valid points, but don't forget, this country was founded after a revolution over disgust of a monarch, and the snapping point was taxing people's tea.

We'll said my friend!

 

[Tinkiegrrl]

Valid points, but don't forget, this country was founded after a revolution over disgust of a monarch, and the snapping point was taxing people's tea.

I only meant to put their views into perspective. That those who speak of violence aren't acting merely on the possible restrictions of vaping. They are acting on what they view to be a federal government overstepping it's bounds on a great, many issues. Vaping just happens to be what is relevant to this board. I know several libertarians, many of whom have joined state militias and the like across the country. While vaping may be the straw that breaks the camels back, really, it could be any one of the governments actions on any number of things that could do it as well. It wouldn't be violence over just vaping. It would be violence against a system they feel to be unjust and unamerican. There views on vaping are a result of the general political climate in this country at the moment, so those calling for compromise on this aren't likely to make any headway with those threatening violence.

 

[generic mutant]

the whole gateway argument is felicitous any way.
young people do these things because they are forbidden,not to get hooked.
the gateway could be anything if it even exists.
your dads liquor cabinet.moms stress pills.sneak a smoke from uncle bobs pack.
that hot cup of tea or coffee gramps gave you when you were 8 on a cold winters day.
remember when you took a big swig of beer when you were 3 and you thought no one was
looking?its just manipulation of the statistics to get the result they want.

regulate ejuice?they allready know whats in them.
the same thing as any medical inhaler minus the medicine,now add nicotine and flavoring.
all completly tested as safe for the user and by-standers.

regards
mike

I'm not sure there are any unambiguous examples of 'gateway effects', personally. I don't think you can ever control for confounders. Anyway, we can't talk about that properly due to forum rules, so I'd say it's enough to say "hopefully the data will speak loud enough".

Who's this "they" who knows what's in e-liquid? Why aren't they telling us?

I think e-liquid sold *in the UK* has to be certified as having food standard ingredients, though I'm not 100% on that.

I think that's pretty much an adequate level of regulation, with the proviso that it'd be nice if there were a body tasked specifically with establishing which ingredients are inhalation safe, and I'm not seeing the industry do that, so I guess it has to be government. I'd like to see mandatory warnings on things with some health effects, like cinnamon.

But if you're telling me it's better if there's no regulation, I've got to disagree. This is big business, and people will start getting inventive with what they put in it, both to make the product more appealing and to cut corners. There will be some nasty scares, I am sure. We've already had diketones and a few incidents with mislabelling of nicotine strength. I hope it doesn't get much worse than that, but over enough time, accidents and profit motives happen...

 

[EddardinWinter]

I think Ability is a Better Word.

If I go into a Place of Business like a Restaurant, I do Not Feel I have the Right or the Freedom to Vape if the Owner of the Business does not Allow it.

But I do have the Right not to give him my Money and choose to go someplace that does Allow Vaping.

BTW - The Fight and the Compromises shouldn't be Focused on Businesses. Because they will be Granted the Right to Refuse people who Vape.

The Fight and the Compromises should be Focused on the Workplace.

I agree with this mostly. My slight disagreement is on the fact that many businesses have already been denied that opportunity to make the choice. In the entire State of New Jersey, vaping = smoking as far as bans in public places. The owner of a business has zero property rights in making this decision for himself. Oh, the humanity...

...as if I needed another reason to avoid New Jersey.

 

[EddardinWinter]

I'm not sure there are any unambiguous examples of 'gateway effects', personally. I don't think you can ever control for confounders. Anyway, we can't talk about that properly due to forum rules, so I'd say it's enough to say "hopefully the data will speak loud enough".

Who's this "they" who knows what's in e-liquid? Why aren't they telling us?

I think e-liquid sold *in the UK* has to be certified as having food standard ingredients, though I'm not 100% on that.

I think that's pretty much an adequate level of regulation, with the proviso that it'd be nice if there were a body tasked specifically with establishing which ingredients are inhalation safe, and I'm not seeing the industry do that, so I guess it has to be government. I'd like to see mandatory warnings on things with some health effects, like cinnamon.

But if you're telling me it's better if there's no regulation, I've got to disagree. This is big business, and people will start getting inventive with what they put in it, both to make the product more appealing and to cut corners. There will be some nasty scares, I am sure. We've already had diketones and a few incidents with mislabelling of nicotine strength. I hope it doesn't get much worse than that, but over enough time, accidents and profit motives happen...

You really think there is a profit motive to doing sloppy work in a very competitive market? Maybe for a short term gain, but not for a long term strategy. In any case, there are lots of well-known and first rate e-liquid producers that consumers can choose from....never mind...I forgot who I was talking to.

You are lucky they closed that thread after you made that libertarian crack yesterday, Statist.

Good afternoon, GM.