New York State Bans E-Cigarettes Everywhere Traditional Cigarettes Are Prohibited (usatoday.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: New York state is banning electronic cigarettes indoors everywhere that traditional tobacco cigarettes are prohibited, such as restaurants, bars and other workplaces. The ban goes into effect in 30 days, after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the Clean Indoor Air Act on Monday. About 70% of the state's cities already ban e-cigarettes, so the statewide policy captures the rest, according to the American Lung Association. Cuomo signed legislation in July that banned e-cigarettes in public and private schools. The industry, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates at $2.5 billion per year, contends that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional tobacco products. Smokers say inhaling the nicotine through a vapor produced by the devices helps them quit traditional cigarettes. But the New York State Health Department warned that vaping carries its own risks because the aerosol emissions can include formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene.

Comments

Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

The aerosol emissions can include formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene. If that doesn't give you a buzz, then nothing will. Better than Testers glue. What's the problem?

Re: Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah? Well if it'll stop smoking, them my ass is yours for the taking. (pulls down pants and boxers, leans over bar)

Do your worst! But please be a gentleman.

Re: Sounds like fun

[omnichad]

is going into your butt

They don't have any butts. They're a non-smoker.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Opportunist]

The problem is: How is it your problem? I could see passive smoke in traditional cigarettes, but I'm still waiting for the "passive smoke" studies of vaping.

Re:Sounds like fun

[thegreatbob]

Indeed, it's usually not a problem at all, unless someone is having some sort of physical reaction to their perceptions morality being accosted, or more likely, you're dealing with one of those douche noodles that like to fumigate their surrounding environment with the damn things.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

It's annoying. A smoking friend of mine always vapes inside, because it's supposed to be ok. However, it's really annoying when the whole room is filled with a white fog that smells like bourbon (or vanilla or caramel or apple or whatever smell he chooses).

Re:Sounds like fun

[Bert64]

Exactly, there are no studies indicating wether its harmful or not, therefore i would greatly prefer not to be inhaling a cocktail of chemicals which may have as yet unknown detrimental effects on my health.

If you want to consume chemicals in a way which doesn't result in aerosolising them and forcing others to inhale them go right ahead.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Opportunist]

There's a lot of things that I consider annoying in people, does that mean I get to forbid talking loudly, people scratching themselves in private places, people being obnoxious to the wait staff, children in general, people who are visibly sick but still handle my food, ...

Re: Sounds like fun

[Opportunist]

I like the scent of bitter almonds. And I etch PCBs with HCl and H2O2, you think any amount of chlorine that is not outright killing me could still faze me?

Re:Sounds like fun

[reboot246]

I feel the same way about your cologne and perfume. Why should I have to breathe those noxious chemicals because you like their fragrance? Some of you don't know how far your smell goes. I can smell some of you from a block away.

Re:Sounds like fun

[mjwx]

There's a lot of things that I consider annoying in people, does that mean I get to forbid talking loudly, people scratching themselves in private places, people being obnoxious to the wait staff, children in general, people who are visibly sick but still handle my food, ...

Erm, no.

If I scratch my nuts next to you, it doesn't affect you. Any issues you have with that are your problem. If someone starts smoking next to me, it DEFINITELY affects me. I'm an ex smoker, after 15 years of not smoking, if someone sparks up in a well ventilated room I will smell it within a minute. Yes smokers, its that bad. Now tell me that if someone has an itchy ball sack, you'll be able to tell if they've scratched it without seeing it.

Now remember that anti-smoking laws ended up this way not because of health reasons, but because smokers were so annoying and intractable, if politely requested to take their habit elsewhere, they'd stamp their feet like an impudent child shouting "Its my right, my right, my right, my right, my right". So we took said rights away and they have no-one to blame but themselves.

Sadly the same thing is happening with vapers. I think vaping is good as it's helped several of my friends and family members kick the habit and it looks like its for good this time but there are a large subset of vapers who have no idea of common courtesy and so we're ending up with the same problems as smokers for the same reasons. There's a reason the vape pipe is now colloquially known as a "douche flute".

Re:Sounds like fun

[Opportunist]

Ok, and now for loud and obnoxious people, and how I don't hear them if I so please.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel the same way about your cologne and perfume. Why should I have to breathe those noxious chemicals because you like their fragrance? Some of you don't know how far your smell goes. I can smell some of you from a block away.

Indeed, and as I suffer a fairly serious (to the verge of Anaphylaxis) reaction to some of the component chemicals of said colognes and perfumes, I'm more at risk from these than the vapours from vapers.

I can't remember the name of the stuff, but many years ago I had the 'amusing' experience of being on a London tube train (Northern Line) when someone came on at one station wearing a rather nasty perfume (ISTR banned from a number of restaurants back then), the next station, the carriage emptied almost completely... I say amusing, but it took me something like 10 minutes to recover one I'd gotten to the surface, even what passes for London air was less toxic than this perfume.

Re: Sounds like fun

[sound vision]

I'd love to see some more studies focusing on the health side as well. But the studies we do have so far indicate that the nasties are either contaminants from poor production (or added intentionally as flavorings), or byproducts created when using unnecessarily high voltage in the device. These are *all* things that could be fixed, easily, if the products were properly regulated. But instead of doing that we start banning them here and there. Isn't New York still locking people up for so much as having a bag of weed in their pocket? Not burning at all? I think it's clear that this law has as much to do with smug self-righteousness as it does with anyone's health.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463913001533

Re:Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Or, deity forbid, someone actually cares about the addicted n00bs injuring themselves so that an industry can profit? I know, unlikely but possible.

Re:Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Exactly, there are no studies indicating whether its harmful or not, therefore i would greatly prefer not to be inhaling a cocktail of chemicals which may have as yet unknown detrimental effects on my health.

Then you should probably move to a remote island without any kind of industry or civilization.

Let's remember everyone, civilisation involves anything which takes us away from living in balance with the planet so that we can shed a sense of almost imperceptible distaste bubbling up from our subconscious re. our long-term heritage.

Re:Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

There's a lot of things that I consider annoying in people, does that mean I get to forbid talking loudly, <excluded>people scratching themselves in private places</excluded>, people being obnoxious to the wait staff, [out of control-] children in general, people who are visibly sick but still handle my food, ...

Sure, why not? As you've pointed out, those things are annoying and distasteful intrusions forced upon us by those who consider human faeces on the sofa acceptable and can't fathom that others don't want to be smeared.

Re: Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you pass a law banning that scentsy, melted wax potpourri, crap.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

There haven't been any studies on the effects of a lit stick of TNT shoved up your butt and detonated. Why do you think it's a problem?

Re: Sounds like fun

[yodleboy]

" I think it's clear that this law has as much to do with smug self-righteousness as it does with anyone's health."
"smug self-righteousness" is the motto of the people in NYC that effectively dictate things for the entire state.

Re:Sounds like fun

[GrumpySteen]

There are plenty of studies about the effects of the chemicals listed in the summary on the human body. We don't really need a study to prove that inhaling them is bad just because you found a new way to disperse them into the air.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Gavagai80]

There've been laws against being loud and obnoxious in public forever. Mainly targeted at drunks. There's even laws against standing perfectly still quietly not doing anything (loitering).

Re:Sounds like fun

[peragrin]

That's just it you can be rude and tell someone their perfume is too much. I don't donit all the time and it has gotten better but certain stores annoy me. If I can smell you perfume across 2-3 car parking spots it is a bit much.

Re:Sounds like fun

[gnick]

Or, deity forbid, someone actually cares about the addicted n00bs injuring themselves so that an industry can profit?

I do not need nor want help keeping me safe from myself.

Re:Sounds like fun

[luis_a_espinal]

There's a lot of things that I consider annoying in people, does that mean I get to forbid talking loudly, people scratching themselves in private places, people being obnoxious to the wait staff, children in general, people who are visibly sick but still handle my food, ...

Erm, no. If I scratch my nuts next to you, it doesn't affect you. Any issues you have with that are your problem. If someone starts smoking next to me, it DEFINITELY affects me. I'm an ex smoker, after 15 years of not smoking, if someone sparks up in a well ventilated room I will smell it within a minute. Yes smokers, its that bad. Now tell me that if someone has an itchy ball sack, you'll be able to tell if they've scratched it without seeing it. Now remember that anti-smoking laws ended up this way not because of health reasons, but because smokers were so annoying and intractable, if politely requested to take their habit elsewhere, they'd stamp their feet like an impudent child shouting "Its my right, my right, my right, my right, my right". So we took said rights away and they have no-one to blame but themselves. Sadly the same thing is happening with vapers. I think vaping is good as it's helped several of my friends and family members kick the habit and it looks like its for good this time but there are a large subset of vapers who have no idea of common courtesy and so we're ending up with the same problems as smokers for the same reasons. There's a reason the vape pipe is now colloquially known as a "douche flute".

And we took away that right once we had scientific evidence against second hand smoking. The laws were firmly passed (in whatever nature they have) because of that as their cause, not on mass intransigence.

I want to see evidence that e-cigs and vaping are as bad as smoking (from a second-hand perspective.) By the logic inspiring these bans, I pretty much have grounds to demand restaurants not to allow people in who reek of perfume or body odors because of my real problems with my sinus.

It is obvious (at least to me) that such a proposition from me would be absurd.

Re:Sounds like fun

[NeoMorphy]

We had to wait until the 1940s to discover that smoking was bad for your health. Then we had to wait until the 1980s for secondhand smoke to be proven harmful. And that was despite the obvious impact it was having on people.

If vaping follows the same pattern, it will be decades before any dangers are announced. The possible contents of the e-juice are still not regulated, so technically, you can't say whether the contents are safe or not. If it contains diacetyl, will it eventually cause COPD?

There are a lot of us who remember what it was like to have to deal with people smoking around us against our will. It's still happening in some places and the smokers often use the same arguments as the vapers. If you're wondering why people treat you like smokers, it's because you are acting the exact same way and you are using the same lame arguments.

Re:Sounds like fun

[burtosis]

This needs some more mod points. Perfume is at least as bad if not worse than vaping. While I think its ridiculous to ban vaping in all the same places as cigarettes are, we do need some base laws because of the ruining it for everyone people. Strong odors when you are forced into small enclosed spaces should be banned (I'm not even allergic to it and I nearly threw up on an international flight just sitting next to someone), as well as other douchebag things like strobing lights, etc. Until the toddlers of our society grow up, so forever, we are going to need a bit of a nanny state to go make them sit in the corner and think about what they did.

Re:Sounds like fun

[jittles]

The problem is: How is it your problem? I could see passive smoke in traditional cigarettes, but I'm still waiting for the "passive smoke" studies of vaping.

There probably are few to no issues from second hand vape. The problem is likely those folks who like to tinker with their vape pens to create monstrous clouds of vapor. They're every where and it's incredibly rude and annoying.

Re: Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have any butts. They're a non-smoker.

The English language really needs better gender-neutral pronouns. "They're a non-smoker" is tragic.

Re:Sounds like fun

[DogDude]

It's a vapor cloud made up of unknown substances. It's probably not harmless.

Re:Sounds like fun

[burtosis]

You know how farts work right?

Re:Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

I know, n00b :P

Re:Sounds like fun

[jellomizer]

In some ways it is sad, that we need laws because too many people are just so much jerks who don't care that they are annoying others just for their addiction.

However the Smoking Ban in buildings in New York State, in general is a good thing, as it greatly reduces the peer pressure kids have to smoke/vape in general. I am willing to Admit that Vaping is good if you are a smoker and you want to switch to a safer habit/addiction. But it shouldn't be the thing that the cool kids do, and be encouraged. If you are going to smoke or vape, and have others ingest your habit as well. Then you should do it outsize and deal with the elements while doing that.

Look at the cool guy, he is standing out there alone in the poring rain on a 40 degree day, just because he needs to feed his addiction.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally being around ecigarettes is extremely uncomfortable and causes strong symtoms of an allergic reaction in my chest. I never experienced this with normal cigarettes except ones that are dirt cheap.

Re:Sounds like fun

[TheCastro1689]

From 2014 http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... Our data confirm that e-cigarettes are not emission-free and their pollutants could be of health concern for users and secondhand smokers. In particular, ultrafine particles formed from supersaturated 1,2-propanediol vapor can be deposited in the lung, and aerosolized nicotine seems capable of increasing the release of the inflammatory signaling molecule NO upon inhalation. In view of consumer safety, e-cigarettes and nicotine liquids should be officially regulated and labeled with appropriate warnings of potential health effects, particularly of toxicity risk in children.

Re:Sounds like fun

[TheCastro1689]

There are: Our data confirm that e-cigarettes are not emission-free and their pollutants could be of health concern for users and secondhand smokers. In particular, ultrafine particles formed from supersaturated 1,2-propanediol vapor can be deposited in the lung, and aerosolized nicotine seems capable of increasing the release of the inflammatory signaling molecule NO upon inhalation. In view of consumer safety, e-cigarettes and nicotine liquids should be officially regulated and labeled with appropriate warnings of potential health effects, particularly of toxicity risk in children. http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

Re:Sounds like fun

[TheCastro1689]

The Nazis knew smoking was bad before the 40s. They did medical studies, and knew in the 30s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

If I saw someone ill preparing food I'd want to speak to the manager, then leave. I'd also want to be assured that it was not policy to make staff come in when ill, and assurances that staff would not be penalised.

Re:Sounds like fun

[JackieBrown]

Or, deity forbid, someone actually cares about the addicted n00bs injuring themselves

No one is asking you for this help.

What other potentially dangerous activities do you want to protect us from? Sky diving? Deep sea diving? Walking across streets? Leaving our homes?

so that an industry can profit?

I really want to ignore this because it's such a transparently bs "evil corp boogeyman" argument - especially when talking about the vape industry. The destruction of the vape industry will just push most vapers to smoking regular cigarettes and just make big tobacco that much wealthier. And honestly, if I buy from a non-profit vape store, then do I have your permission to vape in public?

Re:Sounds like fun

[JackieBrown]

There probably are few to no issues from second hand vape.

I'm glad you see it that way.

The problem is likely those folks who like to tinker with their vape pens to create monstrous clouds of vapor. They're every where and it's incredibly rude and annoying.

Are we really outlawing rudeness now?

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is: How is it your problem? I could see passive smoke in traditional cigarettes, but I'm still waiting for the "passive smoke" studies of vaping.

Agreed. An even bigger problem is that the 2nd had tobacco smoke studies are not good science. For example, the stongest evidence is about the effect of second hand smoke on babies, but they didn't control for smoking by pregnant mothers. Duh!!!

Nothing is proven except that people are annoyed by second hand smoke. On that basis they could justify banning perfume, cellphones, and stupid peoples.

Re:Sounds like fun

[BasilBrush]

That would be misguided then. Ecigs are such a fantastic thing because people can relatively easily more from tobacco cigarettes to them, and whilst they may not be perfectly safe they are far, far more safe than smoking. They should be encouraged, not discouraged.

My bet is that lobbying from the tobacco industry is responsible for this crackdown on ecigs.

Re:Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Or, deity forbid, someone actually cares about the addicted n00bs injuring themselves

No one is asking you for this help.

Yep - this is why addiction is such a pernicious problem. The recipient is quite happy to be left alone in their cycle of addiction - why would they ask for help, it's everything they've ever wanted.

What other potentially dangerous activities do you want to protect us from? Sky diving? Deep sea diving? Walking across streets? Leaving our homes?

Sure, if you feel you're unable to perform those tasks without danger to yourself.

so that an industry can profit?

I really want to ignore this because it's such a transparently bs "evil corp boogeyman" argument - especially when talking about the vape industry. The destruction of the vape industry will just push most vapers to smoking regular cigarettes and just make big tobacco that much wealthier.

It's kind of you to demonstrate, as an afterthought and against your instinct, that my position which is transparently-false-for-everyone-to-see is so.
I feel educated now that I too can see that actually, the vape industry isn't a supercharged cocktail of the old tobacco industry shaken not stirred with some apparent health benefits. Everyone loves an underdog and it's great to see this selfless industry take on big tobacco and reduce the harm they do down to the bare minimum of 'formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene'. By comparison with standard cigarettes, this mix is equivalent to a spinach, banana and flax seed smoothie.

And honestly, if I buy from a non-profit vape store, then do I have your permission to vape in public?

If you wear a filter which protects everyone else from 'formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene', and if you also find a way to contain any side-effects of the illnesses you develop as a result of exposure to these smoothie ingredients, then, sure, as you've demonstrated such consideration as to ask, by all means kill vape away.

Re:Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

I can't credit the vape industry highly enough here. Whereas, other less-insightful organisations might be tempted to lead nicotine-addicted smokers along the challenging path towards complete abstinence, the vape industry spares smokers this difficult step.

So, so so so altruistic of them.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Cinnamon Beige]

I have been a few places where the ban on vaping was done for practical reasons--it's not sufficiently visually distinct from traditional cigs that you can reliably tell from a distance which is being used, so the property owners have decided as is their right to just ban 'em all in order to simplify things.

Which, incidentally, goes into the whole problem with the "its my right!!1!" thing--that's only true when it's on your private property. That's iffy on public property, and definitely not true on somebody else's private property. Really, not being a douche goes a long way, and some laws pretty much exist simply because critical mass of douches took place.

Re:Sounds like fun

[jittles]

There probably are few to no issues from second hand vape.

I'm glad you see it that way.

The problem is likely those folks who like to tinker with their vape pens to create monstrous clouds of vapor. They're every where and it's incredibly rude and annoying.

Are we really outlawing rudeness now?

It already is outlawed in many ways: noise ordinances, loitering rules, public intoxication, indecent exposure, I am sure I could keep going here. The fact of the matter is that no one would know that someone were vaping if they weren't sending out a giant cloud of vapor with each exhalation. People just do not care to walk into a billowing cloud of anything they do not recognize. I saw a tow truck driving down the road belching a noxious cloud of diesel fumes. The truck was obviously in disrepair and I thought that it was quite rude that they were making everyone on the street walk through a cloud of their exhaust. Obviously diesel exhaust has harmful chemicals in it, but you can't just look at a cloud of vapor and know whether or not said cloud of vapor is safe to inhale. Honestly, I think it's quite sad that people are so inconsiderate that they would even want to blow such clouds. I have an uncle who loves to do it, but he only does so in places where it does not inconvenience others (to my knowledge). Like on his balcony, or at an empty beach/park/street. But I see people do it in restaurants, subway stations, and even movie theaters.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! Going back to cigarettes is for their own good, why can't they see that?

Re:Sounds like fun

[fluffernutter]

Then please don't use the same group health insurance company I do.

Re:Sounds like fun

[BasilBrush]

It is the path towards complete abstinence. It's a hell of a lot easier to switch to ecigs than to simply go cold turkey on tobacco. And it's also a hell of a lot easier to give up ecigs than to give up tobacco.

ecigs are the best aid yet to completely giving up nicotine.

Why are you looking for altruism? All companies are in it to make a product. That doesn't mean the products are necessarily bad.

Re:Sounds like fun

[BasilBrush]

That was meant to read: "All companies are in it to make a PROFIT."

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Now remember that anti-smoking laws ended up this way not because of health reasons, but because smokers were so annoying and intractable

Even if this bit of idiocy wasn't as far from the truth as possible...what? You're advocating taking away rights from people who are annoying? Do I need to expound on why this is the douchiest thing ever?

So we took said rights away and they have no-one to blame but themselves.

Just reread this until you realize what you wrote.

Re:Sounds like fun

[doctorvo]

Then please don't use the same group health insurance company I do.

I would love to. Unfortunately, several decades of government meddling with US health insurance have killed any ability of people to choose their health insurance, or insurance companies to set prices based on actual risk.

Re:Sounds like fun

[fluffernutter]

Exactly, so maybe you should just not have health insurance since affecting others seems otherwise unavoidable.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Uhh.. giving up nicotine altogether is good for them.

I guess you've been using my non-sequitur generator too?

Re:Sounds like fun

[dywolf]

Translation: "I don't know if this is bad for me yet, so I'll go ahead and keep breathing it. What's the worst that could happen?"

Re:Sounds like fun

[doctorvo]

Or, deity forbid, someone actually cares about the addicted n00bs injuring themselves

Caring? How is sucking money out of people's pockets and redistributing it to bureaucracies and big corporations with powerful lobbyists "caring"? And how is it "caring" to continue to grow government programs which, in decades, have been utterly ineffective at achieving their stated goals decade after decade?

This is what you are actually advocating:

Let's create massive government programs so that industries with massive lobbying powers and political connections can profit.

"Caring" means donating your money to private charities and volunteering your time. "Caring" does not mean what you are doing, namely advocating crony capitalism and massive government spending on ineffective programs.

Re:Sounds like fun

[dywolf]

id say scratchers are a problem cause they scratch....and then they touch doorknobs....or shake your hand.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

It is the path towards complete abstinence. It's a hell of a lot easier to switch to ecigs than to simply go cold turkey on tobacco. And it's also a hell of a lot easier to give up ecigs than to give up tobacco.

ecigs are the best aid yet to completely giving up nicotine.

Death, it's Life 2.0!

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, you can breath in propylene glycol vapors, and nicotine affects the vasodilation of blood vessels. Yawn.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Your post builds strawmen and meta-strawmen. Impressive even by /. standards.

"Ordinary human beings may not want others to harm themselves out of ordinary human compassion." - spin this into a pro-vaping sentiment, I dare you...

Re:Sounds like fun

[doctorvo]

t's great to see this selfless industry take on big tobacco and reduce the harm they do down to the bare minimum of 'formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene'.

Your breakfast cereal "can" contain those substances. However, they are not normal components of either breakfast cereals or e-cig vapor.

So, if this was a significant concern, New York regulators could simply ban those emissions in e-cigs and even require approval/testing without banning e-cigs themselves.

But you and New York regulators are simply using these scar tactics to justify an irrational policy.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Kielistic]

Sure, I am willing to bet I am in better health than you anyway.

Re:Sounds like fun

[gnick]

Then please don't use the same group health insurance company I do.

Insurance companies are free to charge more for nicotine users. And they often do. Many high-risk groups get a pass. You're worried about being in a pool with somebody who vapes? You're also in a pool with the guy who drinks a fifth of whiskey every night.

Re:Sounds like fun

[doctorvo]

Exactly, so maybe you should just not have health insurance since affecting others seems otherwise unavoidable.

I would love to have the choice of not having health insurance. Unfortunately, ACA denies me that choice.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Surely health concerns motivate policy.

If policies were chosen arbitrarily then health concerns fabricated to 'justify' the policy, that would drive the levels of incredulity up to the lofty levels I'm experiencing during this exchange.

Breakfast cereal may also contain live adult zebra. We should therefore ban e-cigs altogether across the whole world due to the danger of e-cigs users being tramped by African wildlife hopped-up on 'formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene.'

Re: Sounds like fun

[doctorvo]

"Ordinary human beings may not want others to harm themselves out of ordinary human compassion." - spin this into a pro-vaping sentiment, I dare you...

See, there is a big difference between actually having compassion and pretending to have it because of ulterior motives. It's the difference between people who quietly help their fellow citizens, and psychopathic politicians making a pitstop at a charity for a photo op. Your advocacy falls into the latter category.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Zombie Strawmen - The Movie.

Re: Sounds like fun

[doctorvo]

Surely health concerns motivate policy.

Racism and eugenics motivates policy too. What's your point?

Breakfast cereal may also contain live adult zebra. We should therefore ban e-cigs altogether across the whole world due to the danger of e-cigs users being tramped by African wildlife hopped-up on 'formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene.'

Yes, and that's pretty much the quality of the argument that justifies banning of e-cigs.

Re:Sounds like fun

[hey!]

While you raise an interesting point, it's actually not true that you have *no* legal right not to be subjected to annoying things. If your neighbors are loud at 3 AM you can demand they be quiet, or even call the police.

Where this gets tricky is that your right not to be subjected to annoying things isn't unlimited. I's not a right to never be annoyed; that's impossible for some people. But it is a right not to be subjected to something *most* people would find annoying unless there's a good reason. This is how a civilized society works: you have to balance things. A lot of people don't seem to understand this; not everyone can have completely unfettered freedom; civilization is a compromise.

Take small children. A lot of people detest them and would rather not see them. However it's impossible to accommodate their wants with the needs of parents to take children out of the house and indeed socialize them on how to behave in public spaces. So you can't accommodate the extreme child-haters; on the other hand if a child's behavior unduly disrupts the function of a place (a movie auditorium or library) you can reasonably ask the parent to remove that child.

The rules also have to accommodate pre-existing uses too. If your neighbor suddenly started making a racket at 5AM and generating obnoxious odors you'd rightly object to that. But this is exactly the situation people who move into agricultural areas face if they don't do their homework. Farms can be smelly and noisy places. If you move next to one you just have to deal with it.

Re:Sounds like fun

[nealric]

No it doesn't. It just requires you to pay a relatively modest tax if you choose not to. Why? Because when you get hit by a bus and rushed to the hospital, we are still going to end up paying for it.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

That the application of an understanding of health concerns to policy-generation is as meaningless to you as my zebra-interpretation of your argument for keeping e-cigs, demonstrates the need for this type of decision to be taken at a level higher than the individual.

Shame on you for encouraging sprawling government :D

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

In principle that's reasonable.
In practice it's difficult to change those things quickly so it may not be feasible to de-fragrance oneself on demand.

It is trivial to put away an e-cig so there's now practical defense against why you should be expected to do so if asked.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

My nuts are cleaner than your... well anything

Re: Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

You mentioned caring, apparently without planning to support it.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Not sure I'm understanding...

Re:Sounds like fun

[arth1]

I do not need nor want help keeping me safe from myself.

I do. At the very least I want either a ban on harmful additives, or even better, regulation requiring sellers to state all additives, including subcomponents. I.e. not just "flavors" if one of the flavors is brominated toluol and another is turpentine. (This regulation needs to apply to cigarettes too, where it is sorely lacking. Does the tobacco lobby still have that much clout?)
Similarly, devices that contain nickel should state so, so people with allergies can make an informed choice. Currently, they are at the mercy of the manufacturers good will, which doesn't exist.

The Wild West with no regulation and only bans on public use does not serve the customers. It's a tad too late to sue after you develop cancer or go into anaphylactic shock.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, there are no studies indicating wether its harmful or not, therefore i would greatly prefer not to be inhaling a cocktail of chemicals which may have as yet unknown detrimental effects on my health.

Well there is no research if you are unwilling to look for it.
You see valuable people have been exposed to it for decades and research has been done to make sure valuable people are not at risk. By valuable people I mean actors.
Smoke guns that put out glycol fog for theatrical/movie FX are just giant vapes. Well if they are running the safest glycols which vapes do.

Also dance floors have been heavily fogged for decades. No long term medical problems there either.

So if we have something harmless that gets smokers off the cancer stick immediately, why are they getting banned?

Well Mr Coumo's campaign contributions come from people (like Hillary) who get VERY large contributions from big pharma companies like Pfizer. Pfizer wants vapes dead so they can push their much more expensive and way less effective products.

Big tobacco of course doesn't want smokers quitting. Vapes have absolutely been punishing big tobacco. So more contributions here.

Finally another huge reason why politicians want to keep killing Americans via tobacco related illnesses are tobacco bonds. These are how big tobacco paid out all the states that sued them. They are also dependent on tobacco selling well.

Between big tobacco and big pharma they can buy campaigns and news stories. Their contributions to the American Cancer Society have gotten that group to tell me to drop the vape and take up smoking. When the American Cancer Society tells you to take up smoking, something has gone very wrong.

Banning vapes will give you a body count that will godwin threads like this in years and in the long run.. Yeah, you can help kill hundreds of millions of people.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel the same way about your cologne and perfume. Why should I have to breathe those noxious chemicals because you like their fragrance?

Produce some evidence that perfumes/colognes contain poisonous chemicals, them maybe we'll talk.

Otherwise, go take your feelings elsewhere.

Re: Sounds like fun

[arth1]

Uhh.. giving up nicotine altogether is good for them.

That's an unsubstantiated assumption. There are to my knowledge no studies that show that people who quit nicotine fare better than those who continue to use nicotine, whether it be through patches, gum, mist devices or other non-smoking means.
The only documented bad effect of nicotine alone that I can find, apart from allergic reactions and overdoses, is an increased risk of birth defects for nicotine using pregnant women. So it should be on the rather long list of things pregnant women should avoid.
This should be weighed (no pun intended) against the average 10 lb weight gain when quitting nicotine versus shifting to non-smoking nicotine.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Dragonslicer]

There's a lot of things that I consider annoying in people, does that mean I get to forbid talking loudly

As other people have mentioned, yes, there are usually local laws about disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, etc.

people scratching themselves in private places

Okay, probably not that one.

people being obnoxious to the wait staff

It isn't your decision, but the restaurant can ask those obnoxious people to leave. If they don't, they can be arrested for trespassing.

children in general

No, you can't just ban all children, but all the usual laws still apply.

people who are visibly sick but still handle my food, ...

That's not annoying, it's dangerous. You might want to call your local health inspector, because there probably are regulations about it.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... technically we're already protected from "walking across streets". Have you not heard of Jaywalking laws?

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... people scratching themselves in private places isn't an issue, because there's an expectation of privacy in private places. I think you mean people scratching themselves in public places.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Addiction is akin to parasitic infection.

Imagine for a moment, a parasite which causes the host discomfort until supplied with a particular substance. Each moment, the host is given the choice to tolerate the discomfort and starve the parasite out or to feed and strengthen it. As it grows it requires increased feeding or promises increased discomfort.

It is a good to be free from influences to one's daily routine which serve only to reinforce that influence. To be free is good.

Re:Sounds like fun

[arth1]

My bet is that lobbying from the tobacco industry is responsible for this crackdown on ecigs.

I put the blame squarely on the "cloud chasers" - the inconsiderate arseholes who make it their quest to generate as big clouds of vapor as possible, wherever possible. By their actions and lack of consideration, they taint all the misting device users. It's the cloud chasers that stick to the legislators' memories, not the guy who discreetely inhales enough to get a fix and doesn't bother anyone.
Ban any e-liquid with more than 20% VG and devices that go over 20W, and it'll cease to be seen a problem.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

He said as he lights his scented candle and puts out new air fresheners.

He doesn't know if it's bad for him, so he keeps on heating up that Scentsy wax. What's the worst that could happen?

Better to ban them now, just in case. Untested and unregulated is basically just code for 'this fragrance is deadly poison'.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that everything they listed as being "emissions" are food additives right? You probably ate some with breakfast.

Where is the call for nearly every food product to be banned, regulated, or labeled so onerously?

This is another case of fear over reason.

Re: Sounds like fun

[arth1]

Imagine for a moment, a parasite which causes the host discomfort until supplied with a particular substance. Each moment, the host is given the choice to tolerate the discomfort and starve the parasite out or to feed and strengthen it. As it grows it requires increased feeding or promises increased discomfort.

Non sequitur. The bacteria in your intestines and on your skin are parasites, and you get severe discomfort if they are removed.

It is a good to be free from influences to one's daily routine which serve only to reinforce that influence. To be free is good.

Why? Are there any scientific studies corroborating that idea?

I think you're jumping to conclusions here. Whenever you find yourself thinking "well, obviously" take two steps back and re-examine the premises, because it may neither be obvious nor true.

Re:Sounds like fun

[strikethree]

Exactly, there are no studies indicating wether (sic) its harmful or not, therefore i would greatly prefer not to be inhaling a cocktail of chemicals which may have as yet unknown detrimental effects on my health.

Exactly, there are no studies indicating whether or not the chemicals (cologne, anti-perspirant, etc) are harmful or not; therefore, I would greatly prefer not to be inhaling a cocktail of chemicals which may have as yet known detrimental effects on my health.

We assume that cologne is safe but nobody controls for the chemicals found in them. I could sell Zyklon B as a perfume and nobody would say anything until people started dropping dead.

What? Nobody is dropping dead from cologne?

Well, I have not seen anyone drop dead from vaping.

Fair is fair. No?

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Imagine for a moment, a parasite which causes the host discomfort until supplied with a particular substance. Each moment, the host is given the choice to tolerate the discomfort and starve the parasite out or to feed and strengthen it. As it grows it requires increased feeding or promises increased discomfort.

Non sequitur.
Really? Please explain further?

The bacteria in your intestines and on your skin are parasites, and you get severe discomfort if they are removed.

Isn't it the case that these bacteria are in symbiosis with the host?

What benefit does nicotine bring? As you're fond of conclusions supported by research, please provide citations.

I would offer that given your apparent belief in the power of action backed by research and that the natural state is to be nicotine-free (at least I'm unaware of glands which produce nicotine within the human body), the logical course of action wrt to nicotine, in the absence of 'evidence' of its benefits, is 'none at all' - make no efforts to acquire nicotine.

One does not need evidence to stop doing something without benefits.

It is a good to be free from influences to one's daily routine which serve only to reinforce that influence. To be free is good.

Why? Are there any scientific studies corroborating that idea?

Because..... to be free is to provide maximal capacity to adapt to life's challenges and opportunities.

I will leave it to you to search for studies as this appears important to you.

Perhaps you might also look for studies whose conclusions inform add to whether all thought and action must legitimately be preceded by research?

I think you're jumping to conclusions here.

I'd like to hear more on this.

Whenever you find yourself thinking "well, obviously" take two steps back and re-examine the premises, because it may neither be obvious nor true.

Agreed.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Blockquote nesting fail. Challenging from a smartphone.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is: How is it your problem? I could see passive smoke in traditional cigarettes, but I'm still waiting for the "passive smoke" studies of vaping.

In deed, not my problem. I hope your love ones use the e-cigarette, and I want to see you tell them "bye bye" because it is not your problem.

Re: Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what's wrong with this crap. Ban indoor smoking? Ok, there's sound reason for that in public, mixed use buildings like offices, retail stores, etc. And it should have stopped there. No excuses at all to ban smoking in private freestanding bars other than busybodies acting all superior. (No, I don't smoke and never have).

This 'it'll reduce peer pressure bullshit is the wrong damned reason to pass any law. So is 'people might choose something unhealthy'. People choose lots of unhealthy things, but we single out this one.

Seriously, fuck telling other people how to live unless what they're doing harms you and I mean actual, genuine harm.

Where I work some busybodies who don't even work in my department keep passive-aggressive harassing people who smoke by putting up huge 'no smoking' signs every place outside the building where they go specifically to try to not annoy people. Nobody who actually does work there cares or complains because we're all adults and they're not subjected to the smoke anyway. But OMG the smoke from 6 cigarettes a day outside the building is gonna cause irreparable harm, while the cars driving by feet from the building and the fumes from the fucking diesel locomotives that run down tracks 20 feet from the door, well that's all OK because reasons.

The anti smoking crowd accomplished their goals. Now they're just acting like spoiled twerps who want their way all the time. Fuck them.

Re: Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

What a stupid comment, quit drinking the kool-aid. 'He' is included in your 'we', you dumbass.

Re: Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have freedom from government and meddling busy-bodies like you, stumpy.

Nice trolling skills, but a troll is still a troll.

Re: Sounds like fun

[BasilBrush]

Look, after a lifetime of smoking, and failing to give up, I successfully gave up completely using the stepping stone of ecigs.

What part of this do you not understand?

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

The part where e-cigs contain the addictive substance ?

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Congratulations, by the way - quitting smoking can be a challenge :D

Re:Sounds like fun

[Scarletdown]

You know how farts work right?

And at the very least, as of last week's South Park, everyone who watched now knows how old lady farts work. (shudder)

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Blowing huge clouds of nicotine? You dumb douche

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

...civilisation involves anything which takes us away from living in balance with the planet...

What gives you that idea? Of course it depends entirely on your definition of "living in balance with the planet", but I see nothing about being civilized that precludes that. Are the only people that meet your standard wearing leaves and living in caves? I'm of the opinion that the planet will always be in balance. With or without us. We might heat the place up. We might wipe out a bunch of cool species. But the planet will stay "in balance". It's just adjusting in response to the life that's growing on it - Just like it always has.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

you can vape in public, just don't hang around building doors or air intakes vomiting out spurious clouds of "vape smoke", while loudly exclaiming its safer then smoking so nonsmokers shouldn't care to be 2nd hand vaping...

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not need nor want help keeping me safe from myself.

I do.

Then it's time to grow up and get out of your parents' basement. Personal responsibility. Learn it.

Re: Sounds like fun

[BasilBrush]

Whats your personal experience? Have you been a smoker? Have you used ecigs?

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

https://ajp.com.au/news/passive-vaping-risk/

Re:Sounds like fun

[Stinky Cheese Man]

Produce some evidence that perfumes/colognes contain poisonous chemicals, them maybe we'll talk.

Normally I don't bother responding to ACs, but this was just too easy: https://www.mamavation.com/201...

That was just the top of the list. There are plenty more where that came from. May I suggest Google?

Re:Sounds like fun

[gnick]

What other potentially dangerous activities do you want to protect us from? Sky diving? Deep sea diving? Walking across streets? Leaving our homes?

Sure, if you feel you're unable to perform those tasks without danger to yourself.

You want to keep us from those activities unless we can assure you there's no danger? That is fucking stupid. Of course there's danger associated with every one of those activities. There could be a drunken maniac poised to smear me across the crosswalk. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop crossing the street.

If something's dangerous, by all means alert me to the danger. Then let me do what I want. I set my own threshold for risk and compare it against perceived benefits. I don't remember asking you to make my decisions. I'd rather you didn't try.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Fill your boots if you want to engage in dangerous activities on your own, but don't impose them on the people next to you that are breathing the same air without at least asking their permission. The air is shared, and it's not any more considerate to vape in other people's presence indoors than peeing in a public pool.

Re: Sounds like fun

[gnick]

The part where e-cigs contain the addictive substance ?

Coffee contains an addictive substance too. Do I have your permission to drink coffee? Or are you here to save me since I can't make the decision on my own? OMG DRUGS!

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single morning on the train ride to work I smell someone's bad breath/farts/piss/general body odor... ban gross humans!

Re:Sounds like fun

[Dread_ed]

For health reasons, I tried running in my neighborhood after work. Shortly after starting the nightly regimen I was plagued by respiratory problems. Turns out working families tend to do lots of laundry in the evening hours when everyone is home. Dryer sheet fragrance is evacuated into the night air which, in turn, enters my lungs where it inflames and agitates my respiratory system something fierce. The result was a distinct loss of health. Quite the opposite of what I was attempting to achieve.

At work there are offices that I cannot go near. Glade plug ins, candle warmers, heavy perfume/cologne, and scented Clorox wipes are the devil. If I am exposed for more than a few moments the rampant sneezing is the least of my concerns. My nose will run like a faucet, my nasal passages will burn (sometimes for hours), I will occasionally have blisters form on my soft palate, and in the worst cases I will experience all of these symptoms followed by days of extreme exhaustion, a sinus infection which may progress to my chest, and delightfully terminated by expectorating large chunks of my own bloody and infected sinus flesh. Ta-da!

People sometimes wonder why I won't shake their hands when I smell cologne on them. Many people get it on their hands when they apply it. When I touch them it gets on my hands and I can sometimes smell it even after showering, twice. Imagine being allergic to the smell of your own hands. Frustration does not begin to encompass the feelings that clamor for my attention when this happens. Putting a fork near my face is detestable, and eating tacos or french fries with my fingers is right out.

There are even challenges when driving a rental or loaner vehicle. The seat belts are usually permeated with an olfactory cacophony of assaulting smells. Every person who has worn that seat belt and who also applied some kind of fragrance to their clothing is now evident to my nose. It's the gift that keeps on giving, too. Not only does it irritate the hell out of me while driving, it also gets on my clothes so even after I have left the car the scent continues to accost me.

So, next time you douse yourself with something you think smells good, or you flood your work space with fragrances, just realize there may be someone near you who regards this as a not-so-subtle poison. If you are offended by cigarettes realize that your perfume, or even your fabric softener, can be more immediately detrimental to the health of some individuals around you than cigarettes are. There are times I wonder how many elderly people and children with weakened immune systems and sensitivity to fragrances have been killed by infections spurred on by Chanel No 5. I am convinced this is a non-zero number.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

I've smoked - I gave up twenty years ago.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

Do I have your permission to drink coffee?

Nope.

Re: Sounds like fun

[arth1]

What benefit does nicotine bring? As you're fond of conclusions supported by research, please provide citations.

I have never made a claim that nicotine brings any benefit, which is presumably why you ask. So why should I provide a citation for that?

You, however, have made a claim that continued nicotine use is harmful and need to back that up, or be man enough to abandon your position as indefensible.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

My bet is that lobbying from the tobacco industry is responsible for this crackdown on ecigs.

Doubt it. They're the biggest suppliers. More likely it's about people who don't want to be fumigated by them in restaurants.

Re:Sounds like fun

[ChrisMaple]

And you're what is called an "apologist". A relatively modest tax. It's not a tax, it's a penalty for not obeying herr Fuehrer Hussein's dictate, and it's not relatively modest, it's multiple hundreds of dollars and gets larger each year.

Responsible people pay their own medical bills; you're libeling doctorvo when you claim that others would be paying his medical bills.

FWIW, there are many legal ways to avoid both buying insurance and paying the penalty.

Re:Sounds like fun

[ChrisMaple]

There's a large gap between "loud and obnoxious", and "loud and obnoxious enough to get arrested".

Re: Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they arenâ(TM)t an idiot?

Re: Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Youâ(TM)re a classic example of an idiot killing yourself, ruining your genes for your offspring (hopefully you only feel like killing yourself and not your progeny too?), leaving trace particles that kill or degrade the quality of life that exists around you (see third hand smoke research), and killing the air quality of those around you!

So, yes, youâ(TM)re an idiot to support the industry that is intentionally killing you, albeit you are willfully allowing it, so I get that you want to kill yourself, just go fucking do it in a small box, so I donâ(TM)t have to be anywhere near your toxic fumes and the 50+ toxins that are classified as toxic waste that get put into your cigarettes to make them more addictive.

You sir, are an excellent example of an idiot. Use a bullet, it is a less painful way to die, unless you like having lung cancer and diabetes or some other degraded health issues? Obviously you should be given the bullet and gun because you want to kill yourself and donâ(TM)t need anyone to help prevent you from doing it.

There is no point trying to talk sense into you, you are just a waste of a human that doesnâ(TM)t care about others enough to be cared about. Or grow up and realize the industry that is killing you is worse than you are!

Re:Sounds like fun

[gnick]

I do not need nor want help keeping me safe from myself.

I do. At the very least I want either a ban on harmful additives, or even better, regulation requiring sellers to state all additives...

I'd like that too, but that's different entirely. Alert me to the danger, then let me decide for myself. If my lifestyle crimps your insurance plan, charge me for it.

Re: Sounds like fun

[doctorvo]

That the application of an understanding of health concerns to policy-generation is as meaningless to you

It's not just meaningless to me, it is totalitarian and unacceptable in a free society.

demonstrates the need for this type of decision to be taken at a level higher than the individual.

You keep proving that you are a totalitarian and a fascist.

Re:Sounds like fun

[doctorvo]

Because when you get hit by a bus and rushed to the hospital, we are still going to end up paying for it.

That argument is bullshit.If I have a high income, I always have to pay for my hospital bills, whether I'm insured or not. And if I have a low income, the cost of emergency medical care is socialized under an emergency care mandate or under ACA. What ACA changed is that high income earners are now forced to pay for non-emergency, elective, and preventable, medical expenses of low income earners.

No it doesn't. It just requires you to pay a relatively modest tax if you choose not to.

You're missing the point. The ACA prevents me from getting the insurance I want, namely insurance that reflects my actual risk. Instead, it forces me to make a choice between (1) no insurance plus paying a penalty, and (2) insurance programs that force me to subsidize dangerous, immoral, irresponsible, and self-destructive behavior. Neither of those choices is acceptable.

Re: Sounds like fun

[doctorvo]

You really don't understand the difference between political advocacy and actual compassion?

You really are a self-deluded psychopath.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

OK; so I took your suggestion and started to re-evaluate my position anew.

I found it interesting to review the many conflicting results of studies around nicotine on wikipedia.

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

:D

Re: Sounds like fun

[doctorvo]

Laugh all you want, as the last few elections show, Americans are waking up to your kind of hypocrisy. And you don't even understand what's happening.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

If you drive a car that emits anything, then you are a hypocrite and you are doing far more damage than anyone smoking or vaping.

Re: Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention your paying for pregnancy though you cant get pregnant. Dumbest law in the recent decade...

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

You are arguing with yourself. I'm someone who suggested that person X might have compassion for person Y and not want them to harm themselves through addictive substances. I'm not clear what you think that means other than what it says. Have a good day.

Re:Sounds like fun

[110010001000]

You might be a narcissist. We get it, you are sensitive to stuff. Life isn't perfect.

Re: Sounds like fun

[doctorvo]

I'm someone who suggested that person X might have compassion for person Y and not want them to harm themselves through addictive substances.

And unless "person X" is you, that statement makes you a self-righteous prick and blowhard. The only way to demonstrate compassion is by actually acting on it yourself, not by advocating it or passing laws.

I'm not clear what you think that means other than what it says

It means exactly what it says, and it is the same delusion about compassion that is common to a particular, and deplorable, segment of American political life.

Re: Sounds like fun

[imrahilj]

Cigarette smoking has been found to be addictive not just due to the nicotine, but also due to the pleasant feeling (apparently, not a smoker) of smoke in the lungs. E-cigs allow first, the consumption of nicotine and the feeling of smoking without the harmful byproducts of combustion. Cigarette smoke contains all those terrible things, and even more that vapes don't produce. Second, e-cigs allow the amount of nicotine to be reduced or eliminated in a way that cigarettes do not. I have never vaped, never plan to, but sometimes a lesser evil actually is a lesser evil.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Ol Olsoc]

The aerosol emissions can include formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene. If that doesn't give you a buzz, then nothing will. Better than Testers glue. What's the problem?

We need to shoot those vaping motherfuckers before they hurt themselves.

Re:Sounds like fun

[drinkypoo]

You do know that everything they listed as being "emissions" are food additives right? You probably ate some with breakfast.

I ate oatmeal for breakfast, but I still don't want it in my lungs.

Re: Sounds like fun

[drinkypoo]

Non sequitur. The bacteria in your intestines and on your skin are parasites, and you get severe discomfort if they are removed.

In that case, they are symbiotes, not parasites.

In any case, arguing that people should take a temporary ten pound weight gain into account and weigh it against the benefits of not being dependent on a stimulant is stupid.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if he's your friend and its your place, tell him to go outside. if its his place, or somewhere else, then you go outside.

Why am I required to alter my lifestyle because you have a problem, that totally your own?

I have a friend with dog-like hearing (seriously) and he has to put on sound blocking earphones at night, because during the holidays the neighbors put out lights and what not, and some of them emit a high pitched sound that most humans don't hear. does really have an argument to make them stop? no, he doesn't. SO he finds a solution for himself, and that's what others need to do.....

Now take this with a grain of salt, its causing a health risk or real harm, then yeah have a point. But not overall, and not in this case....

Re:Sounds like fun

[kaatochacha]

Really, it's the guys with the absolutely absurd clouds of vapor all around them that are causing this. I sat next to a guy the other day who seemed intent on causing fog in the general area. Seriously, the cloud he put out each time he forcefully exhaled was greater than the size of his body.

Re:Sounds like fun

[nealric]

An apologist is anybody who defends a concept, so sure- call me an apologist. The Supreme Court found that the Obamacare mandate was, in fact, a tax. It's far cheaper than actually buying insurance if you really want to go down that route. And really, if you have to resort to name calling when making your argument, you've already shown your hand to be weak.

Yes, in theory people pay their medical bills. But what happens when things don't work out. A friend of mine had a brain aneurysm- her medical bills were in excess of $2 million. Do you have that sort of money sitting around ready to pay your bill? I'm not making any claims about anybody specifically, but the fact of the matter is that hospitals routinely have to write off bills of the uninsured. Those costs get passed onto the rest of us, either implicitly or explicitly.

Re:Sounds like fun

[nealric]

You will subsidize dangerous, immoral, irresponsible, and self-destructive behavior regardless of what happens to Obamacare. It is either subsidized explicitly through a program like Obamacare or implicitly through higher medical bills as long as we continue to provide care regardless of ability to pay.

Prior to Obamacare, you couldn't necessarily buy the insurance that reflected your actual risk either. You were often grossly overcharged if you purchased on the individual market- even if you were quite healthy and low risk. Lifetime maximums meant that even a catastrophic plan didn't necessarily fully cover a catastrophic event like cancer.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Dread_ed]

It's not about me. I only used my self as a convenient example to point out how unthinking individuals can affect others. I could have used others as an example.

If given the choice I would prefer to know how my choices affect others so I can be more responsible for how I show up for others. I assert there are many people who have no idea fragrances can and do have a negative affect on others. I also assert that there may be, within that group, people who would change their behavior if they knew how they were affecting others, not out of a desire to placate others, but out of a desire to be responsible for their impact on others.

I also assert that there are insensitive individuals who really don't care about their impact on others, nor do they seek to be responsible for themselves. And lo, here you are.

Re: Sounds like fun

[Meski]

Sure, but the (accepted) process of ingesting coffee doesn't involve me misting it around me as I inbibe it. (unless I read something funny on the internet)

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

I can smell some of you from a block away.

With superpowers like that, why are you here, instead of out there fighting crime?

Re: Sounds like fun

[easyTree]

So, noVaping > Vaping > DeathSticks ?

Re:Sounds like fun

[doctorvo]

You will subsidize dangerous, immoral, irresponsible, and self-destructive behavior regardless of what happens to Obamacare. It is either subsidized explicitly through a program like Obamacare or implicitly through higher medical bills as long as we continue to provide care regardless of ability to pay.

Yes, but there are different levels of care and different levels of subsidies. Obamacare used as its guiding principle that everybody should receive a generous, state-of-the-art level of care regardless of ability to pay. That's not sustainable, and it subsidizes the worst behaviors in people; it hurts the people most who it purports to help. It's an absurd and obscene way of designing a health care system, and it's not how other systems work.

Prior to Obamacare, you couldn't necessarily buy the insurance that reflected your actual risk either. You were often grossly overcharged if you purchased on the individual market- even if you were quite healthy and low risk.

Correct. That's because prior to ACA, the insurance market was already heavily distorted by subsidies, barriers to entry, regulations, and artificial monopolies. But instead of addressing those problems, ACA doubled down on those problems and made them worse.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh oh, the dreaded "chemicals". Was this legislation authored by the food babe? Who cares what is in them unless they contain potentially toxic quantities? Will restaurants and bars also be prohibited from using aerosol cleaning products? I don't care if the city wants to ban vaping, but don't try to claim it's about the chemicals they contain unless you have some studies to back up the danger at the levels contained in e-cigarettes.

Re:Sounds like fun

[Anonymous Coward]

As stated many times before, it is not about forbidding people from self harm, but forbidding them from harming others. No one will allow you to sky dive over city for example, so if you splatter, you don't take others with you. With deep see diving, you only risk yourself, so no problem.

Couple of months ago I had pair of guys vape in a bus full of people, I kept my quite for a while, hopping they will realise that they shouldn't be doing it in a bus, however after 10 minutes I finally had enough had to tell them to stop.

Re: Sounds like fun

[imrahilj]

Exactly. Also, it appears to be easier to go deathsticks -> vaping -> novaping than deathsticks -> nodeathsticks

Not a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm okay with this, except that what is considered to be Central Park is more than just the park.

Re:Not a big deal

[superwiz]

Really? Well, make sure your other sources of water vapor don't infringe on anyone in public. Or an overly eager police officer could stretch the definition of vaping and give you a ticket.

Re:Not a big deal

[AK Marc]

What is Central Park? Is it more than what's bounded on the south by 59th St and east by 5th Ave, and Central Park West, and Central Park North?

Nanny State

[sharkbiter]

Don't do this and don't do that. 'Cause we know what's best for you and we're gonna pass laws that make you conform. Nanny,. nanny boo boo! Hell, by the time we're done, you'll serve prison time.

Thus sayeth the Nanny State.

Re:Nanny State

[omnichad]

This is the will of the people - not nannying. Your rights end in my personal space. Do whatever you want at home or outside, but not next to me in a crowded building.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

Don't do this and don't do that. 'Cause we know what's best for you and we're gonna pass laws that make you conform.

That's an overstatement, there. The law isn't telling people they can't do it, rather it is saying that the rest of society has the right to not be exposed to it involuntarily (as is also the case with regular tobacco smoke). You can still smoke it in your private home, or in your private car, or in other private places. Those who are intelligent enough to not smoke this should not be forcibly exposed to the toxic brew that is produces.

Re:Nanny State

[EEPROMS]

so are they also banning combustion engines, perfumes, deodorants and the millions of other products and devices that emit aerosol based chemicals.

Re:Nanny State

[omnichad]

This ban is for indoor. I could only wish that spraying perfume inside were equally illegal. Put that on at home. If you are so strongly doused that you set off a smoke detector, you should be forced to leave. I was once in a movie theater and someone thought it necessary to spray on extra perfume - in her theater seat. She's lucky I was thirsty, or I would have sprayed her with my drink to clean her off.

I am fully in favor of an Axe law.

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Iâ(TM)m sure former smokers will appreciate not having nicotine laced vapor surrounding them as well.

Re:Nanny State

[mi]

Your rights end in my personal space.

Your personal space is as safe as ever — it is not even being alleged, that the devices are harmful to anyone other than the actual users. And even to them, they merely "can" be harmful — not "are".

You wouldn't know nannying if it spanked you and left you without supper.

Do whatever you want at home or outside, but not next to me in a crowded building.

Nor feet away from you in the park either. On the basis of a "can" — a statement as convincing as a Geico commercial...

Re:Nanny State

[MightyMartian]

In a lot of workplaces, strong perfumes are often banned., because some people are assholes and don't respect their coworkers, so sadly rules are needed to reign in antisocial types. And we're working on ICE engines, over the kicking and screaming of another group of self-entitled snowflakes who believe it's their God-given right to help melt the ice caps.

Re:Nanny State

[omnichad]

Who said anything about harmful? How about annoying? Infuriating? Laws like this reduce violence. If I throw a drink at you to put out your cigarette (or short your e-cig), it's assault. If you force me to partake, that's assault just the same.

Re:Nanny State

[KiloByte]

This ban is for indoor. I could only wish that spraying perfume inside were equally illegal.

A male goat that sees females in heat will urinate on his beard. The smell of that is revolting outdoors and unbearable indoors, to the point that even cows (badly smelling creatures themselves) will refuse to enter a barn polluted by a perfumed goat.

A good part of human perfumes are not much more appealing to me than what a goat uses.

I am fully in favor of an Axe law.

Spraying a dangerous substance that has adverse effect (beyond just revulsion) to multiple schoolmates? Sounds pretty obvious to me.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

yet i have to partake in seeing your stupid face and opinions on the daily, disgusting people like you should be just banned like... lol noone wonder america lost it's competivie edge with pussies like u at the forefront ........ whats wrong you can't fucking extrapolate to see whats wrong with hate laws? ....... ya thought so.......

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the will of the people - not nannying. Your rights end in my personal space. Do whatever you want at home or outside, but not next to me in a crowded building.

let me tell ya, i care about my personal space!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DfmDuOxcN8

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll ban farting before they ban deodorant. Just sayin'.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like that would be public space, not your personal space.

Re:Nanny State

[KiloByte]

so are they also banning combustion engines

Most civilized countries already announced plans to ban these by year XXXX.

perfumes, deodorants

Sadly, not yet, but see other responses.

and the millions of other products and devices that emit aerosol based chemicals.

If they're harmful or offensive to bystanders, yes, they do get banned.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to allow vaping or not belongs to the proprietor, not "the people," no matter how lopsided the vote. If I permit vaping in my bar and you choose not to be around it, that's your prerogative -- the prerogative to set policy on my property is mine.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a hate crime to say that this is the worst, stupidest, most poorly worded comment that I've seen on ANY site in a long time?

Re:Nanny State

[ShanghaiBill]

so are they also banning combustion engines, perfumes

Several cities ban "excessive" perfume in public buildings.
Many more regulate ICE emissions.

Re:Nanny State

[BlueStrat]

Don't do this and don't do that. 'Cause we know what's best for you and we're gonna pass laws that make you conform. Nanny,. nanny boo boo! Hell, by the time we're done, you'll serve prison time.

Thus sayeth the Nanny State.

There are additional motivations for restricting Ecigs, among which are the threat they pose to tobacco tax revenues, and strong lobbying by big tobacco and their sock puppets against Ecigs.

Always follow the money.

Strat

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

A male goat that sees females in heat will urinate on his beard.

Best advice I ever got.

Re: Nanny State

[Jesus H Rolle]

As a former smoker, I don't care whatsoever if someone vapes around me, even if they're in my home.

Re: Nanny State

[coastwalker]

Wrong. As a former smoker I actually enjoy tobbacÄi smoke, never mind vaping. This law is hysterical and vindictive. No wonder folk voted for Trump, America is being pussified by leftist snowflakes.

Re:Nanny State

[superwiz]

Should we all stop breathing in public, too? I assure you that what we all exhale is more toxic to you than water vapor.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine, I won't come to your home and vape. But you can't tell other property owners they can't allow vaping at theirs -- regardless of whether their property is residential or commercial.

Re: Nanny State

[I'm New Around Here]

You're gonna urinate on a goat's beard?

Please post the video.

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot on. I smoke every now and again and enjoy it. It's too costly to do so on on ongoing basis anymore, what at almost $7 a pack or $60 for a carton.

I plan on buying a few cartons and vacuum sealing them for when they are banned. I'll make a small fortune. Ditto rolls of Skoal and Copenhagen, which I really like, but likely cannot afford to use regularly.

Re:Nanny State

[DNS-and-BIND]

Will of the people? In government? You're joking, right?

Smoking was banned due to the hysteria surrounding secondhand smoke. Vaping? Gimme a break. This is just a government reaching for more control, because that's what government does. They have to justify their existence and expanding their budget.

Re:Nanny State

[Khyber]

Too bad your education ended in the 3rd grade, otherwise you'd see this is entirely about public spaces, in which you have no personal space at all, dipshit.

Go the fuck back to school.

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your face ugly, repelling, and causes me to vomit. Since your freedom ends at the point I'm offended by your vomit inducing ugliness I demand the power of the state be used to compel your head to be cut off your head with the sword of political justice.

It is all about political correctness and inclusivnees.

Re: Nanny State

[Reverend Green]

Goddamit, this will show those uppity Californians that New York IS STILL the least-free state in America!

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Butt-flustered smoker and/or libertarian detected.
Ever heard of the precautionary principle? Of course not...

Re:Nanny State

[Pfhorrest]

Thank god a voice of reason in this thread. The rest of the place is infested with self-righteous ash-holes. You've already said all the reasonable things that need being said and gotten nothing but an undeserved "troll" mod for it, so I'll take the low road and just tell them all to shove their fucking drugs up their butts. Or switch to a harder drug that kills them faster, so long as I'm not forced to partake of it with them.

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, we already know you hate freedom.

How's the weather in Moscow today?

Re:Nanny State

[Richard_at_work]

Can you sell alcohol indiscriminately in this theoretical bar...? Can you decide to sell it to 15 year olds?

Re:Nanny State

[AK Marc]

I don't care if you think it's safe, I don't want it. If you could do it without exhaling and all the second hand vape, people wouldn't mind. I don't want to know that today is your caramel day and yesterday was peppermint. You stench may be pleasing to you, but nobody else, and your figurative fist is touching my literal nose. Isn't that the libertarian line in the sand?

Re:Nanny State

[AK Marc]

So you can slap people in public spaces? After all, that's a non-damaging harm, like vaping.

Go the fuck back to reality.

Re:Nanny State

[war4peace]

If anything you should be more worried about someone sneezing around you. The danger to your health is orders of magnitude higher.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the original quote is, "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins," or more often stated as, "Your rights end where my nose begins."

Cigarettes and e-cigs literally cross this boundary.

Libertarians should love this law.

(captcha: persist)

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

No but it should be within his right as a business owner if he wants to put a sign in the door that says this is a vape friendly bar, then the customers who might be offended by it can make the choice not to enter the premises before ever being subjected to the vape. Otherwise it comes down to the mentality of "well i cant go in there because they are vaping" I want to go there even though i would be totally unwelcome. Lets ban the vaping and force my views and presence on those who might want a place to relax and vape.

When do we ban cars? The shit coming out of their tailpipes is many times worse than whats coming out of traditional cigarettes, let alone the harmless vapor from an ecig.

So now that they have deemed vapor a harmful pollutant. Are we going to ban restaurants who bring out a nice piping hot plate of food releasing its steam vapor? After all someone might be allergic to something in that steam. Or offended by the smell of cooked pork.

With the number of rich jews in new york I am surprised they haven't banned the sale of "unclean meat" in restaurants. After all you don't want to be limited to what restaurants you can go to, or worry that there was an "unclean piece of meat" in that frying pan just before your fish went into it.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Because vaping, much like sneezing, is a normal bodily function.

Re:Nanny State

[sjames]

OK, but be sure to wash thoroughly with unscented soap before you go out. No cologne or after-shave either except for rubbing alcohol if you really need it (but be sure it's good and dry before you go out.

While we're here, be sure to wear the standard grey uniform as well. We don't want your flashy colored clothes assaulting our senses.

Re:Nanny State

[thegarbz]

So what you're saying is "No but {insert irrelevant strawman}"

When do we ban cars?

Cigarettes and cars have different utility and contribute differently to the economy. If cars only existed to kill its occupants we'd have banned them long ago. ... You didn't think this was a single variable decision did you? Shame on your simple mindedness.

So now that they have deemed vapor a harmful pollutant. Are we going to ban restaurants who bring out a nice piping hot plate of food releasing its steam vapor?

I stand corrected. You're not simple minded at all. You're obtusely dense and don't want to think about the differences in your examples.

After all someone might be allergic to something in that steam.

Allergies are irrelevant to the discussion. Please stay on topic.

Or offended by the smell of cooked pork.

Offence is irrelevant to the discussion. Please stay on topic.

With the number of rich jews...

There we go, now it all comes out. Whatever credibility you had left in the discussion (very little mind you) you just pissed against the wall. Now off you fuck.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't do this and don't do that. 'Cause we know what's best for you and we're gonna pass laws that make you conform."

No. It's a disgusting habit, just as chewing and spitting tobacco and your fellow citizens are disgusted by you.

Do it at home, until it gets forbidden there too.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your personal space is as safe as ever — it is not even being alleged, that the devices are harmful to anyone other than the actual users. And even to them, they merely "can" be harmful — not "are". "

Nobody gives a shit, it's disgusting, just as if you came naked into the restaurant, which btw is also forbidden and not harmful.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Then feel free to kill yourself so you never have to breathe it.

That's right, just go ahead and proceed to remove yourself from the realm of the living. Here, have a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Nanny State

[goose-incarnated]

In a lot of workplaces, strong perfumes are often banned., because some people are assholes and don't respect their coworkers, so sadly rules are needed to reign in antisocial types. And we're working on ICE engines, over the kicking and screaming of another group of self-entitled snowflakes who believe it's their God-given right to help melt the ice caps.

The anti-smoking lobby stopped being about the actual smoking. Now you're a just a bunch of puritanical assholes who gets triggered if someone, somewhere, is enjoying something.

This is not different to Jack Thompson's approach to videogames - "Think of the possible unproven dangers $ACTIVITY involves!".

When we invent an engine that run's on religious self-rightesousness, you and people like you would be a net benefit to society. Right now all we get from you is to force your belief system onto the rest of us.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

"The right to allow vaping or not belongs to the proprietor, not "the people," no matter how lopsided the vote. If I permit vaping in my bar and you choose not to be around it, that's your prerogative -- the prerogative to set policy on my property is mine."

How about food safety regulations, fire safety, is that you too? I guess a liquor license is also nanny state, that's you as well I presume.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because that's prohibited everywhere. Can you sell alcohol to 15 years in your sleeping room? Do you see how it doesn't refute the argument?

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to articulate your thoughts properly before puking them into the internet.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true even for cigarettes, even over here where we are much stricter about such things.

Only one detail: You can't have any employees. Or - theoretically - if you do, you can't require they show up for work, and of course since you can't require they show up for work, you can't fire them for not showing up.

We actually had one bar that allowed smoking after we banned smoking in the work place. The bar had four owners, and they were the only ones working there.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Join us next time on "AC Learns to Rhetoric!"

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're like that Weinstein guy, thinking that you can go around grabbing peoples asses in public without invading their personal space?

Re: Nanny State

[JaredOfEuropa]

Those peaceful protesters against hate and bigotry can get pretty violent. People will be people and some of them think they need to swing a fist to make a point, but there's nothing like a person charged with righteous indignation and a deep seated sense of entitlement turning to violence. Look at any campus where there's a "controversial" speaker about to make an appearance.

Re:Nanny State

[Hognoxious]

When we invent an engine that run's on religious self-rightesousness

I'm working on making fuel from idiotic apostrophes. There's an endless supply of them and they have no other use.

Re:Nanny State

[Calydor]

Soap, shampoo, tooth paste, breath mint, detergent, deodorant, cologne, car freshener ... The list of personally chosen smells goes on.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care if you believe what you're saying, I don't want to hear it and your figurative fist is touching my literal ears.

I don't care if you think those clothes look good, I don't want to see them and your figurative fist is touching my literal eyes.

The fist example refers to something which causes actual physical harm to others, now there may be an argument that vaping causes harm to others (although the evidence is still scarce) but that doesn't seem to be your argument. The fact that you don't like something is in no way equivalent to being attacked and put in real immediate danger, and to claim it is, especially on a libertarian basis, is just stupid.

Re:Nanny State

[Hognoxious]

"Will of the people" and "hysteria" are not mutually exclusive, though in that case it was well founded anyway.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your rights end in my personal space"

Please never drive a car again in my vicinity. Or are you a complete hypocrite? For some reason the same people who want to ban the burning of tobacco in their vicinity, find it perfectly ok to release cancerous exhaust gasses in mine.

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former smoker you were previously part of the problem, so excuse me if I don't really give a shit about your opinion on a subject where you yourself admit to having poor judgement.

Re:Nanny State

[Bert64]

Exactly, do whatever you like providing it doesn't impact upon others.

Re: Nanny State

[mSparks43]

i think you misunderstand the meaning of effeminate.
Have you ever seen a woman angry?
Although, if you live in america, I can understand why you may never of seen a real one. Thats presumably why trump had to fish in foreign ponds.

Re:Nanny State

[Ubi_NL]

Cigarettes and cars have different utility and contribute differently to the economy. If cars only existed to kill its occupants we'd have banned them long ago. ...

You mean the assault rifles they sell legally at gun shows have another use?

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't buy a gun either. Will you start crying now?

Re:Nanny State

[AmiMoJo]

Different orders of magnitude. Strong cologne in a confined space is just as bad as vaping in a confined space. I've actually had both cause eye irritation before.

Re:Nanny State

[goose-incarnated]

When we invent an engine that run's on religious self-rightesousness

I'm working on making fuel from idiotic apostrophes. There's an endless supply of them and they have no other use.

Generalise it to make fuel from idiotic autocorrects - that's where that apostrophe came from.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Netherlands, during a cold day, I vape as a natural function of my body.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws like this reduce violence. If I throw a drink at you to put out your cigarette (or short your e-cig), it's assault. If you force me to partake, that's assault just the same.

Pass laws against things I subjectively hate or I will resort to violence.

That's literally terrorism. That is literally what ISIS is doing. That is what they exist to do.

Re:Nanny State

[Wraithlyn]

Do we ban perfume next, because it offends some? I mean, it's the exact same argument.

Until someone demonstrates actual harm from second-hand vapor, adult establishments like bars should be allowed to set policy themselves.

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

How can anyone enjoy such a disgusting smell?

Re:Nanny State

[Bert64]

Traditional internal combustion cars and other such vehicles *are* being banned in many places, the problem is that there is often no viable alternative and there is still a requirement to get people and goods around. Many steps are being taken to reduce the level of toxic chemicals being released into the air from vehicles.

Smoking and/or vaping is not required in any case, it's solely a matter of someone's choice and it does not provide any benefits to society.
Vehicles also tend to operate out in the open where the fumes dissipate more quickly, smoking will often occur in confined spaces where the fumes are more likely to linger and be inhaled by anyone else in the location.

Re:Nanny State

[Bert64]

Most people try not to sneeze and in public, or at least attempt to sneeze into a tissue if possible...
Very few people sneeze openly into the room, and such people are usually considered rude.
Sneezing is also involuntary, very few people intentionally inhale things intended to cause sneezing.

Re:Nanny State

[Bert64]

Vaping may cause harm to others. We have no evidence that it doesn't, and it is intended to contain some of the same chemicals as tobacco smoke which we do know to be harmful. It makes sense to err on the side of caution in this regard, especially as vaping is not an essential or unavoidable activity.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

No. If you're going to a place that allows it, you're walking into the vapor. If you're going to a place that bans it and someone vapes there, then they're at fault. If you don't like it, don't patronize businesses that allow it.

Let some businesses allow vaping and let others ban it as per their own policy. Then spend money on the ones that ban it if you don't like it. Don't force everyone to use your viewpoint.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfume? It's already not socially acceptable in most places, banned in hospitals and in workplaces.

It doesn't speak highly of the wearer.

Re: Nanny State

[Zero__Kelvin]

That's not how freedom works. If everything that wasn't approved of by the majority were banned it would be a boring world indeed.

Re: Nanny State

[Whibla]

How can anyone enjoy such a disgusting smell?

What, smell and taste are subjective? Who'd have thought it!

While, for the record, I think this is somewhat of an overreach I can't say I really care that much one way or the other. I've never vaped, and almost certainly never will, and I don't live in New York state (- something to ponder, for all those who are up in arms over this, especially if you're one of those people who have suggested to others in the past that they can always move if they're not happy in their current state).

There is no doubt in my mind that the smoking ban has been net positive, both in 'local environment' terms and in encouraging people to stop smoking, which has consequential effects on health, costs of health care, and so on. Many of the arguments used, by both sides, at the time the ban was being debated have been duplicated here, though any adverse health effects of vaping, especially at remove (second hand), are nowhere near as certain. In fact, despite the rather poor study that was linked to on /. the other day, it is almost certain, based on my observations, that vaping has helped reduce the numbers of smokers, and I would worry, albeit only a tiny bit, that this law might go some way towards reversing that trend.

I will say, to finish, that part of the problem in a debate about something like this is that it's hard to be purely 'rational' when dealing with an issue that heavily involves our sense of smell. We're straight into visceral feelings before we even get a chance to think why we might agree or disagree with this law, and, partly because of this, the debate can turn personal, and the debaters increasingly intolerant. And that's a shame. Our countries became great precisely because we were, on the whole, tolerant of other people's opinions; we could see the good when they said it, and recognised when we were being an ass.

I wonder if such a thing might still be possible?

Re: Nanny State

[mapkinase]

I wish the same principle could be appl8ed to large mammal pets.

Pets are allowed on planes now, because of the stress of the owner

Re:Nanny State

[houghi]

The argument to this would be that at 15 you are not an adult. So it would be better to use the age of 19, because it clearly asks the question about the rights of an adult.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

you are correct, vehicles are required to move people and goods around. But not everyone needs a personal automobile. Isn't public transportation effective at moving people around? I mean maybe not the current implementation in this country, but there are lots of examples in other countries where public transportation is effective and convenient.
So no, cars are not required to move people around. A bus would work just fine and reduce pollution by a factor of however many people it is able to carry, accounting for less than full trips, etc... but you get the point. Yep, personal cars are "solely a matter of someone's choice".
Think that's too extreme, well how about all the 12-18MPG trucks and SUVs that people are driving to convey a single person around town? Why wouldn't a Prius work for the majority of those people. Could this be "solely a matter of someone's choice"?

Lot's of things aren't "required" and yet we defend the right to chose those things. You attempt to sound like a rational human I'm sure you could think of examples.

First smoking cigarettes was vilified for the cost to the public healthcare system (although I've never received any free healthcare that the public paid for in my life). Then the issue was second hand smoke killing people who happened past a smoker. Then it was just that it smelled bad and was annoying. Now we have vaping, the vast majority of which smells great, doesn't have all the ridiculous chemicals in it that burning tobacco produces. I know, I know, they scared you by saying the vapor "may" contain some harmful chemicals.... well all of the tests showing harmful chemical production were under conditions that aren't realistic for actually vaping. In fact most of the tests that showed harmful chemicals were conducted with the wick material actually charring. You've obviously never vaped, but if the wick is charring then no one is inhaling that on purpose and they change the wick immediately. Tests conducted under realistic usage conditions don't show all the harmful chemical production.

People just see the big cloud of vapor and assume that there must be more harmful stuff there than in cigarette smoke I can see so much stuff in the air. Well, guess what stupid.... many of the most harmful airborne chemicals are invisible.

And hey, if you don't like a bar that allows vaping indoors maybe go to a different bar. That particular bar isn't "a requirement" is it? It's the same as the people that hated Howard Stern on the radio... The average Howard Stern fan listened for like an hour, the average Howard Stern hater listened for like 2 hours. Get a clue man, no one is forcing you to tune in to something that offends you in some way, nor is anyone forcing you to go someplace that harms you in some way.

Re: Nanny State

[Zero__Kelvin]

Central Park is indoors? You claim to be so big on "The will of the people", but what you really mean is that is good so long as it matches your will. When a woman sprays perfume, which "the will of the people" allows you state that you would assault her, which "The will of the people" does not allow, but that your will to drink the sofa was stronger than your will to assault her with it. So stop posting about how a law is great because "it is the will of the people." You are a disingenuous hypocrite.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "intended" to contain 1 of the same chemicals as tobacco smoke. Just 1, nicotine. And the concentration is actually pretty low. And there is a bit of unknown about the effective amount of nicotine since the vapor particles are much larger than the smoke particles it isn't really known how effectively the vapor is absorbed in the lungs vs. the smoke.

Plus, your default stance is: (x) might be dangerous, we have no evidence it isn't... ban it until someone gets the time to prove it is safe.

Re:Nanny State

[sjames]

It really depends on the person. Although It would be rude, I would prefer if people on the train would smoke rather than wear some of the perfumes I have had the displeasure to know. Weeping eyes and unstoppable running nose are not a good way to start work. Others feel the opposite.

It's a matter of balance and perspective. Even when I smoked, I wouldn't have lit up on the train were it legal (unless they had smoking and non-smoking cars). Nor in an office that had non-smokers. There should be some sort of covered area for smokers though, preferably climate controlled. Bars and restaurants should decide for themselves.

Re:Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

Too bad your education ended in the 3rd grade, otherwise you'd see this is entirely about public spaces, in which you have no personal space at all, dipshit.

Who told you that, and why are you repeating it? It makes you look stupid. People don't have the right to touch you in public, your personal space begins where your skin does. So, what of someone's exhale? If you have to breathe it in, they're definitely invading your personal space.

All these comparisons to cars are logically retarded. Cars enable our modern economy. Smoking doesn't. Case closed.

Re:Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

It really depends on the person. Although It would be rude, I would prefer if people on the train would smoke rather than wear some of the perfumes I have had the displeasure to know.

BOTH should be banned. Period. If I can smell you from a distance, you've got too much stink on. Most of that shit is toxic and much of the stuff we permit here in the USA is actually banned in the EU because it's probably toxic and untested, or actually has been proven to be toxic but we permit it anyway. Then they mix the toxic chemicals with musk, whose job is to carry compounds through cell walls.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ridiculous!

Politicians, especially State (States impose significant taxes on cigarettes/tobacco) politicians would never put tax revenues over the best interests of their constituents, and Big Tobacco doesn't spend anywhere near enough money to actually influence any politicians or policies/regulations! Trying to undermine trust in the US government again, huh Ivan?

Re:Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

The anti-smoking lobby stopped being about the actual smoking. Now you're a just a bunch of puritanical assholes who gets triggered if someone, somewhere, is enjoying something.

Nobody gives a fat fuck if you sit at home and poison yourself. It's when you go out in public and poison other people that it becomes a problem. By all means, stay home and poison yourself, and if you don't mind, up the dose.

Re: Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

As a former smoker, I don't care whatsoever if someone vapes around me, even if they're in my home.

As a former smoker, I don't care whatsoever what you care about. I started smoking in the first place because I had a girlfriend who smoked and didn't want the ashtray-kissing experience. Now that I don't smoke tobacco, it smells and tastes like an ashtray's asshole again. I don't need people exhaling something that smells like a perfumed asshole, either.

With that said, I've been around people who are vaping who didn't smell like anything, they are not the big problem IMO. All the other chucklefucks who shop in the same stores they do are the problem.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfume contains alcohol along with some ingredients that are harmful for allergy sufferer, so the argument you made is also valid for perfume.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Should we all stop breathing in public, too? I assure you that what we all exhale is more toxic to you than water vapor.

You mean Carbon Dioxide? Actually, it doesn't fit the strict criteria for toxicity. May not be healthy, but a CO2 exposure is not considered especially toxic, unlike Carbon Monoxide. That's the thing about normal exhalation products, for the average situations the rest of the environment takes care of them without harm. In places where it IS a problem, we all have to take special steps anyway. This is why astronauts don't gripe that they have to change the filter. They aren't idiots.

Now there are exceptions, you may not have heard of this, but it's called quarantine. Infectious persons can be put into it. Forcibly. Even as they scream and holler.

We can also do it for other actions, there's a reason why burn bans exist, why fire codes exist, why pollution codes cover vehicle exhaust, industrial run-off, and yes, even water releases.

Stop acting like this is new, novel, or exceptional, and you might not be able to make sounder arguments.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Lot's of things aren't "required" and yet we defend the right to chose those things. You attempt to sound like a rational human I'm sure you could think of examples.

And what would be the point? You know they'd just be tendentious objections that don't serve to reflect reality, let alone legitimacy of argumentation. You got a problem with exhaust products from vehicles? Great, you should have been around during the TEL debate. Which was in no way safe, or reasonable, in fact, it was having a massive impact, that had to be fought against many powers to even be acknowledged, and even then, it could only be phased out.

Dozens of other safety regulations have also been treated the same way, most recently the Diesel emissions scandal. So it continues to be a problem.

You want to do something for vehicles? Go ahead, make a legitimate argument. Frivolous objections to another act based on them? You really need to realize why they're so unpersuasive. Not just start fuming when people give you not the slightest bit of attention.

First smoking cigarettes was vilified for the cost to the public healthcare system (although I've never received any free healthcare that the public paid for in my life). Then the issue was second hand smoke killing people who happened past a smoker. Then it was just that it smelled bad and was annoying.

You have the order wrong, the bad smell and annoyances came first, but smokers were adamant, due to their addiction, then the costs upon the health system for their own injury were acknowledged and recognized, then the injuries they were causing to others. None of which was attributed to you, because you weren't even alive when the first medical reports were issued.

Of course, the tobacco industry dug in their heels and denied the truth with a litany of lies and prevarications.

People just see the big cloud of vapor and assume that there must be more harmful stuff there than in cigarette smoke I can see so much stuff in the air.

Nope. Tests came after, they don't assume. You can whine all you want about the tests, but guess what stupid? You didn't persuade anybody. It's probably the past history of lies about pollution.

And hey, if you don't like a bar that allows vaping indoors maybe go to a different bar. That particular bar isn't "a requirement" is it?

Get a clue man, no one is forcing you to tune in to something that offends you in some way, nor is anyone forcing you to go someplace that harms you in some way.

This argument fails when we remember your own claim about the invisible products being the more toxic part, making it impossible to make a fair and informed decision. Ooops. Of course, it was the same thing about secondhand smoke, "Get a Different Job" but wait, wait, that didn't quite work out.

Sorry, you're just going to have to live with the fact that you lost the argument. You haven't been persuasive, informative or convincing.

You just want to vape, and you can't be bothered to respect anybody else.

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 is used in food production to terminate animals at the slaughter house. Its not poisonous by technical definition, but from a practical perspective, they are identical.

Re:Nanny State

[thegarbz]

You mean the assault rifles they sell legally at gun shows have another use?

Like I said, there's a topic we should stay on. What I believe about cigarettes and my rebuttal to the OP's comparison with cars has nothing at all to do with guns, so don't go implying meaning where I have stated none.

But for the record: No I don't. I personally think the USA's gun obsession is fundamentally retarded and that a minority of psychotics hide behind a powerful piece of paper to enforce tyranny of the minority. That is all I'm going to say on the gun topic.

Re: Nanny State

[Zero__Kelvin]

Yes, I agree. Coworkers who ban strong perfumes are indeed assholes.

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that the entire concept of tort battery, which I learned during literally my first day of law school, could not exist in public spaces in Khyber's world.

Now granted, L school is a little bit more advanced than 3rd grade (congrats on your conatruction paper diploma, Khyber!), but it's not like it is such a difficult concept that they saved it for the advanced seminars.

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not because of stress of the owner. It is because airline employees who are not trained lawyers are afraid of incurring civil and criminal liability when confronted with fraudulent Internet purchased "support animal" certifications that in actuality carry no legal weight in determining the airline's obligations under the ADA.

Re:Nanny State

[luis_a_espinal]

This is the will of the people - not nannying. Your rights end in my personal space. Do whatever you want at home or outside, but not next to me in a crowded building.

Until you have a way to legislate against people reeking of perfume or bad body odors for refusal to use deodorant or crass enough to throw a silent but deadly fart at a crowded restaurant, your personal argument sounds like a incredibly subjective NIMBY rant.

Vaping in crowded spaces annoy me, but you must show me that there are sufficiently negative side effects of that shit in the air for me to come down with pitchforks.

Will of the people my ass. We are talking about "feelings" not facts. Sure, in a democracy, the will of the people will eventually become law, but that does not make it right or ethical. After all, there was a time when the will of the people denied women the right to vote.

Stop throwing around with subjective, self-serving "will of the people" slogans and try to build your arguments with logic and ethics for once.

Re:Nanny State

[war4peace]

Which is totally irrelevant.

Re:Nanny State

[luis_a_espinal]

Who said anything about harmful? How about annoying? Infuriating? Laws like this reduce violence.

^^^ Logical fallacy by appealing to extremes. Someone needs a lesson in self control and in how to behave in a society full of imperfect individuals.

If I throw a drink at you to put out your cigarette (or short your e-cig), it's assault. If you force me to partake, that's assault just the same.

Not according to the law or plain old common sense. I mean seriously, this is one tortuously built self-serving argument you have going on there buddy.

Re:Nanny State

[luis_a_espinal]

Because vaping, much like sneezing, is a normal bodily function.

Just like excessive perfume or bad body odors from people with bad hygiene. I'd rather see that legislated against TBH.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Cigarettes and cars have different utility and contribute differently to the economy. If cars only existed to kill its occupants we'd have banned them long ago. ...

You mean the assault rifles they sell legally at gun shows have another use?

If your gun kills you when you shoot it, I suggest getting a refund.

More seriously, there's a lot of work involved in controlling the combustion wastes from firearms, see how many gun ranges install noise barriers AND windscreens.

Re:Nanny State

[goose-incarnated]

The anti-smoking lobby stopped being about the actual smoking. Now you're a just a bunch of puritanical assholes who gets triggered if someone, somewhere, is enjoying something.

Nobody gives a fat fuck if you sit at home and poison yourself. It's when you go out in public and poison other people that it becomes a problem. By all means, stay home and poison yourself, and if you don't mind, up the dose.

Please, spare me the hysterics - there has been absolutely no harm found in 2nd-hand water-vapour. You're just puritanical, is all.

If you're really allergic to water vapour I suggest you sit home, along with the anti-vaxxers, the anti-cell-tower-crowd, the 911-conspricay theorists, the gamer-gaters and the flat-earth society. You have more in common with them than you do with the rest of the world, and frankly, we wouldn't miss you one bit.

Water vapour, indeed.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me the obvious solution is to allow smoking licenses. We don't allow just anyone to sell booze. Booze is very profitable, and, if we did, it would be sold everywhere for that reason. So, we have liquor licenses to ensure that booze is only sold in a limited number of places in a given city. This is a great solution: drinkers can go to places booze is sold, and everyone can go to places booze isn't sold. If anyone were allowed to sell booze, there wouldn't be too many places that didn't have booze. Why not just do the same thing with smoking? Some amount of bars in a given city can have indoor smoking, but not all. If you want a smoking bar, go to one. If you don't, go to a bar without a smoking license.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about harmful? How about annoying? Infuriating? Laws like this reduce violence. If I throw a drink at you to put out your cigarette (or short your e-cig), it's assault. If you force me to partake, that's assault just the same.

Are you seriously suggesting legislating against things that are annoying? Seriously?

Being annoyed is a choice. I know it often doesn't feel that way, but you have a choice in how you react to things around you. And now you want to bring the power of the state to bear against things you have decided to be annoyed with. Brilliant.

Re:Nanny State

[burtosis]

Sneezing can spread disease, sometimes even serious ones, there have been studies, and it's likely far far worse than a reasonable amount of second hand vaping fluid. It probably should be mandatory to cover up or face fines.

Re: Nanny State

[omnichad]

I'm not the one that threw in Central Park - enough of the law is good that I don't want to nitpick. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding drinking sofas.

Government (ideal government) is just a group of people deciding how society should be and then making it happen as a group. The will of the people refers to a large percentage of people - where if there were no laws would be enforcing it themselves anyway.

Re:Nanny State

[omnichad]

Harassment is an extreme form of annoying and already illegal.

Re:Nanny State

[omnichad]

Someone needs a lesson in self control and in how to behave in a society full of imperfect individuals.

Same could be said about waiting to smoke.

Re: Nanny State

[omnichad]

I'm from Illinois - just across the river from Ferguson, MO. Many of the violent protesters were found to be from East St. Louis - if you look at a map they are not neighbors at all. It's just as likely that they are solely opportunists who came to have a good time.

Re:Nanny State

[JackieBrown]

Do you walk around all day thinking of things that should be banned? I mean, really, that should not even be a default, standard thought for people.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

Please, spare me the hysterics - there has been absolutely no harm found in 2nd-hand water-vapour

If it were 100% water vapor, you would be correct. However can you show an independent test of the vapor that comes from an electronic cigarette (or whatever the cool kids are calling them today)? Of course not, because there is no standard for them. There are dozens of different devices out there that create the vapor, and hundreds of different formulas for the juice that they vaporize. Regular cigarettes are more inform right now, and for some reason the peddlers of the e-cigarettes are telling us this is a good thing.

The vapor cloud itself is not easy to test, either. Even if we had a standard testing machine (we have such a thing for cigarettes), capturing the entire cloud to sample all of it would be a very difficult thing to do. We know the mixture is anything but homogeneous by the time it is exhaled.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

Thank you. Your number here is low enough that you also likely recall what this place was like before it became a conservative echo chamber. Oddly enough after being tagged troll my comment has such been up-moded repeatedly so it does seem there are a few sensible people reading this thread.

Re:Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

Do you walk around all day thinking of things that should be banned? I mean, really, that should not even be a default, standard thought for people.

I don't have to think about it, when someone comes along and poisons me, the thought comes into my head about the same time as their toxics enter my nostrils.

Why are you making apologies for chemical attacks?

Re:Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

The vapor cloud itself is not easy to test, either. Even if we had a standard testing machine (we have such a thing for cigarettes), capturing the entire cloud to sample all of it would be a very difficult thing to do. We know the mixture is anything but homogeneous by the time it is exhaled.

That's not hard, you breathe into a bag, or through a tube.

Ironically, more regulation could lead to less bans; if the contents were regulated and if someone ponied up for a study which showed that the regulated contents weren't harmful, then the regulated product might well not have been banned everywhere cigarettes are banned. But as usual, the manufacturers and users are crying about how they're being unfairly treated when in fact they're choosing to expose those around them to compounds whose long-term exposure risk is unknown. Who's being unfair?

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 is used in food production to terminate animals at the slaughter house.

You mean Carbon Dioxide? Actually, it doesn't fit the strict criteria for toxicity. May not be healthy, but a CO2 exposure is not considered especially toxic, unlike Carbon Monoxide. That's the thing about normal exhalation products, for the average situations the rest of the environment takes care of them without harm. In places where it IS a problem, we all have to take special steps anyway. This is why astronauts don't gripe that they have to change the filter. They aren't idiots.

Emphasis added. If your pest control applicators aren't stupid, they'll take the precautions necessary. Those pests die from a lack of oxygen, not from the Carbon dioxide, anyway.

Its not poisonous by technical definition, but from a practical perspective, they are identical.

Identical? Nope, we can differentiate between them, especially in the law. Which is also enable to differentiate between murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, and justifiable homicide.

Again, stop what you're doing and try to make sounder arguments.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anyone here even part of that "anti-smoking lobby?" I just don't want you blowing a cloud of unknown crap in my face for no good reason. I don't care what you say is in it, it doesn't need to be there and I (and countless other non-smokers) don't want it there. Enjoy it all you want somewhere else, I have no desire to "enjoy" it with you. Nobody is forcing a belief system on anyone but vapers sure as hell are forcing their vape clouds on others. Forget about the unproven dangers, there is absolutely zero benefit to being exposed to someone else's vape exhaust and minimal practical benefit to the vaper; it is entirely recreational and unnecessary. There are plenty of other activities like this that will get you kicked out of most business establishments that are open to the public, but laws usually aren't needed because most people will refrain from them out of common decency. Smokers and vapers won't play ball, so the ball gets taken away.

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

I've given permission to vapers to do so in my home, but they were considerate enough to *ask* me first. I might have objected, or at least been annoyed, had they not.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

This is the will of the people - not nannying. Your rights end in my personal space.

And you are free to ban smoking in your personal space, like your home and your car.

However, a restaurant or the street is not your personal space.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

Can you sell alcohol indiscriminately in this theoretical bar...? Can you decide to sell it to 15 year olds?

You hit on an essential difference there: children and intoxicated adults are assumed not to be able to take responsibility for themselves, which is why others need to take that into account when dealing with these individuals. Hence there are limits on giving alcohol to a child or a drunk person. The same justification does not apply to sober adults wanting to smoke, fuck, jump out of airplanes, or put bullets in their own heads.

Re:Nanny State

[JackieBrown]

So outlaw cleaning agents as well?

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

Cigarettes and cars have different utility and contribute differently to the economy. If cars only existed to kill its occupants we'd have banned them long ago.

Ah, the fundamental calculus of fascists everywhere: "it should be legal if and only if it is useful to society / the economy".

No, you wouldn't have banned cars for the same reason you haven't succeeded at banning guns: America doesn't work that way, and hopefully never will.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never been around a vaper. There is no stench, you ignorant clod. But what I do have a problem with is the nasty ass cologne you use. It's enough to set someone's nose hairs on fire.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

What I believe about cigarettes and my rebuttal to the OP's comparison with cars has nothing at all to do with guns, so don't go implying meaning where I have stated none.

It has everything to do with guns, because your kind of reasoning is applicable to guns just like it is to cars and cigarettes. And applying your reasoning to different products tells us (1) what political ideology underlies your reasoning, and (2) whether the US actually follows your political ideology.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

That's an overstatement, there. The law isn't telling people they can't do it, rather it is saying that the rest of society has the right to not be exposed to it involuntarily (as is also the case with regular tobacco smoke).

You might have an argument there when it comes to public places (even that is weak). You have no argument there regulating businesses. Whether a restaurant or store allows vaping or not should be up to the owner of that restaurant or store.

Re:Nanny State

[Khyber]

"People don't have the right to touch you in public"

Yea, I want to see you ATTEMPT to walk through New York, or Beijing, or Los Angeles, or Tokyo without being in direct shoulder-to-shoulder contact with other people at some point and time.

You obviously spend way too much time behind the keyboard.

Re:Nanny State

[laie_techie]

Can you sell alcohol indiscriminately in this theoretical bar...? Can you decide to sell it to 15 year olds?

A business owner should have the right to determine which (otherwise legal) activities to curtail on their property. A restaurant owner may choose to ban alcohol even though alcohol is legal to those 21 or older. However, that same restaurant owner cannot sell alcohol to minors because of the laws in place. It is legal to wear hats and sunglasses, but banks ban their use.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

The same justification does not apply to sober adults wanting to smoke, fuck, jump out of airplanes, or put bullets in their own heads.

Fortunately, we have other reasons, including the adults not being sober, poisoning others, being misinformed, and also landing on somebody else's property.

Hence we parachutists get licenses.

Re:Nanny State

[laie_techie]

When do we ban cars? The shit coming out of their tailpipes is many times worse than whats coming out of traditional cigarettes, let alone the harmless vapor from an ecig.

There are emission tests for cars. If a car doesn't pass the emission test, it's registration gets revoked. Every decade the emission regulations get more stringent. Many cities have laws against idling your car except in cases of extreme temperature.

So now that they have deemed vapor a harmful pollutant. Are we going to ban restaurants who bring out a nice piping hot plate of food releasing its steam vapor? After all someone might be allergic to something in that steam. Or offended by the smell of cooked pork.

With the number of rich jews in new york I am surprised they haven't banned the sale of "unclean meat" in restaurants. After all you don't want to be limited to what restaurants you can go to, or worry that there was an "unclean piece of meat" in that frying pan just before your fish went into it.

Risk of offending someone is not a high enough cause to ban something. If a restaurant marks a dish as kosher or halal then the restaurant needs to take all necessary precautions to meet those requirements. As to allergies, I've entered into restaurants which have a sign warning about possible peanut dust in the air so people can choose whether to enter. Many of our snacks have warnings that although this snack should not normally contain nuts, it was made on the same equipment which processes nuts.

Re:Nanny State

[aristotle-dude]

Don't do this and don't do that. 'Cause we know what's best for you and we're gonna pass laws that make you conform. Nanny,. nanny boo boo! Hell, by the time we're done, you'll serve prison time.

Thus sayeth the Nanny State.

Who gave you the right to infect other people around you with toxic fumes? GTFO. The alternative to these laws would be people randomly beating the crap out of other people who light up around them. Which do you prefer? Inconvenience or a hospital stay sipping your food through a straw? You do not own the air. It is shared by everyone. Go outside in the rain and have your smoke.

Re:Nanny State

[aristotle-dude]

Laws like this reduce violence. If I throw a drink at you to put out your cigarette (or short your e-cig), it's assault. If you force me to partake, that's assault just the same.

Pass laws against things I subjectively hate or I will resort to violence.

That's literally terrorism. That is literally what ISIS is doing. That is what they exist to do.

No. It is like this. Smoke outside away from that pregnant woman or her husband will beat the shit out of you. You are literally trying to poison other people because you are a weak punk with no self control and an oral fixation.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

Whether a restaurant or store allows vaping or not should be up to the owner of that restaurant or store.

How many businesses have you visited that have their own fully-contained air supply with sufficient filtration to keep pollutants from seeping between their business and the rest of the world? I can't recall any that I have ever visited. Air is a shared resource. People have a right to not be subjected to a cloud of unknown pollution from others against their will.

Smokers can go kill themselves on their own property.

This is why restaurants went smoke free in most places years ago. Having a "smoking" and a "non-smoking" section in restaurants didn't work, the non-smokers were still breathing in the smoke from the smokers on the other side of the restaurant.

You would perhaps have an argument here if there was some sort of inherent "right to smoke", but none exists and there is no reason for one ever to. If smokers can't get by with smoking in their homes and automobiles, too bad. They have no right to pollute the air of the rest of humanity.

Re:Nanny State

[mi]

Who said anything about harmful?

The write-up did.

How about annoying?

There is no right to not be annoyed. Indeed, if there was, the First Amendment would've been null and void — because people like yourself would've been able to ban any and all expression that annoys them, infuriates them, or is deemed by them to increase violence.

If I throw a drink at you to put out your cigarette

Oh, you got to be trolling, I get it. Very funny...

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the cry of the petty thug and criminal. No matter how much you hurt somebody else, you cry "Fascism" and whine that:

Somebody dares tell you not to burn a cross in another person's yard!
Somebody dares tell you that you can't drive however you want!
Somebody dares tell you that you can't just poop in the street!

God knows how you'd handle being in actual Fascist society. Which is to say you'd immediately sign up for the chance to brutalize and oppress others just for the thrill of power.

Re:Nanny State

[sjames]

Actually, the stinkum should be banned first. Other than the nicotine (which is mostly absorbed by the user), vape contains only food additives. Also, vapers can refrain when in confined spaces, the stinkum has no off switch.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

You blow a vape cloud in my space and I will beat you until you're soup on the sidewalk, quite simple

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually more like Saturday night specials. Which were essentially banned almost 50 years ago. Nice try though.

Re:Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

So outlaw cleaning agents as well?

Somewhere between some and most of them, yes. Absolutely ban all colors and scents added to them which are not proven harmless. Yeah, that's a high bar, but so what? Cleaners don't need to be scented. There are adequate non-toxic substitutes for most cleaners and the remaining ones (like detergents, or strong solvents) can simply be produced without unnecessary additives.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

And the proprietor can permit all the vaping they want if they make the bar a private club. If you run a business that's open to the general public, "the people" have a say in what goes on inside. Guess what, "the people" don't want to be around vapers getting their fix.

Re:Nanny State

[strikethree]

Your rights end in my personal space. Do whatever you want at home or outside, but not next to me in a crowded building.

Then for the love of G*d, please stop bathing in cologne or perfume. I would rather smell your nasty unwashed body odors than continually sneezing because you think the chemicals from vaping are terrible but fail to realize that your perfume and cologne are far more obnoxious, at least to my nose.

Re:Nanny State

[strikethree]

You stench may be pleasing to you, but nobody else, and your figurative fist is touching my literal nose. Isn't that the libertarian line in the sand?

And yet, you are likely perfectly fine with assaulting my nose with your perfumes and colognes. If we are going to be banning stuff merely because someone is offended by the smell, add in perfumes and colognes. That shit makes me sneeze non-stop for about 20 minutes after I stop smelling it.

But god forbid your right to assault me be obstructed. (I don't vape but you guys are not rational).

Re:Nanny State

[strikethree]

Those who are intelligent enough to not smoke this should not be forcibly exposed to the toxic brew that is produces.

Vaping is as toxic, or even less toxic, than your perfumes and colognes. I don't see you fighting for my right to not be exposed to that toxic crap... and yet you want to ban one but not the other. Ban both or be a hypocrite.

Re: Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, absolutely nothing wrong with punching a nazi

Re:Nanny State

[swillden]

The law isn't telling people they can't do it, rather it is saying that the rest of society has the right to not be exposed to it involuntarily (as is also the case with regular tobacco smoke). You can still smoke it in your private home, or in your private car, or in other private places.

Maybe we need a "vaping mask" that can be used in public. It would seal around mouth and nose, and filter exhalations. That would address the problem.

Google turns up a few people who have modified gas masks for this purpose, but I think something much more compact could be devised.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

Vaping is as toxic, or even less toxic, than your perfumes and colognes.

First of all, you have provided zero evidence to support that. How are you measuring toxicity? Who measured what kind of e-cigarette vapor using what kind of device? You might as well be comparing to to unicorn tears with that nebulous claim.

Second, even if you did have evidence comparing a volume of the e-cigarette juice to an equal volume of cologne, that would not be a relevant comparison. Most people put on cologne or perfume once in the morning and then none again throughout the day, while people who use e-cigarettes will use repeatedly throughout the day. In other words second-hand exposure - which is what we're trying to prevent here - goes down throughout the day for cologne but goes down, up, down, up, etc for e-cigarettes.

Ban both or be a hypocrite.

Don't be ridiculous. Pretending that they are somehow comparable is absurd.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you! Stupid idiot cunt moderators don't want to see that these things have other dangers besides the damn tobacco.

Yes, they should be banned off the shelves entirely, unless you can find ones that run on regular alkaline batteries.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Cigarette smoking has nothing to do with intelligence. We went to the moon using the brains of chain smokers. Try not to fool yourself into thinking you are smarter than other people on such a silly premise.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

If you force me to partake, that's assault just the same.

Not according to the law or plain old common sense.

Up here we have laws prohibiting smoking in cars with children. Adults generally can choose to get out of the car. Before we had that law, when I was 10 I had no choice but to choke on smoke when I was in the back seat of a car stuck in traffic and the driver + passenger decided to light up with the windows closed (it was raining). Back then many smokers didn't have a fucking clue - a lot still don't, and that's why we need laws like this.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

I am fully in favor of an Axe law

There is some asshole at my work within 30 feet that puts on that shit before they leave. By the time it wafts over to my cube I can't trace it to the origin, and nobody seems to know who is doing it. We actually have policies on scents, and axe has got to be one of the worst offenders. It wouldn't be so bad if the fucker wasn't applying it while at their desk.

Re:Nanny State

[strikethree]

First of all, you have provided zero evidence to support that. How are you measuring toxicity? Who measured what kind of e-cigarette vapor using what kind of device? You might as well be comparing to to unicorn tears with that nebulous claim.

I could ask the same of you: You have provided zero evidence that perfume is non-toxic (or even that vaping is toxic!). Who measured the perfume? Using what kind of device? All I can say is that when people wear perfume or cologne around me, I sneeze, but I do not sneeze when someone is vaping grape juice. Evidence in favor of toxicity for perfume: Close to zero. Evidence in favor of toxicity for vape liquids: Zero. This is why I said "Vaping is as toxic, or even less toxic, than your perfumes and colognes."

Don't be ridiculous. Pretending that they are somehow comparable is absurd.

You are correct. People have actually studied e-cig output and have only been able to create toxic chemicals through using absurd amounts of energy and burning the juice instead of making a vapor. Nobody has ever tested perfume for toxicity or allergies. That means vaping is safer. They are not comparable. One has been scientifically tested and the other has not.

What is hilarious is that you are probably assuming that I vape. I don't. I sneeze. Because of perfumes and colognes. It is even more hilarious that you seem to think you are protecting "others" by prohibiting someone from using a vaping tool and completely disregard the damage you are doing with colognes and perfumes. But keep on keeping on with your Puritanical mindset. I don't care. You will never stop assaulting me with your perfumes and colognes because it is socially acceptable whereas vaping is not.

Re:Nanny State

[desdinova 216]

well the current US President also thinks that way.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody gives a fat fuck if you sit at home and poison yourself.

Bullshit. I'm gonna go ahead and cite The War on Drugs and all the advertisements about how opiates are bad and no one should touch them ever.
Seems like a lot of people give one hell of an armed and government-backed fuck about what I poison myself with at home.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

Maybe we need a "vaping mask" that can be used in public. It would seal around mouth and nose, and filter exhalations. That would address the problem.

I'm thinking this might be an acceptably inexpensive solution. Saran wrap or packing tape come to mind as well.

Re:Nanny State

[omnichad]

And dosing people with nicotine. Not to mention the byproducts overheated propylene glycol in some cases.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

People have actually studied e-cig output

Who are these people?

Where are their studies?

What liquids did they test?

What devices were used in the test to vaporize them?

What techniques were used to search for the compounds that came out?

You keep telling me that these are safe but you can't be bothered to provide any support for that claim.

Re:Nanny State

[omnichad]

You're talking to the wrong person. I go as far as using unscented laundry detergent because my nose literally can't handle the stench of it. With soaps and shampoos I at least need a mild fragrance because I hate the smell of pure soap itself. I have a sensitive nose - enough that I can smell ketones of the drunk driver in the car in front of me (if their window is open). Maybe that only applies if they're a chronic drunk and their whole car smells of it, but it's very noticeable to me when I've caught it.

Re:Nanny State

[desdinova 216]

well, water vapor is partially composed of hydrogen.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking idiot, retard

Re:Nanny State

[strikethree]

You are missing the point, but you want it: http://annals.org/aim/article/...

Now, cite even one study that tests for toxicity in perfumes and colognes. THAT is the point. You want e-cigs banned. Fine. I do not care. What I do care about is the reasoning that brought you to wanting them banned.

Why do I care WHY you want them banned? Because I want perfumes and colognes banned. Now prove your perfumes and colognes are less deadly than vaping. ( which still misses the point, but you wanted to go down this road )

Perfumes and colognes are downright evil with how people bathe in them. My nose burns. I sneeze. My eyes water. But no, people want to go off on their high horse how a relatively harmless smell is so terrible (vaping) and then completely ignore that there are MUCH worse things out there that people are sensitive to.

To put it another way: You want to ban drunk driving. I ask why you want drunk driving to be illegal but don't give a fuck about the comatose people on opiods behind the wheel.

Actually, even that is not equivalent because nobody has proven vaping is even bad.

Do you understand now?

Re:Nanny State

[psmoot]

I don't care if you think it's safe, I don't want it. If you could do it without exhaling and all the second hand vape, people wouldn't mind. I don't want to know that today is your caramel day and yesterday was peppermint.

It's a free country, or at least it used to be. You not liking something isn't sufficient grounds to ban it. IMHO, if you want to ban something, you have the onus to prove there's a reason to restrict my liberty.

You[r] stench may be pleasing to you, but nobody else, and your figurative fist is touching my literal nose. Isn't that the libertarian line in the sand?

No, actually. The libertarian line in the sand is a literal fist hitting your literal nose. There's a huge difference between a figurative and literal fist. I find many T-shirts offensive to my eyes. I find many smells objectionable. But we as a country value liberty, which means a figurative fist isn't enough.

Re:Nanny State

[psmoot]

That's an overstatement, there. The law isn't telling people they can't do it, rather it is saying that the rest of society has the right to not be exposed to it involuntarily (as is also the case with regular tobacco smoke). You can still smoke it in your private home, or in your private car, or in other private places. Those who are intelligent enough to not smoke this should not be forcibly exposed to the toxic brew that is produces.

No, the law is quite definitely telling people they may not vape in public places.

I really like having smoking bans but I'm also not at all comfortable with the rationale. We assumed that second-hand smoke was dangerous. I don't know how well supported that was. But at the time, the believe was that we had hard proof that second-hand smoke really did endanger people. That was a strong enough case to overcome our presumption that people should be at liberty to behave the way they want unless there's a very compelling reason to limit it.

What many other posters are saying is we have no such evidence in the vaping case. Maybe the vapor is harmful, maybe it's no more toxic than normal city air. I honestly have no idea. But until someone produces some reasonably strong evidence, we should be quite hesitant to ban it.

(No, we shouldn't follow a strict precautionary principle where you ban anything you can't prove is safe. You can't ever prove something is safe. All you can do is look at it and say it seems safer or less safe than other risks we already accept, like the air pollution in a typical environment. I haven't heard anyone make a case that the chemicals in vape vapor is more or less harmful than ordinary air.)

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

How many businesses have you visited that have their own fully-contained air supply with sufficient filtration to keep pollutants from seeping between their business and the rest of the world?

We're talking about vaping here, not nerve gas. There is not a shred of evidence that second hand vaping causes any problems even sitting right next to someone.

You would perhaps have an argument here if there was some sort of inherent "right to smoke", but none exists and there is no reason for one ever to.

You got it backwards. The question is: does government have legitimate power to prevent people from smoking, and of course it doesn't. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, your _will_ of the people is fucking Donald Trump!

Jokes aside, I am all for personal space and the protections of that. Go to the gym, you will be able to protect it better ;)

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

And that would be exactly the same reason not to ban vaping everywhere. Allow it at the business owners discretion with a warning on the door that vaping or hell even actual smoking is allowed in the premises. You can make your own decision to enter or not. Visiting a particular restaurant/bar is not a god given right. If they have policies that you don't agree with, move on and find another that suits your tastes

We don't ban peanuts in all food products even though it is a major allergen for some people. We post warnings on the products that may contain, or were processed in the same facilities that peanuts are used. Or restaurants or bars that have peanuts post warnings about peanuts on the premises.

Thank god I am not living in a nanny state like new york. We can still vape and smoke in bars. Hell we even have bars here that serve liquor/beer and vaping liquids and products all in the same location.

Hell we even allow kids in bars here that are borderline restaurants as well. That is starting to change at the business owners discretion though because parents can't keep their little shitheads in check. Some have begun to outright ban kids, or prominently note that parents will be asked for their entire party to leave if their shitheads get out of line. That's got some of the parents in the neighborhood in an uproar now. Mudslinging in neighborhood group forums about their little shitheads and how people who bring dogs to these kinds of places have their dogs more in check than the parents and their little shitheads. Now they'll have to suffer with applebee's for their drinks and food combos with their shitheads.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

Thank you for providing a study on e-cigarette use, but it does not answer any of the questions I was after. This is a longitudinal study on the smokers themselves, which is only studying their saliva and urine. This did not study the actual vapors from the e-cigarettes, and hence tells us nothing about secondhand exposure to it. I don't give a crap how much someone wants to use an e-cigarette at home, in their car, or in other private places where tobacco use is allowed. However they do not have the right to subject me to it.

You want e-cigs banned.

No, I do not. Please do not misquote me. I have said repeatedly that people can use them all they want at home, in the car, or in other places where regular tobacco use is allowed. I just don't want them used in public where they put others at risk.

Fine. I do not care.

For someone who claims to not care, you have written a lot about this matter.

My nose burns. I sneeze. My eyes water.

I'm sorry that you are having an allergic reaction to someone's perfumes or colognes. If this is a routine thing then it would seem that you are routinely encountering the same person who does this, have you tried talking to them? If they are a coworker you could take it up with your HR department as well. At my own place of employment there are designated perfume/cologne free areas for people with sensitivities such as what you describe.

a relatively harmless smell is so terrible (vaping)

You have it wrong here again. The smell of the e-cigarette is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is that with the vast overwhelming majority of e-cigarette cocktails we really don't know what is in the vapor, particularly after combustion.

nobody has proven vaping is even bad.

That is a moving target at best. We know formaldehyde is in a large number of the e-cigarette mixtures, and we know what that does to the body - and that it can be vaporized. But at what point would it be accepted that one mixture is "bad"? Do we need an animal model showing a mouse getting lung cancer from second-hand exposure? Then do we have to do that for the thousands of other cocktails out there as well? The contents of the mixtures are pretty well never shared publicly, and almost never are the manufacturers required to do so.

Do you understand now?

Understand that you are defending e-cigarettes? Yes I understand that. Understand why you are defending them? No. Understand why you feel the need to be evasive with statements like

I do not care

? No.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

How many businesses have you visited that have their own fully-contained air supply with sufficient filtration to keep pollutants from seeping between their business and the rest of the world?

We're talking about vaping here, not nerve gas. There is not a shred of evidence that second hand vaping causes any problems even sitting right next to someone.

So the time that someone let their puff of vapor my way and I was coughing and tearing for the next 15 minutes was just a figment of my imagination then? I'm glad you came along to correct my reality for me.

You would perhaps have an argument here if there was some sort of inherent "right to smoke", but none exists and there is no reason for one ever to.

You got it backwards. The question is: does government have legitimate power to prevent people from smoking, and of course it doesn't. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

First of all, did you read the line you quoted? This is not the federal government involved here. This is the State government of New York, representing the people of New York. They are expressly allowed to do this if they so choose.

Second, this is not about a right. This is about putting others at risk. I don't have the right to dig a giant unprotected hole in a public place that people could fall into.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

The law isn't telling people they can't do it, rather it is saying that the rest of society has the right to not be exposed to it involuntarily (as is also the case with regular tobacco smoke). You can still smoke it in your private home, or in your private car, or in other private places. Those who are intelligent enough to not smoke this should not be forcibly exposed to the toxic brew that is produces.

No, the law is quite definitely telling people they may not vape in public places.

I don't see the disagreement. Tobacco use is banned in public places in New York state for the same reason. I was pointing out that people can still kill themselves with e-cigarettes in their own home, car, and other private places all they want.

What many other posters are saying is we have no such evidence in the vaping case. Maybe the vapor is harmful, maybe it's no more toxic than normal city air. I honestly have no idea. But until someone produces some reasonably strong evidence, we should be quite hesitant to ban it.

The problem though is that the e-cigarettes are the ultimate moving target for safety. There are thousands of different cocktails available for them on the market today, and almost none of them list their contents. Once we show that one is toxic what do we do about the rest of them? Even if cocktail "ABC1" was shown toxic, how would you know if the guy next to you is smoking "ABC1", "ABC2", or "XYZ28"? You simply don't know that, and the user might not know - or care - if their favorite blend has been proven toxic.

maybe it's no more toxic than normal city air.

I don't know where you live but there is little to no detectable vaporized formaldehyde where I live. The industrial plants here have to install scrubbers for their exhaust stacks to deal with known toxic chemicals. E-cigarettes don't have anything to contain toxic products of combustion - in fact by design they allow those right into the smoker's mouth.

I haven't heard anyone make a case that the chemicals in vape vapor is more or less harmful than ordinary air.

As has come up already, there are thousands of different cocktails on the US market today. There is no standard of any sort for this almost completely unregulated industry. We know some of them have - amongst other toxic chemicals - formaldehyde in them, but showing them to all have it would be a waste of time as there would be new ones before you finish, old ones would be gone or renamed, etc. We could show that one has toxic shit in it, but then the vendors would reply by saying we didn't test the rest of them.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you can. If something is open to the public, it is subject to regulation. If a business owner doesn't like that, they are free to switch to being a private establishment that only admits registered members.

Re:Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Vehicle emissions are already regulated, so your issue should be with your state and federal governments for not setting the regulations to your liking. Both cases operate the same way, with regulations governing what emissions are considered acceptable. The same people who want to limit public exposure to tobacco products also want to limit public exposure to fossil fuel exhaust. No hypocrisy there, just differences in the implementations due to practical issues.

Re:Nanny State

[psmoot]

I don't see the disagreement. Tobacco use is banned in public places in New York state for the same reason. I was pointing out that people can still kill themselves with e-cigarettes in their own home, car, and other private places all they want.

My bad, I misread your comment. I though you wrote "the law isn't telling people what they can't do."

The problem though is that the e-cigarettes are the ultimate moving target for safety. There are thousands of different cocktails available for them on the market today, and almost none of them list their contents. Once we show that one is toxic what do we do about the rest of them? Even if cocktail "ABC1" was shown toxic, how would you know if the guy next to you is smoking "ABC1", "ABC2", or "XYZ28"? You simply don't know that, and the user might not know - or care - if their favorite blend has been proven toxic.

True, but I still don't know we have any idea whether the vapor has any practical toxicity. OK, it has formaldehyde in it. How much? And is it enough to have any effect? We accept lots of risks in our daily lives (just crossing the street is dangerous) and I don't think we consider how risky things are absolute terms before banning them.

I'm also bothered by the frequent comparison between vaping and smoking. They're incredibly different. One involves burning a plant and producing tons of definitively-proven harmful compounds. The other involves vaporizing water with nicotine and trace flavoring chemicals. That mist you see? It's not combustion particles, it's water droplets. It's fog. To my mind, vaping better compared to cologne than smoking. How much do we regulate (or concern ourselves) with the potentially toxic chemicals in perfume?

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

So the time that someone let their puff of vapor my way and I was coughing and tearing for the next 15 minutes was just a figment of my imagination then?

Well, lots of possibilities: you could be lying, it could be psychosomatic, or your lungs could be damaged due to your history of smoking. None of that shows that second hand vaping is generally harmful. Even if vaping were shown to be harmful, at most that would justify restricting it on public property, not on private property.

First of all, did you read the line you quoted? This is not the federal government involved here. This is the State government of New York, representing the people of New York.

Under the incorporation doctrine, most of the limits on federal power also apply to the states.

They are expressly allowed to do this if they so choose.

No, sorry: many restrictions on they private property are not permissible under the Constitution and are not compatible with a free society no matter what the majority of people want to happen. True, the US ran roughshod over private property rights in the 20th century, but it's time to reverse that.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

OK, it has formaldehyde in it. How much? And is it enough to have any effect?

We cannot answer the first question because the manufacturers won't tell us. If we bought a vial from a local shop today that was called "ABC1" and we tested it, there is no guarantee that it would be an accurate reflection on another bottle of "ABC1" purchased tomorrow, or a bottle of "ABC2" or "XYZ17" purchased later today. The lack of regulation leads to - amongst other things - no standards or accountability on what goes in to these cocktails.

We know how toxic formaldehyde is, but we don't know how much formaldehyde is in the vial. We also don't know the actual volume in each puff as there is no dosing regulation on the devices.

I don't think we consider how risky things are absolute terms before banning them.

I'd like to point out that this is quite a bit different from an outright ban. People can still use them; the law only says they cannot use them in public. Generally things that pose a danger to the public are prohibited from being done in public.

That mist you see? It's not combustion particles, it's water droplets. It's fog.

That's an oversimplification.

Can you make a water mist without putting energy in? Most e-cigarettes have high temperature elements in them to create that mist, while the mist may be mostly water vapor there is plenty of other stuff in there that combusted in the high temperature environment created by the device. Even amongst the other chemicals that were not combusted many of them were ionized into vapor, making them more biologically active than they were in liquid form.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

Well, lots of possibilities: you could be lying, it could be psychosomatic, or your lungs could be damaged due to your history of smoking

I will ask you once to withhold your accusations and presumptions. They don't belong in this discsussion.

at most that would justify restricting it on public property, not on private property.

Which private properties are you asking to be able to use e-cigarettes at that don't allow traditional cigarettes? This mostly applies to public property, along with the addition of businesses that are already banned from allowing tobacco use. This does not at all touch what one can do in their homes, for example.

First of all, did you read the line you quoted? This is not the federal government involved here. This is the State government of New York, representing the people of New York.

Under the incorporation doctrine, most of the limits on federal power also apply to the states.

Your argument would hold more water if you would adhere to only one reading of a sentence.

They are expressly allowed to do this if they so choose.

No, sorry: many restrictions on they private property are not permissible under the Constitution and are not compatible with a free society no matter what the majority of people want to happen.

You can keep moving the goal posts if you want, but it won't help your case. If you want to pretend that you could somehow know e-cigarette cocktails to be safe - and you can't possibly suipport that claim when you don't know what is in them - then just stick to that. Playing SCOTUS here doesn't help you.

Re:Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

Yea, I want to see you ATTEMPT to walk through New York, or Beijing, or Los Angeles, or Tokyo without being in direct shoulder-to-shoulder contact with other people at some point and time.

I could probably manage it in Beijing or Tokyo, because I'm 6'7" and 300 lb. All I have to do is dress up and look mean and small people part like Pee-Wee's haircut. On the other hand, if I look jovial I'll probably have 'em all trying to rub my belly or grab my dick or something, from what I've heard. I'd love to have the money to travel in Asia. In Central America, people would come out of their house to look at me.

However, everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that inadvertent touching and deliberate touching are different things. Don't be a disingenuous douchebag if you can at all avoid it.

Re:Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

And yet, you are likely perfectly fine with assaulting my nose with your perfumes and colognes.

You have levied this accusation against multiple parties in this thread without a shred of evidence. I'm beginning to think you're just some kind of asshole.

Re:Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

If anything you should be more worried about someone sneezing around you. The danger to your health is orders of magnitude higher.

If someone sneezes on me, you can bet your ass they're going to hear about it from me. If someone sneezes near me, no big deal. I'm being exposed to beneficials as well as harmful bacteria. I'm not worried about the harmful stuff unless I have gobs of it on me.

Re:Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

There are actually lots of studies on compounds found in perfumes and colognes, and all the ones known to be harmful and several of the ones which just look like they might be harmful have been banned — in the EU. In the USA, there is no such regulation, but there should be. However, your constant bullshit handwaving about colognes and perfumes is almost completely fucking irrelevant, and here's why — the scents added to e-cig juice are only a part of the reason why e-cigs should be banned. You don't get to say "nothing is being done about this thing, so we should not do anything about this other thing". In fact, doing something about this other thing might in fact lead to being able to do something about the first thing.

Perfumes have the weight of thousands of years of tradition, eliminating the toxic ones and reining in their overapplication in general is not a trivial problem.

Re:Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

Maybe we need a "vaping mask" that can be used in public. It would seal around mouth and nose, and filter exhalations. That would address the problem.

While we're at it, can we make it illegal to roll your windows down while you smoke in the car? Automobiles have become so clean that I can be almost totally unable to smell a car I'm following, but if they light up a cigarette it will make me choke. Soot aside (soot doesn't stink, and it's not volatile, though it is carcinogenic and therefore cars are still lame) the emissions once they're warmed up are nearly nothing.

Re: Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

Yes, I agree. Coworkers who ban strong perfumes are indeed assholes.

Assholes are like perfumes, they both stink. (Feel free to ignore my old blog post — just download the brochure PDF from Mendocino County Working on Wellness.)

Re: Nanny State

[drinkypoo]

How can anyone enjoy such a disgusting smell?

Smoking suppresses your senses of taste and smell. But it doesn't suppress all scents and tastes equally, because they are not all created equal. The end result is that once you get used to it, cigarettes can taste great while you're smoking them. Of course, the non-smokers around you (or even people who just aren't smoking at the moment) aren't having their senses dulled in the same way you are, so it's disgusting to them.

Re:Nanny State

[war4peace]

If someone sneezes near me, no big deal.

...for very large values of "near".

Feeding her video evidence into her mathematical models, Bourouiba concluded that, thanks to the cloud dynamics, many of the larger droplets can travel up to 8 metres for a sneeze and 6 metres for a cough, depending on the environmental conditions, and stay suspended for up to 10 minutes — far enough and long enough to reach someone at the other end of a large room, not to mention the ceiling ventilation system.

Source: http://www.nature.com/news/the...

Re:Nanny State

[psmoot]

We cannot answer the first question because the manufacturers won't tell us.

Gee, if only there were a device you could use to measure the components of a vapor. And if only there were well known techniques for measuring a statistically relevant sample of e-cig vapors to get a general idea of what's in them. I guess it's a hopelessly complicated problem and we're helpless unless the companies report their product contents.

I'd like to point out that this is quite a bit different from an outright ban.

Of course it is. It's a full ban in some (most?) public spaces but allows vaping in private spaces. No one is disputing the fact of that.

That's an oversimplification.

Can you make a water mist without putting energy in? Most e-cigarettes have high temperature elements in them to create that mist, while the mist may be mostly water vapor there is plenty of other stuff in there that combusted in the high temperature environment created by the device.

So I honestly have no data about the physics of how an e-cig works. However, I'd be very, very suprised if there are anywhere near the reactions going on in a battery powered e-cig versus combusting tobacco. If I were building an e-cig, I'd use the lowest power possible to vaporize the fluid. I'd keep the temperature to the bare minimum I could because I want to maximize the battery life. Heck, I'm surprised they use heat and not ultrasonics. But I'd be really, really surprised if any chemical reactions at all occur, let alone combustion or ionization. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?

Remember also, tobacco is a plant. Plants are insanely complicated with thousands of interesting compounds. Combustion in a cigarette is also a really commplicated and it generates thousands of other compounds. Vaping fluid is likely distilled water, nicotine, and a dozen or so other additives. I suspect you can count the number of detectable chemicals on your fingers and toes. That's orders of magnitudes simpler than what's in tobacco smoke.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

We cannot answer the first question because the manufacturers won't tell us.

Gee, if only there were a device you could use to measure the components of a vapor. And if only there were well known techniques for measuring a statistically relevant sample of e-cig vapors to get a general idea of what's in them.

Very cute, there. If you knew more about mass spectrometry you would likely know the statistical difficulties native to the method. However even if you were able to do absolute quantification of every component in a single sample, the e-cigarette market is so thoroughly un-regulated that there is no way to assert that sample as being representative of anything. A company can make a formula "ABC1" and sell it today that has a given mixture, and then sell a completely different formula "ABC1" tomorrow with all the same labels. On top of that there is no reason to expect that one company's "ABC1" is similar to their "ABC2", or that something called "ACB1" from another company is at all similar to either.

So I honestly have no data about the physics of how an e-cig works. However, I'd be very, very suprised if there are anywhere near the reactions going on in a battery powered e-cig versus combusting tobacco. If I were building an e-cig, I'd use the lowest power possible to vaporize the fluid.

One model is described at howstuffworks.com. This one they describe uses a heating element, which correlates well with verified reports of people being burned by them. It's not combustion, but it is high enough temperature to ionize the liquids so they can be inhaled.

But I'd be really, really surprised if any chemical reactions at all occur, let alone combustion or ionization. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?

We've been able to observe chemical reactions between charged gas phase-ions for over half a century now. After all, what is an ion but a molecule with a non-zero charge? Anything with a non-zero charge will have a tendency to seek out another molecule to resolve that charge to zero.

I suspect you can count the number of detectable chemicals on your fingers and toes

That's making some pretty huge assumptions about the manufacturing process used by the companies selling the e-cigarette liquids (amongst other things).

Re: Nanny State

[EmptyHead]

Nazi's, the only thing more disgusting that an ISIS terrorist cutting off a kids head. Imagine the horror of the meth lab trailer parks their recruits must come from.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

If you want to pretend that you could somehow know e-cigarette cocktails to be safe

The criterion for imposing government regulations on the use of private property generally ought to be at a minimum whether there is a compelling, demonstrable government interest and that the restrictions are the regulations are the minimum ones necessary to prevent harm. So, if you want to ban e-cigs on my private property by law, you need to show that they are actually harmful and that there is no other way of preventing that harm. Good luck making either of those two arguments. The criterion (at least in the US) clearly is not simply “a majority of people don’t like this/are worried about it, so they can outlaw it”.

it won’t help your case

I’m not sure what you think “my case” actually is. Of course, New York can get away with passing these laws, and of course people like you are going to rationalize those laws. I mean, people like you got away with compulsive sterilization and segregation with pretty much the same reasoning you are applying here. I’m just expressing my disapproval.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

By the way, your views have a long history.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

If you're going to pull out the stops and call me a Nazi, you could at least do so with a properly formatted link so I could see you try to support your argument.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

If you want to pretend that you could somehow know e-cigarette cocktails to be safe

The criterion for imposing government regulations on the use of private property

In your private home, that you own, you can poison yourself all you like. However you do not have the right to poison me in other places.

So, if you want to ban e-cigs on my private property by law

I'm interested in knowing what business you own that would be harmed by forbidding the use of e-cigarettes? We don't even allow people to smoke inside stores that exist to sell smoking products, but the store owners don't complain. It's not legal for me to run an internal combustion engine indoors at my place of employment - even if I wanted to use it to generate power - and that doesn't bother me either.

I mean, people like you got away with compulsive sterilization and segregation with pretty much the same reasoning you are applying here. Iâ(TM)m just expressing my disapproval.

No, that is not even remotely close to true. Telling people they cannot poison others does not come the slightest bit close to mandatory sterilization. In fact the Nazis you tried to compare me to in a separate thread would likely have been quite fond of your plans to force people to accept exposure to toxic vapors, I recall that worked pretty well for them for a while.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

Here you go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Nazis were rabidly anti-smoking.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

And what's your point here? I've told you repeatedly that you are free to go poison yourself at home all you want, but you have no right to poison me against my will.

Similarly, you are free to continue falling on your own face in this discussion all you want, I cannot stop you from doing that.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

We don't even allow people to smoke inside stores that exist to sell smoking products, but the store owners don't complain.

In fact, smoking in retail tobacco shops and private smoke lounges is legally permitted in California (and I imagine elsewhere too). And if bar owners overwhelmingly prefer a smoke free environment, what would be the harm in giving bar owners the choice? Why do you have this compulsive need to make the entire world conform to your preferences?

However you do not have the right to poison me in other places. ... Telling people they cannot poison others does not come the slightest bit close to mandatory sterilization.

You're misusing the term "to poison". I suggest you rethink what you are saying and reformulate that. When you have thought this through, you will see that smoking restrictions and forced sterilizations aren't just accidental companions in both US progressivism and German fascism, but come from the same ideological roots.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

And what's your point here? I've told you repeatedly that you are free to go poison yourself at home all you want, but you have no right to poison me against my will.

Correct, I do not have a right to poison you against your will. But it's your choice whether you enter a private business that permits smoking or not, and if you do choose to enter a business that permits smoking, you are being poisoned with your consent.

So what you are actually defending isn't being protected from "being poisoned against your will", what you are actually defending is the ability of government to impose whatever regulations and restrictions it wants on any private business in order to make it conform to your preferences.

(Additionally, there is no evidence that second hand e-cigarette vapor poisons anyone, so your defense of the ban is also not based in science or facts.)

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

We don't even allow people to smoke inside stores that exist to sell smoking products, but the store owners don't complain.

In fact, smoking in retail tobacco shops and private smoke lounges is legally permitted in California

Perhaps you didn't notice, but this is about a law in New York State. I can tell you from experience that you are absolutely not allowed to smoke inside a tobacco store in New York State - with the exception of ones that are located on tribal land.

And if bar owners overwhelmingly prefer a smoke free environment, what would be the harm in giving bar owners the choice? Why do you have this compulsive need to make the entire world conform to your preferences?

Because in a bar or restaurant you can end up with people unwillingly inhaling the toxic second hand smoke. You can also end up with passers-by and neighbors who are also exposed against their will. Air is a communal resource.

When you have thought this through, you will see that smoking restrictions and forced sterilizations aren't just accidental companions in both US progressivism and German fascism, but come from the same ideological roots.

Not even remotely close. You can keep twisting about if you want, but you will remain wrong on that matter. Go poison yourself at home, and leave the rest of the country out of it. We have a right to not be harmed by your bad choices.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

And what's your point here? I've told you repeatedly that you are free to go poison yourself at home all you want, but you have no right to poison me against my will.

and if you do choose to enter a business that permits smoking, you are being poisoned with your consent.

Except that it has been understood for some time that a single establishment that allows smoking will end up poisoning not only people who are customers, but also people who are nearby, people who know customers, people who are tangential clients, etc. The pollution has to go somewhere once it is created, and the establishments would go broke if they were to invest in proper equipment to handle it.

(Additionally, there is no evidence that second hand e-cigarette vapor poisons anyone, so your defense of the ban is also not based in science or facts.)

We've discussed this before. The product is not safe, period. You can drink their kool-aid if you want, but it won't change the fact that there is no safe limit for exposure - especially when the manufacturers and vendors insist on not announcing what is in their mixtures. Nobody has a right to forcibly expose others to this.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

Perhaps you didn't notice, but this is about a law in New York State. I can tell you from experience that you are absolutely not allowed to smoke inside a tobacco store in New York State

I just checked and you are wrong. Tobacconists, cigar bars, and private clubs are exempt from smoking bans in NY. (California exempts tobacconists and cigar bars, but not private clubs.)

Because in a bar or restaurant you can end up with people unwillingly inhaling the toxic second hand smoke.

You are in the bar/restaurant voluntarily. If you don't like the air, leave. If you stay, you inhale the toxic second hand smoke willingly.

You can also end up with passers-by and neighbors who are also exposed against their will. Air is a communal resource.

That merely requires enforcing that businesses don't release toxic fumes into the environment.

Go poison yourself at home, and leave the rest of the country out of it. We have a right to not be harmed by your bad choices.

I'm a non-smoker, non-vaper, and non-drinker. I don't like the emissions from either smoking or vaping and I don't frequent establishments where people engage in either activity.

No, the difference between us is that I'm an actual liberal whereas you are a fascist.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

Except that it has been understood for some time that a single establishment that allows smoking will end up poisoning not only people who are customers, but also people who are nearby, people who know customers, people who are tangential clients, etc. The pollution has to go somewhere once it is created, and the establishments would go broke if they were to invest in proper equipment to handle it.

Smoke filters are cheap and effective. Many businesses have them simply to improve air quality in general.

Nobody has a right to forcibly expose others to this.

Your "argument" consists of a mix of lies, equivocations, and made-up facts.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

Perhaps you didn't notice, but this is about a law in New York State. I can tell you from experience that you are absolutely not allowed to smoke inside a tobacco store in New York State

I just checked and you are wrong. Tobacconists, cigar bars, and private clubs are exempt from smoking bans in NY.

I will accept your absence of a source as confirmation that you made that up. I lived in NY State for over 7 years and I was familiar with the tobacco laws. Considering all the other nonsense you have spewed in this discussion, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you made that up as well.

I'm done responding to your ridiculous lies. It is no small wonder that someone as ignorant and inflammatory as yourself has so many foes and not yet a single fan here. You can keep making stuff up out of thin air or you can actually read up on what you are pretending to be knowledgeable on, but you're done wasting my time. You have shown repeatedly that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about on this matter, you would have done yourself a great favor some time ago to stop replying and start reading. Instead you doubled down and went for slinging ridiculous disconnected insults at me.

Good bye, kid.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

I will accept your absence of a source as confirmation that you made that up.

See, I think that approach to getting information explains why you are so confused.

you would have done yourself a great favor some time ago to stop replying and start reading

Reading what? You have provided no sources and not made a coherent argument; mostly what you have been doing is equivocating. The point of arguing with you is to see how people like you tick, nothing more.

It is no small wonder that someone as ignorant and inflammatory as yourself has so many foes and not yet a single fan here.

A large number of the people on your friends list used to be my "friends" on Slashdot on my old low-digit uid. That was back when Slashdot was still primarily about technology and when Democrats and progressives were still fairly liberal. Slashdot has deteriorated into a political rag, and many of those people have become old-style progressives or worse as they have become older and wealthier. You go on being "friends" with them: it's the company you deserve.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

You are showing signs of a pretty severe case of last-post-itis there, kid. Do you parents still have health insurance for you? I'd recommend you seek out psychiatric treatment before it expires.

As for reading, try reading anything, really. You keep grasping at fact-free statements or half-truths and then trying to sling them at me when you can't build an argument. If you can't be bothered to read any of the sources I have cited in this discussion, that is not my fault. You hardly even show the ability to read what I write in reply to your comments, so I would expect that the sources I use are beyond your comprehension any ways.

Re:Nanny State

[Khyber]

"I could probably manage it in Beijing or Tokyo, because I'm 6'7" and 300 lb. All I have to do is dress up and look mean and small people part like Pee-Wee's haircut."

Actually, you'd be such an oddity that people would crowd around you and you'd have even LESS personal space. At a mere 6' tall, Chinese swarmed around me to get pictures with the 'Tall American With Long Hair.'

" On the other hand, if I look jovial I'll probably have 'em all trying to rub my belly or grab my dick or something, from what I've heard."

Nope, in fact it's the opposite. Welcome to the world of cultural differences. What you think is harmless here is often seen as a sign of potential dishonesty elsewhere.

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

You are showing signs of a pretty severe case of last-post-itis there, kid. As for reading, try reading anything, really. You keep grasping at fact-free statements or half-truths and then trying to sling them at me when you can't build an argument

It's just amazing how you project your own faults onto others.

Do you parents still have health insurance for you?

I've been on my own two feet since I was a teenager half a century ago. I used to be a progressive and a moderate leftist but I have grown up. Obviously you have never grown up, never learned from life.

Re:Nanny State

[damn_registrars]

Do you parents still have health insurance for you?

I've been on my own two feet since I was a teenager half a century ago.

You've thrown out some fascinating distortions and outright lies in this discussion already, and that whopper sits well with them. You don't really expect us to believe that someone in their 60s would decide to open an account on this deteriorating website so they could show off to a very small part of the world just how uninformed they are, do you?

Seriously, kid. Get help. I'm done with you. I'm sure you'll come up with even more fascinating counterfactual output to somehow come back at me, but I don't care what you say next. You're done wasting my time. We both know you don't have the least bit of a clue on this matter; you have demonstrated that over and over again.

Re:Nanny State

[fustakrakich]

If smokers can't get by with smoking in their homes and automobiles, too bad. They have no right to pollute the air of the rest of humanity.

*cough*

Re:Nanny State

[doctorvo]

You don't really expect us to believe

No, I don't expect you to believe anything, nor do I expect to be able to change your minds through reason or facts.

However, since the tech industry is full of jerks like you, it's good to figure out how you tick and what delusions you operate under.

Thanks again for your input.

Re:Nanny State

[AK Marc]

So you think acid attacks should be legal, after all, the acid isn't a literal fist. It's just a chemical hitting your literal nose.

Re:Nanny State

[psmoot]

Nice strawman, Mark. Of course not. I said you have to have some reasonable proof of harm to restrict my liberty. Nitric acid counts. Carbonic acid, not so much. 0.000001 molar nitric acid, also probably not an issue.

I know, degree of harm is a really difficult and subtle concept. If you think really, really hard, maybe you'll get it.

Re:Nanny State

[AK Marc]

I said you have to have some reasonable proof of harm to restrict my liberty.

So then nuclear waste is fine. Never "proven" to be harmful. Also note, cigarette smoke has still never been "proven" to be harmful to the smoker, but second hand smoke has been proven to be harmful.

"Proof of harm" is a idiotic standard. It just falls back the plutocracy that is American Libertarianism. If you can spend enough to "prove" something, then you win. Even if it's not true.

By your shitty misanthropic standard, vaccines did cause autism, for about 2 years. There was a peer reviewed study proving vaccines caused autism. It was a fraud, and later retracted and discredited. But for a piece of time, your "proof" standard would have been met by something 100% false.

THat's how that always works. The evil people like you, move the goalposts for personal gain, then lie about it, and move the goalposts whenver they like.

You are saying that caustic chemicals aren't "harm" if you and only you say so. If you spray me with chemicals, I, as the person subjected to them, get to decide. You literally chemicals and my literal nose. It doesn't matter if it's aerosolized caramel flavor, aerosolized anthrax or nitric acid.

Fuck off and take your Fascism with you.

Why the nicotine hate

[mveloso]

Nicotine is a great drug. It's a stimulant and a depressant. Sure it's poisonous, but so is every other drug in the correct dose.

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[mysidia]

The hate is people around people who like nicotine have the right to make a personal decision to not use the drug.
Fine if you utilize nicotine in a manner that does not expose other people to nicotine vapors.

Re: Why the nicotine hate

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget charcoal BBQs and fragrant dryer sheets! My nose has rights that trump your freedoms.

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing liberal about banning things that individuals enjoy.

Banning fun things is the favorite pastime of conservatives.

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[mysidia]

And let's ban caffeine vapors in 2nd-hand caffeine inhalation

Definitely NOT comparable. The aromas from coffee and liquor are highly dilute compared to that of something concentrated like cigarette smoke AND those beverages in the quantities used do not put high concentrations of random chemicals and drugs into a gaseous form ---- you would definitely have to drink some of the product to absorb a detectable quantity of anything.

The gases from smoking/e-cigars when used do involve deliberately putting very high concentrations in the actual air, so much so that the portion of the product that hasn't been burned would likely poison the user if they were to eat it without smoking.

Vapors from products designed to be smoked and have an effect are NOT in the same ballgame as the incidental aroma from beverages designed to be safely drunken.

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[sabbede]

Your argument might work better if the article wasn't an example of you being wrong.

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[Anonymous Coward]

cuomo is arguably one of the most liberal (by modern definition) people in government today. that may have been true in the past with religious conservatives, but modern liberals make those wackjobs loon down right reasonable today

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[Anonymous Coward]

The hate is people around people who like nicotine have the right to make a personal decision to not use the drug.
Fine if you utilize nicotine in a manner that does not expose other people to nicotine vapors.

This is partially true. For fun sometime make yourself a fake vaping device, take it to a crowded public place, and pretend to vape. People will bitch and moan about the chemicals and the smell, despite the fact that you're faking the whole thing. Overall I agree with your premise about not forcing people to ingest nicotine, but there are a lot of people that simply hysterically overreact to anything they don't like and would be just as happy with having you executed as giving you a chance to explain your fake vaping apparatus.

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[Anonymous Coward]

and if you pay with your own money everything health related that happen to you because of nicotine.

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[superwiz]

Simply saying "smoking/e-cigars" makes you a liar. Just that one conflating is enough to make everything else you say meaningless. I could retort by saying that they are not even similar because the smoke produced in vaping is water vapor rather than smoke from burning of something, but I wouldn't have to. Because when you start with a false premise (as you have), you can prove anything.

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[mysidia]

Simply saying "smoking/e-cigars" makes you a liar.

You're spouting nonsense; the two are similar enough fundamentally that the superficial differences do not weigh heavily enough to not combine the two.... it is not particularly important that one is a carbon vapor from burning something and the other has a different composition ---- they both serve ultimately the same purpose which is delivery of drugs at quantity Via the air, they both contain similar trace harmful materials such as formaldehyde;
in fact, most likely the Vaping can contain even a higher density, and in that case could be more harmful than even the burning smoke, even if the manufacturers described it as "cleaner", as in more free of particulants ---- there is a bogus assumption there that it is only inhaling particulants that is bad smoke from burning carbon is bad, but it is not all that is unhealthy ---- so they're basically right to categorize vaping as in the same ballpark as smoking.

Re: Why the nicotine hate

[mysidia]

Don't forget charcoal BBQs and fragrant dryer sheets! My nose has rights that trump your freedoms.

The smoke from Charcoal BBQs don't have health issues associated with them like tobacco smoke --- and put outdoors in a well-ventillated location, and you can easily avoid the smoke if you wanted.

Restricting activities is about not letting people involuntarily cause harm to other normal peoples' health; it's not about the sensibilities of someone's nose.

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[desdinova 216]

so you believer homeopathy works?

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[superwiz]

the two are similar enough fundamentally that the superficial differences do not weigh heavily enough to not combine the two..

Oh, I see the problem. You feel the need to comment on something you don't understand. Let me give you the shortest explanation for why you are wrong: no, they are not. I guess I should elaborate by mentioning that water vapor does not cause cancer while smoke from actual cigarettes is what deposits tar in the lungs and increases risks of cancer. But I don't want to explain things to you as if you were an intelligent human being. I want to treat you like you that which you are -- a shill for the politicians of the Criminal Democratic Party.

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is about some American politicians banning something that isn't fun. I fail to see how that is even relevant to to GP's statement.

Re:Why the nicotine hate

[Anonymous Coward]

An activity being "fun" isn't the same as an activity being something "that individuals enjoy". Your small mind fails to see a lot.

Put a pipe in your anus

[Anonymous Coward]

and fart.

traditional cigarettes are WHITE

[turkeydance]

c'mon man. this is true; ban ALL colors.

Re: traditional cigarettes are WHITE

[Anonymous Coward]

All Butts Matter!

Because I don't enjoy being manipulated

[rsilvergun]

to put money in somebody's pocket, which is what companies pushing nicotine delivery are doing. Said this on other threads, will say it again, go read Fred Pohl's The Space Merchants.

Re:Because I don't enjoy being manipulated

[coastwalker]

Vaping is so cheap that it is almost free. This is the consequence of it being safe and almost unregulated so that competition works. You can vape for less than $5 a month. Hardly worth a big corporation's effort. Much more profitable to sell "artisanal" coffee to hipsters.

Re:Because I don't enjoy being manipulated

[drinkypoo]

Vaping is so cheap that it is almost free. This is the consequence of it being safe

[citation needed]

and almost unregulated so that competition works.

[citation needed]

I'll provide an explanation for this one (none being necessary for the prior) and just say that competition is not working here to do anything but bring prices down, due to the lack of regulation. Users have no way to know if their vape or their vape juice is poisonous to them, and the health problems it will cause won't show up in time to do them or anyone else any good.

so...

[superwiz]

naturally they are going to ban batteries and gasoline next? To make sure their fumes are not inhaled through 2nd-hand exposure?

Re:so...

[Anonymous Coward]

But they are doing that and for good reason - look up vapor recovery systems, now required for gas stations.
Most batteries these days are sealed as well.

Re:so...

[drinkypoo]

Most car batteries are still not sealed, although that will change in a generation or so; right now it is still three or four times as expensive for automakers to purchase the electronics from the OEMs in 48 volt as opposed to 12 volt, so even vehicles with a 48 volt mild hybrid system also have a 12 volt system to run the infotainment and accessories, and most 12 volt car batteries are still of the flooded type.

Re:Screw Nanny state

[superwiz]

Water vapors make your eyes watery? Should we outlaw boiling water in public for your convenience?

Re:Screw Nanny state

[Anonymous Coward]

Then companies which do allow vaping would no doubt lose your business.

This is what is wrong with this country.

[BlueCoder]

Live and let live. Stop legislating stupid bicycle helmet type laws for people's own good. Stop being busy bodies.

I don't smoke and am not going to start. People that smoke generally do not prefer to vape. But the stories I hear personally about people that have quit because vaping is cheap and convent is very compelling. Vaping is not smoke and it doesn't carry like smoke. The thicker vapors actually settles down even faster.

I can see codified rules of etiquette such that a person if vaping they must yield and back off so many feet and also not vape in the immediate presence of service personnel. Simple courtesy and which should be codified as local ordinances and state and federal should have no hand in them.

How long before the laws that everyone must editorially wear surgical masks in public? Or when it because illegal to have sex without a condom? And lets not forget about a prohibition style law against eating meat many would like to see.

Re:This is what is wrong with this country.

[I'm New Around Here]

My god man, stop giving them ideas.

Re: This is what is wrong with this country.

[Anonymous Coward]

I smoke a pipe on my backporch. I am 57 and have been smoking only for about the last ten years. I know what I am doing, and yes, nicotine smoke is VERY addictive. I smoked a big bowl of tobacco Monday but didn't smoke any Tuesday. The 'buzz' of yearning to smoke more was my warning, but also a nice buzz of it's own. I know that if I let myself get addicted that 'buzz' might turn unpleasant, but with moderation it's been a pretty good recreational thing to do. Probably no more harmful than an occasional glass of scotch.

Re:This is what is wrong with this country.

[serviscope_minor]

How long before the laws that everyone must editorially wear surgical masks in public?

I would say about infinity nanoseconds/decades.

Or when it because illegal to have sex without a condom?

Same. Ain't gonna happen ever.

And lets not forget about a prohibition style law against eating meat many would like to see.

The great thing about America is it has many people in it so you can find "many" people in support of literally anything no matter how crazy.

Anyway, none of the things you are panicking about will come to pass.

Re:This is what is wrong with this country.

[sabbede]

HEAR HEAR!

I don't know who modded you as a troll, I guess they couldn't see what they were doing with their head lodged in such a dark and smelly place.

Re: This is what is wrong with this country.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're already addicted.

Stop fooling yourself.

I'll bet you can stop anytime you want to you just don't want to.

Re:This is what is wrong with this country.

[dywolf]

if vape vapors prove to be as harmful as cigarette smoke...THEN YES THEY SHOULD BACKOFF.

how are you seriously arguing against that?
your comment is a textbook example of "freedumb.".

Re:Screw Nanny state

[I'm New Around Here]

I actually think people should boil water in public places, just to show how stupid these laws are.

Bring a portable, battery operated teapot, let it boil for several minutes, then inhale the vapor and exhale.

Snowflakes' heads will explode.

IMHO

[PinkyGigglebrain]

Good.

An eCig may not have most of the crap (tar, etc.) a normal cig has but it still has nicotine, and I would rather not have to inhale the stuff if I can avoid it.

If you want to ingest a highly addictive and deadly drug fine by me. Just don't do it in an aerosol form around people who have chosen not to ingest the aforementioned drug.

Re:IMHO

[Pfhorrest]

Thank you, the one voice of sanity in this thread so far.

All the assholes arguing about private property rights can shove their hypocrisy up their asses. My body is my principal piece of property and if your fucking drugs trespass upon it I will defend it with violence if necessary. Put whatever the fuck you want into your own lungs, but keep it the fuck out of mine or suffer the consequences you worthless ash-holes.

Re: IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Vapor is pretty obvious. If you don't want to inhale it, walk around it you dolt! Its like ramming your face into my outstretched fist, go around you fucking moron!

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

nicotine isn't "deadly". the most common delivery mechanisms of it are.

Re:IMHO

[Calydor]

Or even in concentrations coming close to the exhaust of a few cars, which we happily walk past without thinking about it.

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicotine is not deadly in low doses, so thats a bit over the top. Second, you can vape with out nicotine. Source - I vape without nicotine.

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

"exhaust of a few cars, which we happily walk past without thinking about it." - Speak for yourself, some of us with fully functioning bodies which have not been stunted by self-destructive habits like smoking are actually pretty sensitive to things like car exhaust fumes.

Re:IMHO

[AmiMoJo]

I feel the same way about combustion engines, coal burning power stations etc.

Then again I'm pretty happy to have fluoride in the water. I guess it's a question of harm, rather than "forced medication".

Re: IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

My flamethrower is pretty obvious. If you don't want to burn, walk around it you dolt! Its like ramming your face into my outstretched fist, go around you fucking moron!

Re:IMHO

[skam240]

What you inhale second hand is incredibly minimal. You might as well ban cars from driving near areas where people walk at this point because I guarantee you that walking along New York streets and breathing the air polluted from all the traffic is far more unhealthy for you than breathing vape fumes. https://www.popsci.com/ask-us-...

On top of that, almost no one becomes addicted to second hand smoke of any kind, least of all from a vape (disagree? show me an example beyond singular anecdotal experience). You're being a stupid paranoid.

Re:IMHO

[skam240]

So people should stop driving cars? I ask because I guarantee you people walking along New York streets suffer far more lung damage than the person inhaling the rare vape fumes

Re:IMHO

[geekymachoman]

DRUG USER !!!! /me throws a stone at dirty DRUG users !!!1

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

So please stop driving your car because the fumes go into my lungs.
Also, please stop breathing around me so your germs won't get into my body.
My body is my principal piece of property and if your fucking fumes/germs/ideas/whatever trespass upon it I will defend it with violence if necessary.
Not so funny anymore, right?

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine. Please never drive a car again. Oh wait, I bet you're a hypocrite, and you put whatever the fuck in other people's lungs.

Re:IMHO

[Whibla]

Good.

An eCig ... still has nicotine, and I would rather not have to inhale the stuff if I can avoid it.

What about the ones (liquids) that don't, of which there are a large number? What reason do you have for banning those at the same time?

Re:IMHO

[Opportunist]

Then I guess you're equally demanding the ban of ICEs as you demanded the ban on cigarettes.

Re:IMHO

[asylumx]

So people should stop driving cars?

Well, combustion powered cars, yes. And while a lot of this car driving should be replaced by walking, biking, or other human-powered means, we should continue working toward cleaner energy production to power the electric cars that replace the rest of them.

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, the one voice of sanity in this thread so far.

All the assholes arguing about private property rights can shove their hypocrisy up their asses. My body is my principal piece of property and if your fucking drugs trespass upon it I will defend it with violence if necessary. Put whatever the fuck you want into your own lungs, but keep it the fuck out of mine or suffer the consequences you worthless ash-holes.

Here's an idea. How about you fuck off, and then keep fucking off until you can't fuck off anymore and then when you've done that, fuck off again.

Thank you for confirming the side effects of inhaling formaldehyde, cadmium, benzene, and toluene in vapor form. And you wonder why the fuck your idiotic opinion is ignored when creating laws.

Re:IMHO

[squiggleslash]

I doubt he would because while there are similar issues, one is a recreational habit and completely avoidable, while the other is, unfortunately, key infrastructure that the country has been built around, and cannot easily be "banned" overnight.

What you will find is a high degree of overlap between those who want eCigs regulated, and those who have supported the EPA's increasingly stringent emissions standards over the last few decades, not to mention support for the move to electric vehicles.

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

What you inhale second hand is incredibly minimal.

You need to provide a citation for that.

Here's one to a paper showing that THIRD hand exposure to smoke has a measurable effect https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fsrep41915

Re:IMHO

[sabbede]

Water, glycerin, commonly used flavoring, and a little bit of nicotine that's mostly gone from the exhaled vapor and certainly not sufficient to affect you in any way.

Re:IMHO

[dunkelfalke]

To be fair, generally the only places where smoking is banned, but cars with an ICE aren't would be gas stations and parking decks.

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine. Please never drive a car again. Oh wait, I bet you're a hypocrite, and you put whatever the fuck in other people's lungs.

Hypocrites? From tree-hugging hippies to performance junkies, I'm willing to bet that 95% of drivers today would happily give up their combustion-powered pollution machine in exchange for a zero-emissions Tesla. Make Americans pay what many other countries pay per liter/gallon for fuel, and the adoption rate would be closer to 100%.

The consumers aren't the true evil here. The real danger is the greedy fucks in the oil industry who are hell-bent on ensuring that clean air alternatives are never adopted. They will fight and lobby with corruptive practices to ensure fossil fuels and related products are fucking subsidized to obscene levels.

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn right!! All those toxic fumes, we must come down on pot smokers with an iron fist!! Roll them tanks, make an example out of them. Smokers are EVIL!!!!

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

IT'S JUST WATER VAPOR DUDE! ...Said the moron whose blueberry shitcake flavoring you can smell from a block away.

I wouldn't care even if it was just water vapor (protip: IT IS NOT) - I don't want your nasty ass lung juice in my face.

As a former smoker, and someone who vapes: Good on New York.

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

What about rubber tires? The particles from the tires pose significant (compared to 2nd hand smoking, which should be magnitudes worse than 2nd hand vaping) health risks.
 

Re: IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's compromise. Cars are safest on the highway, so allow vapers to vape while standing on the highway. There, fair is fair.

Re:IMHO

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Well, combustion powered cars, yes. And while a lot of this car driving should be replaced by walking, biking, or other human-powered means,
Zen fascists will control you! 100% natural! You will jog for the master race, and always wear the happy face.

Re:IMHO

[Dripdry]

Don't you wish someone would tell the Koch brothers this as well?

Be a vaper with a few bucks for a coffee, you're a douche.
Be a pair of ugly, amoral douchebags with no creativity and nothing better to do than a desire for control, you're free to do what you like in this country.

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Should they make an exception for e-cigs that don't have any nicotine (they exist)? Or/and if a company develops a safer vape (no analine, benzene etc.)? Would the police investigate a suspicion of "dangervape"?

Re:IMHO

[slack_justyb]

if your fucking drugs trespass upon it I will defend it with violence if necessary

I wouldn't go that far but seriously, I don't want to have to wade through a giant cloud of Fruit Loop flavoured stuff (since we're not calling it smoke) that just came out of your mouth hole. There's a point where you're doing your thing and then there's a point where you are being a total douche canoe. Billowing giant stuff clouds that smell like some breakfast cereal that no one can escape from, firmly puts you in the douche armada camp.

Re:IMHO

[bluefoxlucid]

The nicotine exposure from second-hand smoke--much less second-hand vapors--is negligible. You have B vitamins activating these receptors more-strongly.

Re:IMHO

[SCVonSteroids]

By your logic you should be banging on everyone who drives a car's door and kicking some ass.
Good luck to you sir!

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I guess you're equally demanding the ban of ICEs as you demanded the ban on cigarettes.

Sure. We're at a point where electric alternatives are practical. May as well start phasing out the ICEs. It will be a longer term process however and probably have to be federal regulation.

E-cigs are a smaller problem but they're also solvable trivially with extremely local regulation (often as simple as the establishment enforcing a policy).

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Similarly, should you be a failure in taking care of yourself and catch a cold, don't you dare come anywhere near me. You don't have a right to inflict your pathogens on me, worthless self-centered fucker.

Re:IMHO

[slack_justyb]

I can't stand vaping because as soon as someone feels free to do so, they instantly exhale a 70 cubic meter cloud that makes everything it touches smell like week old Fruit Loops or what I am told is Bubblegum. The clouds stink and pretty much there's always that one douche canoe that has to create a cloud that is three times denser than standard air. So you know what? You go after those folks that feel that everywhere they go they have to create a cloud cover. I don't mind cars, I don't mind e-cigs, I don't mind a lot of things. However, I do mind those asshats that have to roll coal or exhale a vape cloud of epic size. Since it would be stupid to try and write a law that specifies "size" of cloud that's legal, it's just best to go ahead and outright put it out in the streets as well. You can thank the douche armada in my opinion for this law.

Re:IMHO

[strikethree]

If you want to ingest a highly addictive and deadly drug fine by me. Just don't do it in an aerosol form around people who have chosen not to ingest the aforementioned drug.

The perfume that your wife wears is perfectly acceptable to assault me with because... it is not an addictive drug? What about your cologne? Have you tested these things to ensure that other people's health is not effected?

Oh right. Vaping is only for the addictive nicotine. Nobody vapes non-nicotine fluids. Since people don't "need" to vape, there is no harm in banning it.

You do not need cologne either... and, some colognes and perfumes affect my nose very strongly. I can not stop sneezing. Somehow or another, I don't think anyone is going to pass a law regulating chemicals in perfumes and restricting their use in public places just because my nose is sensitive to some of them.

Puritanical thought at its finest. I love the double standards. What is REALLY funny here is that I do not even vape. I just sneeze a lot.

Re:IMHO

[NeoMorphy]

I agree with you. When vapers/smokers allow their crap to invade another person's personal space, it should be considered an assault. And we should be able to defend ourselves if that happens.

Unfortunately, drug addicts are very passionate about rationalizing their addictions. They'll say they're not drug addicts, but that's normal for a drug addict. And they will claim it's not harming anyone, but it does. If anyone gets in the way of their drug habit, they become vicious, like a rabid weasel. But instead of rabies, they have hepatitis c, which is still scary.

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... people made all those arguments when "secondhand smoke" became a thing.

Didn't work then, won't now.

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how people like you keep saying this. When I point out glycerin, you'll say "it's a safe food additive", yes, it is, for eating. Maple syrup is safe to eat, I sure as hell don't want to inhale it.

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't ever drive/ride in a fuel burning vehicle, don't ever use non-green energy and don't ever use your fireplace or have a backyard barbecue then.

Seriously though, I encourage you to try assaulting someone who is smoking. It will be funny when they pound your face into mush or just shoot you in actual self-defense.

Re:IMHO

[stealth_finger]

So you're on the camp of threatening physical violence on to someone's 'principle piece of property' when they partake in their own freedoms like this other asshole? You think actual quantifiable harm is an ok response to an implied harm that cannot be measured nor even confirmed? What if I have to smell your stinky neckbeard body odour? Do I get to beat the shit out of you then too? But oh no, telling someone to fuck off is much worse apparently. Thanks for confirming your snowflake, I'm the only one that matters, entitled status. No wonder the big boys don't take you seriously. Hey, look over there there's some other pathetic non-issue to get outraged at. I hope you show such vitriol to all the actual forms of air pollution though, the low hanging fruit has been picked to death.

Re:IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoking is an addiction. Driving is not. It's much easier to give up driving than to give up smoking. Only a clueless idiot who had never been a smoker would think "oh smoking is just a recreational habit so it's so easy to stop".

Re:IMHO

[asylumx]

You're right! If we can't solve the whole problem, why solve any part of it? That's the way to success!

Re:IMHO

[skam240]

So people of lesser means should basically do without a car given the price point of a car run off batteries and just have to settle for our horrible mass transit in this country?

Battery powered cars are basically at the toddler phase and still out of reach of many Americans.

Anyways, you're bringing up a complete bullshit side tangent from the topic at hand. The current reality is that gas powered cars are driven on the streets.

Re:Screw Nanny state

[Pfhorrest]

I just want the same thing.

Well that and also to slowly peel every inch of flesh off of the worthless inconsiderate ash-holes that make it impossible to walk a single fucking block down any city street without being literally nauseated by their goddamn drugs.

Re: What about pot smoking?

[Reverend Green]

I want a ticket on that airline!

Vick's Vaporub does the trick

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to add a pinch of Vick's Vaporub for medicinal effect.
It contains the ingredients camphor, menthol, eucalyptus oil, cedar leaf oil, nutmeg oil, petrolatum, and thymol, and turpentine oil.
And the smell is very pervasive.

Pot

[thadtheman]

The sheer stupidity of this ... consider what is in these. Evaporated chemicals quickly dissipated and quickly settled out of the air. Compare to pot, The smoke contains carbon monoxide, radioactives, heavy metals and other stuff ( some of which are from the paper, some from plant material, some from the pesticides ). Are they going to be strongly against pot.

Re:Pot

[Anonymous Coward]

As a chronic myself, I quit smoking pot years ago. Good thing they also have dry herb vaporizers these days, like https://www.storz-bickel.com/us/en/mighty/ for a good quality example. Never going back to incinerating anything.

Re:Pot

[Whibla]

Those vaporizers are great!

They avoid the initial 'head rush' common with the first spliff of the day, they're less harmful for you, and there's practically no environmental 'after-smell'. A very pleasant way to get stoned indeed.

They do tend to be pretty heavy when it comes to battery use though. Make sure you use high current (for batteries) rechargeables, and get spares!

Re:Pot

[sabbede]

Compare it to farts. Or body odor. What you're inhaling from those is far nastier than what's in a vape or marijuana smoke.

Ironically enough

[wolfheart111]

Car exhaust mmmm... people dont seem to consider this when chastising smokers about second hand smoke. Standing at a stop light quite often you have a few dozen exhaust pipes spewing their toxins directly at you...

Re:Ironically enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Transportaion is a necessity. Smoking is a luxury.

Re:Ironically enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly sure you are not allowed to drive your car into an office or a restaurant and let it run while working/eating

Re:Ironically enough

[drinkypoo]

Cars have now become clean enough that cigarette smoke is the most immediately disgusting thing that comes out of them when they are operating correctly, once they have warmed up anyway. It is indeed disgusting to be behind or even near a vehicle during and/or after a cold start, when you have to suck a bunch of unburned hydrocarbons. But if I'm on the sidewalk and someone drives by in a typical small car, smoking a cigarette, I can't even smell the car at all and the cigarette will make me cough.

Yes, the car is producing a bunch of soot, but if there is any sense in the world the cars will all be EVs fairly soon. And long before that happens, they will all be mild hybrids. They will all have auto stop-start that you won't be allowed to disable (there's no reason to do so if you have a mild hybrid system to get you off the line and start the engine in a smooth fashion), so they won't be spewing any toxins at red lights.

Re:Screw Nanny state

[Anonymous Coward]

Through early morning fog I see
Visions of the things to be
The pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see
That suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
I can take or leave it if I please
That game of life is hard to play
I'm gonna lose it anyway
The losing card of some delay
So this is all I have to say
That suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
I can take or leave it if I please
The sword of time will pierce our skin
It doesn't hurt when it begins
But as it works its way on in
The pain grows stronger, watch it burn
That suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it if I please
A brave man once requested me
To answer questions that are key
Is it

Land of the Free

[stealth_finger]

Home of the nanny

Re:Land of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

As seen on a road trip last year.

Welcome to New Hampshire

Live Free or Die

No smoking,

I am very nauseated by vaps

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason when people vaps 20-ft or less from me, the usually very heavy smell of the vaps nauseated me

Not that I like the smell of cigarette smokes - but to me, the smell of vaps (and they come in all kinds of smell) is more nauseating than that of cigarette smoke

Re: I am very nauseated by vaps

[Anonymous Coward]

I get this way when stinky and sweaty joggers pass me on a trail. Ban jogging, too! Have you ever smelled a fart on an elevator? Ban elevators! Please SAVE ME from all human stink!

Balance

[buss_error]

I am an ex-smoker of tobacco. I know how the fiend that rides the back of a smoker can crawl up the back of your neck, reach it's talons around, and rip off your face when you need that next smoke. All too well, do I know it. I also know the anti-tobacco evangelists, trying to "do good". Let me give you a hint: You are annoying and irritating. Your urgings to quit this filthily habit moved me not one iota until I had my first heart attack. You see, smoking isn't rational. It's deeply emotional and addiction based. If you aren't addicted, you have zero chance of understanding it, and worse, a negative chance to change others. People that are addicted have to choose to change. Logic, proof, and all the AMA studies in the world won't move a truly addicted person one angstrom. Yes - it's not logical. But it is human nature.

I've chewed nicotine gum now for about the last 12 years. My addiction to nicotine continues, albeit in a form that (hopefully) doesn't affect others, like smoking tobacco or vaping does. When I pass the smoking area, I wonder now how I could ever have desired it. And yet, I still feel the pull for "one last good smoke" - which I don't give into.

Vaping, just as smoking, puts chemicals in the air. No difference there.

To my mind, making your own hell is up to you. But including others in your damnation is not your right. If your actions put nicotine in the air others must breathe, such as smoking and vaping, then your right to do so ends at the effective boundary of others to avoid your chosen vice.

And again, I completely understand that critter that wants to rip your face off. I suffer from it to this day and I've not had a cigarette in over a decade. But your right to partake does not include the right to force others to imbibe in your vice as well. All I ask is that you consider how you'd feel of others felt they could force you to breathe flatulence. I doubt you'd be best pleased.

Re:Balance

[geekmux]

...If you aren't addicted, you have zero chance of understanding it, and worse, a negative chance to change others. People that are addicted have to choose to change. Logic, proof, and all the AMA studies in the world won't move a truly addicted person one angstrom. Yes - it's not logical. But it is human nature.

Human nature also includes a general propensity to want to help others. You should probably be thankful for that. Without that human trait, there probably would be few doctors or nurses around to help save those who have heart attacks.

Yes, I get the fact that cigarettes are addictive. So is meth, heroin, and opium in a prescription bottle. That doesn't mean people need to become an drug addict in order to "understand" addicts or help them. Former addict is not a prerequisite to work at a treatment center or attend an AA meeting. Plenty of people who were addicted choose to become sober because of the impact of loved ones in their lives urging them to quit, and creating a support system. It's not always a life-threatening incident that creates a path to sobriety.

...your right to partake does not include the right to force others to imbibe in your vice as well. All I ask is that you consider how you'd feel of others felt they could force you to breathe flatulence. I doubt you'd be best pleased.

This is funny. I pictured a large group of flatulent fanatics attacking the vaping crowd by surrounding them in a fart flash mob. Don't light a match.

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I get the fact that cigarettes are addictive. So is meth, heroin, and opium in a prescription bottle. That doesn't mean people need to become an drug addict in order to "understand" addicts or help them. Former addict is not a prerequisite to work at a treatment center or attend an AA meeting. Plenty of people who were addicted choose to become sober because of the impact of loved ones in their lives urging them to quit, and creating a support system. It's not always a life-threatening incident that creates a path to sobriety.

Read carefully. There is no such thing as a former addict.

If you become addicted to a substance, you will ALWAYS and forever more, be an addict.
Addiction never stops. You don't get over it. It doesn't go away. It is as permanent as chopping off a limb.

As an addict, you get a choice:
- I will be a user of the substance to which I am addicted.
- I will NOT be a user of the substance to which I am addicted.

Just because one is an addict doesn't mean that one has to be a user.

However, quitting use does not (and will never) remove the addiction.

It just means one has chosen to cope with their addiction in a healthier way.

I found it remarkably easier to become a former user once I internalized this truth.

Re:Balance

[Dan East]

I have a question for you. If we were back in time 30-40+ years, when pretty much every business either allowed smoking, or at least had a smoking section, and you could even smoke on airplanes and buses, would you have been able to kick the habit while being exposed to people doing it everywhere you went? Obviously you still see people smoking these days, but now you can very easily avoid them, which wasn't the case 30+ years ago. Just wondered what impact that amount of exposure would have on breaking such a difficult habit.

Re:Balance

[geekmux]

Yes, I get the fact that cigarettes are addictive. So is meth, heroin, and opium in a prescription bottle. That doesn't mean people need to become an drug addict in order to "understand" addicts or help them. Former addict is not a prerequisite to work at a treatment center or attend an AA meeting. Plenty of people who were addicted choose to become sober because of the impact of loved ones in their lives urging them to quit, and creating a support system. It's not always a life-threatening incident that creates a path to sobriety.

Read carefully. There is no such thing as a former addict.

If you become addicted to a substance, you will ALWAYS and forever more, be an addict. Addiction never stops. You don't get over it. It doesn't go away. It is as permanent as chopping off a limb.

Cigarettes are undoubtedly the most fucking horribly addictive product mankind has ever created. 480,000 Americans die every year from it, more than any other product. 7 million worldwide deaths per year. It remains our #1 cause of preventable death, and has held that crown for a long time. Alcohol is likely the next worst.

That said, not every addition creates a permanent effect as those I've outlined above. A good example would be the potheads I knew in high school. Smoked weed all day every day. They were addicts by every definition. After high school, they stopped using it. Never even had a small desire to go back to it. I also knew many who would occasionally use pot with zero chance of becoming a daily addict again.

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

All I ask is that you consider how you'd feel of others felt they could force you to breathe flatulence. I doubt you'd be best pleased.

I figure if someone is free to smoke or vape, I am free to fart in their general direction.

Re:Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

As a smoker for 20+ years, trying all the different patches and gum, the truly best and only way I have given up is cold turkey.
What a bitch that was! I did it 3 times over 5 yrs before finally giving up smoking! I was on patches and gum whilst smoking! Whilst sleeping!!
I have now been cigarette free coming up 2 yrs. The need has long gone, but damn I can still smell a car 20m closer to the lights at a stop with a window down. My brain is just wired to hunt it out, but it doesn't feel the need to squeeze me to chase it. Very weird.

tldr; cold turkey! It's worth it!!

No Durians

[Anonymous Coward]

Please

Now you're on to something.

[Dr. Evil]

"No cologne or after-shave.... be sure to wear the standard grey uniform..."

You're describing my home town. Although people think various shades of grey are stylish.

Bull

[Anonymous Coward]

All the crap the State is OK with me inhaling.

I really don't feel like inhaling your nasty dead animal roasting vapors either. I don't want to inhale your perfume. Your body wash. Your car exhaust. Your farts. Your industrial waste.

Go ahead and feel good about nicotine though, of which there is very little in exhaled vapor.

There are studies that show ambient air has more crap than vapor.

Anyway, we are going to keep vaping. In your buildings, on your streets. In your bars, in your restaurants. And you aint gonna do shit, no one ever does shit, no one ever will.

Re:Screw Nanny state

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the word drugs make things sound evil or bad? I remember when the war on drugs started and there were lots of ads about the dangers of drugs. And now people say drugs like we should all run away and hide from these dangerous drugs...
I'm actually starting to think that if more of these people partook of said "drugs" the world might be a slightly less shitty place, lol.
Also, maybe the bars should be banned, they sell "drugs" too.... Alcohol is a drug.... and is really volatile, am I getting exposed to second hand drugs with your volatile alcohol evaporating around me... yes it is evaporating into invisible vapor.... this seems even worse than the vape vapor which I can see with my eyes, this is an invisible killer like a ninja.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a god damn cigarette just modernized so that hipsters look cool doing it.

Fun facts; unregulated, has nicotine; health wise its just as bad as a cigarette (if not worse if you take into account that some vapes generate carcinogens).

Also, besides that; if you "vape bro" you look like a retard, esp if you're one of those cunts who think's its cool to turn up the "smoke". You're stupid.

My favorite part is the "flavors"; because you need variety when sucking on high-tech pacifier?

If its almost free, I can just shoplift them, then

[Anonymous Coward]

No? Then it's not almost free.

e cigs, like patches are supposed to be a way to remove the drug addiction of nicotine. We don't let people sell heroin packs to people who attest they are over 18, honest guv, yet aim marketing to the 14-25 crowd. Hell, you don't let it happen with WEED, and that shit ain't even addictive, but you still call it a gateway drug.

It's simply drug selling, like any pusher on the street, except legal. And at least with nicotine, we're trying to get the addicts OFF rather than just throwing them in jail.

Where is the cadmium coming from?

[sabbede]

Or the benzene or formaldehyde given that the ingredients on the liquid say water, glycerin, (widely used) flavoring and nicotine? What, did they use a broken unit with a leaky Ni-Cad battery in testing? Is that how we deal with a faulty device, ban the entire class of product?

I'm not buying it. This is an overreaction based on silly assumptions.

Re:Where is the cadmium coming from?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the benzene or formaldehyde given that the ingredients on the liquid say water, glycerin, (widely used) flavoring and nicotine?

I also wondered the same thing and assumed that it might be from electroplating of the heating element. However, I came across a Science Daily article which mentions that testing of the pre-aerosolized liquids contained "high levels of toxic metals". Interestingly, they list nickel as more of a concern than the cadmium.

Benzene and formaldehyde are organic compounds, so it's at least theoretically possible to create them from constituent parts from portions of the e-liquid. My organic-chemistry is a little rusty, but I looked into the synthesis of benzene and the most plausible route would be benzoic acid to benzene by way of a zinc-oxide catalyst and heat. Some older e-cigs used benzoic acid to protonate the nicotine.

Still, I agree with you that most of this seems to be an overreaction, or at least a mis-understanding of the chemistry.

Re:Where is the cadmium coming from?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you live in a city you're exposed to all of those things anyway. When people got the idea that the air they are inhaling is pristine and perfect is beyond me. We've been burning coal and petroleum for millenia, this crap is everywhere already.

Re:Where is the cadmium coming from?

[Anonymous Coward]

And a lot of people are trying to stop burning coal and reduce the use of oil. People are understanding these days that air quality matters. Air is much better today in the U.S. at least than in the 60s and 70s proving that we can actually make an impact.

Re:Where is the cadmium coming from?

[ChrisMaple]

Apparently the manufacturers of ecig supplies are making very poor quality products. Poisonous metals including cadmium, lead, and nickel are present in inexcusable portions. At the very least, there should be laws on the purity of the liquid.

Re:Where is the cadmium coming from?

[sabbede]

Seems like the heavy metals would be coming from the device, not the liquid. Nickel, lead and cadmium are all found in batteries, while the liquid is made from common food additives. Or maybe something in the heating element or wick.

Still, that's a product safety issue not inherent to the product, so the remedy isn't a ban on public use, it's quality control, inspections, lawsuits, bans on specific faulty devices, etc. This approach is just ridiculous. First, you don't ban a class of product because of an issue with one example of it. When some imported baby products were found to contain lead, we didn't ban the public use of teething rings. Second, it shifts all the attention from the manufacturer's negligence (possibly criminal) and makes it a stupid argument over blowing water vapor around.

Re:Where is the cadmium coming from?

[drinkypoo]

you don't ban a class of product because of an issue with one example of it.

If it were just one example, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The industry has rigorously opposed regulation, and this is the predictable result. Sooner or later, someone will promote some regulations, and then some meaningful studies can be done, and then maybe the law will change again.

Re:Where is the cadmium coming from?

[sabbede]

This doesn't require new regulations. There are already regulations for dealing with devices that leak toxic materials or ingestible fluids contaminated with them. The problem is that people are looking at the wrong thing, much like how some people are afraid that a microwave oven will give them cancer because radiation is involved. Because vapes/ecigs involve nicotine, people mistakenly assume the liquid and its vapor are like cigarette smoke in other ways.

Unlike cigarettes, vape juices have labeled ingredients. There are all sorts of regulations already applied to it. Unlike cigarettes, the vapes and eciggs are battery powered consumer devices, subject to a host of regulations.

\o/

[easyTree]

vaping carries its own risks because the aerosol emissions can include formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene

...but we can legally make money from addiction and increase tax revenue so it's ALL GOOD, RIGHT?

Re:Screw Nanny state

[sabbede]

How many people will you walk past that smell like they poured a gallon of aftershave on themselves? Or patchouli drenched hippies? Or are cooking something that smells disgusting?

What if you're the one wearing too much aftershave and nauseating everyone else? It's a city. It's full of smells. Live with it.

Need to go further...

[Anonymous Coward]

In all seriousness, there needs to be a federal law banning smoking anywhere that any child (0-17) may be exposed to 2nd hand smoke.
I would put that down as reckless child endangerment / attempted murder, and yes, that includes parents inside a house with their own children.
Minimum fine, $7500 per child affected - to be put into a trust for the child's health issues later.
Minimum prison term, 5 years, no chance of parole.
I am deadly serious.

Now, onto the fun part.
I say that if someone wants to smoke, they must place an acrylic cube over their head, sealing in all the smoke within.
Air scrubbers would do an air-exchange, drawing in fresh air, though why we should do that since the smokers are intent on replacing oxygen with carbon-monoxide, but I guess that's up to them. Any exhaust air will have gone through a multi-stage HEPA filtration system as well as negative ion generation.
The cube and backpack to support it will weigh in at around 70 lbs, but that's the cost of wanting to smoke.

Re:Need to go further...

[NeoMorphy]

The problem with imprisoning the parents is that it affects the children. I agree there should be a law against subjecting children to tobacco smoke. Instead of imprisonment, maybe they could place them in a room with a family of angry skunks for a week?

While heroin is illegal, this is the right thing

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take heroin, all you're hurting is yourself. Yet it is still banned. No such thing as "second hand chasing the dragon", yet still class A narcotics are illegal, not merely banned in public spaces. So clearly there is something more than "do no harm to others" in play with drugs. And nicotene IS a drug.

Explain why any drug is controlled and you'll find why e cigs should be controlled too.

idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a vaper person. But I think it's dumb that local governments are scrutinizing vaping and not the asbestos in brake pads, the carcinogenic effects of cleaners used all day long in our workplaces, the fumes of welders and formaldehydes from glue in our office furnitures, the radon that enters every single building, the toxic dust that comes from all the printers in our offices, the more toxic flame retardants used in the furniture that are constantly off-gassing into our offices, and when ya think it stopped there, the flame retardants used as preservatives in our food to this very day oct 25th 2017.
Get smart people. Smoking is becoming more healthy than breathing the air in our workplaces and homes.

Now if they could only ban the smell of urine

[Anonymous Coward]

and body odor.

NYC and all other big cities - you can keep'em.

GOOD!

[p51d007]

If you can't light up a tobacco product, you shouldn't be able to "puff away" a fake cigarette. I can't wait until someone legalizes marijuana and some doper wants to "blaze up" in a bar/restaurant, and is told NO.

Re:GOOD!

[PPH]

some doper wants to "blaze up" in a bar/restaurant

Welcome to Washington State.

On a related note: A lot of the 'vaping mods' are done because hash oil volatilizes at higher temps than e-cig juice. And some of those big clouds you see wafting out of car windows isn't a nicotine product. A lot of the push back against e-cigs is because they are becoming a (not well hidden) means of getting high in public. Much like drug paraphernalia has been banned from time to time, nobody is buying the "B..b..but muh quitting smoking!" Chew the gum or wear a patch if you want to quit.

Re:GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be the life of the parties you obviously don't get invited to.

Re:GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be the life of the parties you obviously don't get invited to

Re:GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be the life of the parties you obviously don't get invited to,

Re:GOOD!

[jittles]

A lot of the push back against e-cigs is because they are becoming a (not well hidden) means of getting high in public.

When someone is vaping THC, it smells just like it does when someone smokes a joint. It is less intense, and does not hang in the air as long, but the smell is the same. If you want to get high in public without being obvious, you would use an edible. Those are legal in WA, CO, CA, and other states that allow marijuana, right? So why go to the trouble of vaping when it doesn't hide anything?

Re:GOOD!

[del_diablo]

So in the end, I guess Freud was right:
A Cigar is still a Cigar, even if its no longer burning plants for fumes, but vaporizing liquids for mist.

Re:GOOD!

[PPH]

So why go to the trouble of vaping when it doesn't hide anything?

You are attributing a level of logic and forethought to a group that just doesn't possess those faculties.

Re:GOOD!

[steveha]

some doper wants to "blaze up" in a bar/restaurant

Welcome to Washington State.

I'm not sure what you meant by this, but the law in Washington State is clear: marijuana consumption is not legal if done in public. "Blazing up" in a bar/restaurant is illegal in Washington State.

Hotels and restaurants often post signs reminding people of this, and threatening to call the cops if this law is broken. The places I go don't seem to have a problem with people trying to break this law.

Read for yourself:

Public Use – It is illegal to consume marijuana in view of the public.

https://lcb.wa.gov/mj-education/know-the-law

Re:GOOD!

[jittles]

So why go to the trouble of vaping when it doesn't hide anything?

You are attributing a level of logic and forethought to a group that just doesn't possess those faculties.

It sounds like you're a bit prejudiced to me. I've known some very intelligent, articulate, and well organized individuals who enjoy smoking weed every now and then. There are plenty of people who do not use drugs that lack the faculties to use logic and forethought. I do not think that marijuana use has a significant impact on those particular capabilities.

Re:GOOD!

[drinkypoo]

A lot of the push back against e-cigs is because they are becoming a (not well hidden) means of getting high in public.

So where's the push back against normal cigarettes for the same reason? If you don't get a rush off a MCD, you smoke too much.

Re:GOOD!

[drinkypoo]

That law, unfortunately, is designed not to protect the public (since there is no legitimate public health interest in preventing people from being around people consuming marijuana) but to penalize the poor. If they cared about public health, they'd regulate axe body spray, which is toxic AF. That's not what's going on here.

Typical Goldman-Sachs-style assholery.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tobacco industry: “If we can’t have it, then neither can they!”.
Also: “Let’s let the concept of government take the blame, even though our lobbyist politician corporate oligarchy is nothing like a government by the people that would save them from us, but they will still start hating that exact thing anyway, strengthening our power!”

Why are we doing this?

[luis_a_espinal]

It's annoying. A smoking friend of mine always vapes inside, because it's supposed to be ok. However, it's really annoying when the whole room is filled with a white fog that smells like bourbon (or vanilla or caramel or apple or whatever smell he chooses).

Not at all different from having people near you bathed in perfume or bad body odors for lack of proper hygiene.

I can get banning of actual cigarettes, for we knew quite well (with quantifiable data) about the negative side effects of second hand smoking.

But e-cigarretes? Vaping? Where is the data?

Are we banning something as a precautionary measure without knowing what the hell we are measuring? Or is it simply because we do not want to offend people?

Unless I am committing a "fallacy of the excluded middle" in the way I'm describing what I am seeing, I have a significant problem with either question.

Re:Why are we doing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vapers are assholes. They try to create massive clouds of their shit when inside and make small rooms feel like a Victoria pea-souper. Fuck the lot of you. Face your addition problem.

Re:Why are we doing this?

[luis_a_espinal]

Vapers are assholes. They try to create massive clouds of their shit when inside and make small rooms feel like a Victoria pea-souper.

Oh, I feel outrage, I'm wrecked with emotions, hear my internet roar! Guarrr, guarrr!

Fuck the lot of you. Face your addition problem.

I don't vape, I don't smoke. But don't let that shit stop your mind from farting generalizations to the 4 winds.

Re:Why are we doing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

anti-smoking activists want to equate vaping with smoking so that they can get sin taxes levied on vaping so that they will recoup money that they have lost from tobacco taxes since so many smokers have switched to vaping

nevermind that vaping has 98% less pollutants than smoking, zero carbon monoxide and even the FDA is telling people to switch...

Re:Why are we doing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yeah, well I can add just fine

as far as addiction goes, I slowly switched to zero nicotine and and this point, just use the vape occasionally

try doing that with a cig

Re:Why are we doing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

i dont want your 2nd hand nicotine in any way shape or form, go vape/smoke/eat nicotine away from building entrances and air intakes

Re:Why are we doing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

But e-cigarretes? Vaping? Where is the data?

You do know that's the same argument that the cigarette companies made back in the day. The counter is quite simple. Seeing that in the past it's been shown that inhalable nicotine products are not safe, where's the data that they are? And keep in mind, when it comes to drug safety, it's typical that the onus is on the seller to prove it's safe, not for the government to prove it's unsafe.

“Can include” weasel term

[Anonymous Coward]

Your steak can include Ebola and HIV too!
You *can* suddenly fall through the floor too! (When all the atoms happen to align. Which has a chance of about 1 in 10^58, I think.)
But that doesn’t mean it will be the case or even at harmful levels in any sort of way!

Any normal modern e-cig will be ridiculously harmless compared to a cigarette, and very likely even cleaner than the air that surrounds it! Let alone that stuff you just ate a few hours ago.

In the end, all that matters, is if it doesn’t fuck you up before you’re naturally dead anyway.
And even if Having lived 40 only years, but at an intensity-equivalent of 80 years, is still better, than having been a pussy for 80 years, that actually has *lived* only a sum of 20.
People nowadays often seem to be so afraid of something ruining their lives, that they forget to actually *live*.

Damn, Slashdot Unicode FAIL...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please assume that most errors are due to missing Unicode symbols available on the German NEO 2.0 layout. I'm just too used to them nowadays ...

Except for that "lived 40 only years". That was my fault.

Re: While heroin is illegal, this is the right thi

[limaxray]

And the war on drugs has been an absolute disaster that has had little to no impact on reducing usage while greatly increasing harm. Instead of people taking much safer commercially manufactured opiates we have people dying left and right from illicitly manufactured fentanyl smuggled in from China. Likewise, ecigs are an amazing harm reduction method, that while they may have their own risks, they are undeniably better than traditional cigarettes. Trying to forcibly manipulate human behavior through legislation at best doesn't work, and at worst has resulted in some of the greatest human rights violation of our time.

Re:While heroin is illegal, this is the right thin

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take heroin, all you're hurting is yourself. Yet it is still banned. No such thing as "second hand chasing the dragon", yet still class A narcotics are illegal, not merely banned in public spaces. So clearly there is something more than "do no harm to others" in play with drugs. And nicotene IS a drug.

Explain why any drug is controlled and you'll find why e cigs should be controlled too.

LOL, you know why those drugs are controlled? Racism and political expediency. You should really read up on the history of the War on Drugs before you go thinking it has anything to do with public health.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

e-cigs are not cigarettes

[Anonymous Coward]

And e-cig is no more a cigarette than a water pistol is a real gun. A water pistol that clearly CANNOT be mistaken for a real gun cannot and shouldn't be subject to laws or thinking that is the basis of such laws regarding actual guns. The SAME logic applies to e-cigs. Why, then, are e-cigs banned under simple extensions of cigarette laws under the lobbying of anti-smoking bodies?

1) the tobacco companies that still finance all US politicians want e-cigs banned.
2) the lobby bodies make a FORTUNE from their lobbying activities. They are paid off by everyone. And salaries of lobbyests are very very high indeed.
3) once powerful governmental bodies are formed to ban X, they immediately attempt to extend their remit, by looking for Y and Z to ban as well.

4) most importantly is the 'Animal Farm' principle- look how many Clinton voting DRIBBLERS are in this forum saying the ban is a good thing- using pseudo science arguments that to their tiny brains make 'sense'. The dribblers are groomed to think themselves 'smart' like the animals in Animal Farm.

Now the vile and sick USA swallowed the pseudo-science of eugenics hook-line-and-sinker in the late 19th Century and loaned the same to nazi Germany in the 1920s. But the REAL scientists of the UK rejected the eugenic nonsense at the same time. And look at e-cigs. Behold- embraced by the real scientists of the UK- demonised by the pseudo-scientists of the USA.

Science in the USA ain't science but rabble-rousing by the press and special interest groups- in the name of societal manipulation. The infamous Dr Kellog of the 19th century, embraced by every American dribbler, was a prime example of this. The fact that today, 95% of all Americans still believe in the pseudo-science of 'race', and think the USA should be run on race lines ('positive' discrimination based on the pseudo-science of race happens at all major American universities, and not one UK university).

PS no coverage of the breaking news that Hitlery Clinton paid to have the FAKE-NEWS Trump Dossier produced and leaked to the press during the election cycle?

Important question

[Cinnamon Beige]

Is there something special about vaping that might change these chemicals' normal effects on the human body? Going through the list in the blurb...

Benzene, for example, is a gloves-and-hood substance in chem labs, ditto toulene. Cadmium is toxic metal which has turned places into hazmat sites, do I need to say more about it? Formaldehyde is also pretty nasty, and is generally recognized as a poison for a reason; breathing it is highly inadvisable what with it being a poisonous gas, but it's healthier to breathe than the rest of the list... We already know the safety of all of these in other contexts, and you can get the data with just a bit of basic searching...which I've done for you.

The thing that I find interesting is that it ought to be possible to build vapes to not have these problems. We know how to safely produce aerosols, we know pretty damn well how to predict what alterations will happen with heating, and analytical chemistry exists. Instead we just get complaining.

Re:Important question

[Meski]

The thing that I find interesting is that it ought to be possible to build vapes to not have these problems. We know how to safely produce aerosols, we know pretty damn well how to predict what alterations will happen with heating, and analytical chemistry exists. Instead we just get complaining.

Well, yes. we do make safe medical inhalers (asthma style) - adapt one of them to dispense nicotine.

An ex-smoker and current e-cig user's thoughts

[No Longer an AC]

I still believe that bar owners should be allowed to decide for themselves if smoking should be allowed in their establishments.

I actually feel the same about restaurants but society has long since decided they disagree with me and there is no Constitutional right to smoke anywhere you want.

    At least with a restaurant you can make the argument that everyone should be able to eat without poisoning themselves, but in a bar? Nobody needs to drink and drinking certainly isn't helping your health and I still believe there are enough jobs out there that some poor bartender or server isn't going to be forced into working in a smoking bar if it's really a health concern for them.

Before the statewide ban on smoking in bars here (in Colorado) some would advertise they were "smoker-friendly". You couldn't smoke in a bar in the town where I lived, but you could go to some bar outside the city and smoke to your heart's (dis?)content.

Now Colorado treats e-cigs the same as they do cigarettes which I agree is kind of ridiculous and you can't even use an e-cig outdoors in some parts of town here. I'm actually okay with that. I don't need to vape everywhere I go.

I didn't even need to be told that I shouldn't vape indoors where smoking wasn't allowed. I just knew it was wrong just as surely as I believe outdoor bans on smoking or vaping are wrong too.

And while vaping is a lot less obnoxious than smoking, let's not lie to ourselves or others. It does produce a smell and it does put chemicals besides water vapor into the air.

This really hit home a couple of months ago as I was dragged into the non-smoking area of the downtown touristy area of my city. I was really jonesing and to make things worse my e-cig was almost dead anyway. When I did try to take a discreet hit outdoors it just wasn't working well at all. And then I saw a woman just chasing clouds all by herself. She had dutifully gone outside but was ignoring the outdoor smoking/vaping ban and I could smell it from 20-30 feet away.

She wasn't bothering me other than making me a bit jealous because her e-cig was working just fine and mine wasn't but it kind of struck me that it's not quite as innocuous as many of us would like to think.

And don't even think about smoking marijuana anywhere in public even if you're allowed to smoke cigarettes there. Or just go ahead and do it anyway. You probably won't get caught, but you could still be arrested for it.

While I don't mind I can understand other people's objections and we have laws about vaping and smoking anything in public.

And even before smoking was banned by law some bars were taking it upon themselves to ban smoking all on their own and not just in Colorado but in other states as well.

If you're a smoker, I highly recommend quitting. I substituted with e-cigs and I still wish I would quit those but it's a lesser evil IMO.

What really helped me quit was the reaction of the tobacco companies and their distributors and retailers to the big 2009 tax increase on cigs. Even BEFORE the higher taxes went into effect they raised prices and blamed Obama. I saw price increases 2 months before the tax went into effect that were 60% higher than what I had been paying and the tax increase wasn't even close to .

A 2009 law approved by Congress, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, increased the federal tax rate on cigarettes by 61.66 cents per pack (from 39 cents to $1.0066 per pack)

https://www.tobaccofreekids.or...

So I should have had to pay about $6 more per carton WHEN the tax actually took effect. Instead I was paying $25 more per carton 2 months BEFORE the tax took effect.

Fuck those greedy bastards!

I didn't even quit right away. I kept buying them for months and so they probably figured we were so addicted we had no choice - which may have been true to some extent, but I did quit being an RJR customer eventually.

Re:An ex-smoker and current e-cig user's thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Insurance companies are the ones that started the anti-smoking movement. Companies that allowed nicotine addicts to feed their habit on premises found themselves with huge premium rate rises. Why? Because passive smoking related illnesses became a source of litigation. Insurance companies will do everything to avoid paying out, and businesses have a legal obligation to not waste shareholders' money.

Re:An ex-smoker and current e-cig user's thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

I still believe that bar owners should be allowed to decide for themselves if smoking should be allowed in their establishments.

Allowing smoking in bars creates the situation where over time most locales will simply end up as 100% smoking establishments because of market forces. Non-smokers in general would eventually acclimate (or re-acclimate) to smoking environments, and non-smoking bars would have a smaller demographic and therefore be fewer of them. Just because the market would work that way doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Re:An ex-smoker and current e-cig user's thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sometimes required to be in a bar for a work meeting. I neither smoke nor drink. I have an unhealthy reaction to smoke. I don't care if those around me drink, but smoking is a problem.

Curiously I've found that when those around me drink they tend to lose their inhibitions more and more and appear to become less intelligent. :^/

Re:An ex-smoker and current e-cig user's thoughts

[No Longer an AC]

Curiously I've found that when those around me drink they tend to lose their inhibitions more and more and appear to become less intelligent. :^/

Well, I had been drinking when I wrote that comment so take it for what it's worth.

Re:An ex-smoker and current e-cig user's thoughts

[No Longer an AC]

Before the law stepped in and required it there was a growing market for non-smoking bars. Some were banning smoking even without the government telling them they had to.

I remember going to see a band at some venue in Houston at least 15 years ago and it was a non-smoking night. It was weird because some nights you could smoke, other nights you had to go outside.

I felt a bit foolish standing outside smoking all by myself watching the band play through the door while all my friends and everyone else was seated at their tables and enjoying the show without the need to get their fix (well, other than all the alcohol they were drinking). There were a few other smokers in the audience, but it was a cold night (for Houston) and nobody really wanted to stay outside too long.

And that wasn't the only bar to do it. Some bars completely banned smoking and even loudly proclaimed that they had done so. It may have only been a niche market, but it was there and growing.

Many non-smokers often complained that the worst thing about going to a bar is coming home smelling like smoke. A certain segment of the market was demanding non-smoking bars.

Has there ever been a smoking ban that's been repealed? I'd bet if you did that in many cities a lot of bars would say they still wouldn't let people smoke. The non-smokers who make up the vast majority of people wouldn't put up with it. There are young people today who go to bars, but have never been in a bar which allowed people to smoke.

Of course other bars would eagerly welcome the smokers but they are definitely a dwindling market.

Re:While heroin is illegal, this is the right thin

[Anonymous Coward]

And nicotene IS a drug.

So is caffeine. I hate the smell of coffee, it makes me want to regurgitate.

Re:“Can include” weasel term

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a very cautious man
Who never laughed or played
He never risked, he never tried,
He never sang or prayed.
And when he one day passed away,
His insurance was denied,
For since he never really lived,
They claimed he never died.

-unknown

GOOD

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally new York does something right. E-Cigarettes still emit and expose other non-smokers to nicotine.

Re:What about pot smoking?

[aristotle-dude]

The same people who want to ban this are trying to legalize smoking pot in cars and airplanes.

I hate pot heads.

Re: While heroin is illegal, this is the right thi

[NeoMorphy]

Instead of people taking much safer commercially manufactured opiates we have people dying left and right from illicitly manufactured fentanyl smuggled in from China.

There is no safe long term use of opiates. Using medical grade opiates is only delaying your death. It is causing you bodily harm as you continually use it. And as you continually use it, your tolerance and dependance on it increases, making it harder to quit. How is this supposed to work? Maybe we should have medical professionals administering higher and higher dosages of medicinal grade heroin to drug addicts until they decide to get help?

Didn't the increase of opioid prescriptions help increase the number of heroin addicts? And isn't prescription opioids killing more people than heroin?

Trying to forcibly manipulate human behavior through legislation at best doesn't work, and at worst has resulted in some of the greatest human rights violation of our time.

It worked to reduce the number of cigarette smokers. Increasing the price of cigarettes and reducing the number areas where you can smoke. When you create smoke-free environments(bars, workplace, restaurants) it makes it a lot easier to quit. Otherwise you're just one OPC away from starting again.

Why ban instead of regulate?

[baerd]

This is the thing that annoys me about political decisions like this. Why don't they just regulate this billion dollar industry so that vape manufacturers must prove their products are safe before getting the ability to sell them? This would actually make it safer for the users, reduce potential future health costs for the commons, and make it safer for people near them and no longer necessitating the ban. Seems reactive and stupid.

Can't Jeopardize the Tobacco Settlement

[Anonymous Coward]

While it certainly could be about nanny state stuff, I'd say the future payments according to formula are of more interest.

https://ericschneiderman.com/new-york-to-get-660m-in-tobacco-settlements/

Re: While heroin is illegal, this is the right thi

[K10W]

while I agree there is no safe use as such as all the strong opiates have long term damage associated with them I'd argue harm reduction maintenance programme if done right is better than punitive system and prohibition since we've proven with war on drugs it doesn't work. Portugal is not a perfect model but closer to working than here (UK) and most of Europe, USA and so on to dropping numbers of addicts, number of hep and HIV new transmissions because needle exchange etc can be run more efficiently and are not half supported half suppressed because it "encourages or condones". Fentanyl spiked gear is one of the worst because naloxone treatment is complicated in that case.

Naloxone is still an effective antagonist because fentanyl is pure mu opiod agonist where some opiods are complex because they act slightly different BUT it works scary fast and the effective treatment envolope is significantly smaller. You can get up to two hours window with heroin or morphine IV overdose depending upon dose of course. Problem is you'll no doubt know you titrate the dose and you have the time to safely (sort of) do that generally. With fentanyl it depresses the system so quickly, like other opiates it works on breathing centre in the brain stem as well as direct effects on lungs to some degree but it is MUCH faster rather than a slow depression curve to moment of cessation of breathing, also it seems more efficient than related compounds at that as has higher breathing depression efficiency it seems. Although I've had one close friend OD and a few develop heroin problems I've thankfully never seen it first hand nor had to administer reversal treatment. Because of this you have much less time to titrate and flooding someone with too much naloxone is just as bad as it'll just make them go into full blown seizures, cause cadiac problems and so on. Also it is so strong it is easy to massivelt overdose do you need multiple naloxone doses and in a tighter time frame thus most who drop out on it have higher chance of dying.

Interesting word choice (well, "words choice")

[eric_harris_76]

Um, "traditional tobacco cigarettes" is a long-winded way of saying "cigarettes".

Golly, I wonder why that term was chosen?