Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Can you sell alcohol indiscriminately in this theoretical bar...? Can you decide to sell it to 15 year olds?
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?
Learn to love Alaska
Because vaping, much like sneezing, is a normal bodily function.
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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
Learn to articulate your thoughts properly before puking them into the internet.
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
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.
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".
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Ok, and now for loud and obnoxious people, and how I don't hear them if I so please.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
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.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.