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.
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?
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.
so are they also banning combustion engines, perfumes, deodorants and the millions of other products and devices that emit aerosol based chemicals.
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.
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.
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.
Nor feet away from you in the park either. On the basis of a "can" — a statement as convincing as a Geico commercial...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
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.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Sounds like that would be public space, not your personal space.
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.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
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?
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
so are they also banning combustion engines, perfumes
Several cities ban "excessive" perfume in public buildings.
Many more regulate ICE emissions.
naturally they are going to ban batteries and gasoline next? To make sure their fumes are not inhaled through 2nd-hand exposure?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
As a former smoker, I don't care whatsoever if someone vapes around me, even if they're in my home.
Water vapors make your eyes watery? Should we outlaw boiling water in public for your convenience?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Should we all stop breathing in public, too? I assure you that what we all exhale is more toxic to you than water vapor.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
You're gonna urinate on a goat's beard?
Please post the video.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
My god man, stop giving them ideas.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
Goddamit, this will show those uppity Californians that New York IS STILL the least-free state in America!
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.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Can you sell alcohol indiscriminately in this theoretical bar...? Can you decide to sell it to 15 year olds?
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.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I want a ticket on that airline!
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?
Learn to love Alaska
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
So you can slap people in public spaces? After all, that's a non-damaging harm, like vaping.
Go the fuck back to reality.
Learn to love Alaska
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)
Because vaping, much like sneezing, is a normal bodily function.
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.
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.
"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.
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 $ACTIVITY involves!".
When we invent an engine that run's on religious self-rightesousness, you and people like you would be a net benefit to society. Right now all we get from you is to force your belief system onto the rest of us.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Car exhaust mmmm... people dont seem to consider this when chastising smokers about second hand smoke. Standing at a stop light quite often you have a few dozen exhaust pipes spewing their toxins directly at you...
[($)]
Learn to articulate your thoughts properly before puking them into the internet.
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.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm working on making fuel from idiotic apostrophes. There's an endless supply of them and they have no other use.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Soap, shampoo, tooth paste, breath mint, detergent, deodorant, cologne, car freshener ... The list of personally chosen smells goes on.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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.
"Will of the people" and "hysteria" are not mutually exclusive, though in that case it was well founded anyway.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Exactly, do whatever you like providing it doesn't impact upon others.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Home of the nanny
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
You mean the assault rifles they sell legally at gun shows have another use?
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
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.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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?
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
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
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!
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
I'm not buying it. This is an overreaction based on silly assumptions.
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.
Requiem for the American Dream
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.
Your argument might work better if the article wasn't an example of you being wrong.
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.
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.
Yes, I agree. Coworkers who ban strong perfumes are indeed assholes.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
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.
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.
Which is totally irrelevant.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
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.
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.
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.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Harassment is an extreme form of annoying and already illegal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.".
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
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.
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.
So outlaw cleaning agents as well?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
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.
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.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The write-up did.
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.
Oh, you got to be trolling, I get it. Very funny...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The same people who want to ban this are trying to legalize smoking pot in cars and airplanes.
I hate pot heads.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
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.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
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).
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
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.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
I wish I had a lawn.
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.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
well the current US President also thinks that way.
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.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
And dosing people with nicotine. Not to mention the byproducts overheated propylene glycol in some cases.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
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.
well, water vapor is partially composed of hydrogen.
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?
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
so you believer homeopathy works?
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.
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.)
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 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."
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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?
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.
Under the incorporation doctrine, most of the limits on federal power also apply to the states.
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.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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...
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
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.
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).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
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”.
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.
By the way, your views have a long history.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Um, "traditional tobacco cigarettes" is a long-winded way of saying "cigarettes".
Golly, I wonder why that term was chosen?
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Here you go:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Nazis were rabidly anti-smoking.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.)
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.
That merely requires enforcing that businesses don't release toxic fumes into the environment.
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.
Smoke filters are cheap and effective. Many businesses have them simply to improve air quality in general.
Your "argument" consists of a mix of lies, equivocations, and made-up facts.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
See, I think that approach to getting information explains why you are so confused.
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.
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.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
It's just amazing how you project your own faults onto others.
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.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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*
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska