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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good.
An eCig may not have most of the crap (tar, etc.) a normal cig has but it still has nicotine, and I would rather not have to inhale the stuff if I can avoid it.
If you want to ingest a highly addictive and deadly drug fine by me. Just don't do it in an aerosol form around people who have chosen not to ingest the aforementioned drug.
Can you sell alcohol indiscriminately in this theoretical bar...? Can you decide to sell it to 15 year olds?
I don't care if you think it's safe, I don't want it. If you could do it without exhaling and all the second hand vape, people wouldn't mind. I don't want to know that today is your caramel day and yesterday was peppermint. You stench may be pleasing to you, but nobody else, and your figurative fist is touching my literal nose. Isn't that the libertarian line in the sand?
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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.
Learn to articulate your thoughts properly before puking them into the internet.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'"
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.