Philly City Council Bans E-Cigarette Use in Public Spaces

[onehandle]

Source: Philadelphia Magazine

Were you an e-cigarette user who was happy you could vape in your favorite non-smoking bar? Right: I used past tense, because City Council unanimously voted to ban e-cigarette use in public spaces Thursday afternoon. E-Cigarettes will now be treated like plain old regular cigarettes — you can’t smoke them in public, and you can’t buy them if you’re under 18.

Read more: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/03/27/philly-city-council-bans-e-cigarette-use-public-spaces

---

I live here and breathe here.

Approved.

Bad writing, btw. Public = Offices, Restaurants, Bars, etc. Not on the street or in your vehicle/home. Just like regular nicotine delivery systems.

[pnwmom]

1. E-cigs are treated legally as a "tobacco product," since a manufacturer went to court

to force the FDA to do this, which allowed the manufacturer to avoid having to submit the necessary research studies for getting approval as a nicotine dispensing device, like gum or patches.

E-cig fans want to have it both ways, but that's not fair to everyone else. Until the manufacturers submit research to the FDA proving that their products don't pose significant risks to 2nd and 3rd hand users, they should be subject to the same bans as all the other tobacco/nicotine products that are designed to be released into the air.

[Treant]

6. Already Done

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18

I'll leave the research on the other studies I found to you.

[pnwmom]

7. Are you saying the required research has been submitted to the FDA?

Because that's what needs to be done. It isn't enough just to point to a published paper.

[Treant]

8. Er

I'm detecting you're...not really an expert on this topic or are alternately merely being intentionally obtuse. I can't tell which.

[pnwmom]

11. I'm not an expert, but I know that the answer is "no." The necessary studies have not yet

been submitted to or approved by the FDA. From the FDA website:

http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm172906.htm

E-cigarettes have not been fully studied so consumers currently don’t know:


the potential risks of e-cigarettes when used as intended,
how much nicotine or other potentially harmful chemicals are being inhaled during use, or
if there are any benefits associated with using these products.

Additionally, it is not known if e-cigarettes may lead young people to try other tobacco products, including conventional cigarettes, which are known to cause disease and lead to premature death.

[Treant]

17. I see.

Strangely, there are more studies available to the FDA on e-cigarettes than there are on the quitting products they're so fast to approve...including Chantix, now with a body count of greater than five hundred.

Of course, look at the percentage of board members with direct ties to pharmaceutical companies (including being sitting executives), and the reason why becomes pretty clear.

You won't excuse me for thinking something's awry there, but...well, neither your opinion nor mine matters.

[pnwmom]

23. What becomes pretty clear?

There are studies out there, but it isn't enough for them to be out there. It matters how the studies were conducted, and it matters that they get submitted IN AN APPLICATION to the FDA, so the FDA can evaluate if the studies prove what they are supposed to prove.

An e-cig manufacturer a few years ago went to court and got a ruling that the FDA was required to classify e-cigs as a tobacco product. The e-cig manufacturer wanted this so they could sell their product without having to submit the kind of safety data other nicotine dispensers had to submit (like gum and patches). None of the other e-cig manufacturers objected to the ruling because it allowed all of them to immediately sell their product -- as opposed to having to wait for years, conducting studies and getting FDA approval.

Now, what does the percentage of board members with ties to pharmaceutical companies have to do with e-cigs? I've heard people try to blame Big Tobacco before (although all three conglomerates have moved or are moving into the e-cig market), but never Big Pharma.

Are you saying that the rules on applying for a device approval were specially rewritten for e-cigs? They were not. E-cig manufacturers have to apply the same as everyone else -- they just have chosen not to (although I believe I read that one company has started to go through the process.)

[Tyhanna]

38. how many studies does it take to prove that there is no harm? n/t

[pnwmom]

39. Varying numbers, depending on how the studies were conducted

and what the results show. There can't be a one-size-fits-all answer to that question.

But the common denominator is that the e-cig manufacturer must submit them with an application to the FDA. That hasn't happened.

Imagine if they were trying to sell any other drug this way. Throwing tons of studies online, selling the drug to teens, declaring it's safe -- BUT not submitting an actual application and required studies to the FDA. Would you approve of that? Maybe we should just shut down the FDA then and let drug manufacturers sell anything they want. That's what the libertarians would say.

[Tyhanna]

42. really?

What application are you even talking about? You obviously have no understanding of this at all.

LOL Big pharma do what they want anyway. how many have died from Chantix the FDA approved drug for smoking cessation?

[Tyhanna]

44. where is the FDA approval for the drug Caffeine? n/t

[SirRevolutionary]

97. To anti's and hall monitors?

There's no amount of science that will prove it to their liking. They simply want it gone.

[Tyhanna]

37. again you still dont understand how it works

Nobody has to submit any thing to the FDA to prove anything. The FDA has already sent their deeming regulations to OMB, once they approve the FDA then they will be open for public comment, then the FDA will have X amount of time to make changes and resubmit it to the OMB for final approval. Where did you ever think anyone has to submit anything to them at any point. That is just not how it works.

You have ignored every link I have put up about second hand vapor and there is no such thing as third hand vapor at all.

[RobinA]

2. You Certainly Are

obsessed with this topic.

[pnwmom]

24. It would seem to me that nicotine addicts are the ones falling under this description. n/t

[Tyhanna]

46. how about caffeine addicts ?

Arnt they equally as passionate about their drug of choice?

[pnwmom]

51. I don't know anyone who fills vape pens with caffeine, do you? n/t

[beevul]

54. Some do in fact add caffeine to vapes.

Theres another "poison" for you to crusade against.

[Tyhanna]

56. no but...

"Vape Pens" are used for medical marijuana oils.

PVs or e-cigarettes are used for e-liquid.

You are skirting the issue, there are as many or more people addicted to caffeine because it works the same as nicotine in the brain. But caffeine is ok if its not FDA approved right...

[Demit]

61. Caffeine is an alkaloid same as nicotine. People fill cups with coffee & espresso

and chug down caffeinated energy drinks. Different delivery systems, that's all. Lol! I'd like to see you go to Miami and tell Miami office workers, who share coladas of cafe cubano every morning to get the day started, that their food truck coladas should be approved by the FDA before they "get off" (your phrase from another thread) on caffeine every morning.

[Tyhanna]

63. +1^^

[bitchkitty]

68. I've noticed that too.

Think maybe he works for Big Tobacco? LOL

[Hassin Bin Sober]

3. Good.

I was in a bar a couple weeks ago and some jackass was blowing his "vape" or whatever the fuck you call it at OUR table and over my shoulder. It was a pretty crowded bar restaurant and we were eating.

I wanted to start sneezing on the jerk but my boyfriend wouldn't let me. He asked the waitress and the waitress asked him to take it outside.

[beevul]

22. You wanted to fake sneezing on someone?

Just because you don't like what they're doing?

[pnwmom]

25. People don't fake sneeze. But many people with allergies are prone to sneezing

and have to make an effort to hold sneezes back.

Anyone forced to breathe in someone else's e-cig exhaust is being forced to breathe dirty air. Indoor smoking laws are supposed to protect us from that. It doesn't matter whether the carrier is vapor or not. Vapor is just as capable as smoke of delivering toxins -- nicotine and whatever else is in the vapor -- into the lungs.

[beevul]

27. Maybe you didn't read this part...

Maybe you didn't read this part, I'll add some emphasis for you so you don't miss it this time:

"I wanted to start sneezing on the jerk but my boyfriend wouldn't let me. "


This isn't about what "many people" might be imagined to do, its about what someone actually did.

Feel free to try again, if you really want to look silly.

(on edit: see that posters next post, and pulling a nose hair.)

"Anyone forced to breathe in someone else's e-cig exhaust is being forced to breathe dirty air. Indoor smoking laws are supposed to protect us from that. It doesn't matter whether the carrier is vapor or not. Vapor is just as capable as smoke of delivering toxins -- nicotine and whatever else is in the vapor -- into the lungs."

I have news for you, breathing someone elses exhaust, whether they be vaping, smoking, or just breathing, is being forced to breathe dirty air. Ever heard of a breathalyzer? It measures alcohol content in ones breath. Ever go to a bar? Guess what you're breathing - alcohol vapor - POISON.

We shouldn't be banning things based on "capability", but rather on actualities.


Of course, that leaves puritanical zealot types out in the cold - but hey, that's good enough for smokers, why not puritanical zealot types as well.

[HERVEPA]

29. You know, just tough crap. Cigarette smokers survived the banning. E-cig people will too.

[beevul]

30. In other words, ban it because "we don't like it".

Puritanical zealotry at its most obvious.

[HERVEPA]

33. Hmm. How did I know the gundgeon would be your favorite group before I even looked?

[beevul]

34. What does that have to do with e-cigs...

What does that have to do with e-cigs, or people that want to fake sneezing to shame someone else?


Do tell.

[HERVEPA]

35. Dislike of restrictive laws.

Told.
Here's where you tell us you are in favor of reasonable gun laws.

[beevul]

36. Nonsense.

Just like faking a sneeze to shame someone for doing something they don't like.

Do try to stay on topic.

[HERVEPA]

43. Do try not to determine for other people what is on topic.

[beevul]

47. Then do not try to change the subject. N/T

[HERVEPA]

48. Oh, just stuff it. No need to reply. Going on ignore.

[beevul]

49. I try to ignore it too...

I try to ignore it too, when I get my ass handed to me in an argument.

[musicblind]

98. Wow, that person really can't handle losing an argument.

Oooo, they put you on ignore! lol

[Tyhanna]

50. wow that is really the grown up way to handle a converstion hum...n/t

[cleanhippie]

53. IOW, you got slapped down for posting nonsense and are running away from it.

Classic DU!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

72. I told you it wouldn't be "fake"

If I pluck a nose hair it is 100% chance I will sneeze.

I figured the guy was spraying me so I would spray him back.

I mean, who the fuck blows a mouthful of that shit over someone's shoulder while they are eating? Would you do that? I assume he figured HIS table-mates wouldn't care for it so he decided to blow it our way. I saw it out of the corner of my eye twice and thought it was coming from the kitchen.

Btw, if he was continually sneezing on me without covering his mouth I would have the same reaction.

[beevul]

75. Well, theres the personification of honesty...

Last edited Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Well, theres the personification of honesty, maturity, fairness, and virtue:


"If I pluck a nose hair it is 100% chance I will sneeze."

Pluck a nose hair, and deliberately by plucking said nose hair, cause a "real" sneeze, which you'd then falsely attribute to someone that did not cause it, in order to stop someone from doing something you didn't like, simply because you didn't like it. I mean, you don't expect us to believe you were going to pull a nosehair, and say "Oh, I just pulled a nose hair, which caused me to sneeze, but please stop vaping, I don't like it".


I noticed through out this whole exchange, nothing more from you, in terms of objections, than the simple fact that you didn't approve of him vaping.

No asthma attack. No allergies. No physical reaction.

Just malicious intent.

"I mean, who the fuck blows a mouthful of that shit over someone's shoulder while they are eating?"

Someone who has read the clean air studies and knows its not harmful to others.

"Would you do that?"

From your not so clinical description of the events, I assume a certain amount of hyperbole there, and a certain amount of imbellishment, since you're obviously have a chip on your shoulder where tobacco related issues are concerned. I consider falsly attributing a sneeze, or intent to, as all the evidence necessary to make that judgement, and I guarantee you I'm far from alone in that.

"Btw, if he was continually sneezing on me without covering his mouth I would have the same reaction."

Yeah, because sneezing, and simple exhaling are the exact same things.


Sometimes I really have to wonder if I woke up in bizarro world.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

76. You should write your dissertation on it LOL

[beevul]

77. Yeah, I'll call it "The politics of Zealotry and its interference with sane public policy" N/T

[pnwmom]

31. As I said, if someone is having to work at holding sneezes back, it's simple just to let go.

The FDA doesn't approve nicotine dispensers based on the fantasies of the users, and the marketing claims of the sellers, but based on a review of the required safety data submitted WITH AN APPLICATION to the FDA. They're still waiting.

[beevul]

32. And as you ignored...

"but my boyfriend wouldn't let me".


That's not "having to work at holding sneezes back", that's a flat out admission that he/she wanted to shame the guy for no genuine tangible reason, other than he/she didn't like what that person was doing.

The rest of what you wrote is just a desperate attempt to steer away from this obvious truth.

[Tyhanna]

45. they will be deeming it as a tobacco product...

really you need to study up on all this again.
There are 3 categories for nicotine Drug, tobacco and pesticide.

E-cigs will fall under the tobacco, along with other smokeless tobaccos.

Nothing NEEDS to be submitted to FDA, the regulations are already in the system, how many times must you be told?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. No. I was going to pluck a nose hair.

It would have been a real sneeze, I assure you.

[beevul]

28. Because you didn't like what he was doing...

Because you didn't like what he was doing, not because you can say it was genuinely tangibly effecting you in any way that you can articulate.

Or you'd have articulated it already to justify your bad behavior.

[Tyhanna]

40. really fake a sneeze to prove a point? That is pretty over the top.

Its pretty over the top since vapor only last in the air 11 seconds and probably didn't even make it to your table.

How much perfume do you ware? Im very allergic to perfume and gives me a violent headache when I smell it does that give me the right to sneeze all over you because I don't like it? Does that give me the right to have you removed?

I guess since there were no laws against him vaping in that restaurant than he was with in his rights to sit there until the restaurant told him different.

Just because you don't understand or like something doesn't mean you have any more rights than the next person. But in thinking you do is a zealot type thinking.

[JackRiddler]

4. If they would at least ban internal combustion...

[RobinA]

5. Philadelphia

would collapse due to lack of parking ticket proceeds.

[Egnever]

9. As a vaper I find this silly

but I have no problem with it.

[Demit]

10. Love the story of the guy who testified: "You have no hope of enforcing this bill"

"Gregory Conley, a research fellow at The Heartland Institute, used his e-cigarette while testifying in Council Thursday. No vapor could be seen. “Now, did I just use my electronic cigarette?” he asked. “You have no hope of enforcing this bill, so you’re just passing something for the sake of passing it.”

[greyl]

12. "No vapor could be seen"? lol No juice, bad attie, or crap product.

edit: Actually, the intro to the quote threw me off. Maybe the guy's point was that he did not "use it", but only went through the motions. That would make it a lame point, imo.

[jayfish]

13. Or...

he practiced what is known as "Stealth Vaping". I have a couple of instruments that will cloud up a room pretty quickly when desired. But, I can just as easily hold off on the exhale for a few seconds or perform a second inhale an little to no vapor is exhaled. It doesn't matter what equipment is being used or what juice is being vaporized.

[greyl]

69. Well, if you insist on saying things that are true,

you're right!

[Demit]

14. I exhale very little vapor with my eGo.

And it dissipates quickly. Maybe that's my technique, short puffs, I don't know. All I know is, when I see photos of people exhaling it looks exaggerated for effect. My experience is that it's like the steam from my tea kettle, after the water has boiled & I've turned the burner off.

[greyl]

70. Yes, good point, plus if you held it in longer than normal, there'd be none.

Those big clouds of vapor can't be had without inhaling much longer than one typically would when smoking a cigarette

[RobinA]

15. True This

I didn't even know that smoking in public parks was banned in Philadelphia. My friend and I sat in Rittenhouse Square two weekends ago and enjoyed an apres dinner cigarette. The real kind. We were by no means alone. The only person who approached us was a homeless man wanting to bum a cig. And yes, we put our butts in the trash can. Unlike a couple hundred other people, it would seem.

[Demit]

16. What might happen is people will see how innocuous vaping is, how unlike smoking it is.

I never tried those things that are supposed to look like tobacco cigarettes, I went straight to the battery/refillable cartridge setup. I don't puff from it repeatedly. I take one puff & put it down. In the time it sits there until I want another puff, a tobacco cigarette would have long burned down.

I guarantee that if I am sitting in a public place and take a puff, by the time someone sees me, realizes what the contraption is, and alerts the authorities, lol, I have put it back in my pocket and there is no evidence that I have done anything. You & I know this, of course, and soon more people will.

This ban is very silly and I suspect it is meant in part to appease Philadelphia's revered corporate citizen, maker of various expensive nicotine replacement products, GlaxoSmithKline.

[Treant]

18. Never happen

It looks like smoking, therefore it must be smoking. QED. Although they do get a little annoyed when you tell them to get their smoking cup of coffee away from you, it's unfair that they make you breathe the smoke coming off it.

Besides, that looks the same as Irish coffee, and won't somebody think of the children?



It's interesting to note that GlaxoSmithKline, makers of the great drug Chantix (body count of 500 and rising), is not doing well this quarter. This is partially because of Chantix, which people are understandably worried about.

[RobinA]

19. I Tend to Agree

re: it'll never happen. It's a power trip that smoker-haters have been winning for awhile now. Banning cigs in restuarants was one thing. Banning them outdoors and in bars is quite another and was a successful exercise of and extension of power.

E-cigs shift the equation, giving some power back to smokers/vapers. Seeing this as a threat, anti-smokers have to grab it back by banning e-cigs in all the same places as they previously won with cigarettes, etc. As long as the current moralistic tone around everything continues, e-cigs will be banned everywhere there are other people.

I'd like to see smoking clubs become more prevalent. Or vape clubs. I was in a smoking club in Philadlephia once and it was damn fun, if smoky. Lounging in comfortable chairs smoking without worrying about what some Puritan was thinking... I thought I was back in the '70's, before enjoying things became a crime.

[Eleanors38]

78. Good summation of the new prohibition; we're addicted to the stuff...

This has been showing for years, thinly clothed in the veil of second-hand smoke. Now, the e-cigs have pulled the curtain back, and we see the Prohibition-Controller Establishment in its full flower: It was ALWAYS about people putting "repulsive things in their mouths," and the need for a full-time, easily-found enemy who can be casually punished and humiliated for the "moral" satisfaction of others.

We are addicted to prohibition, and it festers within so many social policy initiatives, but what does this matter when compared with the barely-contained glee in the prospect of inflicting punishment, and the gut-felt need to be righteous when doing it. We have been vulgar Puritans too long to deny our religious passions.

[Mariana]

85. The problem they'll have with e-cigs

is that it's so incredibly easy to stealth vape. You don't even really have to hide what you're doing - just have a rig that doesn't resemble a cigarette (no cute glowing LED's), hold it differently than a smoker holds a cigarette, and don't blow visible clouds of vapor around. Do those things and no one pays any attention, even when you vape right out in the open.

[beevul]

92. Yup, thats going to be a future phase of the moral panic,

I can just see it now...


"Ban juices and juice/rig combos that make too much vapor because we don't like it".

and

"Ban juices and juice/rig combos that make too little vapor because we can't tell you're doing it".

Theres no question they're going to play both sides of that at some point.

Goldilocks is going to be busy.

[Demit]

20. It's also interesting how many states have reported a decline in cigarette tax revenue.

Including our very own state of Pennsylvania. Fewer people smoking, they got what they wished for! Oh wait.

No, I do think the more people see for themselves what vaping actually looks like, and how they can't smell acrid smoke, or stinky people, they will relax. Maybe they'll even start reporting their firsthand observations to the uptight people who comment endlessly online about But look how it's MARKETED! They CALL them e-cigarettes, that's SIGNIFICANT!! Or, my favorite: Vapor residue will accumulate on furniture and we must protect CRAWLING BABIES!!!

[Exultant Democracy]

21. But won't someone think of the children!

[Demit]

58. Esp. those teenaged children who will switch from vaping inexpensive odorless vapor

to smoking expensive smelly cigarettes because argle bargle bargle they never explain why!!

[Tyhanna]

41. There really isnt anyway to enforce this law. A person can vape and nobody will ever even know.n/t

[Mariana]

57. They'll drive themselves crazy trying to catch vapers in the act, though.

Can you imagine it? I envision scenes like the following: They see a wisp of vapor two tables over and rise up in a righteous rage, ready to take on an evil e-cig user for God and country - and then they see that the vapor's coming from a hot cup of coffee. Oops. It's going to play hell on their blood pressure.

[Tyhanna]

59. steam coming off the food LOL your under arrest for having vaping food....

oh I can see it now. There is going to be those that are very hyper sensitive to any vapor now. Ban the vapor!

[Mariana]

60. Only cold food may be eaten in public places

and coffee must be lukewarm, so no one can use their steaming food or drink to cover their vaping. We'll smoke them out yet! (Pun definitely intended.)

[Eleanors38]

79. But that law won't cover a gaseous Labrador on a cold day.

[Agnosticsherbet]

52. Good.

This makes the air a bit better to breath.

[cleanhippie]

55. In what way does it do that?

You do realize that the "smoke" from a vape pen is water vapor, right?

[Agnosticsherbet]

64. People inhale and then exhale, and exhaling adds some residue to the air.

[beevul]

65. Right, thats how they test for alcohol in the bloodstream on the roadside.

Alcohol being a poison and all, you hold your breath at the bar or around drinkers, right?

[Agnosticsherbet]

66. People who don't drink and don't go in bars.

Last edited Sat Mar 29, 2014, 02:15 AM - Edit history (1)

People who don't smoke cigarettes or use ecigarettes should not be exposed to people who do in public places such as restaurants.

You want to use them, go for it. Just don't do it around people who choose not to.

[beevul]

67. Why not?

"I don't like or approve of what you're doing" isn't good enough.

Until and unless you can show genuine significant harm from second hand vapor, that's just not good enough.

[Agnosticsherbet]

80. It isn't I don't like or approve. It is I don't want to breath the shit you choose to inhaile.

Pollute the air of your own home, not public spaces used by people don't want it.

[beevul]

83. I don't want to breath your aftershave, or deodorant either...

I don't want to breath your aftershave, or deodorant either, or breath your cars exhaust, or breath your barbecue, or breath the fabric softner you use in your laundry, or breath your alcoholic breath you exhale, or breathe the air from you burning wood in your fireplace, and on, and on, and on...

Prove that people who vape "pollute" to a degree meriting rules against it in public - more specifically, pollute MORE than any of those things.

If you can't, then suffer it along with the other potential "I don't like it" things people are expected to tolerate in day to day life like everyone else does.

The world and the people in it do not exist to be bent to the irrational whims of people like you.

[Agnosticsherbet]

86. Did you know that nicotine is used as a Pesticide?

http://customers.hbci.com/~wenonah/hydro/pestcont.htm

No, we are talking about common courtesy. I don't have to tolerate the use of a Pesticide in public spaces any more than I have to tolerate fracking or fluids pumped into wells or coal ash dumped into waterways. I don't have tolerate pollution of the air or water. I will fight for its removal from public spaces as I did cigarettes in California.

[beevul]

89. At very dangerous levels of purity. You say that like it signifies something.

It doesn't.

Did you know alcohol is a poison? Yet people drink LARGE quantities of it.

So what.

"No, we are talking about common courtesy."

No you aren't. If you were talking about common courtesy, you and people like you wouldn't try to adjust public policy against vaping without evidence to back it up. If you were talking common courtesy, you and people that believe as you do, would be as willing to give some as you are to demand it. And you clearly aren't.

" I don't have to tolerate the use of a Pesticide in public spaces any more than I have to tolerate fracking or fluids pumped into wells or coal ash dumped into waterways."

The factor that makes it pesticide, is the purity and dosage, not the substance itself. Its on YOU to establish that what vapers exhale merits public policy restrictions. If it doesn't effect you one way or the other, except to offend your delicate sensibilities, I have ZERO sympathy for you or your position.

I don't have to tolerate your puritanical zealotry polluting my life.

"I don't have tolerate pollution of the air or water."

Did someone say you did? Clean air studies prove without a doubt, that vapes don't "pollute" as you believe they do. That just leaves "I don't like it" as the only leg you have to stand on.

"I will fight for its removal from public spaces as I did cigarettes in California."

Because you don't like it. Because you don't approve of it. Because Bias.

Without proof that vapes "pollute" like you believe they do, bias is ALL there is.

The genie is out of the bottle. Pack a lunch.

[Agnosticsherbet]

90. Insisting on using vapes around those who do not want is a complete failure of common courtesy.

and decency. For most of my life, Tobacco companies perpetuated the lie that cigarettes were good for you, that they won't hurt you. The same companies that perpetrated one of the biggest lies in modern corporate American history for profit are the same people profiting from vapers. That public record requires an enormous amount of proof in order for there to be even the smallest confidence that it is not just another lie for profit.

[beevul]

91. No, common courtesy is not to ask people to change their behavior without a tangible reason.

No, common courtesy is not to ask or expect people to change their behavior without a tangible reason.

"For most of my life, Tobacco companies perpetuated the lie that cigarettes were good for you, that they won't hurt you."

That's nice bunky, but we aren't talking about tobacco or tobacco companies. We are talking about vapor. Nothing more, nothing less.

"The same companies that perpetrated one of the biggest lies in modern corporate American history for profit are the same people profiting from vapers."

You've been drinking the glantz flavored kool aid I see. Big tobacco, ONLY has its fingers into the cig looking devices, which as I've informed people til they're blue in the face, are crappy devices, transitional at best. Only newbie vapers use cig-alikes for the most part. Only newbie vapers buy them for the most part. And only newbie vapers contribute to big tobacco through either means, essentially.

You have no idea just how wrong you are, or you wouldn't have said something so at odds with reality.

" That public record requires an enormous amount of proof in order for there to be even the smallest confidence that it is not just another lie for profit."

One has to be interested in such proof, and somehow I doubt you are. You are regurgitating falsehoods, and proceeding from false misconceptions which benefit ONLY big tobacco.

Like I said to another poster:

Anything less than science that shows a need for public policy changes, is just public policy based on bias, in search of a problem.

[cleanhippie]

95. In this entire exchange, you have yet to provide a single rational reason to ban vape pens in public

Not a single one. You have equivocated, appealed to fear, and appealed to ignorance, but have not given a single rational reason why they should be banned.

[musicblind]

99. Yeah I was about to point out the massive amount of logical fallacies in there.

I don't smoke or use e-cigs, but from an outsiders point of view... the anti-e-cig crowd are making themselves look like fools in this thread.

[cleanhippie]

101. Not just fools, but wilfully ignorant fools.

The worst kind.

[ScreamingMeemie]

73. I drink Pepsi at the bar...

So...????????

[Agnosticsherbet]

81. Should have been an "and" between "drink" and "go to bars"

But unless you swallow Pepsi and the vomit it up and down the throats of others who are unwilling to participate in a reenactment of a mother bird feeding a chick, that isn't a problem.

[musicblind]

100. Ah, but Pepsi has caffeine in it, and when you exhale you are exhaling vapors of a drug.

We should definitely ban all soda drinking in public spaces.

[Mariana]

82. People who drink go to all sorts of public places, though

and they drink in them. They don't confine their drinking to bars. They drink in restaurants, at sporting events, at concerts, etc. Or they drink before they arrive, which isn't really any different since they're still exhaling it all over the place.

[Agnosticsherbet]

84. Nicotine is used as Pesticide.

http://customers.hbci.com/~wenonah/hydro/pestcont.htm

I have no problem if people wish to inhale a Pesticide to get that Nicotine buzz, as long as it is not in a place where people who have no desire to breathe in pesticides congregate.

I feel the same way about people who decide that dumping coal ash in a river that other people drink jus to make a buck, or people who pump fracking fluids into earth and pollute the water of people who use it just to make a buck.

The issue is the same.

People who want to use ecigarettes have a right to pump their lungs as full as they want. They do not have the right to use it around anyone else that does not want that. Refraining from using them around others is common courtesy.

[Mariana]

87. Oh, I agree with you.

I think it's reasonable to expect vapers to use zero-nicotine fluid in public places.

I had to answer the point about drinkers because it's relevant to me in particular. A couple of years ago I developed an allergy to alcoholic beverages. If I ingest the slightest bit I break out in nasty hives. I honestly worry that I may have an allergic reaction to some drinker's booze breath. I try my best to stay away from people who've been drinking, but there are so many of them and they're everywhere.

[Agnosticsherbet]

88. I try to follow a rule of common courtesy.

I never smoked and do not drank anymore. I do have bad habits, but I will refrain from practicing them around anyone that objects. I haven't been in a bar since I retired from the Navy, though I have been at parties in restaurants and private homes where "it rained drink" (To quote the Lord of Rings.)

[Demit]

93. And Warfarin is rat poison. At smaller doses it is the prescribed blood thinner, Coumadin.

I suggest you retire that as an argument.

[cleanhippie]

96. Whice has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[whistler162]

94. OKAY!!!!!

Sense not make much that!

[Tyhanna]

71. a persons normal breath has many chemicals in it naturally

http://ecigarettereviewed.com/contaminants-in-e-cig-vapor-found-in-human-breath-and-outdoor-air

[Hosnon]

62. Ridiculous. Might as well ban breathing and sneezing.

Or air. There's dihydrogen monoxide in the air literally EVERYWHERE.

[ScreamingMeemie]

74. This just in...people are car-driving assholes. nt