Should electronic cigarettes be covered under smoking bans? (cities, thoughts, differences)

[rso092]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Where do you get that it's about control?

I posted in this very thread a quote from the LA City Health Commissioner admitting e-cig bans are about extending the control they've got over regular cigarettes to people who use e-cigs.

You refusing to accept that fact doesn't make it go away.

[Zelva]

Originally Posted by rso092

I posted in this very thread a quote from the LA City Health Commissioner admitting e-cig bans are about extending the control they've got over regular cigarettes to people who use e-cigs.

You refusing to accept that fact doesn't make it go away.

They have to "LOOK BUSY" - it's all about funding. (Oh, for those in Rio Linda, funding = money! )

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by MattCW

The problem is, leaving ecigs alone for now, just leaves the Pandora's box open. There are already news stories from legitimate news agencies about marijuana oil being used in ecigs for a quicker high. Do we really want people to disguise an intoxicating device like that? Or do we really want to wait until the use of chemicals more dangerous than propylene glycol begin being used? I don't care what chemicals you breathe in your own house, but I do not want them in my airspace.

"Your" airspace ends at the threshold of your front door...

Beyond that, it is no longer your airspace that you have a right to control.... That's the problem with you people. If I am sitting in a park on a bench smoking a cigarette, and you are sitting on a bench at the other end of the park, and you get up, walk over, and sit next to me, you think that is "your" airspace and that I should somehow be obligated to move or snuff my cig out. Who exactly, do you anti-smokers think you are?

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by melizza

I've tried the disposable ones you get in the gas
station and I didn't enjoy them. Too 'chemically' and they dry the throat. My
husband and I got the higher end ones with refillable oil and I was able to quit
after just a couple days. It's great! I can understand not wanting it indoors,
anti-smokers would be having coronaries left and right from the
attack on their sensibilities.

Assuming this statement would even hold up to scientific scrutiny, shouldn't NON-smokers { not "anti"-smokers, and yes there is a difference} take responsibility for their own health and well being and make the adult decision to not go to indoor venues that allow e-cigs if it bothers them so much?

Considering the fact that we can all choose to either enter or not enter bars, diners, bowling allies, I for one can NOT understand wanting to infringe on property rights and ban the use of e-cigs in indoor venues.

However, it seems to be over-kill to ban them in parks and on the
beach! The whole argument for no smoking on the beach is the butts.

What the seriously ironic thing is, you can take a midnight stroll on the beach any given night and constantly have to step on firework debris. You can't throw your cig butts on the beach, but cardboard and other leftovers from fireworks are perfectly acceptable.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by MattCW

What happens if we ignore that fear? We could cause a lot
of health problems for a lot of innocent people. What happens if we don't? We
make a few people wait five extra minutes to go satisfy their addiction. Now in
the grand scheme of things, what is option that serves the greater public good?
No one NEEDS to smoke an ecig.

I am not concerned with "the greater public good", I am concerned with respecting the property rights of business owners in the private sector. I support their right to be able to appeal to a broad demographic of clientele that includes e-cig smokers. I support a free market where each individual consumer has the ability to choose to either patronize or not patronize a business based on their unique interests. I support having a large variety of businesses to choose from that cater to all different kinds of people.

Your argument doesn't hold up anyway, because the vapor from e-cigs doesn't affect anyone who hasn't willingly chosen to be around it, and therefore, it is no danger to "the greater public good"

"BUT! BUT! CARS CAUSE HEALTH PROBLEMS!" I don't deny that, I hate exhaust and
wish cars were 0 pollution too.

Nice attempt at a diversion. That isn't what he asked you. He didn't ask you about emissions. YOU claim that we should ban the public use of e-cigs due to your irrational fear that someone may put dangerous chemicals in them that aren't supposed to be used in them, despite the fact that there is no discernible reason for anyone to do this, you maintain that it is a possibility and they should be banned in public because of it.

Using your logic, one could certainly make the case that we should ban all cars because theoretically, someone could decide to run someone down. They may not, but they could, it's a possibility, so all cars should be banned, right? Answer carefully.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Where do you get that it's about control?

The members of the City Councils in LA and NY that have enacted legislation banning public use of e-cigs have admitted that it is about control and social engineering, that's where. They have said that they don't want to risk undoing the stigma they've worked so hard to place on smokers and smoking in general by allowing e-cigs to "re normalize" the act in public.

It is about control, and nothing more. It certainly isn't about health. The science isn't even in yet on the risks of e-cigs to their direct users, let alone passerby.

I'm sorry that I don't want to breath someone else's secondhand smoke or
secondhand who knows what, but my health is worth making someone take an extra 5
steps to go outside!

Didn't you just ask "how this is about control" in the sentence above? And now you're talking about "making someone go outside"? Maybe you need to look up the definition of control because that is the very essence of it.

Also, you just said your health is worth making someone go outside to smoke or vape, but wouldn't you also agree that your health is worth making the responsible choice not to enter a business that allows people to use e-cigs? You don't like it, just stay out. That way, businesses that want to cater to people who use e-cigs can freely do so, and the businesses that want to cater to the people who don't use them and don't want to be around them can also freely do so. That is what is equal and fair. Instead, you want to force everyone to conform to the way you want to live. You want the government to force all businesses to ban e-cigs just in case you decide to grace them with your presence, even though you probably never will, right?

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by rso092

I posted in this very thread a quote from the LA City Health Commissioner admitting e-cig bans are about extending the control they've got over regular cigarettes to people who use e-cigs.

You refusing to accept that fact doesn't make it go away.

So if a new car comes out, we shouldn't extend the existing laws to that? That's what you're implying by insisting that we don't "control" ecigs.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

"Your" airspace ends at the threshold of your front door...

Wrong, my airspace is the air I'm breathing, that's why cigarette smoking is controlled in the first place, and you know that!

Beyond that, it is no longer your airspace that you have a right to control.... That's the problem with you people. If I am sitting in a park on a bench smoking a cigarette, and you are sitting on a bench at the other end of the park, and you get up, walk over, and sit next to me, you think that is "your" airspace and that I should somehow be obligated to move or snuff my cig out. Who exactly, do you anti-smokers think you are?

So in essence, you're creating an exclusion zone that means that non-smokers can't enjoy the same things you can. By your own logic, a bunch of smokers could shut a park down to non-smokers. What's next? Saying that the granny doing 20mph on the 65mph freeway has the right to do that and so does every other granny?

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

Assuming this statement would even hold up to scientific scrutiny, shouldn't NON-smokers { not "anti"-smokers, and yes there is a difference} take responsibility for their own health and well being and make the adult decision to not go to indoor venues that allow e-cigs if it bothers them so much?

That's not how it works. Your nasty habit doesn't get to exclude people from places they otherwise have the right to go.

Considering the fact that we can all choose to either enter or not enter bars, diners, bowling allies, I for one can NOT understand wanting to infringe on property rights and ban the use of e-cigs in indoor venues.

In other words, you want to be able to light up anywhere, and non-smokers are just out of luck. Why should we be forced to choose between our health or our enjoyment just because you want to destroy your own health?

What the seriously ironic thing is, you can take a midnight stroll on the beach any given night and constantly have to step on firework debris. You can't throw your cig butts on the beach, but cardboard and other leftovers from fireworks are perfectly acceptable.

Most beaches also have anti-littering laws, it's just a lot hard to catch that because the evidence is left after the fact. It takes a split second for someone to drop a piece of trash, but how long does a cigarette last? 5 minutes? 10? More than 30 seconds, I know that much.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

I am not concerned with "the greater public good", I am concerned with respecting the property rights of business owners in the private sector. I support their right to be able to appeal to a broad demographic of clientele that includes e-cig smokers. I support a free market where each individual consumer has the ability to choose to either patronize or not patronize a business based on their unique interests. I support having a large variety of businesses to choose from that cater to all different kinds of people.

A "free market" is what got us into the economic mess of the late 2000s. A "free market" is inherently selfish and provides everything to those on top while ignoring those on the bottom.

Your argument doesn't hold up anyway, because the vapor from e-cigs doesn't affect anyone who hasn't willingly chosen to be around it, and therefore, it is no danger to "the greater public good"

So I'm on a bus, and someone boards with an ecig, and somehow I've chosen to be around it? I don't think so. Fortunately, the people that actually have power aren't so silly as to effectively force non-smokers to stay locked up in their homes. You blather on and on about control, but what you're proposing is far more control over other people.

Nice attempt at a diversion. That isn't what he asked you. He didn't ask you about emissions. YOU claim that we should ban the public use of e-cigs due to your irrational fear that someone may put dangerous chemicals in them that aren't supposed to be used in them, despite the fact that there is no discernible reason for anyone to do this, you maintain that it is a possibility and they should be banned in public because of it.

Nice attempt at dodging the issue altogether. I simply headed off that argument before it was brought up as you did below. I see you're resorting to the usual "I've already lost and I know it" strategy of attacking the person and refusing to follow logic.

Using your logic, one could certainly make the case that we should ban all cars because theoretically, someone could decide to run someone down. They may not, but they could, it's a possibility, so all cars should be banned, right? Answer carefully.

Nope, because the positive externalities of keeping cars around outweigh the potential negative externalities of banning them. That is not the case with ecigs. What positive externalities do they have? That their users won't have to take a few extra steps?

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

The members of the City Councils in LA and NY that have enacted legislation banning public use of e-cigs have admitted that it is about control and social engineering, that's where. They have said that they don't want to risk undoing the stigma they've worked so hard to place on smokers and smoking in general by allowing e-cigs to "re normalize" the act in public.

Does it matter what the reason is? Aren't laws against murder about "controlling" people and "undoing the stigma?" No? Well you can't have it both ways.

It is about control, and nothing more. It certainly isn't about health. The science isn't even in yet on the risks of e-cigs to their direct users, let alone passerby.

The science wasn't in on radiation causing problems until the early-mid 20th century. Does that mean it wouldn't have been wise to take the precaution of banning such things as radium toothpaste? Those x-ray shoe-size devices?

Didn't you just ask "how this is about control" in the sentence above? And now you're talking about "making someone go outside"? Maybe you need to look up the definition of control because that is the very essence of it.

And you need to understand what the "control" is about. EVERY law is about "control" in some fashion. Should we repeal all of them because they are about "control?" You keep harping on this, but you make less and less sense with each post.

Also, you just said your health is worth making someone go outside to smoke or vape, but wouldn't you also agree that your health is worth making the responsible choice not to enter a business that allows people to use e-cigs? You don't like it, just stay out.

So in your utopian world where every business is clogged to the hilt with smoke or ecig vapor, I should just stay locked up in my house? Right, I think you're just trolling for the giggles, that or you're a 13 year old kid that has gotten a hold of "the things the cool kids are using" and don't want those mean old adults telling you you can't smoke.
[/quote]
That way, businesses that want to cater to people who use e-cigs can freely do so, and the businesses that want to cater to the people who don't use them and don't want to be around them can also freely do so. That is what is equal and fair. Instead, you want to force everyone to conform to the way you want to live. You want the government to force all businesses to ban e-cigs just in case you decide to grace them with your presence, even though you probably never will, right?[/quote]
Wrong, and you know it.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by MattCW

So if a new car comes out, we shouldn't extend the
existing laws to that? That's what you're implying by insisting that we don't
"control" ecigs.

If the new car that comes out is not a car at all, then no, existing law for traditional cars should not apply to them. That is the case with e-cigs. They are not traditional cigarettes, so they should not just be lumped in with tobacco cigarettes.

Wrong, my airspace is the air I'm breathing, that's why cigarette smoking is
controlled in the first place, and you know that!

Wrong, your airspace in in your home and on your property. Beyond that, you do not own the airspace and have no right to control it. You do however, have every right to avoid it if you don't like what s in it.

So in essence, you're creating an exclusion zone that means that
non-smokers can't enjoy the same things you can.

Actually, not at all. You'll note that unlike yourself, I am not demanding that every business conform to my way of thinking and be forced to allow people to use e-cigs. I am merely advocating that each business owner have a choice whether to allow them or not. If a business wants to ban e-cigs, I have no problem at all with that because that is their choice. You'll also note that I never said non-smokers and non-ecig users should be forced to stay out of businesses that allow them. You are more then welcome to patronize a business that allows e-cigs if you wish, therefore you are not being "excluded" from anything. If you choose not to patronize said business because you are worried about the effects to your health, then that is your choice.

That's not how it works. Your nasty habit doesn't get to exclude people from
places they otherwise have the right to go.

See right there is where you keep making your mistake..... You do not have a legal "right" to go in to any private business. The business is the private property of the owner, no different than his home, and you are merely invited to come in if you like. In more simple terms, you are allowed to be there because the owner is allowing you to be there. You do not however, have any legal right to be there. A business is not public property.

Also, allowing people to use e-cigs in a business does not exclude non-smokers from patronizing that business. You are still welcome to patronize said business if you like.

In other words, you want to be able to light up anywhere, and non-smokers are
just out of luck.

For the millionth time, NO. I do not think I have a right to light up anywhere I go, just as you do not have the right to smoke free air wherever you go. If a business owner says no smoking or no vaping, than that is there choice and they have every right to make that choice.

Why should we be forced to choose between our health or our enjoyment
just because you want to destroy your own health?

Because that is how life works, my friend. I enjoyed eating cheesebugers from a fast food joint every day after work, but I was also worried about how those indulgences may effect my health, so I had to give up the enjoyment of eating them in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Life isn't fair, get over it.

Most beaches also have anti-littering laws, it's just a lot hard to catch that
because the evidence is left after the fact. It takes a split second for someone
to drop a piece of trash, but how long does a cigarette last? 5 minutes? 10?
More than 30 seconds, I know that much.

Banning cigarettes on beaches is just all part of the effort to place a stigma on the part of society that smokes.... nothing more, nothing less. Has nothing to do with health or littering.

So I'm on a bus

Stop right there. I've said many times that when we are talking about public transit, which is funded with tax dollars, that the people have every right to enact anti-smoking legislation through the democratic process. The same is true of places like post offices, federal buildings, etc. See, the difference is you actually do have a legal right to be in those places, unlike private businesses.

Nice attempt at dodging the issue altogether. I simply headed off that argument
before it was brought up as you did below

Right. You can't address that argument because if you do, you would have to either admit that all cars should be banned due to the fact that it is possible that someone could run someone down, or you would have to admit that we should not ban things based only on irrational fears that someone may misuse them. You painted yourself in to a corner with that one and it was a no win situation for you. It's no surprise that you "headed off" that argument and refused to answer his question.

Does it matter what the reason is? Aren't laws against murder about
"controlling" people and "undoing the stigma?"

Actually no, they aren't. Laws against murder are meant to establish a baseline for punishment.

The science wasn't in on radiation causing problems until the early-mid 20th
century. Does that mean it wouldn't have been wise to take the precaution of
banning such things as radium toothpaste? Those x-ray shoe-size devices?

When we start banning things based on irrational and unproven fears, we may as well go back to the dark ages where people believed sickness was caused by invisible demons.

And you need to understand what the "control" is about. EVERY law is about
"control" in some fashion. Should we repeal all of them because they are about
"control?" You keep harping on this, but you make less and less sense with each
post.

Actually laws are not meant to control anyone. Using your murder analogy from before, laws against murder are not meant to prevent murder, they are meant to establish a baseline for punishment.

So in your utopian world where every business is clogged to the hilt with smoke
or ecig vapor, I should just stay locked up in my house?

For the third time, having every business clogged with smoke is not my goal. As I've said several times already, if an owner wants to ban smoking or vaping in a business, that should be their choice, just as allowing it should also be their choice. Unlike you, I am not interested in forcing my views on every business owner, rather I am advocating they have the freedom to wither allow it or disallow it. Anti-smokers are some of the most selfish and entitled people to ever roam the Earth, so it's no surprise that you are having trouble understanding the fact that I am not trying to force my views on everyone, like you are.

To answer your question though, if every bar in your area allows e-cigs and you don't want to be around it? Then yes, perhaps you should stay locked up in your home. That, or take the risk and go out anyway. That's the beauty of a free market, we all have a choice as consumers.

Right, I think you're just trolling for the giggles, that or you're a 13
year old kid that has gotten a hold of "the things the cool kids are using" and
don't want those mean old adults telling you you can't smoke.

LOL,, You're hilarious. Nice attempt at discrediting my argument without actually addressing it.

[EllenMarie215]

Should electronic cigarettes be covered under smoking bans?

I don't see any reason why they should be covered, since they don't burn, they contain no tobacco, no carbon monoxide, are completely odorless, and they aren't even really "smoked," but "vaped." The only emission into the air through this whole process is when the "vaper" exhales steam. Here's how a local city ordinance currently defines smoking: "SMOKING. Inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted tobacco product in any manner or in any form." So until they reword the law, e-cigs don't count.

But while the federal government tries to figure out whether e-cigs are smoking, smoking cessation tool or gateway drug, and who should regulate them and how, it looks as if the main bone of contention so far has been whether or not to allow "vaping" in the same pubic spaces where traditional tobacco products have largely been banned- parks, sporting events, malls, restaurants, and last but definitely not least: bars.

Most places I've been recently allow the e-cigs, for now. The weird thing is, people still go outside to smoke real cigarettes, even though they can have the e-cig right there at the bar or the table. Even when it's freezing. I'll follow my friends out sometimes if it's nice out- if you're in the middle of a game of pool, you may as well. But the e-cig is okay by me. I've noticed its the people like me and my husband, who've gone to buying tobacco and tubes and rolling our own who seem to make the transition best, for what that's worth. We're already used to switching around brands may be why. Also, it's less of a savings to us. I'd say we spend between two people, forty bucks a month.

Personally, I hope they don't make business owners ban the e-cigs- there are about as many restaurants and bars around me who allow it as don't, so there's plenty of room for everyone to have things their own way without having to bully anyone. And I seriously doubt any bar employee is going to cry about e-cigs, not if it means people eat and drink more, stay longer- and come in to begin with. I shut up and lived with those horrid clove cigs back in the 90s, and while I don't know for sure, I think I actually was allergic. Nasty things- but I'm not much of a meddler, so I just tried to avoid the people smoking them and went on with my life, mostly, and most people, if they could see my face and eyes red and my makwe-up running down onto my shirt, would offer to put it out, as would I with a regular cigarette.


I was still bar-tending nights when our city's smoking ban took effect, and it hit us like a ton of bricks.

At a guess, I'd say about 60-65% of our customers smoked, mostly cigarettes, with a few cigars and pipes thrown in; and the other 35-40% tended to be plain old "non-smokers," as opposed to what's described in the above posts as "anti-smokers." In other words they didn't really care enough one way or the other to take their business elsewhere when the first of two bars in our general area went non-smoking, which left us one of four smoking establishments.

The smokers on the other hand did care- and once winter set in hard they cared enough to go out past the city limits, out where the ban did not apply. Even worse, the non-smokers often followed them, for the same reason a group of five omnivores and one vegan will wind up at a vegetarian restaurant. And while we were a little big to be called a "neighborhood bar" there was that kind of feel to it, and a young enough crowd to still have that flocking instinct, wanting to be where "everyone else" was.

And while I never put much stock in my boss's more paranoid suppositions about collusion between county bar owners and the city council, or his prophecies of imminent doom in the bankruptcy courts, there was no denying we'd taken a pretty good hit. Not to mention the employees wound up having to police the bathrooms and back corners like playground monitors, which as not at all fun or profitable. Which will become even more challenging if they ban e-cigs, which are currently allowed in a lot of places- all someone has to do is go in a stall and shut the door, but I guess what the City doesn't know won't hurt them.

What saved the place I worked was being in a position to expand our food service, which allowed us to take advantage of the one good thing to come of the whole fiasco- people who smoke do NOT hang around for drinks or dessert after meals; if they can't smoke, they're ready to leave. It only took one, in a place where roughly 2/3 of the clientele were smokers. We turned and burned tables like we were NASCAR pit crews! Luckily.

Several places had to lay off workers, or actually shut down- exactly what the idiot on or city council who proposed and rammed through the ban assured everyone would not happen. The first to go was a pool hall/bowling alley in the city limits, bc there were two others not faraway that weren't. And especially the true "little neighborhood places" with a much older clientele who didn't want to run back and forth from outside, and chose to just stay home, or we'd see them all hanging out on someone's porch together. It was the death-blow for several of them. And e-cigs wouldn't matter- those old-school guys didn't vape.

[Ceece]

While I love smoking bans in buildings I'm not sure about e-cigs. Never been around one. If there is no smell and nothing to get in my face and no chemicals going into the air I don't have a problem.

What I do think is that, like cigarettes, they shouldn't be advertised on tv or in print ads or billboard.