Atlanta eyes smoking, vaping ban including at airport (business, venue)

[kagete]

I don't smoke at all but this will be a huge bummer for international travelers.

[Otakumaster]

I can understand smoking, but vaping?

Anytime vaping is included with smoking bans I just assume it is a bunch of old crunchy Boomers/older Gen Xers who refuse to acknowledge that vaping is inherently different and non toxic ( its steam, not smoke), smells better/good, and even leaves less/no litter, so they get spiteful and ask why it can't be banned too because that isn't "fair".

[JayHey]

Originally Posted by Otakumaster

I can understand smoking, but vaping?

Anytime vaping is included with smoking bans I just assume it is a bunch of old crunchy Boomers/older Gen Xers who refuse to acknowledge that vaping is inherently different and non toxic ( its steam, not smoke), smells better/good, and even leaves less/no litter, so they get spiteful and ask why it can't be banned too because that isn't "fair".

and non toxic ( its steam, not smoke)

E-cigs are absolutely toxic. Smoke isn't the main issue with cigarettes, it's the amount of toxic chemicals in it.

Vaping delivers ~12 toxic chemicals in super-fine particles deep into your lungs. I say super-fine because studies have shown that the particles with vaping are smaller than regular smoking and are able to go deeper into the lungs - whether you are the one vaping or you are breathing it secondhand.


E-cigs should be treated the same as other types of smoking in public. But, hey, you are right about less disgusting cig butts on the ground.

Originally Posted by behouse

The government shouldn't tell a business owner how to run their business. Eating meat, drinking alcohol, eating fast food is just as dangerous. Is banning that next? The gov should stay away from nanny laws and focus on real issues. BTW I don't even smoke

Is this satire? There are already government regulations on meat, on alcohol, and on food service. And that's a good thing, from a public health point we as a society should combat high cholesterol, alcoholism, obesity, and the myriad effects of smoking/vaping.

I say all that as a regular meat-eating mostly daily drinker, though I tend to avoid fast food.

[Forhall]

Originally Posted by behouse

The government shouldn't tell a business owner how to run their business. Eating meat, drinking alcohol, eating fast food is just as dangerous. Is banning that next? The gov should stay away from nanny laws and focus on real issues. BTW I don't even smoke

The main issue is how it affects other people. Even if I disagree, I support your right to do whatever you want as long as it only affects yourself. Eating meat, fast food, etc does not hurt me, only yourself.

Drinking is allowed as long as you don't drive, the it's illegal. Why? Because you've shifted from hurting yourself to potentially hurting others. These "nanny laws" as you call them are there to protect innocent people from the poor choices of others. Smoking is another example. Poison your body all you want at home, but don't make those of us who care about our health walk through your toxic clouds out on public. I remember when restaraunts had "smoking sections" which were basically just a few tables in the back where people a really smoked while you were eating - as if that didn't float all over the restaurant? I'm thankful we've basically eliminated public smoking.

[Atlwarrior]

Good! I hate those smells.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

First, I am not a smoker... so this will not effect me much personally


But this is a horrible idea or at least not well thought out in it's implementation. Smoking at the airport is already limited to very small spaces and is not currently a problem for non-smokers in the public areas, shops, restaurants, or bars at the airport.. There are special fairly well ventilated smoking lounges for smokers at the airport that keep them pretty well segregated.

When people are stressed from long travel days, lack of sleep, travel problems, etc... is not the best time for us to be taking a stand on people's health via a smoking ban. ATL being a major connection airport is a place where people end up stranded in the middle of along travel day, it is a place where more people are more likely endure larger stress in their travels.

Let them keep their smoking lounges...

I am quite conflicted about this, and I found myself relating very well to your comments. I am vehemently non-smoking, but my commitment to Libertarian philosophy restrains me from dictating my feelings on the subject to others. The airport seems to have gone to great lengths to see that the rights of those that don't smoke are protected against those that do (hence those sad and humiliating little plexiglas boxes that make smokers look like exhibits in the local zoo), so I see no reason to take it further. A lot of different cultures and nationalities pass through H-J every day, many of who see smoking as the norm. Perhaps that should be considered as well.

[Otakumaster]

Originally Posted by JayHey

E-cigs are absolutely toxic. Smoke isn't the main issue with cigarettes, it's the amount of toxic chemicals in it.

Vaping delivers ~12 toxic chemicals in super-fine particles deep into your lungs. I say super-fine because studies have shown that the particles with vaping are smaller than regular smoking and are able to go deeper into the lungs - whether you are the one vaping or you are breathing it secondhand.


E-cigs should be treated the same as other types of smoking in public. But, hey, you are right about less disgusting cig butts on the ground.

"The majority of toxic chemicals found in tobacco smoke are absent in e-cigarette aerosol. Those present are mostly below 1% of the corresponding levels in tobacco smoke.The aerosol can contain toxicants and traces of heavy metals at levels permissible in inhalation medicines,and potentially harmful chemicals not found in tobacco smoke at concentrations permissible by workplace safety standards. However, chemical concentrations may exceed the stricter public safety limits."


https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...tes_report.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110871

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3937158

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e...alth-consensus

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e...alth-consensus

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4018182

"In 2015, Public Health England stated that e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than smoking. In 2016, The Royal College of Physicians stated that with the current devices on the market a long term vaper should experience under 5% of the harm they would have otherwise been subject to if they continued smoking analog cigarettes."

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...th_England.pdf
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects...nd-health-1962



On second hand vape

" Public Health England has concluded that "international peer-reviewed evidence indicates that the risk to the health of bystanders from secondhand e-cigarette vapor is extremely low and insufficient to justify prohibiting e-cigarettes""

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-policy-making


So yeah, it has some "toxic" but it isn't anywhere near the levels to even be a health concern. Truth cult and angry old people who don't want to join the 21st century are the only ones trying to compare e-cigs to nasty cigarettes and trying to ban e-cigs.

[Atlanta Scientist]

No one has a right to smoking in public even if it is in a segregated area. Smoke at your house and in you car. And if you're visiting, oh well.

[bryantm3]

i think this should just be common courtesy. smoking rooms should be allowed as long as it's ventilated seperately and no non-smoking employee has to enter. as for outside, i read a study a few years ago about secondhand smoke outdoors, and that article said smoke dissipates within ~15 feet.

smoke, but do it either in a designated smoking room that's ventilated, or i do it 15 feet away from other people. i think that's reasonable, but i don't think it should go beyond health reasons just because people find it unpleasant.

[cqholt]

Just Atlanta City Council ignoring actual problems and diverting attention, away from City Hall, to non-issues.