6 ms·

I want to see the excuse for banning these from being used indoors. It'll probably be along the lines of "children will be influenced or something". Gotta lov

I want to see the excuse for banning these from being used indoors. It'll probably be along the lines of "children will be influenced or something". Gotta love the nanny state - not!

eurleif 13y ago
As far as I'm concerned, that justification should fail on first amendment grounds, since it would banning them based on the message they (allegedly) communicate.
- noblethrasher 13y ago
  The agitators will just classify it as something 'obscene'.
Niten 13y ago
More likely along the lines of other people not wanting to breathe your second-hand nicotine / whatever the hell else might be in this vapor, because the jury's still out on their safety.
- sultezdukes 13y ago
  But even if the exhaled vapor is perfectly safe, they'll still try to ban them.
  - sp332 13y ago
    Mainly because I don't want to get addicted to nicotine just by sitting next to a co-worker who uses e-cigs indoors.
    - jebblue 13y ago
      Has there been a study to prove that can happen or are you just assuming?
    - eswangren 13y ago
      What a ridiculous statement. How many people do you know of that became addicted to nicotine via second hand tobacco smoke?
    - LnxPrgr3 13y ago
      From the research I've read, that seems unlikely. This study was unable to detect any environmental contamination from nicotine: http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/201... "Among all, the most interesting aspects we observed was that nicotine was not detected in air during the e-smoking session, although liquids used for experiments contained it. On the other hand, 34µg/m^3 of nicotine were found during the smoking session." I remember another study I'm having trouble finding that was able to detect some nicotine in the exhaled vapor using a different method (capturing exhaled vapor in a glass chamber), but at an extremely low concentration. Nothing I've found leads me to believe secondhand nicotine exposure from e-cigarettes is a significant hazard.
- mullingitover 13y ago
  The major component of the secondhand vapor would be glycerin and/or propylene glycol. In extreme cases you might inhale entire milligrams of the stuff. Both substances are safe enough to be in the FDA's 'Generally Recognized as Safe' list and you could drink liters of them without any ill effects.
- jimzvz 13y ago
  Here's a study[1] that concludes there is "no significant risk". [1]-http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728 http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.7...
  - UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
    That one was funded and conducted by the e-cigs industry, of course it is going to come to that conclusion.
devoidfury 13y ago
E-cigs were banned from public indoor use at the same time as smoking in my area. They used the reasoning that, for some of the e-cigs, it was hard to distinguish them from actual cigarettes as they look similar, and would cause confusion.
- rscale 13y ago
  The vast majority of the public indoor e-cig smokers I've run into seemed to be doing it so they could look like they're smoking and then get indignant that it's not a cigarette
  - eurleif 13y ago
    How do you know that's what they were doing?
    - rscale 13y ago
      Perhaps it's not. But it's definitely what most seemed to be doing.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Maybe it just seems that way to you because you do not think they have a reason to become indigent.
        skore 13y ago
        No, I think "seem" as a qualifier places it perfectly well into the realm of an opinion, with the implied agreement that it can be debated. You and the other comment mistake it for an absolute judgment, which would be problematic, but that's not what the OP was writing.
        eurleif 13y ago
        Impugning peoples' motives like that should require some justification, even if it's labelled as "just an opinion".
jleader 13y ago
Doesn't the 2nd-hand vapor contain nicotine, just as the vapor inhaled by the user does? Maybe less than from a cigarette (or maybe not?), but still some. Nicotine is an addictive, potentially toxic drug, with some possible beneficial effects, and some definite harmful effects. I'd like to be able to choose for myself whether I'm going to inhale it. How is "I want to choose which drugs I expose myself to" an expression of the nanny state? If you want to consume a drug in public, figure out how to do so in such a way that you don't share it with bystanders against their will. We already have patches, gum, snuff, chaw; if you really want to inhale it as a vapor, why can't you do that in private?
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  Nicotine is harmful in high doses, like > 10g. Cigarettes have something close to 1mg of it. You get intoxicated and die for all the other crap in it way before Nicotine is a problem.
  - jleader 13y ago
    Do you have a citation for that lethal dosage? http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/nicotine.htm#PartTitle:7.%20TOXICOLOGY http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/nicotine.htm#P... claims the lethal dose is estimated at 30-60mg for adult humans, citing Gosselin 1988. That's 0.3% of the dose you quote. I wasn't able to find the relevant page in Google books, but I did see a snippet that seemed to say that some of the other chemicals in cigarette smoke may actually have a protective effect against nicotine toxicity. Gosselin RE (1988). Clinical toxicology of Commercial Products. VI.ed Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins: 311-313.
    - hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
      Sorry, it's a typo. I meant 10mg. Also, I said the dose it starts being harmful, not necessarily lethal. I remember reading this somewhere about the usage of nicotine patches.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
skore 13y ago
> Gotta love the nanny state - not! I have yet to hear somebody complain about "the nanny state" who doesn't sound like a spoiled brat. I suppose it's kind of logical.

I want to see the excuse for banning these from being used indoors. It'll probably be along the lines of "children will be influenced or something". Gotta love the nanny state - not!

eurleif 13y ago

As far as I'm concerned, that justification should fail on first amendment grounds, since it would banning them based on the message they (allegedly) communicate.

noblethrasher 13y ago
The agitators will just classify it as something 'obscene'.

Niten 13y ago

More likely along the lines of other people not wanting to breathe your second-hand nicotine / whatever the hell else might be in this vapor, because the jury's still out on their safety.

sultezdukes 13y ago
But even if the exhaled vapor is perfectly safe, they'll still try to ban them.
- sp332 13y ago
  Mainly because I don't want to get addicted to nicotine just by sitting next to a co-worker who uses e-cigs indoors.
  - jebblue 13y ago
    Has there been a study to prove that can happen or are you just assuming?
  - eswangren 13y ago
    What a ridiculous statement. How many people do you know of that became addicted to nicotine via second hand tobacco smoke?
  - LnxPrgr3 13y ago
    From the research I've read, that seems unlikely. This study was unable to detect any environmental contamination from nicotine: http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/201... "Among all, the most interesting aspects we observed was that nicotine was not detected in air during the e-smoking session, although liquids used for experiments contained it. On the other hand, 34µg/m^3 of nicotine were found during the smoking session." I remember another study I'm having trouble finding that was able to detect some nicotine in the exhaled vapor using a different method (capturing exhaled vapor in a glass chamber), but at an extremely low concentration. Nothing I've found leads me to believe secondhand nicotine exposure from e-cigarettes is a significant hazard.
mullingitover 13y ago
The major component of the secondhand vapor would be glycerin and/or propylene glycol. In extreme cases you might inhale entire milligrams of the stuff. Both substances are safe enough to be in the FDA's 'Generally Recognized as Safe' list and you could drink liters of them without any ill effects.
jimzvz 13y ago
Here's a study[1] that concludes there is "no significant risk". [1]-http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728 http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.7...
- UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
  That one was funded and conducted by the e-cigs industry, of course it is going to come to that conclusion.

devoidfury 13y ago

E-cigs were banned from public indoor use at the same time as smoking in my area. They used the reasoning that, for some of the e-cigs, it was hard to distinguish them from actual cigarettes as they look similar, and would cause confusion.

rscale 13y ago
The vast majority of the public indoor e-cig smokers I've run into seemed to be doing it so they could look like they're smoking and then get indignant that it's not a cigarette
- eurleif 13y ago
  How do you know that's what they were doing?
  - rscale 13y ago
    Perhaps it's not. But it's definitely what most seemed to be doing.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Maybe it just seems that way to you because you do not think they have a reason to become indigent.
      - skore 13y ago
        No, I think "seem" as a qualifier places it perfectly well into the realm of an opinion, with the implied agreement that it can be debated. You and the other comment mistake it for an absolute judgment, which would be problematic, but that's not what the OP was writing.
        eurleif 13y ago
        Impugning peoples' motives like that should require some justification, even if it's labelled as "just an opinion".

jleader 13y ago

Doesn't the 2nd-hand vapor contain nicotine, just as the vapor inhaled by the user does? Maybe less than from a cigarette (or maybe not?), but still some. Nicotine is an addictive, potentially toxic drug, with some possible beneficial effects, and some definite harmful effects. I'd like to be able to choose for myself whether I'm going to inhale it. How is "I want to choose which drugs I expose myself to" an expression of the nanny state? If you want to consume a drug in public, figure out how to do so in such a way that you don't share it with bystanders against their will. We already have patches, gum, snuff, chaw; if you really want to inhale it as a vapor, why can't you do that in private?

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
Nicotine is harmful in high doses, like > 10g. Cigarettes have something close to 1mg of it. You get intoxicated and die for all the other crap in it way before Nicotine is a problem.
- jleader 13y ago
  Do you have a citation for that lethal dosage? http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/nicotine.htm#PartTitle:7.%20TOXICOLOGY http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/nicotine.htm#P... claims the lethal dose is estimated at 30-60mg for adult humans, citing Gosselin 1988. That's 0.3% of the dose you quote. I wasn't able to find the relevant page in Google books, but I did see a snippet that seemed to say that some of the other chemicals in cigarette smoke may actually have a protective effect against nicotine toxicity. Gosselin RE (1988). Clinical toxicology of Commercial Products. VI.ed Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins: 311-313.
  - hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
    Sorry, it's a typo. I meant 10mg. Also, I said the dose it starts being harmful, not necessarily lethal. I remember reading this somewhere about the usage of nicotine patches.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago

skore 13y ago

> Gotta love the nanny state - not! I have yet to hear somebody complain about "the nanny state" who doesn't sound like a spoiled brat. I suppose it's kind of logical.