8 ms·

Good luck keeping people from using them anywhere. They don't smell, so non-smokers aren't going to complain (I've been using e-cigs at work for two years and n

Good luck keeping people from using them anywhere. They don't smell, so non-smokers aren't going to complain (I've been using e-cigs at work for two years and never received any complaints, in fact one person who sits five feet from me wasn't aware that I did it). The only people who've ever asked me to stop using them in restaurants and bars are staff (and only two instances in two years of regularly going out with e-cigs), and they're only doing it because they're afraid of getting into trouble with whatever regulators might crack down on them. Electronic cigarettes should be left the hell alone. I've never seen a more successful smoking cessation tool. Trying to heavy-handedly 'regulate' them so they aren't as easy or affordable to use will only ensure that people keep smoking regular cigarettes. Of course, the more paranoid side of my brain reminds me that a lot of tax revenue comes from old fashioned cigarette sales, and perhaps governments will want to protect those revenues.

ChiperSoft 14y ago
Just because you don't smell it doesn't mean they don't have a smell. My ex-boss started smoking again after he discovered them. Guy puffed it like he was in a noir film, blew the vapor all over the place. They most definitely have a smell, and I'd often end up stinking of it when I got home from work.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- sk5t 14y ago
  I haven't heard a case for banning things that smell a bit funny... otherwise, can we please ban microwave popcorn?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Banning perfume would be nice while we are at it. If I can smell you in the elevator, and you are not in that elevator, then there is a problem. If e-cig "smell" qualifies it for a ban, then I cannot see any possible argument for not similarly banning indoor use of perfume.
  - ars 14y ago
    > otherwise, can we please ban microwave popcorn? We should. Diacetyl is quite dangerous to inhale.
    - droidist2 14y ago
      Hell, let's just start off by banning everything that may pose any kind of risk and then only unban the things that are deemed safe and positive by our unbiased and benevolent leaders.
      - ars 14y ago
        Sounds good to me. The current way is we allow anything our biased and profit-seeing corporation deem OK. That's not better. And Diacetyl really is quite dangerous.
        droidist2 14y ago
        Although I'd rather biased people tell me I can do things than tell me I can't. Then I can make my own choices. I'd rather err on the side of personal freedom, especially when those trying to decide how we live our lives may have an agenda. That agenda could often even be promoting a different industry's interests, for example banning internet poker was heavily pushed by the brick and mortar casinos.
        ars 14y ago
        > Then I can make my own choices. Ha. You wish. And in any case with diacetyl and e-cigs, you are not making your own choices, you are forcing everyone near you to inhale those things.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
  - arrrg 14y ago
    My workplace bans eating at your desk because it smells. I’m all for that, honestly.
- nukerhazz 14y ago
  Ah, so I'm not the only one that notices a smell and finds it unpleasant. (I asked about this elsewhere on this thread.)
jlgreco 14y ago
If I were a cigarette company lobbyist, I would be trying my damndest to put e-cigarettes on the same legal standing as regular cigarettes. I would be stunned if this were not going on.
- Moto7451 14y ago
  If I were a cigarette company executive I'd be attempting to corner the market on providing e-cig fluid and doing my darnedest to keep it as unregulated as possible. This is actually a great opportunity for the tobacco industry to turn a new page and shed its current image. More so if it definitively turns out that the exhaled vapor of e-sigs are not harmful to others and the user. Should that be the case, and it'll take a while for that to be proven (AND if that's actually the case), and the marketing is done properly - the tobacco industry could go from reviled death dealers to the same societal image Starbucks has (to be blunt: providers of tasty psychoactive chemicals generally considered safe in moderation).
  - wilfra 14y ago
    It's the innovators dilemma. Very difficult to support a new technology that threatens your billions in revenue and profit. They're surely only getting involved in the e-cig market for defensive reasons. I could certainly see them lobbying behind the scenes to slow the market down, if not kill it entirely.
- praxeologist 14y ago
  Tobacco came under the watch of the FDA since the 2009 tobacco bill. Right now, ecigs are basically not regulated at all. They are considered "unregulated tobacco products". There is a movement within the industry to regulate ourselves, but the FDA will probably step in no matter what. At the end of every year, the government sort of lists its plans for the year. The past two year, the FDA has said that they would "deem" ecigs in April and get the ball rolling toward regulation but it hasn't happened yet. Ecigs are a threat to ineffective methods of quitting smoking like patches and gums, so big pharma initially got behind total prohibition. The FDA lost in court on ecigs being medical devices, but the ruling only technically applies to the one company involved, so customs still seizes shipments of equipment coming in from China. Adoption is still growing rapidly, witht he total market in the US this year projected to double to over $1 billion. Big tobacco has now started to enter the market. Swisher Sweets has a brand of ecig. Lorillard bought a major player called Blu and Reynolds is poised to enter at some point. Altria/Phillip Morris hasn't done much yet, but all of these companies are also marketing products they hope to get the classification "reduced exposure" and "modified risk" such as wood sticks coated with tobacco goop and candy-like lozenges. A lot of ecig companies are tiny and scared of burdensome regulation which will put them out of business.
lostlogin 14y ago
I've seen a neuro surgeon use (smoke?) one in an operating theatre - this crosses a line I think. However I suspect he was daring someone to call him on it.
- jimzvz 14y ago
  I would rather have a surgeon working on me in the relaxed, focused state of mind that comes after few drags of an ecig than a surgeon working on me with the shaky, irritable mind of someone craving a cigarette.
  - gordaco 14y ago
    I would rather have a surgeon without a drug dependence.
    - Fuzzwah 14y ago
      I've love to see stats on how many surgeons don't drink coffee.
justanotheratom 14y ago
Can you point me to which ones you smoke?
hristov 14y ago
a- e-cigarettes do smell. The fact that you have had few complaints may reflect the fact that people are courteous and do not like to get into arguments. I have very much liked to complain several times about e-cigarettes myself. b- they almost certainly harm people around you although the harm may be less than that of secondary smoke. c - your last argument obviously does not apply to the present situation. If you ban e-cigarettes in places where cigarettes are already banned, then this ban would not cause an e-cigarette smoker to start smoking ordinary cigarettes. In fact, the contrary is true -- if smokers can smoke e-cigarettes in places in situations where they cannot smoke ordinary cigarettes, that very well may result in an increase of smoking. You can smoke your e-cigarettes in places and situations where cigarette smoking is allowed.
- LnxPrgr3 14y ago
  Do you have any evidence that e-cigarettes harm people around their users? The few studies I've seen seem very positive. Not that I mind if their use indoors is banned… but I find this claim interesting because it contradicts the (admittedly little) evidence I've seen.
  - hristov 14y ago
    You can look at the wikipedia article for nicotine. Apparently it promotes cancer.
    - Symmetry 14y ago
      When talking about the ability of substances to cause cancer it's always important to talk quantitatively, because there are a huge number of things that cause cancer and most have effects too subtle to worry about. In the case of nicotine it may cause cancer in humans at the levels smokers experience, but even so it's way less carcinogenic than alcohol, for example. Smoke of all sorts, on the other hand, is horribly carcinogenic and you can make a good argument for banning wood-burning stoves in cities.
    - LnxPrgr3 14y ago
      As they say, the dose makes the poison. So far, I don't see any evidence that exhaled e-cigarette vapor contains more than a trivial amount of nicotine. That nicotine could be a hazard for the user, but as far as I can tell you'd have a hell of a time getting a significant dose from passive vaping. If you're looking to avoid even trace amounts of nicotine, staying away from smokers isn't enough. You should probably avoid eating anything in the nightshade family (e.g. eggplant, tomatoes, potatoes, and peppers). It's worth noting these foods contain other toxic alkaloids in low doses too—other parts of the plants with higher concentrations are inedible. The relevant question here is this: is exhaled vapor from nearby e-cigarette users a significant health risk? How does it compare to other environmental hazards?

ChiperSoft 14y ago

Just because you don't smell it doesn't mean they don't have a smell. My ex-boss started smoking again after he discovered them. Guy puffed it like he was in a noir film, blew the vapor all over the place. They most definitely have a smell, and I'd often end up stinking of it when I got home from work.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
sk5t 14y ago
I haven't heard a case for banning things that smell a bit funny... otherwise, can we please ban microwave popcorn?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Banning perfume would be nice while we are at it. If I can smell you in the elevator, and you are not in that elevator, then there is a problem. If e-cig "smell" qualifies it for a ban, then I cannot see any possible argument for not similarly banning indoor use of perfume.
- ars 14y ago
  > otherwise, can we please ban microwave popcorn? We should. Diacetyl is quite dangerous to inhale.
  - droidist2 14y ago
    Hell, let's just start off by banning everything that may pose any kind of risk and then only unban the things that are deemed safe and positive by our unbiased and benevolent leaders.
    - ars 14y ago
      Sounds good to me. The current way is we allow anything our biased and profit-seeing corporation deem OK. That's not better. And Diacetyl really is quite dangerous.
      - droidist2 14y ago
        Although I'd rather biased people tell me I can do things than tell me I can't. Then I can make my own choices. I'd rather err on the side of personal freedom, especially when those trying to decide how we live our lives may have an agenda. That agenda could often even be promoting a different industry's interests, for example banning internet poker was heavily pushed by the brick and mortar casinos.
        ars 14y ago
        > Then I can make my own choices. Ha. You wish. And in any case with diacetyl and e-cigs, you are not making your own choices, you are forcing everyone near you to inhale those things.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
- arrrg 14y ago
  My workplace bans eating at your desk because it smells. I’m all for that, honestly.
nukerhazz 14y ago
Ah, so I'm not the only one that notices a smell and finds it unpleasant. (I asked about this elsewhere on this thread.)

jlgreco 14y ago

If I were a cigarette company lobbyist, I would be trying my damndest to put e-cigarettes on the same legal standing as regular cigarettes. I would be stunned if this were not going on.

Moto7451 14y ago
If I were a cigarette company executive I'd be attempting to corner the market on providing e-cig fluid and doing my darnedest to keep it as unregulated as possible. This is actually a great opportunity for the tobacco industry to turn a new page and shed its current image. More so if it definitively turns out that the exhaled vapor of e-sigs are not harmful to others and the user. Should that be the case, and it'll take a while for that to be proven (AND if that's actually the case), and the marketing is done properly - the tobacco industry could go from reviled death dealers to the same societal image Starbucks has (to be blunt: providers of tasty psychoactive chemicals generally considered safe in moderation).
- wilfra 14y ago
  It's the innovators dilemma. Very difficult to support a new technology that threatens your billions in revenue and profit. They're surely only getting involved in the e-cig market for defensive reasons. I could certainly see them lobbying behind the scenes to slow the market down, if not kill it entirely.
praxeologist 14y ago
Tobacco came under the watch of the FDA since the 2009 tobacco bill. Right now, ecigs are basically not regulated at all. They are considered "unregulated tobacco products". There is a movement within the industry to regulate ourselves, but the FDA will probably step in no matter what. At the end of every year, the government sort of lists its plans for the year. The past two year, the FDA has said that they would "deem" ecigs in April and get the ball rolling toward regulation but it hasn't happened yet. Ecigs are a threat to ineffective methods of quitting smoking like patches and gums, so big pharma initially got behind total prohibition. The FDA lost in court on ecigs being medical devices, but the ruling only technically applies to the one company involved, so customs still seizes shipments of equipment coming in from China. Adoption is still growing rapidly, witht he total market in the US this year projected to double to over $1 billion. Big tobacco has now started to enter the market. Swisher Sweets has a brand of ecig. Lorillard bought a major player called Blu and Reynolds is poised to enter at some point. Altria/Phillip Morris hasn't done much yet, but all of these companies are also marketing products they hope to get the classification "reduced exposure" and "modified risk" such as wood sticks coated with tobacco goop and candy-like lozenges. A lot of ecig companies are tiny and scared of burdensome regulation which will put them out of business.

lostlogin 14y ago

I've seen a neuro surgeon use (smoke?) one in an operating theatre - this crosses a line I think. However I suspect he was daring someone to call him on it.

jimzvz 14y ago
I would rather have a surgeon working on me in the relaxed, focused state of mind that comes after few drags of an ecig than a surgeon working on me with the shaky, irritable mind of someone craving a cigarette.
- gordaco 14y ago
  I would rather have a surgeon without a drug dependence.
  - Fuzzwah 14y ago
    I've love to see stats on how many surgeons don't drink coffee.

justanotheratom 14y ago

Can you point me to which ones you smoke?

hristov 14y ago

a- e-cigarettes do smell. The fact that you have had few complaints may reflect the fact that people are courteous and do not like to get into arguments. I have very much liked to complain several times about e-cigarettes myself. b- they almost certainly harm people around you although the harm may be less than that of secondary smoke. c - your last argument obviously does not apply to the present situation. If you ban e-cigarettes in places where cigarettes are already banned, then this ban would not cause an e-cigarette smoker to start smoking ordinary cigarettes. In fact, the contrary is true -- if smokers can smoke e-cigarettes in places in situations where they cannot smoke ordinary cigarettes, that very well may result in an increase of smoking. You can smoke your e-cigarettes in places and situations where cigarette smoking is allowed.

LnxPrgr3 14y ago
Do you have any evidence that e-cigarettes harm people around their users? The few studies I've seen seem very positive. Not that I mind if their use indoors is banned… but I find this claim interesting because it contradicts the (admittedly little) evidence I've seen.
- hristov 14y ago
  You can look at the wikipedia article for nicotine. Apparently it promotes cancer.
  - Symmetry 14y ago
    When talking about the ability of substances to cause cancer it's always important to talk quantitatively, because there are a huge number of things that cause cancer and most have effects too subtle to worry about. In the case of nicotine it may cause cancer in humans at the levels smokers experience, but even so it's way less carcinogenic than alcohol, for example. Smoke of all sorts, on the other hand, is horribly carcinogenic and you can make a good argument for banning wood-burning stoves in cities.
  - LnxPrgr3 14y ago
    As they say, the dose makes the poison. So far, I don't see any evidence that exhaled e-cigarette vapor contains more than a trivial amount of nicotine. That nicotine could be a hazard for the user, but as far as I can tell you'd have a hell of a time getting a significant dose from passive vaping. If you're looking to avoid even trace amounts of nicotine, staying away from smokers isn't enough. You should probably avoid eating anything in the nightshade family (e.g. eggplant, tomatoes, potatoes, and peppers). It's worth noting these foods contain other toxic alkaloids in low doses too—other parts of the plants with higher concentrations are inedible. The relevant question here is this: is exhaled vapor from nearby e-cigarette users a significant health risk? How does it compare to other environmental hazards?