E-cigarettes: How should they be regulated? Local experts say 'vaping' not as harmless as it may ...

Jay McCubbrey, a health education specialist at the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services, said there's a lot of misinformation about e-cigarettes. "A lot of people believe the claims by people who sell these products, that they contain fairly harmless water vapor and can be smoked anywhere, but that's not true," he said. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Dennis

Worcester, MA

#1 Mar 13, 2014
Or could it be that the government is losing their precious tobacco revenue and are looking for a way to regain this revenue by using yellow journalism campaigns to target e-cigarettes so they can figure out a way to reclaim their revenue. Not to mention all of the anti tobacco funded programs that employ lots of people and as the e-cigarette gains in popularity they might be threatened by the fact that their government grants might be drying up soon. Very sad to see this happening. Maybe the gentleman quoted in this article should take a look at these studies that have been done... take a look at this page with a list of links to studies that have been conducted.. http://www.cigbuyer.com/studies/
Dan

Omaha, NE

#2 Mar 13, 2014
Dennis wrote:
Or could it be that the government is losing their precious tobacco revenue and are looking for a way to regain this revenue by using yellow journalism campaigns to target e-cigarettes so they can figure out a way to reclaim their revenue. Not to mention all of the anti tobacco funded programs that employ lots of people and as the e-cigarette gains in popularity they might be threatened by the fact that their government grants might be drying up soon. Very sad to see this happening. Maybe the gentleman quoted in this article should take a look at these studies that have been done... take a look at this page with a list of links to studies that have been conducted.. http://www.cigbuyer.com/studies/
To begin with, the headline is misleading.

The "local experts" are described is the very first line of the story as "Anti-smoking advocates".

None of the folks quoted in the article are scientists. They are, respectively, " a health education specialist", "chairwoman of the Tobacco Education Network in Humboldt County", and two other Humboldt County government officials. None of these folks has any credentials to make any definitive statements concerning the relative safety of e-cigs.

Simply a knee-jerk scare story.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#3 Mar 13, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
To begin with, the headline is misleading.
The "local experts" are described is the very first line of the story as "Anti-smoking advocates".
None of the folks quoted in the article are scientists. They are, respectively, " a health education specialist", "chairwoman of the Tobacco Education Network in Humboldt County", and two other Humboldt County government officials. None of these folks has any credentials to make any definitive statements concerning the relative safety of e-cigs.
Simply a knee-jerk scare story.
They need to be banned wherever cigarettes are banned. Actually quite simple.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#6 Mar 14, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
They need to be banned wherever cigarettes are banned. Actually quite simple.
Quite simply, why?

It's not tobacco and there's no smoke.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#7 Mar 14, 2014
Tobacco Cologne wrote:
<quoted text> And your qualifications? Brown fingers and teeth, toxic breath and wafting stench from your smokey, urine stained, feces smeared clothes?
Um, reading comprehension, actually.

No support for the claim the headline makes from people who aren't "experts" in the subject-just AS activists.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#8 Mar 14, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite simply, why?
It's not tobacco and there's no smoke.
There are fumes. There is no oversight in what is used in them, therefore no one knows. Since no one knows, there is no way to determine they are safe for non smokers. And it is not all vapor. If it was, no one would use them. There are other chemicals there designed to make the nicotine hit the brain quicker.

Maybe if smokers took a cigar and inserted it into their rectum they could absorb the nicotine through their colon and be able to go for a long while without a smoke.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#10 Mar 15, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
There are fumes. There is no oversight in what is used in them, therefore no one knows. Since no one knows, there is no way to determine they are safe for non smokers. And it is not all vapor. If it was, no one would use them. There are other chemicals there designed to make the nicotine hit the brain quicker.
Maybe if smokers took a cigar and inserted it into their rectum they could absorb the nicotine through their colon and be able to go for a long while without a smoke.
Water vapor with residual nicotine. The nicotine is the reason they're used.

Again, you're all over the place on nicotine. Are you afraid of it, is it OK with you (you said before that the gum and the patch don't bother you), or what?

Lastly, is it possible for you to make an argument for or against something without underpinning it with your apparent anal fixation?

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#11 Mar 15, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Water vapor with residual nicotine. The nicotine is the reason they're used.
Again, you're all over the place on nicotine. Are you afraid of it, is it OK with you (you said before that the gum and the patch don't bother you), or what?
Lastly, is it possible for you to make an argument for or against something without underpinning it with your apparent anal fixation?
There is NOTHING to PROVE that e-cigs are safe. NOTHING. The contain MORE than water and nicotine. What is in the flavoring??????? Is the strawberry flavor REAL????? or is it FAKE???? What makes the nicotine get to the brain better?????? I am CERTAINLY NOT going to believe an addict, the manufacturers, the sellers or the bought off spokesmen of e-cigs if they say the ecigs are safe. We fought for decades to get the smoking regulations we have now and we are not going to let a bunch of filthy addicts bring us right back to square one with something that is likely not healthy for us. The anal fixation is because I view cigarettes much like a turd. Something nasty, disgusting and filled with illness causing agents. A smoker, with their brown teeth, does a perfect imitation of a rectum when they pucker up. When they breathe, they do a perfect imitation of a rectum expelling gas. I suggest the cigar in the colon because the colon stinks anyways and the colon is a good avenue for absorbing substances. I am giving you a way to get your nicotine and still be appropriate in public.
Dan

United States

#12 Mar 17, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
There is NOTHING to PROVE that e-cigs are safe. NOTHING. The contain MORE than water and nicotine. What is in the flavoring??????? Is the strawberry flavor REAL????? or is it FAKE???? What makes the nicotine get to the brain better?????? I am CERTAINLY NOT going to believe an addict, the manufacturers, the sellers or the bought off spokesmen of e-cigs if they say the ecigs are safe. We fought for decades to get the smoking regulations we have now and we are not going to let a bunch of filthy addicts bring us right back to square one with something that is likely not healthy for us. The anal fixation is because I view cigarettes much like a turd. Something nasty, disgusting and filled with illness causing agents. A smoker, with their brown teeth, does a perfect imitation of a rectum when they pucker up. When they breathe, they do a perfect imitation of a rectum expelling gas. I suggest the cigar in the colon because the colon stinks anyways and the colon is a good avenue for absorbing substances. I am giving you a way to get your nicotine and still be appropriate in public.
There's nothing proving they are harmful. "NOTHING", as you said here.
Strawberry Quik is artificially flavored. That's fine with me.
They require natural flavoring? THIS is the hill you're willing to die on?
You're quickly becoming a parody, bud.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#13 Mar 17, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
There's nothing proving they are harmful. "NOTHING", as you said here.
Strawberry Quik is artificially flavored. That's fine with me.
They require natural flavoring? THIS is the hill you're willing to die on?
You're quickly becoming a parody, bud.
And yet, increasingly, e-cigs are being banned. There is NO good reason to let nicotine addicts indulge in their addiction around others.
Dan

United States

#14 Mar 17, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, increasingly, e-cigs are being banned. There is NO good reason to let nicotine addicts indulge in their addiction around others.
The'yre being banned because of knee-jerk scare stories like this article, and the mindless sheeple who will take any government bureaucrat at his/her word as its easier than thinking for themselves.

Again, a nicotine user can chew gum or use a patch. Is this offensive to your tender sensibilities?

If not, then your whole "nicotine addict" spiel is self-serving nonsense and simply renders you a control freak.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#15 Mar 17, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The'yre being banned because of knee-jerk scare stories like this article, and the mindless sheeple who will take any government bureaucrat at his/her word as its easier than thinking for themselves.
Again, a nicotine user can chew gum or use a patch. Is this offensive to your tender sensibilities?
If not, then your whole "nicotine addict" spiel is self-serving nonsense and simply renders you a control freak.
I don't care WHY they are being banned. I just care that they ARE being banned.

I win. You lose.
Dan

United States

#16 Mar 17, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care WHY they are being banned. I just care that they ARE being banned.
I win. You lose.
At last.

An admission that there's no need for an actual reason to ban them.

Bet that felt good to finally let that one go, bud.

Now-next is for you to tell us why you care if they're banned.

Unburden yourself.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#17 Mar 17, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
At last.
An admission that there's no need for an actual reason to ban them.
Bet that felt good to finally let that one go, bud.
Now-next is for you to tell us why you care if they're banned.
Unburden yourself.
I admitted no such thing. I've given you the reason multiple times already. You are not willing to accept that because you think like an addict. Therefore I am not willing to argue it anymore with you. My argument goes to the people who listen- the lawmakers. You are free to believe whatever you want. I really don't care what you believe. I am not going to change my opinion or what I am doing based on what you think and I am not going to play word games with semantics with you just you think you have a "gotcha!" moment. So next time you read something I wrote, get a woodie, and a giddy grin on your face because you think you have "trapped" me into a corner- sorry, you haven't.
Dan

United States

#18 Mar 17, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
I admitted no such thing. I've given you the reason multiple times already. You are not willing to accept that because you think like an addict. Therefore I am not willing to argue it anymore with you. My argument goes to the people who listen- the lawmakers. You are free to believe whatever you want. I really don't care what you believe. I am not going to change my opinion or what I am doing based on what you think and I am not going to play word games with semantics with you just you think you have a "gotcha!" moment. So next time you read something I wrote, get a woodie, and a giddy grin on your face because you think you have "trapped" me into a corner- sorry, you haven't.
You've simply stated some amorphous possible reasons predicated on proving a negative, not anything conclusive, and you then subsequently admitted that it didn't matter to you anyway.

So, you admitted that a concrete reason to ban them isn't necessary (for you).

I mean, that's what you wrote. Want to see the post again?
Dan

United States

#19 Mar 17, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
I admitted no such thing. I've given you the reason multiple times already. You are not willing to accept that because you think like an addict. Therefore I am not willing to argue it anymore with you. My argument goes to the people who listen- the lawmakers. You are free to believe whatever you want. I really don't care what you believe. I am not going to change my opinion or what I am doing based on what you think and I am not going to play word games with semantics with you just you think you have a "gotcha!" moment. So next time you read something I wrote, get a woodie, and a giddy grin on your face because you think you have "trapped" me into a corner- sorry, you haven't.
Here's what you wrote:

"I don't care WHY they are being banned. I just care that they ARE being banned."
Dan

United States

#20 Mar 17, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
I admitted no such thing. I've given you the reason multiple times already. You are not willing to accept that because you think like an addict. Therefore I am not willing to argue it anymore with you. My argument goes to the people who listen- the lawmakers. You are free to believe whatever you want. I really don't care what you believe. I am not going to change my opinion or what I am doing based on what you think and I am not going to play word games with semantics with you just you think you have a "gotcha!" moment. So next time you read something I wrote, get a woodie, and a giddy grin on your face because you think you have "trapped" me into a corner- sorry, you haven't.
Here's your ban rationale:

"There is NOTHING to PROVE that e-cigs are safe." Noted that nothing provided by you to prove they are harmful-just an unfounded beginning assertion that they are unsafe until proven otherwise.

That and your odd insistence that artifical flavoring is somehow a huge problem.

These two things certainly prove out your last assertion that it didn't matter why they are banned, just that they are banned. No actual facts needed for you.

Great position, bud.
Dan

United States

#21 Mar 17, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
I admitted no such thing. I've given you the reason multiple times already. You are not willing to accept that because you think like an addict. Therefore I am not willing to argue it anymore with you. My argument goes to the people who listen- the lawmakers. You are free to believe whatever you want. I really don't care what you believe. I am not going to change my opinion or what I am doing based on what you think and I am not going to play word games with semantics with you just you think you have a "gotcha!" moment. So next time you read something I wrote, get a woodie, and a giddy grin on your face because you think you have "trapped" me into a corner- sorry, you haven't.
....and this post is you beating your chest about your claiming scoreboard for some personal empowerment you demand to deprive others of their personal liberties (at no consequence to you-just others).

Not something I'd brag about, but you have right at it.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#22 Mar 17, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
....and this post is you beating your chest about your claiming scoreboard for some personal empowerment you demand to deprive others of their personal liberties (at no consequence to you-just others).
Not something I'd brag about, but you have right at it.
Gee. Four posts to reply to one.

Like I said, I am not playing semantic games with you. I am in favor of e-cig bans. I went over my reasons, Nothing says you have to agree with them. You are an addict and I really don't care what you think.
Dan

United States

#23 Mar 17, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee. Four posts to reply to one.
Like I said, I am not playing semantic games with you. I am in favor of e-cig bans. I went over my reasons, Nothing says you have to agree with them. You are an addict and I really don't care what you think.
You didn't provide a reason to ban them.

Still.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Life Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why do I often crave eating clay? (Jan '09) 35 min facefaceface 8,533
How Life's Code Emerged From Primordial Soup (Sep '09) 47 min polymath257 64
... but give us more choices (Aug '08) 1 hr veganman 27
Shakey's Pizza Parlor To Honor Katy Perry On Al... 1 hr dean 16
Sexy Ebola Nurse & More of the Year's Worst Hal... 2 hr DILF 8
Pumpkin House in Kenova lit up for Halloween 3 hr Beth Frasher 3
Give thanks for the Valley's classic rock conce... 3 hr Ace McMillan 2

Life People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE