New York State Bans E-Cigarettes Everywhere Traditional Cigarettes Are Prohibited (usatoday.com) 541
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: New York state is banning electronic cigarettes indoors everywhere that traditional tobacco cigarettes are prohibited, such as restaurants, bars and other workplaces. The ban goes into effect in 30 days, after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the Clean Indoor Air Act on Monday. About 70% of the state's cities already ban e-cigarettes, so the statewide policy captures the rest, according to the American Lung Association. Cuomo signed legislation in July that banned e-cigarettes in public and private schools. The industry, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates at $2.5 billion per year, contends that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional tobacco products. Smokers say inhaling the nicotine through a vapor produced by the devices helps them quit traditional cigarettes. But the New York State Health Department warned that vaping carries its own risks because the aerosol emissions can include formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene.
Sounds like fun (Score:5, Funny)
The aerosol emissions can include formaldehyde, cadmium found in batteries, benzene found in gasoline and the industrial solvent toluene. If that doesn't give you a buzz, then nothing will. Better than Testers glue. What's the problem?
Re:Sounds like fun (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is: How is it your problem? I could see passive smoke in traditional cigarettes, but I'm still waiting for the "passive smoke" studies of vaping.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, deity forbid, someone actually cares about the addicted n00bs injuring themselves so that an industry can profit?
I do not need nor want help keeping me safe from myself.
Re: (Score:3)
Then please don't use the same group health insurance company I do.
Insurance companies are free to charge more for nicotine users. And they often do. Many high-risk groups get a pass. You're worried about being in a pool with somebody who vapes? You're also in a pool with the guy who drinks a fifth of whiskey every night.
Re:Sounds like fun (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, deity forbid, someone actually cares about the addicted n00bs injuring themselves
No one is asking you for this help.
What other potentially dangerous activities do you want to protect us from? Sky diving? Deep sea diving? Walking across streets? Leaving our homes?
so that an industry can profit?
I really want to ignore this because it's such a transparently bs "evil corp boogeyman" argument - especially when talking about the vape industry. The destruction of the vape industry will just push most vapers to smoking regular cigarettes and just make big tobacco that much wealthier. And honestly, if I buy from a non-profit vape store, then do I have your permission to vape in public?
Re: (Score:3)
What other potentially dangerous activities do you want to protect us from? Sky diving? Deep sea diving? Walking across streets? Leaving our homes?
Sure, if you feel you're unable to perform those tasks without danger to yourself.
You want to keep us from those activities unless we can assure you there's no danger? That is fucking stupid. Of course there's danger associated with every one of those activities. There could be a drunken maniac poised to smear me across the crosswalk. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop crossing the street.
If something's dangerous, by all means alert me to the danger. Then let me do what I want. I set my own threshold for risk and compare it against perceived benefits. I don't remember asking you to make
Re:Sounds like fun (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be misguided then. Ecigs are such a fantastic thing because people can relatively easily more from tobacco cigarettes to them, and whilst they may not be perfectly safe they are far, far more safe than smoking. They should be encouraged, not discouraged.
My bet is that lobbying from the tobacco industry is responsible for this crackdown on ecigs.
Re: (Score:3)
Uhh.. giving up nicotine altogether is good for them.
That's an unsubstantiated assumption. There are to my knowledge no studies that show that people who quit nicotine fare better than those who continue to use nicotine, whether it be through patches, gum, mist devices or other non-smoking means.
The only documented bad effect of nicotine alone that I can find, apart from allergic reactions and overdoses, is an increased risk of birth defects for nicotine using pregnant women. So it should be on the rather long list of things pregnant women should avoid.
This
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's annoying. A smoking friend of mine always vapes inside, because it's supposed to be ok. However, it's really annoying when the whole room is filled with a white fog that smells like bourbon (or vanilla or caramel or apple or whatever smell he chooses).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a lot of things that I consider annoying in people, does that mean I get to forbid talking loudly, people scratching themselves in private places, people being obnoxious to the wait staff, children in general, people who are visibly sick but still handle my food, ...
Re:Sounds like fun (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lot of things that I consider annoying in people, does that mean I get to forbid talking loudly, people scratching themselves in private places, people being obnoxious to the wait staff, children in general, people who are visibly sick but still handle my food, ...
Erm, no.
If I scratch my nuts next to you, it doesn't affect you. Any issues you have with that are your problem. If someone starts smoking next to me, it DEFINITELY affects me. I'm an ex smoker, after 15 years of not smoking, if someone sparks up in a well ventilated room I will smell it within a minute. Yes smokers, its that bad. Now tell me that if someone has an itchy ball sack, you'll be able to tell if they've scratched it without seeing it.
Now remember that anti-smoking laws ended up this way not because of health reasons, but because smokers were so annoying and intractable, if politely requested to take their habit elsewhere, they'd stamp their feet like an impudent child shouting "Its my right, my right, my right, my right, my right". So we took said rights away and they have no-one to blame but themselves.
Sadly the same thing is happening with vapers. I think vaping is good as it's helped several of my friends and family members kick the habit and it looks like its for good this time but there are a large subset of vapers who have no idea of common courtesy and so we're ending up with the same problems as smokers for the same reasons. There's a reason the vape pipe is now colloquially known as a "douche flute".
Re:Sounds like fun (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, and now for loud and obnoxious people, and how I don't hear them if I so please.
Re:Sounds like fun (Score:5, Informative)
There've been laws against being loud and obnoxious in public forever. Mainly targeted at drunks. There's even laws against standing perfectly still quietly not doing anything (loitering).
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel the same way about your cologne and perfume. Why should I have to breathe those noxious chemicals because you like their fragrance? Some of you don't know how far your smell goes. I can smell some of you from a block away.
Indeed, and as I suffer a fairly serious (to the verge of Anaphylaxis) reaction to some of the component chemicals of said colognes and perfumes, I'm more at risk from these than the vapours from vapers.
I can't remember the name of the stuff, but many years ago I had the 'amusing' experience of being on a London tube train (Northern Line) when someone came on at one station wearing a rather nasty perfume (ISTR banned from a number of restaurants back then), the next station, the carriage emptied almost comp
Why are we doing this? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's annoying. A smoking friend of mine always vapes inside, because it's supposed to be ok. However, it's really annoying when the whole room is filled with a white fog that smells like bourbon (or vanilla or caramel or apple or whatever smell he chooses).
Not at all different from having people near you bathed in perfume or bad body odors for lack of proper hygiene.
I can get banning of actual cigarettes, for we knew quite well (with quantifiable data) about the negative side effects of second hand smoking.
But e-cigarretes? Vaping? Where is the data?
Are we banning something as a precautionary measure without knowing what the hell we are measuring? Or is it simply because we do not want to offend people?
Unless I am committing a "fallacy of the exclude
Re:Sounds like fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, there are no studies indicating wether its harmful or not, therefore i would greatly prefer not to be inhaling a cocktail of chemicals which may have as yet unknown detrimental effects on my health.
If you want to consume chemicals in a way which doesn't result in aerosolising them and forcing others to inhale them go right ahead.
Re: Sounds like fun (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like fun (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the scent of bitter almonds. And I etch PCBs with HCl and H2O2, you think any amount of chlorine that is not outright killing me could still faze me?
Important question (Score:3)
Is there something special about vaping that might change these chemicals' normal effects on the human body? Going through the list in the blurb...
Benzene [nih.gov], for example, is a gloves-and-hood substance in chem labs, ditto toulene [nih.gov]. Cadmium [nih.gov] is toxic metal which has turned places into hazmat sites, do I need to say more about it? Formaldehyde [nih.gov] is also pretty nasty, and is generally recognized as a poison for a reason; breathing it is highly inadvisable what with it being a poisonous gas, but it's healthier to
Re: While heroin is illegal, this is the right thi (Score:3)
Re: Sounds like fun (Score:5, Funny)
is going into your butt
They don't have any butts. They're a non-smoker.
so... (Score:3)
IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
Good.
An eCig may not have most of the crap (tar, etc.) a normal cig has but it still has nicotine, and I would rather not have to inhale the stuff if I can avoid it.
If you want to ingest a highly addictive and deadly drug fine by me. Just don't do it in an aerosol form around people who have chosen not to ingest the aforementioned drug.
Re: (Score:2)
What you inhale second hand is incredibly minimal. You might as well ban cars from driving near areas where people walk at this point because I guarantee you that walking along New York streets and breathing the air polluted from all the traffic is far more unhealthy for you than breathing vape fumes. https://www.popsci.com/ask-us-... [popsci.com]
On top of that, almost no one becomes addicted to second hand smoke of any kind, least of all from a vape (disagree? show me an example beyond singular anecdotal experience). Y
Re: (Score:2)
Good.
An eCig ... still has nicotine, and I would rather not have to inhale the stuff if I can avoid it.
What about the ones (liquids) that don't, of which there are a large number? What reason do you have for banning those at the same time?
Re: (Score:3)
Or even in concentrations coming close to the exhaust of a few cars, which we happily walk past without thinking about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I guess you're equally demanding the ban of ICEs as you demanded the ban on cigarettes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel the same way about combustion engines, coal burning power stations etc.
Then again I'm pretty happy to have fluoride in the water. I guess it's a question of harm, rather than "forced medication".
Re: (Score:2)
So people should stop driving cars? I ask because I guarantee you people walking along New York streets suffer far more lung damage than the person inhaling the rare vape fumes
Re: (Score:3)
Well, combustion powered cars, yes. And while a lot of this car driving should be replaced by walking, biking, or other human-powered means, we should continue working toward cleaner energy production to power the electric cars that replace the rest of them.
Land of the Free (Score:2)
Balance (Score:5, Insightful)
I am an ex-smoker of tobacco. I know how the fiend that rides the back of a smoker can crawl up the back of your neck, reach it's talons around, and rip off your face when you need that next smoke. All too well, do I know it. I also know the anti-tobacco evangelists, trying to "do good". Let me give you a hint: You are annoying and irritating. Your urgings to quit this filthily habit moved me not one iota until I had my first heart attack. You see, smoking isn't rational. It's deeply emotional and addiction based. If you aren't addicted, you have zero chance of understanding it, and worse, a negative chance to change others. People that are addicted have to choose to change. Logic, proof, and all the AMA studies in the world won't move a truly addicted person one angstrom. Yes - it's not logical. But it is human nature.
I've chewed nicotine gum now for about the last 12 years. My addiction to nicotine continues, albeit in a form that (hopefully) doesn't affect others, like smoking tobacco or vaping does. When I pass the smoking area, I wonder now how I could ever have desired it. And yet, I still feel the pull for "one last good smoke" - which I don't give into.
Vaping, just as smoking, puts chemicals in the air. No difference there.
To my mind, making your own hell is up to you. But including others in your damnation is not your right. If your actions put nicotine in the air others must breathe, such as smoking and vaping, then your right to do so ends at the effective boundary of others to avoid your chosen vice.
And again, I completely understand that critter that wants to rip your face off. I suffer from it to this day and I've not had a cigarette in over a decade. But your right to partake does not include the right to force others to imbibe in your vice as well. All I ask is that you consider how you'd feel of others felt they could force you to breathe flatulence. I doubt you'd be best pleased.
GOOD! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
some doper wants to "blaze up" in a bar/restaurant
Welcome to Washington State.
On a related note: A lot of the 'vaping mods' are done because hash oil volatilizes at higher temps than e-cig juice. And some of those big clouds you see wafting out of car windows isn't a nicotine product. A lot of the push back against e-cigs is because they are becoming a (not well hidden) means of getting high in public. Much like drug paraphernalia has been banned from time to time, nobody is buying the "B..b..but muh quitting smoking!" Chew the gum or wear a patch if you
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the push back against e-cigs is because they are becoming a (not well hidden) means of getting high in public.
When someone is vaping THC, it smells just like it does when someone smokes a joint. It is less intense, and does not hang in the air as long, but the smell is the same. If you want to get high in public without being obvious, you would use an edible. Those are legal in WA, CO, CA, and other states that allow marijuana, right? So why go to the trouble of vaping when it doesn't hide anything?
An ex-smoker and current e-cig user's thoughts (Score:3)
I still believe that bar owners should be allowed to decide for themselves if smoking should be allowed in their establishments.
I actually feel the same about restaurants but society has long since decided they disagree with me and there is no Constitutional right to smoke anywhere you want.
At least with a restaurant you can make the argument that everyone should be able to eat without poisoning themselves, but in a bar? Nobody needs to drink and drinking certainly isn't helping your health and I still believe there are enough jobs out there that some poor bartender or server isn't going to be forced into working in a smoking bar if it's really a health concern for them.
Before the statewide ban on smoking in bars here (in Colorado) some would advertise they were "smoker-friendly". You couldn't smoke in a bar in the town where I lived, but you could go to some bar outside the city and smoke to your heart's (dis?)content.
Now Colorado treats e-cigs the same as they do cigarettes which I agree is kind of ridiculous and you can't even use an e-cig outdoors in some parts of town here. I'm actually okay with that. I don't need to vape everywhere I go.
I didn't even need to be told that I shouldn't vape indoors where smoking wasn't allowed. I just knew it was wrong just as surely as I believe outdoor bans on smoking or vaping are wrong too.
And while vaping is a lot less obnoxious than smoking, let's not lie to ourselves or others. It does produce a smell and it does put chemicals besides water vapor into the air.
This really hit home a couple of months ago as I was dragged into the non-smoking area of the downtown touristy area of my city. I was really jonesing and to make things worse my e-cig was almost dead anyway. When I did try to take a discreet hit outdoors it just wasn't working well at all. And then I saw a woman just chasing clouds all by herself. She had dutifully gone outside but was ignoring the outdoor smoking/vaping ban and I could smell it from 20-30 feet away.
She wasn't bothering me other than making me a bit jealous because her e-cig was working just fine and mine wasn't but it kind of struck me that it's not quite as innocuous as many of us would like to think.
And don't even think about smoking marijuana anywhere in public even if you're allowed to smoke cigarettes there. Or just go ahead and do it anyway. You probably won't get caught, but you could still be arrested for it.
While I don't mind I can understand other people's objections and we have laws about vaping and smoking anything in public.
And even before smoking was banned by law some bars were taking it upon themselves to ban smoking all on their own and not just in Colorado but in other states as well.
If you're a smoker, I highly recommend quitting. I substituted with e-cigs and I still wish I would quit those but it's a lesser evil IMO.
What really helped me quit was the reaction of the tobacco companies and their distributors and retailers to the big 2009 tax increase on cigs. Even BEFORE the higher taxes went into effect they raised prices and blamed Obama. I saw price increases 2 months before the tax went into effect that were 60% higher than what I had been paying and the tax increase wasn't even close to .
A 2009 law approved by Congress, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, increased the federal tax rate on cigarettes by 61.66 cents per pack (from 39 cents to $1.0066 per pack)
https://www.tobaccofreekids.or... [tobaccofreekids.org]
So I should have had to pay about $6 more per carton WHEN the tax actually took effect. Instead I was paying $25 more per carton 2 months BEFORE the tax took effect.
Fuck those greedy bastards!
I didn't even quit right away. I kept buying them for months and so they probably figured we were so addicted we had no choice - which may have been true to some extent, but I did quit being an RJR customer eventually.
Re:Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the will of the people - not nannying. Your rights end in my personal space. Do whatever you want at home or outside, but not next to me in a crowded building.
Re:Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to allow vaping or not belongs to the proprietor, not "the people," no matter how lopsided the vote. If I permit vaping in my bar and you choose not to be around it, that's your prerogative -- the prerogative to set policy on my property is mine.
Re:Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you sell alcohol indiscriminately in this theoretical bar...? Can you decide to sell it to 15 year olds?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're saying is "No but {insert irrelevant strawman}"
When do we ban cars?
Cigarettes and cars have different utility and contribute differently to the economy. If cars only existed to kill its occupants we'd have banned them long ago. ... You didn't think this was a single variable decision did you? Shame on your simple mindedness.
So now that they have deemed vapor a harmful pollutant. Are we going to ban restaurants who bring out a nice piping hot plate of food releasing its steam vapor?
I stand corrected. You're not simple minded at all. You're obtusely dense and don't want to think about the differences in your examples.
After all someone might be allergic to something in that steam.
Allergies are irrelevant to the discussion. Please stay on topic.
Or offended by the smell of cooked pork.
Offence is irrelevant to the discussion. Please stay on topic.
With the number of rich jews...
There we go, now it all comes out. Whatever credibility you had left in the discussion (very little mind you) you just pissed against the wall. Now off you fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the assault rifles they sell legally at gun shows have another use?
Re: (Score:2)
Traditional internal combustion cars and other such vehicles *are* being banned in many places, the problem is that there is often no viable alternative and there is still a requirement to get people and goods around. Many steps are being taken to reduce the level of toxic chemicals being released into the air from vehicles.
Smoking and/or vaping is not required in any case, it's solely a matter of someone's choice and it does not provide any benefits to society.
Vehicles also tend to operate out in the open
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad your education ended in the 3rd grade, otherwise you'd see this is entirely about public spaces, in which you have no personal space at all, dipshit.
Go the fuck back to school.
Re: (Score:2)
Go the fuck back to reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad your education ended in the 3rd grade, otherwise you'd see this is entirely about public spaces, in which you have no personal space at all, dipshit.
Who told you that, and why are you repeating it? It makes you look stupid. People don't have the right to touch you in public, your personal space begins where your skin does. So, what of someone's exhale? If you have to breathe it in, they're definitely invading your personal space.
All these comparisons to cars are logically retarded. Cars enable our modern economy. Smoking doesn't. Case closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, do whatever you like providing it doesn't impact upon others.
Re: Nanny State (Score:2)
I wish the same principle could be appl8ed to large mammal pets.
Pets are allowed on planes now, because of the stress of the owner
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who said anything about harmful? How about annoying? Infuriating? Laws like this reduce violence. If I throw a drink at you to put out your cigarette (or short your e-cig), it's assault. If you force me to partake, that's assault just the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Who said anything about harmful? How about annoying? Infuriating? Laws like this reduce violence.
^^^ Logical fallacy by appealing to extremes. Someone needs a lesson in self control and in how to behave in a society full of imperfect individuals.
If I throw a drink at you to put out your cigarette (or short your e-cig), it's assault. If you force me to partake, that's assault just the same.
Not according to the law or plain old common sense. I mean seriously, this is one tortuously built self-serving argument you have going on there buddy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I believe the original quote is, "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins," or more often stated as, "Your rights end where my nose begins."
Cigarettes and e-cigs literally cross this boundary.
Libertarians should love this law.
(captcha: persist)
Re:Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
OK, but be sure to wash thoroughly with unscented soap before you go out. No cologne or after-shave either except for rubbing alcohol if you really need it (but be sure it's good and dry before you go out.
While we're here, be sure to wear the standard grey uniform as well. We don't want your flashy colored clothes assaulting our senses.
Re: (Score:2)
Different orders of magnitude. Strong cologne in a confined space is just as bad as vaping in a confined space. I've actually had both cause eye irritation before.
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends on the person. Although It would be rude, I would prefer if people on the train would smoke rather than wear some of the perfumes I have had the displeasure to know. Weeping eyes and unstoppable running nose are not a good way to start work. Others feel the opposite.
It's a matter of balance and perspective. Even when I smoked, I wouldn't have lit up on the train were it legal (unless they had smoking and non-smoking cars). Nor in an office that had non-smokers. There should be some sort of
Re: (Score:3)
It really depends on the person. Although It would be rude, I would prefer if people on the train would smoke rather than wear some of the perfumes I have had the displeasure to know.
BOTH should be banned. Period. If I can smell you from a distance, you've got too much stink on. Most of that shit is toxic [hyperlogos.org] and much of the stuff we permit here in the USA is actually banned in the EU because it's probably toxic and untested, or actually has been proven to be toxic but we permit it anyway. Then they mix the toxic chemicals with musk, whose job is to carry compounds through cell walls.
Re: (Score:3)
So outlaw cleaning agents as well?
Somewhere between some and most of them, yes. Absolutely ban all colors and scents added to them which are not proven harmless. Yeah, that's a high bar, but so what? Cleaners don't need to be scented. There are adequate non-toxic substitutes for most cleaners and the remaining ones (like detergents, or strong solvents) can simply be produced without unnecessary additives.
Now you're on to something. (Score:2)
"No cologne or after-shave.... be sure to wear the standard grey uniform..."
You're describing my home town. Although people think various shades of grey are stylish.
Re: (Score:2)
Soap, shampoo, tooth paste, breath mint, detergent, deodorant, cologne, car freshener ... The list of personally chosen smells goes on.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we ban perfume next, because it offends some? I mean, it's the exact same argument.
Until someone demonstrates actual harm from second-hand vapor, adult establishments like bars should be allowed to set policy themselves.
Re:Nanny State (Score:4, Insightful)
Because vaping, much like sneezing, is a normal bodily function.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people try not to sneeze and in public, or at least attempt to sneeze into a tissue if possible...
Very few people sneeze openly into the room, and such people are usually considered rude.
Sneezing is also involuntary, very few people intentionally inhale things intended to cause sneezing.
Re: (Score:2)
Vaping may cause harm to others. We have no evidence that it doesn't, and it is intended to contain some of the same chemicals as tobacco smoke which we do know to be harmful. It makes sense to err on the side of caution in this regard, especially as vaping is not an essential or unavoidable activity.
Re: (Score:2)
"Will of the people" and "hysteria" are not mutually exclusive, though in that case it was well founded anyway.
Re:Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't do this and don't do that. 'Cause we know what's best for you and we're gonna pass laws that make you conform.
That's an overstatement, there. The law isn't telling people they can't do it, rather it is saying that the rest of society has the right to not be exposed to it involuntarily (as is also the case with regular tobacco smoke). You can still smoke it in your private home, or in your private car, or in other private places. Those who are intelligent enough to not smoke this should not be forcibly exposed to the toxic brew that is produces.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank god a voice of reason in this thread. The rest of the place is infested with self-righteous ash-holes. You've already said all the reasonable things that need being said and gotten nothing but an undeserved "troll" mod for it, so I'll take the low road and just tell them all to shove their fucking drugs up their butts. Or switch to a harder drug that kills them faster, so long as I'm not forced to partake of it with them.
Re: (Score:3)
This ban is for indoor. I could only wish that spraying perfume inside were equally illegal. Put that on at home. If you are so strongly doused that you set off a smoke detector, you should be forced to leave. I was once in a movie theater and someone thought it necessary to spray on extra perfume - in her theater seat. She's lucky I was thirsty, or I would have sprayed her with my drink to clean her off.
I am fully in favor of an Axe law [huffingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:3)
This ban is for indoor. I could only wish that spraying perfume inside were equally illegal.
A male goat that sees females in heat will urinate on his beard. The smell of that is revolting outdoors and unbearable indoors, to the point that even cows (badly smelling creatures themselves) will refuse to enter a barn polluted by a perfumed goat.
A good part of human perfumes are not much more appealing to me than what a goat uses.
I am fully in favor of an Axe law [huffingtonpost.com].
Spraying a dangerous substance that has adverse effect (beyond just revulsion) to multiple schoolmates? Sounds pretty obvious to me.
Re: (Score:2)
You're gonna urinate on a goat's beard?
Please post the video.
Re: (Score:2)
so are they also banning combustion engines
Most civilized countries already announced plans to ban these by year XXXX.
perfumes, deodorants
Sadly, not yet, but see other responses.
and the millions of other products and devices that emit aerosol based chemicals.
If they're harmful or offensive to bystanders, yes, they do get banned.
Re: (Score:2)
so are they also banning combustion engines, perfumes
Several cities ban "excessive" perfume in public buildings.
Many more regulate ICE emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm working on making fuel from idiotic apostrophes. There's an endless supply of them and they have no other use.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm working on making fuel from idiotic apostrophes. There's an endless supply of them and they have no other use.
Generalise it to make fuel from idiotic autocorrects - that's where that apostrophe came from.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The anti-smoking lobby stopped being about the actual smoking. Now you're a just a bunch of puritanical assholes who gets triggered if someone, somewhere, is enjoying something.
Nobody gives a fat fuck if you sit at home and poison yourself. It's when you go out in public and poison other people that it becomes a problem. By all means, stay home and poison yourself, and if you don't mind, up the dose.
Re: (Score:3)
Please, spare me the hysterics - there has been absolutely no harm found in 2nd-hand water-vapour
If it were 100% water vapor, you would be correct. However can you show an independent test of the vapor that comes from an electronic cigarette (or whatever the cool kids are calling them today)? Of course not, because there is no standard for them. There are dozens of different devices out there that create the vapor, and hundreds of different formulas for the juice that they vaporize. Regular cigarettes are more inform right now, and for some reason the peddlers of the e-cigarettes are telling us th
Re: Nanny State (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
As a former smoker, I don't care whatsoever if someone vapes around me, even if they're in my home.
As a former smoker, I don't care whatsoever what you care about. I started smoking in the first place because I had a girlfriend who smoked and didn't want the ashtray-kissing experience. Now that I don't smoke tobacco, it smells and tastes like an ashtray's asshole again. I don't need people exhaling something that smells like a perfumed asshole, either.
With that said, I've been around people who are vaping who didn't smell like anything, they are not the big problem IMO. All the other chucklefucks who sho
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Wrong. As a former smoker I actually enjoy tobbacÄi smoke, never mind vaping. This law is hysterical and vindictive. No wonder folk voted for Trump, America is being pussified by leftist snowflakes.
Re: (Score:2)
How can anyone enjoy such a disgusting smell?
What, smell and taste are subjective? Who'd have thought it!
While, for the record, I think this is somewhat of an overreach I can't say I really care that much one way or the other. I've never vaped, and almost certainly never will, and I don't live in New York state (- something to ponder, for all those who are up in arms over this, especially if you're one of those people who have suggested to others in the past that they can always move if they're not happy in their current state).
There is no doubt in my
Re: Nanny State (Score:2)
Goddamit, this will show those uppity Californians that New York IS STILL the least-free state in America!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually think people should boil water in public places, just to show how stupid these laws are.
Bring a portable, battery operated teapot, let it boil for several minutes, then inhale the vapor and exhale.
Snowflakes' heads will explode.
Re: (Score:2)
I just want the same thing.
Well that and also to slowly peel every inch of flesh off of the worthless inconsiderate ash-holes that make it impossible to walk a single fucking block down any city street without being literally nauseated by their goddamn drugs.
Re:Why the nicotine hate (Score:4, Insightful)
The hate is people around people who like nicotine have the right to make a personal decision to not use the drug.
Fine if you utilize nicotine in a manner that does not expose other people to nicotine vapors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And let's ban caffeine vapors in 2nd-hand caffeine inhalation
Definitely NOT comparable. The aromas from coffee and liquor are highly dilute compared to that of something concentrated like cigarette smoke AND those beverages in the quantities used do not put high concentrations of random chemicals and drugs into a gaseous form ---- you would definitely have to drink some of the product to absorb a detectable quantity of anything.
The gases from smoking/e-cigars when used do involve deliberately putting v
Because I don't enjoy being manipulated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vaping is so cheap that it is almost free. This is the consequence of it being safe and almost unregulated so that competition works. You can vape for less than $5 a month. Hardly worth a big corporation's effort. Much more profitable to sell "artisanal" coffee to hipsters.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My god man, stop giving them ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
How long before the laws that everyone must editorially wear surgical masks in public?
I would say about infinity nanoseconds/decades.
Or when it because illegal to have sex without a condom?
Same. Ain't gonna happen ever.
And lets not forget about a prohibition style law against eating meat many would like to see.
The great thing about America is it has many people in it so you can find "many" people in support of literally anything no matter how crazy.
Anyway, none of the things you are panicking about will
Re: What about pot smoking? (Score:2)
I want a ticket on that airline!
Re: (Score:2)
Those vaporizers are great!
They avoid the initial 'head rush' common with the first spliff of the day, they're less harmful for you, and there's practically no environmental 'after-smell'. A very pleasant way to get stoned indeed.
They do tend to be pretty heavy when it comes to battery use though. Make sure you use high current (for batteries) rechargeables, and get spares!