Scorning smokers - Page 3

Tobacco crackdowns target e-cigarettes, despite their lack of secondhand dangers, raising questions about the basis of current bans

|
(123)
E-cigarettes emit water vapors, not toxic secondhand smoke
SPENCER PLATT/GETTY IMAGES

Under what legal grounds could San Francisco's government have the right to ban e-cigarette usage in public places if they are proved harmless? If the legislation passes, residents of non-smoking apartments would be unable to legally vape a scentless, allegedly toxin free e-cigarette in the privacy of their own home.

 

FEDS AND E-CIGS

In March the FDA appointed Mitch Zeller as the new director of the Center for Tobacco Products. According to his FDA profile, Zeller, a lifelong proponent of FDA tobacco regulation, has deep-rooted ties to the anti-smoking movement and is currently an executive of a pharmaceutical consulting firm working closely with sellers of FDA approved, nicotine-replacement pharmaceuticals.

But Zeller has openly advocated the idea of harm reduction through nicotine-replacement systems, much more than his predecessor, Dr. Lawrence Deyton. So hope may yet exist for the plight of vapers who don't want to be lumped in with smokers. So much of the anti-smoking conversation is drenched in black-and-white thinking, promoting a system of total abolition over harm reduction. Unfortunately for smokers, this could impede their transition to a safe nicotine delivery system that they can use virtually anywhere, and one that may consequently help save lives. As of now, public discourse and education may act as the most important catalyst toward a widespread understanding of e-cigarettes.

For anyone who has seen an e-cigarette, the soft glow of the LED light at the end has little resemblance to a traditional cigarette, which is on fire and emitting a cloud of noxious smoke. If an FDA approved, emission-free e-cigarette eventually hits the market, users in San Francisco could still face a loss of freedom solely backed by the ideological social standards of the anti-smoking movement, which would bar them from vaping in public. But for now, San Francisco's vapers should enjoy their freedom while it lasts.

CORRECTION: This article was corrected to change the chemical name in Conley's quote from propylene glycol and to clarify that the FDA studied the liquid in e-cigarettes, not their emissions. 

Comments

Those who market e-cigarettes warn that this is nicotine and therefore, a health risk. What toxins are contained in the discharged vapor, only chemists know. Given the highly “suggestible” nature of young humans and the more mature, it seems responsible to assume the “black-and-white” approach. That is, ban all recreational toxins from human ingestion.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 12:50 pm

Completely based on lies and mis-information. Nicotine itself is about as bad a caffeine, science backs that up. There are no toxins, science backs that up. The vapor evaporates in the air after you blow it out, fact.

So I would assume you would rather force people back to regular cigarettes? That's what people like you that spread falsehoods and outright lies because of your biases towards others are going to cause to happen.

For 35 years I've been trying to quit and made a year at the most using other products like gum. For the first time in 35+ years, I have not had a cigarette in over 2½ years. My lungs are clear (according to my doctor, not me), I don't weeze anymore, I can be active without getting tired, my clothes don't stink and I am healthier as a result. I only buy American made products that have the ingredients listed on serialized bottles. My doctor is behind me and my wife 100% on these. My brother has now quit for over a year as well.

Please stop trying to make smokers go back to cigarettes and stop spreading lies and mis-information. If you are interested in the subject, do a little research or exclude yourself from the conversation.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 5:53 am

You misunderstood my intention. Do not smoke. This includes e-cigarettes.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 9:01 am

No one cares about your intention. The fact is that addiction is a DISEASE, that requires treatment. E-cigs are proving to be more successful than any other therapy.

Please post less about which you know nothing. It would help us all

Posted by Mike on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 11:07 am

Pharmaceutical, that is prescribed by a doctor

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 1:12 pm

Oh yeah because that has worked so well for opiates amirite?

We totally don't have any problems with prescription drug abuse at all.

See you are advocating for something you don't really understand.

If it becomes a prescription drug, the pharmaceutical companies get involved. They patent it, give it a cute name, and market it. They also start adding things.

Right now the most dangerous thing in an APV is the food flavoring used in it. That will change once big pharma gets involved.

You are ignorant. You have no idea what the actual science behind this is, nor what the effects are. There are actual scientific studies published and in progress globally covering this technology.

Just because it looks like smoking does not make it smoking.

Quit letting other people brainwash you and go actually learn something before you start pushing your opinion on others.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 3:37 pm

Sounds like a good idea! Let's make coffee controlled as well since caffeine is highly addictive. Oh...cheese has addicting elements in it as well. Should regulate that as well!

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

"The fact is that addiction is a DISEASE"

Someone addicted to running has a disease, it needs treatment?

What about a caffeine addiction? Someone addicted to coffee needs treatment?

What about those who ditched heroin in favor of methadone? Okay, you "might" have a point there, except methadone is mitigating a worse addiction.

Posted by MattZuke on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 8:48 am

I was a heroin addict for many years and methadone is NOT the answer. Methadone has proven to be far more addictive than heroin and I see this with close friends everyday. Have you ever been by any of the methadone clinics in the area? Maybe if they actually gave people treatment past their daily dose, but the same clinic prescribes benzos.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 20, 2013 @ 9:46 am

Your intention can eat a bag of dicks. You have no right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

I bet you're one of those "enlightened progressive" types.

You think you know what is best for everyone.

You don't.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 3:38 pm

It does nothing for your cause other than alienate progressives like myself who are otherwise totally on your side and think these anti-smoking laws have gone so far as to be crazy. To me, the whole banning drugs kick is what the right wing does. Progressivism is about live and let live.

Yes, I realize that in this case it's coming from Eric Mar's office. And yes, I still support Mar. He's just wrong on this issue.

For what it's worth, I thought the original comment was sarcasm, especially at the point where he says let's ban all recreational substances which have addiction potential! If he's serious, he's basically a far right wing lunatic, like the Mormons who really do take that philosophy to its logical conclusion and forbid coffee, tea, chocolate, and everything else under the sun. Otherwise he's either completely clueless to his own hypocrisy, or just being sarcastic.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 9:07 pm

"Eat a bag of dicks."

Is that a high-tech way of saying "eat me"? Sure looks like it, you benighted child.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 13, 2013 @ 5:59 am

You misunderstand, we don't give a damn about your lack of intelligence. Go find a cardboard box and live in it if you don't like the world outside. Also beneficially we won't have to see or hear you. Hopefully we'll get a chance to cover the airholes before you notice. +1 to average human IQ.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 7:23 am

"Those who market e-cigarettes warn that this is nicotine and therefore, a health risk."

Orders of magnitude less than smoking, as in it's estimated 99-999 years of using e-cigarettes equals 1 year of smoking. We are talking replacing a smoking habit which kills roughly 1% of it's user base per year with something about as risky as a caffeine habit.

"What toxins are contained in the discharged vapor, only chemists know."

It's well documented. E-cigarettes are
~70 propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin
~14% water
~14% food grade flavoring
~2% nicotine

Burring paraffin candles or using a glade plugin presents a greater health risk to bystanders.

"Given the highly “suggestible” nature of young humans"

We should let adults get cancer and die and hope this misery discourages youth smoking? We've tried this for a decade with no positive affect on public health.

"ban all recreational toxins from human ingestion"

This would be prohibition and we tried this with alcohol. We discovered quickly it didn't curb alcohol use, it actually increased, and black market alcohol presented a greater health risk.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 6:07 am

You, also misunderstood my intention for commenting about e-cigs. Although, I would add that maybe all marketing of this sort of pyrollyzing-vehicle of nicotine should cease as too harmful.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 9:04 am

I think it is you who is misunderstanding your intention.

Posted by davelog on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 3:54 pm

" I would add that maybe all marketing of this sort of pyrollyzing-vehicle of nicotine should cease as too harmful."

Really? Smoking is pretty harmful, as in it kills roughly 1% of it's user base per year. What logical rational do you have to market and alternative product to these people that is less likely to kill them? Seems to me marketing an alternative product that's order of magnitude safer would save lives and making cigarettes less economically viable would create an environment that teens are less likely to be able to buy them.

Why would you be opposed to this?

Posted by MattZuke on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 8:52 am

Why encourage self-destruction, period? No addiction. No abatement necessary. General addiction is the underlying theme running through this post is it not?

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 9:54 am

Pretty sure the only running theme is your absolute stupidity. Personally we all hope you're sterile so you don't breed more of it.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 7:19 am

This comment is most absurd. A ban of all "recreational toxins", is total prohibition of all human the majority of human endevour. It would encourage the maximum level of harm regarding alcohol, coffee, tea, spices (pepper, chilli, nutmeg) and tobacco and all other potentially toxic product. I can only assume your being ironic.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 7:42 am

I find your assertion that, prohibition of this habituation would compel one to maximum addiction to other available recreational substances to be absurd.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 9:14 am

Hmm lets see, so I guess we would need to totally ban alcohol, which is toxic, as well. We all know how well prohibition worked...

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 9:36 am

America is not providing adequate if any guidance and direction by way of responsible laws that protect youth or adults. The market is driving government and citizens—crazy! Once one is addicted, it is usually too late. There is too little hope of reversal.

Oh, prohibition did not work because it was repealed.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 1:19 pm

Uhhh, no. Prohibition did not work because it is absurd to believe that you can prevent thinking adults from doing whatever the hell they want.

Do you actually know anything about the history of prohibition in this country?

If you do, you know that it did about the same thing the "war on drugs" has done: waste a bunch of money, make a bunch of criminals rich, and make our society subject to much more violence than was present before it.

I hope you live in California. I've watched morons like you destroy the economy and culture here over the last 30 years, and you above any others deserve what you have created here, and what is coming.

Just wait until the state disarms all the law abiding citizens here. It'll become a third world country overnight. Gangs and thugs will rule the streets. Don't believe it? Go take a walk around Oakland California. Or Richmond.

The police department in Oakland posted a list of crimes that they will no longer respond to on their website. Including such harmless crimes as burglary.

I just hope you reap what you have sown rather than some poor old lady.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 3:46 pm

I agree thinking humans will do what they will. Humans are the problem. Rules are the helpers in that they can inform and otherwise, enforce. Again, Prohibition did not work, although, it reduced consumption of alcohol from 1920 to 1940 and was in force from 1920 till 1933 at which time, again, it was repealed.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 9:59 am

"Oh, prohibition did not work because it was repealed."

Are you nuts? There was more alcohol consumption during prohibition than before. Further bootleggers were not concerned about minors drinking, nor were they concerned about recreational drugs like opium, and unregulated production of alcohol tended to have added toxins.

This is the thesis of not working. On top of this, it resulted in organized crime, which resulted in violence. Prohibition was a epic failure which is why it was repealed.

Same deal with the war on drugs. You get rid of the pot, you get cocaine, get rid of the cocaine you get crack. Crack down on opium, heroin popularity rises.

Posted by MattZuke on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 9:27 am

Correction: Alcohol consumption went down from 1920 till 1940.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 10:00 am

Hard liquor consumption went way, way up. Prohibition encouraged the consumption of the strongest forms of alcohol. It made America go from a nation of beer drinkers to a nation of whisky drinkers. Furthermore, alcohol related diseases and ailments rapidly increased during Prohibition, as adulterated alcohol was very common,. The federal government even distributed alcohol laced with poisons in heavily African-American areas

Posted by Guest on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 7:08 am

Awayneramsey: You have it exactly backwards. Prohibition was repealed because of the devastating effect it was having on American society. Many adults did not want to stop using alcohol, so a black market very quickly developed. Ever hear of moonshine? Bathtub gin? The do-it-yourself versions ended up causing a lot of disability (e.g. blindness) and deaths. Prohibition created a business opportunity which was quickly taken advantage of by organized crime. Blood literally flowed in the streets as various families fought for control of the market. The police, courts, and prisons were overwhelmed with new cases; organized crime increased in power, and corruption extended among law enforcement officials. The 18th amendment was repealed in 1933 by ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment.

What inevitably happens when you make a substance that people want illegal or over-priced? Black markets, gray markets, organized crime, and the deaths of a boat-load of innocent bystanders.

Posted by EKeller on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 1:22 pm

Prohibition ceased to work when it was repealed. Alcohol consumption was reduced from 1920 till 1933 at which time it was repealed by the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 10:02 am

Obviously you lack a cognitive understanding of what "function", "work", or "logically inept" actually mean.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 7:34 am

Why are you still talking?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 2:09 am

Stick your head in a sink full of water and inhale, dear god please.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 7:25 am

You're kidding right? Prohibition was repealed because it wasn't working, it provided new breeding grounds for crime, drinking actually increased during prohibition, and the product was unregulated and in many cases just plain poison.

Posted by Jim on Mar. 20, 2014 @ 2:41 pm

Ahh...that good old American driver of zealots...the fear that someone, somewhere, somehow may be enjoying themselves and no one is trying to stop it.

Keep fighting the good fight to keep a clean body politic, you fascist.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 10:00 am

Medical research into Nicotine shows by itself, in its natural state, it is safe and non toxic and medical evidence at present suggests that Nicotine could actually have serious health benefits.

Many studies including some sponsored by the federal government, have shown that nicotine may in fact delay the onset and effects of both Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases.
Scientists have discovered that nicotine acts on nerve cells to enhance the release of neurotransmitters, chemicals that relay messages within the brain and nicotine increases a person's ability to focus and pay attention.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 11:47 am

As long as it is not consumed by any method "it is safe." Even spearmint tea has mild toxins.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

STFU and GTFO

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2013 @ 12:14 am

Yawn, stupid troll get out of your mothers basement.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 7:37 am

Furthermore, 60-milligrams of fully absorbed (.002 of an ounce) of nicotine to a non-smoker can kill a human and make an infant severly ill.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 1:45 pm

Please read your above post and think through what you've proposed: your black and white approach to banning all recreational toxins. First, that's an overly moralistic approach to the problem. Do we not have the freedom to make such choices for ourselves? Especially when you actually consider the scope of what you're saying: banning all "toxins." Let's ban caffeine. Or preservatives, high fructose corn syrup. Hell, sugar. Ban them all.

Posted by Trevron on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 6:07 am

Positivist maybe, but not moralist. I did stipulate "recreational toxins." Additionally, others observe and write that about 10-grams of caffeine (50-cups) can kill humans, whereas about 60-milligrams of nicotine, to a non-smoker, will kill. Side affects from pyrollyzed nicotine or "vaporizing" are more numerous and pose greater risks.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 1:54 pm

Including caffeine and alcohol, one presumes.

Posted by Hortencia on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 5:24 am

Focus on "risks" and the potential for "addiction." I have not yet met anyone who died from caffeine cancer or even said they were addicted to this.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 8:59 am

Thanks for the auspijcious writeup. It inn fact used
too bee a enjoyment acfcount it. Glance complex to more brought agreeable from you!

However, how could wee kerp inn touch?

Posted by http on Apr. 02, 2014 @ 6:49 pm

Start with Sugar.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 2:12 pm

So we should ban, Alcohol and Caffeine as well? Because.. well Those are Toxins, and recreational.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 10:05 am

I guess that also means you intend to ban alcohol consumption as well? That also means no more sugar free items because Aspartame breaks down into wood alcohol, formaldehyde, and a neurotoxin at 96 degrees fahrenheit.... oh and that would also mean banning eggs, potatoes, tomatoes and many fish....

Get a fragging grip and stay out of our life! There are literally thousands of toxins that we breathe and consume every day and many of them are put there by corporate thugs that don't want to pay what it takes to keep things clean. You know why you don't stick around after fresh paint or carpeting? Yep, toxins... even the sun is a source of toxins....

I could go on and on with all the toxins that the FDA and EPA say are just fine for factories to spew but god forbid a little vapor...

Posted by Guest on Jun. 20, 2013 @ 8:04 pm

You obviously lack critical thinking skills or that paragraph would never have left your keyboard. I question your suggestibility in all things. It's obvious you lack an informed opinion. Obviously we should all be deprived of things we enjoy. Also since tomatoes aren't a necessity we should ban them for their nicotine content. Wouldn't want people to become addicted to eating tomatoes now would we?

Next you're going to impose your world view of what I should be allowed to consume by restricting me to decaffeinated coffee? Chocolate will unfortunately be banned. As will anything else you enjoy. Smoked meats are now illegal l wouldn't want you to have the CHOICE of eating delicious hickory smoked meat, laden with very real carcinogens? Obviously only a scumbag would expose others to cancer causing chemicals at his BBQ!

1) Other human beings exhale about twice as many of the same chemicals in an e-cig (minus the nicotine) IN A SINGLE BREATH.

2) Nicotine is not mutagenic/carcinogenic.

3) Comparable to caffeine

4) As a bystander in a bar you have more to worry about in the tap water or the steak.

So don't hand wringers like yourself go worry about cleaning up our tap water from all the Pharmaceuticals, Dioxin, Nuclear Pollution, and other considerably more concerning topics of public health. You know...the ones that are actually going to kill you, me, and all our friends.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 7:14 am

The Largest Population in the US in 2013 is the elderly between 50 and 95 years old.
ALL of these people lived during 50 years in which everyone smoked at home, at work, in public, in cars, in theatres, EVERWHERE. According to the current research all these people should be dead from second hand smoke. Wonder why current research is so wrong??? Could the estimates and research have been squewed to favor non smoking. Guess what, it is, it was. People who have respitory problems to begin with are the ones who die from second hand smoke and less than 1 percent is effected that are in close contact with heavy smoke and probably had respitory or Health defects beyond the exposure to second hand smoke. Sorry, but this is established by fact.

Posted by Guest Terrence on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 9:09 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Also from this author

  • Still secret

    SFPD won't allow public oversight of its surveillance work with the FBI, despite high-profile legislation requiring it

  • Privatizing the Botanical Gardens

    Non-resident fees, exclusive events, and the transfer to a private group compromise what was a natural gathering spot

  • Beginning on broke

    Mayor Lee falling short on youth employment pledge as millennials face tough job market