I guess it's all depends on your point of view. Compared to cigarettes, anything is safer. And I don't remember seeing anyone claim that e-cigarettes are "safe," whatever that means. But I can speak from first-hand experience. After decades of smoking, I tried e-cigarettes about a year ago (a cartomizer, actually) and stopped cigarettes instantly without any craving at all. I sleep better, my sinuses are clear, no more coughing, no more constantly clearing my throat, no more smell.

I think they're just looking to replace the tax revenue. Each pack garners my state a little over $3. For a pack-a-day smoker, that's $1,100/year per smoker in tax revenue. If too many people quit, as they claim they want to happen, that revenue has to be replaced. That's the folly of "sin taxes."

My last cigarette was a year ago October. My improvements are the same with the addition of no more wheeze. The vape juice I use is glycerin, flavor (peppermint), and nicotine. That's it: no other additives, toxins, or poisons. It's ridiculous to regulate them like tobacco, but that's how it is. No vaping in nonsmoking areas. Okay, I'm used to that.

I think this is one of those follow-the-money things. Who stands to benefit monetarily from tight regulations on vaping? Tobacco companies. Who wants to be snookered by their propaganda?

The New England Journal of Medicine Reports much higher rate of Formaldehyde for E-cigs than ordinary cigarettes. Possibly as much as 15 times what is in standard tobacco products.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069

Formaldehyde is associated with cancer of the throat and nasal passages in smokers. I suspect any increase in that rate will yield a similar increase in throat and nasal cancers among the Vapor crowd and just possibly among 2nd hand exposures as well.

The Oncology Nurse Advisor (below) had this to say and referred to a CBS News report.(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/e-cigarette-vapor-filled-with-cancer-causing-chemicals/)

The formaldehyde was the result of overheating. The wattage the study used to create the vapor was far more than any device I've seen or used, and their use of continuously-repeated five-second puffs is something nobody would do and is sure to cause overheating.

The study presents data which is probably correct, but needs to be considered for what it is. Are many people actually using the product at that high voltage? I suspect not, and if not the data presented just isn't all that useful.

I'm not saying they didn't create formaldehyde. I'm saying that the devices, settings and methodology were designed to do so, despite bearing no resemblance to how the units are designed for use and used by people. If a person were to use a vaping device the same way their test was set up, it would be a very unpleasant experience.

Yeah, because it tastes like shit if it gets that hot.

From the snippet it appears they don't have any evidence of it being harmful only fears that it might be and their big objection seems to be it might make more people smoke.

Seems more like religion than science to me.

The idea that Vaping is anywhere near as harmful as smoking has to be laughed at at this point after years of it being available and not one credible study proving otherwise.

No wonder big tobacco is buying up e-cigarette brands en masse.

E-cigarettes were rolled into existing smoking regulations here in Philly. The only people I see using these things are bearded hipsters.

"Electronic cigarettes are to be licensed and regulated as an aid to quit smoking from 2016, it has been announced.
E-cigarettes – battery-operated devices that mimic cigarettes – are to be classed as "medicines", which means they will face stringent checks by medicine regulator the MHRA and doctors will be able to prescribe them to smokers to help them cut down or quit.
This move has been widely welcomed by medical experts and officials, as tighter regulation will ensure the products are safe and effective."
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/06june/pages/e-cigarettes-and-vaping.aspx

Much more information at that link which is counter to your rhetoric and which is also not replete with bias and snark but instead is chock full of the most current actual science, which the NHS feels supports their paying for e-devices as part of, you know, a health system.

[img][/img]

information from the NHS of the United Kingdom because you claimed the UK has positions on e-cigs they do not in fact hold. That is, I expect, why you replied with inscrutable snark involving vaccinations and models.
But for those who are interested the National Health Service, preparing to pay for e-cigs for Brits stopping smoking, has all sorts of links and science and up to the minute best guesses and everything!!!!

they didn't say that e-cigs were safe for nonsmokers.

their statement only applies to use by smokers as method to stop smoking.

She's also the face of a popular brand of e-cigarette.

safer alternative for smokers.

dangerous alternative for non smokers, because they can create an addiction.

I think treating them the same as cigarettes as far as public places, restaurants and so forth is just fine.

any activity under the sun. But as soon as it's something they enjoy (ecigs, ect), they find all kinds of ways of trying to combat those regs.
But I'd like to see them regulated. I don't want to go out to a restruant and see people smoking or vaping. It ruins the dinner I'm spending good money on.

The only thing I noticed was the slight scent of whatever fruit flavored liquid they were vaping.

They should ban perfume and cologne if they are going to ban e-cigs, since it is SO much worse being around someone wearing strong perfume or cologne which can actually make people like me ill with nausea and headaches.

There is a such a gigantic difference between that and being around someone smoking a regular cigarette. It's night and day.

But, you know, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

why are you basing your opinion on something so unscientific as "it smelled like...to me".

who cares what it smells like? how good it smells tells you nothing about the safety of it.

vs. a slight smell that goes away in a few seconds...

It tells you a big fucking deal about what the comparable safety is.

First, it would be good to see some strong evidence about vaping, with discussion about its pros and cons in order to support the ban. Knee-jerk legislation is very "Republican" style to me.

There is a difference between "re-normalizing behavior" and the liquids and vapors involved. My own research shows that there is a health benefit for those who switch from regular tobacco products to e-cigs. Some of them include no carbon monoxide and none of the carcinogenic products of combustion as well as none of the hundreds of chemicals in both commercial cigarettes with there being less in natural or organic tobacco.

As far as second hand "smoke" issues, there are going to be "psychological" reactions by people who view the mist-like vapor as a hazard like smoke, and it is not. It is two types of glycol and what remains of the nicotine.

I don't think governing by hysteria or as a covert means to manipulate behavior is appropriate when we are actually talking about health issues. If people have concerns, then there should be extensive debate on actual studies.

Oh, and as a disclaimer, I am now a vaper and have ended 40-years of cigarettes smoking thanks to that. I know many people who have and, even if we don't use them to quit, we are reaping many benefits from this form of nicotine delivery.

Of course, hysteria includes controlling people and behaviors in order to "save the children", which tends to be a red flag for me.

Uh... Welcome to politics. You must be new to it.

just found out about it the other day. Any tips?

alter the speaker's meaning.