Los Angeles City Council approves e-cigarette ban

LINK

Seems impossible that this could happen with someone as rational and reasonable and just plain likable as Castle out there advocating for the e-cigarette industry. I'm shocked.

 

That's rather stupid of them. It's water vapor. There's no risk of second hand smoke or anything. It's also cleaner and doesn't leave cigarette butts all over the place.

 

The tobacco lobby have been busy trying to get this kind of thing done, and generally implying that e-cigs are as bad as the real thing. Pretty disgraceful.

 

I'm not so sure it's big tobacco doing this, because they are also trying to butt in to the e-cig business, which long term is a smarter play.

 

It kind of makes it clear to me that the anti-smoking groups don't want people to stop smoking. All they want to do is keep non-smokers from starting, and then let the cigarettes sort the current smokers out.

 

It just exposes their base level prohibitionism, combine that with a puritanical fear of anything new and you get the freak out over e-cigs. All supported by big tobacco of course, it's a classic Baptists and Bootleggers alliance.

 

There are a couple of bars around the city I've been to that are really vaping friendly. There's definitely a smell, but it's mild and nowhere near as offensive as tobacco. The biggest issue is how absurd some of them look, which doesn't really hurt anyone but them.

 

You're almost correct.

All you have to do is look at how U.S. laws regarding online gambling evolved over the past 8 years. Originally the big land-based casino companies were against internet gambling, until states like New Jersey and Nevada legalized it so they could get into the marketplace. (There are at least a dozen other states that will likely legalize online gambling this year.)

I think this is just big tobacco trying to level the playing field so they can make a play for market share.

Also, I'm all in favour of anything that pisses John Castle off.

 

A friend at work does it. He occasionally blows some vapor in my face to be a wise guy. It's harmless, and it has some "pleasant" smell or other that I can't place. Harmless or not, I don't like the smell, pleasant or not, being forced on me. It's like that guy in the office with too much cologne on, you'd rather he just stay away.

 

It's basically the same "smoke" that is produced by smoke machines at concerts and the like. The smell depends on what flavor they're vaping, but you just catch a hint of it. It's really mild.

As for annoying, I have seem some tricked out ecigs that put out so much vapor that you'd swear the person's insides are on fire. I could see that getting on someone's nerves.

 

I was on a plane next to someone who was vaping (and doing it in a way as to not produce a cloud of vapor). Didn't bother me a bit.

They guy who didn't believe in deodorant, on the other hand . . .

 

That's exactly the issue. I don't go to a bar to inhale flavors. That said, I'm fairly pro-vaping as an alternative to cigarettes. But then, I've never been opposed to making accommodations for smokers, just so long as there is no requirement that I inhale there shit. Same thing applies to vaping.

 

Yeah, but you probably aren't going to smell anything unless someone blows the vapor right into your face....which would be rude as hell.

If you're sitting at a bar, and a guy sitting to your right is vaping, and another guy sitting to your left has a mullet, you're going to be smelling Polo.

 

One of our reporters recently started vaping.

I can't smell any of it even when she's sitting in the passenger seat of my Explorer.

 

Morons.

Liars.

Another shitty law based on pseudo-science.
Business as usual in America.

 

If I don't have to smell it, and there is no toxicity, then I don't care.

 

So if several posters here say there's a smell, then clearly it's more than just water vapor, right?

Just asking, I've never seen the thing in real life myself.

 

When cigarettes (of the tobacco variety) were first mass-marketed, nobody said they were bad for you. In fact, a lot of folks agreed that they were good for you! Of course, it took a few decades of peer-reviewed research to prove that they're really, really bad for you.

E-Cigarettes have only been around for a few years, but a lot of folks say they're safe. And why shouldn't we trust these companies and the government on e-cigarettes. Corporations and governments have never lied to us, have they?

 

Correct. It's not "just water vapor". Like, I said...if you've ever been to a concert or a dance club or some other venue with those smoke machines, it's the same thing.

 

Unless there's some demonstrable harm to bystanders, it shouldn't be banned in any private establishment. The owner of each establishment should be able to decide, and the market will sort things out.

But, no, the church ladies are out in force these days...

 

I think it's great that LA has unemployment, public services, infrastructure issues and crime all straightened out so that they can spend time on this very important issue affecting such a small minority of people.

 

If it's good enough to hose down club dancers and movie stars in horror films, what's the beef?

 

It's impossible to prove something is safe, only that it isn't. The burden of proof is on those who say they should be banned to provide evidence they're NOT safe.

And the precautionary principle--the idea that something should be banned on the mere suspicion of harm--is a recipe for cultural, technological, and economical stagnation. As Michael Crichton pointed out: "The precautionary principle, properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle." Why? Because we suspect harm may come from using it.

 

Absolutely agreed.

In fairness, however, there is some precedence in this case. E-cigarettes contain many of the same ingredients as regular cigarettes (other than the burning tobacco, of course.) So the big question is what's in the vapour. I highly doubt it's just water.

I get this argument, but it's always a slippery slope. What constitutes "demonstrable harm"? Strictly reading your argument, I'm assuming you're opposed to nuisance by-laws.

 

Trying to...."butt" in.....well played!

 

It's not just water. It's nicotine, propolene glycol and/or vegetable glycerine, and flavorings.

 

Shouldnt those with addictive personalities go cold turkey?

 

They probably should, but a lot of people don't see E-cigs so much as a nicotine cessation route, as they do a safer, cheaper alternative to cigarettes.

 

Oh man I had such high hopes for John Castle's vaping magazine career. That shit was going to go off, I mean look at how successful the cigarette magazine industry is.

 

According to a TIME article you can read here, there is a small amount of nicotine that is released, which can be breathed in by others. Though it also says that none of the other toxins are released secondhand.