No, it's not. That turned out to be just another reckless lie by the safety Nazis. It's unpleasant, though.
Excellent piece. Kind of alarming, to see Oklahoma so concerned about the appearance of an adult smoking a cigarette corrupting the young, whilst selling Plan B abortifacients to 13-year-olds over the counter.
Didn’t we recently get a report that damage from second hand smoke is almost non-existent?
The gov’t loses tax revenue if people switch from heavily taxed tobacco to e-cigs, so they are a danger to gov’t health.
And if we ban things because of the way they look, I might come up with a few suggestions.
Follow the money. Eventually, they will be taxed, and taxed heavily—nicotine will become a controlled substance in the same way that alcohol is a controlled substance. The large tobacco companies will do their best to buy up e-cig producers to maintain their nicotine oligopoly. Whether or not the Marlboro Man mystique transfers to e-cigs remains to be seen.
For me (a non-smoker), these look like a great innovation. If someone wants to be addicted to nicotine, and I don’t have to smell it, great. And, from a societal point of view, if reduction of lung cancer is worthwhile, e-cigs do the job, because there is no tar.
Our son smoked cigarettes for over ten years. He tried medication, gum, candy, patches but nothing worked. Then he went to e-cigarettes and it works. He doesn’t smell like cigarettes anymore. His health is better. So I’m a big fan.
Whatever it is, it most definitely is NOT the federal government’s business.
Coming up on one year since I switched to e-cigarettes. I have noticed significant positive changes to my health, mostly respitory and nasal congestion. The advantages are huge, odor, convenience, cleanliness and cost. A five box cartridge costs me 10.00 and lasts for about six days. I have read that over twelve million people have switched to vapors from cigarettes. Hell yes the gubmint finds something wrong with them.........they are losing huge tax revenue.
The last time I went to doctor for a checkup, I made sure non-smoker was put on my medical chart.
The gestapo people in city, state, and federal govn. are so intent on running your life, they don't want you to have something in your hand that looks like a cigarette. A pox on them for wanting to control my entire life down to what I put in my mouth.
Those of you who don't smoke, will one of these days, not be allowed to buy certain foods to put in your mouth and other food will be taxed. There will be a tax on butter, veggie oil, power drinks, anything with sugar in it, anything with salt in it, every dessert, whatever they can tax saying it isn't good for you.
Eventually, you will be personally taxed if you weigh over a certain amount for your height. That is already on your medical chart that is in a computer.
That last time I went to the doctor, I asked him if the government had access to our records with him. He said they are all on computer and the government can get them any time they want. So, they will know if you are over weight and it's my opinion, you will be taxed due to those extra pounds.
You don't care if we are taxed for e-cigs, but you will not escape taxation in the future for what you put in your mouth. However, if you engage in homosexual sex, it is not your fault you get AIDS and that treatment will be covered by insurance as long as you need it before you die. /s/s
Nazi governments are quite fond of forbidding, regulating, and taxing the behavior of others. It makes them feel good.
Control-freaks gotta control.
You made the following statement in your piece:
Given what we know about secondhand smoke from real cigarettes…these vapors are, in fact, far less harmful than secondhand smoke.
Exactly how harmful is secondhand smoke?
A paper by James E Enstrom (UCLA School of Public Health) and Geoffrey C Kabat (Albert Einstein College of Medicine) published in 2003 tracked over 118,000 Californians from 1959 to 1998. This study had the following conclusion:
The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
The study, Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98, was originally published in the British Medical Journal.
Then we have a German study, Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes among Airline Cabin Attendants in Germany, 1960–1997, originally published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2002, that concluded:
Airline cabin attendants are exposed to several potential occupational hazards, including cosmic radiation. Little is known about the mortality pattern and cancer risk of these persons. The authors conducted a historical cohort study among cabin attendants who had been employed by two German airlines in 1953 or later. Mortality follow-up was completed through December 31, 1997. The authors computed standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for specific causes of death using German population rates. The effect of duration of employment was evaluated with Poisson regression. The cohort included 16,014 women and 4,537 men (approximately 250,000 person-years of follow-up). Among women, the total number of deaths (n = 141) was lower than expected (SMR = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67, 0.94). The SMR for all cancers (n = 44) was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.54, 1.17), and the SMR for breast cancer (n = 19) was 1.28 (95% CI: 0.72, 2.20). The SMR did not increase with duration of employment. Among men, 170 deaths were observed (SMR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.94, 1.28). The SMR for all cancers (n = 21) was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.41, 1.18). The authors found a high number of deaths from acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (SMR = 40; 95% CI: 28.9, 55.8) and from aircraft accidents among the men. In this cohort, ionizing radiation probably contributed less to the small excess in breast cancer mortality than reproductive risk factors. Occupational causes seem not to contribute strongly to the mortality of airline cabin attendants.
(Note that Lufthansa did not ban smoking on their flights until 1997)
Bottom line, by actual peer-reviewed epidemiological studies, what hazards are there to second-hand smoke?
“E-cigarette, public danger or untaxed source of government revenue.”
Fixed it.
taxpayer’s friend.
and you can wean yourself off nicotine, if you want.
Are e-cigs taxed like regular cigs?
If not, the state and feds probably want to wipe out competition. Gotta keep the money flowing.