Posted on 12/05/2011 9:48:48 PM PST by massmike
Yesterday the Boston Public Health Commission voted to ban the use of electronic cigarettes in workplaces, including outdoor areas such as restaurant patios. It says it is simply "clos[ing] a loophole" by "treat[ing] e-cigarettes like tobacco products."
In the absence of evidence that e-cigarettes are a hazard to other people, what possible justification is there for treating them the same as conventional cigarettes? I mean, they look like cigarettes, but surely that superficial resemblance is not enough for a scientifically grounded agency like the Boston Public Health Commission.
Or maybe it is. Here is the best the commission can do by way of justification: "The FDA found through laboratory testing that e-cigarettes contain toxic chemicals and carcinogens." What "toxic chemicals"? The only one the commission mentions is nicotine, which is not toxic at the levels ingested by e-cigarette users, let alone the infinitesimal levels in the air surrounding them. The FDA also found "dectectable levels" of diethylene glycol in one out of 18 e-cigarette cartridges it tested, probably due to a manufacturing defect that does not appear to be common. Condemning all e-cigarettes based on that one finding is like condemning all fruits and vegetables because they sometimes harbor pathogens. As for "carcinogens," the commission is referring to trace amounts of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, which are also found in nicotine replacement products that the FDA has approved as safe and effective. So much for the bystander protection rationale.
Even if we assume that the commission's real aim is to protect smokers from their own unhealthy choices by encouraging them to quit, its decision is perverse, since e-cigarettes can help them do that. Switching to e-cigarettes virtually eliminates the hazards posed by smoking. By making e-cigarettes less convenient to use, the commission makes them less appealing as an alternative to conventional cigarettes, thereby making it more likely that people will continue to smoke. Even by the collectivist, paternalistic standards of "public health" as it is currently understood, the e-cigarette ban is utterly irrational, driven by aesthetic and/or moralistic impulses that have nothing to do with science or with health.
Boston health officials today voted to treat electronic cigarettes, known as e-cigarettes, like tobacco products, banning use of the increasingly popular products in the workplace and restricting their sale to adults only.
The Boston Public Health Commission also prohibited the sale of individual cigars, which, health officials say, have become an attractive option for teenagers looking for less expensive alternatives to cigarettes. Called cigarellos and often marketed in seductive flavors such as “pink berry,” they sell for as little as 50 cents each, compared with an average of $7.19 for a pack of cigarettes.
If there was ever proof that liberalism is based on emotion, this is it. I suggest they also ban sugar substitutes because some people may mistake them for real sugar. Same logic.
I wonder if this means Bawney Fwank will have to wear a veil over his face because of the resemblance between his mouth and another type of orifice?
Isn’t it pretty inevitable that the FDA will regulate them as drug delivery devices? For adults, it seems better than inhaling burning weeds to get the nicotine, but it seems logical that if they regulate the patches, gum, etc then these are just a different way of delivering the same drug, and I suspect even hardcore smokers don’t want to see kids getting hooked on cheap USB-port nicotine inhalers if there are no regulations on them.
Since when is the “Boston Health Commission” a legilsative authority that has the right to create a ban, essentially a law?
lol and just how do they intend to ban people from using them? You can sneak them almost anywhere, hold in the vapor so there is no cloud, cup them in your hand and no one even knows.. dumb law that will be ignored.
They are banned in my workplace as well, even in my truck in the parking lot.
And I work for a defense contractor in Tx helping to protect our Freedoms.
It is complete BS.
The smoking Nazis have gone to far.
Has Massachusetts banned smoking pole?
But patches and gum haven’t been banned.
“Has Massachusetts banned smoking pole?”
I think they teach it in middle school.
LOL - it is completely rational. Collectivists need people to be sick, in order to nationalize healthcare. Cigs make people sick, e-cigs get them better without healthcare. Connect the two freaking dots.
A couple years back they forced all Boston convenience stores with a pharmacy on site to remove all tobacco products. No CVS or Walgreens is able to sell tobacco.
They also are closing all the cigar bars in Boston. All three of them. Three businesses forced under, more people out of work and the tax revenue from their sales will vanish.
These people are maniacs who answer to no one.
I remember Rush talking about some nut telling him he could smell
his E-cig while he was exiting the elevator.
Liberals are neurotic NAZIs plain and simple.
2012 PLEASE ... the folks we voted in 2010 need back-up and to be reminded.
2014 is gonna be AWESOME
TT
***** “ But patches and gum haven’t been banned. “ *****
And chances are they aren’t even Organic!
(can’t make this stuff up)
TT
They want to stamp out this innovative solution to tobacco dependence that could save thousands of lives.
Either they’re just morons or they don’t want to lose the tax money from cigarettes. Stupid or evil.
I hear tell you can’t smell these things so there are no grounds to ban them or any other “inhaler” type thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.