Well for one, smokers are very annoyed when I post stuff like this....
Posted on 03/24/2014 12:12:58 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It can be bought on the Internet in flavors like chocolate and bubble gum—and just a teaspoon could kill a child: The New York Times takes a look at liquid nicotine, the e-liquid used in e-cigarettes, which it describes as a "powerful neurotoxin ... far more dangerous than tobacco." And with good reason: Reports of accidental liquid nicotine poisonings rose 300% from 2012 to 1,351 cases last year, with 2014's figure expected to be double that.
The victims, many children under the age of four, can experience vomiting and seizures after being exposed to even a modest amount orally or through the skin.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune notes that the bottles often convey their flavors with potentially enticing photos of fruits or chocolate, which could attract youngsters; teens, on the flip side, may be combining it with energy drinks to get high, per Fox News Insider.
"It's not a matter of if a child will be seriously poisoned or killed. It's a matter of when," says a director with California's Poison Control System.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Sounds like a lot of crap to me.
My husband shouldn't have a beer because it would be harmful to our children?
We mustn't have a gas range because my 2-year-old stood on a toy to poke his finger in the flame while I had my back turned?
We must get rid of our dishwasher because my 3-year-old daughter tasted the powder right after I put it in the machine and had turned to put the box away?
We should take away all the "illegal" outlets in the house because the little guy disobeyed and plugged something in one?
I'm sick of the nanny state stuff.
Well for one, smokers are very annoyed when I post stuff like this....
There was a fellow named Steve at a cafe I used to love.
This was back when EVERYBODY smoked.
We loved to smoke.
He told me wanted to quit.
As I said I smoked AND chewed... The brands don’t matter.
I loved tobacco and coffee.
All of a sudden he went from (more than one) pack a day to none.
This was long before I stopped... This was 1994.
I stopped in early 2003.
But I asked him, amazed - “how do you do it?”
And he said:
“I don’t have one.”
I used that advice when I stopped.
I don’t think about the big picture, I just don’t have one.
I don’t even like it anymore... You won’t either after awhile. It just leaves you, like a... Well... A bad habit.
We all know that one. What are some of the others? I'd bet you are a busybody in other areas also. People generally don't smoke where they're asked not to smoke but you won't give up. Stop your preoccupation with other peoples' business.
It's time to ignore you.
Does everybody have a right to hydrocarbon-free air? After all, cars emit that. What about people who only walk?
And then we need a law.
Spoken like a true statist.
Y'all brought it on yourself.
Um, I'm not a smoker, although I did enjoy some Newport Pleasure today just on general anti-statist principle, as a sign of solidarity with those who do smoke cigarettes regularly.
The anti-smoking crowd can add their names to the long list of intolerant authoritarians, both on the left and right, who ensure that America has the least possible amount of individual Freedom.
Most anti-smoking zealots I know are nanny-state Democrats.
later
There is a balance that must be made. America already has laws that required cars to clean up emissions. I haven't seen the brown haze that used to plague Nashville in several years. That's a good thing.
Do you support restrictions on vaping as well as smoking?
Absolutely. Based on the FDA fact sheet, second hand vapors are not healthy. They are better than smoke and I'm in favor of smokers making the switch. But I don't want to be breathing a lot of second hand vapors in restaurants, work places, or other public buildings.
FDA fact sheet? I’m sure they’re unbiased.
Let's consider for a moment the nanny staters' notion of "balance":
Picture yourself sitting in an American tavern sometime in the early 1780's, enjoying a splendid dinner in the illustrious company of George Washington and Samuel Adams.
After enjoying your meal, Mr. Adams lights up his tobacco pipe, followed soon thereafter by our future President.
Fortunately, the printing press has already been invented, and thus you have at the ready several illustrated broadsides which graphically and convincingly depict the dreadful health risks associated with the smoking of tobacco.
The gentlemen are duly impressed by your forceful presentation, and yet, oddly, they continue to enjoy smoking the tobacco that smolders in their pipes.
Then, after further explaining that the smoke from their pipes offends your olfactory senses, you profess your passionate belief that the tavern keeper at whose business you're dining shouldn't even have the Right to determine the smoking policy in his own eating establishment!
You could thus lecture Mr. Adams and Mr. Washington on the hazards of tar and nicotine, and they in turn could "enlighten" you on the hazards of tar and feathers!
And that's about all I have to say about nanny state authoritarians and their ilk.
Have a nice, smoke-free day!
I agree with you, but that’s the reasoning. The first thing you started hearing when it comes to Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana was that it would be bad for kids. It’s a tool that works, and I’m not surprised that it’s being used in this case as well. Just the way it is.
What reason do they have to be biased?
I guess the German study was biased too.
Everybody is biased except the vapor industry.
Washington suffered from frequent throat infections and died from a throat infection at 67. He developed a bump on his face in 1795 that some think was a cancerous lesion.
Did you know that Abraham Lincoln had cancer while in office?
Ulysses Grant had throat cancer.
Grover Cleveland had jaw cancer while in office.
Herbert Hoover had intestinal cancer.
Roosevelt and Eisenhower did too.
And this has what to do with ecigs???
Follow the conversation.
Thanks for the suggestion. But I read the entire thread before posting. :)
Seems like the thread started out about ecigs and their dangers re:kids drinking the fluid.
Diverted to anti-smoking and then to pictures.
I know there is lots of thread drift everywhere but don’t you think the PSAs, given the original subject, are kinda over the top?
Even so, I don't think it's necessary to be Tyrannical in an effort to reduce it.
Freedom isn't always pretty.
I don’t think we’ve been Tyrannical in trying to reduce it.
Most of the battle has been about polluted air in indoor public places the rights on non-smokers vs smokers. I don’t see that as Tyrannical at all.
And my guess is that the taxes don’t even begin to cover the smoking related medical costs that the government ends up picking up.
It seems to me that on threads like this, there are posts indicating that some smokers want e-cigs to regain the rights to indoor public smoking. I think the burden of proof should remain on the e-cig industry to prove that no vapors are emitted, or that if there are vapors emitted that they are neither harmful nor smell. And right now the studies indicate vapors are emitted and they are likely to be harmful, though not as harmful as traditional cigarettes.
And then there are posts from disgruntled smokers who haven’t come to grips that they’ve been relegated to a sub-culture. They want the smokers club back. They want to foul the air in public places. Misery loves company and they want as many people to join them in their vile habit as they can get. For them I post the PSA’s.
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.