Banning E-Cigarrettes in New York

[quote name='Knoell']My god you are an idiot. It isn't giving both sides of the story. The article you quoted counters and explains away all of the original criticisms the toxicologist has of them besides leakiness which is too stupid to even comment on. It is called journelism, lure people in to gain their interest and then inform them.

I have seen no indication of "leaky" containers, and I am sure quite a few of the E cig customers would be complaining about such a thing? Thats like buying a case of beer with a pin hole in the bottom of the bottles. Noone is going to bear with that.

The first phase is not to ban something when you want to regulate it. If this was the case, then why were cigarettes not banned when they started regulating them? The only thing that needs to be regulated is nicotine levels.

Lastly it is hardly surprising publically funded FDA studies would side with banning something that poses a direct threat to the cigarette industry and the tax income from cigarettes. At $10 dollars a pack, NYS has as much to lose as the E cigarette companies, if people start quitting, probably more. But no, your precious government would never be bias towards such a thing. That is why they didn't just raise the cigarette tax to cover a god damn budget gap.

For someone who constantly complains about corporate interferance with government, you sure are naive about tobacco lobbyists.[/QUOTE]

Yeah tobacco lobbyists are doing a bang-up job. They have the govt in their palm, give those fuckers a raise! I'm no adman, but this should sell more cigs allowing the govt to collect more taxes amirite:

Dead bodies, diseased lungs and rotting teeth were among the among the graphic images for revamped tobacco labels, unveiled on Tuesday by health officials who hope the warnings will help smokers quit.
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...20110621?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71

As for the leaky containers, it's not like getting a little Budweiser on your hands. Just read this that I got from an ecig website:

"• There is a risk of poisoning or toxicity with the use of liquid nicotine solution.
• Nicotine is highly transdermal. You need to be careful with it. Don't lick drops off your fingers. Keep the liquid put up away from children and pets. When you are done, wash your hands
• Please follow the smoke juice manufactures instructions.
• Utilize gloves and other proper personal protection when handling nicotine solutions.
...
An overfilled cartridge will produce little or no vapor and may also leak juice. Don't overfill! Throw away the cartridge if refilling fails."

So yeah, leaky cartridges are a little more of a big deal then a spilled beer. Just a little. :roll:
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah tobacco lobbyists are doing a bang-up job. They have the govt in their palm, give those fuckers a raise! I'm no adman, but this should sell more cigs allowing the govt to collect more taxes amirite:



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...20110621?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=71

As for the leaky containers, it's not like getting a little Budweiser on your hands. Just read this that I got from an ecig website:

"• There is a risk of poisoning or toxicity with the use of liquid nicotine solution.
• Nicotine is highly transdermal. You need to be careful with it. Don't lick drops off your fingers. Keep the liquid put up away from children and pets. When you are done, wash your hands
• Please follow the smoke juice manufactures instructions.
• Utilize gloves and other proper personal protection when handling nicotine solutions.
...
An overfilled cartridge will produce little or no vapor and may also leak juice. Don't overfill! Throw away the cartridge if refilling fails."

So yeah, leaky cartridges are a little more of a big deal then a spilled beer. Just a little. :roll:[/QUOTE]

First off, most e cigarette companies are independent of the big tobacco companies.

The beer comparison was because your "expert scientist" made it seem as if the cartridges themselves were defective, not that the user was at fault for filling it up too much.

Now you are trying to point out a website that highlighted helpful information of how you should handle the liquid, because handling the liquid could be dangerous. Ever use drano? yeah can't get that stuff on your hands either. And before you go on a rant that we don't inhale drano, please remember we haven't banned regular cigarettes.

So what are you angry about? E cigarettes are not advertised as smoking cessation devices by the companies. The court decided against the FDA for that reason. Are you trying to suppress the word of mouth that is spreading by banning them, or are you trying to claim that the word of mouth is "snake oil" plants by the companies?
 
[quote name='camoor']Well this is how a new drug or health product is regulated:
1) Government health agencies study the product, conduct (or review) scientific studies, and draw up regulations based on the results.
2) Manufacturers must pass the regulations if they want to sell their products in the US.

[/QUOTE]

When a pharmaceutical company develops a new drug, they have to put that drug through years of clinical trials to prove that the drug is safe. If nicotine should be regulated as a drug by the FDA, shouldn't tobacco cigarettes be subjected to clinical trials to prove that they are safe? Of course, if cigarettes were submitted to the FDA as a "drug," they would never be approved for sale, with or without warning labels.

If clinical trials aren't necessary for tobacco cigarettes, why should they be required for a smoking cessation product that is clearly more safe than tobacco cigarettes and delivers nicotine, the same addictive chemical that tobacco products deliver? E-cigarettes should be regulated in a manner similar to tobacco cigarettes, not as drugs.
 
[quote name='chiwii']So, is the issue the fact that some manufacturers want to advertise their product as a smoking cessation device, or that you don't think enough research has been done to prove that the devices are safe, or that you think they need warning labels of some sort? I thought that we were talking about whether or not the manufacturers should be able to advertise their products as a smoking cessation device.

I don't think that smoking cessation products are a drug, and I don't think that they need to be regulated like a drug. I think consumers can use common sense to figure out if a product is helping them quit smoking.[/QUOTE]

Apparantly this went right over camoors head. Consumers will and always need the constant watchful eye of the public servants watching over their every decision in life. Public servants are above all sacred and cannot be bias because they are public servants. Except when camoor disagrees with the government policy, then the government has been easily infilitrated by the lobbyists and can no longer be trusted to be for the will of the people.

Works out nice for him doesn't it? His ideals are consistantly right in his own little world.
 
[quote name='chiwii']
If clinical trials aren't necessary for tobacco cigarettes, why should they be required for a smoking cessation product that is clearly more safe than tobacco cigarettes and delivers nicotine, the same addictive chemical that tobacco products deliver? E-cigarettes should be regulated in a manner similar to tobacco cigarettes, not as drugs.[/QUOTE]

For me it's more of an issue of preventing false advertising.

No product should be able to be labeled with claims that aren't factually true.

Especially things like stop smoking aids, or vitamins and supplements etc., that are being labeled as having beneficial benefits for people taking them.

Those types of claims should be not be able to be made, much less put on product labels touting those claims, unless theirs a vetted body of scientific evidence behind them. And the evidence needs vetted by a public organization that can add an extra layer of protection to help insure that the studies aren't all just biased bs funded by the companies making the products.

Similar, for a drug like this it should be evaluated like cigarettes and get a surgeon general's warning label if it's found to have potential harmful effects.

I have no problems with them being on the market unless they're proven more dangerous than cigarettes or something down the road. I just have problems with touting beneficial effects (help stop smoking, or safer than cigarettes etc.) if there's not a vetted body of scientific evidence supporting such claims. And any recreational drug like this should be evaluated for harmful affects and given warning labels if needed and banned if found to be too dangerous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']First off, most e cigarette companies are independent of the big tobacco companies.

The beer comparison was because your "expert scientist" made it seem as if the cartridges themselves were defective, not that the user was at fault for filling it up too much.

Now you are trying to point out a website that highlighted helpful information of how you should handle the liquid, because handling the liquid could be dangerous. Ever use drano? yeah can't get that stuff on your hands either. And before you go on a rant that we don't inhale drano, please remember we haven't banned regular cigarettes.

So what are you angry about? E cigarettes are not advertised as smoking cessation devices by the companies. The court decided against the FDA for that reason. Are you trying to suppress the word of mouth that is spreading by banning them, or are you trying to claim that the word of mouth is "snake oil" plants by the companies?[/QUOTE]

I found a summary of a consumer reports news article stating the majority of ecigs ordered online come with cartridges that are leaky. I found a website saying that getting "smoke juice" on your hands is dangerous, much moreso then some beer which we could all shrug off. The fact that the person posting this info was trying to refill his ecigs is beside the point. The point was that your analogy to a leaky beer can is complete bunko. Smoke juice is much much much more toxic then a little spilled Budweiser. You really need me to put two and two together here?

[quote name='chiwii']When a pharmaceutical company develops a new drug, they have to put that drug through years of clinical trials to prove that the drug is safe. If nicotine should be regulated as a drug by the FDA, shouldn't tobacco cigarettes be subjected to clinical trials to prove that they are safe? Of course, if cigarettes were submitted to the FDA as a "drug," they would never be approved for sale, with or without warning labels.

If clinical trials aren't necessary for tobacco cigarettes, why should they be required for a smoking cessation product that is clearly more safe than tobacco cigarettes and delivers nicotine, the same addictive chemical that tobacco products deliver? E-cigarettes should be regulated in a manner similar to tobacco cigarettes, not as drugs.[/QUOTE]

Cigarettes have very severe restrictions levied against them. I'm just asking that ecigs have the same restrictions levied against them until they're proven to be anything other then an alternative to cigs.

[quote name='Knoell']Apparantly this went right over camoors head. Consumers will and always need the constant watchful eye of the public servants watching over their every decision in life. Public servants are above all sacred and cannot be bias because they are public servants. Except when camoor disagrees with the government policy, then the government has been easily infilitrated by the lobbyists and can no longer be trusted to be for the will of the people.

Works out nice for him doesn't it? His ideals are consistantly right in his own little world.[/QUOTE]

In other words you're saying that sometimes I agree with govt policy and sometimes I disagree. Gee that sounds pretty damn reasonable.

As opposed to you who always disagrees with govt regulation and always agrees with the corporate viewpoint. Yeah you're consistent. A consistent chump for corporations and their puppet political lackeys.

And Dmaul, I have nothing other to say then I agree again.
 
[quote name='camoor']I found a summary of a consumer reports news article stating the majority of ecigs ordered online come with cartridges that are leaky. I found a website saying that getting "smoke juice" on your hands is dangerous, much moreso then some beer which we could all shrug off. The fact that the person posting this info was trying to refill his ecigs is beside the point. The point was that your analogy to a leaky beer can is complete bunko. Smoke juice is much much much more toxic then a little spilled Budweiser. You really need me to put two and two together here?



Cigarettes have very severe restrictions levied against them. I'm just asking that ecigs have the same restrictions levied against them until they're proven to be anything other then an alternative to cigs.



In other words you're saying that sometimes I agree with govt policy and sometimes I disagree. Gee that sounds pretty damn reasonable.

As opposed to you who always disagrees with govt regulation and always agrees with the corporate viewpoint. Yeah you're consistent. A consistent chump for corporations and their puppet political lackeys.

And Dmaul, I have nothing other to say then I agree again.[/QUOTE]

Where did it state the majority of ecigs ordered online are leaky? I see where you quoted it, but do not see it in the article. Second off it is the same as any defective product. Noone is going to tolerate the majority of drano bottles leaking. It is different to say the person who bought the drano poured too fast and splashed it on themselves. It is not the companies fault that the person was not careful with the liquid. If you want to slap a label on there that says don't get this on your hands. GO FOR IT. Regardless, this is not an issue that should involve BANNING the product.

This is why I say you are all over the place, you come in here with an argument that e cigarettes should not be advertised as smoke cessation devises (which they aren't besides word of mouth) and then you hop over to quality control, and then you hop over to carcinogens. Everytime I tell you why those claims should not involve banning, you hop to the next one. And back and forth and back and forth. You are a joke.

So one last time, I will ask you. What do you want to achieve by banning E cigs? Stopping word of mouth? Labels? One you cannot possibly stop if you plan on legalizing the things, and the second you can make a law that requires these labels without banning them.

RECIPE FOR A CIGARETTE The Big List In the 4000 chemicals in cigarette tobacco, there are 43 known carcinogens. Some will be detailed as to what they are used for in the box below this huge listing of ingredients & additives for cigarettes. The lungs of smokers, puffing a daily ration of 20 to 60 low to high tar cigarettes, collect an annual deposit of one-quarter to one and one-half pounds of the gooey black material, amounting to a total of 15 to 90 million pounds of carcinogen-packed tar for the aggregate of current American smokers. Acetanisole, Acetic Acid, Acetoin, Acetophenone, 6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane, 2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine, 2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran, Acetylpyrazine, 2-Acetylpyridine, 3-Acetylpyridine, 2-Acetylthiazole, Aconitic Acid, dl-Alanine, Alfalfa Extract, Allspice Extract, Oleoresin, And Oil, Allyl Hexanoate, Allyl Ionone, Almond Bitter Oil, Ambergris Tincture, Ammonia, Ammonium Bicarbonate, Ammonium Hydroxide, Ammonium Phosphate Dibasic, Ammonium Sulfide, Amyl Alcohol, Amyl Butyrate, Amyl Formate, Amyl Octanoate, alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde, Amyris Oil, trans-Anethole, Angelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed Oil, Anise, Anise Star, Extract and Oils, Anisyl Acetate, Anisyl Alcohol, Anisyl Formate, Anisyl Phenylacetate, Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins, Apricot Extract and Juice Concentrate, 1-Arginine, Asafetida Fluid Extract And Oil, Ascorbic Acid, 1-Asparagine Monohydrate, 1-Aspartic Acid, Balsam Peru and Oil, Basil Oil, Bay Leaf, Oil and Sweet Oil, Beeswax White, Beet Juice Concentrate, Benzaldehyde,Benzaldehyde Glyceryl Acetal, Benzoic Acid, Benzoin, Benzoin Resin, Benzophenone, Benzyl Alcohol, Benzyl Benzoate, Benzyl Butyrate, Benzyl Cinnamate, Benzyl Propionate, Benzyl Salicylate, Bergamot Oil, Bisabolene, Black Currant Buds Absolute, Borneol, Bornyl Acetate, Buchu Leaf Oil, 1,3-Butanediol, 2,3-Butanedione, 1-Butanol, 2-Butanone, 4(2-Butenylidene)-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1-One, Butter, Butter Esters, and Butter Oil, Butyl Acetate, Butyl Butyrate, Butyl Butyryl Lactate, Butyl Isovalerate, Butyl Phenylacetate, Butyl Undecylenate, 3-Butylidenephthalide, Butyric Acid, Cadinene, Caffeine, Calcium Carbonate, Camphene, Cananga Oil, Capsicum Oleoresin, Caramel Color, Caraway Oil, Carbon Dioxide, Cardamom Oleoresin, Extract, Seed Oil, and Powder, Carob Bean and Extract, beta-Carotene, Carrot Oil, Carvacrol, 4-Carvomenthenol, 1-Carvone, beta-Caryophyllene, beta-Caryophyllene Oxide, Cascarilla Oil and Bark Extract, Cassia Bark Oil, Cassie Absolute and Oil, Castoreum Extract,Tincture and Absolute,Cedar Leaf Oil, Cedarwood Oil Terpenes and Virginiana, Cedrol, Celery Seed Extract, Solid, Oil, And Oleoresin, Cellulose Fiber, Chamomile Flower Oil And Extract, Chicory Extract, Chocolate, Cinnamaldehyde, Cinnamic Acid, Cinnamon Leaf Oil, Bark Oil, and Extract, Cinnamyl Acetate, Cinnamyl Alcohol, Cinnamyl Cinnamate, Cinnamyl Isovalerate, Cinnamyl Propionate, Citral, Citric Acid, Citronella Oil, dl-Citronellol, Citronellyl Butyrate, Citronellyl Isobutyrate, Civet Absolute, Clary Oil, Clover Tops, Red Solid Extract, Cocoa, Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate And Powder, Coconut Oil, Coffee, Cognac White and Green Oil, Copaiba Oil, Coriander Extract and Oil, Corn Oil, Corn Silk, Costus Root Oil, Cubeb Oil, Cuminaldehyde, para-Cymene, 1-Cysteine, Dandelion Root Solid Extract, Davana Oil, 2-trans, 4-trans-Decadienal, delta-Decalactone, gamma-Decalactone, Decanal, Decanoic Acid, 1-Decanol, 2-Decenal, Dehydromenthofurolactone, Diethyl Malonate, Diethyl Sebacate, 2,3-Diethylpyrazine,Dihydro Anethole, 5,7-Dihydro-2-Methylthieno(3,4-D) Pyrimidine, Dill Seed Oil and Extract, meta-Dimethoxybenzene, para-Dimethoxybenzene, 2,6-Dimethoxyphenol, Dimethyl Succinate, 3,4-Dimethyl-1,2-Cyclopentanedione, 3,5- Dimethyl-1,2-Cyclopentanedione, 3,7-Dimethyl-1,3,6-Octatriene, 4,5-Dimethyl-3-Hydroxy-2,5-Dihydrofuran-2-One, 6,10-Dimethyl-5,9-Undecadien-2-One, 3,7-Dimethyl-6-Octenoic Acid, 2,4-Dimethylacetophenone, alpha,para-Dimethylbenzyl Alcohol, alpha,alpha-Dimethylphenethyl Acetate, alpha,alpha Dimethylphenethyl Butyrate, 2,3-Dimethylpyrazine,2,5-Dimethylpyrazine, 2,6-Dimethylpyrazine, Dimethyltetrahydrobenzofuranone, delta-Dodecalactone, gamma-Dodecalactone, para-Ethoxybenzaldehyde, Ethyl 10-Undecenoate, Ethyl 2-Methylbutyrate, Ethyl Acetate, Ethyl Acetoacetate, Ethyl Alcohol, Ethyl Benzoate, Ethyl Butyrate, Ethyl Cinnamate, Ethyl Decanoate, Ethyl Fenchol, Ethyl Furoate, Ethyl Heptanoate, Ethyl Hexanoate, Ethyl Isovalerate, Ethyl Lactate, Ethyl Laurate, Ethyl Levulinate, Ethyl Maltol,Ethyl Methyl Phenylglycidate, Ethyl Myristate, Ethyl Nonanoate, Ethyl Octadecanoate, Ethyl Octanoate, Ethyl Oleate, Ethyl Palmitate, Ethyl Phenylacetate, Ethyl Propionate, Ethyl Salicylate, Ethyl trans-2-Butenoate, Ethyl Valerate, Ethyl Vanillin, 2-Ethyl (or Methyl)-(3,5 and 6)-Methoxypyrazine, 2-Ethyl-1-Hexanol, 3-Ethyl -2 -Hydroxy-2-Cyclopenten-1-One, 2-Ethyl-3, (5 or 6)-Dimethylpyrazine, 5-Ethyl-3-Hydroxy-4-Methyl-2(5H)-Furanone, 2-Ethyl-3-Methylpyrazine, 4-Ethylbenzaldehyde, 4-Ethylguaiacol, para-Ethylphenol, 3-Ethylpyridine, Eucalyptol, Farnesol, D-Fenchone, Fennel Sweet Oil, Fenugreek, Extract, Resin, and Absolute, Fig Juice Concentrate, Food Starch Modified, Furfuryl Mercaptan, 4-(2-Furyl)-3-Buten-2-One, Galbanum Oil, Genet Absolute, Gentian Root Extract, Geraniol, Geranium Rose Oil, Geranyl Acetate, Geranyl Butyrate, Geranyl Formate, Geranyl Isovalerate, Geranyl Phenylacetate, Ginger Oil and Oleoresin, 1-Glutamic Acid, 1-Glutamine, Glycerol, Glycyrrhizin Ammoniated, Grape Juice Concentrate,Guaiac Wood Oil, Guaiacol, Guar Gum, 2,4-Heptadienal, gamma-Heptalactone, Heptanoic Acid, 2-Heptanone, 3-Hepten-2-One, 2-Hepten-4-One, 4-Heptenal, trans -2-Heptenal, Heptyl Acetate, omega-6-Hexadecenlactone, gamma-Hexalactone, Hexanal, Hexanoic Acid, 2-Hexen-1-Ol, 3-Hexen-1-Ol, cis-3-Hexen-1-Yl Acetate, 2-Hexenal, 3-Hexenoic Acid, trans-2-Hexenoic Acid, cis-3-Hexenyl Formate, Hexyl 2-Methylbutyrate, Hexyl Acetate, Hexyl Alcohol, Hexyl Phenylacetate, 1-Histidine, Honey, Hops Oil, Hydrolyzed Milk Solids, Hydrolyzed Plant Proteins, 5-Hydroxy-2,4-Decadienoic Acid delta- Lactone, 4-Hydroxy-2,5-Dimethyl-3(2H)-Furanone, 2-Hydroxy-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1-One, 4-Hydroxy -3-Pentenoic Acid Lactone, 2-Hydroxy-4-Methylbenzaldehyde, 4-Hydroxybutanoic Acid Lactone, Hydroxycitronellal, 6-Hydroxydihydrotheaspirane, 4-(para-Hydroxyphenyl)-2-Butanone, Hyssop Oil, Immortelle Absolute and Extract, alpha-Ionone, beta-Ionone, alpha-Irone, Isoamyl Acetate, Isoamyl Benzoate, Isoamyl Butyrate, Isoamyl Cinnamate,Isoamyl Formate, Isoamyl Hexanoate, Isoamyl Isovalerate, Isoamyl Octanoate, Isoamyl Phenylacetate, Isobornyl Acetate, Isobutyl Acetate, Isobutyl Alcohol, Isobutyl Cinnamate, Isobutyl Phenylacetate, Isobutyl Salicylate, 2-Isobutyl-3-Methoxypyrazine, alpha-Isobutylphenethyl Alcohol, Isobutyraldehyde, Isobutyric Acid, d,l-Isoleucine, alpha-Isomethylionone, 2-Isopropylphenol, Isovaleric Acid, Jasmine Absolute, Concrete and Oil, Kola Nut Extract, Labdanum Absolute and Oleoresin, Lactic Acid, Lauric Acid, Lauric Aldehyde, Lavandin Oil, Lavender Oil, Lemon Oil and Extract, Lemongrass Oil, 1-Leucine, Levulinic Acid, Licorice Root, Fluid, Extract and Powder, Lime Oil, Linalool, Linalool Oxide, Linalyl Acetate, Linden Flowers, Lovage Oil And Extract, 1-Lysine, Mace Powder, Extract and Oil, Magnesium Carbonate, Malic Acid, Malt and Malt Extract, Maltodextrin, Maltol, Maltyl Isobutyrate, Mandarin Oil, Maple Syrup and Concentrate, Mate Leaf, Absolute and Oil, para-Mentha-8-Thiol-3-One, Menthol, Menthone,Menthyl Acetate, dl-Methionine, Methoprene, 2-Methoxy-4-Methylphenol, 2-Methoxy-4-Vinylphenol, para-Methoxybenzaldehyde, 1-(para-Methoxyphenyl)-1-Penten-3-One, 4-(para-Methoxyphenyl)-2-Butanone, 1-(para-Methoxyphenyl)-2-Propanone, Methoxypyrazine, Methyl 2-Furoate, Methyl 2-Octynoate, Methyl 2-Pyrrolyl Ketone, Methyl Anisate, Methyl Anthranilate, Methyl Benzoate, Methyl Cinnamate, Methyl Dihydrojasmonate, Methyl Ester of Rosin, Partially Hydrogenated, Methyl Isovalerate, Methyl Linoleate (48%), Methyl Linolenate (52%) Mixture, Methyl Naphthyl Ketone, Methyl Nicotinate, Methyl Phenylacetate, Methyl Salicylate, Methyl Sulfide, 3-Methyl-1-Cyclopentadecanone, 4-Methyl-1-Phenyl-2-Pentanone, 5-Methyl-2-Phenyl-2-Hexenal, 5-Methyl-2-Thiophenecarboxaldehyde, 6-Methyl-3,-5-Heptadien-2-One, 2-Methyl-3-(para-Isopropylphenyl) Propionaldehyde, 5-Methyl-3-Hexen-2-One, 1-Methyl-3Methoxy-4-Isopropylbenzene, 4-Methyl-3-Pentene-2-One, 2-Methyl-4-Phenylbutyraldehyde, 6-Methyl-5-Hepten-2-One, 4-Methyl-5-Thiazoleethanol,4-Methyl-5-Vinylthiazole, Methyl-alpha-Ionone, Methyl-trans-2-Butenoic Acid, 4-Methylacetophenone, para-Methylanisole, alpha-Methylbenzyl Acetate, alpha-Methylbenzyl Alcohol, 2-Methylbutyraldehyde, 3-Methylbutyraldehyde, 2-Methylbutyric Acid, alpha-Methylcinnamaldehyde, Methylcyclopentenolone, 2-Methylheptanoic Acid, 2-Methylhexanoic Acid, 3-Methylpentanoic Acid, 4-Methylpentanoic Acid, 2-Methylpyrazine, 5-Methylquinoxaline, 2-Methyltetrahydrofuran-3-One, (Methylthio)Methylpyrazine (Mixture Of Isomers), 3-Methylthiopropionaldehyde, Methyl 3-Methylthiopropionate, 2-Methylvaleric Acid, Mimosa Absolute and Extract, Molasses Extract and Tincture, Mountain Maple Solid Extract, Mullein Flowers, Myristaldehyde, Myristic Acid, Myrrh Oil, beta-Napthyl Ethyl Ether, Nerol, Neroli Bigarde Oil, Nerolidol, Nona-2-trans,6-cis-Dienal, 2,6-Nonadien-1-Ol, gamma-Nonalactone, Nonanal, Nonanoic Acid, Nonanone, trans-2-Nonen-1-Ol, 2-Nonenal, Nonyl Acetate, Nutmeg Powder and Oil, Oak Chips Extract and Oil,Oak Moss Absolute, 9,12-Octadecadienoic Acid (48%) And 9,12,15-Octadecatrienoic Acid (52%), delta-Octalactone, gamma-Octalactone, Octanal, Octanoic Acid, 1-Octanol, 2-Octanone, 3-Octen-2-One, 1-Octen-3-Ol, 1-Octen-3-Yl Acetate, 2-Octenal, Octyl Isobutyrate, Oleic Acid , Olibanum Oil, Opoponax Oil And Gum, Orange Blossoms Water, Absolute, and Leaf Absolute, Orange Oil and Extract, Origanum Oil, Orris Concrete Oil and Root Extract, Palmarosa Oil, Palmitic Acid, Parsley Seed Oil, Patchouli Oil, omega-Pentadecalactone, 2,3-Pentanedione, 2-Pentanone, 4-Pentenoic Acid, 2-Pentylpyridine, Pepper Oil, Black And White, Peppermint Oil, Peruvian (Bois De Rose) Oil, Petitgrain Absolute, Mandarin Oil and Terpeneless Oil, alpha-Phellandrene, 2-Phenenthyl Acetate, Phenenthyl Alcohol, Phenethyl Butyrate, Phenethyl Cinnamate, Phenethyl Isobutyrate, Phenethyl Isovalerate, Phenethyl Phenylacetate, Phenethyl Salicylate, 1-Phenyl-1-Propanol, 3-Phenyl-1-Propanol, 2-Phenyl-2-Butenal, 4-Phenyl-3-Buten-2-Ol,4-Phenyl-3-Buten-2-One, Phenylacetaldehyde, Phenylacetic Acid, 1-Phenylalanine, 3-Phenylpropionaldehyde, 3-Phenylpropionic Acid, 3-Phenylpropyl Acetate, 3-Phenylpropyl Cinnamate, 2-(3-Phenylpropyl)Tetrahydrofuran, Phosphoric Acid, Pimenta Leaf Oil, Pine Needle Oil, Pine Oil, Scotch, Pineapple Juice Concentrate, alpha-Pinene, beta-Pinene, D-Piperitone, Piperonal, Pipsissewa Leaf Extract, Plum Juice, Potassium Sorbate, 1-Proline, Propenylguaethol, Propionic Acid, Propyl Acetate, Propyl para-Hydroxybenzoate, Propylene Glycol, 3-Propylidenephthalide, Prune Juice and Concentrate, Pyridine, Pyroligneous Acid And Extract, Pyrrole, Pyruvic Acid, Raisin Juice Concentrate, Rhodinol, Rose Absolute and Oil, Rosemary Oil, Rum, Rum Ether, Rye Extract, Sage, Sage Oil, and Sage Oleoresin, Salicylaldehyde, Sandalwood Oil, Yellow, Sclareolide, Skatole, Smoke Flavor, Snakeroot Oil, Sodium Acetate, Sodium Benzoate, Sodium Bicarbonate, Sodium Carbonate, Sodium Chloride, Sodium Citrate, Sodium Hydroxide, Solanone, Spearmint Oil, Styrax Extract, Gum and Oil, Sucrose Octaacetate, Sugar Alcohols, Sugars, Tagetes Oil, Tannic Acid, Tartaric Acid, Tea Leaf and Absolute, alpha-Terpineol, Terpinolene, Terpinyl Acetate, 5,6,7,8-Tetrahydroquinoxaline, 1,5,5,9-Tetramethyl-13-Oxatricyclo(8.3.0.0(4,9))Tridecane, 2,3,4,5, and 3,4,5,6-Tetramethylethyl-Cyclohexanone, 2,3,5,6-Tetramethylpyrazine, Thiamine Hydrochloride, Thiazole, 1-Threonine, Thyme Oil, White and Red, Thymol, Tobacco Extracts, Tochopherols (mixed), Tolu Balsam Gum and Extract, Tolualdehydes, para-Tolyl 3-Methylbutyrate, para-Tolyl Acetaldehyde, para-Tolyl Acetate, para-Tolyl Isobutyrate, para-Tolyl Phenylacetate, Triacetin, 2-Tridecanone, 2-Tridecenal, Triethyl Citrate, 3,5,5-Trimethyl -1-Hexanol, para,alpha,alpha-Trimethylbenzyl Alcohol, 4-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1-Enyl)But-2-En-4-One, 2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-2-Ene-1,4-Dione, 2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohexa-1,3-Dienyl Methan, 4-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohexa-1,3-Dienyl)But-2-En-4-One,2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexanone, 2,3,5-Trimethylpyrazine, 1-Tyrosine, delta-Undercalactone, gamma-Undecalactone, Undecanal, 2-Undecanone, 10-Undecenal, Urea, Valencene, Valeraldehyde, Valerian Root Extract, Oil and Powder, Valeric Acid, gamma-Valerolactone, Valine, Vanilla Extract And Oleoresin, Vanillin, Veratraldehyde, Vetiver Oil, Vinegar, Violet Leaf Absolute, Walnut Hull Extract, Water, Wheat Extract And Flour, Wild Cherry Bark Extract, Wine and Wine Sherry, Xanthan Gum, 3,4-Xylenol, Yeast Here are the some of the toxic ingredients in cigarettes. Keep in mind that the product saccharine has been a controversy for years and regulated by the government... Why are cigarettes with these deadly ingredients still not regulated or banned in spite of over 450,000 deaths from smoking per year in this country alone? And how many people has saccharine killed? Ammonia: Household cleaner Angelica root extract: Known to cause cancer in animals Arsenic: Used in rat poisons Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas Cadmium: Used in batteries Cyanide: Deadly poison DDT: A banned insecticide Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals Lead: Poisonous in high doses Formaldehiyde: Used to preserve dead specimens Methoprene: Insecticide Megastigmatrienone: Chemical naturally found in grapefruit juice Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India in 1984 Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element So where did you hear that cigarettes are harmless? Think about the above "toxic waste dump" next time you have an urge for a cigarette. Ahhhh! Won't your lungs feel goooood?!
Click to expand...

Food and Drug Administration today announced that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that they contain nicotine, carcinogens, and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze.
Click to expand...

But by all means, ban e cigarettes, they are clearly presenting the more dangerous substance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Food and Drug Administration today announced that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that they contain nicotine, carcinogens, and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze.
Click to expand...

[quote name='Knoell']But by all means, ban e cigarettes, they are clearly presenting the more dangerous substance.
[/QUOTE]

I made it easy on you. See the bold, red text.

Now...

Such as
Click to expand...

Isn't the same as

The only toxic chemical in this is
Click to expand...

"Such as" could be a few, but it could be a LOT that was left out too. All we know the list stretches just as long.
 
[quote name='georox']I made it easy on you. See the bold, red text.

Now...



Isn't the same as



"Such as" could be a few, but it could be a LOT that was left out too. All we know the list stretches just as long.[/QUOTE]

I made it even easier on you. Read the study.

That one chemical, diethylene glycol (besides nicotine) is the only one listed in the FDA study itself. Not to mention it was only found in ONE of the samples out of ALL of them.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf


But for the sake of argument we will limit the chemicals to carcinogens. There are 43 known carcinogens in cigarettes. The FDAs own study found 1 in e cigarettes. The nitrosamines. This carcinogen was at levels similiar to nicotine patches and hundreds of times lower than cigarettes.

So what is your opinion after reading the FDA study? Do e cigarettes need to be banned or simply regulated through nicotine levels, packaging, and labeling?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Where did it state the majority of ecigs ordered online are leaky? I see where you quoted it, but do not see it in the article.[/QUOTE]

It's near the bottom of the article. If you're using internet explorer, hit the "crtl" key and the "f" key at the same time and then type in the following (without the double quotes) "Most cartridges leaked onto her hands". Should take you right to the quote I used.

[quote name='Knoell']Second off it is the same as any defective product. Noone is going to tolerate the majority of drano bottles leaking. It is different to say the person who bought the drano poured too fast and splashed it on themselves. It is not the companies fault that the person was not careful with the liquid. If you want to slap a label on there that says don't get this on your hands. GO FOR IT. Regardless, this is not an issue that should involve BANNING the product.

This is why I say you are all over the place, you come in here with an argument that e cigarettes should not be advertised as smoke cessation devises (which they aren't besides word of mouth) and then you hop over to quality control, and then you hop over to carcinogens. Everytime I tell you why those claims should not involve banning, you hop to the next one. And back and forth and back and forth. You are a joke.

So one last time, I will ask you. What do you want to achieve by banning E cigs? Stopping word of mouth? Labels? One you cannot possibly stop if you plan on legalizing the things, and the second you can make a law that requires these labels without banning them.[/QUOTE]

My position is consistent.
First and foremost, I think that ecig corporations should have to conclusively scientifically prove that ecigs help folks quit smoking before ecigs can be marketed as a smoking cessation device.
Secondly I think they, and any product ingested into the body, should be regulated for safety and quality. I got pulled into this side debate via a strawman arguement you made, but it happened to interest me so I didn't mind expounding on my ecig viewpoints.

I think you're missing the point about the ecig refills. Forget the folks who refill carts. The point was to demonstrate that smoke juice is alot more toxic then beer by rattling off the health warnings.

I don't know if it is as noticable as a leaky can of beer. Given the concentrated toxicity and tendency for smoke juice to vaporize, I would imagine that a leaky cart is harder to detect then a dented can of beer but that is conjecture. I do know that smoke juice is a hell of alot more toxic and contains mystery chemicals, and I don't share your faith that the invisible hand of the market will move swiftly enough to prevent health epidemics caused by shoddy toxic goods. By the time the American public knows about contaminated or toxic products there are often several people permantly injured and/or dead, and in the aftermath alot of good products produced by reputable companies are tainted with the same brush. I don't see how that's good for anyone, but perhaps you can enlighten me on something I'm missing here.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's near the bottom of the article. If you're using internet explorer, hit the "crtl" key and the "f" key at the same time and then type in the following (without the double quotes) "Most cartridges leaked onto her hands". Should take you right to the quote I used.



My position is consistent.
First and foremost, I think that ecig corporations should have to conclusively scientifically prove that ecigs help folks quit smoking before ecigs can be marketed as a smoking cessation device.
Secondly I think they, and any product ingested into the body, should be regulated for safety and quality. I got pulled into this side debate via a strawman arguement you made, but it happened to interest me so I didn't mind expounding on my ecig viewpoints.

I think you're missing the point about the ecig refills. Forget the folks who refill carts. The point was to demonstrate that smoke juice is alot more toxic then beer by rattling off the health warnings.

I don't know if it is as noticable as a leaky can of beer. Given the concentrated toxicity and tendency for smoke juice to vaporize, I would imagine that a leaky cart is harder to detect then a dented can of beer but that is conjecture. I do know that smoke juice is a hell of alot more toxic and contains mystery chemicals, and I don't share your faith that the invisible hand of the market will move swiftly enough to prevent health epidemics caused by shoddy toxic goods. By the time the American public knows about contaminated or toxic products there are often several people permantly injured and/or dead, and in the aftermath alot of good products produced by reputable companies are tainted with the same brush. I don't see how that's good for anyone, but perhaps you can enlighten me on something I'm missing here.[/QUOTE]

You are really still going on about this? This is not an issue that would involve banning the product.

As for your "first and foremost", e cigarette companies are NOT marketing their devices as smoking cessation devices. Word of mouth is doing that for them, banning the product to suppress word of mouth is insane. The courts themselves decided they werent being marketed that way.

Secondly, everything that someone ingests into the body is NOT examined by the FDA. However if you want to regulate the nicotine levels in the E cigarettes that is fine. This does not involve banning the product.

Thirdly, I am glad you gave up on the carcinogen argument.

In other words you're saying that sometimes I agree with govt policy and sometimes I disagree. Gee that sounds pretty damn reasonable.

As opposed to you who always disagrees with govt regulation and always agrees with the corporate viewpoint. Yeah you're consistent. A consistent chump for corporations and their puppet political lackeys.
Click to expand...

Edit: I forgot about this little nugget of "wisdom". Rather in other words it means you believe that you are right despite all evidence pointing against it. You sit there and you believe that all other viewpoints must be corrupted by the evil capitalists. You are so small minded that you believe your own politicians arent guilty of the same thing. You think that somehow anyone who shares your viewpoint is the countrys white knight for that issue, and can do no wrong. However anyone opposing your ideals must have been bought by corporate interests. It never crosses your mind that New York wants to hold onto that $125 million dollars a month in tax revenue, and would rather shut down e cigarettes because they cannot tax them. It is pretty easy to say "eh they aren't safe, shut er' down," with no scientific evidence that they are doing any harm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']You are really still going on about this? This is not an issue that would involve banning the product.

As for your "first and foremost", e cigarette companies are NOT marketing their devices as smoking cessation devices. Word of mouth is doing that for them, banning the product to suppress word of mouth is insane. The courts themselves decided they werent being marketed that way.

Secondly, everything that someone ingests into the body is NOT examined by the FDA. However if you want to regulate the nicotine levels in the E cigarettes that is fine. This does not involve banning the product.

Thirdly, I am glad you gave up on the carcinogen argument.



I forgot about this little nugget.[/QUOTE]

First, I didn't know that officially ecig companies are not marketing their products as smoking cessation devices. The guy in my mall obviously didn't get the memo. But I'm glad we agree.

Secondly, regulation must include a clause for banning bad players. Otherwise it's toothless regulation and CEOs will gladly piss all over it while high-fiving the sales dept.
 
[quote name='camoor']

My position is consistent.
First and foremost, I think that ecig corporations should have to conclusively scientifically prove that ecigs help folks quit smoking before ecigs can be marketed as a smoking cessation device.[/QUOTE]

I'm fairly certain it's just a Freudian thing that causes people to smoke... I imagine a tiny rubber penis these people could puff on would work to get them to quit some days.
 
[quote name='camoor']First, I didn't know that officially ecig companies are not marketing their products as smoking cessation devices. The guy in my mall obviously didn't get the memo. But I'm glad we agree.

Secondly, regulation must include a clause for banning bad players. Otherwise it's toothless regulation and CEOs will gladly piss all over it while high-fiving the sales dept.[/QUOTE]

You don't regulate something by banning it. You can set regulations that must be fulfilled and then enforce against people who don't follow them, but you do not ban a product completely to regulate it.

As for "the guy in your mall". Anecdotal.

My guy in the mall says no such thing.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You don't regulate something by banning it. You can set regulations that must be fulfilled and then enforce against people who don't follow them, but you do not ban a product completely to regulate it.

As for "the guy in your mall". Anecdotal.

My guy in the mall says no such thing.[/QUOTE]

That's good - you can now recognize when someone is recalling an anecdote in a sentence as opposed to citing verified scientific fact. I'm feeling better and better - you can learn!!! :D

I hope you will refrain from offering up anecdotes as proof of something in the future - this is a good first step - keep it up! :applause:
 
[quote name='camoor']That's good - you can now recognize when someone is recalling an anecdote in a sentence as opposed to citing verified scientific fact. I'm feeling better and better - you can learn!!! :D

I hope you will refrain from offering up anecdotes as proof of something in the future - this is a good first step - keep it up! :applause:[/QUOTE]

Ha, you would say this.
 
Not going to get myself overly involved in this entire discussion, but I have read every post on every page thus far and I have to agree 100% with Knoell. Why? That part doesn't matter, and if it did I wouldn't give my reasons anyway. I don't feel the need to argue my opinions with anyone.
 
[quote name='d3adliner']Not going to get myself overly involved in this entire discussion, but I have read every post on every page thus far and I have to agree 100% with Knoell. Why?[/QUOTE]

I'll take "Because you're a douche" for 1000 Alex.
 
[quote name='camoor']I'll take "Because you're a douche" for 1000 Alex.[/QUOTE]

Errrrrr. Wrong. The correct answer is because Camoor is wrong. Would you care to select the next topic Camoor?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Errrrrr. Wrong. The correct answer is because Camoor is wrong. Would you care to select the next topic Camoor?[/QUOTE]

With you? Not really. Whatever you say, your shitty ecigs are still banned and you don't understand Jeopardy. Have a nice day ;)
 
[quote name='camoor']With you? Not really. Whatever you say, your shitty ecigs are still banned and you don't understand Jeopardy. Have a nice day ;)[/QUOTE]

They arent banned. Wrong again. You can get everything you need at the local 7-11.
 
[quote name='Knoell']They arent banned. Wrong again. You can get everything you need at the local 7-11.[/QUOTE]

Goddamn me, I want to say something snide but I'm such a fucking bleeding heart that I actually do care if your uncle gets cancer. If he was just getting ripped off or made the fool I could goof on him, but noone deserves to have their health endangered.

Guess the only thing I can say is that it's sad. :/
 
[quote name='camoor']Goddamn me, I want to say something snide but I'm such a fucking bleeding heart that I actually do care if your uncle gets cancer. If he was just getting ripped off or made the fool I could goof on him, but noone deserves to have their health endangered.

Guess the only thing I can say is that it's sad. :/[/QUOTE]

Yes because quitting cigarettes in any case equals getting ripped off.

And you guys complain about my twisted way of thinking?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yes because quitting cigarettes in any case equals getting ripped off.

And you guys complain about my twisted way of thinking?[/QUOTE]

I don't know about the others but I don't think there's anything twisted about your way of thinking, you're not a Rovian-style neocon or anything. In fact you're as simple as they come.
 
[quote name='camoor']"• There is a risk of poisoning or toxicity with the use of liquid nicotine solution.
• Nicotine is highly transdermal. You need to be careful with it. Don't lick drops off your fingers. Keep the liquid put up away from children and pets. When you are done, wash your hands
• Please follow the smoke juice manufactures instructions.
• Utilize gloves and other proper personal protection when handling nicotine solutions.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure if you're actually interested in banning them or just seeking to argue with the ideas that (1) they're safe and/or (2) studies can actually be reliable (for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being no opportunity for long-term effects studies and/or how corrupt those doing the studies might be).

But, all that aside, much of the concern above is rooted in laws that recognize that these are legally regulated as poisonous substances. You'd see the same thing on bottles of absinthe if they were sold in the US, as wormwood is regulated as a poison.

In fact, a more direct comparison is with nicotine patches, as the directions urge you to (1) wash your hands after applying, (2) wash where the patch was when you remove it, and (2) avoid eating/chewing on the patch (for real), among others. It's more the nature of how the chemicals are delivered. You have a controlled release in both case where there is opportunity for a much higher level of chemical ingestion at once than indicated.

So e-cigarettes are more akin to nicotine patches, in my view.

I would agree that we have yet to see if they are 'safe' alternatives to tobacco cigarettes, however:
1) there's a bloody small chance that they end up having worse long-term health effects than tobacco cigarettes (i.e., it's hard to beat a near 70% chance of dying in the long-term)
2) it is, I feel a suitable item to be used for quitting smoking; I'm more skeptical of its potential as a long-term substitution for tobacco cigarettes.

By the by, I'm 6 weeks smoke-free. Cold turkey, motherfucker.
 
While staying out of this argument, I'll add my two cents on ecigs in general. They are a good idea, but there are those douchebags that think it's ok to use them ANYWHERE.

My experience was when we were in the process of buying our house, doing the paperwork in our agents office. She whips out one of them and is taking hits of it every minute or two. The problem is, aside from a lack of professionalism, while there is no smoke, the water vapor amplifies any bad breath a person might have, allowing it to carry over a larger distance than normal.

Imagine sitting for almost an hour doing paperwork, having to smell the stank ass breath of the someone who has probably smoked over half of their life. They're on the other side of the table, but you may as well have your nose in their mouth.

So, use them wherever you want, but be courteous and don't use them in an enclosed area with ZERO airflow.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not sure if you're actually interested in banning them or just seeking to argue with the ideas that (1) they're safe and/or (2) studies can actually be reliable (for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being no opportunity for long-term effects studies and/or how corrupt those doing the studies might be).

But, all that aside, much of the concern above is rooted in laws that recognize that these are legally regulated as poisonous substances. You'd see the same thing on bottles of absinthe if they were sold in the US, as wormwood is regulated as a poison.

In fact, a more direct comparison is with nicotine patches, as the directions urge you to (1) wash your hands after applying, (2) wash where the patch was when you remove it, and (2) avoid eating/chewing on the patch (for real), among others. It's more the nature of how the chemicals are delivered. You have a controlled release in both case where there is opportunity for a much higher level of chemical ingestion at once than indicated.

So e-cigarettes are more akin to nicotine patches, in my view.

I would agree that we have yet to see if they are 'safe' alternatives to tobacco cigarettes, however:
1) there's a bloody small chance that they end up having worse long-term health effects than tobacco cigarettes (i.e., it's hard to beat a near 70% chance of dying in the long-term)
2) it is, I feel a suitable item to be used for quitting smoking; I'm more skeptical of its potential as a long-term substitution for tobacco cigarettes.

By the by, I'm 6 weeks smoke-free. Cold turkey, motherfucker.[/QUOTE]

Congrats Mike! That is definately the most badass way to quit.

Great points. In that vein I don't really have an issue with ecigs per se. My chief concern is that I don't want them produced by an outfit straight out of "The Jungle"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']By the by, I'm 6 weeks smoke-free. Cold turkey, motherfucker.[/QUOTE]
Keep it up! Enjoy tasting your food, smelling things, and breathing again!

*Also a former smoker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top