Banning e-cigs

Some California cities ban e-cigs in public places

Presumably, the ban includes non-nicotine e-cigs. What is the rationale behind banning e-cigs that do not contain nicotine?

ISTR that when flavoured cigarettes were banned, clove cigarettes became ‘cigars’. Same thing, different name. When AR-15s were specifically banned (the first time, in California), Colt changed the name to ‘Sporter’. Same thing, different name. So suppose you vape with a non-nicotine e-liquid, and your e-cig is now called a ‘miniature fog machine’. You’re not inhaling a dangerous chemical, and you’re not using an ‘e-cig’. Does vaping in a park then become legal?

Well if its sold as an cigarette replacement then it falls under the ban.

So, gum, patches and lozenges are banned as well?

You are assuming that the law makes sense. It is a ban not based on evidence. Is the AR-15 inherently more dangerous than a .223 hunting rifle, no matter what either is called?

Practically, there is no way a police officer can tell the difference between a 0 mg e-cig and a regular one, thus err on the side of it being nicotine.

So it does make sense. :smiley:

I still don’t get this. Do e-cigs emit nothing but pure water vapor—yes or no? If not, what else is coming out of the end of those things?

They emit vaporized glycerin.

No the fact that they are banning a product based upon nonexistent data, because it has one chemical ingredient in common with cigarettes, which has dozens.

IFF you agree that that part is logical, then the rest follows.

They don’t seem to emit anything harmful. They also release the flavor’s scent.

And I assume that all of the flavoring compounds are on the FDA’s GRAS list, right?

If you think that practical enforceability is a desireable quality in a law, then a ban on X, and on things that look like X and very well could be, can make sense. It’s only objectionable if the things that look like X but actually aren’t offer some benefit which exceeds the detriment of not being able to enforce the ban on X.

It has nothing to do with nicotine. Or logic for that matter. They’re getting banned simply because they contain the word ‘cigarette’ in their name. Because cigarettes are evil, and they’re not interested in making them safer, just getting rid of them. And I don’t even smoke…

So suppose a movie supply house sells e-cigs as ‘miniature, human-powered fog machines’ so that people can fog miniature sets when they’re doing animation. To prevent confusion, let’s specify that it looks like this, and not like a traditional cigarette. And suppose someone ensures the functionality of this piece of movie equipment in a park or other public place. Would he be in violation of the law? (I haven’t read any of the laws, so I don’t know if they specify electronic cigarettes; or if they are written broadly enough to also ban nebulisers.)

Is there data on e-cig vapor and what second hand dangers it represent?

I don’t know but I recently found out you can put hash oil in those things and essentially make an “e-joint”. So maybe it’s an effort to prevent people getting high in public?

One of the only real public health concerns around e-cigs is whether non-smokers (and kids specifically) might end up using them as a gateway to real cigarettes. With that in mind, part of the issue may be the even if you’re “smoking” a non-nicotine e-cig, you’re still going through the motions of smoking and if any impressionable kiddos are around they might think it makes you look like a cool futuristic bounty hunter and want to try it themselves, eventually leading them down a path that leads to full nicotine e-cigs and even real ones.

I don’t necessarily agree with the rationale, but I’ll bet that the issue is some variation of the “won’t someone think of the children!” argument.

California allows medical use of cannabis. Maybe it’s an effort to stop people from being well?

Best post ever.