Customers shop for electronic cigarettes.

A bill introduced Monday by State Senator Mark Leno would ban electronic cigarettes in the same places that traditional cigarettes are banned, including restaurants, bars and workplaces. A recent study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that users of e-cigarettes can be exposed to high levels of the carcinogen formaldehyde. Supporters of e-cigarettes say they are far safer than regular tobacco products and help users kick their cigarette habits.

Mark Leno, California state senator
Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, an advocacy group for e-cigarettes
Tim Gibbs, senior director of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network

  • Sean Dennehy

    Many years earlier, scientists paid by the tobacco industry and industry officials testified in front of congress that tobacco wasn’t harmful or addicting. Now they’re saying the same things for e-cigs. Why should we fall for the same trick again?

    • Karyyl

      The tobacco companies are the ones saying they ARE dangerous, it’s vapers and independent small businesses quoting peer-reviewed science showing NO second-hand harm, and drastically less first-hand harm. I personally, and many of our friends, are experiencing some RECOVERY from the harm of smoking now that we are vaping. Bottom line: don’t “fall for” either side, educate yourself. Consumer group page (could be improved)

    • The question wasn’t “Do you believe tobacco is harmful or addicting” the question was “Do you believe nicotine is harmful or addicting”. Turns out the executives were likely telling the truth as later *independent* research (used by the FDA to change the Nicotine Replacement Product recommendations) demonstrates that nicotine, separated from the other constituents of tobacco smoke is likely no more harmful or addictive than caffeine. So the trick that was played on both sides was the wording of the actual question at the Senate hearing.
      I’m the last person to support the tobacco execs and Big Tobacco, but I have to follow where the evidence leads. In this case it vindicates the execs.

      • Noelle

        An overdose of nicotine can kill. Easier for kids to get overdose in vaping fluid.
        Since when do smokers care about their health, though? Let addicts vape instead of smoking, I say…but don’t be under delusion this is good for you. Just another nicotine delivery system.

        • Noelle

          I don’t think e-cigarettes can be banned, but they should be regulated.

          • Noelle, that just keeps government in the business of minding our business to the tune of taxation for trumped up BS.
            REGULATION = TAXATION simple equation.

          • Pomegranny

            They should be, but NOT as tobacco. Cigarettes are proven killers. The jury is not out on them.
            E cigs, on the other hand, do not contain tobacco, so should be taxed 99 per cent less than tobacco cigs, as they cause 99 per cent less harm. The real destructive addiction here is to Tobacco Settlement payments.

        • No one is making the claim of 100% safety. The devil is in the details. The risks known to date demonstrate that the risks to vapers from their use is only 2% of the risk smokers endure, and the risk to bystanders is 0.01% of the risks being near a smoker has. Now that’s impressive enough.
          Here’s the take. Our government supported Big Tobacco for decades. Hooked countless generations on smoking. Today there are 48 million smokers in this country addicted to burning tobacco and the carcinogenic soup produced. Over 50% say they want to quit, only 6% succeed in a given year with current products and methods. Then vaping came along. Studies are showing that it succeeds where other methods fail and at twice the rate.
          Now ask yourself, in a world where over 400,000 people die each year from smoking related illness, do you really want to squash something that has the potential to save those lives? Do you really want to continue the status quo?
          I hope your answer is no.

          • The only people talking about total safety are those regulation addicts that demand proof of it. And the simply pretend this were a common claim that needs to be proven. Deus ex machina.

        • Chris

          An overdose of ANYTHING can kill. Aspirin, Clorox, water, Tide Pods, anything. It really isn’t that some things are toxic, and some things aren’t. It’s all in doseage.

        • Chris

          “Since when do smokers care about their health, though?”

          75% of smokers would like to quit smoking. They probably don’t want to quit for fun. They would like to quit, but most have been unable to.

          “don’t be under delusion this is good for you”

          Who ever said ecigs are “good for you”? They aren’t marketed as health products, nor are they sold at locations that health products are sold. What there are is most likely substantially less harmful than combustible cigarettes. If you simply stopped inhaling carbon monoxide, and tar all day every day, it’s hard to imagine that you wouldn’t be better off, eh? Even if ecigs contained all the other chemicals in burning tobacco smoke, which we know is not the case.

        • Pomegranny

          Smokers universally start as CHILDREN. How many good decisions did YOU make before the age of 20?
          Cigarettes don’t come in childproof packaging, and poison more children than e liquid has. They also start more house and forest fires, and do not come in zero nicotine options.
          Only our opponents call vaping SAFE. We vapers call it SAFER.

    • castello
    • Pomegranny

      Because it isn’t the same trick. Vaping did not start with Big Tobacco….they wrote it off as a fad. Why would tobacco companies develop something that is such a threat to their own bread and butter?
      Big T only got involved when it saw the financial writing on the wall, and only to try and be the Grinch that stole vaping. But till Big T pulls all their tobacco filled death sticks off the market, I sure can’t believe they’re concerned for my health.
      The sad thing is, I can’t believe in Public Health to do that anymore, either. They too are losing money on their failed (and nicotine containing) quit smoking aids, so spend a buttload of money to fund biased studies….like, well, THIS one.

  • When I was asked last spring to appear on your local news program, I asked some questions first. They were basic questions about the fundamental facts regarding the mechanisms and the problems with the public health orgs publishing fearful hysteria. Of course, I wasn’t asked to be on after that. Sure enough, the Legacy Foundation sent a spokeswoman and was able to speak without any discussion of her conclusions or how she got there. I hope today it will be a more balanced discussion.

  • Bob Fry

    Seems a no-brainer to ban these in public places. Why should I be subjected to anybody else’s addictions? Same for marijuana cigarettes.

    • castello
      • Bob Fry

        So…I don’t want to breath someone else’s vapors.

        • Christopher Dietz

          I think this is reasonable. I vape all the time but am always sensitive to whether a person wants to be around me vaping and stop if they don/t

        • Glen Appleton

          Fair enough, so don’t patronize businesses that allow vapor product use on their premises. All the current evidence is that the vapor poses nearly zero risk to bystanders, so we don’t need state and local governments telling businesses what to do. It should be up to the business owner to decide whether or not they allow use of the product, and then you can vote with your dollars.

          Simple, done.

        • castello
        • Chris

          I don’t want to breathe your body odor. Bingo. You’re outlawed.

          And if someone’s ecig is bothering you, is it really so horrible to simply move away, or ask them to move away, or ask someone in management at the business you’re at to address the issue? Has our society really descended to the place that people need the gov’t to step in and address every little problem or annoyance in their life? Yikes.

        • ScottWichall

          I don’t want to inhale your second hand breath either. At least you can see my vapour and avoid it. Your potentially deadly disease laden exhalations are not visible to me so I cannot avoid them.

    • Landstander

      Agreed, people need to stop driving. I know how bad driving is, how it harms the environment and people’s health, so I don’t do it. But other people keep driving and I don’t want to breathe in someone else’s exhaust, so let’s please finally ban driving in public places!

      • Noelle

        wow, that would change the world!!

    • Chris

      Question Bob. Why would you force people trying to get away from cigarettes with a product that has been proven (underscore “proven”) to pose no harm to bystanders, outside into crowds of smokers? Should AA meetings be held in bars? What’s wrong with letting business owners set their own policies in their business? Do people that own businesses really need the government to step in and help them?

      Be honest know isn’t just a little bit of a way for you to shake a self righteous finger at them and say “for shame”, without you actually having to save it.

    • Pomegranny

      I agree…it used to really annoy me when people addicted to shaming approached me outside and harassed me. 🙂

  • Monsieur Oblong

    Please, let’s use some common sense. I don’t want to live in a society where everything is illegal until the government grants us the privilege of choosing to eat or drink or inhale something.
    We should err on the side of leaving things legal unless and until they’re shown to cause *significant* harm, and even then, we must balance the pros and cons of legislative action.
    The problem with Mr Leno’s zeal for taking away our rights is that he wants to restrict the *devices* themselves, not specific chemical compounds. If he can provide significant evidence of the harms of certain compounds in certain e-cigarette ‘juices’, we should restrict their use, not the e-cigarette/vaporizer device itself.
    Every single one of my coworkers who uses one has successfully used it to cease smoking.
    Incidentally, as soon as someone starts crying “what about the children?” as a reason to support their restrictions on something, I immediately know they’re insincere and not worth listening to.

    • Sean Dennehy

      It’s not being banned.

      • Monsieur Oblong

        They are attempting to ban it indoors. (and, incidentally, everywhere.. but that’s another story).
        Hence the word “ban” applies.

        • Sean Dennehy

          They are attempting it to ban it in public places and the workplace. That’s not banning it outright, which is what your initial post was arguing.

          Do you excel in goalpost moving?

          • Chris

            No, it’s not a ban. It’s simply the government telling business owners what their policies must be.

          • SMH2much

            When Vapers aren’t allowed to use as needed, to beat their smoke cravings, they return to smoking, so yes, in fact, this is a ban.

          • Glen Appleton

            Goalpost moving, really? You mean like the goal posts the anti-nicotine crowd (formally anti-smoking) keep moving in order to stay relevant? It used to be about the 2nd hand smoke, then it was about the 3rd hand smoke (whatever that is), and now it’s about appearance (re-normalizing) and being inconvenienced as a non-smoker (or non-vaper).

            Seriously, you should actually speak out loud and listen to what you’re saying before you commit it to record in a comments section.

          • Bobbilly

            It was formally protecting non-smokers.

          • FXR

            They move the goal posts so often the harpies can’t even keep up. The latest has them being included in bans, in people’s homes, in condos and multi-unit dwellings.

            All we want is an area in the restaurant that people don’t smoke…Goes to show, we should never have gone back to negotiating with terrorists.

          • Yep.

      • This is pure placating of self, Nazi didn’t think they were wrong either… your justifying lies! Ann Arbor, MI Feb. 2015 new law, bans smoking and vaping of Electronic Cigarettes in 77 parks. Says nothing about Barbeques. Get a clue, if you are a Pharma rep., your puppet master has twisted your tongue!

      • castello
      • Pomegranny

        Expensive regulatory hurdles will create an effective ban, except for the entirely undeserving Big Tobacco companies desperately trying to pretend that vaping is the same as smoking.

    • Can’t We All Just Get Along?!

      Being an ex-smoker (for the 2nd time) myself, I know first
      hand of the difficulty of quitting. For
      the lucky ones that have never smoked, they can’t imagine the anguish and
      stress a smoker experiences while trying to quit the habit. It can last a few weeks to several
      months. This is why it takes smokers
      several attempts before they succeed and some can’t stop at all. Smokers, I’ve seen, are going out of their
      way not to infringe on non-smokers; switching to an e-cigarette, smoking
      outside away from others, chewing, plus more but it seems some people still
      will smirk, come up to the smoker (outside smoking) saying, “I can still smell
      your smoke, will you move” or “can’t you do this in your home or car”? It just seems to me that some, not all,
      non-smokers will go out of their way to make the smoker uncomfortable.

      • FXR

        For some, Bigotry is an addiction, and they will serve it wherever they can.

        The difference between an addict and a cult member such as those enrolled in the Public Health”Movement” [try as I might to avoid it, the word Bowel just demands to be attached here {{wink}}]

        Internalized shackles are always the most resilient, because the imprisoned are unwilling to allow any use of the key, which is at all times, kept in their own hand. An addiction can be cured more easily than attachment to a cult, because there is a self to return too, for an addict.

      • Pomegranny

        Those folks are addicted to shaming. Another unhealthy and unattractive habit that mainly hurts the shamer.

  • Ben Rawner

    This argument is weak. If teenagers and others want to smoke Ecigarettes they will find a way to do it. Making it illegal will actually push teens to smoke even more to be cool. Nicotine is addictive, but so is sugar, coffee, etc… There is no second hand smoke from vaping, so there is no science behind disallowing its use anywhere.

    • Sean Dennehy

      It’s been mentioned on the show now several times (and in the description) that the bill isn’t going to make it illegal, it’s going to have it regulated like tobacco products.

      Reading comprehension.

      • It is precisely that, “regulated like tobacco products”, that erects a barrier to choosing a safer alternative. You want reading comprehension, then test yours against the FDA deeming regulations. Why would you want to discourage an activity that can reduce significantly the harmful effects of tobacco use? Why would you want to erect barriers to products that have solid scientific evidence, growing every week, that they help people move away from burning tobacco and the well-known harms that produces.
        The proposal would affect families, not just individual smokers. When smokers don’t have an option, and have failed attempts at cessation, they continue to smoke. This exposes themselves, their loved ones, and friends to the harms. Vaping has only 2% of the harms to the smoker and 0.01% of the harms to bystanders. You really want to make that choice more difficult by morally equating the two? I don’t think any compassionate human would.

        • Sean Dennehy

          You just declare there is solid scientific evidence. Why should I believe you?

          • Because if you can actually use resources like PubMed you can see for yourself the growing evidence.

          • Chris

            Because Bruce is #1 a medical professional, and #2 wicked smart.

        • Thank You!

      • And we all know what happens when the Gov’t gets involved…I thought w/e Cigs/Vapor, etc. would satisfy all???

      • FergusReturns

        “it’s going to have it regulated like tobacco products.”

        If e-cigs are regulated like tobacco products a lot of people are going to decide they might as well just go back to tobacco products. Is that what you want?

      • Pomegranny

        They don’t contain tobacco, so the zealots had to move the goalposts and try to demonize nicotine, instead.
        Not sure why they are not attacking gums and patches that contain nicotine from the same source……

    • Thank You.

  • rfkolbe

    I think an industry based on addicting people should be exposed. Thank you for doing this Senator Leno and Michael Krasny. They are DRUG dealers.

    • castello

      Nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine. Should we ban coffee and tea? How did it go when we banned alcohol? Prohibition doesn’t work! How is that drug war going?

      • Noelle

        I am against prohibition, but there should be some regulation.

        • The problem with “regulation” is: It’s a powerful addiction.

          When the regulation addicts get some, they are satisfied. For the moment. But when that high subsides, they soon crave for more. And they will lie and cheat to get their next fix.

        • Pomegranny

          Yes, but NOT as tobacco products. Vaping has not earned the sin tax smoking has, and is not the same thing.
          I think they should be taxed 99 per cent less than cigarettes, since they cause 99 per cent less harm.

      • Noelle

        should we ban powdered caffeine too? Some people have died from ingesting that too.

        • Chris

          Nobody has died from using an ecig. Ever. It’s worth noting.

      • rfkolbe

        Its addiction rate is higher. A good longtime addict makes for higher profits. No better than a crack dealer. Im not for a ban in sales, just go outside. The legal ramifications is another issue. I refer to business ethics..

        • You go outside!

        • Pomegranny

          If the addiction rate is higher, why do vapers steadily lower their levels of nicotine, some till they’re down to zero? And why would the FDA allow patches and gums containing nicotine to be sold over the counter, claiming nicotine alone holds no risk of addiction?
          They are only demonizing nicotine now because they couldn’t get away with saying vapes contain tobacco without getting laughed at.

    • Chris

      Please show me studies on nicotine addiction outside the context of cigarette smoke. Better yet, rather than waste your time looking for something that doesn’t exist, try reading the following article from Discover Magazine regarding nicotine, then get ready to surrender your coffee because it’s chock full of caffeine, which is ALSO addictive, and has ALSO been linked to high blood pressure and heart disease.

      • rfkolbe

        Nicotine is far more addictive than caffeine. Fact.

        • axlahn

          Nice…I like your tactic there. State a comment that has no supporting evidence and then add “Fact.” at the end. Awesome. Gonna use that on my next dissertation.

          • rfkolbe

            Ever tried to quit smoking? Ever tried to quit coffee? Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known to man. These nicotine delivery devices are cool and fun! And profitable.

          • ScottWichall

            Not as profitable as tobacco taxes. Hint look up what the American states did with MSA money. That’s right, sold massive bonds that are now in danger of bankrupting them. So they need the tobacco faucet to stay in full flow. And that is a fact.

          • rfkolbe

            Good point. But the health impacts of tobacco justify collecting the taxes. I argue that the tobacco industry engineers addiction. Gross.

          • ScottWichall

            But the problem is due to the bond issue the states have to keep the tax flowing in. And as they have already spent the money up front on everything except health how can they now defray the health costs. Hence the scare stories about vaping as it threatens the future tobacco revenue stream.

          • Pomegranny

            And we vapers agree with you completely. Which is why we’re off tobacco, and why Big T will not see one further red cent from our suffering.

        • Pomegranny

          Ignorant and proud to remain so. Fact.

    • Chris

      Just like Starbucks. Grip that coffee cup tight old man. They may be coming for that next.

      • Noelle

        no, it wont be banned. The bosses want workers to love their free coffee to get more productivity out of them.

      • rfkolbe

        Nicotine is far more addictive than caffeine. Fact. No comparison. Plus, I don’t care what people smoke as long as they go outside and impose on nonsmoker’s rights.

        • I think it would be nice if you went outside.

        • Pomegranny

          Why does Big Pharma sell nicotine patches and gum OTC? Because nicotine on its own poses no risk of addiction, according to THEM.
          Well, until that pesky vaping came along and spoiled their party….

    • Pomegranny

      Nope, the official Drug Dealers are Big Pharma, who funded this very flawed study. Big Pharma will tolerate no other drug dealers but Big Tobacco, which is not really vaping at all.

  • Steve Wilkes

    How much funding does the American Cancer Society receive from Pharmaceutical companies? Or from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement? This is an inherent conflict of interest pushing tried and failed mechanism to quit smoking and finding any excuse to demonize electronic cigarettes. Nicotine itself is not inherently addictive, it is the nicotine with the MAOIs in cigarettes – not present in vaping products – that cause the addiction. If the American Cancer Society examined its conscience, it would be promoting any mechanism to quit smoking, not trying to prevent adults like myself from saving our lives. I quit 2 1/2 years ago with ecigs.

    • Steve Wilkes

      More on Nicotine:

      “Nicotine is the major neuroactive compound of tobacco, which has, by itself, weak reinforcing properties. It is known that levels of the enzymes monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A) and MAO-B are reduced in the platelets and brains of smokers and that substances, other than nicotine, present in tobacco smoke have MAO-inhibitory activities. Here, we report that inhibition of MAO dramatically and specifically increases the motivation to self-administer nicotine in rats. These effects were more prominent in rats selected for high responsiveness to novelty than in rats with low responsiveness to novelty. The results suggest that the inhibition of MAO activity by compounds present in tobacco smoke may combine with nicotine to produce the intense reinforcing properties of cigarette smoking that lead to addiction.”

    • Chris

      Millions Steve, and that is critical for people to understand.

    • FXR

      Seems a far cry from “finding the cures for cancer” when almost their entire operation, is suddenly dedicated to treating people like a disease that needs to be cured.

      Some of the largest populations on the planet are also described as “aging populations”. The most costly part of medicine is seen in the declining years. It’s a financial burden not well prepared for among the Political crowd, who are addicted to tax and spend, in order to buy votes in future elections. It’s so ingrained it is all they know today.

      They squandered the dollars meant to pay for that decline and now face a financial burden far to extreme for any of them to admit, much less discuss as rational and compassionate human beings.

      Stress is the number one risk factor and it would seem to be a popular solution for the Public Health cartel and all of it’s profiting stakeholders. Who promote more stress lately, than life could possibly offer, all on it’s own. “Everything is about Public Health” or so they will say.

      But then; Public Health is always about the money. How else could we possibly describe a stress induced death, than as “a smoking related disease” ? By extension a death that was deserved and self imposed.

      Ask anyone who attends a hospital today with cancer, a stroke or a heart attack. How many times their physicians ask; if the patient smoked? Having a boilerplate prognosis, already in hand.

      When a non smoker dies of lung cancer, it serves as a point of media amazement or bewilderment, when declaring how unusual it is, if they never smoked. Despite the numbers that show, more non smokers die of lung cancer, than smokers do. It is a factor of population numbers and to be expected, in a more rational unbiased world.

      Mistaking these campaigners for Doctors, is always our first mistake.

      • Noelle

        OK, so smokers/vapers are dealing with the epidemic of stress with nicotine. There’s always meditation.
        I actually agree with with the pro-vapers for the most part. My mom died from cigarettes and prohibition doesn’t work, so yeah, why not harm reduction?

        • FXR

          How do you mediate against a campaign targeting the use of toboggans from the same gang?

          Maybe, we could use their campaigns against bullying against them?


  • This is about the fate of nearly a half a million lives this year alone. We all want our children to grow up without knowing the premature loss of their parents and loved ones. There is a new technology that is making this dream possible for tens of millions of Americans every day. The best way to promote something positive is to make it easy to afford and more attractive.

    The opponents of electronic cigarettes will give you reams of data that take not one care for these things. I can cite solid scientific evidence that refutes their claims. But that doesn’t get us anywhere. In truth we both want the same thing. What our opponents have forgotten is that this is about people, not numbers; lives not revenues. It’s about families growing old together. It’s about a world where the choices are less harmful than the choices we grew up with.

    What matters now is context. Are you going to vote against giving people more opportunities to quit? Will you vote to condemn a significant portion of our population to die because the current methods fail 94% of the time? Or are you going to vote to give more opportunities to those same people to live. The choice is yours. The lives are ours. The time is now.

    • FXR

      How many of those “half million this year alone” are e-cigs or anything on the market, really going to save? it’s a sound bite don’t entitle their lies with repetition. 50% of smokers die of “smoking related diseases” Namely cancer, heart attack and stroke. The other half don’t The oldest guy on the planet attributes his longevity to smoking whiskey and wild women. Not a lot of stress controlling his life obviously.

      It is somewhat amiss, for the medical industry in all of their sound bite repetitions, to not mention more non smokers die numerically from these same ailments. percentage wise in numbers, equal to smokers right around 50%. of course those people will be targeted by other life saving procedures. laughing last.

      • “Smoking kills”, “Yes, but not reliably.”
        Acually we have data that shows that those attempting to quit (which estimates range from 20-50% of smokers each year) succeed at rates of 20% using ecigarettes. So we do the math and that means that of the 43 million smokers ecigs will likely save at least 1.7 million lives.

        And it isn’t 50% of smokers who die of smoking related diseases, more like 1.1% each year (43 million smokers, 480,000 deaths).

        You are correct in saying that more non-smokers die of certain smoking related illnesses than smokers. But the fallacy you’re trapping yourself into is the population distribution. 80% of the population does not and has never smoked. Simple distribution would yield a larger number of deaths from such causes (i.e. Cancer, Heart disease). We also know that far more smokers die of non-smoking related causes as well.

        What I’m talking about are deaths that are attributable to tobacco as a primary cause. That number approaches a half-million every year. There are certainly cases where smokers die of these diseases from secondary (e.g. genetic or other environmental exposures) causes but they are proportionately small.

        Thus your argument does not diminish the statement that this is about a half-million lives. They might die anyway from other causes, but reducing the harmful effects of tobacco in that population gives them equal footing to the 80% of society that has never smoked. That is worth fighting for.

        • FXR

          30 of 60 million smokers deaths, distributed over 66.6 years is 450,000. The sound bite implies immortality had they not smoked? The mortality risk is a universal risk, regardless of smoking. A popular sound bite, still held tight by the campaigners. Even beyond the point that the average age of mortality increased. Also universally. 50% of them will die, no matter what you call them, [smokers, vapers or the teacher’s pet] of the same “smoking related diseases”.

          You obviously have never considered the effects of being exposed, long term, to a smoke free environment. With nothing to replace the purifying effects of smoke. How many will die as a consequence? Certainly far more than the “experts” attribute to the risks of second hand smoke. with an annual flu risk already beyond 35.000 mortalities. A risk [emotional estimate] from which, you are protected against in law. A risk from which, no one has the instinct that they should run away?

          I guess Grubber certified Stupid is the disease here and Governments have no choice but to intervene.

          Of course within the current environment one has to ask, who exactly elected this intelligentsia? Who denounce their own relevance, in paternalist dictatorships.

          Everyone needs to accept their lot in life in this grand scheme of things. We have the Group think of intelligentsia from where all thing noble flow. Those who can never be questioned, or bother themselves discussing the details of their judgements.

          Then we have the second class citizens to dumb to provide their own protections with basic informed consent or common sense. So they have to be mothered from cradle to grave. The compliant who stay out of trouble because they do and think what they are told to.

          then we have tertiary, or third class of citizenry, the rebellious independent minds, who refuse to abide, by what is, and has always been, politically correct, [for at least a week. Cast into the pit in response to their impetuous attitudes.

          All is solved and all is complete with regulations and penalties to serve, what can never be different or changed.

          • Well, it’s just rhetorical jiujitsu. Using the numbers the zealots cobbled together for their scaremongering propaganda to demonize smoking and ostracize smokers. Clobber them with their own cudgel.

          • Hi Norbert!
            Sad really, FXR failed to comprehend what was said. Probably thinks I’m a supporter of the Senator’s idea because he can’t recognize the argument. C’est la vie.

          • FXR

            I understood completely what you were saying. Unfortunately you are failing to recognize what I pointed out.

            If you want credibility you have to walk away from the liars and their chanting. Smokers are not your problem it’s the cult numbers. Designed to undermine personal autonomy, that threatens you more, because you are currently promoting credibility for those who produced them, when clearly they have never earned or respected the value of that trust. A risk factor does not stand alone as a cause of death. Most natural deaths will involve many. 450,000 is an incredible lie and they know it. Almost as big a lie as the prospect that anyone needs protection from the sight or scent of burning leaves. Sell away, your e-cigs are a great innovation. Just don’t do it riding on the back of a hate campaign. It makes you look no better than the Public Health mafia, or the [“stakeholder”] drug cartels that they serve.

            IOW; Not worth a second look.

  • Kristilinamarie

    People can use e-cigs if they want, and probably should, if they are heavy cigarette smokers. And I, sitting in a cafe, should not be “vaped” out. I sat in a small cafe next to someone vaping over and over again and it was unpleasant–and exposed me to particulates. I eventually left. On BART trains–are you kidding me? Gross.

    • castello
    • jredheadgirl

      “ was unpleasant–and exposed me to particulates.”

      Do you cook? ..Just curious.

    • Lessifer

      Did you happen to politely ask the person to stop, or blow in the other direction? Most people, when asked politely, will stop doing something that is bothering others.

    • Now go an enjoy your barbeque… make sure you enjoy that sumptuous odor and smoke. I bet you never imagined, that you would have to smoke 1 million cigarettes in an inclosed vehicle to be exposed to the same level of carcinogens. LOL Vaper is environmentally proven to be safe to users and bystanders. Dr. Igor Burstyn “Peering Through The Mist”

      • rfkolbe

        Well, it’s not about the smoker’s health so much as its effect on those not smoking. ie: children

        • I..E. Effects such as what?

        • Pomegranny

          It should be more about the smoker’s health, and good parents explain things like this to their children.
          That said, I would not vape without permission, as I am a respectful person.

  • Christine Cory

    As far as I understand, this bill is not trying to ban e-cigarettes. Maybe they are less harmful to the smoker than smoking cigarettes. If it helps a smoker quit cigarettes, that is their choice and they can smoke whatever they choose. The bill is in reference to WHERE people can smoke. How can people possibly advocate to expose people to any amount of carcinogens that they do not choose to be exposed to? Is it really going to affect someone’s decision to quit cigarettes if they have to go outside to vape? They didn’t quit smoking because they were banned from smoking in public spaces… so why would it prevent them from vaping?

    • castello
    • Lessifer

      it’s not only about where users can vape, though that part needs to be examined as well. If vaping is labeled a tobacco product, that means any seller is required to obtain a tobacco license to sell vape products, which adds more licensing fees to retailers, it also means that a product that is about as harmful to the user as drinking tap water, and is as harmful to nearby non-users as ambient air, would be subject to tobacco taxes and regulations. One of the appealing aspects of this alternative to combustible tobacco is the cost difference, adding a “sin” tax to something that should be touted as a VIRTUE(quitting/reducing smoking) is absurd. Also, as far as WHERE you can vape, it is currently illegal in some cities in CA to smoke in any residence that shares a wall with another, which means not only apartments, but condos/townhouses as well, where the occupant is the owner of the property.

      Sensible regulation is one thing, lumping vaping products in with tobacco products is anything but sensible.

    • Chris

      The bill is being sponsored by a shady politician that has taken almost $40K from pharmaceutical companies, and is being supported by a so called “public health group”, that takes millions from pharmaceutical companies. Many of these companies are facing seriously reduced sales on nicotine replacement therapy products, and are looking for any way they can to make it more complicated for smokers to make the sensible switch to ecigs. First it’s “go outside!”, then it’s “you are using a tobacco product, so now pay surcharges on all your insurance”, then it’s “oh yeah, these are tobacco products, so why aren’t we collecting taxes on this”.

    • Sho2daPan

      The point is the Removong the ability to vape, reduces the chance people will make the switch to a safer alternative. Make no mistake this will Kill people.
      To answer your question as to why people didnt quit, when the Bans came before…Because the technology wasn’t ready for Vaping yet, now that it is the money is the problem. That and the fact we can’t. Accept people Doing anything that resembles what we know kills…regardless of the facts…

  • 1PeterDuMont2STARALLIANCE8

    How could it be true, as one caller claimed and one guest assented, that only the vapor user gets any of the vapor? The contents and vapor don’t cease to exist when they are exhaled, they just dissipate in the atmosphere like other second-hand smoke, where they are inhaled at lower concentration by others, just like second-hand smoke.

    • castello
    • Within epidemiology and toxicology there are axioms of truth. The dose makes the poison. IOW the amount of any substance must be sufficient to cause harm. Exposure makes the risk. IOW you have to be exposed to the harmful amount of any substance to be at risk for harm. The solution to pollution is dilution. IOW when dealing with any toxic exposure dilution to safe levels is the solution.
      These principles applied in this case work to the advantage of bystanders. As any (minimally) toxic exposure is diluted to insignificance and dispersed to such a level that exposure is well below any level of risk.
      That is science. Search HAZWOPER, CDC and ATDSR if you want a deeper understanding.

    • Pomegranny

      Vapor is not smoke. There is no “just like” about it. Except for the mindset of those who won’t inform themselves.

  • Leno is just catering to the puritanical streak in our culture. Just more war on
    drugs. I am not a vaper, I quit smoking with snus.You do have to be
    sure and use Swedish process snus, not US process.

    • jredheadgirl

      ..and I made the switch over from smoking to vaping with a tobacco vaporizer, something hardly anyone knows about yet. The Neo Calvinists are hard at work trying to kill off harm reduction.

      • Is this like a weed vaporizer? What I like about snus is no one even knows you are doing it. It is also much cheaper than cigarettes. A can is about three dollars and lasts me four days. When I smoked tailor mades it was a pack a day. Even switching to roll your own (which cut my smoking down a lot) was more expensive than Timber Wolf which is what I use now. It is hard to find (only sold at Walmart) but I buy it online.

        • jredheadgirl

          I have two different types of tobacco vaporizers that are made by the same company actually. One is for loose leaf pipe tobacco and the other one is for crushed pipe tobacco (pods). The first one has 3 temperature settings and the other one heats to 356 degrees (all below the point of combustion). They are both emit a visible vapor, but albeit not nearly as much as a cloud chasing mod, which makes either of these vaporizers a good option when wanting to vape in a crowded “public” environment. Personally (crowded environment or not), I switched over to HnB because I like the flavor of real tobacco over the taste of any e-cig that I have tried so far (not that I don’t enjoy an e-cig once in a while). It’s just another way to not smoke. I don’t know if mentioning the company name is a violation of the posting guidelines here, so the best that I can do is to say google tobacco pods to find the company that specializes in HnB tobacco vapor if you’re interested in learning more. Cheers:-)

    • Great! Others should always be free to choose how to live their lives and care for their own health.

    • Glen Appleton

      Leno is in the pocket of big pharma, and now he’s trying to pay back the contribution to his campaign using this legislation (to start). He’s no different than any other politician as they’re all beholden to their contributors and care little about the people they were elected to represent. Same old song, 50 years on.

  • maria

    Inside of buildings i can see being regulated, but at the same time it shouldnt be lumped with smoking. And the studies are lacking big time. Most studies do not tell u what equipment is being used not to mention those same studies are using it in ways vapers dont. Most are proving to be using dry wicks or cartomizers that are known as garbage to vapers as they commonly produce dry hits….and therein lies the data they are collecting. No vaper vapes dry hits

  • maria

    And may i add thanks to ecigs i quit smoking a yr and a half ago. I was an 18yr long smoker and started vaping at 18 mg nic and am now down to 3mg of nic and working to stop entirely

  • moflicky

    If this were really about public health, they’d be handing out e-cigs to smokers like condoms to teens.

  • Lessifer

    Is it any surprise that Senator Leno’s top donors are pharmaceutical companies?{1|gro=d-eid

    • Chris

      That’s almost to the level that someone should call the FBI.

  • FXR

    To accomplish “maximized benefits” and “minimal risks” we have to see these products regulated in a mature and structured environment’s perspective. They are mechanical devices, not in any way the same as toxic or carcinogenic chemicals, or even biological materials. Taking us beyond the CDC and EPA camera whore grandstanding, cult or political ideologies, recognizing first and foremost; that they are not actually devices, spawned from hell.

    They are simply consumer products requiring electrical and product safety standards. To do less, [or more?] would be equitable to declaring, your air conditioner was a cigarette. The fact that nicotine is an optional inclusion, should end all the power of designer scientific ignorance and all forms of ideological rhetoric. With a power of embarrassment, as a real and unavoidable liability, for those who would speak as self proclaimed “experts”. In a field devoid of any useful information.

    They are not and never were “cigarettes”. Only a lack of good judgement by the manufacturers, when >>they named them<<, allows this foolishness to continue.

    At some point sanity and common sense, has to be allowed back into the room.

    • Pomegranny

      It does not matter what we called them: what matters is they take money from Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and our politicians who are heavily reliant on the sin tax.
      We could have called them kalamazoos and the same thing would have (sadly) happened.
      Otherwise, I completely agree with you.

  • SMH2much

    The PG in eCigs has been known to kill germs. Public health hates that.

    • FXR

      The fact that nicotine is optional takes a lot away from their fear mongering and thunder. Made worse when the consumers who use them often forget or choose to leave out the nicotine focused on those addictive flavors the campaigners love to discuss.

      “Red bull gives you wings” Where are the campaigners? if the wax melts in the sunlight, this could be dangerous, far more dangerous than smoking.

      If we want to go right off the deep end lets do it right shall we? Lets see some video tape of all the huge crowds in central park panicking and running away, reacting in fear of the homeless guy, stoking up a discarded cigarette butt.

  • Steven Hanson

    High levels of Formaldehyde? Are you completely ignorant? I don’t know what juice you are vaping but you are vaping the wrong stuff. Nice scare tactic by big tobacco right there

  • Chris OConnell

    The Astroturf is spread wide.

    • Pomegranny

      ……in Public Health

  • Stacy Cross

    “scary sounding chemicals” -gregory conley That is the meat and potatoes of the arguments against e-cigarettes. The tactics used by the anti-vaping lobbyists are nothing less than propaganda geared towards making money for the tobacco industry and the pharmaceutical industry. Period. At any given time I could poll a group of 50,000 vapers, gathered together for a purpose of sharing information and helping each other learn to vape safely and quit smoking traditional cigarettes, and give you as many stories of success as the anti-vaping movement can give you studies with unreliable tainted results against this industry.

  • roxie

    Hi All! I just wanted to add another POV. I’m a former smoker who loved loved loved menthols. I recently learned that menthols hella are more dangerous because of the crystals that get stuck and destroy the lungs more. After like a dozen times, I am done with smoking. I tried vaping but the levels of nicotine were not enough or off so I never got to take off the edge for me.
    I still have close friends that smoke cigarettes and vape too. I’m glad that ecigs helped people like the heavy smokers, but from my experience that’s hit and miss.
    But I do not like or support teens and other young adult first timers who never even did smoking. I agree with one the speakers that the Industry is douchey in using flavors to hook folks/new customers though. So I don’t think it’s a big deal if people vape in certain spaces or what not. It’s already where you cant smoke at work or school etc. I’m cool with that. Just roll it in with the other existing clear air rules. No biggie for me.

    I am not for banning ecigs/hookah vape pens. But maybe it’s a generational thing. All my friends who vape and smoke cigs have no probs going outside away from others; doing our thing and then throwing the cartridges or butts away in the trash. I really don’t think it’s a big deal.
    We grew up where you smoked outside away from other like out of consideration. Idk just IMO. I hope everyone just tries to make better decisions than I did and not get caught up and hooked for a bit like I did. It does worry me that I may get cancer either from the cigs or the hookah vape pen when I’m older.

  • Armen

    I found this website that you can use to listen to 99% Invisible:

  • For your nannyfornia “Nicotine” Junk Science, CDPH …

  • Pomegranny

    Tobacco cigarettes don’t come in childproof packaging. Tobacco cigarettes do not list ingredients, or the amount of nicotine. Tobacco cigarettes don’t come in zero nicotine. Tobacco cigarettes cause more child poisonings than e liquid does, and more home and forest fires than improperly charged e cig (or laptop, or cell phone) batteries ever could.
    The jury is not out on tobacco cigarettes. They are proven killers.
    They were also a bullet proof cash cow for states….till vaping came along.
    Regulate e cigs, but not as tobacco products. Tax them at 99 per cent less than tobacco cigarettes, since they cause 99 per cent less harm. And quit spreading hysteria, which only helps the proven killers….tobacco cigarettes.
    Vape on!

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor