Pages

▼

5/26/2013

Seriously? California moving to regulate e-cigs the same as tobacco cigarettes

Why don't liberals let people determine what they want to do to their own bodies?  I don't believe that there are significant 2nd hand effects from regular cigarettes, but does any one want to seriously argue that there are 2nd hand effects from e-cigs?  Even the proponents of these regulations aren't claiming that. In addition, e-cigs are used to quit smoking.  If you make them more difficult to use, some people who would have switched will continue using regular tobacco cigarettes.  Is that what Democrats really want?

 From the Sacramento Bee:
Electronic cigarettes would be subject to the same prohibitions as regular cigarettes under a bill passed Friday by the Senate. 
Perhaps you've had this experience: you're sitting in a bar and you see what appears to be someone smoking a cigarette, blatantly violating an indoorsmoking ban; you get a little closer and realize that the person is in fact drawing on an e-cigarette, exhaling vapor that's distinct from the acrid smoke produced by conventional cigarettes. 
That would no longer be possible under Senate Bill 648 by Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, that would ban e-cigarettes inside public buildings, near a playground, inside restaurants and on an airplane. It would also restrict the places where e-cigarette companies could advertise. . . . 

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/05/senate-votes-to-regulate-e-cigarettes.html#MTRecentEntries#storylink=cpy... 

at

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous5/26/2013 12:07 PM

    One supposes that there would be an exception for those who have prescriptions from their doctors and infuse their e-cigs with a little THC. Or is the objection that e-cigs add significant amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere, thus increasing anthropogenic global warming? I suspect the real motivation is that modern day liberals have adopted the position Mencken ascribed to the puritans: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy (with the definition of "happy" expanded to include "making a profit").

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5/26/2013 1:51 PM

    What a dick! My wife has been using the E-Cigs for four years, her doctor considers her to be a non-smoker. The idiots in Sacramento have no connection with reality any more.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John A5/26/2013 2:12 PM

    Since it is called a "cigarette" it should be regulated/banned - after all, that was done with candy "cigarettes" a while back. Doesn`t matter what it actually is. And since it "delivers nicotine," a medicine of sorts, Federal health authorities have been rumbling they should be treated as "medical devices" and banned from over-the-counter purchase. Not, mind you, pipes, cigars, cigarettes, snuff, chew: excepting pipes, those are after all not "devices."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unknown8/11/2014 7:56 AM

    E-cigarettes is a one of the best approach for every one.i think e-cigarettes are money saving and best thing.E-cigarettes are beneficial with compare to original cigarette.My suggestion is that for every smoker should smoke e-cigaret. Thanks for sharing this information.

    ReplyDelete