E-Cigarettes To Soon Be Banned In Chicago Restaurants & Bars

By: Kristin Tate
56

13ecig-web1-articleLarge

Electronic cigarettes, usually called “e-cigarettes,” are battery-powered devices meant to simulate tobacco smoking. They work by vaporizing a liquid solution — some contain nicotine but many simply release a flavored vapor. E-cigarettes have become increasingly popular with Americans who wish to ween themselves off of normal cigarettes. At this time, there is no scientific evidence that vapor emitted from e-cigarettes is dangerous. In other words, there is no proof that the electronic devices can cause harmful secondhand smoke.

But that doesn’t stop Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanual, who is moving to ban electronic cigarettes from being used indoors.

The mayor’s plan, which was recently advanced by City Counsel members, would require electronic cigarette users to smoke outside of Chicago restaurants, bars, and other buildings, along with regular cigarette smokers. Emanuel is attempting to push the new rules through the Clean Indoor Air act.

Supporters of Emanuel’s proposal claim that the ban must apply to both e-cigarettes loaded with nicotine and those with other liquid solutions. They say this is necessary since many restaurant and business owners are unable to tell the difference between e-cigarettes that use nicotine and those that do not.

Ald. Rey Colon, 35th Ward, does not support the proposed rules. He said, “It is a ban, because you’re making people go outside, you’re treating it just as you would an analogue cigarette or tobacco cigarette. You’re lumping it together in the same category even though you don’t really have any proof that it has any harm. You’re saying ‘We’re going to regulate first and ask questions later.’”


Ald. Brendan Reilly, 42nd Ward, agrees with Colon. Reilly said, “I’m certainly not here to defend Big Tobacco. They’re done enough harm in this country. But I do have friends and family members who are using (e-cigarettes) to quit, to get away from combustible tobacco that kills people.”

Emanuel’s plan also requires the electronic smoking devices to be sold behind store counters. Supporters of the rules claim this will make young people less likely to start smoking e-cigarettes. The Chicago Tribune pointed out that the “cartridges that can be loaded into the e-cigarettes can be bought in candy-like flavors that critics say are enjoyable for kids who then get hooked on conventional smokes.”

What do you think of Emanuel’s plan — is it a good idea, or merely another step towards a true nanny state?

Follow Kristin on Facebook and Twitter.

The following two tabs change content below.
Kristin Tate is a multi-media reporter for Breitbart News and BenSwann.com. Dedicated to fearless journalism, she regularly works on undercover stings with James O'Keefe to reveal government waste, abuse, and fraud. Tate was a Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) Chapter President and Founder. She will continue to fight tirelessly for individual liberty and free markets through new media. Visit Kristin's website at www.TheLibertarianChick.com.

  • SickOfTheStupid

    They are banning and restricting these all over the place , apparently a odorless water mist with possibly .000000001 of a nicotine molecule is a massive health menace……………………..Personally I think all this is because the hipsters and hippie kids figured out how to smoke hash oil through them with out having the smoke snitch you out in public and we all know how much that bugs the prohibitionists.

  • theciscoshow

    I think the mayor is just another in a long line of democrat nanny state morons.

  • Jonny Imperial

    “At this time, there is no scientific evidence that vapor emitted from e-cigarettes is dangerous. In other words, there is no proof that the electronic devices can cause harmful secondhand smoke.”

    As a matter of fact, there IS scientific proof that says the DO NOT pose a risk to bystanders.
    The biggest backers in the e-cig banning militia is big pharma. They have put 100′s of thousands of $$ behind it. They stand to loose millions when people figure out it is an effective way to reduce harm from actual cigarettes, therefore not buying patches, gum, or drugs (Chantix). The ALA has been paid off big by big pharma to promote their cessation methods. Check out casaa org . there are several studies.

  • Johannes

    Another Nanny state governor…

  • http://www.jessereport.com/ Jesse Report

    Mean while the people complaining are getting wasted at the restaurant and driving home drunk in their BMW.

  • Tony Baker

    This is OUTRAGEOUS! I recently witnessed a person coughing, whining and complaining when someone on TV began to smoke! This issue stopped being about smoking a long time ago and has simply turned into the bludgeoning of a particular group of people. We should all try to remember; “I didn’t say anything when they came for the communist because I was not a communist. I didn’t say anything when they came for the trade unionist because I was not a trade unionist. I didn’t say anything when they came for the Jews because I was not a Jew. I didn’t say anything when they came for the Christian because I was not a Christian. When they came for me, I wanted to say something but there was no one around to hear me”.

    • Draken

      You witnessed a Pavlovian response to smoke on TV?

      That would make an interesting Psychology article…

  • Sovereign Mary

    It seems as if Chicago and New York voters like to keep voting in Sons (and daughters) of Marx!

  • TheMediaSpeaks

    For something to be a crime their must be a victim! Rahm and the city of Chicag are a burden to the rest of the state. I live in the suburbs, all of the crime and all of the crap legislation comes from that thug hole. Its a pretty well known saying in the suburbs ‘Make them their own state’ because we are tired of the city ruling over the rest of the generally conservative state.

    • Richard W.

      The victim is the person inhaling whatever combination of chemicals that is in the vapor after the smoker exhales it. Sorry…but e-cigs should be banned in any place that a regular cig is banned. People who don’t smoke should not be forced to breath whatever narcotic the person is smoking through e-cig.

      • Draken

        E-Juice is generally made up of propylene glycol, a nicotine additive, and some assorted flavoring agents.

        Propylene glycol in the amounts used is generally recognized as safe by the FDA and other organizations. It is the same stuff used for fog machines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol

        Nicotine, I’m sure you already know about, so I’ll skip that.

        As for the flavoring agents. I’m not sure here on safety. No doubt it is same natural and artificial flavors used in all other food products. Which if that is the case, they should all be safe to use or consume. After all what you smell is chemically is the same as what you would ingest, just at different quantities.

        So I agree that at least in terms of flavor additives there are still some unknowns, but as for the main ingredients, really no health hazards as the nicotine levels should be low enough by the time it reaches your lungs from someone’s second hand vape.

      • Alex Carlson

        The only peer reviewed and published study on ecigs (by Drexel University) shows ecigs are harmless to bystanders..

      • illuminarch

        ‘Sorry’, but your oppressive moralizing is as tedious as it is thoughtless.

        There is worse stuff in the air you breathe on the street in Chicago than there is from an e-cigarette. You’ll inhale more toxins standing by an idling car or pumping gas at a gas station. There are more harmful toxins coming out of your CFL bulbs than an e-cigarette.

        What other ridiculous bogeymen are you afraid of? Perhaps drunk people ought to be fined for breathing near you, or maybe a law should be passed that bans those with head colds from coughing and sneezing in the presence of others?

  • https://twitter.com/JordanDJohnson The Maryland Myth

    Continuing the Bloomberg nanny state legacy, I see…

  • Brandon Johnson

    I know a lot of people that have been using these devices to smoke weed. They Vap it and it gives them the same high without all that smoke and it seems like they are just smoking an e-cig instead of weed. Perhaps this is why they are trying to ban it?

    • sharonhansen209

      Ah, I have no idea how one could get weed into an electronic cigarette. There is no place to put it except in the “filter” part and it is such a small space you couldn’t get much in there. I have seen e-cigarettes and that argument is ridiculous. If someone did manage to get weed into an e-cigarette, everyone could smell it. Weed stinks just like tobacco does. There is no smell with e-cigarettes. I bought some for my sister who I want to quit smoking but she doesn’t seem to be able to. At least now, she no longer smells so bad that I and everyone else can stand to be around her. She loves them. She smokes them wherever she wants and no one cares. My doctor’s office allows people to smoke them in the waiting room. You can’t smell anything. I just read a book about smoking cigarettes and all the studies have shown that second hand smoke does not harm people around the smoker – just the smoker. Those studies are hidden from the general public because the government likes to control us. If second hand smoke is harmless, then how could a vapor harm anyone around? Rahm is as evil as Obama. He wants to have total control just like Obama. Anyone who objects to e-cigarettes is ignorant. They hurt no one and they don’t stink. The vapor is NOT SMOKE! They should be embraced. The government is just pissed that they can’t tax them like they can cigarettes. I’m sure they will find a way other than just sales tax.

      • Joel

        Sharon, I hate to break it to you but second hand smoke from regular cigarettes is harmful to everyone. What was the name of the book you read, “Junk Science 101″? My aunt never smoked a cigarette in her life. My uncle (her husband) smoked in the house, in the care, everywhere – you name it. My uncle died of lung cancer. My aunt ALSO died of lung cancer due to being around all the second hand smoke. I can’t believe there are still people naive enough to think second hand cigarette smoke is harmless. Heck, big tobacco now even admits it.

        As far as e-cigarettes go, I haven’t seen anything that shows the second hand vapor from them is harmful. And I have been around that vapor and do not get a sore throat and headache like I do around second hand cigarette smoke. There should be no ban on e-cigs.

        • sharonhansen209

          Joel:
          Here’s the book I read.
          Please Don’t Poop in My Salad by Joseph L. BastYou can’t judge a book without reading it. I read it and it made sense. I grew up in a family that were all heavy smokers. Only one smoker got cancer and it was doubtful that she got it from smoking. She did get emphysema from smoking. Her lung cancer was cured with chemotherapy but the radiation killed her. My grandfather died from emphysema. None of the non-smokers that were around the smokers got cancer and there were a lot of us kids 22 to be exact and a lot of them smoked when they were older for some period of time. Still none of us have gotten lung cancer. Then there are people who die of lung cancer that never smoked. I don’t like being around smokers, but in my experience, being around it didn’t cause anyone to get Cancer. My sister had Cystic Fibrosis and she was around the smokers too. We didn’t even know she had Cystic Fibrosis then. We thought she had something wrong with her GI system. She never got bad until she was older and there were no smokers around her then. She died from Cystic Fibrosis, not second hand smoke. Now when I went to school in Los Angeles county, every day in PE, my chest would hurt after PE from breathing the smog filled air. I smoked when I was in my 20′s. It took 2 packs of cigarettes in one day to make my chest hurt like it did from PE. I think the Los Angeles County air is worse than smoking. I now can’t stand to be around cigarette smokers. I don’t like it because it stinks but I don’t think it hurts me other than my eyes burn. That’s why I bought e cigarettes for my sister. I was visiting for two weeks. I couldn’t stand the smell of her cigarettes. She would smoke only outside but she still stunk. Now she doesn’t. Your sore throat and headaches you get I’m sure are from the smoke but that is not cancer. I think banning cigarettes is good for non-smokers because they are more comfortable and another’s habit shouldn’t cause someone else to be uncomfortable. I don’t think it’s harmful, it’s just uncomfortable. God gave us amazing bodies and our lungs filter out most all bad things. I was a nurse for many years. I saw many people with lung Cancer. Some were so young that they couldn’t possibly have smoked enough to get lung cancer. Some people get cancer and no one knows why. Our government is filling our skies with chem trails which turns out to be aluminum and I forgot what the other thing was, but perhaps this is what’s causing all the cancer. They have found genes that predisposes one to Cancer. I’m not saying smoking is good for anyone and second hand smoke is not good for anyone. From the research that was done in the book above, I believe that second hand smoke doesn’t cause cancer. My whole argument is that the vapor from e-cigs is vapor, not smoke. It’s no more dangerous than breathing in the steam when you’re boiling something in your kitchen. My sister smoked her e-cigs constantly when I was around her. I didn’t have a single symptom. My eyes didn’t burn, she didn’t stink and she could smoke anywhere when I was with her and it never bothered me. They are great in my opinion. If they keep people from smoking, that’s good for everyone and everyone is comfortable. Nicotine doesn’t harm anyone, but it is addicting. It’s all the thousands of other chemicals in cigarettes that cause Cancer. I can’t imagine that if someone smokes e-cigarettes that they would then smoke cigarettes. Why would you? e-cigarettes are less expensive, until the government finds a way to tax them like cigarettes, they have no carcinogens in them, and it doesn’t bother anyone and they don’t make you stink.. The only reason people get addicted to cigarettes is the nicotine and they can still get that in their e-cigarettes. No withdrawal symptoms.

      • Brandon Johnson

        It is hash oil, not the actual plant

  • BubblesinGriffinGA

    So…. now water vapor is not allowed indoors? What about all the water vapor released in the kitchen of the restaurants that these things are banned in? Come on. What kind of a free country is this? Why ban something that doesn’t harm anyone??

    • Kat

      Not saying it is or isn’t, but how do you know it’s not harmful?

      • denru

        That, IMHO, is the concern for me and my family. IF, and only if, the vapor is similar to breathing in 2nd hand smoke then they should be treated no differently than regular cigarettes. However, if the vapor leaves no hint behind of even the nicotine (can’t spell worth a crap), then let ‘em smoke ‘em where ever as long as it doesn’t interfere with, say, their job.

        • Alex Carlson

          The only peer reviewed and published study on ecigs (by Drexel University) shows ecigs are harmless to bystanders

        • vladilyich

          The bad effects (cancer, emphysema, COPD, etc.) are NOT caused by nicotine, but by the by-products of combusion (CO, tar, who knows what is added) and not the addictive drug.

          The real reason they want to ban them is that they are almost impossible to control and tax. Where I live, the average price of a pack of standard cigarette is $11.50. I was buying the e-cigarette refills runs under $20 for the equivalent of a carton.

          When I am on the e-cigarettes, I find it almost as satisfying as burning leaves in paper. In fact, after a week on e-cigarettes, if I smoke a standard cigarette, I am dizzy and feel like I did when I began smoking. It’s NOT the nicotine, it’s the crud they add that kills you.

        • Robert Zraick

          If it interferes with their job, then let the employer fire them. That is his choice, not the government’s.

      • Alex Carlson

        The only peer reviewed and published study on ecigs (by Drexel University) shows ecigs are harmless to bystanders.

  • Draken

    Everyone keeps asking why ban something that ‘doesn’t hurt anyone?’ Well the reality is that under the sovereign powers of a state (health, safety, morality) cities and states can do this.

    Two things before I go into this too far: (1) I am against a ban on e-cigs, but (2) I am in favor of other public smoking bans. This is my opinion, and bias having grown up with a father who is a life long pack-a-day smoker. Admittedly I also suffer from allergies which have caused serious negative reactions when in the proximity of smokers.

    So personal bias aside, ‘how can they do this?’ Well we need to start with why did cities and states create public smoking bans in the first place?

    Under the health, safety and morals, many states wanted to ban public smoking to discourage the practice of smoking as a whole. States wanted people to quit smoking. Many communities also cited that they wanted to protect others from the dangers of second hand smoke. So under the sovereign powers of the state, it was generally easy to justify a public ban on smoking to discourage smoking (health and morals) and protect others from second hand smoke (health and safety).

    What we now have are e-cigs. Where I view them as something completely different than traditional cigarettes, some view them as interchangeable substitutes. From what I have seen, those who want to ban e-cigs say that e-cigs only enable smokers to keep smoking, not get them to quit. Again one of the points of many of the original public smoking bans were to not only prevent second hand smoking, but to also try to get people to quit smoking.

    Because it can be argued that e-cigs allow, if not encourage, people to keep ‘smoking’ (all be it in a significantly less harmful way) e-cigs frustrate one of the key reasons behind the original public smoking bans. This is why some politicians are now going after e-cigs. Some politicians view e-cigs as a loophole that needs to be plugged.

    Personally I think that as the lessor of two evils, we should encourage current smokers to switch to e-cigs. E-cigs are less toxic,and generally a safer means of supplying nicotine to those addicted. I’m not sure about second hand e-cig smoke. Where everything I’ve seen thus far tells me there is little to nothing to worry about, I’m unsure of the safety of the chemical compounds used to flavor e-juice fluids. Where again everything I’ve seen thus far implies they are non-toxic, I haven’t seen any real research on the subject.

    As for the bans. At this point I could understand a ban on e-cigs in hospitals, schools or other Government buildings. The rest should be up to the individual establishment owners. I caution anyone who would attempt to argue that individual establishment should be allowed to choose for themselves to allow e-cigs as well as cigarettes. There needs to be a distinct dividing line between the two products, else e-cig users will loose.

    As of right now the majority of society (more or less) has agreed that public smoking bans are a good thing. If we lump e-cigs and other traditional types of smoking together, both with be banned. If we separate the two, and treat them as two different things/activities then the arguments for banning e-cigs starts to fall apart compaired to traditional smoking practices.

    So yeah basically ‘how can they do this’ is the same way that they did with traditional smoking. The only way that I see to feasible prevent / argue against e-cig bans is a need to differentiate the two completely.

  • g.johnon

    the sad thing about this article and the ensuing comment section is how far down the rabbit hole we have come. no one seems to understand anymore that the issue of second hand smoke danger from tobacco cigarettes has no foundation in legitimate science whatsoever.

    this is not about health and safety at all, just cash, control and social engineering.

    http://swampbubbles.com/second_hand_smoke_is_second_hand_science

  • Jeff LeBlanc

    I am personally an E cig user. I used to smoke two packs of cigarettes a day, I haven’t touched one since. There is no proof that it causes harmful second hand smoke. And this excuse..”It comes in candy flavors” and might lead kids to smoke. Seriously, get a grip, how about some self responsibility for raising your own kids. I am so tired of rights being eroded and regulations passed ‘for the kids’. It’s the oldest liberal trick in the book. I will be the first to admit, much more study needs to be done on the effects of E cigs. However, most medical doctors (unless you’re in CA, that state’s board of health rules nicotine as a carcinogenic) agree nicotine is a very addictive drug with no health side effects by itself. Much like caffeine, think of that when you’re shoving pop down you kid’s throat (re, back to enticing kids). So we’re left with: needing to study the effects of direct nicotine inhalation. And how much would be too much. ALL, about how it effects the user. There is no secondhand anything but water vapor, be careful in showers folks, those things make a lot of steam and vapor, lol.

  • vladilyich

    This is total insanity. I expect such nonsense from New York, but not anywhere else.

  • Steve

    Yep, in the name of public safety we must take care of the other guy. So when will the government tell us that driving an automobile with 20 gallons of gasoline under your butt is bad for the passengers and the people around you? Just saying.

  • dg

    Crazy. That vap is no more dangerous than the C02 we exhale.

    • Steve

      Be careful, they want to Tax us on that also.

    • Artie P

      Manmade climate change nuts (it’s been totally debunked) will argue differently because they want to tax us (carbon tax) for exhaling and causing global warming…….er……climate change, or whatever they will call it next. I use Copenhagen snuff. One pinch, no spit, no effect on anyone else. Are they going to ban that next? Some workplaces already do! Why? Who the hell knows! It’s not like it’s a threat to anyone else and I, as a responsible person, have the right to use a legal product, that has no effect on anyone else, wherever the hell that I want to. If there are health consequences, that is my right to decide for myself.
      As for secondhand smoke, do people honestly believe that banning smoking, a legal act, leaves their air fresh and clean? How about auto exhaust, factory exhaust, etc. Are they going to ban automobiles next? If people think that they are going to breathe clean air, then they need to understand that the only way that that is going to happen if they reside in an oxygen tent.
      In the meantime, how many people are killed, or maimed, by drunk drivers? How about people who text while they drive? A full 25% of motor vehicle accidents are caused by texting. They’ve already made it an offense to talk on a cell phone while driving, so people got hand free phones. Now they want to ban that because they say that the driver is distracted by the conversation. So what’s next? Are they going to ban passengers in vehicles, because people do talk to each other while driving?
      Where does all of the idiocy stop? Sadly, I think that it is only going to get worse and more oppressive. Offended by a lady’s perfume? Offended by fat people? Offended by (fill in the blank)?? Everyone seems to be offended by everything these days. But getting back to the issue of secondhand smoke, the anti-smoking establishment gives no quarter. They can’t meet in the middle and accept ventilated smoking areas in restaurants. They just want everything their way. No compromise! BTW, if they ban smoking everywhere, virtually making it illegal to smoke, then why aren’t cigarettes and cigars banned? Taxes, that’s why!! They even want to ban smoking in your own home, if you share a connecting wall with another tenant, be it an apartment or a condo/townhouse (need I mention that you own a condo or a townhouse?) It is ridiculous! Even if secondhand smoke was dangerous, which studies are proving that the entire secondhand smoke movement has no scientific merit, to the degree that proponents make it out to be, how much secondhand smoke leaves your closed apartment, condo or townhouse, flows into the hallway, slips through the crack in someone else’s door and fills the room with smoke? Today, your home is the final bastion for smokers, and they are trying to take that away too!!! This is all insanity! E-cigs release vapor, period! For those who believe that nicotine is a carcinogen, they are dead wrong. It is the tar and the multitude of chemical additives in cigarettes that can cause cancer, not nicotine. In short, e-cigs are not harmful to anyone!!! People really need to get a grip and do their homework!!

      • Karolyn

        All you have to do remember that Rahm is one of Obama’s buddies so that should answer the question for Rahm’s regulations, ignorance and whatever!!

        • Artie P

          Yeah Karolyn, that too!!!!! Everything has to be so damned complicated these days. Political correctness rules the day…….except……..I don’t partake in political correctness, I say what’s on my mind. If people don’t like THAT,……well I guess they can ban me from the planet too :)

  • Paul

    There are laws and regulations about the presence of animal entrails in public sight. So, some bans are about sensibilities rather than safety. I cannot justify sensibility laws, even though I am sensitive to some things. For instance, I don’t mind seeing entrails, but I turn off the radio when an e-cig commercial plays. Why? Maybe because I hated growing up in a two-smoker house. But that’s my problem, not others’. I will choose either to get past that discomfort or to frequent restaurants where e-smoking doesn’t occur. Bottom line for me: governments should not ban e-smoking, but they should not prevent individual establishments from banning it, because those establishments can thrive or falter based on their customers’ sensibilities.

  • Peggy Hentz

    Nanny State is the correct phrase. Yes it is.

  • Difster

    Is there any data supporting the idea that kids are transitioning from ecigs to real ones? I don’t see that happening.

    • Seriously?

      Who doesn’t want to go from safe smoking to actual carcinogenic smoking???

  • Artie P

    I use Copenhagen snuff. One pinch, no spit, no effect on anyone
    else. Are they going to ban that next? Some workplaces already do! Why?
    Who the hell knows! It’s not like it’s a threat to anyone else and I, as a
    responsible person, have the right to use a legal product, that has no
    effect on anyone else, wherever the hell that I want to. If there are
    health consequences, that is my right to decide for myself.
    As for
    secondhand smoke, do people honestly believe that banning smoking, a legal
    act, leaves their air fresh and clean? How about auto exhaust, factory
    exhaust, etc. Are they going to ban automobiles next? If people think that
    they are going to breathe clean air, then they need to understand that the
    only way that that is going to happen if they reside in an oxygen tent.

    In the meantime, how many people are killed, or maimed, by drunk drivers?
    How about people who text while they drive? A full 25% of motor vehicle
    accidents are caused by texting. They’ve already made it an offense to talk
    on a cell phone while driving, so people got hand free phones. Now they
    want to ban that because they say that the driver is distracted by the
    conversation. So what’s next? Are they going to ban passengers in
    vehicles, because people do talk to each other while driving?
    Where does
    all of the idiocy stop? Sadly, I think that it is only going to get worse
    and more oppressive. Offended by a lady’s perfume? Offended by fat people?
    Offended by (fill in the blank)?? Everyone seems to be offended by
    everything these days. But getting back to the issue of secondhand smoke,
    the anti-smoking establishment gives no quarter. They can’t meet in the
    middle and accept ventilated smoking areas in restaurants. They just want
    everything their way. No compromise! BTW, if they ban smoking everywhere,
    virtually making it illegal to smoke, then why aren’t cigarettes and cigars
    banned? Taxes, that’s why!! They even want to ban smoking in your own
    home, if you share a connecting wall with another tenant, be it an apartment
    or a condo/townhouse (need I mention that you own a condo or a townhouse?)
    It is ridiculous! Even if secondhand smoke was dangerous, which studies are
    proving that the entire secondhand smoke movement has no scientific merit,
    to the degree that proponents make it out to be, how much secondhand smoke
    leaves your closed apartment, condo or townhouse, flows into the hallway,
    slips through the crack in someone else’s door and fills the room with
    smoke? Today, your home is the final bastion for smokers, and they are
    trying to take that away too!!! This is all insanity! E-cigs release
    vapor, period! For those who believe that nicotine is a carcinogen, they
    are dead wrong. It is the tar and the multitude of chemical additives in
    cigarettes that can cause cancer, not nicotine. In short, e-cigs are not
    harmful to anyone!!! People really need to get a grip and do their
    homework!!

  • mydogsays

    Being an e-cig smoker I think this is totally ridiculous since what is released from an e-cig is a small amount of water vapor. It is not harmful to anyone but that doesn’t stop the ignorant Nanny State control freaks like Rahm Emanuel and company from trying to extend their ignorance upon others!

  • Ian

    Competition: Soon to be banned in the U.S.S.A., comrades.

  • http://PeterPalms.com/banking Peter Palms

    As long as Citizens accept absence of democracy in a totalitarian government appearing to have no semblance of responsibility to the electorate it will continue. The Founding Father were the first Terrorists

  • Drew Frost

    I just bought one today i don’t see what the big deal is i’m trying to stop smoking i’ve been smoking for nine years and it’s starting to take its toll on me, so i bought a e-cig to cut the habbit

  • Robert Zraick

    I think cigarette smoking is a smelly, dirty and destructive behavior.

    I was a smoker and I quit. But I still reject the government’s approach to cigarettes. It is really more about control. It is the idea of the controllers controlling everything which I oppose.

    The nicotine in cigarettes is addictive, but not the cause of the damage done by regular cigarettes. That would be the tars and the carcinogens. The e-cigarettes have neither.

    Personally I believe it is wrong for anyone to be rude or do harmful things to others. But the answer does not lie in the hands of more government control.

    Let people be free to make their own choices, whether you agree with them or not.

    Restaurants and bars should be free to choose if they want to be smoking or non-smoking, and people are free to frequent those which ban smoking or those who allow it.

    Let people work things out without the controllers. I have never met a smoker who would be so inconsiderate as to keep smoking if someone asked him to stop. I am sure there may be some, but they are not the norm.

    There are smokers who truly enjoy smoking with their meals and when having drinks
    .
    But suppose I am a businessman who thinks that he can make a go of it by opening a smoking allowed bar. I install some of those state of the art smoke filter fans in the ceiling (I have seen them in action and they work really well.)
    And now I advertise that all are welcome to come, even if they smoke. What business is it of the government to say I can’t do that?

    I would probably make a fortune. I would offer a service or an environment that some people would like, and no one is forced to come. It would be a free choice.

    But the government does not want you to be free to live your own life the way you see fit. They want you to conform to what they want. What you want is irrelevant.

    If you do not own your own body, you are a slave to those who think they own it. The government thinks they own you, your body, your labor and your mind and they will tell you what you can do.

    They will use the argument that they are doing it for your own good. Or perhaps for the greater good, but that is always the excuse given by socialist control freaks.

    Freedom always result in the best outcome. A person must be free to do what he wants as long as he does not harm others. This includes having the freedom to make mistakes. The only catch is that you have to be responsible for your actions, wise or foolish.

    There is a thing called the golden rule. How about using that instead of the brute force of government and other socialistic fanatics?

    The issue is not about smoking or e-cigarettes. It is about the proper role of government and about freedom.

  • http://www.blog2.tshirt-doctor.com/ Pissed Off

    Nanny state.

  • Martinez Ernie

    Ban all banning! Let America be free! God Bless the Revolution and the Tree of Liberty!

  • P Y

    So let me get this right. They are banning e-cigs inside, and by doing so forcing those who don’t wish to be around real cigarette smoke (hence they are smoking e-cigs) to then be around real cigarette smoke. So they are forcing people into the exact situation they banned by banning real cigarette smoke indoors. Brilliant.

  • Jeff

    Is there an ingredient list to what goes into e-cigs? Likely healthier than inhaling burning leaves, but until you tell me what goes into that shit, I’m skeptical.

    No harm proven to 2nd-hand e-cig smoke, but it hasn’t been proven to be benign either. I don’t like sitting next to a smoker on a bus, and sure wouldn’t like sitting next to an e-cigger either.

    Further, who says that replacing a chemical and habitual addiction with something that provides the chemical PLUS the habit does any good? You’re a whole lot more likely to kick the habit by changing the habit… hence gum, patches, etc.

    My point? E-cigs are a way to smoke indoors legally for most folks who use em… I don’t want to be around them in public. Being a Chicago resident, I’m all in favor!

    Cue hyperbole about nanny state…

    • Phillip J Fry

      yeah I had the comment up on top I went from being a chain smoker to barely even touching my e cig thats how much its helped

  • Phillip J Fry

    Vegetable glycine water artificial flavoring with nicotine or without nicotine I am currently at 12 milligrams of nicotine that’s less nicotine a pack of cigarettes specially when I smoke 2 packs a day and have not had a cigarette in over a month I’m coming close to getting off the nicotine all together I would recommend these products because they actually work I tried the patch I tried the Gum