Should Californians stop vaping?

January 30, 2015

E-Cig-Ban-Considered-By-NYC-Authorities-300x216California health officials have announced plans to wage an ideological war on the use of e-cigarettes. [Sacramento Bee]

The California Department of Public Health released a report Wednesday stating that electronic cigarettes, also known as vaporizers and vape pens, contain at least 10 chemicals that are known to cause cancer or birth defects. Upon release of the report, health department director Ron Chapman told reporters that the state would launch a bold campaign to warn Californians about the health effects of e-cigarettes.

“We see e-cigarettes as a growing threat that needs to be addressed,” Chapman said. “From all of the evidence we have so far, e-cigarettes are not as harmful as conventional cigarettes, but e-cigarettes are not harmless. They are not safe.”

Electronic cigarettes have become popular among teenagers and adults under 30, the report states. E-cigarette users now frequent vapor lounges, which have popped up across the state.

Many users say that vaporizing helps them break their addiction to traditional cigarettes. State health officials disagree, though.

The health department report calls for lawmakers to adopt new regulations that would treat e-cigarettes like traditional cigarettes and protect the public from chemicals they emit. State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, has already introduced a bill that would ban the use of e-cigarettes in places where smoking is prohibited.

At the local level, the Santa Maria City Council voted last year to apply its smoking ban to the use of e-cigarettes. The city of San Luis Obispo has also considered doing the same.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Vaping IS bad for you. Nicotine is a drug, and there is an issue regarding “dosing” with e-cigarettes. It is hard to control how much nicotine you are getting. If someone is not careful, someone really trying to quit tobacco use could really do themselves more harm than good.

The liquid nicotine in e-cigarettes can kill a child. If ingested, nicotine poisoning can begin within minutes.

The spirit of the United States is that of a country of true freedom. As Americans, we are supposed to be allowed to be free. You know, Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I find that a happy and utopian concept… until someone doesn’t like the consequences of their bad choices and wants society to pay for the do-over. This is why the US budget is in crisis.

Eleanor Roosevelt

“Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect.”

Correction: Someone really trying to quit NICOTINE addiction could really do themselves more harm than good.

Government should regulate the producers and distributors instead of the consumers!

Well, I honestly don’t have any answers.

I think if we want to regulate, then regulate it all; top to bottom. Uniformity helps reduce unfairness.

I like freedom personally. Government isn’t really allowing for freedom these days, now is it? I think people should be totally free to be gluttons, not wear helmets, smoke, drink, you name it. There are some exceptions of course. A person cannot be high and operate machinery, etc. You cannot be high and effectively parent. A child should not be allowed to make these decisions, as they are not consenting adults.

Adults who make decisions for themselves with total freedom should take total responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. THAT is the problem. People get lung cancer from smoking 4 packs a day and want medi-cal and medicare to spend a million dollars on their care for something they did to themselves.

I am not sure how rational, logical people do not see that unhealthy behaviors cost most money. Our country is in trouble because those partaking in unhealthy behaviors want others to subsidize their healthcare.

So, does the Government regulate, or do they refuse to pay? Of course my statements are unpopular. Oh well. They are true.. I wish we could magically make health care free, make chocolate zero calories, make sugar NOT clog up arteries.

I want to help people. Sometimes helping people includes telling people unpopular information. Namaste!

Traditional cigarette smoke, whether from the tip of a lit cigarette or the by-product of the process of being smoked (the exhaled smoke by a smoker) contains many different types of toxic chemicals, and the smoke itself does not dissipate immediately, especially in a confined space or most anywhere where there isn’t a lot of air movement. Those toxic chemicals do cause harm to non-smokers; it is a proven, established, scientific fact.

The so-called “water vapor” being emitted by a person who “vapes”; all of the toxic chemicals in the stew that the person ingesting the vaporized liquid product is not absorbed or taken in completely by that person, so it stands to reason that the cloud of vapor emitted is going to be on the same level of toxicity as regular cigarette smoke. Two factors make this a problem for someone wishing to avoid those chemicals being released into the air; once the vapor “cloud” dissipates, the chemicals present don’t simply vanish, they are still floating around in the air, but are invisible since they are microscopic particles. Second of the two problems is that the vapor cloud has no real oder to it, so unlike being around a regular cigarette smoker, you really don’t have a clue if someone is vaping in your vicinity, unless you happen to spot their toxic little clouds they are puffing out.

An added problem to the practice of vaping is the various flavors the liquid packets come in; some of them actually have a “Hello Kitty” looking mascot on them, something that heightens the appeal to younger people who are trying to “look cool” or try to act “grownup”. By having the appealing flavors, the cute marketing, the lack of any sort of warning labels as to the toxicity of the product on the packaging, far too many young people are giving this newer style of severe health risk inducing habit a try, and true to form for any nicotine consumption, they get hooked on the nicotine habit in a manner that will eventually cause harm to their bodies.

Public safety is an area where government has a role to play; alcohol consumption hasn’t been outlawed (since prohibition was repealed) but that consumption is regulated to a degree to help reduce the danger of mixing alcohol with driving. Regular cigarette smoking has been regulated to help reduce the impacts to those with weakened immune systems and the very young; vaping needs to have the same restrictions in place as regular cigarette smoking; it is not any “safer”, just less obtrusive, somewhat less offensive, and much harder to detect without seeing the vapor cloud. I say yes, tax it like cigarettes, educate potential users to the dangers, and regulate who can use them, and where they can be used.

This is just the ground work for planting a sin tax on e-cigs. Never forget what government bodies want the most….your money!

I think the time has come for only healthy things to be legal. Outlaw sugar, caffeine, meat of any kind, all non-organically grown fruits and vegetables, the only legal liquid you may drink is water, and only purified water at that. Can’t wait for the future!

Well, the good news is the war is over in Iraq , over and over and over—-> Barack Obama: “I Ended The War In Iraq”

Regulate, tax. Regulate, tax. Regulate, tax. Sadly, that’s the California way.

Heck, it’s not even healthy to go to Disneyland

I could care less if anyone smokes e-cigarettes, as long as they carry enough health insurance so I don’t have to pay anything towards their lung cancer treatments, oxygen or convalescent care. Oh, and almost forgot, they need to have enough money in the bank to pay for their deductible too.

Smoke ’em if you got ’em.

My instinct is to believe that it is not the state’s concern if an individual wants to smoke an e-cigarette, a cigarette, marijuana, or other. It should not be the state’s concern what an individual puts into his/her own body, until such time that whatever substance they consume creates a hazard or impacts others. Consider alcohol for example; drink it until your liver rots for all I care – just don’t drink and drive.

However, my instinctive position is being tested, as we continue to move towards a nanny-state. The more the state assumes control and responsibility for individual behaviors, the more I am impacted by the choices of others. Those that partake in cigarettes or substance abuse now end up on government healthcare, (or shelters) and taxpayers are burdened with the cost of their lifestyle choices. Therefore, the state then puts itself in the role of policing the choices of individuals and justifies that control because of the societal cost.

Based on this emerging philosophy, should we not restrict the use of alcohol because of the costs to society? What about trans-fats and fast foods? Must we curtail society’s choices because the state has chosen to provide for our care?

What a wicked, wicked spiral.

Good points. Realistically though, the best we can hope for is that people engaging in high-risk behaviors would have to pay for health expenses predominantly caused by such behaviors. Even that concept is unlikely to make it into our legal system though.

Here is the next headline……..

The California Department of Public Health released a report Wednesday stating that living in California is hazardous, it contains several chemicals that are known to cause cancer or birth defects. Upon release of the report, health department director Ron Chapman told reporters that the state would launch a bold campaign to rid California of Californians.