HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Surprise opposition derai...

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:21 AM

Surprise opposition derails Emanuel’s e-cigarette ban

Source: Chicago Sun Times

Aldermen from across the city questioned whether the vapors from e-cigarettes are any more dangerous to bystanders than a humidifier, a cup of tea or a pot full of boiling water used to cook pasta.

They further argued that the ban would discourage smokers from using e-cigarettes to kick the habit.

“We’re punishing a group of people for trying not to smoke. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t on one day say, ‘We’re going to tax the heck out of cigarettes,’ then the next day [say], ‘For those of you who can’t afford it and decide you want to smoke vapor, we’re going to decide you can’t do that, either,’” said Ald. Leslie Hairston (5th).

She added, “There is no proof that water vapor in the air does anything. If that is the case, humidifiers are gone. And boiling water is gone in restaurants.”

Downtown Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) took a puff of an e-cigarette during Monday’s meeting, then acknowledged that he recently purchased e-cigarettes to try to kick the smoking habit.

“Where this kind of crosses the line for me is where we start talking about including the device as if it is a tobacco product. Many smokers are actually using these devices or devices like them as part of their cessation program,” he said.

Read more: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/24278866-418/emanuel-e-cigarette-regulations-getting-watered-down.html



This is a big blow (PI) to the rabbid ANTZ community. Well done Chi Town!

48 replies, 6162 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply Surprise opposition derails Emanuel’s e-cigarette ban (Original post)
jayfish Dec 2013 OP
snooper2 Dec 2013 #1
Treant Dec 2013 #3
Fuddnik Dec 2013 #6
warrant46 Dec 2013 #48
Treant Dec 2013 #2
jayfish Dec 2013 #5
Treant Dec 2013 #8
jayfish Dec 2013 #10
davidthegnome Dec 2013 #7
davidthegnome Dec 2013 #4
Treant Dec 2013 #9
Lenomsky Dec 2013 #11
Lenomsky Dec 2013 #12
dixiegrrrrl Dec 2013 #24
Lenomsky Dec 2013 #45
jayfish Dec 2013 #28
Treant Dec 2013 #30
TekGryphon Dec 2013 #38
Lenomsky Dec 2013 #46
Eleanors38 Dec 2013 #13
nomorenomore08 Dec 2013 #36
awoke_in_2003 Dec 2013 #14
Feral Child Dec 2013 #16
jayfish Dec 2013 #17
Feral Child Dec 2013 #23
jayfish Dec 2013 #26
Feral Child Dec 2013 #29
musiclawyer Dec 2013 #34
nomorenomore08 Dec 2013 #37
Feral Child Dec 2013 #41
dixiegrrrrl Dec 2013 #47
MyNameGoesHere Dec 2013 #15
Renew Deal Dec 2013 #18
Richard D Dec 2013 #20
Treant Dec 2013 #32
Richard D Dec 2013 #35
Treant Dec 2013 #42
jayfish Dec 2013 #22
onehandle Dec 2013 #25
jayfish Dec 2013 #27
Treant Dec 2013 #31
Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2013 #33
Treant Dec 2013 #43
marsis Dec 2013 #19
Hosnon Dec 2013 #21
nomorenomore08 Dec 2013 #39
nomorenomore08 Dec 2013 #40
jayfish Dec 2013 #44

Response to jayfish (Original post)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:32 AM

1. Good, we need to nip these ignorant anti E-cig people in the bud

 

I wonder if Emanuel is one of those people who think cell phones cause cancer as well LOL...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:38 AM

3. But they call it electromagnetic

RADIATION. That MUST be dangerous!

(Whaddaya mean that radio waves are only weakly interacting and so low-power that at best they can bounce an electron to a higher valence level? Then why do they call it RADIATION!?! Even that electromagnetic thingy sounds dangerous; it has a lot of syllables!)

I don't blame people for science ignorance, I'm ignorant of many scientific fields. Of course, I don't pontificate and legislate about those fields, which puts me one up on lots of folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:51 AM

6. Rahm is an asshole. Period.

My wife and myself just bought e-cigs to kick the habit.

I'm very surprised at how effective they are. And we've been through EVERYTHING.

And, they have a nice pleasant odor. I'm using a peppermint flavor, and she's using butterscotch.

People like Emmanuel should just go fuck themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 01:19 PM

48. He's been one for a while

Just talk to a Chicago teacher or any union worker

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Original post)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:36 AM

2. I don't have an issue

with banning sales to minors. In fact, I think it's a good idea to do so. Nor do I particularly have an issue with the designated smoking area being the designated vaping area as well (but please separate the two as vapers usually can't stand cigarette smoke any longer!) I have no problem going outside.

Taxes? Cigarette "sin" tax was put forth as a way of balancing the health cost by collecting revenue to pay for it. Said revenue always got diverted somewhere else, but that's besides the point.

Show me the health detriments of e-cigs and I'll allow you to tax it as a percentage detriment compared to cigarettes. I strongly doubt it'll end up being even 1% of cigarette taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Treant (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:50 AM

5. Would you ban...

e-cig sales of devices that contain 0 nicotine? How about energy drinks, supplements or even coffee, tea or high caffeine soft drinks? Just curious as I'm not sure where I stand on that. At first blush I say yes to a ban on sales to minors. But if you think it through, it's not so clear. For example, if you were a minor and the sale of e-cigs were banned, what would be the path of least resistance? Getting a pack of the real thing or getting an e-cig? It's easy to bum a real smoke from any number of people. Not so much with an e-cig as they are much more personal devices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:01 AM

8. I've always been a little torn

on that one. As it stands, I don't have too many issues making the laws parallel--let's try to keep what we can away from children until their legal majority (nicotine is psychoactive as well as a stimulant so better to err on the side of caution). After that, they're adults and can do what they wish.

I apply the same rule as alcohol, which is certainly obtainable before 21 (I did). However, restricting access as well as we can is a good idea (although personally I'd set the drinking age at 18 in parity with legal adulthood).

On the flip side, if (theoretically) I had a 16 year old child who smoked and wished to try to switch to the e-cig, I'd be placing the order myself and happily presenting my child with a shiny new e-cig and instructions on how to use it. I'm going to go with harm reduction in that instance.

So while I support the law, I'd also consciously break it under some circumstances--where I'm the (theoretical) parent only, however.

0 nic e-cigs? No harm no foul by current air quality and health risk testing, so I see no need for restrictions assuming it contains only PG, VG, and flavoring.

Caffeine? Personally, I don't like the idea of exposing a still-developing neuropsychology to stimulants, but I also don't expect to win that argument and don't feel that strongly about it. I'd probably neither work for nor against such a law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Treant (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:28 AM

10. No Doubt, It's A Dense Subject.

Thanks for the honest reply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Treant (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:56 AM

7. The revenue "diversion" is the problem

If the legislators and political nannies were actually using that tax to do something about balancing the health cost... perhaps even creating smoking cessation programs, I'd be okay with that. From my understanding though, the amount of the total that goes into such things is pretty much negligible. Our cigarette taxes pay for wars, probably for some politician's gas, for Rush Limbaugh to fly to Afghanistan to teach a class on unbiased journalism, for thousand dollar dinners.

I'm only good with such taxes in the event that they are *strongly* regulated. If we're going to tax such things for an honest purpose, okay, great, let's do it. As of right now though, our government officials can't be trusted to manage this, hell, they can't really be trusted to manage the basic functions of government.

These things, these proposed bans on everything from e-cigs to soda... strike me as ridiculous. There are far more important things to worry about. Consider, also, what happens when certain bans go into effect, the overall result in the stock market, in the grocery store or gas station, in the investments of various political and corporate figures. Does Emanuel really give a damn about e-cigs? I suspect there's something else going on here. Or perhaps I'm too suspicious by nature.

Either way, without proof that these represent a serious danger, without proof of the need for such legislation, this is all pretty god damn stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Original post)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:44 AM

4. I'm curious as to why he's attempting to ban them.

What evidence do we have that they are unhealthy? Do the -cigs containing nicotine (sp?) give off dangerous secondhand vapor or something? Is there any reason to believe that these are as harmful as cigarettes?

I know that they were quickly banned in most public places, but I don't know anything as to whether or not they're dangerous to anyone other than the one inhaling them.

Does the ban pertain to all sales or does it just forbid use in public places?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidthegnome (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:04 AM

9. There's no need

to take anyone's word for it; CASAA (which is a vaper-supporting organization) has plenty of air quality and health studies.

If secondhand vapor is dangerous, then breathing in a hospital is dangerous--they use propylene glycol in the air systems to settle bacteria and viruses to keep infections down. Not to mention the PG-based nebulizer treatments given to lung transplant patients.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Original post)


Response to jayfish (Original post)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:30 AM

12. Detained by TSA at major US Airport ..

I was detained by 10 TSA officers at a US Airport last week!

TSA: 'Do you have any weapons or ammunition with you?'
Me: 'Nope'
TSA: 'Can you come with us please .. do not touch your back pack'
Me: 'Umm ok'

Searched my bag by emptying ALL the contents and swabbed extensively.

TSA: 'Do you have an Electronic Cigarette?'
Me: 'Yes in that small white paper box'
TSA: 'Ooops sorry Sir I apologise'

I wouldn't be that annoyed but I had to leave my Pizza and Coke half consumed.

PSML Good job TSA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lenomsky (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 12:51 PM

24. Educate me, pls.

TSA got suspicous because of your E-cigs?
how and why???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 11:06 PM

45. Your guess as good as mine ..

It is an V-Signature Cigarette constructed of plastic mainly but I guess has a brass piece in it.

Here: http://vcignature.com/?page_id=135

I passed through CLE security and as several hours early had pizza, coke and read a book.

Clearly TSA checked the Airport cameras and located me about 30 mins after passing through security. A chap walked up mid-pizza showed me a pretty gold badge but I thought he was joking so continued to eat (No Photo ID and no Uniform). He then asked me if I was carrying any weapons or ammunition and informed me that I was being detained and not to touch my back pack. When I rose I was surrounded by TSA agents (about 10) all about 4-8 feet away trying to look inconspicuous.

I was walked back to primary with my entourage circling me and asked several times if I had weapons or ammunition to which I replied 'nope' so they emptied my back pack of everything and swabbed down numerous times. The palin clothed chap had a smart phone (I assume) with an X-Ray image on it. Finally the plain clothed chap asked if I had an electronic cig and I replied 'yip' and pointed to the white cardboard box. He took it away scanned it and returned it and apologised. At no stage did they check my pockets or clothing so not very thorough if indeed they thought I had ammunition.

My pizza and coke were gone BAH!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lenomsky (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 01:14 PM

28. Let me guess.

A big'ol 18350 or 18650 mod? I've always wondered how that would go over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lenomsky (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:01 PM

30. Mom got searched

During a recent flight.

She asked them, "It's the e-cig, isn't it?"

Like me, she uses a larger Volt X2 model with small 2.5 ml tanks.

The (very, very nice) TSA fellow said it was, and not a problem, but that the way the tanks and batteries were in there they couldn't see through with X-Ray very well and had to search.

It took all of two minutes and she was on her way with an apology and a smile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lenomsky (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:55 PM

38. Interesting thread. I'd suggest putting them in the wallet/keys tray.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TekGryphon (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 11:11 PM

46. Yip I did from then on :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Original post)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:32 AM

13. Prohibition cannot abide moderation.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:39 PM

36. +1

It's the absolutist mindset that's the problem, really. Seems downright Puritan in some ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Original post)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:34 AM

14. With e cigs...

 

government loses tax money, and cigarette companies lose profit. They will kill them one way or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:55 AM

16. Secondarily

cannabis can be treated in order to make it vaporable in an e-cig. In theory, you could vape in the presence of a cop and he couldn't tell it wasn't a nicotine vape.

I don't know how valid this information is, I've merely seen demonstrations on the Webs. I know that vaporizers for standard bud have been available for years. I do believe the process for converting cannabis to an oil that will work in an e-cig is possible and relatively easy. That's probably got the Drugwarriors all in a tizzy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feral Child (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 11:23 AM

17. As Far As I Know,

that is industrially produced medicinal marijuana. Even so, when did DU become so anti-MJ? I know I haven't been very active here since we took the WH; but jeebus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 12:25 PM

23. I think you mistook me.

I was supposing a reason for the DEA/Local PDs to want to suppress E-cigs.

I'm very fond of cannabis and smoke often. I found the demo videos because I was looking for a way to simplify vaporizing. The gear for vaping bud is bulky and complicated. I'd like to find a way to use it in an e-cig, but the conversion process is pretty complicated, somewhat dangerous and only effective in large scale.

The procedure was easy to research, I'm sure LE is aware of it, and I'm certain they fear it becoming widespread, thus rendering them a bit more impotent in their Prohibition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feral Child (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 01:05 PM

26. My Fault.

Apologies!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:00 PM

29. No damage

I could have been clearer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feral Child (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 06:00 PM

34. Weed smells like weed

Even when you try to make an e-cig vape tincture it will smell like weed. So pot conissuers are not looking at e-cigs as anything other than a small portable vaporizer that you can only use in the privacy of your own home .... until weed goes legal beyond COL and WA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musiclawyer (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:43 PM

37. Vapor has a distinct smell from smoke, but yes, it still smells "weedy" so to speak.

More similar to how pot-infused butter smells, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musiclawyer (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:10 PM

41. As I said

my only information on the topic comes from webcasts.

I had hoped to use it as you suggest, but the preparation is too involved and requires quantities that I don't wish to handle.

LEOs, on the other hand, need only the tiniest hint of a possible maybe to over-react; hence, they are quite likely to attempt to ban or at least restrict E-cigarettes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 12:41 PM

47. Bingo!

Always always...follow the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Original post)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 10:34 AM

15. Rhamie needs the tax money

In an effort to close Chicago’s projected $339 budget shortfall next year, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has proposed increasing the city’s cigarette tax by 75 cents per pack.


If people start quitting or choosing alternatives he doesn't get his tax revenue. It's always about the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Original post)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 11:47 AM

18. Do we know that E-cigs are 100% safe to the smoker and their surroundings?

Aren't they vaporizing a chemical?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 12:00 PM

20. Maybe

If you get the ready-made e-cigs from China, well, who knows what is in those. But it is possible, and highly cost effective to purchase a higher end refillable e-cig and rechargeable batteries and get vapor juice that is made with organic vegetable glycerine, organic flavors, and USP nicotine in various strength concentrations. I've been vaping for several years and I'd never use a Chinese e-cig. You just don't know what you might be inhaling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard D (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:05 PM

32. Or make your own

A small, but growing segment of the vaping world makes their own liquids. I do, it's easy but some minor precautions are called for when working with high-density nicotine solutions.

I source all my components from suppliers and factories in the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Treant (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 07:59 PM

35. I"d love more info on that

I tried making my own, but it wasn't very good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard D (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 02:55 AM

42. They often are

I'll presume you know PG/VG balances and how to handle nicotine. If not--some major research is in order.

Flavors...it does depend on your preference. I'm a simple and light flavor person, so I chose 5% menthol, 2 1/2% cinnamon, 1% milk chocolate. The menthol is primary, the cinnamon warms it a bit, and the chocolate rounds it out (but you don't really notice it as it's only an accent).

It has enough warmth and bite to be nice, but it's never overpowering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 12:19 PM

22. They Are Vaporizing

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 10:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Propylene Glycol and /or Vegetable Glycerin. Both of which a generally recognized as safe by the FDA. Some have nicotine, some don't. There is little-to-no evidence that nicotine, in pure form, is any more dangerous or addictive than caffeine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 01:00 PM

25. 'a recent federal analysis that found vapors from e-cigarettes contain carcinogens...'

'including nitrosamines and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol.'

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/dec/03/carlsbad-e-cigarettes-ban-nicotine-youth

The FDA is currently preparing their case, and France is moving to classify them as tobacco products.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 01:08 PM

27. Garbage data is garbage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycerol#Historical_cases_of_contamination_with_diethylene_glycol

Glycerol and diethylene glycol are similar in appearance, smell, and taste. The US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed following the 1937 "Elixir sulfanilamide" incident of poisoning caused by diethylene glycol contamination of medicine.
On May 4, 2007, the US Food and Drug Administration advised all US makers of medicines to test all batches of glycerol for the toxic diethylene glycol.[26] This followed an occurrence of hundreds of fatal poisonings in Panama resulting from a Chinese factory deliberately falsifying records in order to export the cheaper diethylene glycol as the more expensive glycerol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:04 PM

31. In addition to Jayfish's

very cogent reply, they neglect to mention that the level of nitrosamines was comparable to the nicotine patch, gum, and lozenge.

Nitrosamines also appear in bacon.

Bacon. Yummy or Deadly? Overhyped story at 11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 05:17 PM

33. Right on time...

 

I hope, someday soon, you are trapped in a room full of people with eCigs. For hours. When you suddenly realize that the air is still clear, and there's no obnoxious odors, you may start to change your authoritarian, anti-science mind...

Probably not... But one can hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 02:59 AM

43. It's weird

We had a group of vapers (cousins all) together last Christmas and the only non-vaper in the room had no complaints at all.

The one smoker we forced outside. Nobody could stand the stench and frankly, it was giving me a headache.

Scent doesn't necessarily imply nasty chemicals, but the detailed air studies I've seen contain nothing that bothers me. They took already existing EPA limits for 8-hour continuous exposure five days a week, divided that by ten, and compared it. Almost nothing exceeded that (extremely conservative) limit, and the one thing that did (acrolein, I think) was just barely over the line of one-tenth allowable exposure.

So...OK with the EPA, but the FDA has a problem with it. The FDA also obtains funding from pharma companies that produce products that e-cigs cut into the profits of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Original post)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 11:55 AM

19. Chicago Democrats,

 

a different breed of low life politicians.
Not as low as the Teabaggers but they continue working to get there. Worse than the old party Conservatives, honestly. Illinois is screwed with these sharks running things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Original post)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 12:17 PM

21. Proponents of banning e-cigs...

... are morons, in my opinion.

It's a classic example of not understanding why something is bad. Hint: real smoke is not bad because it comes out of a stick you put in your mouth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hosnon (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:56 PM

39. But-but-but... SMOKING!!1!1!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jayfish (Original post)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 09:56 PM

40. FUCK YOU RAHM!

Pardon my French but it can't be said often enough, frankly...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nomorenomore08 (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 11:31 AM

44. ...a real douche

http://wgntv.com/2013/12/10/mayor-still-wants-regulations-on-e-cigarettes/

First show me the data that says e-cigarettes are a gateway to the real thing. It doesn't exist... Secondly, that 10% number is a flat-out lie.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/14/teen-smoking-ecigarettes-hookahs/3528829/

2.8% tried e-cigarettes, up from 1.5%


Why the fuck doesn't anyone in the media challenge anyone on anything any more? I know it's beating a dead horse but GOD DAMN IT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread