Do you think SF should ban electronic cigarettes from public places, just like traditional ones?

  • MattZuke - 10 years ago

    Banning e-cigarettes in public places makes as much sense as banning Glade Plugins. Glade Plug-ins are rated HMIS 2, a moderate health risk due to paraffinic compounds.

    Banning incense where SMOKING is banned makes sense. Incense is burned, incense represents about 1/4 gram of combustible material, packed full of polyaromatic compounds and nitrosamines, which ARE the same things in cigarettes that causes harm. There is even objective evidence of an elevated risk of cancer specifically squamous cell carcinoma.

    The only argument the health department has is a kid "might" try it, which falls into the domain of regulating behavior, not promoting public health. While a kid "might" try e-cigarettes, the CDC estimates 2.5 million people who use e-cigarettes, and studies show e-cigarette users either reduce their cigarette intake, or opt for 100% smoking cessation, often by accident. With NRPs, we KNOW kids experiment with nicotine gum, but because of the 3-7% cessation rate, it's considered an acceptable risk. Based on the CDC's data, cessation is at a stand still since roughly 2002, that's a decade of roughly 1% of all smokers dropping dead, and another 1% taking their place. Why would SF be opposed to anything that is shown in clinical trials to be twice as effective as NRPs? They honestly would rather smokers get cancer and die than risk a kid seeing an adult pretending to smoke.

  • J Coffey - 11 years ago

    Seems the poster of this web page is a non smoker that must agree with the ban.

    Tests have been done recently and have shown that E-Cigs vapor and second hand vapor have no more bad chemicals than the FDA Approved Nicotrol Inhalers or Nicotine Gum,in fact some tests showed E-Cigs as having less!!

    Of course the FDA won't show those results.

    I guess a ban of Hot Coffee should be put into effect in public places also since the vapor coming from a Hot cup of coffee has Caffine vapors and caffine has the same effects as Nicotine.
    The "E-Cigs look and act like a real cig so they should be resricted like one" is silly. I guess we need to require registration of cap guns and pink Barbie cars. Remember putting a card on your bicycle to make it sound like a Motorcycle? I guess if a child does that then they will be required to get a license and registration along with insurance since it mimic a real one.

  • Thad Marney - 11 years ago

    Why ask a yes or no question and then give these options??
    A. Yes
    B. Probably
    C. I don't know
    D. I don't care

    Electronic cigarettes are not lit on fire and therefore do not produce any of the smoke that has been linked to increased risks of smoking-related disease. Fire and the byproducts of combustion are make cigarettes at least 100 times more dangerous than smoke-free tobacco alternatives like e-cigarettes. If you are worried about the hazards of chronic smoking, switch to a smoke-free alternative and let adults make their own choices about continued tobacco use.

  • Kay - 11 years ago

    Where's your option of NO because SF financial situation doesn't cut it. This is complete B.S. The whole point of a ban on cigarettes is because of second hand smoke, in which the electronic cigarette has NONE. This is Big Brother at his worst. These former smokers are trying to do a non-harmful alternative to smoking, they obviously still enjoy the sensation of smoking as well as the addiction to nicotine and they have found an acceptable substitute, plus the freedom they used to have when smoking. If they're so worried about the influence on children then they need to ban smoking in movies and television. Jimmie Traylor is right and I can't see how this would stand in a court of law. Dr. Aragon's argument of "just another nicotine delivery system" tells me that he should ban the patch and nicotine gum and lozenges along with it and make the whole city go cold turkey.

  • jimmie - 11 years ago

    Ecigs ARE NOT "just like cigarettes". Do your research. Combustion is what causes the health problems to the consumer and those around them. Ecigs have no combustion hence they should not be included in any ban. Yes,there is nicotine in them. Coffee and nicotine are classified in the same category. Are you going to ban coffee and Starbucks? It is NOT the nicotine that kills--it is the combustion. You should be encouraging committed smokers to switch from combustible cigarettes to ecigs. You just might help save many lives. You consider condoms a reduced harm product that helps protect against AIDS and actually encourage their us. You provide needles and condoms for people to help reduce harm. Why in the world would you not at least encourage people who are committed smokers to switch to a product that is 99% safer than combustible cigarettes?

    The FDA had only 2 classification options-tobacco or drug devices. The FDA wanted to classify them as drugs. They were sued and lost in District Court and lost their Appeals with one Judge stating they had overreached and had proven no harm from ecig use. They,by law, now have to regulate them as tobacco. This does not mean they are the "same" as combustible cigarettes. Between 70% and 80% after 6 months of ecig users have completely quit using combustible cigarettes and are considered non smokers. This is far better than the miserable quit rate between for those using Pharma products--7-10% after six months for those using Pharma products to quit smoking.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars

Submit Comment