Should e-cigs be banned @ work?

[imkruzen]

Electronic cigarettes don't burn and don't give off smoke. But they're at the center of asocial and legal debate over whether it's OK to "light up" in places where regular smokes are banned. Despite big differences between cigarettes and their electronic cousins, several states, workplaces and localities across the country have explicitly included e-cigs in smoking bans.

ARTICLE

 

[guym]

imo depends on the work place. If you're dealing with customers it might not be acceptable, if you're in a call center no one would understand you on the phone. But if you're just in a cubical doing you're own thing I don't see an issue with them(as long as you take the damn thing out when talking to co-workers.)

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Please give us even more unnecessary laws and bans Vaping is a great way to reduce the harm of smoking and the vapor doesn't come anywhere near the danger of second-hand smoke. They are just attacking a soft target for no reason other than to score political brownie points. By the way, I don't vape, but I'm considering it.

 

[bobjohnson]

No. The cigarette ban was instituted for "safety", which although ********, fine, you can justify it (with false science or outlandish scenarios). Banning e-cigs is just being vindictive and proving that laws banning smoking werent aimed at protecting innocent third parties from second hand smoke, they were to punish smokers for smoking.

The "smoke" from e-cigarettes is water vapor and carbon dioxide. If they also ban coffee makers and humidifiers indoors, fine. Otherwise, whats the justification?

 

[LiNK666]

The "smoke" from e-cigarettes is water vapor and carbon dioxide. If they also ban coffee makers and humidifiers indoors, fine. Otherwise, whats the justification?

They need something to blame so you think they're doing their job when they're infact looking at things to blame for no reason.

btw if you ever drank Firestart's coffee you'd consider banning coffee altogether.

 

[imnothng]

I'm on the fence. Yes it doesn't pose a health risk? Or does it? They once said that cig's didn't cause cancer. I'm not equating vapor with smoke, but I don't know all the chemicals that are in the vapor.

For me it's more of a visual thing. As someone who stopped smoking 1.5 years ago I really look down on people that smoke now. It is truly a stupid and retarded thing to do. To see people smoking fake cig's looks just as stupid, but I guess it doesn't smell as bad, lol.

I would rather see and would 100% support a ban on nicotine, seeing as it's a pointless highly toxic chemical.

 

[knowledge]

I don't smoke, but I think they should be allowed.

The only "reason" to ban them would be a social angle. Allowing people to smoke indoors would make it seem like smoking is something that should be socially acceptable. In this case, kids would see people smoking indoors and it would seem like smoking, in general, is okay. I think the stigma that's associated with smoking is a pretty good deterrent...but not strong enough to ban on those grounds.

To see people smoking fake cig's looks just as stupid, but I guess it doesn't smell as bad, lol.

But doesn't it also have nicotine and a bunch of other crap in it? I don't know if "Fake" would be a good word for it.

 

[imnothng]

But doesn't it also have nicotine and a bunch of other crap in it? I don't know if "Fake" would be a good word for it.

It's illegal to sell the inserts with nicotine in them in Canada at the moment. They do sell the nicotine ones down in the states though.

I don't know if there's any Howard Stern listeners here, but one of his guys smokes an e-cig and he has some liquid nicotine thing that he refills his inserts with. Obviously there is a skull and cross bones on the container. He "smokes" his across from another guy that says it gives him headaches. There is a vapour that comes out that I'm sure contains harmful chemicals.

Isn't a big teaching of science that you can never destroy something, only change it. To take a chemical and "vapourize" I don't see how that is any more healthy than smoking. Wouldn't the vapour still contain all the nasty chemicals found in smoke? To vapourize it is just to burn it with intense direct heat isn't it? The brings me to another point. I've never seen an e-cig, but how exactly does it vapourize. I'm thinking of a pot vapourizer which heats up quite a bit in order to vapourize the product. So if an e-cig does heat up enough to vapourize, then doesn't that pose another danger?

 

[james12lucy]

Let them Vap. Think about the productivity increases across the board if all smokers stopped running for their "mandatory" habit breaks every 30 minutes. Do you know how many man-hours are lost in Canada because smokers need to light up? Could you imagine if non-smokers demanded the same "righteous" breaks as their smoking counterparts?

Personally, I smoked as a "cool" teen, then quit because of hockey, now I'll chew once in a while with the lads at a game or over a beer. I do know my byproduct is very unappealing, but at least I'm not releasing it on innocent bystanders. I feel the same way for e-cigs; let them imbibe they're chemicals so long as it doesn't affect anyone that doesn't partake. If the vapor is harmless, I say go ahead.

 

[turbodish]

I do know my byproduct is very unappealing, but at least I'm not releasing it on innocent bystanders. I feel the same way for e-cigs; let them imbibe they're chemicals so long as it doesn't affect anyone that doesn't partake. If the vapor is harmless, I say go ahead.

The vapour is inhaled, then exhaled into the air around the "smoker", and from there throughout the air in the office space. What's in those vapours again? What odours? What chemicals? There must be something, otherwise people's addictions would be satisfied by sucking on an empty straw.

Given that it took decades (centuries) to discover the hazards of first- and second-hand smoke, I can sort of see the caution now being taken over these things while they sort out possible health effects.

 

[rukus]

The cigarette ban was instituted for "safety", which although ********, fine, you can justify it (with false science or outlandish scenarios).

so the whole "cigarette smoke is toxic" argument is just crap science?
im reallu curious about this. (not trying to be a jerk)

 

[rafiki911]

So that's what those cigs are. Saw a lady in a restaurant in Port Dover smoking one and I got so mad when I looked over and saw the "smoke" coming out. Good thing I realized it was a fake smoke and I didn' tell her off.

 

[anth1414]

the thing i didnt like about smoking, was that i was effected because of it.
as long as the "smoke" they exhale is not harming me...... do it up.

in a professional env't .... that just means people wont take as many smoke breaks.
now they can work at their desks for longer. right? right? :lmao:


do what ever you want to yourself....just dont harm me or others around you.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

That's my take on it.. Smoking e-cigs would generally increase the productivity, especially for non-creative jobs.. As for me.. I came up with 2 of the most valuable inventions while on smoke breaks and they got sold to China for undisclosed amounts of money
If they find that the vapor is harmful to the environment, they need to institute the bans based on the level of harm and I'll be the first person to salute that. However, once something gets banned, it's banned for good. To get a banned substance unbanned is a one in a million chance. So they better run proper studies now and then decide whether they should ban or not once the results are in.

 

[imnothng]

We're asking should they?

I think we should ask why SHOULDN'T they be?

Increases production??? Because supervisors and management turn a blind eye to their employees blatantly breaking the rules? Screw that.

There is NO need to smoke cigs and especially e-cigs. To be honest I think this debate is moot.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

There is a very good need to smoke e-cigs.. Those that got hooked on normal cigs are physical addicts... Since nobody's pitching in to assist them with dealing with their addiction, they found a safer way to get their fix. All of a sudden, a bunch of control-freak morons with nothing better to do decided that they should be banned "just because." Hail to the nanny-state

 

[bobjohnson]

We're asking should they?

I think we should ask why SHOULDN'T they be?

Increases production??? Because supervisors and management turn a blind eye to their employees blatantly breaking the rules? Screw that.

There is NO need to smoke cigs and especially e-cigs. To be honest I think this debate is moot.

I was going to make some sarcastic, smart *** reply, but instead I'll be straight up. You dont ban things for no reason. You do research, discover whether or not its extremely harmful or causes any extreme negative effects that give cause for it to be banned, whether or not it has any benefit what so ever, and then you ban it or regulate it as appropriate. Banning things first and asking questions later is not how things are done, despite how some people feel about certain things. Just because YOU dont enjoy smoking doesnt mean other people dont. I enjoy smoking, thats why i started smoking and thats why i keep smoking. As an adult, it is my responsibility to weigh the information I have and make a choice related to my actions. Just because YOU dont like my choice doesnt mean you get to tell me I am not allowed to make it. Our society as a whole needs to understand this and understand that adults should be allowed to decide what they want to do with their body. If an adult chooses to ingest something, whether its sugar, trans fat, a billion calories, nicotine, opiates, or straight up arsenic, it should be their choice. The information should be made available to them regarding the dangers or benefits of their possible choices, but it should still be their choice to make.

 

[bobjohnson]

so the whole "cigarette smoke is toxic" argument is just crap science?
im reallu curious about this. (not trying to be a jerk)

No, not entirely. Smoking is definitely not good for you, theres no two ways about that. What is debatable is whether or not 2nd hand smoke is deadly. In large concentrations, sure it is, because its the same smoke that a smoker inhales, and im laboratory conditions you can prove that being in a box all day, day in, day out with cigarette smoke in the air can cause cancer. But in the real world? Especially in places that already had specially constructed rooms for smokers (Toronto, for one...)? Or the amount of 2nd hand smoke that the average non-smoker is exposed to in passing, either in buildings or on the street? No. If you think about it logically it makes absolutely no sense. The average smoker smokes, what, half a pack a day? Directly inhaling that smoke. A non-smoker couldnt even come close to that from second hand smoke.

What would you assume the chances of dying from smoking are? If i told you they vary depending on source (mainly what constitutes a "smoking related death") between 1 in 4 and 1 in 12, would you be surprised its that low? I was when i read that. From everything i was told as a kid up until the time i heard the actual stats (around the age of 23 or 24) I had always assumed it was like a 3/4 chance or at least 1/2. Would you be surprised that the majority of life long smokers live to age 70 or more? Consider that means they smoked, on average, 12 cigarettes a day for 50-60 years. Also consider the fact that when an old person who is a smoker gets cancer or heart or lung disease, this is chalked up to a "smoking related illness", while a person of the same age, same occupation, same neighborhood but NOT a smoker gets the same disease, this is chalked up to natural occurrence. The only characteristic for classifying something as a "smoking related illness" is the fact that the person smoked.

Dont get me wrong. Smoking is not good for you. It is definitely bad for you. Any time you inhale chemicals or smoke from anything it impairs the functions of your lungs and has the possibility to cause health issues. But the true facts have been distorted, and smoking is not AS BAD as commonly available literature would have you believe when you actually look up the studies that these claims are based on. Its still is a possibility you will die from it though, but then again, you could die from a lot of things.

 

[imnothng]

Just because YOU dont enjoy smoking doesnt mean other people dont. I enjoy smoking, thats why i started smoking and thats why i keep smoking.

I feel sorry for you. Have you ever met an ex-smoker that regretted not smoking? I highly doubt it. Me quiting had to do with seeing my father unable to walk more than 15 steps without getting winded. Seeing him unable to throw a baseball to his grandson. Seeing him unable to take his granddaughter to the park. I used to say I enjoyed, I used to say I only smoke half a pack a day, what's the big deal. To say you enjoy smoking is insane, and I mean that in the same way that I would call a skydiver insane. The difference is that the skydiver is getting a thrill, whereas a smoker is getting.... ya, I thought so.

Whatever. F it all anyway right?

 

[nobbie48]

The vapour is inhaled, then exhaled into the air around the "smoker", and from there throughout the air in the office space. What's in those vapours again? What odours? What chemicals? There must be something, otherwise people's addictions would be satisfied by sucking on an empty straw.

Given that it took decades (centuries) to discover the hazards of first- and second-hand smoke, I can sort of see the caution now being taken over these things while they sort out possible health effects.

A definate concern. It would be interesting to see the WHMIS sheets for the bulk chemicals as consumer packaging doesn't require them to the same degree.

A second point is the false alarm if someone percieves a smoker in an inappropriate place.

I thought it only took a week or two to get over the chemical dependancy but the bigger problem was the habit of puffing on something. My mother quit cold turkey without a problem but 6 months later she was out with a friend having a drink and she said that having the drink in one hand gave her an incredible urge to have a cigarette in the other. She quit when smokes went up to 35 cents a pack.