Michigan Bans Flavored E Cigarettes

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I love watching people's opinion on the effectiveness of government bans switch in real time.

Ban the stuff I don't like for the good of other people.  Don't ban the stuff I like for any reason.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

Give it a go.

Let us know how that works out for you...

Well, we all do that.  All gases involved in respiration are well above their boiling points.

Boru

Yes- but he says it would be easier on his lungs by not respiring.

I said he should let us know how that works out for him.

[EgoDeath]

Absolutely not.

Boru

So 480,000 Americans dying a year - directly related to tobacco products is an acceptable number - to ensure people's rights to be addicted to a product with no redeeming qualities?

Maybe if you smoke cigarettes every day, a thing known very well to kill people, you shouldn't be surprised when you're drowning in your own lungs and end up dying.

You played the game and you got burned. Oh well, dummy.

[Ravenshire]

Why ban e-cigs but not cigarettes?

Because e-cigs are a threat to traditional big tobacco that doesn't want to compete with a new, safer (please note I am not saying they're safe, only safer than cigarettes) alternative to the poison big tobacco trades on, and big tobacco spends a ton of money on special interest every year keeping their crap legal.

---

And?

Vaping has been falsely sold as safer than traditional tobacco.

It does get rid of carbon inhalation, but it replaces it with chemical inhalation. If you are boiling chemicals you are not making your lungs free from damage.

The rant of the terminally ignorant.

Known carcinogens:
Tobacco: Over 400
E-liquids: 0

Chemical compounds:
Tobacco: Over 4000
E-liquids: 15-30 depending on recipe.

The contents of e-liquids also enter the body at a far lower temperature than the contents of traditional tobacco. 200-250 degrees vs. the 450+ degrees of tobacco.

No, vaping is not demonstrably safe, but it has been shown demonstrably safer then traditional tobacco.

[Shell B]

Until they figure out why it's giving people popcorn lung, it's not a bad idea. We know not all e-cigs do this, so we need to find the ingredient that's doing it and blanket ban it. I do think vaping is a great way to stop smoking. I just think it's a free-for-all game right now.

[Athene]

Thing is, there's 85 times more times diacetyl in cigarette smoke than in vape products. Really makes me wonder if the tar and and other crap in cigarettes really do form a "protective" barrier against the short-term effects of the chemical...Lol.

I strongly suspect that the tobacco industry is likely behind a good deal of all this confusion and panic and rush to have ALL vape products deemed more potentially dangerous than cigarettes. They've got a lot to lose. 

Especially in my state. 

Guess I'd better buy a few of those UNFLAVORED Vuse products now if I want to implement vaping as part of my smoking cessation plan---Before the goddamned tobacco lobbyists get their way.

[Vince]

Why ban e-cigs but not cigarettes?

Because e-cigs are a threat to traditional big tobacco that doesn't want to compete with a new, safer (please note I am not saying they're safe, only safer than cigarettes) alternative to the poison big tobacco trades on, and big tobacco spends a ton of money on special interest every year keeping their crap legal.

Altria Group, Ballantyne Brands, Hay Island Holding, Reynolds American and Swedish Match AB are all big tobacco companies that have opposed regulation and taxes on e-cigarettes.  These companies own a significant portion of e-cig companies.  For example Altria Group (Marlboro) owns a 35% stake in Juul and VUSE is ultimately owned by Reynolds America.  Ballantyne Brands owns NEO and Mistic.

Big tobacco companies are not against e-cigs they are investing in them and opposing regulation. This only makes business sense.  The e-cig market is huge and tobacco companies have the money to buy/invest in these companies.  I bet soon all will be owned by tobacco companies.

[Mermaid]

Any pharmaceutical is banned if it has too many side effects. The tobacco lobby is way too powerful.
It's been linked to bad disease. Of course it should be banned. I don't understand why it has been allowed to get this big to begin with.
And yes, I happily voted for Whitmer.

[Vince]

Any pharmaceutical is banned if it has too many side effects. The tobacco lobby is way too powerful.
It's been linked to bad disease. Of course it should be banned. I don't understand why it has been allowed to get this big to begin with.
And yes, I happily voted for Whitmer.

Why should something be banned because it is harmful to people?  How do we determine what to ban?  We should make sure that the companies are telling the truth about their product and let people make their own decisions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Some guys around here would love it if smokes were banned. It’s easy to grow, the terrain is rough for enforcement, they have generations of experience and infrastructure. A heavily militarized anti government culture that places emphasis on family and already believe themselves to be under duress by the fed.

Y’all Qaeda could get the funding they needed. They’re already doing this...but tobacco is easier to grow here than the current crop. It’s just that you only get a couple bucks a pound for it, now, compared to much more for alternatives.