More and more people are quitting smoking the hazardous and costly cigarettes in exchange for the safe and affordable cigarettes. How long do you think until the government will start to unlawfully and unconstitutionally tax liquid nicotine? How long do you think until the government and businesses will start to unlawfully and unconstitutionally ban harmless cigarettes from restaurants, hospitals, retail stores, and public places (OKC Zoo for example)?

We all know about the dreadful No Smoking signs, but do you think we will also be seeing No Vaping (dictionary do not consider this a word....yet) signs anytime soon?

Once this happens, we might as well ban humidifiers. When a person complains (most likely when they are not educated), I find that example explaining the use of humidifiers help them to understand the harmless vapor.

For now, I will enjoy "smoking" everywhere in hospitals, while shopping, visiting animals, and everywhere quite comfortably.

Do you vape? The dictionary also consider this not a word....yet, but it will soon be.

Vape = Smoke
Vapor = Smoker
Vaping = Smoking

On a side note, I just learned that the deaf club recently banned smoking in the bar/poker/pool/dance area upstairs (2nd level). For the New Year party, I feel so fortunate to vape while drinking and playing pool without the hassle of going outside in the cold.

How Much Money ($$$) Thunder is Saving

Due to high prices, Thunder switched from Marlboro to Carnival. The cost averages $35 per carton. Thunder used 4 cartons, plus a few packs, monthly. The total cost were on average $140 for the cartons plus additional packs to around $175 monthly.

With the liquid nicotine, there are typically 5 in a pack and the cost averages $10 each. Thunder buys 4 or 5 packs monthly making the cost a tiny $40 to $50 monthly.

This is why everyone must (as ordered by Thunder) switch from filthy to clean. We are all smoking/vaping for the nicotine, so the tobacco and tar is not what we need. It will taste so much better and really fresh. There is even no nasty smell, too! Its real simple to use. Just do the switch without any hassle or suffering. There will be zero withdrawal.

Thunder recommends Clean Cigs (found at Smokin' J's in Del City) or Blu Cigs (disposable at Walgreens or rechargeable online).

So we like to speak about ourselves in the 3rd person now huh?

Well, I for one am glad to see smoking bans and would like to see it banned at all public places. Just because you want to smoke, doesn't mean i have to be subjected to it. Remember that part of the consitution about your freedoms doesn't including smoking. AND it only covers your rights and freedoms up to the point where they interfere with those of others.

But rather than answer the question above (which i doubt has any real chance of coming up), i would pose the question of why smoke at all? Nicontine is highly addictive, so you really have become reliant on that product, but you know you could save that much more money if you quit. My grandfather smoked for 30 years and gave it up only after he had a heart attack and had a bypass. He's been free of them now for 20 years. Imagine how much he saved over the span of 20 years by not smoking.

Special taxing will likely depend on how people use the cigarette replacements. While less harmful than cigarettes, prolonged use is still likely to lead to more health issues that often end up being payed by other tax payers. If people are predominately using them as a phase to quitting then it probably will not have similar taxes as cigarettes, if it becomes predominately recreational then it is possible since these are only healthy by comparison to smoking. The taxes on cigarettes do not even come close to the additional medical costs incurred by the state due to people smoking.

Things and behaviors are banned from places all the time that are not 'harmful' for various reasons and in this case that is not unconstitutional. Just because the manufactures say you can use them anywhere does not mean businesses or states will allow it.

So we like to speak about ourselves in the 3rd person now huh?

Well, I for one am glad to see smoking bans and would like to see it banned at all public places. Just because you want to smoke, doesn't mean i have to be subjected to it. Remember that part of the consitution about your freedoms doesn't including smoking. AND it only covers your rights and freedoms up to the point where they interfere with those of others.

But rather than answer the question above (which i doubt has any real chance of coming up), i would pose the question of why smoke at all? Nicontine is highly addictive, so you really have become reliant on that product, but you know you could save that much more money if you quit. My grandfather smoked for 30 years and gave it up only after he had a heart attack and had a bypass. He's been free of them now for 20 years. Imagine how much he saved over the span of 20 years by not smoking.

Hi, can you reread the original post again, please? We're not talking about smoking. The topic is basically about vaping. So far, its not banned anywhere in the nation.

And does anyone know where to get the actual law text regarding smoking must be of age 18? I believe there is no law on the record regarding vaping and that anyone can actually vape as soon they are old enough themselves to be able to make a decision on their own to start vaping as young as 16 (maybe younger, since kids are becoming smarter much earlier). However, stores are only selling Vaparettes to customers of 18+ age...most likely being on the safe side to avoid unlawful arrest by the police and unlawful charges by the DA. I do think that customers of legal age can buy Vaparettes for those younger vapers. Most importantly, I'd like to see the specific text of the law for both state and national.

Okay, Pete just did a change. We can't edit our posts anymore after 180 minutes. LoloL So, I want to include another new word to the above. :-)

Vaparette = Cigarette

So we have Vape, Vaper, Vaping, and Vaparette.

Also, a correction to Vaper (misspelled Vapor in original post.) Yes, vapor is correctly spelled for the mist part, but vaper is the spelling for smoker as in "er" meaning a person active in that.

Who do I contact to add these words to the official English language dictionary?

Snowman, I've researched many hours regarding the health of using Electronic Cigarettes, which will soon be known as Vaparette and I could not find any health issues or complications whatsoever. We do know that tobacco is harmful to our health and to others (as second-hand-smoke), but what do we know about nicotine? After all these years, there is nothing from the medical experts about any risk from nicotine usage other than overdose with death potential (such as too many nicotine patches and/or the use of nicotine patches while smoking). Is it possible for nicotine to cause cancer? Then again, everything causes cancer, heck there are more legally allowed things and consumables that cause cancer than banned products. And what about the vapor mist? We do know that Vaparettes produce vapors that quickly dissolves and do not stain on material (such as white turning yellow). Most importantly, I am curious if there are any mass studies currently ongoing to produce the result regarding the safety of Vaparettes.

There is no uniformity of product or risk with the new cigs, and they change constantly right now, so any studies would be unable to really grasp the situation.

Snowman, I've researched many hours regarding the health of using Electronic Cigarettes, which will soon be known as Vaparette and I could not find any health issues or complications whatsoever. We do know that tobacco is harmful to our health and to others (as second-hand-smoke), but what do we know about nicotine? After all these years, there is nothing from the medical experts about any risk from nicotine usage other than overdose with death potential (such as too many nicotine patches and/or the use of nicotine patches while smoking). Is it possible for nicotine to cause cancer? Then again, everything causes cancer, heck there are more legally allowed things and consumables that cause cancer than banned products. And what about the vapor mist? We do know that Vaparettes produce vapors that quickly dissolves and do not stain on material (such as white turning yellow). Most importantly, I am curious if there are any mass studies currently ongoing to produce the result regarding the safety of Vaparettes.

Anything conclusive will be a long ways out and if everyone acts like it is their right to do this everywhere with nothing to back up it is really significantly better to other around them or damage to buildings, that only increases the likelihood of bans.

I do not see how it can damage buildings. The atomizers are thrown away in the trash with zero fire hazard. The vapor mist do not cause any yellowish stain and quickly goes away (the same as humidifiers' vapor mist). The only hazard that I could see is plugging the product to an outlet for a recharge, but the same risk applies for all other electric merchandises.

One suggestion, I do think that Electronic Cigarettes need to be in black and other colors only instead of white. The lights need to be in any colors other than orange. This is to prevent an uneducated person from escalating to an argument and/or fight initially before realizing their action is wrong. Blu Cig is the best, because theirs is in black with blue light.

FWIW, there are places which do not permit the e-cigs. Warren Theater comes to mind right off. I don't think they are out on a limb all alone by any means.

Perhaps the people who do the analysis will be a little more thorough than simply basing their results off of what Thunder can see?

FWIW, there are places which do not permit the e-cigs. Warren Theater comes to mind right off. I don't think they are out on a limb all alone by any means.

I don't see how that is possible. Can you provide evidence? I think this will cause an uproar, because there is no basis on not allowing it.

As to proof, visit their website. You'll see they have notices for no cell phones and for no e cigs.
As to how they can do it ... their shop, their rules. Nothing more complicated than that. No different than banning outside food and drink.

I guess movie theaters is an acceptable exception since the temporary mist can get in the way of screen viewing. No other places should ban it without logical basis.

T, see
http://www.warrentheatres.com/faqs32.asp

As to how they can, that's easy. It's their house, so it's their rules. They could require semi-formal attire by all movie goers if they thought they could get enough business to sustain them. No real biggie there.

I guess movie theaters is an acceptable exception since the temporary mist can get in the way of screen viewing. No other places should ban it without logical basis.

You're suggesting that private property owners shouldn't be allowed to exclude you from their property for any legal reason? Vapers need the same protections as racial minorities then?

You're suggesting that private property owners shouldn't be allowed to exclude you from their property for any legal reason? Vapers need the same protections as racial minorities then?

Private property is allowed to have rights just as long as they don't interfere with Thunders LOL

Why are people taking up smoking these days? I mainly didn't because trying to smoke irritated my throat and made me cough. It certainly didn't feel cool. It felt stupid.

Why are people taking up smoking these days? I mainly didn't because trying to smoke irritated my throat and made me cough. It certainly didn't feel cool. It felt stupid.

You need to drink plenty of required water daily and you won't have a problem with irritated throat. Vaping is so kool!!! :-P

You need to drink plenty of required water daily and you won't have a problem with irritated throat. Vaping is so kool!!! :-P

Yes! I totally agree!! Spending $50 a month to get addicted to nicotine!! It is cool...

Yes! I totally agree!! Spending $50 a month to get addicted to nicotine!! It is cool...

Yup. It works wonderful for all sort of reasons, including ease of stress, calm the nerves, etc. Its also wonderful to prevent impulse eating.

yes! I totally agree!! Spending $50 a month to get addicted to nicotine!! It is cool...

Lol +1.

Yup. It works wonderful for all sort of reasons, including ease of stress, calm the nerves, etc. Its also wonderful to prevent impulse eating.

Buy a gym membership instead. You'll live longer and you'll be happier.

Yup. It works wonderful for all sort of reasons, including ease of stress, calm the nerves, etc. Its also wonderful to prevent impulse eating.

reading, walking, painting, romancing, biking, fishing, assorted non-clothed activities, collecting, writing, composing, singing, yada, yada, yada are other ways to ease stress and keep calm w/o the expense of vapid vaping on a vaperette, the functional equal of a crutch for one's addiction.

You're a grown up, and you're probably better off than you were when you were smoking. Yet I'm fairly confident you're not as well off as you would be if you could also set aside the nicotine monkey once and for all.

From a pure financial standpoint, add up a month worth of your vaping expenses. Multiply that amount times 12. That's how much further along on paying off your trailer you could be next Christmas eve, with next to no extra effort on your part after the first 72 hours. Something to think about T, but it is up to you to make it happen.

reading, walking, painting, romancing, biking, fishing, assorted non-clothed activities, collecting, writing, composing, singing, yada, yada, yada are other ways to ease stress and keep calm w/o the expense of vapid vaping on a vaperette, the functional equal of a crutch for one's addiction.

Could have used that in V is for Vendetta lol

I had honestly never heard of these things before. It's amazing the things people will do to make a buck. First of all, in this country it seems that anyone can claim something is safe and that is what people believe until rigorously, and scientifically proven otherwise. Really no one knows if these things are safe. So let's just stop calling them safe right there... their safety is unknown. Until recently there was no regulatory body that had authority over them to verify these claims (see next paragraph). But you know what, if eating salty potato chips for 40 years is enough irritation to cause colon cancer in old age you will never convince me that something like this isn't very likely an inhaled carcinogen.

Just because something is a vapor doesn't make it safe. I can think of so many vaporized or aerosolized products that are deadly when inhaled it isn't even funny. Come on.

The claim that these things have no smell appears to be incorrect, although it does sound like the smell is much more faint depending on the cartridge flavor, etc.

I just read that in 2010 the FDA won a legal ruling giving them the power to regulate e-cigs as tobacco products. In theory it should now be an age-restricted product, although a quick online search certainly doesn't give me that impression and I can't find any evidence of the FDA cracking down on this industry yet.

I am guessing that someone is going to have to challenge smoking restriction rules to get some legal determination that "vapeing" an e-cig is the same as smoking and therefore banned. I would think that the federal governments recognition that e-cigs can be regulated by the FDA would go a long way in favor of lumping them all under the same ban, but who knows I'm not a lawyer and the law isn't always that black and white.

Can you provide the source for the power-trip FDA trying to control e-cigz in 2010? I don't see how these can be regulated as tobacco products when zero tobacco are used.

Yeah, you don't need a logical reason to ban any activity from private property, unless it is granted special protection under the law (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.). If you want to ban green shirts from your restaurant, you can, and if customers don't like it, they can not go visit. That's why restaurants are allowed to have dress codes, or why they are allowed to ban children like some have been doing. If places dont' want to allow ecigs, they don't have to, and if people don't like it, tough luck.

I can understand that the vapor mist can annoy some people when the mist temporarily get in the way. I can totally respect it, but I will be extremely disappointed, but will still follow the rules. One day, there will be a smoke-less / vapor-less cigz and I'll totally be all over it. By then, I'll likely to have quit all together with the help of my family on here. One of my heros is Brian. He's one of several on here I look up to like a daddy or something. Lets not get me into listing my heros/idols here. lol

Can you provide the source for the power-trip FDA trying to control e-cigz in 2010? I don't see how these can be regulated as tobacco products when zero tobacco are used.

http://bit.ly/uQTjnz

...One day, there will be a smoke-less / vapor-less cigz and I'll totally be all over it...

http://www.nashvillenut.com/images/candy_cigarettes.gif

It seems that the FDA eased up on their power-trip, but want to continue regulate the industry to make sure its safe, etc.

I thought candy cigz was banned? Something about the way it appealed children to smoke. I loved it and not once did it appeal me to smoke. Thankfully I was a kid around the time it was new/popular before the government killed it.

Can you provide the source for the power-trip FDA trying to control e-cigz in 2010? I don't see how these can be regulated as tobacco products when zero tobacco are used.

Given the FDA already regulates food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices, veterinary products, and cosmetics; they were going to be regulating these eventually, the only question was would they be regulated as over-the-counter, prescription, something like pseudoephedrine products that require more checks but not a prescription or banning (which will likely only be until manufactures can make changes to formulation).

With them essentially being tailor made to be as close to a cigarette as possible and arguing they should be compared to cigarettes as a baseline for chemicals exposed to for safety then their is a fair chance then they will get similar restrictions as well.

With experience and use, these e-cigz should never be sold as prescription or behind a counter. They should be made available anywhere in the store the same as nicotine patches.

I expect at minimum it would be required to be kept in the area with cigarettes and chewing tobacco to reduce chance of theft by minors.

Well, yeah, stupid kids (and ungrown adults) love to steal instead to earn.

http://www.nashvillenut.com/images/candy_cigarettes.gif

I remember those... thought I was a grown up like Dad.

The Doctors declared them to be safe!


A few of the benefits claimed from using the electronic cigarette:

* No tar, tobacco, carbon monoxide, or ash.
* Get the same amount of nicotine as a regular cigarette.
* Each cartridge costs less than $2 and is equivalent to an entire pack of cigarettes.
* You can save over $1,000 each year.
* You won’t “smell” like a smoker any longer.
* Different flavors are available.
* No more second-hand smoke.


http://www.thesmartstyleliving.com/ereviewg.asp

The state of New York was unlawfully and unconstitutionally considering to ban electronic cigz. I do not know if they are currently on the corrupted path or woke up to leave our freedom alone.


New York is pushing to become the first state to ban the devices, which so far remain unregulated and mostly unstudied. With cutesy colors, fruity flavors, clever designs and other options, e-cigarettes may hold too much appeal for young people, critics warn, offering an easy gateway to nicotine addiction.

Might as well ban liquor and beer as its also attractive to kids. Morons...


"What New York is doing is equivalent to outlawing lifeboats on a sinking ship because they haven't been FDA approved," he added. "It's a really crazy approach to public health."

http://news.discovery.com/human/e-cigarettes-health-nicotine-tobacco-110127.html

It took almost 30 years to show that cigarettes were harmful to health, so there's no way anyone can really say that these are safe in the little time they've been in existence. It concerns me that your "proof" is a link to a site that is selling these things Thunder, and that their article sources (a non-scientific social organization and a misquote from a group of reality TV doctors whose specialties are plastic surgery, gynecology, etc. and not pulmonary research) are dubious at best. Could these be used as a smoking cessation device and are they safer than actual smoking? Possibly, sure. Is this a risk free activity that new users should adopt and others shouldn't worry about second hand exposure? No way.

I do believe that e-cigz are safer than filthy cigz. Do we have the right to know whats in the liquid content? You betcha! However, the tobacco companies do not tell us what they include in their contents, and the FDA do not require them to do so (as far as I know), which I believe it should be required as food have extensive labels detailing these contents. Do I believe the government has the right to ban e-cigz? Hell no! The government should never...not now, not ever...have the authority over our own body. My body is mine, every inch of it, inside and out, and no one own it except me. I choose what I want to do with it. I believe my decision is divine, because I truly believe that e-cigz are much safer than filthy cigz and the financial costs are extremely low.

Speaking of what is in tobacco, I wonder if officers for DARE in schools ever warn kids that cigarettes contain over 1000 chemicals? Or do they just confine it to how marijuana contains over 400 chemicals and leave it at that.

DARE still in business? :-O

So where are the BubbleGum Cigars in this debate?

The ones with the authentic rings?
(Mocking the Cubans?)

Speaking of what is in tobacco, I wonder if officers for DARE in schools ever warn kids that cigarettes contain over 1000 chemicals? Or do they just confine it to how marijuana contains over 400 chemicals and leave it at that.

I don't remember cigarettes being brought up by DARE, it seems more like it was just anti drunk driving and illicit drugs