Why Ban e-Cigarettes?

[Paul65]

Mein18 - Thank you for your kind words. I really was trying to be open minded and realistic about this whole thing. Tough to do on here, but I tried.:cool:

 

Paul65 - I did not intend to 'use any card' and really didn't think I was being any more rude, insulting and obnoxious than lots I've seen on here. But your choosing to single me out with a reprimand really isn't nice (among other things like you mentioned yourself). :( You have your opinions as everyone else does. Respect for one another is a good thing whether we agree or not. Personally I think you take your 'expertise' just a tad too seriously. And I am allowed to think what I want too ... not just you. ;) Your 1st post was informative, as were others ... 'law', 'fact' .... I don't know. Try to lighten up a bit. We're supposed to enjoy this board and exchange information, not go after one another. :( 'Just sayin'! :)

 

I agree that you were no more rude, insulting and obnoxious than lots of other people. I just find it curious and a bit amusing when people do that kind of bashing based on generalizations, then act like it's OK, because they're not singling anyone out. I'm not necessarily talking about you, so that makes it OK. :cool:

[mein18]

I agree that you were no more rude, insulting and obnoxious than lots of other people. I just find it curious and a bit amusing when people do that kind of bashing based on generalizations, then act like it's OK, because they're not singling anyone out. I'm not necessarily talking about you, so that makes it OK. :cool:

 

Go and read all the posts that non-smokers half placed. They are bashing and insulting smokers while being totally obnoxious about it. But that is ok since you agree with them. They now got their way by whining so stop and lets let the subject drop. Go on to something else to whine about (sure you will find something) and increase your post count there.

[Paul65]

Go and read all the posts that non-smokers half placed. They are bashing and insulting smokers while being totally obnoxious about it. But that is ok since you agree with them. They now got their way by whining so stop and lets let the subject drop. Go on to something else to whine about (sure you will find something) and increase your post count there.

 

I've read many posts that non-smokers have placed. Most of them just say they want to be able to enjoy their cabins without being exposed to smoke. Some are bashing and insulting to smokers, but not anywhere near the majority of them. That's why I don't like these kind of generalizations (on either side of the argument). It's not about "getting your way by whining" or about "controlling things to your standard."

 

In general, the smokers want to be able to smoke in a convenient place, while the non-smokers want to be able to avoid having to be exposed to smoke. I think those are generalizations that hold up pretty well. Neither side needs to be insulted or demonized. :)

[celle]

Funny. Part of the reason I started this thread, though, is that it seems a lot of people actually believe that these devices only use water. That is untrue, and I do think that anyone using them should at least be knowledgeable about what they're using.

 

I do think they're much safer than cigarettes, though. The main chemicals in them (other than water) are propylene glycol and glycerine, nicotine and whatever chemicals they add for flavoring (which one would hope would be non-toxic, but it's hard to know, since most are not subject to regulation at this point, so I don't know if all manufacturers use food-grade flavoring compounds).

 

I know you were just making a joke, but I do not like to see the myths, like it being only water vapor, being perpetuated. :cool:

 

Paul, you keep telling us that e-cigs contain propylene glycol, as if that's a bad thing. Perhaps you'd be interested to read this excerpt from an article about the myths surrounding e-cigarettes. The bolding is mine:

"Myth #3 - Electronic Cigarettes all contain anti-freeze.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:

In 2009, the FDA released a press statement claiming that they tested electronic cigarettes and found diethylene glycol, an ingredient in anti freeze.2

Why it’s wrong:

Independent labs extensively tested other electronic cigarettes and found no evidence of diethylene glycol, the toxic component of anti-freeze claimed to have been found in the brands the FDA tested.

To further the confusion, electronic cigarette liquid is made of propylene glycol, an ingredient recognized as safe for human consumption by the FDA. While propylene glycol is sometimes used in anti-freeze, it is an additive intended to make it LESS harmful if accidentally swallowed.

The FDA tested just 18 cartridges, from only two companies. Out of those 18, just one tested positive for “about 1% diethylene glycol.”4 Because so many other tests failed to find diethylene glycol, many experts conclude that the single sample may have been contaminated in some other way. By no means is it considered a standard ingredient in electronic cigarettes.

If electronic cigarettes did contain anti-freeze, there would be news reports about the thousands of electronic cigarette owners suffering from diethylene glycol poisoning and that is not the case. To date, after five years on the market worldwide, there have been no such reports."

[Paul65]

Paul, you keep telling us that e-cigs contain propylene glycol, as if that's a bad thing.

 

I thought I'd been pretty non-biased about it. I have said that I believe them to be much safer than cigarettes. But many people do seem to believe that it's just "water vapor", so I have tried to correct that misconception. I agree that propylene glycol is not particularly hazardous.

[BND]

Paul, you keep telling us that e-cigs contain propylene glycol, as if that's a bad thing. Perhaps you'd be interested to read this excerpt from an article about the myths surrounding e-cigarettes. The bolding is mine:

"Myth #3 - Electronic Cigarettes all contain anti-freeze.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:

In 2009, the FDA released a press statement claiming that they tested electronic cigarettes and found diethylene glycol, an ingredient in anti freeze.2

Why it’s wrong:

Independent labs extensively tested other electronic cigarettes and found no evidence of diethylene glycol, the toxic component of anti-freeze claimed to have been found in the brands the FDA tested.

To further the confusion, electronic cigarette liquid is made of propylene glycol, an ingredient recognized as safe for human consumption by the FDA. While propylene glycol is sometimes used in anti-freeze, it is an additive intended to make it LESS harmful if accidentally swallowed.

The FDA tested just 18 cartridges, from only two companies. Out of those 18, just one tested positive for “about 1% diethylene glycol.”4 Because so many other tests failed to find diethylene glycol, many experts conclude that the single sample may have been contaminated in some other way. By no means is it considered a standard ingredient in electronic cigarettes.

If electronic cigarettes did contain anti-freeze, there would be news reports about the thousands of electronic cigarette owners suffering from diethylene glycol poisoning and that is not the case. To date, after five years on the market worldwide, there have been no such reports."

 

Article source please? Otherwise it carries no weight. Also just googling e-cigarette brings up a ton of info that says a lot more about the lack of research and facts to support their "safety". I also found lots of references to the FDA and their saying the exact opposite of what you posted above.

 

Here's just one article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/electronic-cigarettes_n_3818941.html

[jwm51]

I'm glad they banned these nasty things! I have horrible allergies to water vapor, makes taking a shower a real pain in the you know what!!, and I can't tell you how many cruises have been ruined for me because of indiscriminate water vapor being blown all over the place. At last I will be able to cruise without fear.

 

YOU ROCK!!!:p:D:cool:

[MMOMOM]

I agree that you were no more rude, insulting and obnoxious than lots of other people. I just find it curious and a bit amusing when people do that kind of bashing based on generalizations, then act like it's OK, because they're not singling anyone out. I'm not necessarily talking about you, so that makes it OK. :cool:

 

Well, it's obvious you're not giving up on this one and sorry but you ARE pointing you finger at me and not only do I not deserve it, I really don't care to participate. Think what you want, but don't direct your comments to me in the future please. I have tried to be fair and open minded here but seems that's not working for you. Be amused if you want, but I learned a long time ago the best way to deal with your type is not to deal at all. So, I'm finished here. Life is too short and I try and enjoy it .... this type of unpleasantness I don't enjoy. Nuff said! :)

[Charles4515]

I thought I'd been pretty non-biased about it. I have said that I believe them to be much safer than cigarettes. But many people do seem to believe that it's just "water vapor", so I have tried to correct that misconception. I agree that propylene glycol is not particularly hazardous.

 

It might be that they are not hazardous. Or it might be that they are. It is going to take a few years and a bunch of studies to determine. It is only prudent to restrict their use until a reasonable amount of studies have been done.

 

It makes sense to be skeptical of the it is just water vapor claim. If it was just water why would the addicts be inhaling the e-cigarettes? They can't get high off of water vapor.

 

Looking at the ads it seems obvious that the true intentions of the e cig marketing is not smoking cessation. It is to hook people on the e cigs and also get young people to use them.

[MMOMOM]

It might be that they are not hazardous. Or it might be that they are. It is going to take a few years and a bunch of studies to determine. It is only prudent to restrict their use until a reasonable amount of studies have been done.

 

It makes sense to be skeptical of the it is just water vapor claim. If it was just water why would the addicts be inhaling the e-cigarettes? They can't get high off of water vapor.

 

Looking at the ads it seems obvious that the true intentions of the e cig marketing is not smoking cessation. It is to hook people on the e cigs and also get young people to use them.

 

I hear you Charles on the 'skeptical' part, but really ... 'addicts getting high'? Wrong substance to 'get high' .... that would be alcohol and other drugs. Name calling isn't nice either. But you're right, the intentions of 'everything' is money ... cruise line decisions included. The FDA hasn't gotten involved yet because as many have mentioned, there are too many variables at this point and lets face it, if they can get involved it's really all about the tax revenue, not anyone's safety. That's what it always comes down to. And for that reason they need to make sure on the regulations. It's a very tricky thing as many have already mentioned. But, seriously, no one on this board is going to accomplish anything good or profitable with any of it ... it's just a 'B@#%h session' since now complaints can't be made about real smoking. There are no clear answers right now .... just clear complainers.:)

[Ghetto Guero]

I havent read the entier thread but I believe that they don't want to deal with ecigs because they look alot like dab pens (device for smoking pot)

 

Sent from my ADR8995 using Forums mobile app

[jstraw20]

I havent read the entier thread but I believe that they don't want to deal with ecigs because they look alot like dab pens (device for smoking pot)

 

That's the second time this has been mentioned. LOL! Look at my screen name, why haven't I heard of this before?

[MMOMOM]

I havent read the entier thread but I believe that they don't want to deal with ecigs because they look alot like dab pens (device for smoking pot)

 

Sent from my ADR8995 using Forums mobile app

 

I agree. There are so many different kinds and I think the ones you are talking about really do look weird. Think they mix their own 'juice'? That can open up another whole ball of wax! :eek: And the other ones look like a real cigarette, unless you get the red or the blue ones, but still. It's too much for the staff to regulate every time someone complains. I really don't blame the cruise line for not wanting them in public areas, even if it seems unfair to send the e-cig people to the 'bad real cig area', LOL!! I get it. I just don't get not being able to use it discreetly on one's own balcony. Still say it shouldn't bother anyone in the next balcony and doubt they would even know unless they were lurking over the rail 'to check' on their neighbor .... which I think some of these people just might do! LOL! :D

[jimmy2x]

I agree. There are so many different kinds and I think the ones you are talking about really do look weird. Think they mix their own 'juice'? That can open up another whole ball of wax! :eek: And the other ones look like a real cigarette, unless you get the red or the blue ones, but still. It's too much for the staff to regulate every time someone complains. I really don't blame the cruise line for not wanting them in public areas, even if it seems unfair to send the e-cig people to the 'bad real cig area', LOL!! I get it. I just don't get not being able to use it discreetly on one's own balcony. Still say it shouldn't bother anyone in the next balcony and doubt they would even know unless they were lurking over the rail 'to check' on their neighbor .... which I think some of these people just might do! LOL! :D

 

The first balcony neighbor who peers around the balcony divider might get a bit of an unpleasant surprise. In all seriousness folks, trust me. No one willi ever notice. It's a non-issue in real life.

[Ghetto Guero]

Big ball of wax made me rofl. Obviously I'm using my pen. :D

[SamInWa]

<sarcasm> If I could just get a bunch of tobacco company executives under oath (maybe in front of a Congressional committee) to swear that electronic cigarettes don't cause cancer then that would be enough for me. </sarcasm>

[lovetocruiserccl]

Hmmm, since the "smoke" doesn't linger or smell so much, one could actually "smoke" an e-cig in one's cabin and no one would know.... therefore, no need to "bother" anyone on the next balcony with the "smoke".....

 

Most people use these to try to quit smoking, so give them some slack. They are trying to quit, so I'm sure they would not want to go in the "smoking" areas .. they might as well light up a real one if they go there;)

 

Thank you. My thoughts exactly:confused:

 

Love To Cruise RCCL

[UNV-IT!!!]

There's also oil pens that looks 100% like the e ciggs. They use the same cartridges only filled with glycerin oil. So you wouldn't have any clue. But I really don't think this was royals concerns. I think it was more of just making a clean ban on smoking. That way there doesn't need to be grey area.

[BND]

Hmmm, since the "smoke" doesn't linger or smell so much, one could actually "smoke" an e-cig in one's cabin and no one would know.... therefore, no need to "bother" anyone on the next balcony with the "smoke".....

 

Most people use these to try to quit smoking, so give them some slack. They are trying to quit, so I'm sure they would not want to go in the "smoking" areas .. they might as well light up a real one if they go there;)

 

Except they're not. Smokers who use them are just replacing one habit with another and if you read the articles I posted, teens are using them in record numbers.

[cruisnseas]

Please state what "known carcinogens" are contained in e-cigs - and your sources.

 

I never said e-cigs were safe, but they are infinitely safer than real cigarettes. Compared with cigarettes, e-cigs are by far the lesser of two evils.

 

My source? The FDA. Their testing revealed all samples conained diethylene glycol which is in anti-freeze and is a known carcinogen and toxic to humans and animals. Several samples also included nitrosamines.

 

The real problem is these companies will not submit for full FDA testing. Gosh, I wonder why?

 

So again, don't fall into the trap that these things are "safe" for the user or thos around them. I imagine within a decade we'll have an understanding of how horrifically bad they truly are.

[mein18]

There's also oil pens that looks 100% like the e ciggs. They use the same cartridges only filled with glycerin oil. So you wouldn't have any clue. But I really don't think this was royals concerns. I think it was more of just making a clean ban on smoking. That way there doesn't need to be grey area.

 

They had better stop selling cola products because teenagers may spike with vodka. Will never know the difference. Looks like a real glass of cola and tastes like a real glass of cola but spiked. Very difficult to regulate since looks like a glass of soda.

 

Although we have not used e-cigs much, If we do continue to sail on RCI we will just use the harmless, no odor, no smoke e-cigs either in the room or on the balcony just like everyone else does in airports, theaters, and most all public places.

I have seen people use them in a crowded airport with absolutely no reaction from those around them.

 

As a smoker however, i do wish they would ban in the casinos. That is obnoxious. Even we will not go in there on nights smoking is allowed. We never smoke in any enclosed area even when alone.

 

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

[CRUISEFAN0001]

The answer to the original post is quite simple actually...

 

From any distance more than about 15 feet...another person can't tell if the smoker has a real or fake cigarette, likely causing false reporting to the crew.

[mein18]

My source? The FDA. Their testing revealed all samples conained diethylene glycol which is in anti-freeze and is a known carcinogen and toxic to humans and animals. Several samples also included nitrosamines.

 

The real problem is these companies will not submit for full FDA testing. Gosh, I wonder why?

 

So again, don't fall into the trap that these things are "safe" for the user or thos around them. I imagine within a decade we'll have an understanding of how horrifically bad they truly are.

 

Seeing your source as being the FDA discredits your post immediately. The tobacco companies keep them well compensated to be sure any and all findings will not affect the real tobacco industry.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

[cruisnseas]

I hear you Charles on the 'skeptical' part, but really ... 'addicts getting high'? Wrong substance to 'get high' .... that would be alcohol and other drugs. Name calling isn't nice either. But you're right, the intentions of 'everything' is money ... cruise line decisions included. The FDA hasn't gotten involved yet because as many have mentioned, there are too many variables at this point and lets face it, if they can get involved it's really all about the tax revenue, not anyone's safety. That's what it always comes down to. And for that reason they need to make sure on the regulations. It's a very tricky thing as many have already mentioned. But, seriously, no one on this board is going to accomplish anything good or profitable with any of it ... it's just a 'B@#%h session' since now complaints can't be made about real smoking. There are no clear answers right now .... just clear complainers.:)

 

Nicotine is a drug and it does create a "high." Do you really not know this?

 

As for the FDA, they are not yet fully involved because these companies refuse to submit for testing. Gosh, golly, I wonder why?

[cruisnseas]

I hear you Charles on the 'skeptical' part, but really ... 'addicts getting high'? Wrong substance to 'get high' .... that would be alcohol and other drugs. Name calling isn't nice either. But you're right, the intentions of 'everything' is money ... cruise line decisions included. The FDA hasn't gotten involved yet because as many have mentioned, there are too many variables at this point and lets face it, if they can get involved it's really all about the tax revenue, not anyone's safety. That's what it always comes down to. And for that reason they need to make sure on the regulations. It's a very tricky thing as many have already mentioned. But, seriously, no one on this board is going to accomplish anything good or profitable with any of it ... it's just a 'B@#%h session' since now complaints can't be made about real smoking. There are no clear answers right now .... just clear complainers.:)

 

Seeing your source as being the FDA discredits your post immediately. The tobacco companies keep them well compensated to be sure any and all findings will not affect the real tobacco industry.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

 

Oh wow. Are you kidding? Big Tobacco is behind e-cigs. Follow the money trail.