N.j. Assembly Committee Approves E-Cigarette Ban

[Christopher]

TRENTON -- Electronic cigarettes look like the real thing. And in New Jersey, lawmakers want to treat them the same way.

That's why the Assembly voted unanimously today to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to people under 19, and prohibit adults from smoking them at work and in public places.

More Here: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/nj_assembly_committee_approves_3.html

[keenan]

Another shot has been fired in our direction ! Batten down the hatches, general quarters !

[GDub]

Hmmm, I'm all for age restrictions, it is a "medical product". We restrict movies, video games, spray paint, etc. so I see no reason why the e-cig shouldn't be restricted from sale to minors. Let's just hope they don't use this as a jump off to pass further legislation that could potentially make the device itself illegal.

[keenan]

Gdub, I PROMISE you, thats exactly where this is headed ! This was a warning shot, to put feelers in the water and get public opinion on where they can lay thier next move. You have to ask yourself, "Why 19 ?" Why not 18, like analogs, or 21, like alcohol ? There is something up thier sleeve here, some alterior motive. I know I sound quite synical here, but its a result of YEARS of watching ridiculous laws get passed that lead to another agenda down the road. I started a topic a couple of weeks ago, where I said NOW is the time to prepare ourselves for the upcoming battle over e cigs.

[BirdDog]

Thanks for the post Chris. Why 19? This is bad and it is going in the wrong direction. I do understand the concern with PVs not being approved by the FDA. The FDA needs to get off their bottoms and make a decision. I do want their decision to go our way.

[TheGreen]

I Googled it and the legal smoking age in NJ as of 2006 is 19 yrs old.

And as for the rest of the proposal, at least they are not asking for a complete ban on eCigs.

[Jeffb]

I'm with Green on this one. If limiting the age to buy e-cigs to the leagal smoking age makes legislators feel like they did something, then maybe they'll be done with us. On second thought maybe they'are just getting started.

[Gazoo]

i agree there needs to be age limits. hopefully thats enough for them

[ddavelarsen]

Age limits yes, but banning from work and public places shows they have not really done their homework. I think keenan's cynicism is well placed.

[nana]

I agree Dave. Homework is the least they should do.

[elem187]

I'm with Green on this one. If limiting the age to buy e-cigs to the leagal smoking age makes legislators feel like they did something, then maybe they'll be done with us. On second thought maybe they'are just getting started.

This is government we are talking about in a very liberal state.... They are just getting started... Running peoples lives is what these clowns are all about.

[NeRo9k]

Dumb, dumb, dumb. The age restriction is good, the rest of it isn't.

[Schizophretard]

Look down at the comments. I found an interesting one,"these degenerate smokers will try everything to get around the smoking ban." Huh? The whole point of smoking bans is second hand smoke. E-cigs don't even have first hand smoke. Also, smoking bans in bars, restaurants, and businesses make no sense. People need to understand the difference between public property and open to the public. Businesses are private property opened to the public. Smoking bans only make sense on public property.

I don't exactly agree with you all about an age limit. I guess I'm okay with it as a compromise and I believe it would be a good idea not to sell e-cigs to minors but what would be the point of an age limit? What would it be protecting children from? Nicotine? Why don't we protect them from caffeine? Which do you think will have a greater negative effect on the health of children, drinking a case of soda a day for fifty years or vaping for fifty years? Or do you honestly believe e-cigs will be a gateway drug to analogs? I don't. That is like giving someone a blu ray player and later on they decide they prefer VHS. Besides if anti-smoking nazis would get out of the way and let the free market do it's thing by the time today's children ,that get a hold of e-cigs and somehow mysteriously move to analogs, wont be smoking analogs for long because e-cigs will replace analogs. It is progress. E-cigs will kill analogs. Anyway, it isn't the governments responsibility to protect children. That is the job of parents.

[keenan]

"Anyway, it isn't the governments responsibility to protect children. That is the job of parents."

WELL, well said, Schizo ! A HUGE problem in this country, IMHO, is the "It takes a village to raise a child" mentality. It DOESNT take a village ! It takes a PARENT. Preferably TWO Parents ! You HAVE to, you MUST ask the questions if you want to solve the problem.

Why are todays youth more violent than the last generation ? - Lack of guidance and leadership. ( Guess the "VILLAGE" didnt show up to help )

Why are todays kids the MOST disrespectful generation to date ? - Lack of MORAL guidance and leadership. ( Again, Village absent )

Too many people are having children with NO regard for the responsibility that comes with the job. Kids are having kids and dumping them on Grandma or ANYBODY they can find, to take over the responsibility.

How does any of this relate to e-cigs ? Its all about evolving laws and legislation. When the founding fathers wrote the second amendment, they couldnt have fathomed the average citizen might be walking around with an AK-47. In 1776 it took about a minute to LOAD a gun. Thats why today, gun control fanatics want to take away your right to own a gun. They cite the archaic value of WHEN the document was written. Well, IMHO, they are TRYING to do the same thing with tobacco, in theory. Its the "If we knew then what we know now" ideology, we must ban EVERYTHING related to the cigarette industry, everything with the word cigarette in its name, everything that rubbed up against a person who knew a dog whos owner smoked. Well, my argument to these people has ALWAYS been, and again, this is JMHO, the Constitution is NOT a list of "instructions". Its a "GUIDE" ! The founding fathers PURPOSELY wrote it to be INTERPRETED by future generations. Thats WHY there are so many gray areas in it. These were not "Joe the plumbers" of thier day. These were wise, articulate, ABOVE AVERAGE intellectuals of thier day. No disrespect to Joe the plumber intended. Thats why I dont buy the argument about the second amendment being written for militia, it doesnt put a FINGER on militia's, it mereley references them, and leaves it kinda vague, ON PURPOSE.

Now, the Founding Fathers did thier jobs for COMPLETELY different reasons than our Representitives of today do. MOST members of the 13 colonies who chose to serve in Congress, DIDNT GET PAID. Many of them used thier own money to finance thier cause. Gen. Washington paid his own troops, when congress wouldnt.

Its not even POSSIBLE to think of Nancy Pelosi saying, "Free Healthcare for EVERYONE, and I will pay for it because I believe in it ! " LOL !!! Todays reps are concerned about THEMSELVES, not the average Joe. If someone had gone to John Adams and said, " I'll give you 10,000 shillings a month, if you STOP this silly revolution", Adams would have spit in his face and said " Good DAY to you, sir". Because he BELIEVED in his cause.

When Big Pharm approaches todays legislators with that kinda proposition, well, I think you know where Im heading with this.

So, the REASON for my rambling on - mainly, I just dont know WHEN to shut up. Also, because I belive, in my opinion, in order to tackle a problem, ANY problem, you MUST start at the beginning, not the middle. How many of you out there, SERIOUSLY, have EVER asked yourself when a problem arose, "Gee, what would Dad have done ?". ( Or Mom ). Well, WHY have we stopped asking " What would Jefferson have done ? . Or Adams. Or Washington. Or Button Gwinnett. Yes, Button Gwinett, one of the signers of the Declaration. How did a guy with a name like that fall through the cracks of history ?

What would THEY say about the tobacco and e-cig issue ? Healthcare ? Taxes ? Food for thought, huh. I have my thories, but tell me yours first. THIS will be interesting.

Edited December 12, 2009 by keenan

[Gazoo]

"Anyway, it isn't the governments responsibility to protect children. That is the job of parents."

WELL, well said, Schizo ! A HUGE problem in this country, IMHO, is the "It takes a village to raise a child" mentality. It DOESNT take a village ! It takes a PARENT. Preferably TWO Parents ! You HAVE to, you MUST ask the questions if you want to solve the problem.

Why are todays youth more violent than the last generation ? - Lack of guidance and leadership. ( Guess the "VILLAGE" didnt show up to help )

Why are todays kids the MOST disrespectful generation to date ? - Lack of MORAL guidance and leadership. ( Again, Village absent )

Too many people are having children with NO regard for the responsibility that comes with the job. Kids are having kids and dumping them on Grandma or ANYBODY they can find, to take over the responsibility.

How does any of this relate to e-cigs ? Its all about evolving laws and legislation. When the founding fathers wrote the second amendment, they couldnt have fathomed the average citizen might be walking around with an AK-47. In 1776 it took about a minute to LOAD a gun. Thats why today, gun control fanatics want to take away your right to own a gun. They cite the archaic value of WHEN the document was written. Well, IMHO, they are TRYING to do the same thing with tobacco, in theory. Its the "If we knew then what we know now" ideology, we must ban EVERYTHING related to the cigarette industry, everything with the word cigarette in its name, everything that rubbed up against a person who knew a dog whos owner smoked. Well, my argument to these people has ALWAYS been, and again, this is JMHO, the Constitution is NOT a list of "instructions". Its a "GUIDE" ! The founding fathers PURPOSELY wrote it to be INTERPRETED by future generations. Thats WHY there are so many gray areas in it. These were not "Joe the plumbers" of thier day. These were wise, articulate, ABOVE AVERAGE intellectuals of thier day. No disrespect to Joe the plumber intended. Thats why I dont buy the argument about the second amendment being written for militia, it doesnt put a FINGER on militia's, it mereley references them, and leaves it kinda vague, ON PURPOSE.

Now, the Founding Fathers did thier jobs for COMPLETELY different reasons than our Representitives of today do. MOST members of the 13 colonies who chose to serve in Congress, DIDNT GET PAID. Many of them used thier own money to finance thier cause. Gen. Washington paid his own troops, when congress wouldnt.

Its not even POSSIBLE to think of Nancy Pelosi saying, "Free Healthcare for EVERYONE, and I will pay for it because I believe in it ! " LOL !!! Todays reps are concerned about THEMSELVES, not the average Joe. If someone had gone to John Adams and said, " I'll give you 10,000 shillings a month, if you STOP this silly revolution", Adams would have spit in his face and said " Good DAY to you, sir". Because he BELIEVED in his cause.

When Big Pharm approaches todays legislators with that kinda proposition, well, I think you know where Im heading with this.

So, the REASON for my rambling on - mainly, I just dont know WHEN to shut up. Also, because I belive, in my opinion, in order to tackle a problem, ANY problem, you MUST start at the beginning, not the middle. How many of you out there, SERIOUSLY, have EVER asked yourself when a problem arose, "Gee, what would Dad have done ?". ( Or Mom ). Well, WHY have we stopped asking " What would Jefferson have done ? . Or Adams. Or Washington. Or Button Gwinnett. Yes, Button Gwinett, one of the signers of the Declaration. How did a guy with a name like that fall through the cracks of history ?

What would THEY say about the tobacco and e-cig issue ? Healthcare ? Taxes ? Food for thought, huh. I have my thories, but tell me yours first. THIS will be interesting.

AMEN..........and let me grab you a soapbox

[Jeffb]

Has anyone heard how the vote went?

[Schizophretard]

keenan,

Since you brought up the Constitution and the founding of this country there is something I want to point out. The Bill of Rights doesn't include all our rights and doesn't put limits on them. The point of the Bill of Rights is to state some of our rights to put LIMITS on the government. If the Bill of Rights contained all our rights then it would be the biggest book in the world. Everyone has an unlimited amount of rights and the only limit to those rights is everyone else's equal rights. For an example, I don't have the right to violate your rights. That is the only limit. Rights are natural and therefore even if the Constitution said that you don't have the right to bear arms you still would and the Constitution would be wrong. Even if you burned the Constitution you would still have the right to bear arms. The Constitution doesn't create rights but states them. So, when it comes to the issue of e-cigs or any other issue I ask myself," Who's rights does this law protect?" If the answer is it protects no one's but violates the rights of someone else then the law is naturally illegal even if it is "legal" on paper. That is why the atrocities committed by the Nazis were illegal even though everything they did was "legal" on paper.

You may find this article interesting:

Today's Anti-Smoking Purge Is Borrowed From The Nazis

[Compenstine]

I understand the point of restricting the sale of E-Cigs to minors. That in my opinion is a no brainier because of the nicotine. Calling E-Cigs a gateway to analogs... That I don't get. To me that is backwards almost like saying we need to restrict the sale of all pop/soda because it is a gateway to drinking mixed drinks.

Nicotine in other plants we consume almost daily in one form or another:

Nicotine concentration was determined in several frequently consumed vegetables from the nightshade family (Solanaceae) (i.e., tomatoes, potatoes, aubergines, and peppers), as well as in some of their processed products.

This means when you get fries in a happy for your kids your feeding them nicotine, oh and add some more when you give them Ketchup.

Propylene Glycol:

If propylene glycol is used in pharmaceuticals applications, strict specifications for quality as laid out in the European Pharmacopoeia, have to be followed. The latest edition of this official document of the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines (EDQM) was published in 2008; it is used in more than 37 countries in Europe. In the US, propylene glycol is listed as GRAS – Generally Recognized as Safe – for use in food and pharmaceuticals in the US-Pharmacopoeia (Ref21CFR), the official FDA (US Food & Drug Administration) document.

Looks like the FDA ignores their own research.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Compenstine