Quantcast

Comments about ‘House panel forwards ban on hookah, e-cigarettes’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 9 2012 5:41 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
harleyrider1778
washington, pa

1925

Deseret News, a Mormon publication, signaled partial surrender by endorsing a pending revision of the laws to allow cigarette sales to adults and reduce greatly the restrictions on public smoking. The amendment bill streaked through the legislature and was signed by a no doubt relieved Governor Mabey. Charges against Bamberger and his partners in crime were dropped. The Utah crusade was over.

The Utah anticigarette law was the last of its kind; although North Dakota and Kansas kept theirs until 1925 and 1927, respectively, they were never seriously enforced, Utah having demonstrated that strict enforcement caused more problems than no enforcement at all. There were periodic calls for the abolition of cigarettes and smoking by the WCTU, the Non-Smokers League, and others, but they never amounted to much; by the mid-1920âs legislative action against smoking by adults had been thoroughly discredited...

SubGothius
Tucson, AZ

> Teresa Garrett, of the Utah Department of Health, said regulations would clear up confusion about e-cigarettes. "Businesses don't know if they can exclude them or not," she said. "This bill helps clarify that."

What she means is, businesses don't know if e-cigs are included in the indoor smoking ban, so this bill explicitly includes the in the ban. Without such an explicit inclusion, businesses are free to choose whether to ban or allow them, however they wish. "Clarifying" that legal status is not a good enough reason to explicitly include e-cigs in a ban. The real question should be, for what compelling reason of demonstrable public health risk and harm should e-cigs be explicitly included in a ban at all? The answer is: None. No medically compelling reason whatsoever.

The burden of proof is on regulators to demonstrate the harm that demands their intervention. It's simply not reasonable to presume that everything is dangerous until proven safe, that every act must be forbidden unless specifically permitted. I think a lot of these legislators and regulators are just average folks acting out of sheer ignorance and perhaps misinformed pressure from special-interests (the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries, which both stand to gain financially if e-cigs are banned).

With millions of people using e-cigs worldwide over the last several years, if they posed any significant health risk whatsoever to users or the public at large, at least some indication of that conjectured harm would have become apparent by now, and it simply hasn't. While critics may claim it hasn't been proven safe or that it's "unknown", it hasn't been proven harmful,. either. There hasn't been one iota of evidence that it even might be harmful to the actual users of e-cigs, let alone to secondhand bystanders. What there has been is evidence that millions of smokers were finally able to quit using tobacco because of e-cigs, after nothing else had enabled them to successfully quit for good.

The ingredients of the "e-liquid" vaporized by e-cigs are no secret: 0.5-3.6% pure nicotine in a base liquid comprised of propylene glycol (PG) and/or vegetable glycerin (VG), plus minuscule amounts of food-grade flavoring. The effects of inhaled PG and VG are well-studied and known -- considered GRAS (generally recognized as safe) by the FDA and used in asthma inhalers and theatrical/nightclub fog machines -- and nicotine alone (without the tar, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter of actual tobacco smoke) is a mild stimulant comparable to caffeine and medically well-studied with little risk to health in typical usage, so what conceivable risk is left to be concerned about? The answer again is: None. No indication, let alone conclusive evidence, of risk or harm whatsoever resulting from e-cig use is known or even speculated to exist in the medical literature.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: harleyrider1778 | 6:44 p.m. Feb. 9, 2012

Three of the men seen in The Marlboro Man ad campaigns, Wayne McLaren, David McLean and Dick Hammer, all died of lung cancer, thus earning Marlboro cigarettes, specifically Marlboro Reds, the nickname "Cowboy killers.

There's nothing smart or cool about smoking. It's is just an impractical way to burn up money.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

In Utah a pack of cigarettes cost around $7 a pack. The two-pack a day man is going to spend around $5,000 a year on his habit. Better him than me.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments