E-cigarettes

A New York City Smokers' Group Suing to End E-Cigarette Ban in Restaurants and Bars

|

On Tuesday the New York City based smokers' group Citizens Lobying Against Smoker Harassment filed a lawsuit against the ban on e-cigarettes in restaurants and bars. 

For more on this topic watch the Reason TV short titled Thank You for Vaping: Libertarian vs. New York City's E-Cig Ban, originally relased on May 2, 2014. 

Original text below the video.

"[E-cigarettes] are just as important for public health as childhood vaccines, antibiotics, sewer treatment, and water treatment," says anti-smoking activist Bill Godshall of Smokefree Pennsylvania. "And [it's] one of the craziest situations because the public health authorities [want to] ban them."

On April 28, 2014, Reason, the Museum of Sex, and Henley Vaporium co-hosted a party to celebrate how e-cigarettes are saving lives—and to flout a ridiculous new law in New York that bans their use in many public places. (More on that in a moment.)

Vaping at the Museum of Sex ||| Credit: Anthony Collins
Credit: Anthony Collins

E-cigarettes, which are battery-powered devices that replace carcinogenic smoke with water vapor, have proven to be remarkably effective at helping habitual smokers quit tobacco cigarettes. While we don't know yet if e-cigarettes has any long-term adverse health consequences, it's highly unlikely that they're as dangerous as regular smokes.

"[S]imple common sense would tell us that inhaling their ingredients, as compared to inhaling the thousands of chemicals from tobacco combustion (the smoke), is highly likely to be less harmful," writesDr. Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health.

And yet federal regulators are determined to severely limit the use of e-cigarettes. In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to block their sale altogether, but a federal judge intervened. On April 24, 2014, the FDA proposed regulations that would require e-cigarettes manufacturers to obtain 

Ex-Smoker Amier Carmel ||| Credit: Anthony Collins
Credit: Anthony Collins

the agency's approval for each of their products, a process that Ross estimates could cost over a million dollars and would likely drive the small players (which currently dominate the industry) out of business. This would dramatically curtail the variety of e-cigarettes products on the market, thus limiting the options of smokers looking for an alternative to regular cigarettes.

New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, along with other cities, states, and counties have passed laws banning the use of e-cigarettes in offices, bars, parks, and other public places. These laws make little sense, argues Ross, because "there are no toxins in so-called second-hand vapor." E-cigarettes generally emit no odor, and the vapor they give off rapidly dissipates.

At the stroke of midnight on the evening of the Reason event, the New York City e-cigarettes ban took effect, giving attendees an opportunity to openly flout the law.

Click here to read Jacob Sullum's take on the FDA proposed regulations.

Click here for more photos of the event.

About 3:15.

Shot, produced, and edited by Jim Epstein. Photos by Anthony Collins.

Advertisement

NEXT: Robert F. Graboyes Explains How Innovation is Key to Health Care Reform

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. On April 24, 2014, the FDA proposed regulations that would require e-cigarettes manufacturers to obtain agency’s approval for each of their products, a process that Ross estimates could cost over a million dollars and would likely drive the small players (which currently dominate the industry) out of business. This would dramatically curtail the variety of e-cigarettes products on the market, thus limiting the options of smokers looking for an alternative to regular cigarettes.

    Show me a regulation that doesn’t drive out small players and limit consumer options. I mean, that’s the entire purpose of regulation, isn’t it?

      1. Huh. All I get is SugarFree.

  2. As we have been told recently, regulations only drive Abortion Clinics out of business. Other types of businesses are immune to the adverse effects of regulations.

    1. You don’t understand. Utopia is regulated. That is why it is Utopia. If a citizen of Utopia can imagine something that is bad, it is not Utopia if he cannot get it outlawed.

      Well, except abortion.

  3. It appears NYC has a collective case of The Vapers…..

    1. It appears that it does. http://vimeo.com/36726110

  4. I don’t smoke cigarettes (never havem just the very occasional cigar), but I keep a pack around to wear in my folded up left T-shirt sleeve for when the revolution comes. That’s a signal to NOT shoot me first, and will give me a few moments to shred and burn my advanced degree diplomas and MENSA membership portfolio.

    1. but I keep a pack around to wear in my folded up left T-shirt sleeve for when the revolution comes.

      Stylish allies, I like that. Also, I’ll probably want to bum one off you when the SHTF.

    2. +1 Matt Dillon?

  5. New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, along with other cities, states, and counties have passed laws banning the use of e-cigarettes in offices, bars, parks, and other public places.

    If we allow these totems of the evil spirits of our ancestors, they will steal our souls and cause the Bog Woo to erupt, killing us all!

    1. If the totem-hold was never a pro wrestling move, I now nominate it as a spiritually degenerative and hostility inducing one, preferably performed by a clownish Native American that Vince McMahon has somehow scripted as evil and offensive.

  6. Feministing is the most hilarious website of all time.

    It is physically and emotionally draining to be called upon to prove that these systems of power exist. For many of us, just struggling against them is enough ? now you want us to break them down for you? Imagine having weights tied to your feet and a gag around your mouth, and then being asked to explain why you think you are at an unfair disadvantage.

    How dare you ask me to prove that the things I’m saying are true? Being a woman is exactly like being tied up with weights attached to your feet.

    1. Also:

      Juliana should get a gold star for every time she refrained from saying “go f*ck yourself” to Elliot Rodger apologists.

      There are Elliot Rodger apologists? Where?

      1. There are Elliot Rodger apologists? Where?

        Pointing out facts about his crime makes you an apologist.

        1. I’m curious as to what you’re referring to, exactly. Aside from a couple psychos on Reddit, I haven’t seen anyone who I’d consider anything close to a Rodger apologist, so I’m wondering what exactly they’re defining as an “apologist.”

          1. If you point out that Rodger killed more men than women, that makes you an apologist for his sexism.

            Similarly, if you point out that he killed half of them with a knife, you’re an apologist for the gun lobby.

            1. ^What Irish said.

              I mean, there’s a perfectly good example of a mass shooter who targeted women. I wonder why left wing feminists don’t bring up Marc L?pine more often?

              1. Clearly, Rodger didn’t exclusively target women, but it is pretty clear that his misogyny was the main source of the anger that led him to do what he did. Obviously, saying he killed more men than women to dispute the narrative that he just targeted women isn’t being a Rodger apologist, however.

                1. but it is pretty clear that his misogyny was the main source of the anger that led him to do what he did

                  No, he was just a loon. The whole “pin an ideology on the nutjob” dance that partisan hacks indulge in following every single one of these shootings is nearly as tiresome as the inevitable push for gun control the leftwing partisan hacks try out.

                  1. No, he was just a loon.

                    Can’t he be a misogynist loon?

                    Also i think “murderous” should be put in there to describe him.

                    One can be a loon without gunning random people down.

                    1. Right but what I’m saying is that a loon might fixate on an ideology, or on the fluoridation of water, or on any number of random things.

                      The existence of Elliot Rodgers does not invalidate any criticism of feminism, just as the existence of Adolf Hitler doesn’t mean vegetarianism is evil.

                    2. You some kind of vegetarian-apologist?

                    3. Wouldn’t a true misogynist NOT WANT women to pay attention to him?

          2. so I’m wondering what exactly they’re defining as an “apologist.”

            She says so pretty early in the article:

            “someone insisting that I consider the idea that Elliot Rodger could have been a madman and an anomaly, not at all a product of a white supremacist and misogynistic society.”

            1. Note: I think of this like fear of shark attacks.

              If sharks were really going after people to eat no one would ever visit the beach ever and no one would surf and reading about fishermen who fell out of boats and got killed by sharks would be a daily occurrence.

              Ditto if Elliot Rodger’s was not a madman and an anomaly. If he was the norm there would be no women, let alone women with masters degrees in gender studies crying on some blog about how hard it is to be a woman and feminist, and our species would go extinct.

            2. The Asian kid was the product of a white supremacist society? Holy shit that’s some derp.

    2. Here’s a tip:

      If it’s too tiring for you to explain why something is unjust, maybe your problem isn’t injustice – maybe it’s that you’re a lazy sack of shit with no internal resources to draw on.

      If you don’t have the energy to explain to me why it would be unjust for me to not give you a position that requires exertion and responsibility…you should probably just go make me a fucking sandwich instead.

      1. Whatever. You’re just a fucking Devil’s advocate. Let feministing explain why that’s wrong:

        However, you know that these beliefs are unpopular, largely because they make you sound selfish and privileged, so you blame them on the “devil.” Here’s the thing: the devil doesn’t need any more advocates. He’s got plenty of power without you helping him.

        Yeah, asshole. The devil doesn’t need your help!

      2. I had a really good friend from high school who is a couple years older than me. I was also good friends with his sister who is a couple years younger than me. Politically both of them were independent with some libertarian leanings. They were really sharp, fun people to hang around but were horribly lazy. He was still struggling to finish his college degree well after I graduated. To this day both him and his sister have not graduated and seem to be in a constant state of moving as their life circumstances change and starting up at a new local university, never actually graduating. Neither have any decent life skills that can translate into a decent career and have been working nothing but bullshit jobs as they are pushing into their thirties. And has time has worn on, they both morphed into hardcore progs who blame everyone but themselves for their life situation. At the heart of every progressive is a lazy, lazy, intellectual.

        1. At the heart of every progressive is a lazy, lazy, pseudo-intellectual.

        2. I actually disagree. The work ethic required to be an Ivy League-esque educational progressive is astounding. I don’t think they’re lazy. Their temperament is authoritarian and coercive. I just wouldn’t chalk up the ridiculous hard work that goes into acquiring intellectual sanction and accomplishments as lazy in any form, shape, nor manner. That’s just the way they are.

          1. Those incredibly well educated progs are a very small proportion of the movement though. They’re actually a small proportion even of college educated leftists.

            The majority of leftists in this country are either uneducated or have suspect credentials. There’s just a small cadre of technocrats that lead them around and write up the talking points.

            The primary bases of the Democratic party, after all, are the largely uneducated areas of the inner cities and places with lots of very poorly educated Hispanic immigrants. It’s the same in Britain where the labor party is run by well heeled progs but most of their voters come from the worst educated parts of society.

            It also takes no effort whatsoever to get a gender studies or hack sociology degree, which incidentally is the route taken by an awful lot of the most vocal progressives.

            1. Fair point. I’m just used to being friends with not-so-fellow traveling really smart progressives.

              Such is my punishment. But the technocracy, as pointed out the other day in reason — damn, they work. And work hard. And have ruled the last eight years, IMO, because they worked harder, faster, smarter, etc.

              I’m lazy, I’ll admit. They’re not.

            2. I don’t think a degree in underwater scalp care with a minor theoretical basket-weaving qualifies one as educated.

              Graduate =/= educated.

          2. They are lazy, in many ways. They are prepared to expend massive amounts of energy on their own pet peeves, but disinclined to do anything that involves actually dealing with facts and figures. Especially facts and figures that might impede their programs.

      1. Walter Russell Mead has done some excellent work on the fuck ups of Obama’s foreign policy.

        I especially love this part:

        If Obama were a Republican, the press and the weekly news shows would be ringing with hyperbolic, apocalyptic denunciations of the clueless incumbent who had failed to learn the most basic lessons of Iraq. Indeed, the MSM right now would be howling that Obama was stupider than Bush. Bush, our Journolist friends would now be saying ad nauseam, at least had the excuse that he didn’t know what happens when you overthrow a paranoid, genocidal, economically incompetent Arab tyrant in an artificial post-colonial state. But Obama did?or, the press would nastily say, he would have done if he’d been doing his job instead of hitting the golf course or yakking it up with his glitzy pals at late night bull sessions. The ad hominem attacks would never stop, and all the tangled threads of incompetence and failure would be endlessly and expertly picked at in long New Yorker articles, NYT thumbsuckers, and chin-strokings on all the Sabbath gasbag shows.

        1. WRM is a guy who’s usually very careful – too careful – in his criticism and this is a harsh judgment.

          1. Weird to have read that at Insta.

            I keep waiting for McArdle to blow her gasket about the IRS at Bloomberg, but a very cautious personality and her employer are probably aligning against that.

          2. I love the hit he throws at Samantha Powers too.

            Luckily for America’s self-esteem, it was liberal Democrats that produced this particular shambles. If Republicans had done this, the media would be on the administration non-stop, perhaps comparing Samantha Power to Paul Wolfowitz?a well-meaning humanitarian way over her head who wrecked a country out of misguided ideology.

            Samantha Powers is one of the biggest morons to ever have a position of authority in a presidential administration. She is staggeringly incompetent.

        2. I am wondering how the American people hate Obama so much now.

          I just read a CNN poll that voters now wish they voted for Romney.

          Obama is so bad in people’s minds that they would prefer friggin Romney?!?!

          The media really is giving Obama a huge pass and has for the past 6 years. So where are people getting the hate from?

          Fox news? I thought they just report on crimes and Ebola outbreaks now….maybe that is it. Fox stopped criticizing Obama and that somehow made it OK to stop loving Mr Hope.

          1. The media has an impact, in that they can hide a lot of his miserable failures such as Libya, but when someone consistently fucks up for 6 years there’s just no way for the media to serve as gate keeper.

            People see food and housing prices rising with no attendant increase in their salaries and no amount of media apologetics will convince them to ignore their eyes and their pocketbooks.

            1. It’s quite likely that we’ll official be in or near recession come Wednesday – the day initial 2Q GDP is released.

              Reality is catching up with both the media and Obama.

              1. Ewww. Not sure what I’m going to do about that….

        3. Russell Mead cheered on the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last few decades, so I’m afraid his credibility is questionable.

          1. So your argument is that the Libya policy has been a success?

            You are such a cunt. Every time I start to think that some of your posts indicate that maybe you have a couple of non-cunt chromosomes, you run right back in and prove to me that you’re a disingenuous cunt of the highest order.

            Russell Mead’s credibility or lack thereof is utterly irrelevant.

            There are only two questions that are relevant here:

            1. Has the Obama Libya policy succeeded, or failed?

            2. If it has failed, is its failure being widely covered in the press, or has everything having to do with Libya disappeared from not only the front page but the front fifteen pages?

            Nothing else is important.

            1. Mead criticizing a leader on foreign policy is like Jon Gruber criticizing a leader on health care policy. Obama’s foreign policy is far from good, but he’s yet to make a blunder of the size of that Mead cheered on in Iraq.

          2. What blunder was that?

      2. That photo is going to cause some pants shitting. Is that Ben Gurion Airport?

  7. So did I imagine commenting on this thread earlier? I must have also imagined the comment I was replying to.

    1. Were the comments from back in May?

      1. Couple hours ago maybe?

        1. Not sure. They recycle the posts on weekends, and somebody suggested yesterday that they wipe the old comments. Not sure if that was done, though.

  8. And to top it all off, even Democratic voting vapers know that Democrats are the primary drivers of every single ban and regulation attempt in the country from the local level all the way up to the FDA.

    Elect people who swear to uphold and expand the regulatory state, and it will bite you in the ass.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..-on-vaping

    The big problem is that even some of the biggest players in the harm reduction business (Carl Phillips is the head of research and education for CASAA, the largest electronic smoking advocate in the US) have faith in politicians even further to the left than your average regulation-happy Democrat.

    What they don’t get is that to regulate is at the core of current Democratic political philosophy. It’s their main prescription to virtually every social problem they encounter. To get them to not regulate is to try and remove the stripes from a tiger. They’re looking for saviors, though I have read that more than a few D voting vapers plan to both try and primary out anti-vaping Democrats in favor of those less hostile to vaping, and if that doesn’t work to actually vote Republican (though I won’t hold my breath on that). For many, vaping is a deeply personal issue, and it seems many are willing to make a go at single-issue voting.

    1. Link to Dr. Philllps’ plea to Fauxcahontas . . .

      http://ep-ology.com/2014/07/12…..th-warren/

    2. Hopefully this goes fully prismatic schismatic.

      I’d love to see proggies go full-on violent with each other over this.

    3. ” Democrats are the primary drivers of every single ban and regulation attempt in the country from the local level all the way up to the FDA.”

      Not totally correct

      http://sfata.org/utah-governor…..ic-places/

      1. Bush 2 was no piker in the regulatory department as well

  9. Blast from the past:

    There is always a tendency to underestimate Barack Obama. We are inclined in the news media to hyperventilate over every political or policy setback, no matter how silly or insignificant, while Mr. Obama has shown again and again that he takes a longer view.

    (Snip)

    Mr. Obama is like a championship chess player, always several moves ahead of friend and foe alike. He’s smart, deft, elegant and subtle. While Lindsey Graham was behaving like a 6-year-old on the Senate floor and Pete Sessions was studying passages in his Taliban handbook, Mr. Obama and his aides were assessing what’s achievable in terms of stimulus legislation and how best to get there.

    I wonder if Bob Herbert has reevaluated this claim in the intervening years.

    1. Obama is the Toppest of Men! Then, now always!

      1. now, always

  10. “And [it’s] one of the craziest situations because the public health authorities [want to] ban them.”

    Crazy? No. Entirely predictable.

    A lot of power an money is based in the negative health effects of tobacco. An alternative that takes the health effects away, takes the power away. Of course they’re going to fight that. That’s what they do – they fight for power.

  11. I think regulators tend to have hyper developed tendencies or capacities for analogizing and atrophied tendencies of distinguishing. So with each innovative product they tend to say ‘oh, it’s basically a version of X and should be so licensed’ rather than saying. ‘This is different in a way that makes other regulatory rationales inapplicable,’

    1. I might believe that, except that they’re distinguishing while analogizing. The vaporizer is a device for sniffing perfume, so why don’t they analogize it to scented candles & aromatherapy?

      It’s going to be really bizarre if it gets to the point that vaping becomes illegal unless the vape fluid contains hash oil or other cannabis product, but present trends seem to point to that end.

  12. My reservoirs (tanks) keep cracking.

  13. Our gov’t is SUPPOSED to be created BY the people , FOR the people. So why do people need the gov’ts permission to decide how we treat our own bodies ? The people know better what’s good for them than the gov’t does, esp. when it comes to Marijuana, drugs,e-cigs to name a few. If the people voice their opinion loud enough, shouldn’t the gov’t listen ? No, the gov’t has to act like our mother instead and say “No, you can’t do that “, which I think, is wrong.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.