King County considers ban on electronic cigarettes

moga409 said on December 17, 2010 at 8:27 AM

smokers and drinkers go to the next county to buy boycot king county. plan a trip to oregon lot cheper boycot king county

doug276614834154 said on December 16, 2010 at 4:33 PM

You are missing the point. If you use an e-cigarette while at a bar and drinking you may get electrocuted. I can see KC position. Don't we have more important things to worry about. Come on KC! If this is all the Health Dept has to do I think I know where some of the budget cuts need to be...and it is not the Sheriff's Department!

rob9805683794874 said on December 16, 2010 at 12:49 AM

I'm a non-smoker, but come on!?!? Are we really going to ban something that does NOT produce second-hand smoke!? Are we really going to ban the electronic cigarettes just for the he|_ |_ of it!?? What are they going to ban next?!?!?! Caffeine!??? No more soft drinks and no more coffee? I shouldn't say that. I don't want to give them any ideas. *sigh!*

runner693 said on December 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM

You few reasonable people in KC are in a hopeless situation. You can all leave for one of the other 38 counties. And then when only the foolish, self-absorbed, lib twits remain there, the rest of us could vote to secede and let KC become the 51st, State of King County. Washington State would be a hellofa lot better off. But, slim chance of that happening, so you're stuck.The twits need us in the 38, to have someone to order around and tax. We feel your pain, but since few of the rest of us go there anymore, we just can't quite reach you..............drop us a line if you ever recover any of your freedom.

vocalek said on December 15, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Saying "Electronic cigarettes are a popular way to get around Washington's smoking ban" is like saying drinking root beer is a popular way to evade rules against drinking alcoholic beverages. " An electronic cigarette user is not smoking. Smoking requires smoke, and smoke requires fire. Nothing is burned in an electronic cigarette. Numerous labs have tested the vapor and have found that no toxicants that could present a danger to the health of bystanders. The products can be used with zero nicotine, but even the high dose cartridges present no danger to bystanders, as the nicotine dose and particle size are too small to ensure deposition in the alveoli or bronchioles, according to researchers.

demarkocj said on December 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM

How can anyone argue it's not FAIR? One effects everyone around the user, one effects no one but the user. Frankly, an electronic device that effects NO ONE shouldn't even be ban-able. At least, not in a free country.

jinxedagain said on December 15, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Part of the push for this is by actual smokers. They are saying it isn't fair that these can be lit up and real cigs cannot.

demarkocj said on December 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM

I strongly urge them NOT to vote for this! If people have to "go outside anyway" they will smoke regular cigarettes, or have no motivation to make the switch - which was a strong motivation for me back in July and I haven't smoked a regular (analog) cigarette since.

dede1978 said on December 15, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Now that I've thought about it, I really think they want to ban them so people continue to smoke the real thing and they can continue to collect that high tax they put in place earlier this year. What fools, banning something that is harmless and good for our health in the long run.... As I said earlier, bunch of fools over there at the Dept of Health.

farrar01 said on December 15, 2010 at 1:48 PM

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. I smoked 1 to 2 packs of real cigarettes a day for 35 years. I started using the E cigarettes in Feb 2010 just to substitute some of the real ones since we have been taxed to the hilt on them. After a few weeks of using them, I realized that I had not smoked a real cigarette in almost a week. Since then I have smoked 1 real cigarette. It was so nasty tasting I decided that I didn't want to smoke anymore. I slowly reduced the nicotine dosage in my e cigarette to the point that it is nearly nothing (You can control what you are getting). I now just use my e cigarette as a substitute when I get a really bad craving to smoke or when I want to smoke recreationally (i.e. At home in my ez chair.). With all the press about getting people to quit smoking that government has dished out, one would think that they would have better sense than this. Really, what grounds do they have to ban the use of these things? They only produce water vapor.

lrepko said on December 15, 2010 at 10:51 AM

This is poorly considered policy without benefit of cost/benefit analysis, consideration of evidence or unintended consequences. Using the Board of Health's rationale alcoholic drinks should be banned without delay. Why don't we just confiscate all children to keep in gov't run dormatories, so that their every move can be monitored and corrected as needed? "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis

dede1978 said on December 15, 2010 at 9:27 AM

I agree with all on this one. And if KC really took a poll I think they'd find that the reason most people are using the ecigarettes is to quick smoking. What kind of fools do we have running the health department????

collegeguy said on December 15, 2010 at 8:58 AM

freedomfrank, hey, get a clue... these people in the Dept of Health are not voted in you moron. These idiots worked their way up by giving people like you a BJ.

tugthug said on December 15, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Wow! another lack luster brainier moment!

freedomfrank said on December 15, 2010 at 6:48 AM

LMAO,,, this is the government YOU people voted in. What in Hogan goat gives them the right to ban anything like this? This is exactly what happens when over paid idiots get to make the rules.

blankingout said on December 15, 2010 at 1:54 AM

King County is anti-efag?

collegeguy said on December 15, 2010 at 1:03 AM

My wifes used these very successfully to help her quit smoking. The KC Dept of Health have no clue as to what they are doing if they ban these e-cigs. They are a valuable tool for smokers to quit. There is NO tobacco at all in them and they only give off water vapor. Besides, it is hella easy to tell the difference considering the e-cigs light up (red or blue typically but depends on brand) whenever someone takes a drag off of them. To ban them would be an assinine move, with the biggest a**es belonging to the Dept of Health.

vikki10 said on December 15, 2010 at 12:32 AM

Oh My God! I have finally not smoked for 5 months, thanks to electronic cigarettes. Now they will outlaw them.!!? Who can I contact about this? Thank you, Vikki Lutes

lilredcv said on December 14, 2010 at 11:33 PM

Wasting taxpayers hard earned dollars yet again. There are already laws on the books regarding smoking and eCigs are NOT smoking! Even I, a non-smoker, know the difference!!

ramac7716 said on December 14, 2010 at 10:47 PM

what the goverment needs is a law that if you do anything we don't like you go to jail would that make them happy

emansnas said on December 14, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Such a ban would have nothing to do with public health and everything to do with pandering to anti-tobacco zealots. Here we see a prime example of abuse of power. The 'reasoning' used is so obviously corrupt that even a liberal court would be embarrassed to uphold such a law.

shadowe said on December 14, 2010 at 10:33 PM

The ignorance of the "Health Officials" in this clip and story, is amazing! As one who uses both eCigs and regular cigarettes, I can tell you that most people can see without a doubt that an eCig is NOT a regular cigarette if they look. What grounds do these "Health Officials" claim as the reason for banning eCigs? Second hand smoke? There is NONE. Use by minors? Perhaps minors do use eCigs, but the reality is that they are not sold to minors by responsible retailers, any more than alcohol is sold to those under legal drinking age. I think that these "Health Officials" need to do a LOT more research before attempting to ban eCigs. Considering there are no valid reasons to ban them, I wouldn't be surprised to see law suits against the officials instituting the ban of eCigs popping up all over the place.

dj98908 said on December 14, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Big brother is everywhere...

speedkills said on December 14, 2010 at 8:45 PM

How about they just enforce the actual no smoking law when those others do light up and leave those with the electronic ones alone. They should focus on educating people about the electronic ones and not punish them for finding a way to stick with their vice without causing harm to others.