Chicago to treat ecigs as tobacco products

[Luddly Neddite]

Wow. What a completely unimportant non-issue this is.

Why not save your money and your health, as well as the health of those around you, and just suck your thumb?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why not improve the human race and suck your car's muffler?

 

[novasteve]

Wow. What a completely unimportant non-issue this is.

Why not save your money and your health, as well as the health of those around you, and just suck your thumb?

Are you saying ecigs harm other people? I'd think the dry cleaned clothes you wear is far more dangerous to the people around you

 

[Kondor3]

I suspect this is a prelude to taxing the shit out of these things, like they do real butts.

Yes, that seems likely.

Both the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago and its six or eight 'collar counties' all have outrageous sales tax rates, and the combination of Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago City sales taxes have driven so much business and so many consumers out of the City in recent decades that the suburbs (and the nearby border-areas of Indiana and Wisconsin) clap their hands with glee every time the Bright Boys and Girls of the Democratic Machine -controlled Chicago City Council comes up with another thick-headed, myopic brainstorm like taxing this sort of thing. I'm surprised they haven't figured-out a way to tax people who scratch their ass on alternating Wednesdays yet.

 

[Papageorgio]

Wow. What a completely unimportant non-issue this is.

Why not save your money and your health, as well as the health of those around you, and just suck your thumb?

and you found it important enough to comment on it. Interesting.

 

[Pop23]

Wow. What a completely unimportant non-issue this is.

Why not save your money and your health, as well as the health of those around you, and just suck your thumb?

Are you saying ecigs harm other people? I'd think the dry cleaned clothes you wear is far more dangerous to the people around you

Do they even harm the user?

Seems to me that if nannies really gave a damn about health they would buy them for smokers (using tobacco taxes) instead of banning them

Nanny hypocrisy is truly amazing.

That's what you get when you allow children to make policy

 

[Kondor3]

Hmmmmm... if it's a non-issue, then why are the State and the City leaning on this so hard?

I don't know about you, but I know a number of folks who switched-over to these E-Cig things, from real ones, and, in 3 of the 5 cases that come to mind, such folk have been off the 'real' thing for six months or a year or more, and still counting.

Surely, that's worth something... helping hundreds of thousands to quit, and helping thousands of others to use these rather than the real thing, when they're ready to begin (or resume) smoking?

Or so it seems to me at first glance.

 

[novasteve]

This isn't hypocrisy, it's bigotry. They hate smokers and anything that even appears to be smoking even if it helps them quit tobacco

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no harm to the health of anyone around, there's no such thing as dangerous second hand e-smoke. There's no such thing as harm from fog, or the steam rising from a pot of boiling water. This is so ridiculous that it defies even the lunacy that generally comes from the left.

What they are going to have to contend with are people who draw on an e-cig, then put in in their pocket. It's not even called smoking it's vaping. It isn't a cigarette it's a vaporizer.

What opponents object to is not vaping, it's smoking behavior. It could be chewing on a straw for all they care.

 

[boedicca]

The government always seeks to make money by holding the things people WANT and NEED hostage to the tax collector.

 

[Katzndogz]

Hmmmmm... if it's a non-issue, then why are the State and the City leaning on this so hard?

I don't know about you, but I know a number of folks who switched-over to these E-Cig things, from real ones, and, in 3 of the 5 cases that come to mind, such folk have been off the 'real' thing for six months or a year or more, and still counting.

Surely, that's worth something... helping hundreds of thousands to quit, and helping thousands of others to use these rather than the real thing, when they're ready to begin (or resume) smoking?

Or so it seems to me at first glance.

I used to be a heavy smoker. I picked up a vaporizer three years ago and never had another cigarette. I never wanted one either.

Liberals want people to smoke. They just want to be the sole arbiters of what they smoke. They can smoke marijuana and get high, but not vape something harmless.

 

[novasteve]

Nannies: should all forms of smoking secession be heavily taxed and banned from being used in public places too and also in private homes like being dive with tobacco?

 

[Kondor3]

Hmmmmm... if it's a non-issue, then why are the State and the City leaning on this so hard?

I don't know about you, but I know a number of folks who switched-over to these E-Cig things, from real ones, and, in 3 of the 5 cases that come to mind, such folk have been off the 'real' thing for six months or a year or more, and still counting.

Surely, that's worth something... helping hundreds of thousands to quit, and helping thousands of others to use these rather than the real thing, when they're ready to begin (or resume) smoking?

Or so it seems to me at first glance.

I used to be a heavy smoker. I picked up a vaporizer three years ago and never had another cigarette. I never wanted one either.

Liberals want people to smoke. They just want to be the sole arbiters of what they smoke. They can smoke marijuana and get high, but not vape something harmless.

I went cold-turkey (no e-cig or patch, either) 6-1/2 years ago - after pack-a-day Winston 100s for 20 years - and it ain't easy. In retrospect, e-cigs would have helped enormously.

And, I hear what you're saying about Libs OK'ing medical marijuana, but fussing over this kind of pissant minutiae, where it's actually doing far, FAR more good than harm.

Typical misdirected and misplaced nanny-statism.