The ban goes into effect more than a month after the Los Angeles City Council, citing potentially harmful chemicals emitted via e-cigarette vapors, voted to restrict e-cigarette use in the same areas where tobacco smoking is barred.
"Potentially harmful chemicals", huh? Let's see what those might be…
http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/10/ntr.ntt203.short
The study showed that e-cigarettes are a source of secondhand exposure to nicotine but not to combustion toxicants…The average concentration of nicotine resulting from smoking tobacco cigarettes was 10 times higher than from e-cigarettes (31.60 vs. 3.32 µg/m3, respectively).
Dumbassery abounds.
Reshared post from +Eric Rice
LA bans e-cigs indoorss
Los Angeles e-cig ban takes effect
E-cigarettes are now banned in bars, restaurants and other public areas.
You left out the really important bit, which disproves your point of course. " Using an e-cigarette in indoor environments may involuntarily expose nonusers to nicotine but not to toxic tobacco-specific combustion products." The government remains within reasonability and its rights to ban anything that results in involuntary exposure to anything harmful. While the concentration may be 10 times lower than cigarettes that comparison is irrelevant without citing a baseline for harmfulness. Nicotine is a carcinogen in its own right, addictive, and dangerous for certain people with diminished health. There is no argument supporting the public use of this drug when involuntary exposure is possible. Convenient recreational drug use in a public or semipublic space is not a right.
It most certainly is a right; what an absurd statement. It's a public space, restrictions must be justified, not actions. (See: Inherent null default values.)
"Sir, do you have a permit to breathe in this park? Emitting gasses isn't a right, you know. It's a shared space."
e; inb4 unsourced hysteria of second-hand exposure. Who needs actual science when we can ban things preemptively!
Per the CDC.gov website: The information about nicotine as a carcinogen is inconclusive.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750028.html
While this does not answer the question of it causing cancer. Should everything suspected be banned from all shared spaces?
This seem an extream step. Dose makes poision. Thus is insufficient evidence for an outright ban. If stores want to ban using an e-cig in their stores that is their right.
+Michael Baker Would you say that airborne nicotine is more or less hazardous than, say, airborne inorganic arsenic when the exposure level is the same?