If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Should the FAA Allow Electronic Cigarettes in the Sky?
Here's an interesting article;
http://www.nowpublic.com/health/shou...cigarettes-sky Should the FAA Allow Electronic Cigarettes in the Sky? Recently, I came across a post in which a corporate blogger addressed the question of what might happen to a person who tried to "light up" an electronic cigarette, cigar or pipe while aboard a commercial airliner as a passenger. As the spouse of a flight attendant, I found the topic intriguing. In case you're not familiar with electronic cigarettes, here's a primer: They provide smokers with a tobacco-free, smoke-free and flame-free way to satisfy their nicotine cravings and are billed as alternatives to traditional cigarettes. While I won't yet recommend anyone attempt to use an electronic cigarette product while aboard a passenger airliner, I think the question is relevant for several reasons: a.. Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco, tars or other harmful ingredients; a.. Electronic cigarettes do not generate any smoke (Instead, they emit only a harmless vapor that simulates smoke yet satisfies the nicotine urges and cravings); a.. Electronic cigarettes hold the potential to transform traditionally smoke-filled environments (i.e., casinos, bowling alleys, pool halls, bars and restaurants) into smoke-free environments that can be enjoyed by smokers and non-smokers alike; and, perhaps best of all a.. Electronic cigarettes leave none of the residue and odors that accompany traditional cigarettes on clothing and other surfaces. On the flip side, one must consider the issue from the viewpoint of airline flight crew members. Not unlike most members of the general public, most crew members - in particular, the flight attendants - are unfamiliar with electronic cigarettes and the fact that they rely upon rechargeable batteries, instead of a flame, to function. Each is taught -- and required by the FAA -- to react in such a way as to ensure no one aboard their aircraft uses anything remotely resembling a smoking device. The primary reason for banning smoking aboard aircraft, as spelled out in the most-pertinent FAA regulation on the topic, is "to reduce the possibility of fire." Because electronic cigarettes do not require any sort of flame to operate, they seem to have put the cigarettes-constitute-a-fire-hazard argument to rest. What do you think? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Should the FAA Allow Electronic Cigarettes in the Sky?
Jim Davis writes:
The primary reason for banning smoking aboard aircraft, as spelled out in the most-pertinent FAA regulation on the topic, is "to reduce the possibility of fire." Because electronic cigarettes do not require any sort of flame to operate, they seem to have put the cigarettes-constitute-a-fire-hazard argument to rest. What do you think? When injecting heroin and snorting cocaine become acceptable, then electronic cigarettes may become acceptable, too. If you allow one addict to satisfy his craving on board, logically you should allow them all to do so, just to be fair. None of these addictions presents a hazard to the aircraft or other passengers. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Should the FAA Allow Electronic Cigarettes in the Sky?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Jim Davis writes: The primary reason for banning smoking aboard aircraft, as spelled out in the most-pertinent FAA regulation on the topic, is "to reduce the possibility of fire." Because electronic cigarettes do not require any sort of flame to operate, they seem to have put the cigarettes-constitute-a-fire-hazard argument to rest. What do you think? When injecting heroin and snorting cocaine become acceptable, then electronic cigarettes may become acceptable, too. You're view is slightly flawed. The first two items are illegal. The third is not. If you allow one addict to satisfy his craving on board, logically you should allow them all to do so, just to be fair. They are allowing addicts to satisfy their craving for Alcohol as we speak. None of these addictions presents a hazard to the aircraft or other passengers. Correct. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Should the FAA Allow Electronic Cigarettes in the Sky?
Here is a link to a transcript of a letter one manager of an
electronic cigarette company received from an official at the TSA with regards to a query as to whether electronic cigarettes would be considered a prohibited item with regards to aviation security: http://www.e-cignews.com/items/TSA_t...as _a_prohibi In short, the TSA do not consider the electronic cigarette a prohibited item. Jim Davis wrote: Here's an interesting article; http://www.nowpublic.com/health/shou...cigarettes-sky Should the FAA Allow Electronic Cigarettes in the Sky? Recently, I came across a post in which a corporate blogger addressed the question of what might happen to a person who tried to "light up" an electronic cigarette, cigar or pipe while aboard a commercial airliner as a passenger. As the spouse of a flight attendant, I found the topic intriguing. In case you're not familiar with electronic cigarettes, here's a primer: They provide smokers with a tobacco-free, smoke-free and flame-free way to satisfy their nicotine cravings and are billed as alternatives to traditional cigarettes. While I won't yet recommend anyone attempt to use an electronic cigarette product while aboard a passenger airliner, I think the question is relevant for several reasons: a.. Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco, tars or other harmful ingredients; a.. Electronic cigarettes do not generate any smoke (Instead, they emit only a harmless vapor that simulates smoke yet satisfies the nicotine urges and cravings); a.. Electronic cigarettes hold the potential to transform traditionally smoke-filled environments (i.e., casinos, bowling alleys, pool halls, bars and restaurants) into smoke-free environments that can be enjoyed by smokers and non-smokers alike; and, perhaps best of all a.. Electronic cigarettes leave none of the residue and odors that accompany traditional cigarettes on clothing and other surfaces. On the flip side, one must consider the issue from the viewpoint of airline flight crew members. Not unlike most members of the general public, most crew members - in particular, the flight attendants - are unfamiliar with electronic cigarettes and the fact that they rely upon rechargeable batteries, instead of a flame, to function. Each is taught -- and required by the FAA -- to react in such a way as to ensure no one aboard their aircraft uses anything remotely resembling a smoking device. The primary reason for banning smoking aboard aircraft, as spelled out in the most-pertinent FAA regulation on the topic, is "to reduce the possibility of fire." Because electronic cigarettes do not require any sort of flame to operate, they seem to have put the cigarettes-constitute-a-fire-hazard argument to rest. What do you think? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Should the FAA Allow Electronic Cigarettes in the Sky?
"Jim Davis" wrote in message m... Here's an interesting article; http://www.nowpublic.com/health/shou...cigarettes-sky In case you're not familiar with electronic cigarettes, here's a primer: They provide smokers with a tobacco-free, smoke-free and flame-free way to satisfy their nicotine cravings and are billed as alternatives to traditional cigarettes. That's not a "primer", it's a promotion. It does not tell us what these things actually are, it just touts their supposed benefits. While I won't yet recommend anyone attempt to use an electronic cigarette product while aboard a passenger airliner, I think the question is relevant for several reasons: a.. Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco, tars or other harmful ingredients; a.. Electronic cigarettes do not generate any smoke (Instead, they emit only a harmless vapor that simulates smoke yet satisfies the nicotine urges and cravings); a.. Electronic cigarettes hold the potential to transform traditionally smoke-filled environments (i.e., casinos, bowling alleys, pool halls, bars and restaurants) into smoke-free environments that can be enjoyed by smokers and non-smokers alike; and, perhaps best of all a.. Electronic cigarettes leave none of the residue and odors that accompany traditional cigarettes on clothing and other surfaces. This tells us what they allegedly are NOT, but still doesn't explain what they actually ARE. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Should the FAA Allow Electronic Cigarettes in the Sky?
I don't recall when/where, but I recall seeing something on TV about
those cigarettes and it was controversial. For one thing, airlines can't control what liquid you put in there. And there was some angle about iconvenience to others, perhaps because it was soe of the mist generated by the units not absorved by the addict. (for instance when putting the cigarette in the ashtray because you need both hands). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Should the FAA Allow Electronic Cigarettes in the Sky?
"John Doe" wrote in message ... I don't recall when/where, but I recall seeing something on TV about those cigarettes and it was controversial. For one thing, airlines can't control what liquid you put in there. And there was some angle about iconvenience to others, perhaps because it was soe of the mist generated by the units not absorved by the addict. (for instance when putting the cigarette in the ashtray because you need both hands). Here's what I found about it. http://www.e-cig.org/about/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Should the FAA Allow Electronic Cigarettes in the Sky?
Jim Davis wrote:
Here's what I found about it. http://www.e-cig.org/about/ Since the product in question is, in reality, neither electronic nor a cigarette, I can't possibly imagine any reason for continuing this thread further. Bob M. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Should the FAA Allow Electronic Cigarettes in the Sky?
"Bob Myers" wrote in message ... Jim Davis wrote: Here's what I found about it. http://www.e-cig.org/about/ Since the product in question is, in reality, neither electronic nor a cigarette, I can't possibly imagine any reason for continuing this thread further. Bob M. I read the article, thought it might be interesting for discussion, and posted it. This was just an effort to get something going since it's been so slow here. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
coffe and cigarettes - why? | Olga | Europe | 8 | July 11th, 2005 02:48 PM |
Cigarettes in China | nobody@nowhere | Asia | 11 | March 5th, 2005 10:22 PM |
BUYING CIGARETTES ON HAL | Mike Cordelli | Cruises | 6 | October 12th, 2004 04:33 AM |
Cigarettes | T | Cruises | 21 | April 4th, 2004 10:53 PM |
Cigarettes | Dick Goldhaber | Cruises | 0 | April 3rd, 2004 08:28 PM |