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?

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.

"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.

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?

"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.

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).

"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/

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.

"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.