February 12, 2016

"He did emit smoke from the vaporizer," said DC Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton about the Congressman who vaped during the hearing...

... on the markup of Norton’s amendment to the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act, which would treat vaping on airplanes the same as smoking. 

The vaping Congressman, Duncan Hunter (of California), said: "There’s no smoke in this. No carcinogens. It’s vapor. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment."

The airlines are already forbidding vaping on planes, but it's not illegal. Holmes Norton is pushing to make it illegal on top of the fact that you already can't do it. Because you ought to have it rubbed in how much you can't do it. Or... the airlines need to be blocked from competing by offering different conditions giving customers a choice. As if that's on the horizon. Some airlines might want to distinguish themselves as the flights where you can vape and create the illusion that smoking is going on, as in olden times. Fly the vapored skies of United.

It could happen, so make a law against it before it does.

Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) exemplified the level of thought Congress is putting into its new rule: "I don’t want to sit next to someone making these clouds of vapor. I can imagine the passenger rage. We don’t want people talking on cell phones because it starts fights. We don’t want people vaping because flight attendants have enough to deal with. Duncan is free to wear a patch during the flight."

Follow the DeFazio logic and make a list of everything that people are now free to do that if done on a plane will stress out somebody else, including somebody who's sensitive and gets the facts and the science wrong, because that person might crank up into a rage and cause more trouble for the flight attendants. Make all those things illegal. 

75 comments:

Phil 3:14 said...

Speaking as a physician, I've been disappointed in the level of discussion regarding vaping. I don't favor nicotine addictions but on the other hand this not smoke.

damikesc said...

Is there even a tiny bit of evidence of e-cigarettes negatively impacting anybody?

And using their logoc, children must be banned. They cause headaches on flights, right?

tim in vermont said...

How about comfort dogs that take up two foot wells? Let's make those illegal! Or emotional support turkeys.

"Chickens flying everywhere around the plane! Man we couldn't get much higher!"

Everything old is new again.

Holding My Nose said...

The best way to fly now-a-days is to be anesthetized before the flight and revived at the destination.

Meade said...

Thank you, Tallhouse. What's all this talk about vamping on airplanes? I think we need more vamping and less of that loud rock music. And furthermore...

Curious George said...

Tell you what should be banned. Perfume and cologne. And BO.

Freder Frederson said...

Is there even a tiny bit of evidence of e-cigarettes negatively impacting anybody?

Well there isn't. There has been no research on the effects of e-cigarettes. Althouse's apparent contention that e-cigarette supporters have "facts and science" behind them, simply doesn't hold up. They are certainly safer than conventional cigarettes, but that is an extremely low bar.

Hagar said...

Well, they are Democrats, and
"Everything that is not permitted is forbidden!"

Freder Frederson said...

Althouse apparently wouldn't mind if someone was vaping or talking on a cell phone during one of her classes.

Terry said...

Remember the days when a person, out of politeness, would ask permission to smoke, or move over a seat at the theater or whatever, and the canned response was to say 'it's a free country.' No one does that anymore. I think I know why.

Hagar said...

And Freddie,
Althouse is only contending that you and Eleanor do not have facts and science behind you; she is not laying any claim for the opponents of the proposed statute.

Terry said...

Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Althouse apparently wouldn't mind if someone was vaping or talking on a cell phone during one of her classes.

Because being on an airplane is just like being in a college class.
My God you are a tightass, Frederson.

PB said...

God forbid we allow someone to do something that makes someone else somewhere uncomfortable.

Unless it's "service" animals.

Roy Jacobsen said...

Howsabout we make it illegal for overly sensitive and entitled people to take offense at teensy things, fly into a rage, and start fights?

DougWeber said...

I have always seen the response to vaping as a test of the actual reasons for opposing smoking. If your objection was health, then there is no reason to oppose vaping. If you really wanted to stop people from doing something that you thought was improper and health was just the hook you used, then you will oppose vaping.

Freder Frederson said...

she is not laying any claim for the opponents of the proposed statute.

That is not the way I read it. But I anticipated that response, which is why I said "apparent contention". Althouse is an ace is phrasing things so she can wiggle out of her statements.

Still, the fact remains that there is no evidence either way on whether vaping is unhealthy. When you are talking about nicotine delivery devices, it should be the responsibility of the manufacturer to prove they are safe (rather like FDA approved nicotine patches).

Even if they are safe, the batteries in the devices have been known to catch fire. Not an ideal situation on a plane.

mccullough said...

DC doesn't get a representative in the House or a Senator. Why is Norton allowed into these hearings and under what authority?

Curious George said...

"Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Althouse apparently wouldn't mind if someone was vaping or talking on a cell phone during one of her classes."

The question isn't whether something shouldn't be allowed, it's whether something should be "illegal." All lefties are obtuse morons. And make up the other side's argument so they then can make their own.

PB said...

The argument used to ban cigarette smoking isn't applicable against e-cigarettes, however, the water vapor used to deliver the nicotine is obviously not completely absorbed by the user and water vapor and nicotine escapes to be absorbed (on a much lower concentration) by people nearby.

This brings up the scientific concept known as "the dose makes the poison", and has been ignored in the past by stupid/manipulative people who seek to generate fear by claiming "there is no known safe level of ...". However dilution to lower, tolerated concentrations is the definition of safety as assessed by the medical and environmental community.

Unfortunately this is arguing facts and reason with ideologues. It rarely works.

Todd said...

This would be just another in a large and growing list of reasons for me to avoid flying at every opportunity. I used to fly at least once a month (sometimes 3 or 4). Now I have it down to one or fewer per year and am shooting for zero.

Mike said...

Last week when I flew there was a statement right on the face of ticket warning that hoverboards are verboten. That was done without a law! Go figure.

But I'm curious about that quote from Ms. Norton: "He did emit smoke..."

How exactly can she tell the difference between vapor and smoke? We already know Leftists are so dumb that they use photos of steam rising from towers and call it "pollution" because they think that water vapor is "smoke" in those instances. Now we have the same idiotic phenomenon on the micro scale.

sydney said...

Ugh. If some political candidate told me he would stop regulating the hell out of us, I would vote for him immediately. Even if he was Bernie Sanders.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Since the Professor doesn't fly it seems she has no emotional support dog in this fight.

Curious George said...

"Freder Frederson said...

Even if they are safe, the batteries in the devices have been known to catch fire. Not an ideal situation on a plane."

So have laptops, cell phones, tablets, etc. Anything with a Lithium battery. Safer to have someone use them in the cabin than pack them in their luggage in the cargo hold.

Freder Frederson said...

This would be just another in a large and growing list of reasons for me to avoid flying at every opportunity.

So you are avoiding flying because you can't do something you have never been allowed to do on a plane?

Huh

David Begley said...

"Or... the airlines need to be blocked from competing by offering different conditions giving customers a choice. As if that's on the horizon."

Althouse nails it. All of this lack of competition brought to you by the Obama DOJ that allowed all the consolidation in the airline industry.

The Dems are the true friends of crony capitalism. Especially Hillary.

tim in vermont said...

Althouse is an ace is phrasing things so she can wiggle out of her statements.

Fred knows what Althouse is *really* thinking but that slippery bitch just won't say it!

Roy Jacobsen said...

Howsabout we make it illegal for brain-dead congress critters to pass more dammed laws when the administration isn't enforcing--or even worse, flouting-- the laws already on the books?

tim in vermont said...

So you are avoiding flying because you can't do something you have never been allowed to do on a plane?

Not everyone wants to live in your utopia of endless rules enforced at the point of a gun against stuff that YOU don't think they should be doing anyway. Hard concept, I know.

EDH said...

They should add farting to the bill as one of the things prohibited.

Bobby said...

It's the same old "I don't do it, I don't like it, so I think it should be illegal!" posturing that liberals and conservatives use to advocate for government intervention on whatever particular activity it is they don't like.

They change sides depending on the activity (for example, large sodas versus marijuana, or smoking versus prostitution), but- in America- both liberals and conservatives champion government control of the things they don't like. It's what they do.

I guess we really can't be happy if we know our neighbor is legally doing something we don't personally like.

Terry said...

I think if you wear a patch, the nicotine gets into your blood, gets carried to the lungs in the carbon cycle, and then exhaled to threaten the lives of others, mostly cute children.
I used to know a woman who owned a bar. She smoked. All the people she hired smoked. All of her customers smoked. After the state made it illegal to smoke in bars, I would drive by her place and see the bar empty with her and her customers out on the sidewalk, smoking (it was a small bar). Kind of weakened my respect for our law making apparatus.

Mike said...

I wonder if DC Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton knows that she emits water vapor every time she exhales. Does she think it's smoke when she steps out in cold weather and sees a plume billowing out from her face? Does she think it's second hand smoke or what? The arrogance and stupidity of congresscritters never fails to amaze me. Kudos to Duncan Hunter for taking a stand. Too bad the "party of science" hasn't allowed time for science to tell us exactly what happens during vaping and the level of risk to users and bystanders.

BDNYC said...

Obviously there should be a law against shorts on a plane. That's just a good common sense regulation the American people can support.

Oh and no one can take their shoes off.

Mike said...

sydney: There is a candidate with limiting and rolling back regulations as one of his five major themes. Over-regulation and the enormous administrative bloat are too symptoms of the same disease, statism.

Terry said...

There is no known safe level of socialism.

Bob Ellison said...

Not all vaping liquids contain nicotine. It's really a surprising variety. There's a vaping culture out there that has nothing to do with nicotine addiction. I don't know the numbers, but just browsing stores suggests that vaping has only an overlapping connection to nicotine delivery.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

...but if you want to bring a llama on board for emotional support, by all means feel free.

Ooh, what if my support animal has its own emotional problems and can only be soothed by the warm mists of my vape device?

Or, hey, maybe it's not a vape-r, maybe it's delivering homeopathic meds in very tiny dosages directly to my lungs! Here, I have a note from my doctor (naturopath).

Freder Frederson said...

All of this lack of competition brought to you by the Obama DOJ that allowed all the consolidation in the airline industry.

All this railing against regulation, and you are complaining that the DOJ didn't prevent the consolidation of the airline industry.

Bobby said...

sydney,

"Ugh. If some political candidate told me he would stop regulating the hell out of us, I would vote for him immediately. Even if he was Bernie Sanders."

Because I see an opening, might I suggest you consider Gary Johnson, the anticipated nominee of the Libertarian Party? I know many of the LP positions can be infantile and downright absurd, but we need more moderate and pragmatic libertarians to join the Party so we can adulterate the absurdists and get a libertarian platform that works politically and philosophically. I, for one, would welcome your participation!

Bob Ellison said...

By the way, don't tell your heroin-addicted friends, but syringes are cheap and over-the-counter in almost every state in America.

That used to be a lefty thing: the needle-exchange program. Now nobody needs exchanges. We could ban them, maybe, in the interest of fighting drugs...but that would kill a lot of people. Well, we did that with DDT. I'm just spitballing here; let me know where the balls fall.

Sal said...

We would more likely benefit if Eleanor Holmes Norton learned how to park her car.

Terry said...

This has got to stop. Can't emit vapor. Can't oggle women, even if they are unattractive. Next they will make it illegal to think about having sex with a woman without her permission. I mean, Hell, I can see where they're coming from. Women think about having sex with me all the time, and sure, it bothers me, but what the Hell, it's a free country.
That's what you call tolerance.

Terry said...

Wait a second. Is this the same Eleanor Holmes Norton who thinks we've sent men to Mars? And believes the Iraq war was the most catastrophic war of the 20th century?
That is like disassembling stupid and finding out that every bit of it is made out of more stupid.

Freder Frederson said...

We would more likely benefit if Eleanor Holmes Norton learned how to park her car.

This is the definition of an ad hominem attack.

Ipso Fatso said...

To me there are places to smoke and not to smoke. I was against it when Illinois banned smoking in all bars, restaurants, etc., about 10 years ago. I thought then, and think now, that it should be up to the individual bar owner as to whether his establishment allows smoking or not. That said, I have no problem with banning vaping on air planes. Why? One, it is not very pleasant to be around and two, there is no where to go once someone starts up, especially if it is the guy next to you and you find the haze created obnoxious. Just my thoughts.

Original Mike said...

An observation: I happened to have been in a vaping store yesterday in which two or three people were vaping. It was very "smoky". It may not have been unhealthy, but it was unpleasant. On a plane it would certainly start fights and, perhaps more importantly, there's no way you'd be able to tell if the damn plane were on fire.

pst314 said...

Key question: If the person next to me on the plane is vaping, how much nicotine will I inhale?

Michael K said...

"We would more likely benefit if Eleanor Holmes Norton learned how to park her car.

This is the definition of an ad hominem attack."

Actually, her trying to park fits the definition of an ad hominem attack should someone have the misfortune to walk by. She is an idiot but well placed as the representative from DC.

Original Mike said...

That parking video was priceless.

Hagar said...

How may posts above miss that AA's point is that no airlines permit "vaping" aboard their planes, and that is the reason the arguments for and against are irrelevant, and no legislation is necessary?

Gahrie said...

If they want to avoid passenger rage and make flying easier for flight attendants, then you need to ban babies and small children from airplanes.

I Callahan said...

Althouse apparently wouldn't mind if someone was vaping or talking on a cell phone during one of her classes.

Right, because flying in a plane is exactly like sitting in a classroom.

Charlie Currie said...

The people who see smoke coming out of an E-cig or vape mod are the same people who see air pollution coming out of cooling towers.

Terry said...

I think it would be great fun to smuggle a flight attendant's uniform onto a plane in my carry on, change into it in the bathroom, and then start handing out sodas and peanuts to passengers.
Gosh!
That isn't gay, is it?

I Callahan said...

This is the definition of an ad hominem attack.

You're right, Freder. But like they say on Law & Order, it goes to motive.

The woman is as dumb as a stump. Both examples (not knowing the difference between vaping and smoke, not knowing how to park your own car) are evidence of it.

Fabi said...

A Yale alumna. Yale. Did I mention Yale? They must be so proud.

Fernandinande said...

Roy Jacobsen said...
Howsabout we make it illegal for overly sensitive and entitled people to take offense at teensy things, fly into a rage, and start fights?


Then I'll have to find a new hobby.

Simon said...

mccullough said...
“DC doesn't get a representative in the House or a Senator. Why is Norton allowed into these hearings and under what authority?”

+1. Holmes should have no rights at all in the House; I have no objection to DC having a non-voting observer with speaking rights, but to introduce amendments is a step too far.

On the merits of the proposal, I would observe that it’s nugatory if all airlines currently ban it. On the other hand, if any airline were to take steps to allow it, I would be sympathetic to the proposal. Planes are different; when people are trapped in a steel tube for hours on end, the balance of equities tips in favor of barring externalities. In that situation, and almost uniquely in that situation, the needs of the many override the preferences and desires of the few. Someone upthread asked whether one might not well ban perfume also, and my answer to that is yes: One of my colleagues has a problem that certain perfumes cause his throat to start closing up, which is ordinarily manageable insofar as he can just walk outside the building and get some fresh air. BO was also raised. I would also be perfectly happy with a law that immunized airlines against lawsuits if they refuse admission to people who haven’t showered recently enough. If you can afford an airline ticket, you can afford basic hygiene, and again, the problem is that when people are trapped in a steel tube for hours on end, the balance of equities always favors the needs of the many over the preferences of the few.

Simon said...

DougWeber said...
"I have always seen the response to vaping as a test of the actual reasons for opposing smoking. If your objection was health, then there is no reason to oppose vaping. If you really wanted to stop people from doing something that you thought was improper and health was just the hook you used, then you will oppose vaping."

It's important to note that the proposal here is not to ban vaping, but to ban vaping in a specific and idiosyncratic context. I am very skeptical of bans on vaping or smoking or vaping, precisely because if I don't like it, that's on me to go somewhere else. I am sympathetic to bans in contexts where people can't walk away (planes) or shouldn't reasonably be expected to walk away (e.g. barmaids).

I don't favor the government banning sex, but I certainly don't want people inconveniencing me by having sex on flights that I'm on, and if airlines choose to allow it, I want the government to ban it.

Roger Sweeny said...

Vaping is bullying.
Bullying should be prohibited.
Therefore, vaping should be prohibited.

Q.E.D.

Sigivald said...

DeFazio is an authoritarian jerk, unsurprisingly.

(I'm from Oregon - I'm used to the State's Reps and Senators being authoritarian jerks.

Because that's what gets votes in Portland and Eugene.)

Michael Edward McNeil said...

Reason.com: “Study confirms that e-cigarettes generate virtually no toxins”:

“A new study of leading American and British brands, reported in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, confirms this point, finding that the levels of potentially problematic substances in e-cigarette aerosol are about the same as those detected in ambient air.” (bold emphasis added)

That's for the smoke er… vape-or that the vape-er draws directly into his or her lungs, not what those sitting next to them might experience at second-hand — which would be… about the same as the ambient air. Duh.

Obviously, the proper action is to ban it!

Smilin' Jack said...

If you blow "vapor" in my face, can I throw a glass of water in yours? After all, water is just liquefied vapor, there's no health risk, so I don't see why it should be banned just because some fuddy-duddys don't like it.

Meade said...

If you blow "vapor" in my face, can I throw a glass of water in yours?

Yes. Please feel free.

vanderleun said...

Smilin'Jack sez:"If you blow "vapor" in my face, can I throw a glass of water in yours? After all, water is just liquefied vapor, there's no health risk, "

Please put put your brain back in your skull lest we all find out your last name is "Ass," Jack.

averagejoe said...

Democrat party members banning what they don't agree with and what they don't understand because...Science! Coercion!! Tyranny!!!

Steven said...

there's no way you'd be able to tell if the damn plane were on fire.

Except for the fact that smoke smells like something burning, while vapor smells like water. It's only an issue if you have anosmia, and if you do, the people around you probably don't.

The only actual issue with vaporizers is the attitude of the pugnaciously ignorant who want to start fights over them. But the law already has a solution for that; you take the pugnaciously ignorant and put them in prison for assault.

Rusty said...

"Honestly, officer, had I known my health stood in jepardy I woud have never lit one."
A Nells Angel member responding to a policeman ordering him to extinguish his marijuana cigarette.


That's what we need , though. Wa need more laws and regulations directing us how to live our lives because, damnit, we keep doing things we want to do. Can't have that.
Vote democrat in the next election.
Thank you.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I know. Who needs visible aisles to walk down in an enclosed box in the sky traveling 500 mph when they're already less than 3 feet wide. And who needs to limit the use of ignitable devices at that altitude in a compressed box in the sky.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I don't favor the government banning sex...

Whew! What a relief! Judging by the avatar pic, I wasn't sure.

Jim Marven said...

What is the best temperature to set for a vaporizer?
vaporizer

James Brown said...

Nice idea, and all the information about the accessories which are really fantastic such a very great blog.
marijuana vaporizers

Hristo Yanev said...

Hi guys,
Thank you so much for this wonderful article really!
If someone want to know more about the vapor king I think this is the right place for you!

Hristo Yanev said...

Hi guys,
Thank you so much for this wonderful article really!
If someone want to know more about the vaporizer I think this is the right place for you!