eCig on Airline?

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,510
Location
Middle of nowhere Texas
Display Name
Everything Offends Me
Home Airfield
KLUD
I know its legal, but of course, it is up to the crew's discretion for all electronic devices.

What do most of you think about using an eCig on an airplane? If you were crew, would it bother you?

For those that don't know, an eCig is a water atomizer that delivers nicotine to the user, but the exhale is only water vapor, without odor.

I ordered my eCig today, and am curious how it will work in the long run.
 
I've never seen one of those in person, just on the TV ads. Maybe more important than what the crew thinks is what will the screeners do as you go through security?

Why not just use nicotine gum?
 
I think you will likely get a mix of FAs who either 1) know what it is and say ok, 2) Don't know what it is, listen to your explanation, and say ok, 3) Don't know what it is, listen to your explanation, and say fuggedaboutit, and 4) View it as a clear threat without waiting for explanation.

Given the sensitivity over both smoking and weird stuff in aircraft cabins, I think you'll get more negative than positive.

I'd suggest a quick confab with the chief purser when you board.
 
Last edited:
10 Feb 2010

the following airlines have policies against e cigarettes:
  • Continental: “The use of electronic, simulated smoking materials (cigarettes, pipes, cigars) is prohibited on Continental Airlines”
  • American: “Devices that are not allowed to be activated at any time are those, including e-cigarettes….”
  • Southwest: People report seeing ecigarettes are prohibited in the onboard literature
  • Air Canada: “Electronic cigarettes (or ‘e-cigarettes’), provided they remain stowed and unused in your carry-on baggage.”
Click to expand...
 
SkyHog said:
That's really dumb. There is no affect on anyone else, and not even a smell (unless you get the vanilla or cherry scented ones). This is like a ban on chewing gum.

At least one can take an ecig into the lav and no one would know. Sigh.
Click to expand...

I bet if they renamed them iCigs you wouldn't have any problems. Everybody would have one. :D
 
First I heard of eCigs. Are they for stopping smoking or are they a more neighbor-friendly substitute for cigarettes?
 
AuntPeggy said:
First I heard of eCigs. Are they for stopping smoking or are they a more neighbor-friendly substitute for cigarettes?
Click to expand...

Yes and Yes. Its basically a nicotine inhaler that curbs the mental craving for smoking as well as the chemical need. It delivers nicotine from a cigarette like device that lets you exhale water vapor.

Everyone I know that's tried them seems to love them. You begin to purge your body of all the nasty effects of cigarettes the same way you would by quitting, but you're still getting the nicotine, which helps keep the pain of quitting down.

You're still addicted to nicotine, which is the downside, but then quitting the nicotine is just a matter of quitting the habit without dealing with all the side effects of coughing and purging your system at the same time. Supposedly, it makes quitting much easier to separate the two steps.

Plus the added benefit is no second hand smoke, no nasty smell, and you can smoke it anywhere (including airports all the way up to the plane, apparently).

The ban of these devices is nothing more than a control issue by the non-smoker elite.

A demo:
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
Yes and Yes. Its basically a nicotine inhaler that curbs the mental craving for smoking as well as the chemical need. It delivers nicotine from a cigarette like device that lets you exhale water vapor.

Everyone I know that's tried them seems to love them. You begin to purge your body of all the nasty effects of cigarettes the same way you would by quitting, but you're still getting the nicotine, which helps keep the pain of quitting down.

You're still addicted to nicotine, which is the downside, but then quitting the nicotine is just a matter of quitting the habit without dealing with all the side effects of coughing and purging your system at the same time. Supposedly, it makes quitting much easier to separate the two steps.

Plus the added benefit is no second hand smoke, no nasty smell, and you can smoke it anywhere (including airports all the way up to the plane, apparently).

The ban of these devices is nothing more than a control issue by the non-smoker elite.
Click to expand...

Can you also taper down the dosage of nicotine? Then you'd have 3 steps: 1) Stopping the smoke, 2) Taper off the nicotine, while maintaining the "habitual" part of smoking (picking up a cigarette at the times you do so), finally 3) Quitting entirely.

Never been a smoker, but also not an anti-smoker, curious about how they work is all.
 
JeffDG said:
Can you also taper down the dosage of nicotine? Then you'd have 3 steps: 1) Stopping the smoke, 2) Taper off the nicotine, while maintaining the "habitual" part of smoking (picking up a cigarette at the times you do so), finally 3) Quitting entirely.

Never been a smoker, but also not an anti-smoker, curious about how they work is all.
Click to expand...

My understanding is yes, but I'm not positive. If not, that is a really good idea for them to implement. There are strengths as far as regular, light, ultralight, etc, so I would assume they step down the nicotine, but I don't know for certain.
 
Saw one of the guys at the MINI event this past week with one that looked to be pretty classy, not cheesy looking like the one in that video. He'd slip it out of his pocket, intake, then slip it back into his pocket. No fuss, no muss. Took me a moment to even realize what it was.

Looking into it, it looks like the eCigs have heating elements, could that be one of the reasons for a ban?
 
wbarnhill said:
Looking into it, it looks like the eCigs have heating elements, could that be one of the reasons for a ban?
Click to expand...

It's just like any other electronic device...up to the operator to test and certify that they don't interfere with onboard navigation or communications equipment before permitting them when operating under IFR.
 
ScottM said:
The bigger issues are related to taxes. New York and I think New Jersey have passed legislation to ban them in order to keep taxes flowing in from tobacco sales.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...Thank God we have our benevolent government ready to protect its citizens from the unspeakable evil of not paying enough taxes.
 
SkyHog said:
There are strengths as far as regular, light, ultralight, etc, so I would assume they step down the nicotine, but I don't know for certain.
Click to expand...
Yep. I smoked my last cigarette a week ago Friday.
The way I figure, I'm breaking a substance dependency, a physical habitual and patterned behavior, and a psychological habit.

First, I immediately used to flavored liquid (lemon, strawberry, and mint) to get away from the cigarette flavor. When I broke down and borrowed a cigarette, it tasted like cr@p, so there's part of the physical habit getting broken.

I started with high-nicotine-strength liquid, and have tapered to the lowest strength liquid. The next drop is to no nicotine, scheduled for then end of this week. That's the end of the substance dependency.

Once that's done, the physical patterned behavior is next. I already find that I am performing the physical act of smoking less and less. The patterned behavior is not that strong without the physical dependency driving it. So that's declining.

The psychological habit it also weakening. The ecigarette is not quite as satisfying as a real cig, and requires a little more work. Couple that with the fact that with cigarettes, you have to light a smoke and then tend to smoke the whole thing. With the ecig, I can pull it out and have 2 or 3 puffs to satiate the craving, and put it back in my pocket.

So, the three elements are broken apart and addressed separately. I will have no nicotine in a week, and expect to be completely done after three weeks or so. After 18 years of smoking a pack a day.
 
Best wishes to you, Alan. Sounds like a good plan.

Nick, if you are thinking of quitting again, you have my best wishes with you, too.

Now that I know of it, maybe I'll mention them to my son.
 
ScottM said:
If they don't get the $$$$ from the smokers then they will come after the non-smoker. :mad3:
Click to expand...

Then feel free to go after the gambler. Lotteries are a tax on people who aren't good at math.
 
I'm not surprised that they're banned on those airlines mentioned (and probably more). One, most people don't know what those eCigs are and they would rightly be concerned about second-hand exposure. Second, and more importantly, having someone smoke next to you - even if the end result is just water vapor - is annoying. I would imagine it makes disease transmission a bit easier, too.
 
JeffDG said:
Then feel free to go after the gambler. Lotteries are a tax on people who aren't good at math.
Click to expand...
They already do that around here, well indirectly. They go after the gambling institution or just sell lotto tickets to the public. Lotto tickets are a direct tax that people volunteer to pay.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Best wishes to you, Alan. Sounds like a good plan.

Nick, if you are thinking of quitting again, you have my best wishes with you, too.

Now that I know of it, maybe I'll mention them to my son.
Click to expand...

Thanks Peggy. I have it double tough because I spend the entire day around cigarettes....here's hoping!
 
SkyHog said:
Are you insinuating that smokers should be on the hook for a bigger bite of the tax bill?
Click to expand...
I don't think I was insinuating that at all. I was stating fact. Just like any other 'sin' tax those that participate will pay more.

Do I think it right is an entirely different matter. Smoking is not the only sin tax, there is drinking alcohol, which I do, gambling, which I don't do, and expensive performance cars, which I have. So I do pay some sin tax, but the quetion remains is it right to have these regressive taxes in the first place? I don't have that answer, but if the son tax on tobacco is removed what will the bureaucrats add in the way of a sin tax to make up for the lost revenues? Will it be something that I already am enjoying? I hope not.
 
ScottM said:
I don't think I was insinuating that at all. I was stating fact. Just like any other 'sin' tax those that participate will pay more.

Do I think it right is an entirely different matter. Smoking is not the only sin tax, there is drinking alcohol, which I do, gambling, which I don't do, and expensive performance cars, which I have. So I do pay some sin tax, but the quetion remains is it right to have these regressive taxes in the first place? I don't have that answer, but if the son tax on tobacco is removed what will the bureaucrats add in the way of a sin tax to make up for the lost revenues? Will it be something that I already am enjoying? I hope not.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that everytime the sin tax is upped on tobacco, less people use it. That means, eventually, its going to have to come from somewhere anyway. The best thing Americans can do to save their own tax dollars is start lobbying to stop tobacco tax increases, IMHO.

I'm sure getting tired of hearing about a dollar here and a dollar there.
 
SkyHog said:
Don't forget that everytime the sin tax is upped on tobacco, less people use it. That means, eventually, its going to have to come from somewhere anyway. The best thing Americans can do to save their own tax dollars is start lobbying to stop tobacco tax increases, IMHO.

I'm sure getting tired of hearing about a dollar here and a dollar there.
Click to expand...
Completely agree, and that is what is so funny about the eCig bans. The gubmint can't figure out how to make money on it, so they ban it to keep people smoking.
 
SkyHog said:
Don't forget that everytime the sin tax is upped on tobacco, less people use it.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the point of a sin tax, to discourage a particular behavior.

That means, eventually, its going to have to come from somewhere anyway.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily the case. Smoking related illnesses cost taxpayers money via Medicare and Medicaid costs. Eliminate the smoking, then those costs diminish.
 
ScottM said:
Completely agree, and that is what is so funny about the eCig bans. The gubmint can't figure out how to make money on it, so they ban it to keep people smoking.
Click to expand...
I thought it was the individual airlines that were banning eCigs, not the government.
 
sba55 said:
Second, and more importantly, having someone smoke next to you - even if the end result is just water vapor - is annoying.
Click to expand...

??

I'm a non-smoker, and I've never actually seen an e-cig, but I can't imagine sitting next to someone with an e-cig would be "annoying". If it's really just water vapor that immediately disappears, what's to be annoyed about?
 
Jay Honeck said:
??

I'm a non-smoker, and I've never actually seen an e-cig, but I can't imagine sitting next to someone with an e-cig would be "annoying". If it's really just water vapor that immediately disappears, what's to be annoyed about?
Click to expand...

Don't you understand? This is the world of "I have to control others."

Water vapor is dangerous! It causes drowning, quenching of thirst, and when heated, skin burns!
 
SkyHog said:
Don't you understand? This is the world of "I have to control others."

Water vapor is dangerous! It causes drowning, quenching of thirst, and when heated, skin burns!
Click to expand...

Alternatively, it can be argued that this is the world of, "Me, me, me, and the need to feed my nicotine addiction, any time, anywhere, without regard to others."
 
Trapper John said:
Alternatively, it can be argued that this is the world of, "Me, me, me, and the need to feed my nicotine addiction, any time, anywhere, without regard to others."
Click to expand...

Would water vapor be a "disregard to others" in this case?
 
RMCN172RG said:
Only if someone else gets wet. Then it's a squirt GUN. Which is like any other GUN a terrorist weapon. So off to jail you go.:D
Click to expand...

LOL! Indeed.

I would guess most people using this would blow the mist upwards away from others, as that is the natural way to exhale smoke from a cigarette. It dissipates so quickly that I'm not sure you'd even get wet if someone did blow it directly in your face.

Although, if they did, I think you'd be justified in punching them in the mouth.
 
ScottM said:
They already do that around here, well indirectly. They go after the gambling institution or just sell lotto tickets to the public. Lotto tickets are a direct tax that people volunteer to pay.
Click to expand...

I'm down with that kind of tax. Tax the stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top