backtop


Print 50 comment(s) - last by mikestack.. on Dec 30 at 12:52 AM

Once Mayor Bloomberg signs the measure, it would take about four months for it to go into effect

Smokers in New York City who thought they could get away with using e-cigarettes in public places will have to rethink their strategy as the city plans to ban those as well.

According to ABC News, NYC City Council voted to expand the smoking ban to include e-cigarettes yesterday by 43-8. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is expected to sign the measure. 

The city has two main issues with e-cigarettes: there isn't enough proof that they're safe for smokers (as well as those breathing it in around them), and NYC doesn't want to lose the progress it's made with banning tobacco cigarettes. 

It's also confusing to owners of restaurants and other public places, who know that tobacco cigarettes are banned but aren't quite sure where e-cigarettes fall in the discussion.

E-cigarettes emit vapors when tobacco-free smoke heats up a chemical solution. This allows smokers to receive nicotine without bothering those around them with smoke and tobacco smells. 


While scientists say that tobacco cigarette smokers who switch to e-cigarettes are lowering their health risk significantly, the e-cigarette devices aren't regulated and there's no evidence that they're safe. 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said it plans to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products, but hasn't set any rules quite yet. 

E-cigarette manufacturers -- as you might've guessed -- aren't onboard with NYC's decision. They say e-cigarettes aren't "gateway" drugs to using tobacco cigarettes, and that banning them before any scientific proof is presented does the public a "disservice."

They also didn't think e-cigarettes should be banned just because they look and act like real tobacco cigarettes.

"That's like saying we shouldn't be able to sell water because it looks like vodka," said Miguel Martin, president of e-cigarette brand Logic.

Once Mayor Bloomberg signs the measure, it would take about four months for it to go into effect. 

Source: ABC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Confused
By Keeir on 12/20/2013 4:52:22 PM , Rating: 2
I thought public smoking ban was to protect people who choose not to use tobacco products from the unhealthy effects of tobacco smoke. Not to protect the actual smokers. These would be discouraged by way of high taxes, which would then be used to subsized higher medical care/etc.

Should be pretty simple test. Does the electronic kind's vapor contain cancer causing agents in a higher concentration that typical new york city supplied water fumes? If yes, then ban, if no, then not ban.




RE: Confused
By JediJeb on 12/20/13, Rating: -1
RE: Confused
By kleinma on 12/20/2013 5:52:37 PM , Rating: 5
yeah, because people go out to eat at a restaurant and smoke crack and meth...

Aside from the fact that typically those 2 drugs are strong appetite suppressants that make you not eat, the vapor concentrations of exhaled fumes would be so tiny that even taking a shotgun hit from someone would likely have minimal to no effect.

I also love the idea that we should consider anything a problem if there is a remote possibility of it happening. Someone might take that steak knife at the restaurant and stab someone with it. That is a problem. Better ban steak knives from restaurants.


RE: Confused
By lagomorpha on 12/20/2013 6:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Someone might take that steak knife at the restaurant and stab someone with it. That is a problem. Better ban steak knives from restaurants.


Don't give them ideas. If Dianne Feinstein or Michael Bloomberg heard that they would probably consider drafting legislation.


RE: Confused
By superstition on 12/20/2013 6:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
Feinstein has no interest in any of those "nanny state" regulations. She's just a representative for various large corporate interests (military industrial complex).


RE: Confused
By bsd228 on 12/20/2013 6:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Feinstein has no interest in any of those "nanny state" regulations.


You may be unaware of how she became mayor of San Francisco.

She certainly is interested in nanny state regulations, second only to Schumer in the Senate.


RE: Confused
By Schrag4 on 12/20/2013 7:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Feinstein has no interest in any of those "nanny state" regulations.


Not sure if serious.

When I think "nanny state," Feinstein comes to mind right after Bloomberg.


RE: Confused
By lagomorpha on 12/20/2013 6:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
smoking crack and meth. Imagine the second hand vapor problems you would get if that was happening at the table


Meth and crack smokers aren't really known for having much of an appetite. And even if they did decide they could actually get food down (doubtful), eating out at a restaurant just isn't something that would come to mind (less money for meth/crack).

quote:
but there would be the possibility of it happening.


There is a greater possibility of a Christmas tree falling over and killing someone somewhere but that doesn't mean we should ban something others enjoy just because there is a tiny chance someone might be harmed.


RE: Confused
By Arsynic on 12/23/2013 11:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a greater possibility of a Christmas tree falling over and killing someone somewhere but that doesn't mean we should ban something others enjoy just because there is a tiny chance someone might be harmed.


You don't understand how politics work. None of this matters. All that matters is that the politician has something to hang his hat on when he runs for the next highest office.

To a politician, nothing is better than a bill with their name attached to it.


RE: Confused
By KCjoker on 12/20/2013 6:50:08 PM , Rating: 3
Better ban cars then because people have been known to use them to run people over on purpose. Where does it end? You could ban millions of products based on your ignorant logic that it could be used for something bad. Thinking such as yours is exactly what is wrong with this country...well one of our many problems.


RE: Confused
By jimbojimbo on 12/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: Confused
By FaaR on 12/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: Confused
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2013 2:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The moment I have to breathe it is when it's personal and I should have the ability to protect myself in whatever means I can.


I love you people who think you own the air outside and all public domain.

By this logic you should be able to prevent me from driving my car. Aren't I polluting your air when I do?

Grow a set of balls. An e-cigarette smoker is in no way impacting you or your health at all. At all!

quote:
I'm all for allowing people to do whatever they want


LMAO! Right, good one.


RE: Confused
By lagomorpha on 12/22/2013 4:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By this logic you should be able to prevent me from driving my car. Aren't I polluting your air when I do?


I don't disagree with your main idea but that is kind of a bad example. They already legislate how much pollution your car is allowed to produce.

Hey, wait a second - by that analogy low-emission e-cigarettes should be allowed in public areas.


RE: Confused
By Rukkian on 12/23/2013 11:20:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Grow a set of balls. An e-cigarette smoker is in no way impacting you or your health at all. At all!


If there were proof of that, it may be fine, but at this point, there is no proof one way or another. I know in my case, I ride a vanpool for work, and smoking is prohibited, but one of the riders decided to switch to e-cigs cause he thought he could do it on the bus. Several people around him (me included) were gagging and coughing whenever he would exhale, so we asked him to stop (which he did).

I don't work in a bar, or restaurant, but definitely appreciate not having to smell/inhale smoke when I go to one. If somebody wants to smoke (tobacco, crack, metch, etc)at their own house, in private, I have no problem with that. Forcing others to join in (through second hand smoke, vapors, etc) is not right imo.


RE: Confused
By Reclaimer77 on 12/24/2013 11:13:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Several people around him (me included) were gagging and coughing whenever he would exhale, so we asked him to stop (which he did).


I'm not a smoker but I love when non-smokers pretend they're going into respiratory failure anytime a smoker is near. Loud boisterous fake coughs and other antics directed at the smoker. I mean come on, stop being a drama queen.

There is no way an e-cigarette can cause you to "gag" and cough from second-hand exposure. Maybe if you were sitting directly next to him, even then, doubtful.

quote:
I don't work in a bar, or restaurant, but definitely appreciate not having to smell/inhale smoke when I go to one.


It's not smoke, it's water vapor. You're literally exposed to more chemical content from someone passing gas than e-cig vapor.

quote:
If there were proof of that, it may be fine, but at this point, there is no proof one way or another.


I just gave you proof. Look them up for yourself. The exposure rates for second-hand "vaping" are so low as to be negligible. You literally breath in several magnitudes more toxins and pollutants every day from the air, than what you find in e-cigarette vapor.

It's a social stigma. You and others like you just don't like smoking and smokers. But don't pretend it's some health risk to you or effects you. It's all in your head.


RE: Confused
By Jeffk464 on 12/20/2013 5:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, its so non smokers aren't bothered by people smoking. I have to say their is nothing worse than setting down to a nice meal in a restaurant and smelling tobacco smoke. But of course this vapor doesn't seem to have an odor and the occasional exposure to it surely isn't going to have much of a health impact. You are also absolutely right that the air pollution you breath in any major city has to be a much higher health risk.


RE: Confused
By FaaR on 12/22/2013 7:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
If you work in a bar or a restaurant, being constantly exposed to levels of nicotine is definitely going to impact your health.

Also, saying X toxin isn't (much of) a risk because there's lots of other toxins around is a logical fallacy. That reasoning just doesn't make sense. Instead, toxins actually tend to become MORE toxic the more of them you ingest, so the worst possible thing you can do to yourself is to smoke while living in a big, polluted city.


RE: Confused
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2013 9:22:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you work in a bar or a restaurant, being constantly exposed to levels of nicotine is definitely going to impact your health.


Wrong.

As with any "toxin", a certain amount has to be accumulated in the body before any measurable effect can be had.

The amounts these studies are showing are so negligible, it's not even funny. You get more nicotine exposure eating vegetables than you would ever get from second hand 'vaping. The study says exposure can be anywhere from .83-6.23 ug/m3. Now, that means this "second hand vapor" is delivering 0.00083-0.00623 mg of nicotine. Only a little more than a half oz of pureed tomatoes will give you the same dose.

In other words, yes, just breathing city air or eating food is several magnitudes worst for you than second hand e-vapor. You guys just want to ban stuff based on arbitrary gut emotions and bias against smokers, no real abject facts or reasoning.

You say definitely, but so far the best the FDA and other agencies can do is say they "may" pose a risk. Which is to say the don't know, but they want to keep being your nanny and dissuade anyone from getting a buzz of any kind or having fun.


RE: Confused
By espaghetti on 12/22/2013 10:59:40 AM , Rating: 3
Same group of geniuses that dreamed up prohibition.
There are times that I believe progressives muddle with silly laws that seem to control our behavior because the first 10 Amendments tell them what they can't do TO us.


RE: Confused
By Reclaimer77 on 12/22/2013 2:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty much what they're all about: telling other people what they can do and how they should live.

They make up public health concerns to cloak their disdain of people who do and think differently than they do.


RE: Confused
By sgw2n5 on 12/23/2013 3:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
The sad thing is that I am convinced that you actually do believe this.

You must be a product of home-schooling.


RE: Confused
By Spuke on 12/23/2013 3:56:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The sad thing is that I am convinced that you actually do believe this.
Left wingers generally think "people" are stupid and need to be "led". Give those people some power and, yes, they'll "lead". You must be home schooled if you think that being told what to do and how to do it is ALWAYS good for you.


RE: Confused
By lagomorpha on 12/20/2013 6:04:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I thought public smoking ban was to protect people who choose not to use tobacco products from the unhealthy effects of tobacco smoke.


Yes, and Bloomberg's ban on fountain drinks over 16 ounces was to prevent second hand sodaings.


RE: Confused
By sgestwicki on 12/21/2013 11:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
That is awesome. Best comment of the day.


RE: Confused
By Rukkian on 12/23/2013 11:25:02 AM , Rating: 2
That was a ridiculous law in and of itself. IMO, the government had no right to get involved in that, as it did not effect others.


RE: Confused
By marvdmartian on 12/23/2013 9:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
There's a lot of different manufacturers of e-cigs out there, and according to a friend who "vapes", many of them are just cheap garbage. Some are even prone to be unsafe, and burn up (which I can't imagine is too healthy for anyone around when that happens!).

Definitely, if the Food & Drug folks aren't going to step in and regulate the industry, then the consumer safety folks ought to. At least, if you put some minimum requirements for construction of the e-cig into effect, like the Underwriter Labs do for electrical devices, then you're less likely to see unsafe products on the market.

But to call an e-cig a gateway drug is just foolishness on the part of the NY City Council, and shows how little they understand reality. Trust me, if a kid wants cigarettes, they're going to find a way to get their hands on them. I'd rather see them get their hands on a safe e-cig, myself.


RE: Confused
By NellyFromMA on 12/23/2013 6:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While scientists say that tobacco cigarette smokers who switch to e-cigarettes are lowering their health risk significantly, the e-cigarette devices aren't regulated and there's no evidence that they're safe.


There's no proof that driving vehicles is safe. There is proof that riding a bike is safer, though.

There's no proof that eating is safe, actually. Although you can choose food that's safer.

There's no proof that living is safe, really.

Just saying. Why ban a product that is PROVEN to HELP smoking cessation. Oh, because it isn't a pharmaceutical and it doesn't come with a guarantee of absolute safety.

Neither does fuel. Half of the materials in your home. Probably many of the components in the air you breathe every day.

This is just one of the many things where someone is simply legislating a vendetta for a special interest group that has lost its cause instead of actually helping the broader interests of the community at large.

I have been smoking an e-cig for 1 month and think I'll likely stop once my fluid runs out. Haven't smoked a cig since I started. It works because its EASY, clearly SAFER, and CONVENIENT.

Isn't that point? To get people to quit smoking tobacco? Clearly not.


Don't get up.
By charleski on 12/20/2013 4:54:39 PM , Rating: 3
There's no evidence that getting out of bed is safe.




RE: Don't get up.
By Flunk on 12/20/2013 4:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
Newsflash, there is evidence that staying in bed isn't safe either!


RE: Don't get up.
By MrBlastman on 12/20/2013 4:59:41 PM , Rating: 4
It isn't safe to elect these nincompoops to office, either.


Bloomberg Nanny state
By Ammohunt on 12/20/2013 5:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
Whats next a ban on farting in public(SBD's)?




RE: Bloomberg Nanny state
By geekman1024 on 12/20/2013 6:15:45 PM , Rating: 3
Up next is Oxygen ban -- it helps pyromaniacs burning down the city.


RE: Bloomberg Nanny state
By stm1185 on 12/20/2013 6:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
No next up is cheese. Clearly the health ramifications of eating it aren't worth the delicious taste. New York pizza will not be topped with lettuce!


RE: Bloomberg Nanny state
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/20/2013 7:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whats next a ban on farting in public(SBD's)?


Should be. Some of those are freaking deadly!


New York Should
By lagomorpha on 12/20/2013 5:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
New York should ban those grease flaps they call "pizza" while they're at it. Those things can't be healthy.

Seriously New York, you fail at pizza.




RE: New York Should
By Ish718 on 12/20/2013 6:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on where you go...


RE: New York Should
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/20/2013 7:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Depends on where you go...


...Chicago


RE: New York Should
By stm1185 on 12/21/2013 12:15:25 AM , Rating: 2
Chicago doesn't make Pizza! Like Canada doesn't make Bacon!


RE: New York Should
By ClownPuncher on 12/23/2013 11:45:20 AM , Rating: 1
Chicago pizza is good, but NY pizza is better.


Don't have a problem with it
By tayb on 12/22/2013 12:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
The vapors smell and stay in the air. If everyone in the restaurant is using vaporizers I feel like I am in a freaking laser tag arena.

Now, I'm of the opinion that private establishments should be able to do what they want. But public places? Nope, ban them.




RE: Don't have a problem with it
By espaghetti on 12/22/2013 9:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
Along with air fresheners, colognes, perfumes, and cooking fish, scented candles, people with body odor and flatulence.


RE: Don't have a problem with it
By NellyFromMA on 12/23/2013 6:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Guy, that's ridiculous. Rain has a more distinct odor. People can't smoke OUTSIDE because you think they stink? You realize cigs weren't banned because they smell. It's because second-hand smoke is proven harmful. What about car fumes? WAY worse, WAY more abundant. Should gasoline vehicles be banned because they offend you essentially? Or perhaps you enjoy that odor so it doesn't bother you and should not be banned?

Some people are just ridiculous with their opinions... give me a break.


RE: Don't have a problem with it
By Rukkian on 12/24/2013 10:46:39 AM , Rating: 2
So because one thing is bad (one that is really needed to make the world go), we need to let everything else happen? Allowing this does not stop cars from going. You are breathing in the exhaust, why force others to mix that with other toxic chemicals just so you can have your fix?

Do it in your own home/car, etc. Dont force others to breath it in in their work, place of business, etc.


Excellent
By bug77 on 12/21/2013 6:05:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there isn't enough proof that they're safe for smokers


Guilty until proven innocent. Nice.




RE: Excellent
By FaaR on 12/22/2013 7:08:41 AM , Rating: 2
You can be quite sure e-cigs really are harmful, as the smoke contains nicotine.

Anyone wanting to sell you (the extremely addictive and toxic substance) nicotine, in any form, really does not have your health in mind at all. They just want a secure income stream in the form of your money once you're hooked on their sht, and that's it.


Silly
By mike8675309 on 12/23/2013 11:46:07 AM , Rating: 3
#1 - Not proven safe. Nothing has been proven safe when measured up against all the testing and evidence of how un-safe cigarettes are. Heck, Sauerkraut gives off an water vapor containing an odor when heated, has that been proven safe?
#2 - E-cigarettes don't work using tobacco free smoke. They heat a wire that when put in contact with a liquid solution creates vapor. The liquid solution may or may not contain nicotine. Many people have used e-cigarettes to quit smoking and reduce or remove their reliance on nicotine.
#3- Unless cities are going to outlaw public usage of perfume and aftershaves it seems silly to ban e-cigs which are essentially personal vaporizers.

There once was a joke in Minnesota about how many Minnesotan's does it take to screw in a lightbulb. The answer was 50. 1 to screw in the light bulb and 49 to do the environmental impact study. Seems like New York is taking over the Nanny state title.




Isn't A Free Country Wonderful?
By bitmover461 on 12/23/2013 9:53:40 AM , Rating: 2
When anyone throws out the "free country" label I simply chuckle and say, "Do ya think so?"




Simply Untrue
By mikestack on 12/30/2013 12:52:21 AM , Rating: 2
In fact, there is an extraordinary amount of evidence to suggest that e-cigs are less than 1% (at worst) of the risk of real smoking, because e-cigarettes, despite the name, aren't cigarettes: using a atomizing technology (based on nothing less than the atomizers ASTHMATIC children use to quickly absorb their medication) does not involve combustion, which is the sole reason cigarettes cause cancer. Nicotine, like caffeine, is addictive, but is NOT carcinogenic: that is why patches, gum, and other nicotine replacement devices are approved as safe. E-cigs are no different: rather than a patch, lozenge, gum, or powder inhaler, they appropriate a 40-year old technology of putting a drug (nicotine, in this case) in a neutral, non-toxic, safe base of propylene glycol (long since approved by FDA as safe and neutral) and then using an atomizer to vaporize it. For 40 years, the same technology has been used to deliver broncho-dilator drugs, in the same propylene-glycol base, using the same atomizers, to stop asthmatic attacks in children and adults. The technology is not only proven, but old. Very old. 50 years old!

Furthermore, since the dawn of regulation, we have never 'proven' things safe, we've proven things 'unsafe', except for drugs (and, as I have shown before, e-cigs are based on an identical, proven safe technology in any case). But, the vested interests (Governments which depend on tobacco tax revenue, Pharmaceutical companies which want to sell their patches, gums, etc., anti-cancer agencies which derive 80% funding from anti-cigarette grants (regardless if they are real cigs or e-cigs) and tobacco companies which wish to maintain their distribution monopoly and develop their own e-cigs, rather than see consumers use mail-order to purchase refillable, low-cost e-cigs. E-cigs benefit nobody except smokers who wish to, or cannot quit, smoking, but who would like to save their health and save their monthly budgets. All the other players stand to lose their profits, grants, leverage, monopolies, and taxes if e-cigs are legal and unregulated. E-cigs, if unregulated, are really, really, cheap to produce and sell. Currently, they don't cost much to make, they don't force users to buy disposable e-cigs as inflated prices (I spend less than $40 a month to keep my e-cigarette working, compared to $500 for tobacco).

To me, the most disgusting and outrageous of all the vested interests who have let society down here are not the traditional villians (tobacco companies), not that I have any love for them of course. The real let-down, shameful disappointment, is the national cancer societies and lung associations who, faced with the radical and unexpected - but nonetheless real - reality of a 'safe' cigarette (no combustion, no monoxide, no carcinogens, yet feels like smoking) - have chosen to OPPOSE and spread lies and propaganda for fear of losing the primary source of funding and support, anti-smoking grants from government and NGO's. In other words, when faced with the (admittedly unpredicted) choice of whether, if they had to choose, to support anti-smoking OR anti-cancer, they've actually chosen to support anti-smoking, irregardless of whether e-cigarettes offer an opportunity to provide the remaining minority of smokers with a cancer-free, health-neutral, alternative, in the form of e-cigarettes. They have lost their moral authority and let the public down. I tried to quit smoking for 15 years, finally did so with the e-cig, after six months my doctor showed me a before and after x-ray of my lungs, and admitted she was amazed - I had the lungs of a 6-month non-smoker. Ironically, about a week after, I had my yearly canvassing visit from the lung association, and asked them about e-cigs: they wanted me to donate so they could continue their fight AGAINST e-cigarettes. I usually donated, but this year, I slammed the door. What a shame and a disgrace!

Although there actually IS good evidence showing that the danger is minute compared to actual smoking, if anything, more comparable to eating a chocolate bar, for example, than smoking a real cigarette, all the major 'authorities' still claim there is 'more research' or 'insufficient research' to safely support e-cigs.

But, this is the ultimate sham! The major anti-cancer NGO's, the FDA, the medical groups, the pharmaceutical co
s specializing in smoking cessation products, have all declined to do any research at all, despite e-cigs now being over a decade old, and despite e-cigs being the most promising anti-cancer, health development in a century, and despite those very organizations being funded for, and tasked with investigating any and all ways to both reduce cancer and reduce causes of cancer, including alternatives to classic 'smoking' (combustion, matches, tobacco). THEY HAVE NOT, now, for ten years, despite blowing their billions of dollars of grants and budget subsidies chasing alternative, less promising, far-away alternatives. These organizations deceptively claim the lack of research, but they are RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCTING SUCH RESEARCH IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Every year e-cigs are distorted, opposed, price-gouged, etc., etc., and people continue to smoke for real, is a year when thousands will get lung cancer where one less year of smoking would have made the difference. It's a shame, in fact it is criminal.

At some point, given the shocking degree of safety difference between e-cigs, and real cigs, a 'cigarettegate' will occur: this fraudulent SHAM has already gone on for too long, and the technology has too much promise (a la: the mythical conspiracy stories of the run-flat tire and the 70's electric car, except this time, FOR REAL). People will lose work, congress will hold hearings, newspapers who published these stupid, lazy, columns will claim being 'decieived', etc., and the various pay-offs between drug co. patches and gum lobbyists and the FDA, Congressmen, etc. will get uncovered, and it will be a big, month-long story. Yay. But, until then, smokers who have not yet quit are being denied or frightened away from an alternative which is satisfying, cheaper, easier, and 100 to 1 times safer (cancer risk drops between 99% and 99.99% instantly when they switch). That's damned homicide, and nothing less.

One day a courageous columnist / journalist will actually investigate the claims and the facts, and (despite investigative journalism being long dead) decide to waste some time without pay and investigate anyways), they will end up doing so at the right time and place to break open the floodgates stopped up for 10 years now by mounds of bull-crap, and will get a Pulitizer for finally 'breaking' a story which e-smokers (in the MILLIONS now) know already: This game-changing technology is safe, sound, old, and ready to change our health problems in a major way - all that is stopping it is corruption, conflicts-of-interest, and willful ignorance. You will see! Maybe 2014 is the year that the truth breaks out.




work at home..
By MaryMOsteen on 12/23/2013 11:13:58 AM , Rating: 1
i get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing,...... www.jobs7.biz




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki