...most people think im carrying a pen or a laser pointer until i vape off of it.
And the moral of the story is....
...most people think im carrying a pen or a laser pointer until i vape off of it.
Not to start a crap storm here but... there haven't been any clinical studies on the harm or harmlessness of vaping have there? So it's an unknown. Certainly an unknown to the companies/hr departments. Why would they even open themselves up to the possibility of liability or even look into it to see if it's a liability for an extreme minority? Most of us vape nicotine juice. Even if the other ingredients are inert (they're not) I'm pretty sure nicotine is not. Apparently it's not carcinogenic but I believe it can be toxic. That vapor doesn't just disappear. It's liquid vapor. It goes somewhere. It probably doesn't go far but it's landing somewhere. Presumably someone could have a severe alergic reaction to it? Then there's the whole disruption thing. Surely cigarette smoking in the work place is a hot button and everyone is looking to jump on that. So they see someone vaping... looks like a duck, walks like a duck, inhales and blows out smoke like a duck. Lots of people aren't going to understand how it works and aren't going to try to understand very hard either. It needs to get more exposure on tv and in the news. I'm sure it will in time.
Just playing devil's advocate here.
As far as studies go, you are completely wrong on that point. There have been at least a dozen important studies, the most known are the ones conducted by the FDA themselves from May to July of last year, then the Health New Zealand study that was funded by Ruyan (the original e-cig company from China). Most recently, the Virginia Commonwealth University study by Dr. Thomas Eissenberg. The studies themselves show very low level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, about the same amount as found in a nicotine patch or nicotine gum. However, the press releases of those studies have used scare-tactic catch phrases like "contains anti-freeze" (which it doesn't) and "think about the children!!" etc. etc. So what gets released to the public (and hence to those HR offices) isn't based on science but on fear and politics.
You are certainly correct about the management of corporations not wanting to deal with having to explain why Person X at Desk Y "seems to be smoking". They just don't want to waste human resources on having to constantly explain this to a public that is already fearful of anything that even looks like smoking. Can't blame them, really. The whole anti-smoking paradigm is not of their making, and it's far too powerful for any one company to settle the issue in a common sense kind of way. Better to just follow the example that everyone else follows.
As for needing more exposure on TV news, yes I think we need that, however don't bet on most news stories being sympathetic to the vaping cause. So far, most of what we have heard from mainstream media is the same "anti-freeze" and "what about the children" smear tactics. There's a lot of powerful forces in this e-cig debate/phenomenon that aren't going to let go of their status-quo way of doing things. The anti-smoking lobbies need cash to operate, and they get that cash from taxes on real cigarettes. They do not want that revenue stream to go away. They just want to be able to go on harassing smokers by forcing them to smoke real cigs while taxing them and then using those taxes to further harass them. Wonderful system we've got, huh?
If you are an ex smoker then arguing that you don't want to be around secondhand smoke seems a little absurd.
Actually I think thats not absurd at all. Many ex smokers are way less tolerant of or less able to deal with second hand smoke than non smokers. I have no clue, but it would sound reasonable to me that damage (if any) from second hand smoke is incremental to a point where it's more "binary" or the rate of damage increases very rapidly. Having sustained some amount of damage from smoking the amount of damage from some amount of second hand smoke may be much greater to a smoker than a non smoker?
A couple problems with this approach. First, whatever problems there are with 2nd hand smoke, the damage to bystanders is equal and across the board. Ex-smokers don't experience exponential damage due to 2nd hand smoke compared to non-smokers.
Second, this approach is rather hypocritical: Look at it this way -- on Nov 30, the day before I quit analogs, I would be out in the smoking area with other smokers. On Dec 1, my first day off analogs, do I suddenly have the moral right to go out to the smoking area and say "this 2nd hand smoke is awful, I can't be around it"
Whatever you do, don't turn against the smokers. After all, "one day ago", that was you.
The OP said he didn't want to be subjected to the smoking area. Much the same as non-smokers didn't want to be subjected to the smoking area.
[.........]
As above, you've completely misread what I was trying to say. The OP is not smoking. He has every right and justification to object to being forced to do some other activity where he will be subjected to second hand smoke when he is not smoking himself. Whether you or the other respondent thinks that's silly because he was a prior smoker (or even current) is irrelevant.
I have not misread you. What I have done is brought to light a facet of this about-face stance that would continue to pile on top of the problems experienced by smokers, of whom the OP was one not too long ago.
I don't understand why you don't see the hypocrisy in it. At least try to put yourself in the smoker's shoes. They most likely haven't even heard of an e-cig, they have no idea.
It's all in the tone and attitude being employed toward the person still saddled with the smoking problem. The way I see it, the OP has inadvertently joined forces with the anti's, as far as the person still smoking is concerned.
He suddenly thinks he has this right to be indignant toward smokers. We vapers don't have many friends as it is. Why make it worse by making enemies of the people we are trying to get to join forces with us?
It isn't that the guy doesn't have a right to try to seek out alternative spaces at work to vape in (that would be a good idea); if he can avoid the 2nd hand smoke then it's a plus. It's the idea that, if given no choice, one would choose to turn one's nose up at the smokers and insist on not being in their space. It's all in the approach.
you're talking about problems experienced by smokers. Fine. Separate issue.
Okay I just want to stop you right there. No need to address the additonal paragraphs that all begin with "What?"
Listen carefully to what you are saying in that sentence. It seems to pre-dispose the idea that the now very recent ex-smoker has this sudden right to this kind of indignant outrage at 2nd hand smoke, whereas, quite possibly only 3 days ago, he was one of the very people causing the 2nd-hand smoke.
Sorry, but it just doesn't come across as sincere. It seems to come across as convenient. i.e., "hey I'm not one of those persecuted classes of people any more, so I'll now join the forces that make life miserable for them."
Okay I just want to stop you right there. No need to address the additonal paragraphs that all begin with "What?"
Listen carefully to what you are saying in that sentence. It seems to pre-dispose the idea that the now very recent ex-smoker has this sudden right to this kind of indignant outrage at 2nd hand smoke,
whereas, quite possibly only 3 days ago, he was one of the very people causing the 2nd-hand smoke.
Sorry, but it just doesn't come across as sincere. It seems to come across as convenient. i.e., "hey I'm not one of those persecuted classes of people any more, so I'll now join the forces that make life miserable for them."
For myself, I don't care if I smoked a cig 10 minutes ago ... I still have the right to choose not to be exposed to second-hand smoke. If I'm not smoking at that moment don't make me stand in a room containing second-hand smoke. It really is as simple as that.
I'm not expressing "indignant outrage at 2nd hand smoke", merely making a choice for the benefit of my health. In fact, my only outrage is directed at any attempt to force a non-smoker into the smoking room.
Are you saying that if someone smoked previously they must like second hand smoke?
Are you saying that if someone smoked previously they have no justification for thinking that second hand smoke may be harmful to them?
Are you saying that if someone smoke previously and they express a desire to avoid second hand smoke (for ANY reason. like the smell for example) that they must be lying?
Please explain your logic here.
(the smoking policy includes tobacco products only)...