I'd prefer they used a young lady, such as this:
Vape, Electronic cigarette - Innokin
Unfortunately I deal with this:
Vape, Electronic cigarette - Innokin
Unfortunately I deal with this:
- Status
Haha oh damn I didn't even notice that! Thanks for pointing it out, fixed :')I can't help but wonder what a 15 year old "Jailbat" looks like. I really make too many typos to target others, but I just couldn't resist.
alien Traveler" data-source="post: 18611903" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">Nope. That's why I used the term " usually", which is not all inclusive.alien Traveler said:
The absence of data does not correlate with safety, only the absence of data. The limited data available for say proplyene glycol or other glycols for inhalation suggest they are relatively safe other than respiratory irritation, especially among those with asthma or other reactive respiratory illnesses. That finding comes from both OSHA MSDS data sheets required for these products, particularly in the context of "smoke machines".
A study was undertaken to evaluate the exposure of actors to "smoke" generated during plays. After looking at a whole bunch of factors, the bottom line was this:
"Based on the results of this study, there is no evidence that theatrical "smoke," at the levels found in the theaters studied, is a cause of occupational asthma among performers. Some of the constituents of theatrical "smoke," such as the aerolized glycols and mineral oil, could have irritative or mucous membrane drying properties in some individuals. Therefore, it is reasonable to minimize exposures by such means as relocating "smoke" machines to avoid exposing actors to the direct, concentrated release of the aerosols, minimizing the amount of "smoke" necessary for the production, and using only fog fluids approved by the manufacturers of the machines. The glycols used should be at the level of "food grade" or "high grade." Glycol-based systems should also be designed to heat the fog fluids only to the lowest temperature needed that achieve proper aerolsolization. This would help to avoid overheating the fluid and minimize the generation of decomposition products."
source: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/1990-0355-2449.pdf
Exposure to an inhaled "vaporized" mixture of propylene glycol and glycerin is currently unknown to carry any significant long term risks to date. that is not the same as saying it is safe.
You also have another component which is far more difficult to assess given the variety and variability in preparation, namely flavorings. The flavorings used in vape juice are food flavorings considered as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), which we all feel good about. However, that is testing performed to assure GRAS standards are met for ingestion, not inhalation. I think we can all agree substances safe to eat are not guaranteed to be safe to inhale.
So, can anyone point and say there are long term studies documenting toxicity associated with vaping a juice? No. Can anyone point to a long term term study documenting safety? No. Can one extrapolate that if a substance is safe for ingestion, it is therefore safe for inhalation? The answer here is no as well.
I am not knocking vaping. I am saying we should not act as though there are facts to support all our opinions at this point in time. I believe that's true whether you support vaping, or oppose vaping, because both can be guilty of bias without necessarily having facts to support those positions.
I feel like this is something really important that a lot of people forget, honestly. Remember, back when smoking first picked up, people thought it was harmless and in some cases even beneficial. We now know better. That's not to say that vaping is the new smoking and we're all definitely killing ourselves, because we can't know that. But that's the thing, currently we don't have the full information.
We know vaping is almost certainly a lot safer than smoking (assuming you're not using juice filled with diacetyl), but even then it's not an absolute certainty. We all need to be reasonable and realistic in the way we defend vaping. Just because the "other side" (ie: opponents of vaping) are trying to paint it as equally as harmful as smoking and a terrible thing all-round, doesn't mean we have to go the other way and scream from the rooftops how healthy it is. It doesn't give a good impression of the community, and it doesn't convince anyone that we're not exactly the same as those smokers who are in denial about how harmful cigarettes are.
This reply has gotten kinda jumbled. TLDR I agree with Eskie's post 100% here, we need to be honest with ourselves and others about what we do know and what we don't, and maintain a good dose of critical thinking about our habit and its safety.
Right, I never said there was any proof that it was safe, I just say there is nothing saying that it isn't. On a personal level, I might believe that is enough to warrant being cautious. What I object to is the automatic assumption that on a societal/regulatory level we assume the worst, without evidence. We don't do that with everything, but it is being done to vaping.
And I am in total agreement. We should not assume the worst, especially among those who vape to stop smoking. Benefit to risk ratio here is almost certain to support that.
Whether the same is true among nonsmokers vaping for clouds, we would all have to say that the risk to benefit ration is at best unknown, as there's not much benefit to blowing clouds outside of amusing yourself. And it's probably safe for that too. Just a different standard to be applied given the difference in benefit to risk, as in this instance tolerance to risk would be quite lower.
I think the reason people are so quick to assume vaping is terrible is because of its similarity to smoking. It reminds people, in a way, of how smoking was initially marketed as a harmless habit. The visual similarities add fuel to that. There are plenty of articles to be found online that would cause many to clutch their pearls and fan themselves, and most folks aren't gonna go out of their way to verify or debunk an article if it's not something they have an interest in.
I find it kinda sad that vaping is being given the guilty-until-proven-innocent treatment here, since it's a tool that's helped so many to quit smoking for good. (I myself can't even stand the smell of cigarette smoke anymore. I still enjoy my nicotine hit, but if my coil burns out and I can't get another one for a day or two, I'd take that day or two with no nicotine rather than picking up a pack of smokes. I'd never have managed that long without nicotine when I was on cigarettes.) I can understand peoples' high level of caution, though. In the long run, I think I'd rather people exercised caution in the first instance.
And I'll happily be a guinea pig to help prove it, one way or another ^^
Well, of course, in that situation I'd say that the only person who should be doing that benefit to risk ratio calculation is the person deciding whether or not they want to vape.
Of course this is America, and everyone, including the government, is in everyone else's business. Sometime's that's okay. I want teachers looking out for signs of child abuse/neglect, etc. but sometimes it gets to be too much.
If I want to choose to blow clouds, for no other reason than to blow clouds, that's no different from wanting to drive a sports car over a station wagon, or choosing to go to a gun range, or get tattoos, or eat grilled cheese every day, I think you get the point.
Great post Eskie and one that I completely agree with.
In a very real sense, we are guinea pigs for vaping. Yes, it's a really poor experiment, as there's no controls, but you get the idea, I hope. This is all fine and good for adults who can consent to the possible risks involved, but not so fine and good for children.
It is certainly because people relate vaping to smoking, but it has little to nothing to do with vaping, and that's my point.
I'm a little younger than most here. I've always known smoking was bad for you, even before the big health pushes. Everyone knew what a "smoker's cough" was. Didn't stop me from smoking though.
Oh, I totally agree. I don't know what the average age here is, but at 24 years old myself (and a smoker since 16) I was well aware of the risks of smoking when I picked it up. Every pack of smokes I bought had a picture of blackened lungs or disgusting cancerous growths in a throat. I simply didn't care. (Actually, I welcomed the risks with open arms, but that's an angst-fuelled story for another day and another topic I guess.)
I don't think the hysteria around vaping is justified by the reasoning behind it, but I do find that understanding where the anti-vaping crowd are coming from helps me to be a lot more reasonable and convincing in my argument when I encounter them. If we can understand where they're coming from, it's a lot easier to bring them round to our point of view, or at the very least to be patient with them and respect their concerns.
You'll also find people who believe it's the nicotine in smoking that causes cancer. Of course, that should mean stuff like nicotine gum or patches should be just as bad, but they never make that connection. I've found that from friends who are"but if it still has nicotine, you can still get cancer". After a few moments of explanation, they're almost all "well, I'm glad you changed".
We live at a time when folks realize smoking will probably kill you (despite us all knowing or even having in our family an 80 year old healthy smoker but the odds aren't there, although if it's a close relative, maybe you got a lucky set of genes). Only what is it now 20% of the US population smokes (US figures in my head, never mind worldwide), so 80%, 4 out of 5, have nothing to do with them or want any part of them (for the most part). If they're not educated about harm reduction, their reaction to vaping may be misguided, but is understandable. We need to continue to educate folks with the best and most accurate information available. I stress that because if we're caught with something inaccurate, it will be held against us as "another tobacco lie". Whereas the anti-tobacco crowd can be way off base but they have the credibility with the public, so if they get something a little wrong, they'll get a pass.
Edit: What Inly said.
Again, I don't disagree. It's just that I would rather have 100 difficult conversations/debates about why X doesn't, or may not, apply to vaping, even if I don't change any minds, than to act like X does apply to vaping for the sake of not rocking the boat.
Very interesting discussion. Guess I want to add a bit. When I first saw the OP's ad - I had thoughts about whether it targeted minors or not. I felt it targeted a younger vaping audience than what is the norm on ECF - you have to remember that if the vaping industry relied only on the "older" demographic they would be leaving a large potential customer base alone - not a good marketing move. Even ECF's demographic range is from 18 - 85 years old. I don't know if there is anyone over 85, but maybe...
I believe that if you are going to use an ad that depicts a younger audience then the surrounding message should be a more mature product selection than "bubblegum" so to speak... What should be used - I would leave that up to the advertisers, but I would do a market analysis on how the ad would be accepted by the vaping/governmental audiences that would see it...
Why? - because of the misnomer from the anti-vaping crowd that "Children" are being targeted and that scenario should be avoided no matter what and yes both can be achieved with the proper time taken in assembling the ad and surrounding verbage etc. being displayed in the ad.
I believe that if you are going to use an ad that depicts a younger audience then the surrounding message should be a more mature product selection than "bubblegum" so to speak... What should be used - I would leave that up to the advertisers, but I would do a market analysis on how the ad would be accepted by the vaping/governmental audiences that would see it...
Why? - because of the misnomer from the anti-vaping crowd that "Children" are being targeted and that scenario should be avoided no matter what and yes both can be achieved with the proper time taken in assembling the ad and surrounding verbage etc. being displayed in the ad.
It will be discovered down the road that vaping has health related side effects. It may take another 30 years, but the determination will be made. Whether the determination will be made properly or not will still be in question.
The vaping world has a large amount of variables to digest for a proper analysis to be determined. They will probably never all be completed - even 100 years from now. A Tootle Puffer vs a Cloud Chaser will have different side effects. A person that vapes 20% flavor induced recipes vs a person that vapes recipes at a 2% level will have different side effects. A person that vapes 0mg or flavorless will have differences. There will also be differences in the flavors being used and even with them it will depend upon the level that they are being used...
Shoot, if the deeming takes full kilter and BT and BP take over the industry that will also provide different results from the ones that stocked up and hold their own with the current vaping methods...
I could go on and on, but something detrimental to people's health will be found and the vaping world will continue despite them - just as smoking did. Smoking had the same differences depending upon the smoking / personal habits of the smoker.
The vaping world has a large amount of variables to digest for a proper analysis to be determined. They will probably never all be completed - even 100 years from now. A Tootle Puffer vs a Cloud Chaser will have different side effects. A person that vapes 20% flavor induced recipes vs a person that vapes recipes at a 2% level will have different side effects. A person that vapes 0mg or flavorless will have differences. There will also be differences in the flavors being used and even with them it will depend upon the level that they are being used...
Shoot, if the deeming takes full kilter and BT and BP take over the industry that will also provide different results from the ones that stocked up and hold their own with the current vaping methods...
I could go on and on, but something detrimental to people's health will be found and the vaping world will continue despite them - just as smoking did. Smoking had the same differences depending upon the smoking / personal habits of the smoker.
https://d6u22qyv3ngwz.cloudfront.net/ad/7Ebe/......-cuddle-up-large-5.jpg
https://d6u22qyv3ngwz.cloudfront.net/ad/7vKx/......-date-night-large-10.jpg
Just saying..........
And that the thing. I've made this point before, it's not one product that we are trying to figure out if it's safe, it's thousands of products. It's almost an insurmountable task. If we started out with one ecig and that was tested and scrutinized and we moved on a step at a time, it would have been manageable. But now, I just don't know what we can do.
What we do with everything else, and what has been done with vaping so far? Test what we know to test, wait to see if anything unexpected pops up.
You need to take "almost" out of your context.
Since we are on the subject - question to the group. If the great scientists in the sky found out that low flavor volume, low voltage/watts, low vaping like it was 4 years ago (now I don't mean 0) minimized/erased all side effects and that vaping was marginally safe at this level - Would you go back???
- Status
Similar threads
