That's because it isn't actually Lilvapie's answer.
Just a lazy uncited reference to someone else's publication , word for word:
Smoking and Your Health | Dr Terry Simpson
second hand vape.
- Thread starter Spencer87
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That's because it isn't actually Lilvapie's answer.
Just a lazy uncited reference to someone else's publication , word for word:
Smoking and Your Health | Dr Terry Simpson
You completely missed the point. To take someones statement directly and presenting it as one's own, word for word, is what's pathetic.
As your issue is clearly with this coworker, who has bought into ANTZ propaganda, then I'd vote for education. If it were me, I'd like go with the Socratic method and ask as many questions as I could about what the coworker thinks they know. Making it a point, for you, to learn as much about her position before deciding to respond with your own information, while also leading her on a path to realization that she likely doesn't know what she thinks she knows.
I'd consider holding a seminar at work (obviously with higher ups buy-in) about "What is an eCig?" This way, you get to educate on your own terms. You'd reach all employees, and you'd have a leg to stand on when vaping at work in the future. Plus, depending on how you manage your seminar, you'd be able to bring up and simultaneously refute ANTZ rhetoric, thus defusing your coworker's position.
From what I gather, you are vaping at work, indoors, in an enclosed space WITH RESPECT. Some people, includes some vapers, will downplay or outright ignore the "with respect" part and instead only focus on the idea that you are engaged in something that is a) unnecessary to the job and b) may be annoying/offensive. That is their issue, and not yours. If you stick to the 'with respect' part, you'll be able to answer to their concerns. Once you answer to a couple of them, you'll gain confidence going forward.
And those who spout of SHS as harmful are taking someone's statement directly and presenting it as one's own. Likely word for word.
Again, I dare you to provide ANY STATEMENT on harms of SHS. But now I'll be holding you to standard of not using anyone else's wording, for otherwise you'd be speaking in a pathetic manner.
Sorry, I'm not going to argue with you. I'm not the kind of person who takes other's words and presents them as mine. I may paraphrase, but if I'm repeating something from an article or published report word for word, I'll give credit to it. You're still missing my point, but um, OK.......whatever.
There is some merit in having a chat with the bosses at work and in fact i was asked after a recent office decoration to spell out why i ought to be able to continue to vape (will it damage the new paint, the carpet, co-workers and so on?).
Most bosses will do anything for a quiet life, but if you can point them to some evidence of the relative harmlessness of vaping compared to farting in enclosed spaces, they're more inclined to buy into it. Anyone at my work is free to vape and they do it with the full blessing of the 'never-smoked'.
Second and even third hand smoke(!really!) is just another attempt to make those that smoke pay yet more for the privilege and to lump vapers in with smokers is nothing more than the same. There are a lot of quite ordinary people that don't buy this nonsense. You likely work with some as i do.
T
Most bosses will do anything for a quiet life, but if you can point them to some evidence of the relative harmlessness of vaping compared to farting in enclosed spaces, they're more inclined to buy into it. Anyone at my work is free to vape and they do it with the full blessing of the 'never-smoked'.
Second and even third hand smoke(!really!) is just another attempt to make those that smoke pay yet more for the privilege and to lump vapers in with smokers is nothing more than the same. There are a lot of quite ordinary people that don't buy this nonsense. You likely work with some as i do.
T
Still fighting the 'good fight' I see. How's that going for you, Jman?
Neither am I. Yet, I don't know for sure that the poster is not the original author. Do you?
I also think this is a case of shooting the messenger because of the message.
If it is really passing along a cited work that is copyrighted, then report the post. Otherwise, not sure really how pathetic it is when my point about 'harms of SHS' stands. That very much relates to topic of this thread. People believe SHS is dangerous. I suggest asking those people why, and then sit back while they cite other people's words. Sometimes without citing the source. And when they do cite the source, you quickly realize these exact same sources also happen to be anti-vaping, and have 'science' to back up their position.
In essence, this is what OP is up against with their co-worker. Does the co-worker actually know that SHV is harmful? Likely not, but they are spouting off words (likely without citation) as if they do know. As if they do have the words/reasoning, all on their own, to reach the position that they have.
Good to see you Edd!
Regarding your inquiry... going well. Always an uphill battle, but interesting nonetheless.
It isn't a study, but I think it contradicts your point....
To my mind, SHS is damaging. But it is not as damaging as is frequently thought. Andria is not the only parent I have seen on this forum saying that SHS aggravates childhood asthma. As to whether it causes cancer, I wouldn't expect to find any good data, because I agree with you that all studies are likely biased and bad science.
Because it aggravates asthma, I am happy to see indoor smoking bans.
However, those arguments do not hold when used against SHV. I notice the AHA just came out with a policy statement* where the worst charge they could bring against SHV is that it exposes bystanders to a psychoactive drug (nicotine).
---
* ht tp://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2014/08/22/CIR.0000000000000107.full.pdf+html
Link broken because although better than a lot of bad science, it still isn't great.
Agreed, it does contradict my point.
But is in vein of my ongoing claim (ever since being a vaper) that will tell you with certainty that moderate smoking is not anywhere near as bad as heavy smoking. I have enjoyed being a moderate smoker and can attest to similar information that Andria was getting across, though for my own self. At same time, I recognize that everyone tends to conclude otherwise. That any amount of smoking is bad for the user. I do think that smoking though tends to be odd in that social smoking is so very very rare and that 'normal use' is closer to a PAD or more, which in my experience is actually abuse. Would be like if for alcohol the normal use among all users was 5 drinks a day, or more, every day. Instead, there are plenty drinkers who have say 4 or less drinks and then only drink 1 to 2 times a week. Whereas the people that are drinking every day are considered abusers and likely 'abnormal.'
IMO, the world (including smokers) aren't all that familiar with the moderate smoker. I am living it, and in my estimation it is around 15 times less harmful/more healthy than 'normal smoking.'
I concur with "not as damaging as frequently thought" which is the point I am making. That it may be damaging to certain bystanders seems like a given to me, though also contestable given the decades of indoor use that permeated (American) society for a period.
I am not happy about indoor bans and feel the blanket policy that is now well established opens the door for SHV policy to go in same direction. The "may be damaging to some bystanders" will be established for SHV if not already. People may be allergic to chemicals in exhaled eLiquid and thus that little factoid will be enough to move entire society in this direction. Plus, I anticipate other 'findings' (biased no less) that will make the move a little easier for mainstream to accept. And the fact that there are vapers amongst us who already have personal policy of never ever vape where you never ever smoked, means it will be rather easy to ban indoor use of vaping. Which is part of the reason why I prop up the SHS tangent as that one went overboard and we are now in place where SHV could be steamrolled, or already is in process of occurring. Reasonable thinking people need to understand that SHS policy went too far for SHV to have any chance of not following same path. Emotional and/or irrational people (i.e. ANTZ) will think SHS policy hasn't gone far enough and that SHV policy will need to catch up to that.
Now that Edd has chimed in, I feel comfortable saying that there are HVAC systems that could allow for indoor usage in many public places and it not be an issue for bystanders. Not all places, and not all situations, but enough to turn a tide and reverse the emotional/irrational policies that have been put into place.
I am retired from this debate....
However, with correct ventilation, a smoking restaurant can have indoor air quality much better than its nonsmoking counterpart.
That is absolutely correct. I have proven this in a local setting but I cannot divulge the client or cite the work. The client was able to stop an overzealous local inspector's crusade with cold hard data...namely with VOC levels and CO2 and CO levels that were very healthy.
My mother in law said something like this to me the other day. She said "I hope they ban those things, they found out that they are worse than cigarettes, and they are a waste of money."
Now keep in mind that she is crazy, and makes comments like this all the time. So t has gotten to the point where I don't let her get away with saying things like this. My response. "First, no they haven't, second who is they? Third, you have no right to accuse me of being addicted to anything when you are the one having 4 cups of coffee every morning."
She says "im not addicted to coffee, I haven't had any today." Two hours and two cups later "so... Not addicted to coffee huh?"
Now keep in mind that she is crazy, and makes comments like this all the time. So t has gotten to the point where I don't let her get away with saying things like this. My response. "First, no they haven't, second who is they? Third, you have no right to accuse me of being addicted to anything when you are the one having 4 cups of coffee every morning."
She says "im not addicted to coffee, I haven't had any today." Two hours and two cups later "so... Not addicted to coffee huh?"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
