UCSF bans e-cigarette use where smoking is banned
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
I haven't stated my view. NO one knows my views on vaping or anything else for that matter. I seriously do not understand your post. My post actually had nothing to do with vaping as did some of the ones before me. (or at least they involved things besides vaping). I do know this however, we're not guaranteed the right to vape. Heck we're guaranteed the right to bear arms and the government would love to take that away.
Good day
Good day
To me, your post reads as though differing viewpoints is "what's wrong with this country." Sorry if I misinterpreted it.
We're not guaranteed the right to drink coffee or other heated and/or caffeinated beverages, either. If rules against smoking can be applied to e-cigarettes, why shouldn't they also be applied to beverages containing similarly addictive stimulants that might be heated to the same temperature as an e-cigarette? People don't need to be able to drink their coffee or breathe flavored air WHEREVER they want, do they? They're just slaves to addiction and this is a mostly free country, but we don't need to be THAT free, do we? How will we keep the slave population under control if they're allowed to beat themselves or their addiction with products that haven't been proven "safe and effective" by the gubmint?
On a similar note, I don't think coffee has been proven to be safe either-
Well, there's always some kind of research- can increase pancreatic cancer...or it could lesson some cancers, etc., etc...
Well, there's always some kind of research- can increase pancreatic cancer...or it could lesson some cancers, etc., etc...
Understand please, I do not feel that vaping is the same as smoking. Honestly, it's not really the same as anything I am aware of. Vapor to deliver nicotine. (that is what this "usually does")....I wonder if someone was vaping 0 nicotine?? I mean what to compare it to then??? Certainly not cigarettes.
I believe (and I've been known to be wrong) the lack of education on what we do is obviously the problem. People see something that "looks like smoke" therefore it has to be harmful to them even standing next to me doing it.
It's a well known historical fact that in ww2 Cigs were provided to help to keep the troops awake so yes, it's obviously a stimulant. Coffee is not drawn into the lungs (unless something funny cracks me up and I choke on it) but is ingested by swallowing. Not a fair comparison. Coffee is often put in the same category by doctors as something to quit. My doctor has told me to give up both (coffee and cigarettes) and is not really over pleased about the vaping thing either.
Also, if you're gonna quote me please, finish the quote. The statement was about the government trying to take "given rights" away. Obviously something so threatening to a business such as the cigarette industry is gonna not be given to us freely.
Regards,
Deach
Last edited:
It's pretty much the same as a theatrical fog machine or a pharmaceutical nicotine product. 0-nic comparison would be sugar-free bubble gum: Available in any flavor, and it CAN be used obnoxiously so it might be appropriate to ask people to not use it in certain situations, but it poses no serious risks to bystanders so there is no reason to ban it just because you're not allowed to smoke....and either can be used as part of a plan to completely quit smoking or as a permanent replacement.
It's not really a lack of education so much as it is that we have been inundated our entire life with Tobacco Control propaganda that was literally ripped from the pages of the Nazi playbook. If people actually stop to think about it, they would realize that you don't need scientific studies to figure out that it nearly all of the drawbacks and risks of smoking are caused lighting tobacco on fire and inhaling smoke 100's of times a day, so anything that doesn't involve that must be at LEAST 100 times safer--and that is before you even consider the drastically reduced (as in, measured in parts per billion milliliters) exposure to tobacco related nitrosamines and any other concerning components or additives in tobacco cigarettes that are avoided by e-cigs.
What does slow us down is the fact that e-cigarette vendors have, to some extent, been complicit in efforts to "mystify" e-cigarettes: Some e-cig companies (especially ones who aspire to be a major distributor) have allowed their customers to think that they need to purchase refills and replacements from them and are reluctant to admit that e-cigarettes are not all that complicated and many/most parts are interchangeable.
You do inhale quite a bit of coffee because a major component in the taste of coffee is the olfactory experience, but with vaping you are exhaling and you must keep in mind the ridiculously small quantities we're dealing with: Most e-cig users/vapers use less than a teaspoon (5x1ml cartridges) per day, and all the ingredients are food grade or better.
Personally, I'm more concerned with reducing or avoiding caffeine than I am with stopping smoke-free nicotine. If I ever decide to stop taking nicotine, I'm pretty sure I'd continue vaping with 0-nic simply because I enjoy it and can't think of any way that inhaling up a to a teaspoon a day of a proven safe and effective germicide could possibly be more harmful than helpful.
E-cigs aren't a major threat to the tobacco industry. The nicotine in e-cigs and pharmaceutical NRT's is derived from tobacco, and if smokers switch to vaping, they may be potential tobacco customers over the course of a longer lifetime. The DIY "cottage industry" of mod-building and liquid mixing is a bit of a threat to Big Tobacco, but as long as it remains a niche compared to their cigarettes and alternatives, they are unlikely to complain about e-cigs.
The industry that is truly threatened by e-cigs is pharmaceuticals: Not only do they stand to see reductions in sales of their (expensive) NRT and cessation drugs, but imagine what would happen if a sizeable portion of the 8.6 million American smokers stopped needing COPD medication? The problem is that this is not only a huge and powerful industry, its the industry that basically owns the government regulatory agencies and the so-called "public health" so-called "non-profit organizations" are basically the marketing department for Giant Pharma. We are talking about TRILLIONS at stake for these corporate "people", so there isn't much of a compromise that will stop them from doing their level best to maintain the status quo. If you want to reach a compromise with them, we'll need the FDA to approve pharmaceutical nicotine products as long term smoking replacements and let them compete with Star, RJ Reynolds, and the e-cig industry for marketshare.
Bottom line: Giving in to smoking bans is only a step backward. We've already seen ANTZ sneak some of these through backroom deals and political trickery, but each of these attempted bans is an excellent opportunity to educate the lawmakers and hope you can find a majority willing to listen to reason and place public health ahead of pressure from highly-paid "health care" lobbyists.
Last edited:
You are missing the point. The reason they were able to pass all these laws and regulations banning smoking was because second-hand smoke harms non-smokers in the vicinity of the smoke. For instance, when I was a kid on a plane I would sit in the non-smoking section, but for some reason that smoke would not stay there and drift into my lungs.
There is no such second-hand "vapor" effect on others, so any regulation banning vaping in public places is simply thought police at work, which should not exist in a free society. If what I do does not affect anyone else, I should be able to do it. The end.
Last edited:
I'm not flaming you personally. It's just that general view of "compromise" when no compromise is warranted is not acceptable in a free society. To compromise, there must be some basic fact both parties agree with that is means for the compromise.
For instance, peace talks are a compromise because both parties believe war is bad.
Smoking bans are accepted because both parties agree second-hand smoke is not pleasant for non-smokers.
I am all about compromise when compromise is warranted. If you want me to smoke somewhere else because it's giving someone else health problems, no problem.
But what's the argument for banning vaping in public areas? If a car drives by, it just exposed people to many more and worse chemicals than vapor. If it rains, it just exposed people to much more humidity than vapor. If someone uses potent cologne or perfume, or does not believe in showering or using deodorant, people are exposed to much more offensive odors than vapor. So what, then, would be the basic fact that both parties agree on that would warrant a compromise of where and when to vape?
I wonder if someone has a Nicotrol inhaler and it heats up in their pocket, they can be accused of smoking in public. Conversely, I wonder if one would be accused of smoking in public if they were vaping from an inhaler. Where is the line? If bureaucrats can redefine smoking to push their political correctness, what else can they redefine? I remember a certain president who tried to redefine what the word "is" is...
Last edited:
As this is a public forum opinions will of course vary. Anyone believing in a cause will of course have a defense for everything. Anyone can take "white" while the other takes "black" and have a debate. While many here will continue to vape long after they have quit nicotine, I will not. If the purpose of this is health AND save money, you need to know in all honestly I've saved very little (if any) since I quit smoking. I believed those sig lines in the beginning (of course now I know better). This could be considered misleading and isn't that what we're trying to avoid here? We want people to know vaping is different than smoking?
I'm not going to re-but all of the posts here, for I too vape. I vape where I think I should and where it would be considered acceptable. Life has rules. People that work have rules. Obey them or quit. It's simple. Our continuation to throw this in people's faces isn't helping. Our "I can do this if I want to cause it's not cigarettes" attitude has to stop.
If you frequent a place that doesn't allow it, don't go there any more. Find Vaping friendly establishments. If your employer won't allow it, quit now!!! He has to be wrong, after all this is not cigarettes and you can obviously therefore do it. LOL...
Come on people get a grip, there has to be a happy medium here.
I'm not going to re-but all of the posts here, for I too vape. I vape where I think I should and where it would be considered acceptable. Life has rules. People that work have rules. Obey them or quit. It's simple. Our continuation to throw this in people's faces isn't helping. Our "I can do this if I want to cause it's not cigarettes" attitude has to stop.
If you frequent a place that doesn't allow it, don't go there any more. Find Vaping friendly establishments. If your employer won't allow it, quit now!!! He has to be wrong, after all this is not cigarettes and you can obviously therefore do it. LOL...
Come on people get a grip, there has to be a happy medium here.
Not what I said at all, I said to deliver nicotine. At a concert you do NOT hold a device up to your mouth and inhale.
I've personally never been bombarded with such information. When I was younger I remember being told smoking certain brands were good for you from advertisements. I just asked 10 friends that don't smoke their thoughts and their exact answers were "I don't have enough information to know if vaping should be allowed at work or not". These are very much anti smokers that fought for non smoking in various work places. It seems to me that "not having information equates to education.
Didn't say tobacco industry now did I? I said cigarette industry.
Not even gonna justify this with an answer. This is your answer, not mine.
There's a reason you have to be 18 to buy ciggs and not a minimum age for caffeine products. I've never seen a warning on a coffee can about poison.
I get it. Vaping is NOT the same as smoking cigarettes. I have been allowed to vape in homes where no smoking is allowed. i have vaped in restaurants where vaping was allowed but not smoking. It's great to "vape up" after a nice dinner and not have to run outside to the car to do so. But dammit man we have to quit cramming the right to do so whenever and wherever we choose down peoples throats, it's not helping.
I used to agree with the staunchest ANTZ that "addiction is bad, mkay?" and that reducing smoking was so important to improving overall public health that efforts to "denormalize" or at least make tobacco use less "popular" since the health effects of chronic (1PAD or more) smoking outweighed any real or perceived benefits of self-administered inhaled or orally absorbed nicotine. The problem is that we lost sight of the root cause of the negative health effects to the users and risks to bystanders: Lighting something (anything) on fire and inhaling the smoke 100's of times a day is an inherently dangerous activity.
Absorbing nicotine (especially in a purified, pharmaceutical grade source with barely detectable levels of nitrosamines) through the lungs or oral mucosa as part of a habit (or perhaps an effort to self-medicate for attention deficits?) isn't what causes 8.6 million Americans to have Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder, it is more likely to be the treatment for it!
A good comparison is the combustion engine. Our planet and very way of life may be endangered by the byproducts of man harnessing the power of combustion engines. Are we really going to be so eager to end this supposed "menace" that we should rush to ban the electric car because they might be sold by the same companies that sold combustible products and cannot be be trusted.
Considering that a 1942 Time Magazine article referred to propylene glycol vapor as "A powerful preventive against pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases"--in times where airborne WMD attacks are the stated goals of terrorism, it seems like e-cigarette use might be more useful than harmful, don't you think?
Seriously, I would like someone to answer this question...everybody seems to think I'm asking this rhetorically, but I would really like to know: How could e-cigarette use possibly cause any serious harm? Shouldn't we be asking researchers to investigate possible respiratory benefits from vaping for potentially therapeutic applications? E-cig manufacturers and vendors are forbidden by law from claiming that their products could have therapeutic uses, instead of attempting to ban them, the FDA should be finding ways prove that lives can be saved or drastically improved by switching to combustion-free alternatives.
It's the fire, stupid caveman.
Absorbing nicotine (especially in a purified, pharmaceutical grade source with barely detectable levels of nitrosamines) through the lungs or oral mucosa as part of a habit (or perhaps an effort to self-medicate for attention deficits?) isn't what causes 8.6 million Americans to have Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder, it is more likely to be the treatment for it!
A good comparison is the combustion engine. Our planet and very way of life may be endangered by the byproducts of man harnessing the power of combustion engines. Are we really going to be so eager to end this supposed "menace" that we should rush to ban the electric car because they might be sold by the same companies that sold combustible products and cannot be be trusted.
Considering that a 1942 Time Magazine article referred to propylene glycol vapor as "A powerful preventive against pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases"--in times where airborne WMD attacks are the stated goals of terrorism, it seems like e-cigarette use might be more useful than harmful, don't you think?
Seriously, I would like someone to answer this question...everybody seems to think I'm asking this rhetorically, but I would really like to know: How could e-cigarette use possibly cause any serious harm? Shouldn't we be asking researchers to investigate possible respiratory benefits from vaping for potentially therapeutic applications? E-cig manufacturers and vendors are forbidden by law from claiming that their products could have therapeutic uses, instead of attempting to ban them, the FDA should be finding ways prove that lives can be saved or drastically improved by switching to combustion-free alternatives.
It's the fire, stupid caveman.
Last edited:
Hmm... You might have a good idea there.
As a former smoker who relies on periodic use of an e-cigarette to stay that way, I object to being banished into a smoke-laden area when I need to use my device. In my case, it exposes me to the toxins and particulates that I believe were causing the wheezing and morning cough that I had while I was a smoker. Although it doesn't particularly bother me, some former smokers have come to dislike the odor of smoke. As luck would have it, I no longer have any urges whatsoever to light up. But there are e-cigarette users who are would be tempted to relapse to smoking if they must go into the smoke to create vapor.
So how about this for a compromise? If the populace cannot stand having their eyes exposed to what looks like smoke, there needs to be TWO designated areas: One area where smoke can be freely produced, and another area for e-cigarette users where smoking is prohibited. Vapers would be free to go to either area, since they do not endanger the health of smokers.
Of course, this will only be a temporary compromise, you realize. The end goal is to prohibit smoking across 100% of the world. Haven't you noticed all the proposed new laws banning outdoor smoking? Smoking in apartments? Smoking in condos? Smoking in cars?
So if the only place we can vape is in designated smoking areas, once there are no more smoking areas, there will also be no place to vape. What do you plan to do then?
I agree totally that people that stop "smoking" and start vaping should be entitled to the same rights as a non smoker. If I wanted to be around smoke all the time, I'd still do it. Personally it doesn't' bother me to be around smokers (at this point) but I could see a time where it does.
As a group we do need to fight for "our choice" of the intake of nicotine. (until that within itself becomes illegal) I do not obviously know what to do when it's "all" illegal. I do know however I vaped for three days straight in a rental car and no mention of the odor of "smoke" was brought to my attention upon return and therefore, no charge for purging of same.
Fighting for our right to vape is not the same as cramming what we do down people's throats nor simply not listening to the rules. As we sit here on our computers responding to this forum, times have changed. This would not had been possible 30 or so years ago. Information came from libraries or other folks, not a search engine. Just in my lifetime I went from smoking on an airplane to not being able to smoke in "most" public places. Where will this all end up? I don't really know, but cannot wait to see "what happens next".
Regards,
Deach
What they give Us is the Freedom to Vape anywhere you can Legally Smoke. To be able to buy e-Cigarettes and e-Liquids. They also give us Reasonable Taxes on e-Cig related Products. To some people, this Doesnt sounds like they arent giving us much. But how do these things compare to say a Country like Canada and their Policies?
The compromise is that CASAA will not bring forth Lawsuits against States as long as Bans are Limited to Non-Smoking Areas Only and that Imposed Taxes are more Reasonable.
CASAAs Role, or who ever, shouldnt be to try to Fight Every Ban or Tax on e-Cigs. It should be working with States to shape Bans Only in Non-Smoking Areas and Fair Taxes.
Youre just not Ever going to be able to get vaping Allowed in some places like Schools or Government Buildings. Just aint going to happen. A Huge stumbling block will be that a user can put Just About Anything into a Carto/Atty. Kinda a hard sell to say that person can sit in the 3rd row of a Chemistry Class at UCSF vaping Crack in a 510 Carto. So there is just about No Hope in getting Vaping allowed in Most Public Buildings. So let it go.
No, vaping isnt Smoking. And No, vapor is Not Smoke. But that really doesnt matter. Is Second Hand Vapor (SHV) Safe is what the Legal Foundation will be.
What makes sense is to provide the studies on SHV which show that SHV is harmless to State Representatives. Tell them look, SHV is harmless so e-Cig Bans are Discriminatory and without Merit. We'll conceed Vaping Bans in Non-Smoking Areas because of the public perception that Vapor is Smoke. But if Vaping Bans are extended beyond Non-Smoking areas they will be meet with Litigation. Also wouldnt hurt to make some contributions to a Sympathetic Senators Re-Election campaigns.
Of course this is All based on the Fact that CASAA actually has these SHV studies. CASAA does have them dont they? Because without them all this is Moot. All this talk about how SHV is harmless so I should be able to vape anywhere I want is Childish. And it isnt a Very Compelling Legal Argument Either.
Remember, SHV isnt just Water and Nicotine. It contains PG, VG, Flavors and Colorants. So a SHV study would need to be done a over a Wide range of e-Liquids.
BTW If the Results of a SHV study doesnt show that there are Almost Non-Detectable levels of Nicotine, PG, VG, Flavors and Colorants, youre not going to have much luck stopping Any Ban.
Although I don't agree completely with your point of view, I understand it and it might be where we're headed.
In regards to what I quoted above, none of the items, even if found in minute quantities should make a difference- certainly not the pg/vg- these are used by most people in food and cosmetic products anyway, whether they know it or not. In regards to nicotine, it's about like caffeine leaching out of the steam from a cup of coffee. Unfortunately one of the studies that was suppose to detect exactly what you had mentioned has been fraught with issues- even if it were published at this point, from what I understand, it could be laughed at (someone correct me if I'm wrong). So, I do not know of definitive research showing that the exhaled vapor is completely harmless- although from the ingredients, it should be obvious that it is- certainly the FDA (or any of their affiliates- as in politically- such as the AHA, ALA, CDC, etc.) isn't going to expend the money on such study- they DON'T WANT TO KNOW the TRUTH. So, such a study has to be undertaken by someone or group who is willing to pay the piper- that's where we run into issues- it is very costly and needs to be impartial, and good science.
Last edited:
Even if it was agreed that there is merit to this approach, what is going to happen when they learn about stealth vaping?
I suggest that they would ban them once they realize they can not control them.
On what grounds would CASAA have to bring any lawsuits?
Who would pay for those lawsuits, assuming there were any grounds to bring them?
If there are neither the grounds, nor the money, it is an empty threat which holds no bargaining power.
That's what they have been doing, to everyone who will listen and all the rest that won't bother to listen
At least they have been doing that to the extent that there are studies that support that position.
Now I think you are VASTLY overestimating how much money CASAA has to work with.
But it sure would be a great thing if we could afford to buy legislation like our opponents can.
That much I will conceed.
As far as I can tell CASAA presents the results of studies such as the one below that show nothing harmful is in the liquid.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf
And extrapolating that to the vapor exhaled, clearly there would be nothing harmful there either.
Granted, these studies fall well short of the mark that you feel needs to be reached, and there are not nearly enough of them.
But all we can do is work with what we have, and continue to encourage more comprehesive studies to be undertaken.
This is an impossible and unrealistic mark to shoot for.
There will of course be detectable PG and VG in the vapor, but so what?
In my opinion, there is more reason to believe that to be healthy to bystanders than it is to be harmful to them.
As far as the rest of those things go, even if there are barely detectable levels someone should have to show they might be harmful.
If there is any chance they might be harmful, surely that would be really easy to show.
Yet nobody has done so, and nobody is really even trying as far as I know, because I suspect they realize the futility.
To prove that they are completely safe, on the other hand?
How would you go about that?
Regardless, if you ARE correct, then you are also correct that we have no chance.
But the fact that vapers have worked together to stop a number of bans indicates to me that you are not correct.
I just dont see the use of e-Cigs continuing the way it does today.
There is too much Money that can be cashed in on thru Taxes. And to do that there will have to be Regulations.
We also just dont live in a Society where are person can Inhale some Substance and then Exhale it onto Someone else and not Expect it to be Banned in Public Places. Especially when Vapers are out numbered about 1,000 to 1 to Non-Vapers.
I guess in a way I think about the Entire e-Cig thing differently than many people. I never thought that vaping wouldnt be banned in public places and I never thought that it wouldn't be Taxed and Regulated.
So when I hear about this Ban or that Tax, Im just not surprised or get Upset about it.
You dont need much grounds to bring forth a suit. Remember, this is America.
All it is going to take is some Poor Smuck who claims that Unnecessary Vaping Bans Unfair Discriminated against him/her causing them to not be able to quit analogs causing him/her to ruin their health.
You can also take the approach that Retailers who sell e-Cig Products are losing Profits because their Clientele are being Unfairly Restricted in the use of e-cigs.
As to the Money. Now that is a Completely different issue. If a group doesnt have Money for things like Studies or Lawyers or Political Influence Money, well, then they arent going to get much done.
The Absolute First thing that must happen is for a Group of Doctors to get onboard the e-Cigs are safe bandwagon with Publish Studies in their hands to back it up.
Because if you cant prove that SHV is safe, you dont have a leg to stand on. And if SHV isnt safe, than Bans on Public Vaping Should be Imposed.
That is why I continue to be somewhat shocked at how much CASAA actually does get done.
It is nothing short of amazing to me how far they have come with so little resources.
But passion and sound arguments, backed by what science does exist, can sometimes move mountains.
I just wish they had even more resources, and even more people with the passion to stand alongside them.
There are more and more doctors getting onboard, and at least two groups of doctors on board.
And there are more and more studies being done.
It is happening slowly, and it has taken awhile, but it is definitely picking up steam.
By they way, were you aware of that study I linked to in my previous post?
Last edited:
Because people like UCSF Don't know if vaping is Safe or Not.
If there was Definitive Publish Evidence that vaping and or SHV was Harmless, Policy makers would take a different view of imposing a Ban.
Unfortunately, the Long Term effects of vaping Food Flavorings and Colorants might not be known for quite some time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked