A Concern about ECig-promotion
- Thread starter lunger123
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It's not really 'beside the point' when the government can stop you from using an ecig. Our country was founded on the principle that we have rights and that we can exercise those rights as long as in doing so you don't harm others. It wasn't founded on the idea that the gov't is to keep you from harming yourself. That's your choice. Promoting anything - doesn't force others to do anything. They are free to choose or not choose.
There are long term studies on the effects of PG and VG (and nicotine) for all to see IF they decide to look. The ecig may be new but the substances used in ecigs have been around for ages. Those concerned should look that up. For those not so concerned, that's their business, not the government's.
Have a nice life.
Done feeding this troll.
Exactly, Kent.
And as for the OP statement---- "And I think the only time anybody should be celebrating any kind of so-called "victory" is when it's proven to be a SAFE alternative, once and for all."----just how do you prove vaping to be safe? It's safe until YOU prove that it is not.
I don't think anyone has feed the troll. I think everyone has scared the troll away. Anyway I think this is an important point that has been brought up. And I think it is wonderful that the educated members of this board have responded with facts and not emotion, an important step in not feeding the troll.
I have not faced any opposition to vaping. And I feel it is a mission to convert smokers to vaping. On the other hand I would never try to convince a non smoker to vape. And I think, without being positive, that this is the general consensus of vapers on this board. It's not about promoting vaping but about promoting vaping to smokers. That's a big difference.
I have not faced any opposition to vaping. And I feel it is a mission to convert smokers to vaping. On the other hand I would never try to convince a non smoker to vape. And I think, without being positive, that this is the general consensus of vapers on this board. It's not about promoting vaping but about promoting vaping to smokers. That's a big difference.
I hate getting involved in these types of discussions, but I'll chime in. (forgive me if I reiterate some points here, I haven't read the entire thread)
I'll agree, this is new tech that may not be fully ready for the commercial market. I often find it difficult to limit my daily vaping and wonder if my nic intake has increased since I quit smoking. But that being said, I understand that this is an alternative to traditional tobacco and obviously, some people will be opposed to it, whatever their motives may be. I have done my research and accepted the risks, and never have I justified vaping by calling it a smoking cessation technique.
I vape because I find it enjoyable. I feel much healthier since making the switch. I'm all for ecigs, and If I had a political bone in my body, I'd be right there alongside everybody fighting for our right to vape. But since I detest politics, conversations about government and law, and arguments in general, I keep my nose out of it. In my personal life, I tend to distance my self from those who insist on talking politics of any sort. I don't discuss government, religion, law, or sports with anybody but my closest friends and family. I don't vote either. My opinions and values are my own, and I don't expect anybody to ever completely satisfy them.
So when it comes to ecigs, I'm holding true to myself. I'll vape. With or without the approval of anybody else, government or otherwise. If somebody's curious, I'll let them know where they can find more information. And as for this thread, I won't be participating anymore.
Let the war rage on!
I'll agree, this is new tech that may not be fully ready for the commercial market. I often find it difficult to limit my daily vaping and wonder if my nic intake has increased since I quit smoking. But that being said, I understand that this is an alternative to traditional tobacco and obviously, some people will be opposed to it, whatever their motives may be. I have done my research and accepted the risks, and never have I justified vaping by calling it a smoking cessation technique.
I vape because I find it enjoyable. I feel much healthier since making the switch. I'm all for ecigs, and If I had a political bone in my body, I'd be right there alongside everybody fighting for our right to vape. But since I detest politics, conversations about government and law, and arguments in general, I keep my nose out of it. In my personal life, I tend to distance my self from those who insist on talking politics of any sort. I don't discuss government, religion, law, or sports with anybody but my closest friends and family. I don't vote either. My opinions and values are my own, and I don't expect anybody to ever completely satisfy them.
So when it comes to ecigs, I'm holding true to myself. I'll vape. With or without the approval of anybody else, government or otherwise. If somebody's curious, I'll let them know where they can find more information. And as for this thread, I won't be participating anymore.
Let the war rage on!
I very proudly convert non-smokers especialy those hard core nay-sayers. I certainly dont expect or want them to take up vaping but simply want them to move past their predjudice long enough to see that while vaping may appear to the ill informed to be the same as smoking it is infact compleatly different. Yes we still get nicotine, yes we inhale and exhale a sustance that has a smokey appearence and yes we use our PV with simmilar frequency and in simmilar situations to that of a smoker but thats where the simmilarites end. I give them a bottle of well known food flavouring that says on the lable that it has been in prodution since 1897 and have them read the ingredients for themselves (water, propylene glycol, glycerine, chocolate flavour, colour 155) and then explain that e-liquid may contain water, propylene glycol, glycerine, flavour, low colour or no colour is best and nicotine is of course optional. The smokey looking substance that they saw is simply steam just like you get when cooking. The difference of course being that PG/VG have a lower freezing/boiling point than water and as such the steam is finer and hangs longer than that of water alone, the steam is visable due to the air temp and humidity in the same way that they can see their breath on a cold winters morning. The reality is that the vapour produced offers the same threat as steaming food. As for nicotine it is not carcinogenic that is why the NRT products do not have big health warninngs on the packaging like cigarettes must have by law but I guess if you are concerned about the stimulant effect its no worse than steam from a cup of coffee or a working coffee machine.
My parents were 2 of the biggest nay-sayers around and are both now happy for me to stand by them and vape without making a huge fuss. Of couse vaping when out to dinner has them cringing because they "dont want a scene" and of course I was then approched by security (to my parents utter horror) but I gave security a quick demo, showed liquid, wick/coil, topped up cart then vaped. Security said carry on and apologised explaining that they knew of e-cigs but it was the 1st one they had seen and that they are perfectly acceptable. And while this might not be the right way to convert one's parents it certainly put an end to their objections on indoor use. lol
I should note that I had sort the approval of hotel management prior to our arrival.
My parents were 2 of the biggest nay-sayers around and are both now happy for me to stand by them and vape without making a huge fuss. Of couse vaping when out to dinner has them cringing because they "dont want a scene" and of course I was then approched by security (to my parents utter horror) but I gave security a quick demo, showed liquid, wick/coil, topped up cart then vaped. Security said carry on and apologised explaining that they knew of e-cigs but it was the 1st one they had seen and that they are perfectly acceptable. And while this might not be the right way to convert one's parents it certainly put an end to their objections on indoor use. lol
I should note that I had sort the approval of hotel management prior to our arrival.
Last edited:
It's your perogative to not care what the government does in this case.
I do have to care when the government starts infringing on my rights though, that is, my right to consume a legal substance that doesn't infringe on another's rights (ex: causes them no harm). It is not beside the point when we have to disguss and go up against misinformed legislation to keep our rights.
Unfortunately, I'm dubious of the testing we really want done based on the track record of skewed/agenda driven testing done previously. There are thousands of testimonies of real world experience from consumers of the positive effects of pvs. The jury is still out in the case of the man in the UK.
The man is the one sticking it to me. I find their greed, fear, and hatred is ugly. My response to that as here (thread) is constructive and calling them out on the misinformation without the negative energy.
Saving lives, celebrating a safe alternative... yes, agreed.
Hope your pv is a positive experience for you. Remember, keep hydrated and if you need any help, let us know.
I do have to care when the government starts infringing on my rights though, that is, my right to consume a legal substance that doesn't infringe on another's rights (ex: causes them no harm). It is not beside the point when we have to disguss and go up against misinformed legislation to keep our rights.
Unfortunately, I'm dubious of the testing we really want done based on the track record of skewed/agenda driven testing done previously. There are thousands of testimonies of real world experience from consumers of the positive effects of pvs. The jury is still out in the case of the man in the UK.
The man is the one sticking it to me. I find their greed, fear, and hatred is ugly. My response to that as here (thread) is constructive and calling them out on the misinformation without the negative energy.
Saving lives, celebrating a safe alternative... yes, agreed.
Hope your pv is a positive experience for you. Remember, keep hydrated and if you need any help, let us know.
The OP has 4 posts and he starts one about NOT helping others addicted to smoking. Plus he vapes two of the bottom feeder PV's on the market. Let's do our best to keep vaping a secret and hope that more people continue to smoke. That's the ticket.
So tell us Hoosier, where do we get clean pure air these days? I feel the I have chosen the lesser of the two evils by using my e-cig and juice.
I think all the smoking bans are simply wrong when privately owned property is involved. Period!
As a property owner it should be my right to decide if I allow people to smoke on it or not. I.E. If I own a bar or restaurant, it should be MY CALL on the smoking policies I adapt. If someone (employee or customer) hates smoking, they're free to go to some other place. While it might well make more business sense to become a non smoking establishment, it still should be my right to make that decision...not others to force it on me! At the most...they should only be allowed to force me to put up a big sign that says smoking is allowed...so anyone who is severely offended by that can pass on by.
Every year bans extend over more and more rights and fields of turf. Now cities and states are even fining people for stuff like the stickers on their cars! They'll take your driver's license and you can't get it back till you pony up some crazy fine.
At least second hand smoke might cause other people harm...but many of the things that are being banned today just don't make sense...it just happens to 'offend someone'...
CRAZY!
These practices are taking things way to far in my opinion, and it gets worse every day.
As a property owner it should be my right to decide if I allow people to smoke on it or not. I.E. If I own a bar or restaurant, it should be MY CALL on the smoking policies I adapt. If someone (employee or customer) hates smoking, they're free to go to some other place. While it might well make more business sense to become a non smoking establishment, it still should be my right to make that decision...not others to force it on me! At the most...they should only be allowed to force me to put up a big sign that says smoking is allowed...so anyone who is severely offended by that can pass on by.
Every year bans extend over more and more rights and fields of turf. Now cities and states are even fining people for stuff like the stickers on their cars! They'll take your driver's license and you can't get it back till you pony up some crazy fine.
At least second hand smoke might cause other people harm...but many of the things that are being banned today just don't make sense...it just happens to 'offend someone'...
CRAZY!
These practices are taking things way to far in my opinion, and it gets worse every day.
I agree Credo. Back when the ban first went into effect in Modest Ca we had a bar owner that flatly refused to enforce the restrictions. He got popped about once a week or so, paid the fine with a smile and went on allowing smokers in his bar. Sure, some people thought it was horrible and wouldn't go in there but on the other hand it was the only bar in town you could smoke in so he got all the smokers. He claimed the fine was worth the price to serve a niche market. And it was a huge niche.
Not to feed the troll, but here's the thing:
These things are generally NOT being advocated as an alternative to brocolli.
Sufficient research has been done to lead me to the conclusion that these things are orders of magnitude safer than regular cigs. Maybe a thousand times safer. Probably a hundred times safer. Certainly more than ten times safer.
So...where is the hassle in converting a smoker? If the worst case scenario that current evidence could support is true, then they're still MUCH safer than cigarette smoking.
If you converted non-smokers to these things, you'd probably be doing them a disservice. But for anyone, or perhaps everyone, who smokes cigarettes to choose these would undoubtedly be of great benefit to public health. That much research has already been done.
Best,
Ande
These things are generally NOT being advocated as an alternative to brocolli.
Sufficient research has been done to lead me to the conclusion that these things are orders of magnitude safer than regular cigs. Maybe a thousand times safer. Probably a hundred times safer. Certainly more than ten times safer.
So...where is the hassle in converting a smoker? If the worst case scenario that current evidence could support is true, then they're still MUCH safer than cigarette smoking.
If you converted non-smokers to these things, you'd probably be doing them a disservice. But for anyone, or perhaps everyone, who smokes cigarettes to choose these would undoubtedly be of great benefit to public health. That much research has already been done.
Best,
Ande
I am not promoting anything by choosing to use ecigs ...."we " are not advertising ..merely communicating with friends here who have become a sort of support system who use the same products .Sounds like the same old paranoid thing ....my gay friends arent promoting the lifestyle just by being gay ..no difference .We are not advertising to children either ( so tired of that one ) .
Youre right as far as im concerned ,i want government to stay outta my life ,womb and lungs .I am a 35 year smoker who has to try something else other then patches .gum etc. And do i want the gov to tax and spend more ? no sir .and do i want them to regulate my ecigs until they equal the 6+ per pack i was paying in cali ? no sir .No liberal guilt here .....The only reason my government would wish approval is for more of my tax dollars that they cant seem to budget for anyway .
Youre right as far as im concerned ,i want government to stay outta my life ,womb and lungs .I am a 35 year smoker who has to try something else other then patches .gum etc. And do i want the gov to tax and spend more ? no sir .and do i want them to regulate my ecigs until they equal the 6+ per pack i was paying in cali ? no sir .No liberal guilt here .....The only reason my government would wish approval is for more of my tax dollars that they cant seem to budget for anyway .
The only thing i'm really worried about is if ecigs start popping up in high schools.... That will be the perfect scapegoat to ban something that has the potential to save countless lives... all because some kid is doing the healthier 2011 version of what kids have been doing in American Schools for the last 100 years...
Wait... you're considering exactly one "may or may not" anecdotal report against thousands of anecdotal testimonials on this and other forums? And that's considering that a very small percentage of users of anything ever even bother to join a forum.
I can't say e-cigs are "safe" or even "safer" because I don't know. But still...
- Status
Similar threads
