Drop the Entitled Attitude

[thejeff]

I just wanted to post about something that gets on my nerves; namely, I'm tired of the sentiment of entitlement to vape wherever and whenever.

Now, don't get me wrong, I remember when e-cigs were relatively new, and the idea of not having to stand in the cold, the rain, or the heat was revolutionary. We thought we were expelling water vapor, and that e-cigs were risk-free. Now we know better, so let's get real:

There is no conclusive scientific evidence that e-cigs are risk-free, and 'reduced harm' sounds way too much like spin. What we, as vapers, use is a 'modified risk' nicotine product. We inhale propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, ethyl alcohol, and food flavorings, and we have no clear idea of the potential health consequences over thirty or more years of use of these products via the vaporizer delivery system. Studies conducted thus far have established that e-cigs do not present the same concerns as tobacco products, which is nice, but we (as a community AND as individuals) should stop pretending that this equates to being risk-free. We (I) use e-cigs in faith that they present a reduced risk to health, and I truly believe they do... but the science isn't there to back me up.

As for businesses that ban the use of e-cigs, we should take a moment to look at ourselves from the outside. We have a beautiful community of caring people, and a fun, involved culture, but non-vapers don't know that. You can't fault a business that doesn't want to see plumes of vapor in its establishment- think about how easy it is to mistake vapor for smoke (the reason many of us started vaping). Just because we believe that vaping is safer, and there is some evidence of that, does not mean that everyone has to accept this conclusion. The science simply is not there, yet. Personally, I don't mind vaping bans, if they sit alongside tobacco bans (at the level of business establishments, anyway; in terms of legislation, I obviously don't want to see a ban).

Some businesses ban the use of both tobacco and e-cigs by their employees on and near the business premises. This is not about having an anti-tobacco or anti-vaping attitude, it's about professionalism.Threatening to boycott on those grounds is petty, in my opinion.

Some businesses do not have a clear policy on e-cigs, and the burden lies on US to determine these policies. To begin, DO NOT walk into a business and start vaping without a word. That's a great way to elicit a knee-jerk reaction, and remember, this is going to be a reaction to "Is that guy smoking?" Rather, when you go to a business or venue, even one where smoking is allowed, ask someone whether vaping is allowed. Use terminology that is more accessible; for instance, "Excuse me... what is your policy on the use of nicotine vaporizers?" You may be asked about what a nicotine vaporizer is; this is the appropriate time to produce your PV and explain its use and contents. Avoid telling someone "It's just water vapor!" That's wrong, unless you're just vaping water.

Most importantly, bear in mind that vaping is not ubiquitous, it's been the subject of a TON of misinformation and propaganda, and most people think of an e-cigarette as essentially the equivalent to an analog, just without an open flame; therefore, when you talk to someone about vaping, YOU are doing PR for the cause. Every time someone gets petty or belligerent about vaping, it hurts the cause, and it hurts all of us.

Thank you for reading, thank you for vaping and supporting the industry, and thank you for being a part of this awesome community!

 

[corruption42]

Agree, 100%. Its all about whats acceptable and where. I vape at work, sitting at my desk -- because upper management has said that they have no problem with it in the building (and in fact will cover up to $150 in equipment -- no juice though -- for ecigs as an alternative to smoking) -- but I recognize this is the exception and not the rule. The simple fact is, we were all smokers long enough to know that smoking is stigmatized (whether for good reason or not) -- vaping is no different. If perceptions are to change, WE have to be the ones to drive it, along with scientific knowledge to back us up. In lieu of a full understanding of what we're doing to ourselves, its only fair to everyone else to show some respect... even if its not always a two-way street. That's just life.

 

[tdavids]

Here Here! I vpe at work and my boss is supportive as it doesn't smell my co worker in my office doesn't mind it he says he can smell it sometimes but it doesn't bother him if it did I would go outside. My wife says that it smells sweet. Again if it bothered her I would take it outside. When I smoked I would stsnd outside in near zero degree temperatures to have a smoke. Why woudn't we do the same for a vape that only takes less than a minute?

 

[Absintheur]

I will say I have read studies that showed the was no contamination from second hand vapor unless you were giving someone a shotgun hit. The have done the studies with filtering the vapor in a small room and the filters came up basically empty.

We don't know what the long term effects will be on our lungs as vapers but second hand...nothing...

 

[Erncig]

I dont understand the whole professional thing. It wasnt too long ago where people were allowed to smoke indoors at work. Society is just soft and politically correct these days.

The people who complain about vaping are the same people who chug down coke, coffee, sugar everday and dont eat enough vegetables.

These are the same people who allow their kids to eat mc donalds, drink coke, sugary snacks, processed foods, candy etc without a second thought. It seems every hypocritical to complain about vapor.

Society is just ignorant about a lot of things and we know once something is banned, its almost impossible to unban them.

Although I agree with some of what you said about us not knowing of these things are completely safe.

I dont mind too much if we cant vape indoors, Im use to it, but I think knee jerk reactions or people mistaking vaping for smoking, or just trying to be "professional" is being silly and a simple sign saying "ecigs allowed/cigarettes not allowed" is a better option.

 

[thejeff]

Agree, 100%. Its all about whats acceptable and where. I vape at work, sitting at my desk -- because upper management has said that they have no problem with it in the building (and in fact will cover up to $150 in equipment -- no juice though -- for ecigs as an alternative to smoking) -- but I recognize this is the exception and not the rule. The simple fact is, we were all smokers long enough to know that smoking is stigmatized (whether for good reason or not) -- vaping is no different. If perceptions are to change, WE have to be the ones to drive it, along with scientific knowledge to back us up. In lieu of a full understanding of what we're doing to ourselves, its only fair to everyone else to show some respect... even if its not always a two-way street. That's just life.

Great point; respect will not always be a two way street with vaping. Sometimes, that's because someone set a bad precedent, and even though it's more often a bias on behalf of the anti-vaping party, we cannot afford to approach these situations disrespectfully. I think about how my actions would appear out of context, because there are a number of ways to push an agenda via propaganda and knee-jerk reactions. Rachel Ray did enormous damage to the cause when she described e-liquid as a combination of chemicals, intimating that our e-liquid is composed similarly to street methamphetamines or industrial, when these 'chemicals' are pharmaceutical grade and FDA approved for human ingestion.

Thanks for a great post!

 

[corruption42]

I dont understand the whole professional thing. It wasnt too long ago where people were allowed to smoke indoors at work. Society is just soft and politically correct these days.

The people who complain about vaping are the same people who chug down coke, coffee, sugar everday and dont eat enough vegetables.

These are the same people who allow their kids to eat mc donalds, drink coke, sugary snacks, processed foods, candy etc without a second thought. It seems every hypocritical to complain about vapor.

Society is just ignorant about a lot of things and we know once something is banned, its almost impossible to unban them.

Although I agree with some of what you said about us not knowing of these things are completely safe.

I dont mind too much if we cant vape indoors, Im use to it, but I think knee jerk reactions or people mistaking vaping for smoking, or just trying to be "professional" is being silly and a simple sign saying "ecigs allowed/cigarettes not allowed" is a better option.

Its easy to forget one very important aspect of the fact that widespread acceptance (or disallowing) isn't in place when you're here on ECF -- we are a VERY small minority of the population. We are growing, and eventually recognition will be a necessity (as ignoring will be impossible) -- but as of now, we are a very small minority of a much larger subset of smokers. Its easy to get lost to this fact with the hundreds of thousands of posts here daily -- it makes it feel like we've taken over the world; but the reality is likely less than 5% of long-term smokers have even tried e-cigs, much less become dedicated vapers. Social recognition comes later -- we're at the forefront of it.

As far as 'professionalism' -- its professionalism on the part of the person choosing to do the socially-questionable activity, not the other way around. Perhaps professionalism is the wrong word; I think 'courtesy' fits better. The same courtesy we afforded non-smokers when we were smoking analogues apply to non-vapers when we're vaping.

 

[thejeff]

Erncig, it's easy to see from a vaper's perspective that gorging on cheeseburgers and high-fructose corn syrup is likely more of a detriment to one's health than vaping... but cheeseburgers are ubiquitous. Generally speaking, everybody knows what a cheeseburger or a can of cola is, and because people understand what these do to their health, they can accept those risks. Most people do not understand what a PV is, or the ingredients in e-liquid, and as such do not know how to appraise the degree of risk presented by an e-cig, and we must remember that vaping is a lifestyle decision, so that no one else is responsible for researching or understanding these things. Society may be soft, but as a smoker, I held the contention that I have a right to smoke (still do, don't exercise it, though, lol), and that other persons have the right not to be disturbed by tobacco smoke. It's all about equanimity

 

[Butters78]

This thread has been brought to you by the word ubiquitous.

 

[corruption42]

Great point; respect will not always be a two way street with vaping. Sometimes, that's because someone set a bad precedent, and even though it's more often a bias on behalf of the anti-vaping party, we cannot afford to approach these situations disrespectfully. I think about how my actions would appear out of context, because there are a number of ways to push an agenda via propaganda and knee-jerk reactions. Rachel Ray did enormous damage to the cause when she described e-liquid as a combination of chemicals, intimating that our e-liquid is composed similarly to street methamphetamines or industrial, when these 'chemicals' are pharmaceutical grade and FDA approved for human ingestion.

Thanks for a great post!

Again, agreed completely -- and I thank you for your initial post. Its probably the most straightforward, respectful manner I've seen such a comment to the community -- and as ecstatic as we all are to have moved to this alternative to smoking, I think many get caught up in that excitement and forget some basic reason and understanding of how what they do effects the world around them.

As far as the propaganda stuff goes; I don't think there's much we can do about that. Drugs, both illicit and legal, face this kind of scrutiny constantly -- and unfortunately, its less about reality and more about skewed facts and ignorance to scientific knowledge. Typically such claims are easily, and demonstrably, false -- but the reality is most people just don't care about fact when its in front of them. It also seems to be increasingly commonplace that people convince themselves that their OPINION of a falsehood suddenly makes it fact -- only science and mathematics don't lie; and interpretation of either can be skewed by people either intelligent, or manipulative, enough.

 

[Tanti]

I mind vaping bans because its out of ignorance.
There are small studies that have been done that there is no effect from second hand vapor, infact there was no nicotine in the air from the small room, the filters were clean.

We need to educate people, not stand in the shadows like we have been for years with smoking, we need to kill the stigma that has been placed on us. PG is used widely in the medical profession. and has been for years and years. VG is also used in the medical and beauty aid world. Nicotine is being studied for the benifits it has.
We exhale a vapor that is PG/VG/water, and possibly a small amount of nicotine( but in the small study that was done they found no nic in the air). It disapates with in seconds of exhale.
Tho we dont know 100% that is safe its safer than the 4000 chemicals that we were taking in with each drag. Thats just common sense.
I agree we shouldnt get angry and look for comfortation, but where the situation presents we need to educate. If we dont, who will, there are so many that just want vaping to go away.

 

[Abe_Katz]

Okay there are some points I agree with in the OP. And many That I do not.

While I do agree that some vapers seem to have an entitled attitude, I have always maintained that until such time as there are legal regulations on indoor public vaping that such decisions are at the discretion of the business owners in question. It really is pretty simple to regulate, if you don't ask don't, if you do ask and are told no don't, if you do ask and its okay with the owner go ahead. That really is a property rights issue.

As to vaping publicly outdoors no regulation is necessary. There have been no demonstrable second-hand vapor effects reported in experiments indoors and the greater air quantity outdoors makes something that was negligable to start with almost untracable. In fact in regards to the public outdoors I'm more concerned about inhaling car exhaust and factory pollution than even someone else's second hand tobacco smoke.

As to long term health effects: Any person who would say that any activity is risk free is naive. Life is full of risk. Risks are taken when crossing a street, drinking a beverage, eating a food item and yes while vaping. However, I must point out that I strongly disagree with the view that "harm reduction" is nothing more than spin. In fact harm reduction is used every day. We have seatbelt laws because seat belts reduce the harm caused to a person when they are in an automobile accident. We have helmet laws for motorcycles and bicycles because a person riding one of those devices could fall off and get a serious head injury without one. We require a whole host of other devices, practices and etc to reduce the harms and risks of everyday activities. Harm reduction is real, and most importantly it works.

With regard to PVs (I refuse to call them e-cigarettes they are nothing like a cigarette) I would say that any health risks that may be associated with them in the long term are greatly less than continuing to smoke, for which we know the long term risks.

As to the contention that they contain "chemicals" so does everything else. I happen to be enjoying a very lovely bottle of an industrial solvent now, this solvent is called dihydrogen oxide. Given enough time it is known to be able to dissolve just about anything, it is used in waste water treatment, industrial processes, is present in food, and yes too much of it can even kill you.

My point is that just because something is a "chemical" does not make it inherently dangerous when used properly.

 

[corruption42]

I will say I have read studies that showed the was no contamination from second hand vapor unless you were giving someone a shotgun hit. The have done the studies with filtering the vapor in a small room and the filters came up basically empty.

We don't know what the long term effects will be on our lungs as vapers but second hand...nothing...

Can you provide a link to the study? Was this a full fledged clinical study, or a small-scale trial? If its less than a full-scale clinical study, then its pretty much still the anecdotal evidence you find all over ECF. I'd love to see such info.

 

[thejeff]

I will say I have read studies that showed the was no contamination from second hand vapor unless you were giving someone a shotgun hit. The have done the studies with filtering the vapor in a small room and the filters came up basically empty.

We don't know what the long term effects will be on our lungs as vapers but second hand...nothing...

Wait, was the test establishing no secondhand contamination checking filters for contaminants, or collecting exhaled vapor and analyzing it for products of its initial composition? I think those two methods would yield vastly different results... many of us speculate that we are not getting 100% absorption of the nic in our vapor... IF we are expelling nicotine, that would be considered a contaminant.

Love the name, by the way. Have you tried Rawr's absinthe juice?

 

[corruption42]

I mind vaping bans because its out of ignorance.
There are small studies that have been done that there is no effect from second hand vapor, infact there was no nicotine in the air from the small room, the filters were clean.

We need to educate people, not stand in the shadows like we have been for years with smoking, we need to kill the stigma that has been placed on us. PG is used widely in the medical profession. and has been for years and years. VG is also used in the medical and beauty aid world. Nicotine is being studied for the benifits it has.
We exhale a vapor that is PG/VG/water, and possibly a small amount of nicotine( but in the small study that was done they found no nic in the air). It disapates with in seconds of exhale.
Tho we dont know 100% that is safe its safer than the 4000 chemicals that we were taking in with each drag. Thats just common sense.
I agree we shouldnt get angry and look for comfortation, but where the situation presents we need to educate. If we dont, who will, there are so many that just want vaping to go away.

Sadly, science and reality don't always line up with 'common sense' -- look at the number of common sense solutions in the past that failed: Asbestos comes to mind. The reality is, the studies that have been done thus far, are all trial studies, and at best only slightly better than the anecdotal evidence you find all over these forums. Do I vape because I feel its a better alternative to smoking? Absolutely -- but I also don't blind myself to the fact that this is a complete unknown we are stepping into.

Yes, PG and VG are common in the health and medical fields -- but how many of these uses vaporize the juices at 3-400 degrees centigrade? How many of them include flavor extracts, natural or artificial? How many include the real key here -- nicotine? A single item being known does not equal the sum of all of those individual items. The items combined is now a new composition, and study is required on the interactions within the juices, the interactions that occur at the time of atomization, and the interactions that occur within the body. Without large scale, independent clinical studies into these facts, we simply won't know.

 

[thejeff]

This thread has been brought to you by the word ubiquitous.

I fell out laughing... yeah, I do like me some ubiquity

 

[Tanti]

Okay there are some points I agree with in the OP. And many That I do not.

While I do agree that some vapers seem to have an entitled attitude, I have always maintained that until such time as there are legal regulations on indoor public vaping that such decisions are at the discretion of the business owners in question. It really is pretty simple to regulate, if you don't ask don't, if you do ask and are told no don't, if you do ask and its okay with the owner go ahead. That really is a property rights issue.

As to vaping publicly outdoors no regulation is necessary. There have been no demonstrable second-hand vapor effects reported in experiments indoors and the greater air quantity outdoors makes something that was negligable to start with almost untracable. In fact in regards to the public outdoors I'm more concerned about inhaling car exhaust and factory pollution than even someone else's second hand tobacco smoke.

As to long term health effects: Any person who would say that any activity is risk free is naive. Life is full of risk. Risks are taken when crossing a street, drinking a beverage, eating a food item and yes while vaping. However, I must point out that I strongly disagree with the view that "harm reduction" is nothing more than spin. In fact harm reduction is used every day. We have seatbelt laws because seat belts reduce the harm caused to a person when they are in an automobile accident. We have helmet laws for motorcycles and bicycles because a person riding one of those devices could fall off and get a serious head injury without one. We require a whole host of other devices, practices and etc to reduce the harms and risks of everyday activities. Harm reduction is real, and most importantly it works.

With regard to PVs (I refuse to call them e-cigarettes they are nothing like a cigarette) I would say that any health risks that may be associated with them in the long term are greatly less than continuing to smoke, for which we know the long term risks.

As to the contention that they contain "chemicals" so does everything else. I happen to be enjoying a very lovely bottle of an industrial solvent now, this solvent is called dihydrogen oxide. Given enough time it is known to be able to dissolve just about anything, it is used in waste water treatment, industrial processes, is present in food, and yes too much of it can even kill you.

My point is that just because something is a "chemical" does not make it inherently dangerous when used properly.

Everything has a chemical compostion the one you have there is Water.
I can remember when there was a news reporter freaking out about that not to long ago in the news that it need to be ban.

 

[corruption42]

Okay there are some points I agree with in the OP. And many That I do not.

While I do agree that some vapers seem to have an entitled attitude, I have always maintained that until such time as there are legal regulations on indoor public vaping that such decisions are at the discretion of the business owners in question. It really is pretty simple to regulate, if you don't ask don't, if you do ask and are told no don't, if you do ask and its okay with the owner go ahead. That really is a property rights issue.

As to vaping publicly outdoors no regulation is necessary. There have been no demonstrable second-hand vapor effects reported in experiments indoors and the greater air quantity outdoors makes something that was negligable to start with almost untracable. In fact in regards to the public outdoors I'm more concerned about inhaling car exhaust and factory pollution than even someone else's second hand tobacco smoke.

As to long term health effects: Any person who would say that any activity is risk free is naive. Life is full of risk. Risks are taken when crossing a street, drinking a beverage, eating a food item and yes while vaping. However, I must point out that I strongly disagree with the view that "harm reduction" is nothing more than spin. In fact harm reduction is used every day. We have seatbelt laws because seat belts reduce the harm caused to a person when they are in an automobile accident. We have helmet laws for motorcycles and bicycles because a person riding one of those devices could fall off and get a serious head injury without one. We require a whole host of other devices, practices and etc to reduce the harms and risks of everyday activities. Harm reduction is real, and most importantly it works.

With regard to PVs (I refuse to call them e-cigarettes they are nothing like a cigarette) I would say that any health risks that may be associated with them in the long term are greatly less than continuing to smoke, for which we know the long term risks.

As to the contention that they contain "chemicals" so does everything else. I happen to be enjoying a very lovely bottle of an industrial solvent now, this solvent is called dihydrogen oxide. Given enough time it is known to be able to dissolve just about anything, it is used in waste water treatment, industrial processes, is present in food, and yes too much of it can even kill you.

My point is that just because something is a "chemical" does not make it inherently dangerous when used properly.

Again, all of this is all well and good -- and I agree with you on the property rights vs personal rights issue in a private situation -- the majority of this is opinion, and that ignores the purpose of the initial post. When he said 'harm reduction', he specifically meant using 'harm reduction' with PV's is spin -- not across the board. As far as the chemical portion goes -- this is a willful choice to ignore the fact that PG/VG/Nic/Flavor extracts are not as simple a compound as water, and their interactions at that point essentially create a new amalgam -- an amalgam of which the properties are currently unknown. Anything that we perceive as a benefit, is just that: perception. Nothing more, just opinion. There simply isn't hard data to back any of it up outside of ancedotal.

 

[Abe_Katz]

Everything has a chemical compostion the one you have there is Water.
I can remember when there was a news reporter freaking out about that not to long ago in the news that it need to be ban.

Yep precisely why I used it as an example.

 

[corruption42]

I fell out laughing... yeah, I do like me some ubiquity

About as much as I like anecdotal!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrJYpActs7g