Drop the Entitled Attitude

[Downtown]

I do completely agree! I agree with professionalism and the word ubiquitous <-- lovely word, gonna use it daily. But sometimes people just don't understand the idea of it. When they tell me that it does the same harm, I feel kind of hurt and put off because they won't take the chance to understand. If my girlfriend didn't like if I did it around her, I'd move somewhere else to appease her wishes, that's just caring. If my dad had a problem with it (which he can't, seeings how he smokes cigars like they're going out of business) I'd do the same. If my buddies didn't like it, same response, same with businesses. But if I'm in an area where people can regularly smoke a cigarette, and I pull out my e-cig, and I get some irrational amount of hate just because they don't know what it is, I get really defensive. Maybe I'm just saying, pick your battles, and know when it's right to maybe put your foot down.

 

[1vapeatatime]

One the one hand you tell vapers to "drop the attitude", then you proceed to tell us why we should have an attitude.....hmmm.

NEXT!!!!!!!!

 

[corruption42]

One the one hand you tell vapers to "drop the attitude", then you proceed to tell us why we should have an attitude.....hmmm.

NEXT!!!!!!!!

If you choose to read it that way, I guess. He explained the very reasons that OTHERS OUTSIDE OF OUR COMMUNITY perceive us -- and perception is everything, if you want acceptance and not to be shunned long-term. Don't expect it to happen overnight. Thinking that we have nothing to prove and no need to show consideration is a sure-fire way to make our community look bad.

 

[thejeff]

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.

Gonna rebut line-item style, here:

My mention of regulation for outdoor vaping was in regards to businesses determining policy for employees, which is acceptable to me as a matter of professionalism. Beyond that, I agree with you.

I do not believe that 'reduced harm' is merely spin... I vape precisely because I believe it is reduced harm, and also because now I smell more attractive, lol. 'Reduced harm' sounds an awful lot like spin, from the outside. That's all.

With regard to PVs, I agree, and I would shy away from the term 'e-cigarette,' except that it is accessible, and helps me to open a dialog with persons who do not understand what vaping is.

As for chemical content... vaporization is a relatively new delivery vehicle for most of the chemicals we vape, and at this moment, we cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that we are using the substances that we vape properly.

 

[1vapeatatime]

You are absolutely right. I stand corrected, sorry

If you choose to read it that way, I guess. He explained the very reasons that OTHERS OUTSIDE OF OUR COMMUNITY perceive us -- and perception is everything, if you want acceptance and not to be shunned long-term. Don't expect it to happen overnight. Thinking that we have nothing to prove and no need to show consideration is a sure-fire way to make our community look bad.

 

[Abe_Katz]

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.

I'm not arguing the point that the benefits (if any) are mere perception at this moment. Rather if you read the entire original post, he goes on about risk free activity. There is no such thing as a risk free activity. At most we can reduce the risk. Now given the choice between a compound with known 600+ chemicals in it, many of them known to be carcinogenic, and comparing that with 5 most with no known toxic properties (excluding nicotine) I would say that I'll take my chances.

However, here is the problem when it comes to the regulation of things in this country, and well most other countries too. If a product is made illegal it cannot be tested. This would explain why medical examination of a certain other plant has only anecdotal medical benefits reported. It is illegal and therefore scientific/medical studies are near impossible to conduct.

Here is the point, the vast majority of people in this country are scientifically ignorant. I'm not saying thats a "good" thing or a "bad" thing. It simply is. If you add to that the general perception of "demon tobacco" to the mix, and several laws preventing stricter regulation of that tobacco--which is known to be dangerous. Then a ban on an unknown item would result in less science being conducted. And therein lies the Catch 22. The FDA wants long term studies on harm before it approves, but won't allow long term studies without approval. Add to this the fact that the FDA is primarily funded not by tax dollars but by collecting fees from Big Pharma (who has a clear interest in banning PVs so they can sell their drugs) and the big picture seems to come into focus here.

What a ban will result in is not people stopping using PVs. It will result in a black market for them and the liquids used in them. Rather than increasing public safety with a ban, a ban would decrease public safety (not to mention ...... the science necessary to determine the safety/risks with normal long term use of PVs for nicotine administration). The simple fact of the matter is the FDA has basically already told us what they want to do. If they do it they will condemn many to death due to tobacco related disease and turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals who refuse to comply with their silly ban.

That said I do not think that a ban on PVs would happen anyway. I'll tell you why. The components necessary to construct a mod cannot be banned. Seriously who is going to allow a ban on metal tubing, lumber, batteries, nichrome wire and so on? The components in juice (excluding perhaps nicotine base) cannot be banned. It is in food, it is cosmetics and most importantly is available for everyone. All it takes is a decent bath tub chemist and some nicotine and some PG or VG and you have nic base.

In essence if the FDA got everything they wanted we would be thrust into a Prohibition situation, and it is likely that those who would have never smoked or vaped would now do so because it was considered to be "risky" or "edgy" or whatever term you want to apply to it. Legal access to products for adults, under purity controls circumvents black markets, criminal activity, and enhances public safety.

 

[thejeff]

I do completely agree! I agree with professionalism and the word ubiquitous <-- lovely word, gonna use it daily. But sometimes people just don't understand the idea of it. When they tell me that it does the same harm, I feel kind of hurt and put off because they won't take the chance to understand. If my girlfriend didn't like if I did it around her, I'd move somewhere else to appease her wishes, that's just caring. If my dad had a problem with it (which he can't, seeings how he smokes cigars like they're going out of business) I'd do the same. If my buddies didn't like it, same response, same with businesses. But if I'm in an area where people can regularly smoke a cigarette, and I pull out my e-cig, and I get some irrational amount of hate just because they don't know what it is, I get really defensive. Maybe I'm just saying, pick your battles, and know when it's right to maybe put your foot down.

And yes, we do need to pick some battles. We need to pick them as a community, and fight them together... we should have had WAY more than 26,955 signatures on the recent petition on We the People, you know what I mean? When I advise asking permission to vape even in tobacco-friendly areas, it's less about the science, and more about perception. "Hey, can I use this? It's a nicotine vaporizer, not some kind of street drug." I use a Tesla, and get lots of funny looks because of it. Also, a few compliments on my lightsaber... gonna buy a more conservative looking mod

 

[Tanti]

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.

Really if you think about there is an unknown about everything in life. Nobody knows 100% they will not die from taking 2 tyenol or any of the other drugs that FDA approved. You can die from drinking to much water. You can have a reaction to food and die. There is no 100% across the board for everyone.

What im saying is we were taking in 4000 chemicals that we dont take in now, so its safer in that respect. Every time we breath we take in chemicals expecially if we live in a big city. You have a fire place you are taking in a small amount of chemicals from that fireplace, cooking food you take in small amounts of chemicals that are in the steam from the food. It need to be put in perspective we were taking in 4000 chemicals, now we are not. PG is used in vapor form in medical situations and has been proven safe. We ingest flavorings, VG,PG almost everyday. If you took lozenges to quit ever you ingested nicotine FDA approved. If you have ever used a vaporizer when you had a cold and put the meds into it you were inhaling chemicals into your lungs.

It all needs to be put in to perspective with what we used to do for umpteen years (40 years for me).

 

[IntelligentDesigner]

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)

Where do I apply? I want an RBA.

...oh....I do need a job too. If I had one of those I could probably buy an RBA, but if I can have the best of both worlds...

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?

One of my favorite things about vaping...no longer confined to a device that will literally burn up if don't attend to it until used up.

With regard to PVs, I agree, and I would shy away from the term 'e-cigarette,' except that it is accessible, and helps me to open a dialog with persons who do not understand what vaping is.

Agreed, especially since I don't even like the cig-a-likes. But "e-cig" is a lot less of a mouthful than "personal vaporizer". Plus "personal vaporizer" sounds like it could mean a lot of other things, like an alien ray gun for example.

 

[corruption42]

Really if you think about there is an unknown about everything in life. Nobody knows 100% they will not die from taking 2 tyenol or any of the other drugs that FDA approved. You can die from drinking to much water. You can have a reaction to food and die. There is no 100% across the board for everyone.

What im saying is we were taking in 4000 chemicals that we dont take in now, so its safer in that respect. Every time we breath we take in chemicals expecially if we live in a big city. You have a fire place you are taking in a small amount of chemicals from that fireplace, cooking food you take in small amounts of chemicals that are in the steam from the food. It need to be put in perspective we were taking in 4000 chemicals, now we are not. PG is used in vapor form in medical situations and has been proven safe. We ingest flavorings, VG,PG almost everyday. If you took lozenges to quit ever you ingested nicotine FDA approved. If you have ever used a vaporizer when you had a cold and put the meds into it you were inhaling chemicals into your lungs.

It all needs to be put in to perspective with what we used to do for umpteen years (40 years for me).

Yes, perspective is a necessity, and I don't disagree with you. However, the unknowns are still there just the same: the medical field isn't cooking PG at 3-400 degrees, and directly inhaling the vapor. Same with VG and the health/foods industry. Likewise, outside of possibly the person who prepares it, we're not inhaling the flavors. The heat changes these chemical compositions -- how, we don't completely know yet.

Again, I recognize that to me, its a reduction in nasties and thus a net win for me with vaping. I get to keep my preferred habit, and get to toss most the negative that comes along with it. The one negative you don't get the benefit of tossing, however, is the stigma of simply smoking. Even if we're not by any technical measures smoking, thats what the public perceives it as, and the whole purpose of these statements is that if we start spreading falsities along with our evangelism for our new alternative choice to smoking tobacco -- when the facts come out, that can leave a bitter taste in many peoples mouths, and give the anti-smoking, anti-vaping extra fuel against the fight. Look how much misinformation due to lack of scientific knowledge was given by big tobacco for years, and look how much that is still thrown in that industries face -- statements made by executives nearly a century ago are still treated as 'the acknowledged truth of the smoking industry'. We run similar risks with our little hobby, and pretending that we don't doesn't make that reality go away.

I do agree with you on perspective; but, we have an uphill battle to achieve it, scientific data to collect and a public to convince. Anything that can help us attain any of those goals is a good fight.

 

[Tanti]

Yes, perspective is a necessity, and I don't disagree with you. However, the unknowns are still there just the same: the medical field isn't cooking PG at 3-400 degrees, and directly inhaling the vapor. Same with VG and the health/foods industry. Likewise, outside of possibly the person who prepares it, we're not inhaling the flavors. The heat changes these chemical compositions -- how, we don't completely know yet.

Again, I recognize that to me, its a reduction in nasties and thus a net win for me with vaping. I get to keep my preferred habit, and get to toss most the negative that comes along with it. The one negative you don't get the benefit of tossing, however, is the stigma of simply smoking. Even if we're not by any technical measures smoking, thats what the public perceives it as, and the whole purpose of these statements is that if we start spreading falsities along with our evangelism for our new alternative choice to smoking tobacco -- when the facts come out, that can leave a bitter taste in many peoples mouths, and give the anti-smoking, anti-vaping extra fuel against the fight. Look how much misinformation due to lack of scientific knowledge was given by big tobacco for years, and look how much that is still thrown in that industries face -- statements made by executives nearly a century ago are still treated as 'the acknowledged truth of the smoking industry'. We run similar risks with our little hobby, and pretending that we don't doesn't make that reality go away.

I do agree with you on perspective; but, we have an uphill battle to achieve it, scientific data to collect and a public to convince. Anything that can help us attain any of those goals is a good fight.

They are using PG vapor as a vehicle to put drugs into lung transplant patients.

 

[Uncle Willie]

I'd like to say thanks for having the stones to post this thread ..

Be aware that you are not alone in your commentary .. most won't go against the blinders that so many wear ..

 

[corruption42]

They are using PG vapor as a vehicle to put drugs into lung transplant patients.

Heated, or in a pressurized, atomized mist form like with inhalers? I am unaware of any uses that include the heat component, which is crucial to our uses.

 

[Abe_Katz]

Gonna rebut line-item style, here:

My mention of regulation for outdoor vaping was in regards to businesses determining policy for employees, which is acceptable to me as a matter of professionalism. Beyond that, I agree with you.

In regard to regulation of outdoor vaping of the employees of businesses that is at the discretion of the owners of the business. It is a property rights issue. Any perception of professionalism or unprofessionalism for vaping (or smoking for that matter) is merely a perception, and in my view not entirely relevant in reguard to public health and public safety.

I do not believe that 'reduced harm' is merely spin... I vape precisely because I believe it is reduced harm, and also because now I smell more attractive, lol.

Your original post did not make that clear. I would say that the claim of harm reduction at this time is anecdotal and needs further study. There is a lack of scientific evidence that vaping is less dangerous than smoking--though anecdotal indications are that it is in fact less dangerous. However, the FDA wants to ban PVs, and Juice and as such long term studies will not be conducted after the ban, nor can they.

Some things simply need to be allowed on the market for adults to choose to consume (or not consume) at their own discretion before regulations beyond the purity of ingredients, age restrictions on purchase, and child proof container requirements are put into place. If any thing, I would say waiting on a government agency to tell people they can do something is far more likely to ...... progress than to foster progress.

With regard to PVs, I agree, and I would shy away from the term 'e-cigarette,' except that it is accessible, and helps me to open a dialog with persons who do not understand what vaping is.

I find the opposite to be true. Most non-smokers I've incountered have a negitive reaction to the cigarette portion of "E-cigarette". I my experience (which is likely different than yours) it is conversation stopper rather than starter. With smokers the opposite tends to be true.

As for chemical content... vaporization is a relatively new delivery vehicle for most of the chemicals we vape, and at this moment, we cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that we are using the substances that we vape properly.

I don't disagree from a scientific perspective. However, from a regulatory and political perspective regulations and politics are not scientific--nor do they follow common sense. Rather with regulations we are dealing with interplays between vested interests (BT, BP and FDA) and public perceptions.

The fact is that the lack of scientific evidence can, and will be used against us in the court of public opinion. Strangely it was pretty much these same arguments a century ago that were used against the automobile. We didn't know if traveling over gallop speed was "safe".

I hate to say it this way but we vapers are the guinea pigs for the long term health effects of vaping. I happen to be fine with that, and think that the experiment should continue un-impeeded except for common sense regulations. (ingredients labeling, lab purity standards, age restrictions)

 

[corruption42]

Abe: Despite any differences in the semantics of how we put it, at the end of the day, I think you, jeff and myself are all saying the same thing -- the raw data is still out; but it doesn't stop us. It then just comes down to perspective on how to deal with it, and for the most part I agree with your opinion.

 

[Seebs]

Kudos for saying what lots of us think. I am a big fan of "let's simplify it until a five year old can understand it" and this is how I view the whole "Ban on vaping" at some establishments:

- My place, my rules. Period. If you don't agree/like my rule; you're more than welcome to go elsewhere.

If I own/run a restaurant/business/etc and I find it in myself to add a ban on vaping on top of whatever ordinance there is regarding smoking indoors; then it is my choice. I don't have to explain it to anyone and I don't have to "bend" my rules to accommodate the "vaper's feelings".

 

[Uncle Willie]

They are using PG vapor as a vehicle to put drugs into lung transplant patients.

The vehicle used may be safe .. it's the driver, in this case the flavorings, that are most suspect when mixed / heated / vaporized / mixed with burnable compounds if used in a cartomizer .. etc ..

You see, most of us use a mixture .. which is certainly unknown / created by home chemists for the most part / of unknown quality / unknown ingredients in many cases / chemical compound that if essentially heated to vaporization .. no one can speak to that scenario with any degree of certainty and won't be able to speak to it for some time into the future

Then, you have the issue of the burning of filler material .. especially by users that are new .. this area alone is likely the weakest link in the effort to do any real defense of a PV .. because it is highly likely that an over heated carto on a high capacity battery will give the user a nice big hit of who knows what if the carto is dry or close to it .. the regulators can have a field day with that one ..

 

[Abe_Katz]

Abe: Despite any differences in the semantics of how we put it, at the end of the day, I think you, jeff and myself are all saying the same thing -- the raw data is still out; but it doesn't stop us. It then just comes down to perspective on how to deal with it, and for the most part I agree with your opinion.

Sometimes arguments from agreement are more difficult than those arising from disagreement. I personally do not see a need for a general public ban on vaping as is the case with smoking. There isn't the science to back that it is harmful, just like there isn't science to back that it is not harmful in its second-hand form.

What trials we do have indicate that second-hand vapor is likely to be unharmful. So further testing is necessary. The same is true of the long term primary effects of vaping. And here I think the area of concern is likely to be not the PG, VG, or even the nicotine. Rather it is most likely to come from the flavoring agents where where primarily developed for oral ingestion and interaction with the digestive system (as opposed to the respiratory system).

The "X-Factor" in juice is the flavorings. And I have used unflavored juice (its not bad actually) particularly when my sense of taste has decided to go on vacation.

My main contention is that as far as regulation goes PVs and juice needs to be allowed under controlled conditions (clean labs for production, child proof containers and of course age restrictions). I'm far more concerned about an attempt at prohibition resulting in even greater crime than we have now, falling purity standards than we have now, and greater accessibility to minors than we have now. After all we know how well the so-called war on illicit "compounds" is going.

My concern as to regulation (which is coming, it is inevitable) is the form of the regulation. I simply do not trust the FDA to make the right decisions here because due to their funding situation BP in particular does not want PVs to be ailable because that means fewer sales for their useless patches (I've yet to meet anyone who actually quit using them), gums (same thing), and their pills (which likewise do not have long term testing but are approved--perhaps the fee structure has something to do with that?).

At the end of the day, the American experience with regulatory bodies that are not regularly overhauled is that those bodies end up serving the interests of the industries they are supposed to regulate.

 

[thejeff]

Kudos for saying what lots of us think. I am a big fan of "let's simplify it until a five year old can understand it" and this is how I view the whole "Ban on vaping" at some establishments:

- My place, my rules. Period. If you don't agree/like my rule; you're more than welcome to go elsewhere.

If I own/run a restaurant/business/etc and I find it in myself to add a ban on vaping on top of whatever ordinance there is regarding smoking indoors; then it is my choice. I don't have to explain it to anyone and I don't have to "bend" my rules to accommodate the "vaper's feelings".

Additionally, I have a lot of sympathy for business owners and the regulations that they face... especially here in Virginia, where we have steep regulations that nearly preclude restauranteurs from offering any indoor smoking options.

 

[thejeff]

They are using PG vapor as a vehicle to put drugs into lung transplant patients.

However, this only means that the FDA has approved a specific means of vaporization or atomization for a certain duration of treatment... plenty of things with awful side effects gain FDA approval specifically for short-term use. Not that that is the case with PG, BUT I would suggest that the FDA has not been presented evidence to support the long-term use of PG vaporized at different temperatures, as others in this thread have more eloquently suggested.

Also, wow, this thread got juicy! Thanks to everyone for a scintillating dialogue!