Email I got from my manager

[zoiDman]

Big Pharm and the FDA agree with you. That's why they want vaping banned until there are 20 year studies that will confirm what most of us already know.

You and I both know that vaping Isn't going to be Banned. Why to you keep Gnawing at that Bone?

 

[hottierockstar]

toootally off topic

U know this just chaps my hide.
There are so many more thing to worry about other than nicotene.
I don't see the big uproar about GMO foods.
Unecessary soy additives in our food.
Stuff being labeled organic when it isn't.
So much more, imo nicotene secondhand smoke is just
a smoke screen,,,,
My rant is over.........

weren't you watching tv here in socal or on fb at election time? (there's a forum for that...you know like "there's an app for that" LOL)

 

[MustangSallie]

Big Pharm and the FDA agree with you. That's why they want vaping banned until there are 20 year studies that will confirm what most of us already know.

I normally try to stay out of arguments like this because they typically just go round and round and with no resolution. Mostly because there really can't be any resolution. However, just this once I'll make an exception to my rule. Anything any of us think we know about the long term effect of vaping is just an educated guess at this point. It can't be anything other than that. Smoking tobacco was thought to be harmless "back in the day" too. Do I think vaping will turn out to be as harmful as smoking is? No, I don't. Can I be 100% sure at this point? No, I can't. As much as you want it to be true, neither can you.

 

[jerzi]

That's why there are professionals who are experts in their fields like Dr Seigel, Dr Murray Laugesen and Bill Godshaw with years of experience to provide the analysis and expertise that we do not have. I happen to trust their research, their expertise and their statements on this topic that vaping is safe to be around. You want a 20 year study. Big Pharm agrees with you. I choose not to support that type of irrational thinking.

Dr. Seigel wants a long term study also, in a living enviroment. You are just being redundant with the "vaping is safe to be around", when long term studies do not confirm this and raise concerns to this fact.

Being concerned with future health is not irrational thinking, it's completely rational.

 

[chellemmm]

Because it is part of the "official" repertoire of: ANTZ, ASH, Big PHARMA, BT and "ECF has planted trolls who disagree with me..."

You and I both know that Vaping Isn't going to be Banned. Why to you keep Gnawing at that Bone?

 

[wv2win]

You and I both know that Vaping Isn't going to be Banned. Why to you keep Gnawing at that Bone?

Really?? You have some special insight or inside information? Or just making one line statements by you with no facts to support it is all everyone should need to feel safe and secure??

 

[jerzi]

LOL, You didn't take the steam out, he just never cites anyone else. I am getting sick of this argument because, although I agree with SOME of his points, he is like a rockhead when it comes to another's point of view. My point is, NO ONE knows it "all," and there is still much more research and study to be done before a definitive answer is to be found.

I do agree with a lot of the points he has made around the forums also, but this is just exhausting.

 

[wv2win]

Dr. Seigel wants a long term study also, in a living enviroment. You are just being redundant with the "vaping is safe to be around", when long term studies do not confirm this and raise concerns to this fact.

Being concerned with future health is not irrational thinking, it's completely rational.

He wants long term studies to confirm what he already has stated, that vaping is safe to be around, because knows that is the only way to deal with those he fights against on this issue. And as he has also stated, the long term studies he is most interested in are those on the "efficacy" of vaping as a smoking cessation tool.

Needing a 20 or 30 year study, as you do, instead of trusting the experts in the field of Public Health, is irrational.

 

[chellemmm]

It makes me want to NEVER root for West Virginia. Ever. And NEVER go back to Georgia.

 

[AttyPops]

Look. This all started with a memo in the workplace. The employer has the right to ban vaping, even though there's no proven health risk. Just based on the fact that they might have to clean the windows more often. And before anyone starts with the usual "fog machines at concerts" stuff....the employer has the right to ban fog machines too.

As far as health risks...I think they are absolutely minimal 2nd and 3rd hand. However, we need more studies.

I wish they'd pay more attention to air quality...VOC's, emissions from copy machines, other machines, etc in all workplaces...but it isn't always practical depending on the nature of the business/job. So....whatayagonnado?

 

[zoiDman]

Really?? You have some special insight or inside information? Or just making one line statements by you with no facts to support it is all everyone should need to feel safe and secure??

Don't be a Rube.

Of course Vaping is going to Continue. Lorillard would Not have Bought Blu if there was going to be e-Cigarettes.

All the BT Players are moving into the e-Cig Market. Doesn't take a Crystal Ball or Inside Information to Know that Vaping is here to stay.

Now Unregulated Sale of Liquid e-Liquids. That is a Different Story.

The Best thing that could happen for Any Vaper would be a 20 Year Study. If it showed that Vaping was Safe, think what a Better World it would be.

And if it showed that there are Unforeseen Risks and Hazards, well, Vapers should have that Information.

 

[jerzi]

He wants long term studies to confirm what he already has stated, that vaping is safe to be around, because knows that is the only way to deal with those he fights against on this issue. And as he has also stated, the long term studies he is most interested in are those on the "efficacy" of vaping as a smoking cessation tool.

He hasn't stated long term vaping is completely risk free for you and others. Where do you make this stuff up from?

 

[wv2win]

Look. This all started with a memo in the workplace. The employer has the right to ban vaping, even though there's no proven health risk. Just based on the fact that they might have to clean the windows more often. And before anyone starts with the usual "fog machines at concerts" stuff....the employer has the right to ban fog machines too.

As far as health risks...I think they are absolutely minimal 2nd and 3rd hand. However, we need more studies.

I wish they'd pay more attention to air quality...VOC's, emissions from copy machines, other machines, etc in all workplaces...but it isn't always practical depending on the nature of the business/job. So....whatayagonnado?

I agree and quite reasonable. But for some, all risk must be eliminated in life and there will never be enough studies to placate their fears.

 

[wv2win]

This is an excerpt from Dr Seigel in response to an article written in Utah and posted on his web site in February:

"How can the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, Action on Smoking and Health, and the American Legacy Foundation justify their calls for a ban on electronic cigarettes -which have not been shown to pose any carcinogenic hazard - while they remain silent about the risks of oral NRT use - which has now been shown to pose a significant carcinogenic hazard in a substantial proportion of users?.............................

Policy needs to be based on science, not pure conjecture. Let's look at the science. Based on the studies that have been done and the information about adverse effects of the product during its 3 years of use in the United States, as well as the characterization of the components in the product, what are the specific chemical exposures occurring among vapers and non-vapers that these anti-smoking groups posit may pose a significant health hazard?

If these groups cannot name a potential specific hazard, then it seems imprudent to ban the product, take it off the market, or even to ban its use in public, as this is going to result in forcing large numbers of vapers to go back to cigarette smoking……………………….

I argue that to remove the product from the market, or even to ban its use in public, would result in a known and definite public health hazard: thousands of vapers returning to cigarette smoking, which is without doubt going to cause disease and death."

It's obvious you like to "cherry-pick" your information to "try" and prove that vaping is dangerous to others. Many experts in this field do not agree with you. But ASH, Big Pharm and the FDA really do appreciate your efforts on their behalf. There have been people come on to ECF and try to spread dissent and claim that vaping is dangerous to others. They are trolls from groups like ASH.

He hasn't stated long term vaping is completely risk free for you and others. Where do you make this stuff up from?

I guess I will just keep posting these statements by the good doctor until maybe you understand the intent of his statements. Something tells me (I think it is called logical thinking) that he would not make these definitive statements if he was really concerned about the public's long term health as it relates to being near vapor.

And as I suspected, you want everything in life to be "completely risk free", using your own words. I use to think that way, until about the age of 12. I decided I didn't want to live with irrational fear and jettisoned that type of "thinking" (term used loosely).

 

[zoiDman]

I do agree with a lot of the points he has made around the forums also, but this is just exhausting.

Unfortunately, there are some people who Can't Understand that People can have a Different Point of View than the one that they Have.

It's kinda Sad in a Way. But it Is what it Is.

---

I don't agree with Everything that you have Posted. But I think you have Brought up some Very Tangible Points.

Both in this Thread and in Others.

 

[zoiDman]

I do agree with a lot of the points he has made around the forums also, but this is just exhausting.

BTW - I'm not sure what is going on lately. But things sure do seem to Escalate Quickly in these Threads.

I Blame it on the Asteroid that just Passed Close to the Earth.

 

[chellemmm]

Yes. Keep posting the same statements until WE UNDERSTAND. It is also known as "brow beating." Or "bullying." But keep posting them until WE UNDERSTAND...

 

[jerzi]

I guess I will just keep posting these statements by the good doctor until maybe you understand the intent of his statements. Something tells me (I think it is called logical thinking) that he would not make these definitive statements if he was really concerned about the public's long term health as it relates to being near vapor.

And as I suspected, you want everything in life to be "completely risk free", using your own words. I use to think that way, until about the age of 12. I decided I didn't want to live with irrational fear.

He would state the risks of long term exposure if he knew, but he hasn't and won't because he uses scientific data to base them short term findings on. You are just misdirecting and it's getting rather old.

Show me what I'm asking for, not the same redundant post that provides no clarification on long term use.

 

[The Ocelot]

 

[AttyPops]

So much for trying to bring it back to the main point.

Look. You guys can debate the long term heath impact of 2nd hand or 3rd hand vaping (that's only been in existence in the short term) all day long. You won't get anywhere (scientifically) for about another 15 years. No matter whom you quote. On any "side".