Excellent balanced HuffPo article 1/9/14 - interesting FDA comments

[Roger_Lafayette]

The links in the 'update' and other areas of CASAA ....

Thanks, Kent. The one thing that I personally find hard to advance myself is the "indoor vaping" issue. If I'm vaping anything other than pure distilled water then I have to take the position that I have the right to alter the air that they breathe via a voluntary activity (i.e. something other than an involuntary act such as sneezing).

What should I say if I'm told that they have the right to be free from even a vanishingly small chance of inhaling just one molecule of nicotine (or VG, for that matter)?

The scientific reality may be that they are no more at risk than they would be if I was chewing nicorette, drinking any caffeinated beverage, or even using certain breath sprays or after shaves with minute quantities of alcohol. In all those cases, there's a risk of an errant molecule of nicotine, caffeine, or alcohol (respec.) becoming airborne. However these risks are tolerated by societal convention, and some irrational fears just can't be overcome with logic.

For me, the "mileage" (so-to-speak) just too low, and I'm generally unpersuaded that this is an effective tactic on the part of vapers. I'd rather prioritize the battles that are most winnable, and/or most essential. (And yes, this is in some ways a tiresome rehash of my other thread on indoor vaping.)

 

[Kent C]

Thanks, Kent. The one thing that I personally find hard to advance myself is the "indoor vaping" issue. If I'm vaping anything other than pure distilled water then I have to take the position that I have the right to alter the air that they breathe via a voluntary activity (i.e. something other than an involuntary act such as sneezing).

What should I say if I'm told that they have the right to be free from even a vanishingly small chance of inhaling just one molecule of nicotine (or VG, for that matter)?

The scientific reality may be that they are no more at risk than they would be if I was chewing nicorette, drinking any caffeinated beverage, or even using certain breath sprays or after shaves with minute quantities of alcohol. In all those cases, there's a risk of an errant molecule of nicotine, caffeine, or alcohol (respec.) becoming airborne. However these risks are tolerated by societal convention, and some irrational fears just can't be overcome with logic.

For me, the "mileage" (so-to-speak) just too low, and I'm generally unpersuaded that this is an effective tactic on the part of vapers. I'd rather prioritize the battles that are most winnable, and/or most essential. (And yes, this is in some ways a tiresome rehash of my other thread on indoor vaping.)

Frankly, I haven't seen the molecular level argument But if there is one, as long as no actual provable harm is involved but only 'inconvenience', it would be, as you say, truly irrational. I don't argue with those people. Without going into the full philosophical and libertarian arguments here - they do exist.... Living life has 'by-products'. Supposedly on a dark night my neighbor has the 'right' not to have to see the 'light pollution' coming from my house. Sorry about that. Same goes for perfumes. etc. and almost any products and by-products for and of the human body. There are so many other untruths about vaping that can be argued, and rather well as we've seen.

 

[kristin]

Roger, there is no "right to be free from inhaling" anything they don't want to inhale. If there was, then factories, vehicles, grills, fireplaces, restaurants, etc., would all have to be banned, because someone might object to being forced to breathe in their fumes, too.

then I have to take the position that I have the right to alter the air that they breathe via a voluntary activity

You do have that right, so long as there is no evidence that it is harming anyone. The only reason the ANTZ were able to ban smoking in public spaces is because they convinced the public that a whiff of smoke in a public space was causing them harm. They were unable to convince the public that it was right to ban smoking simply because it's annoying or that anyone has a "right" to clean air. They knew that argument was ridiculous considering all of the other pollution we are forced to breathe in any public space. So, they had to scare the public about non-existent health risks in public spaces (private spaces are another matter) in order to get the public bans passed. Then, once the bans were passed, they took the opportunity to convince the public they had a "right to clean air" and conveniently ignored all of the other involuntary air pollutants being inhaled. (There are far more health risks from exposure to air pollutants getting to a public space than there are from brief exposure to SHS in a bar or restaurant.)

What it comes down to is that smoking bans are passed to supposedly protect the public from actual health risks, not from being annoyed nor from being exposed to any pollutant, regardless of the lack of health risks. Without demonstrable negative health effects from vapor exposure to bystanders, there simply is no basis for the public needing "protection" from it. Then we are right back to talking about a small portion of the public not being annoyed or inconvenienced by the vapor. That decision should be left to the businesses, not for the government to decide for everyone.

 

[Kent C]

Roger, there is no "right to be free from inhaling" anything they don't want to inhale. If there was, then factories, vehicles, grills, fireplaces, restaurants, etc., would all have to be banned, because someone might object to being forced to breathe in their fumes, too.



You do have that right, so long as there is no evidence that it is harming anyone. The only reason the ANTZ were able to ban smoking in public spaces is because they convinced the public that a whiff of smoke in a public space was causing them harm. They were unable to convince the public that it was right to ban smoking simply because it's annoying or that anyone has a "right" to clean air. They knew that argument was ridiculous considering all of the other pollution we are forced to breathe in any public space. So, they had to scare the public about non-existent health risks in public spaces (private spaces are another matter) in order to get the public bans passed. Then, once the bans were passed, they took the opportunity to convince the public they had a "right to clean air" and conveniently ignored all of the other involuntary air pollutants being inhaled. (There are far more health risks from exposure to air pollutants getting to a public space than there are from brief exposure to SHS in a bar or restaurant.)

What it comes down to is that smoking bans are passed to supposedly protect the public from actual health risks, not from being annoyed nor from being exposed to any pollutant, regardless of the lack of health risks. Without demonstrable negative health effects from vapor exposure to bystanders, there simply is no basis for the public needing "protection" from it. Then we are right back to talking about a small portion of the public not being annoyed or inconvenienced by the vapor. That decision should be left to the businesses, not for the government to decide for everyone.

Well said! It should be noted regarding "Without demonstrable negative health effects from vapor exposure to bystanders, there simply is no basis for the public needing "protection" from it.".... with socialistic health care, the focus on individuals' behavior - smoking, drinking, eating and other activities that, either are in fact unhealthy, or that junk science has created a 'consensus' that it is, it becomes a 'theft' of tax dollars and 'harmful to others' to engage in those activities.

 

[kristin]

True, Kent. But considering vaping will considerably lower the healthcare costs and lost work time (due to smoking), it should be viewed as saving "society" tax dollars and increasing productivity.

 

[Kent C]

True, Kent. But considering vaping will considerably lower the healthcare costs and lost work time (due to smoking) considerably, it should be viewed as saving "society" tax dollars and increasing productivity.

We can hope It's why I didn't include vaping in that list

 

[Laffs]

If non-vapers are so worried about my altering their air quality, they better be glad they didn't have to smell my breath after coffee, a few analog cigs, and some dental issues from smoking!

Really good thread here, thanks all. I am bookmarking links like a bandit.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

... Roger, there is no "right to be free from inhaling" anything they don't want to inhale. If there was, then factories, vehicles, grills, fireplaces, restaurants, etc., would all have to be banned, because someone might object to being forced to breathe in their fumes, too.

You do have that right, so long as there is no evidence that it is harming anyone. The only reason the ANTZ were able to ban smoking in public spaces is because they convinced the public that a whiff of smoke in a public space was causing them harm [...]

What it comes down to is that smoking bans are passed to supposedly protect the public from actual health risks, not from being annoyed nor from being exposed to any pollutant, regardless of the lack of health risks. Without demonstrable negative health effects from vapor exposure to bystanders, there simply is no basis for the public needing "protection" from it. Then we are right back to talking about a small portion of the public not being annoyed or inconvenienced by the vapor. That decision should be left to the businesses, not for the government to decide for everyone.

Logic and science may be with you, Kristen. But history is not. Pipe, cigar, and cigarette smokers who fought for the right to burn tobacco in public places have ended up with the short end of the regulatory/public policy stick, world-wide. Irrespective of any merits supporting the arguments for legalizing indoor tobacco burning in pubic places, it will not be permitted within my lifetime, or that of most if not all readers of this post. This is the reality of the world in which we live.

You make an excellent point about smoking cessation and HRT. This (IMO) is the sole lynchpin that we have - in order to make the case that vapers are not smokers and therefore that we shouldn't be subject to the same level of regulation, taxation and demonization that a growing number of societies (world-wide) accept as the destiny of smokers.

Metaphorically speaking, I'd say that "Rome" (the ANTZ) has already burned "Carthage" (tobacco burners) to the ground.

Why would we want to throw our "lot" in with "Cartheginians" as it were? The goal of the ANTZ is precisely that: they want to promote the idea that vaping = smoking.

Every time a non-smoker/non-vaper walks by a huddled, freezing, societally-ostracized group of smokers and vapers, they smell smoke, and see vapor. Virtually every article that I post on my daily round-ups on the Media forum conflates tobacco burning with vaping. And the term e-cigarette doesn't help us much, nor does the prophensity of the industry to manufacture PVDs that "look like" analogs.

I'm sure you've heard the saying:

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then ... it's a duck

That's what more and more non-vapers/non-smokers may be thinking about vaping. And anti-vaping ANTZ are winning this argument bit-by-bit, every day.

By associating ourselves in any way with smokers, we help the ANTZ to achieve their goal of convincing the public, the politicians and the regulators that vaping = smoking.

 

[kristin]

Maybe the public just needs to be taught the difference between a duck and a coot.

Vaping will ALWAYS be associated with smokers for 3 reasons:

1) Nearly all vapers are or were smokers.
2) Vaping mimics smoking behavior.
3) Most vapers inhale nicotine.

The only way e-cigarettes will ever be considered socially acceptable is if the public also learns the truth about tobacco use, the travesty of the vilification of smokers and the lie of public second-hand smoke hazards. The ANTZ lies about those things need to be exposed and believed before the general public will ever stop believing ANTZ lies about e-cigarettes.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Maybe the public just needs to be taught the difference between a duck and a coot.

Vaping will ALWAYS be associated with smokers for 3 reasons:

1) Nearly all vapers are or were smokers.
2) Vaping mimics smoking behavior.
3) Most vapers inhale nicotine.

The only way e-cigarettes will ever be considered socially acceptable is if the public also learns the truth about tobacco use, the travesty of the vilification of smokers and the lie of public second-hand smoke hazards. The ANTZ lies about those things need to be exposed and believed before the general public will ever stop believing ANTZ lies about e-cigarettes.

Not to appear too pedantic or niggling about it ... but your three reasons also apply to nicotine inhalers. But I'm with you if by "mimics smoking" you mean "looks like smoking in the eyes of ignorant onlookers." (As you know, PG in nic. inhalers is also inhaled and exhaled - it's just not visible.)

Frankly if CASAA were to deviate from its organizational purpose and begin to direct much time and effort towards the Sisyphian task of exposing ANTZ lies about tobacco burning, then I'm not sure that I'd be giving my time and money to it. I tend to be more of a pragmatist than a purist, and I like to feel as if there's potential ROI from my "organizing activity." But hey, that's just me

But so long as CASAA is dedicated to advocating smoke-free alternatives, each of us as members can (and should) have our own views about tobacco burning. As I said, I'm not disagreeing about the science.

My own hope is that vapers can establish some pertinent (and effective) distinctions between ourselves and tobacco burners in the eyes of reglators, executives, legislators, opinion leaders - and of course the general public. Otherwise we'll be taxed, regulated, and demonized, just as tobacco burners are.

And if we're waiting for tobacco burners to be treated differently before we hope for different treatment for vapers ... my sense is that we'll be waiting a very long time indeed.