Formidable new foe

[dperino]

You said it yourself right there. I couldnt care less about what the FDA or some non smoker group thinks. I do however care about the people i sell this to and want to be sure that when i stick my name on this that there is no question of its safety. I dont even want the chance that anyone's health is at risk because of this product just to make a buck.

i'm only pointing this out and mean no disrespect but i think you may want to reconsider what it is you're saying. because the question could be posed as to why you are now selling pv's. harm reduction aside, and there being little in the way of studies specifically focusing on this issue, it seems to me you would have no valid reason to sell if you are concerned about the potential of risk to your customers. i don't know if i'm conveying this correctly, i hope you understand my point.

 

[ECS-Mike]

You said it yourself right there. I couldnt care less about what the FDA or some non smoker group thinks. I do however care about the people i sell this to and want to be sure that when i stick my name on this that there is no question of its safety. I dont even want the chance that anyone's health is at risk because of this product just to make a buck.

i'm only pointing this out and mean no disrespect but i think you may want to reconsider what it is you're saying. because the question could be posed as to why you are now selling pv's. harm reduction aside, and there being little in the way of studies specifically focusing on this issue, it seems to me you would have no valid reason to sell if you are concerned about the potential of risk to your customers. i don't know if i'm conveying this correctly, i hope you understand my point.

I'm selling them because I personally used them to stop smoking and if it gets one more person to stop using tobacco it cant be a bad thing. However not everyone is doing that. It only took me less than a month to quit using ecigarettes. But some people aren't trying to stop they just dont want to smoke actual cigarettes any more. a month or so of vaping isnt the same as a year or year(s) of casual vaping

While i'm not a doctor, i would venture a guess that your average person working in a club that has bands has probably breathed more than their fair share of propylene glycol, but thats not vaping for months or years at a time. And no doubt many a person has used nicotine in the form of a patch or gum to stop smoking.

I personally don't think that there is any issue with vaping or with this juice as long as it is what it says it is and nobody is getting creative with what they are mixing into it.

But at this point, the majority of the juice is coming from the same country that has a recent history of sending the u.s. poisoned baby food, dog food, baby toys and drywall. To NOT look at them and question the purity of what they are sending us to sell to our customers would be poor judgement on our part at the very least.

 

[lotus14]

Obviously standardization and studies are needed. If you do a study with a Crown 7 or and Njoy Npro what does that tell you about the effects on the lungs long term, or exposure to the exhaled vapor, from a 510 dripped with RY4 or 555 36mg? Especially if it's coming from a 5v mod which there seems to a new one of every day?

Without some form of standardization it's pretty hard to draw hard conclusions from any study.

And right now we need all the ammo we can get - regardless of Judge Leon's decision.

The Wild West days of PVs are numbered.

 

[dperino]

I'm selling them because I personally used them to stop smoking and if it gets one more person to stop using tobacco it cant be a bad thing. However not everyone is doing that. It only took me less than a month to quit using ecigarettes. But some people aren't trying to stop they just dont want to smoke actual cigarettes any more. a month or so of vaping isnt the same as a year or year(s) of casual vaping

While i'm not a doctor, i would venture a guess that your average person working in a club that has bands has probably breathed more than their fair share of propylene glycol, but thats not vaping for months or years at a time. And no doubt many a person has used nicotine in the form of a patch or gum to stop smoking.

I personally don't think that there is any issue with vaping or with this juice as long as it is what it says it is and nobody is getting creative with what they are mixing into it.

But at this point, the majority of the juice is coming from the same country that has a recent history of sending the u.s. poisoned baby food, dog food, baby toys and drywall. To NOT look at them and question the purity of what they are sending us to sell to our customers would be poor judgement on our part at the very least.

i agree with everything you're saying. especially the issue with health and safety concerns related to china. i've promised myself to avoid as much of their stuff as possible.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Lacey,

Do you have links to those 15 studies you mentioned? I probably have some of them, but I sure don't have them all.

I have hard copies that I have gathered from a variety of places, but have not been able to put them up on my server yet. Was working on it... but got pulled into a smoking ban "situation" here in Indy!

 

[Modapa]

"Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights is concerned that the manufacturers of e-cigarettes are marketing them as something that smokers can use in smokefree workplaces and public places. Absent any proof that e-cigarettes are harmless to people exposed to the vapors they emit, their use in smokefree spaces would be a great disservice to public health. The lack of substantial research on e-cigarettes and the potential health risks posed by the use of this product, both to the user and to the people around them, is of grave concern. The burden of proof on the safety of e-cigarettes rests on their manufacturers."

The problem with the comment above is that they will FIND PROOF, whether it's valid or not if they really want to ban e-cigs in public. The reason that they have smoking bans in the first place is because they have a flawed study that claims that secondhand smoke is harmful to others that has become "settled science" despite studies to the contrary. You cannot stop someone from harming themselves, but if it can be proven that you are harming others, they can stop you from smoking in public places. They can even try to criminalize your behavior. I hate the second class citizenship that has been foisted on smokers and I had hoped that the e-cig would mitigate that image. But you just can't stop people who are determined to control your life. They WILL find PROOF!

 

[lotus14]

"Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights is concerned that the manufacturers of e-cigarettes are marketing them as something that smokers can use in smokefree workplaces and public places. Absent any proof that e-cigarettes are harmless to people exposed to the vapors they emit, their use in smokefree spaces would be a great disservice to public health. The lack of substantial research on e-cigarettes and the potential health risks posed by the use of this product, both to the user and to the people around them, is of grave concern. The burden of proof on the safety of e-cigarettes rests on their manufacturers."

The problem with the comment above is that they will FIND PROOF, whether it's valid or not if they really want to ban e-cigs in public. The reason that they have smoking bans in the first place is because they have a flawed study that claims that secondhand smoke is harmful to others that has become "settled science" despite studies to the contrary. You cannot stop someone from harming themselves, but if it can be proven that you are harming others, they can stop you from smoking in public places. They can even try to criminalize your behavior. I hate the second class citizenship that has been foisted on smokers and I had hoped that the e-cig would mitigate that image. But you just can't stop people who are determined to control your life. They WILL find PROOF!

There is much we can do to stop people "who are determined to control" us if we are as determined as they are.

I would disagree with your apparent belief that second hand smoke is harmless. If you have quit smoking cigarettes as I have, then spend a couple of hours in a smoke filled room. Your clothing will stink, you will need a shower, and please don't tell me the gunk only stuck on the outside and not in my lungs.

If PV vapor is proven safe to the user, except for concerns about nicotine, and there is little or no nicotine in the exhaled vapor, there is a strong argument to be made for excluding vaping from smoking bans.

See Bill Goodshalls post on this page:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...578-hoosiers-marion-county-have-ecig-ban.html

 

[Modapa]

I have also quit smoking, for about 15 years. I won't go into the reasons I started again (that's a whole different subject). I have done some research on secondhand smoke and although there are more sites out there like this, this is the first one I found. I think there is some good information here but I am open to anyone who can dispute it. I can't post URLS yet, but let's see if I can get this in:

davehitt com/facts/

Just put the appropriate colons, slashes and dots in. It starts with http and www

 

[telsie]

What about people using no-nic in their pv? How can someone possibly ban that?

But if I get migraines from people wearing who bathe in perfume, that's just my tough luck.

And that is exactly the argument that would be used to counter any scientific studies showing the exhaled vapor as harmless. There are workplaces that ban the wearing of perfume because an employee says they are allergic. So I have no doubt that some people would claim the they are allergic to the oh-so-brief-and-ever-so-slight aroma you can detect if standing next to a vaper as they exhale. Or to any trace of PG. Or to any trace of nicotine. Or to the sight of vapor itself!

I don't think we'll ever see vaping openly accepted in the workplace or in stores or anywhere else people haven't been able to smoke in eons. But bars, restaurants, stadiums, hotels, airports — places of leisure — that's where we'll gain ground.

 

[westcoast2]

Unless I missed it, not one mention of Stanton Glantz (one of the ANR founders I believe), very suprising.

As for the science perhaps looking at the 'Helena Heart Miracle' might be interesting. Again from the excellent Velvet Glove Iron Fist --> Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking (The earlier point about memes was interesting and relevant). The science on SHV may point in the right direction but even so this is not just about the science, it is political. Which is why Mr Schwarzenegger's veto was good news.

Also just seeing smoking or anything that looks like smoking is on point. Professor Stanton Glantz wants smokefree movies.

(Now just need James Repace to enter the fray and we have a 3 card Brag hand)
----

 

[trog100]

i find something very very disturbing here.. the burden of proof should be on the accuser.. not the f-cking accused..

something is safe until proven otherwise... if they want to ban it from public places let them prove its unsafe...

basing their argument on the fact it hasnt been proven to be safe could only happen in todays america and i cant help but think you guys have lost the plot somewhere along the way.. the burden of proof should always be on the accuser.. i spose bush started the ball rolling when he demanded sadam prove he had no nuckuler bombs...

now it seem everything thats said and done has to be proven to be correct and safe before you can say or do it..

it seems innocent until proven guilty has gone out of the american window to be replaced by guilty until you prove your innocence..

you guys really have lost the plot.. you have introduced the essence of draconian dictatorship into your once free country.. how f-cking sad..

trog

 

[Snarkyone]

Another group of jerkoffs looking to impose their right to infringe on your rights. Zealots of any cause are still zealots no matter the cause and should be viewed as such. It's amazing how fast other humans are to step on the necks of their fellow man to elevate themselves, it makes me sick to be a human at times when I think of the rampant douchebaggery we allow to continue and let the governments rule or scare people into submission.

 

[westcoast2]

you guys really have lost the plot.. you have introduced the essence of draconian dictatorship into your once free country.. how f-cking sad..

Professor Glantz visited Liverpool --> Welcome to SmokeFree Liverpool

 

[ECS-Mike]

I have also quit smoking, for about 15 years. I won't go into the reasons I started again (that's a whole different subject). I have done some research on secondhand smoke and although there are more sites out there like this, this is the first one I found. I think there is some good information here but I am open to anyone who can dispute it. I can't post URLS yet, but let's see if I can get this in:

davehitt com/facts/

Just put the appropriate colons, slashes and dots in. It starts with http and www

as far as I have read, the chemical composition of cigarette smoke doesnt change when its inhaled and then exhaled, it only changes when its filtered.

So if the chemicals that come out of the filter can and do cause heart/lung problems to the person smoking, how would it be any different for the person that is breathing the second hand smoke.

There are even studies that show that pets of smokers are affected by second hand smoke.

 

[Mac]

i find something very very disturbing here.. the burden of proof should be on the accuser.. not the f-cking accused..

something is safe until proven otherwise... if they want to ban it from public places let them prove its unsafe...

basing their argument on the fact it hasnt been proven to be safe could only happen in todays america and i cant help but think you guys have lost the plot somewhere along the way.. the burden of proof should always be on the accuser.. i spose bush started the ball rolling when he demanded sadam prove he had no nuckuler bombs...

now it seem everything thats said and done has to be proven to be correct and safe before you can say or do it..

it seems innocent until proven guilty has gone out of the american window to be replaced by guilty until you prove your innocence..

you guys really have lost the plot.. you have introduced the essence of draconian dictatorship into your once free country.. how f-cking sad..

trog

I agree completely and it is truely sad.

 

[newkirk]

Also just seeing smoking or anything that looks like smoking is on point. Professor Stanton Glantz wants smokefree movies.

This and other non-smoking-campaigner threads always make me remember a book by Arthur C Clarke, and this quote hit it dead on.

The 1990 book "The Ghost In The Grand Banks" had a character whose career consisted of removing (CGI) visible smoke and tobacco products from classic films, and substituting creative objects in actor's hands where needed. At the time it was published the idea seemed almost comical... (Clarke had a gift for that, with topics like communications satellites and space elevators... the first of course being ubiquitous today, and billions being spent and planned to develop and deploy the second)

j

 

[Paranoyed]

I know there is still alot of research being done but I am curious as to whether or not there are any studies at all that show the effect of second hand vapor. I have been vaping for 5 days and have not had an analog in that time. I have 3 small children at home and as of right now I vape outside just as I smoked outside because I do not want to in any way endanger my children. I would love the comfort of being able to vape inside but I need factual evidence that the vape I exhale will not harm my children. I still would not vape in front of them as I do not want them to ever pick up any form of the habit that has crippled me for 15 years.

 

[Vocalek]

I know there is still alot of research being done but I am curious as to whether or not there are any studies at all that show the effect of second hand vapor. I have been vaping for 5 days and have not had an analog in that time. I have 3 small children at home and as of right now I vape outside just as I smoked outside because I do not want to in any way endanger my children. I would love the comfort of being able to vape inside but I need factual evidence that the vape I exhale will not harm my children. I still would not vape in front of them as I do not want them to ever pick up any form of the habit that has crippled me for 15 years.

Ecigarette mist harmless, inhaled or exhaled

Second hand mist from an e-cigarette is not smoke at all, and does not contain any substance known to cause death, short or long term, in the quantities found. It becomes invisible within a few seconds, and is not detectable by smell.

There you go. It appears to be extremely unlikely that your vaping indoors, out of sight of the children, would cause any type of harm whatsoever.

 

[Paranoyed]

Thank you for that link. It helps to settle my nerves a little. I did not know however that I am vaping KY Jelly : )

 

[Eric in AK]

Thank you for that link. It helps to settle my nerves a little. I did not know however that I am vaping KY Jelly : )

Yeah, nothing like an out of context extract from a poorly written "research" report to settle your nerves.

Perhaps you'd find the information in the report mentioned in this thread less calming.

Link to the "lab analysis" report in the thread at this page.

Scroll down to page 4 and see the description of the "safe" characteristics of nicotine (By "safe" I mean: "toxic by inhalation" or "toxic in contact with skin" or "poison - may be fatal if swallowed".... see the report for more. And this is a report sponsored by an e-cig industry member!)

Scroll down to page 5 to see this: "The Gamucci ‘Regular’ nicotine solution contains the addictive yet poisonous nicotine component, as do traditional cigarettes. "

I've been vaping for more than six weeks now, but I've said all along: I won't vape near anyone who might be exposed to the vapor. I have no right to put the nicotine-containing vapor in a place where they might inhale it. People seem to think that just because the vapor isn't visible any longer then it - and the nicotine it likely contains - has magically disappeared. I doubt that. I can boil up a big pot of pasta and even if there's no steam cloud in my kitchen I can still feel the humidity. Same deal, I'd wager, with the vapor from an e-cig.

I think I have every right to vape if that's my choice. I don't think I have the right to expose others to nicotine. Until a credible lab - preferably associated with a reputable university, rather than one being paid by an e-cig industry member - tells me that what I'm exhaling is free of nicotine, I'll assume that those who don't want to inhale nicotine have rights superior to mine. I simply do not have any rights whatsoever to vape in places where I will expose others to the byproduct.