- Status
Not to start a crap storm herebut... there haven't been any clinical studies on the harm or harmlessness of vaping have there? So it's an unknown. Certainly an unknown to the companies/hr departments. Why would they even open themselves up to the possibility of liability or even look into it to see if it's a liability for an extreme minority? Most of us vape nicotine juice. Even if the other ingredients are inert (they're not) I'm pretty sure nicotine is not. Apparently it's not carcinogenic but I believe it can be toxic. That vapor doesn't just disappear. It's liquid vapor. It goes somewhere. It probably doesn't go far but it's landing somewhere. Presumably someone could have a severe alergic reaction to it? Then there's the whole disruption thing. Surely cigarette smoking in the work place is a hot button and everyone is looking to jump on that. So they see someone vaping... looks like a duck, walks like a duck, inhales and blows out smoke like a duck. Lots of people aren't going to understand how it works and aren't going to try to understand very hard either. It needs to get more exposure on tv and in the news. I'm sure it will in time.
Just playing devil's advocate here.
As far as studies go, you are completely wrong on that point. There have been at least a dozen important studies, the most known are the ones conducted by the FDA themselves from May to July of last year, then the Health New Zealand study that was funded by Ruyan (the original e-cig company from China). Most recently, the Virginia Commonwealth University study by Dr. Thomas Eissenberg. The studies themselves show very low level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, about the same amount as found in a nicotine patch or nicotine gum. However, the press releases of those studies have used scare-tactic catch phrases like "contains anti-freeze" (which it doesn't) and "think about the children!!" etc. etc. So what gets released to the public (and hence to those HR offices) isn't based on science but on fear and politics.
You are certainly correct about the management of corporations not wanting to deal with having to explain why Person X at Desk Y "seems to be smoking". They just don't want to waste human resources on having to constantly explain this to a public that is already fearful of anything that even looks like smoking. Can't blame them, really. The whole anti-smoking paradigm is not of their making, and it's far too powerful for any one company to settle the issue in a common sense kind of way. Better to just follow the example that everyone else follows.
As for needing more exposure on TV news, yes I think we need that, however don't bet on most news stories being sympathetic to the vaping cause. So far, most of what we have heard from mainstream media is the same "anti-freeze" and "what about the children" smear tactics. There's a lot of powerful forces in this e-cig debate/phenomenon that aren't going to let go of their status-quo way of doing things. The anti-smoking lobbies need cash to operate, and they get that cash from taxes on real cigarettes. They do not want that revenue stream to go away. They just want to be able to go on harassing smokers by forcing them to smoke real cigs while taxing them and then using those taxes to further harass them. Wonderful system we've got, huh?
+1
"Smoking" directly refers to the ignition and inhalation of combusted plant material and usually refers specifically to tobacco, but most non-smoking policies are justified by health concerns of non-users and fire hazards. If you are using something that is smoke-free, you clearly are NOT smoking.
However, as you point out, an informal policy asking customers to refrain from using something that looks like smoking in areas that are designated non-smoking is a bit intolerant but reasonable. Forcing people who don't smoke to go to a smoking area to use a smoke-free product, however, is completely unreasonable.
At my job, I am not allowed to be seen smoking but I like that I can go to the discrete employee smoking area and not feel out of place with my e-cig...at the same time, I like that I can just sneak into a bathroom or duck out of sight basically anywhere or stay indoors during my breaks if I don't feel like exposing myself to secondhand smoke and/or the weather.
I like to choose my battles. The ban sounds like it is meant to prevent a possible explosion. Wouldn't you err on the side of caution if you were in their position? It also sounds like there is a place to smoke indoors. I think going to the designated smoking section or going outside are two perfectly fine alternatives. If you are an ex smoker then arguing that you don't want to be around secondhand smoke seems a little absurd.
While any talk of smoking crack is hyperbolic to say the least.
This is sort of like arguing that drinking from a "spill-proof" container should be allowed in areas which forbid food or drink due to possible spills.
While any talk of smoking crack is hyperbolic to say the least.
This is sort of like arguing that drinking from a "spill-proof" container should be allowed in areas which forbid food or drink due to possible spills.
Actually I think thats not absurd at all. Many ex smokers are way less tolerant of or less able to deal with second hand smoke than non smokers. I have no clue, but it would sound reasonable to me that damage (if any) from second hand smoke is incremental to a point where it's more "binary" or the rate of damage increases very rapidly. Having sustained some amount of damage from smoking the amount of damage from some amount of second hand smoke may be much greater to a smoker than a non smoker?
Really, there's a scientific basis for ex-smokers not liking 2nd hand smoke even more than non-smokers? I always thought that was psychological. What proof do you have that 2nd hand smoke damages the lungs of an ex-smoker more than a non-smoker?
A couple problems with this approach. First, whatever problems there are with 2nd hand smoke, the damage to bystanders is equal and across the board. Ex-smokers don't experience exponential damage due to 2nd hand smoke compared to non-smokers. Second, this approach is rather hypocritical: Look at it this way -- on Nov 30, the day before I quit analogs, I would be out in the smoking area with other smokers. On Dec 1, my first day off analogs, do I suddenly have the moral right to go out to the smoking area and say "this 2nd hand smoke is awful, I can't be around it" and walk away in a hissy fit to puff my e-cig at my desk. What you're doing there is using the type of tactics the anti's use against smokers, so naturally for you to be 100% on the other side of the political fence in one day would strike others as you being a total, insensitive hypocrite. And they'd be right.
Whatever you do, don't turn against the smokers. After all, "one day ago", that was you.
Last edited:
You have completely mis-stated what I was saying.
The OP said he didn't want to be subjected to the smoking area. Much the same as non-smokers didn't want to be subjected to the smoking area.
Then there was the post implying that it was absurd that a prior smoker would object to being around second hand smoke. Pretty much saying that "you didn't have a problem with it before, it's BS to say that you have a problem with it now". I didn't like second hand smoke when I was still smoking.
What if you've sustained damage already and have significantly reduced capacity and/or increased sensitivity. Do you think the effect is the same?
You have just as much moral right as a non-smoker. Or do you think everyone who smoked previously forfeited some of their rights by doing so?
As above, you've completely misread what I was trying to say. The OP is not smoking. He has every right and justification to object to being forced to do some other activity where he will be subjected to second hand smoke when he is not smoking himself. Whether you or the other respondent thinks that's silly because he was a prior smoker (or even current) is irrelevant.
The OP said he didn't want to be subjected to the smoking area. Much the same as non-smokers didn't want to be subjected to the smoking area.
Then there was the post implying that it was absurd that a prior smoker would object to being around second hand smoke. Pretty much saying that "you didn't have a problem with it before, it's BS to say that you have a problem with it now". I didn't like second hand smoke when I was still smoking.
What if you've sustained damage already and have significantly reduced capacity and/or increased sensitivity. Do you think the effect is the same?
You have just as much moral right as a non-smoker. Or do you think everyone who smoked previously forfeited some of their rights by doing so?
As above, you've completely misread what I was trying to say. The OP is not smoking. He has every right and justification to object to being forced to do some other activity where he will be subjected to second hand smoke when he is not smoking himself. Whether you or the other respondent thinks that's silly because he was a prior smoker (or even current) is irrelevant.
Last edited:
I have not misread you. What I have done is brought to light a facet of this about-face stance that would continue to pile on top of the problems experienced by smokers, of whom the OP was one not too long ago.
I don't understand why you don't see the hypocrisy in it. At least try to put yourself in the smoker's shoes. They most likely haven't even heard of an e-cig, they have no idea.
It's all in the tone and attitude being employed toward the person still saddled with the smoking problem. The way I see it, the OP has inadvertently joined forces with the anti's, as far as the person still smoking is concerned. He suddenly thinks he has this right to be indignant toward smokers. We vapers don't have many friends as it is. Why make it worse by making enemies of the people we are trying to get to join forces with us?
It isn't that the guy doesn't have a right to try to seek out alternative spaces at work to vape in (that would be a good idea); if he can avoid the 2nd hand smoke then it's a plus. It's the idea that, if given no choice, one would choose to turn one's nose up at the smokers and insist on not being in their space. It's all in the approach.
You're mixing issues here.
1) you're talking about problems experienced by smokers. Fine. Separate issue.
2) You're implying that since the OP USED to be a smoker his entitlements, preferences, and rights should be treated differently from those who never smoked.
What? How is what I said above hypocritical? How can you make the leap that since I smoked I like second hand smoke? or should be able to handle it better than someone who never smoked? (I never liked second hand smoke when I *did* smoke. For over 20 years I had to have the window down when I smoked in the car. When I smoked in the house I only smoked under the kitchen stove fan.).
What? Because you don't like something you think that implies some negativity towards anyone that does?
What? Where did the OP imply any sort of indignation towards smokers? Do you think because he doesn't like the smell (or possible adverse effects) of second hand smoke that he's being indignant towards smokers? Do you think that because he used to be a smoker he should go stand in the smoking area to show his support and sympathy for smokers even though he now very much dislikes the smell?
Yea, that would be my approach. Look, he's not lobbying to take away the smoking area. He's simply saying that he doesn't want to be forced to use it if he's not smoking.
Okay I just want to stop you right there. No need to address the additonal paragraphs that all begin with "What?"
Listen carefully to what you are saying in that sentence. It seems to pre-dispose the idea that the now very recent ex-smoker has this sudden right to this kind of indignant outrage at 2nd hand smoke, whereas, quite possibly only 3 days ago, he was one of the very people causing the 2nd-hand smoke.
Sorry, but it just doesn't come across as sincere. It seems to come across as convenient. i.e., "hey I'm not one of those persecuted classes of people any more, so I'll now join the forces that make life miserable for them."
For myself, I don't care if I smoked a cig 10 minutes ago ... I still have the right to choose not to be exposed to second-hand smoke. If I'm not smoking at that moment don't make me stand in a room containing second-hand smoke. It really is as simple as that.
I'm not expressing "indignant outrage at 2nd hand smoke", merely making a choice for the benefit of my health. In fact, my only outrage is directed at any attempt to force a non-smoker into the smoking room.
Jan
Last edited:
I listened carefully to what I said. I have failed to find any mention of "indignant outrage". I failed to even find any sort of innuendo or hinting at "indignant outrage". Or "indignant" or "outrage". Why do you persist in imposing this (YOUR) interpretation on it?
Where did you even get the impression that anyone is actively moving against the smokers? This person does not want to visit the smoking area. He is making no attempt to prevent anyone else from visiting the smoking area. He is not promoting sanctions against anyone visiting the smoking area. I hope you're able to get past this. If you have some other agenda, start a new thread.
Ummm, hello? First see above.
Are you saying that if someone smoked previously they must like second hand smoke?
Are you saying that if someone smoked previously they have no justification for thinking that second hand smoke may be harmful to them?
Are you saying that if someone smoke previously and they express a desire to avoid second hand smoke (for ANY reason. like the smell for example) that they must be lying?
Please explain your logic here.
Ahhh, you do have a different agenda (and I'm beginning to think you're fully aware of that).
Are you really unable to make the distinction here? He doesn't want to have to go to the smoking area to vape. Simple as that.
I agree with everything you said. What you say (or, more likely, the way you say it) sounds a lot more reasonable than what Quick1 was going on about.
Yes-- now that you're no longer smoking, you certainly do have a right to protect your health, now that you no longer need to be in spaces that have 2nd hand smoke floating around.
You also have an obligation to understand your position in the social/political sheme of things, because that's where things get more complicated and skirmishy. I'm talking not about how you strictly feel about yourself, but about how others feel about you. These are daily realties for all of us.
So YOU may feel you are entitled to a smoke-free area in your workplace in which to vape, but others may not -- and that's based on a lot of complex factors. For one, does management feel it's their obligation to have to explain to the rest of the workforce why you're not really smoking while you "appear to be smoking"? I don't think so. They won't want to pour $$ and resources into this kind of policing activity. It's much easier for them to just lump vapers in with smokers. So that's a political reality, not a form of social justice -- but hey, that's the way it goes in our world.
In my way of looking at it, I think it's much more important to make a good social connection with smokers so we can get them to go our way -- not make enemies of them. That's much more important IMHO than taking a "looking out for number one" approach -- "Hey I just quit, you didn't, so get your 2nd hand smoke out of my face."
Okay. Here are my answers.
For questions 1. and 2. Here is my answer:
I am saying that if a person previously smoked, especially if they only recently quit, then the complaint about 2nd hand smoke seems a bit extreme to me. Sometimes we're talking about people who smoked for 40 or more years. You're telling me that a waft of 2nd hand smoke here and there is going to be a major threat to their health? Get real.
3. They're not lying, they're just being drama queens about it, that's all. Once the smoker quits, it's up to that person to avoid places where he/she doesn't want to be. It's not the workplace's responsibility to give them a place to vape.
I personally didn't like being around people smoking if I'm not smoking a cig, when I was smoking, it smells horrible. At first the smell was making me want an analog, but as time goes by it is just getting more and more disgusting to me. In my oppinion it is not acceptable to force the use of a pv in a smoking area as they aren't smoking. Although this sounds a little extreme, its esentially like saying you have to go to the smoking area to chew nicotine gum. They should set up a designated vaping area if it isn't to be allowed anywhere where it is a safety risk. The smokers have their own, its only fair that we do as well. Its not hypocritical, you just realize how bad it really is once you've been off it for a while.
The main point that many seem to be missing is that the reasons are irrelevant, if the company says no vaping outside of smoking areas, then that word has become law. Period.
Last edited:
Magus7091 is right its down to the company whether they wish to allow it or not
This case has special considerations because of the environment and the fact that brake dust is flammable. On the other hand, I regularly see idiots smoking in their cars with open windows while their friends pump gas 2-3 ft away...... I digress......
Unfortunately, the rules have to be clear enough for everyone. This means that the "finer points" will, many times, be missed.
Unfortunately, the rules have to be clear enough for everyone. This means that the "finer points" will, many times, be missed.
- Status
Similar threads
