Judge caught vaping his way through high-profile murder trial

[untar]

Yes, vaping is not risk free. Inhaling something your body doesn't need is a preventable potential hazard.
Our bodies are all different and react differently to the same substances. Eg I can't really vape PG because it gives me a skin condition and I look like I'm 16 again, others have no problems with that.

It's also true that having a deeper understanding of all involved underlying mechanisms is desirable, I'm all for that. I also don't think every statement from people like Farsalinos should be religiously accepted as "the truth" but the same goes for every research. That's why the whole peer review process exists in the first place.

I've had enough of the fearmongering though, if there is a claim our exhaled vapor contains hazardous levels for non-vapers then please understand that I want to see very good proof of that.
Even if some people vape at levels nocent compounds are produced in a significant quantity then there still needs to be experiments that show that the exhaled vapor from those individuals contain levels hazardous to others in relation to what already is in the air.

There's new vapers that come to the forum regularly that are very afraid of vaping because of all the fear that's already generated around it. I'm all for telling them to vape with other people in mind, but I won't go around telling them they're hurting people with second hand vape and I won't make them even more afraid of vaping than they already are and go back to cigarettes.

 

[Rossum]

I implore you to read the thread, not gonna say I have read the whole thing but I have at least kept up with the finer points of it. You & anyone for that matter should do the same if interested in safety... maybe @MikeE3 can stop by, if he has the time.

I've kept up with that thread from the very beginning. While I'm open to the possibility that the levels of carbonyls produced via thermal degradation at excessive coil temperatures might be a cause for concern to the vaper himself, by the time it becomes second-hand, I'm confident the levels will be so low that they are indiscernible from background levels in indoor air. Air sampling has been done in vape shops, where pretty much by definition, everyone is vaping (and most a chucking big clouds), and absolutely nothing of concern was found.

 

[Vaperer]

I recall hearing about a senator that Vaped in session. So if a senator can Vape on a job. Now a judge can Vape.
I'm not trying to look through Rose Colored Glasses, this can be a good thing for us? maybe we're just not looking hard enough? Just thinking out loud

 

[Rossum]

During the couple of months I quit vaping those health issues all but disappeared, my appetite increased, more excersize with less fatigue, slept better, had more energy etc.

Also during that time my gf had a talk with me about (she's a vaper) how she thought my vaping had gotten out of hand. The windows were sticky, I was diy'ing batches 3-4 times a week

So your were (are?) DL vaping, chucking big clouds.

That's clearly not what this judge was doing.

 

[Rossum]

I recall hearing about a senator that Vaped in session. So if a senator can Vape on a job. Now a judge can Vape.
I'm not trying to look through Rose Colored Glasses, this can be a good thing for us? maybe we're just not looking hard enough? Just thinking out loud

That was Representative Duncan Hunter, and he did so during a hearing that was somehow relevant to vaping.

 

[untar]

Now a judge can Vape.

It's more "can" like in "was physically able to" than "was allowed to". He broke the law and at least should pay what everybody else would have to pay.
Some genius might think "well that guy didn't seem to be deterred enough we need to make the punishment hurt more"...

 

[Rossum]

Visible fog or flavor coming out of my mouth isn't going to be harmful, but I don't really expect anyone to enjoy inhaling my visibly inhalable vape, that CAME from my mouth and etc.

You know it's funny how people react to things they can see or smell, but don't care at all about things they can't. I mean the reality is, any time you're in a room full of people, a significant portion of the air you're breathing consists of someone else's second-hand "breath".

 

[kiba]

Yes, vaping is not risk free. Inhaling something your body doesn't need is a preventable potential hazard.
Our bodies are all different and react differently to the same substances. Eg I can't really vape PG because it gives me a skin condition and I look like I'm 16 again, others have no problems with that.

It's also true that having a deeper understanding of all involved underlying mechanisms is desirable, I'm all for that. I also don't think every statement from people like Farsalinos should be religiously accepted as "the truth" but the same goes for every research. That's why the whole peer review process exists in the first place.

I've had enough of the fearmongering though, if there is a claim our exhaled vapor contains hazardous levels for non-vapers then please understand that I want to see very good proof of that.
Even if some people vape at levels nocent compounds are produced in a significant quantity then there still needs to be experiments that show that the exhaled vapor from those individuals contain levels hazardous to others in relation to what already is in the air.

There's new vapers that come to the forum regularly that are very afraid of vaping because of all the fear that's already generated around it. I'm all for telling them to vape with other people in mind, but I won't go around telling them they're hurting people with second hand vape and I won't make them even more afraid of vaping than they already are and go back to cigarettes.

So you want to hide the truth from them... what, until they're vaping long enough to be forced to accept it? They have as much right as you or me to the truth & are probably smart enough to make heads or tails of it... Give the new people some credit, I thought I made it clear that I obviously don't think vaping is comparable to smoking, but saying there aren't risks involved is just silly & I would be ...... if somebody looking out for my best interest hid info from me as a new vaper, I can still easily ascertain that it's safer than smoming but we haven't yet scratched the surface on even the flavorings, which btw contain all kinds of stuff (sucralose, fructose, corn syrup) & weren't originally intended for vaping. Who knows what heat does to that chemical cocktail, which is btw why I switched to unflavored for the time being.

idk even how we got off on this subject, lol, and I'm by far not the guy to give you the information about temps/carcinogens, I just have read the thread to keep myself informed, if you go to the thread & just make a post asking Mike I'm sure he'll tell you. But it was like a side point if anything, that if people can't have the common decency to do it away from normals, to maybe consider it from another angle... Anyways the only thing I care about is that other vapers don't act like an ... & make the rest of us look bad, it's gotten to the point at work where have to do it out of sight of my bosses to avoid dirty looks & moderate disgust.

We had a guy who was "lunging it" in the office (which btw all the smokers in my office are nice enough to do it outside). 90% of the time by the end of the day would be a low hanging cloud around his cubicle & electronics had a sticky layer of vg.

So your were (are?) DL vaping, chucking big clouds.

That's clearly not what this judge was doing.

Yes, clearly he needs a new setup, he's got a crappy njoy. Maybe then he'd be able to go a few hours without... I don't think he was really trying to hide it either, look at the guy, didn't even cover up the stupid light.

I've kept up with that thread from the very beginning. While I'm open to the possibility that the levels of carbonyls produced via thermal degradation at excessive coil temperatures might be a cause for concern to the vaper himself, by the time it becomes second-hand, I'm confident the levels will be so low that they are indiscernible from background levels in indoor air. Air sampling has been done in vape shops, where pretty much by definition, everyone is vaping (and most a chucking big clouds), and absolutely nothing of concern was found.

Yeah I'll make it perfectly clear, I'm 90% sure that second hand vape isn't of concern at a safe distance (for aldehydes at least) the reason I bring up though is that we are constantly finding out new things, a couple of months ago we didn't know about the metals, a couple years, we didn't know about the aldehydes. etc. until we know for sure how safe it is, it's relatively reasonable for mothers to not want people blowing it into their babies strollers

(I have seen this btw)

 

[zoiDman]

I recall hearing about a senator that Vaped in session. ...

Yes... He Did. But since then, he has Kinda had a Fall from Grace.

A 37 Story, holding a Bag of Concrete under each Arm, type Fall from Grace.

LOL.

 

[untar]

So you want to hide the truth from them

No, that is not what I wrote nor what I meant.

but saying there aren't risks involved is just silly

If I remember correctly the first sentence of my post was

Yes, vaping is not risk free

It seems to me like you're willfully misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. That won't take us anywhere.

idk even how we got on this subject, lol,

Easy, you mentioned metals and carcinogens/aldehydes in a sentence about second hand vape.

 

[stols001]

No one is saying that there aren't unknown variables in vaping, and that it's 100% harm free.

I AM saying that I believe the "risk" factor in second hand vape to be fairly negligible compared to first hand vape, which is already reduced in risk.

If you can point to ONE instance of someone being harmed by second hand vape, I would love to hear it.

Because, while research is ONGOING into these matters, it should be pointed out that a) there are conflicting studies, sometimes without a clear methodology (those are usually the "loud" studies) and there have also been studies IN CLOUDY VAPE SHOPS where the air was tested and found to have very little to 0 impact on non-vapers.

"The inside" is not a sealed vacuum. Air from you know, doors, cracks, windows enters "the inside." Using YOUR logic, if I were to "loiter outside" a building, vaping, well, some of that "expelled air" is also going to enter the building. Pursuing your line of logic would indicate that no vaping should take place, ever, outside of a sealed environment. That is what we get if we want to pursue the "scare" tactics about vaping. I, personally, do not want to do that.

Screeching about the dangers of second hand vaping, from a vaper appears odd to me, as does your "use" of these studies. While there may be SOME danger to CERTAIN forms of vaping, the MASSIVE dilution that takes place INTO the air means that many of those molecules (some probably having been "trapped" in the lungs, is almost negligible compared to "all the air in the world."

Using your logic, we would need to get rid of oh, say, cars, and airplanes, and electricity and anything that is a POLLUTANT.

Vape is less POLLUTING than many of the objects listed above. Is it a pollutant, yes, and a fairly minor one. You stated yourself, someone blew "vape" near or into a stroller, using YOUR logic concerning the "fear" of second hand vape (when most of the studies you screech about are concerning FIRST HAND vaping) well, that infant should have died instantly. Do, again, tell me about one instance of ACTUAL HARM from second hand vape. Because I am going to bet the mom was annoyed, but the infant was totally , utterly fine.

You know in my generation (when I was being born) mom's routinely SMOKED during pregnancy and even labor (as I quit smoking during pregnancy and nursing, I have a certain amount of JEALOUSY concerning those times) and some harm occurred, but seriously, many kids whose parents smoked their entire childhood (inside) were perfectly fine, also. Yes, low birthweights and whatnot may have been more routine, but the majority of those children were okay. Not perfect, but okay. I mention this to point out relative risk.. Even the relative risk of smoking was not enough to justify a tobacco ban, even in the labor room. As more data emerged, more relative risks became known. My point is that as society changes and risks become known, yes behavior changes are made.

My point is also that we are NOWHERE near that point and there are a few (hysterical IMO) studies on second hand vaping, but also quite a few stating little to no risk. IMO, those studies are more credible than the former ones. Also, TC data FOR FIRST HAND VAPING cannot AND SHOULD NOT be applied to "second hand vape." That would be mistake number ONE. You cannot prove ONE thing by citing studies about something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

I am not withholding ANYTHING from any new vaper, you are brewing increasing hysteria because people point out (and I continue to point out) that while not EVERYTHING is known about vaping yet, RELATIVE RISK so far has been studied and under normal conditions, poses little relative risk.

Informing new vapers is fine, as well as the TC data. It's useful, but it has NOTHING to do with second hand vape, that is NOT what it is for, nor is it helpful to anyone.

I don't vape in someone's face out of politeness, nothing less, nothing more.

Your argument is seriously flawed, and I might add, sort of Gantz like. You are drawing extrapolations where you can't, and making arguments that are flawed, and unreasonable.

I don't care for it. Even Mike P, when I asked him about the fish, stated they were his "canaries" of a sort. They're all totally fine.

Anna

 

[kiba]

It seems to me like you're willfully misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. That won't take us anywhere.

Coincidentally, the same thing happened to me [emoji848]

really, idc, the whole carcinogens thing isn't my argument & I *really* don't want it to be. I know Mike takes heat for it all the time & he's a glob damned saint for what he does for us, but tbh that's a bag of worms I never wanted to get into bc some people (vapers in particular) seem to have a real problem when you present evidence that requires them to change their favorite habits. If you want to argue about it with me you're arguing with someone who self-admittedly doesn't know enough about it to explain... but I do know these things; I know that it happens (significantly) at 470F which is easily reachable in wattage mode on today's devices, I remember him saying that he could not recognize aldehydes by taste, as was previously thought (that it would taste like a burnt hit etc.), & I know that it is relatively safe to assume that these carcinogens dissipate when cooled by ambient air... The point being that it's just another one of many things we're still in the process of finding out about, so nobody can say for certain that second-hand vape is benign & that should be yet another incentive to do it away from others... (really, I don't get why that's a point of contention)

All of that is just a side thing anyway, the part I have a problem with is arrogant vapers who act like it's their right, & do it wherever they want... which reflect poorly on all of us, arrogant or no. When we were smoking, we did it respectfully away from others, (or I guess, I & most of the smokers I know did) what I don't get is how sucking down on a different medium causes people to lose all concern for others. I literally just was at ikea a few days ago, saw somebody vaping in the cafeteria while leaning over food that somebody else would (I'm assuming) eventually eat.

 

[Janusz]

@Baditude is right. I think anti-vaping restrictions are stupid, but once they become law, law-abiding citizens have a duty to obey it while seeking change. That judge should be held to the same standard. If I can't vape in his courtroom, then neither can he.

Stupid laws force people to become criminals.

 

[kiba]

No one is saying that there aren't unknown variables in vaping, and that it's 100% harm free.

I AM saying that I believe the "risk" factor in second hand vape to be fairly negligible compared to first hand vape, which is already reduced in risk.

If you can point to ONE instance of someone being harmed by second hand vape, I would love to hear it.

Because, while research is ONGOING into these matters, it should be pointed out that a) there are conflicting studies, sometimes without a clear methodology (those are usually the "loud" studies) and there have also been studies IN CLOUDY VAPE SHOPS where the air was tested and found to have very little to 0 impact on non-vapers.

"The inside" is not a sealed vacuum. Air from you know, doors, cracks, windows enters "the inside." Using YOUR logic, if I were to "loiter outside" a building, vaping, well, some of that "expelled air" is also going to enter the building. Pursuing your line of logic would indicate that no vaping should take place, ever, outside of a sealed environment. That is what we get if we want to pursue the "scare" tactics about vaping. I, personally, do not want to do that.

Screeching about the dangers of second hand vaping, from a vaper appears odd to me, as does your "use" of these studies. While there may be SOME danger to CERTAIN forms of vaping, the MASSIVE dilution that takes place INTO the air means that many of those molecules (some probably having been "trapped" in the lungs, is almost negligible compared to "all the air in the world."

Using your logic, we would need to get rid of oh, say, cars, and airplanes, and electricity and anything that is a POLLUTANT.

Vape is less POLLUTING than many of the objects listed above. Is it a pollutant, yes, and a fairly minor one. You stated yourself, someone blew "vape" near or into a stroller, using YOUR logic concerning the "fear" of second hand vape (when most of the studies you screech about are concerning FIRST HAND vaping) well, that infant should have died instantly. Do, again, tell me about one instance of ACTUAL HARM from second hand vape. Because I am going to bet the mom was annoyed, but the infant was totally , utterly fine.

You know in my generation (when I was being born) mom's routinely SMOKED during pregnancy and even labor (as I quit smoking during pregnancy and nursing, I have a certain amount of JEALOUSY concerning those times) and some harm occurred, but seriously, many kids whose parents smoked their entire childhood (inside) were perfectly fine, also. Yes, low birthweights and whatnot may have been more routine, but the majority of those children were okay. Not perfect, but okay. I mention this to point out relative risk.. Even the relative risk of smoking was not enough to justify a tobacco ban, even in the labor room. As more data emerged, more relative risks became known. My point is that as society changes and risks become known, yes behavior changes are made.

My point is also that we are NOWHERE near that point and there are a few (hysterical IMO) studies on second hand vaping, but also quite a few stating little to no risk. IMO, those studies are more credible than the former ones. Also, TC data FOR FIRST HAND VAPING cannot AND SHOULD NOT be applied to "second hand vape." That would be mistake number ONE. You cannot prove ONE thing by citing studies about something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

I am not withholding ANYTHING from any new vaper, you are brewing increasing hysteria because people point out (and I continue to point out) that while not EVERYTHING is known about vaping yet, RELATIVE RISK so far has been studied and under normal conditions, poses little relative risk.

Informing new vapers is fine, as well as the TC data. It's useful, but it has NOTHING to do with second hand vape, that is NOT what it is for, nor is it helpful to anyone.

I don't vape in someone's face out of politeness, nothing less, nothing more.

Your argument is seriously flawed, and I might add, sort of Gantz like. You are drawing extrapolations where you can't, and making arguments that are flawed, and unreasonable.

I don't care for it. Even Mike P, when I asked him about the fish, stated they were his "canaries" of a sort. They're all totally fine.

Anna

OK now this is going a bit off the rails, please tell me where I said that second hand vape clouds are confirmed harmful? If I did by mistake or something, this reaction would make much more sense to me, show me & I will edit that post immediately. What I do know is that second hand vape makes people cough (I have witnessed it & I think we all have), it's annoying, sticky and large clouds are physically obtrusive, (I think that anyone who's ever tried to drive a car with someone blowing clouds would agree) & I know that *my* physical health improved during the time I quit & my gf stopped coughing during her sleep.

Because I'm a vaper I need to go along with the general consensus? I keep it simple and believe that if the general rule is that people aren't allowed to smoke somewhere, there's no reason for people to believe they're obliged to vape. Doing so makes us look obnoxious as a whole.

 

[stols001]

Well:

1) You are making an argument about something without citing relevant studies. One does not use one study to prove another. IF you have a study about second hand vape that you feel "proves" or justifies risk please do post it. I'd be happy to take a look. The carcinogen studies are only measuring what comes from the atomizer into a person's lungs, not what happens when it is dissipated.

2)Vaping is being targeted enough (IMO often falsely) to take studies about FIRST hand vaping and try to extrapolate that SECOND HAND vape is dangerous. Why would you do that? That's like saying after I metabolize a pill, *I* get an effect, but since *I* get an effect, my pores must be extruding the medication in minute amounts, so EVERYONE GETS an effect. It's untrue, it's biased, and it's really not a good argument to vape.

Had you kept your musings to "it's impolite and rude." I would 100% agree with you.

You didn't. You said that studies show vaping is dangerous (in some ways) as FIRST hand vape and went on to apply it to second hand vape.

We have enough problems with VAPE HATERS doing that, let alone actual vapers.

I will never, ever, sign on to "second hand vape is dangerous" based on Mike P's temp data. I don't think it is relevant, I feel there are a few studies, completed in different ways, that indicated very little harm, or some harm. But, you aren't even citing the studies that show harm! I wish you would, so I could tear apart their methodology. I've read some (both ways) and I understand scientific methodology.

Also, stating "Someday we might know more" as a reason is not going to fly either .Someday, we may in fact know more about EITHER side, but until we do, it's not a good rationale, a scientific rationale, or anything else.

I do not base my life around the fact that someday, the sun may go supernova and swallow up the earth and all its inhabitants.

Nor do I base my vape life around the fact that "someday" second hand vape may be shown to be harmful or not.

I don't apply my second hand vape to non vapers because many don't like it. I actually was mostly exactly the same way with smoking. I was polite, because I was raised to be.

Why not just keep it politeness and you know, sanity based. The idea of not subjecting my vape to others is ALREADY reasonable to me. Making up stuff and trying to connect a bunch of studies that WERE NOT SECOND HAND VAPE STUDIES is irrational, and actually harmful to the cause of vaping, in my opinion. Whether later on it becomes shown harmful or not, well, vaping should be done politely. Going on about the kid in the stroller shows irrationality, because if VAPING POLITELY is your concern, then fine. But, it's not based on the dangers of second hand vape, nor should it be, not unless you can support ANY of your claims (hint, you haven't).

So why introduce lies, there are enough of them being promoted by the ANTI vaping community. The argument you are trying to make... Seems to be rather similar to hitting oneself in the head with a hammer. I am not going to say "I VAPE POLITELY BECAUSE, at some future date, it will kill you...... Possibly, and I base it on a study of FIRST HAND VAPOR." I will never say that.
a) It's false
b) It's false
c) It's really not beneficial to the cause of "vaping" generally and such false information is harmful to new vapers, and vaping generally.

IF at some point some sort of "minimal" harm is demonstrated, then great, I will state that as a rationale for not vaping near people who don't like it.

I still would like your study about THE HARM of second hand vape. Because so far, we are far from "proven" on that. No one is saying vaping does not carry any risk . NO one on this thread has stated that . But, if you can prove in a causal way, supported by a study, that 2nd hand vape is in any way dangerous, you are actually the one giving out "false" information. I really don't think that is necessary or appropriate.

Without a study, I'm done here. You have yet to provide ONE THING that supports your claims. It is disturbing, because I'm sure that isn't your intent. But, it is actually what you are doing.

Anna

 

[kiba]

Well:

1) You are making an argument about something without citing relevant studies. One does not use one study to prove another. IF you have a study about second hand vape that you feel "proves" or justifies risk please do post it. I'd be happy to take a look. The carcinogen studies are only measuring what comes from the atomizer into a person's lungs, not what happens when it is dissipated.

2)Vaping is being targeted enough (IMO often falsely) to take studies about FIRST hand vaping and try to extrapolate that SECOND HAND vape is dangerous. Why would you do that? That's like saying after I metabolize a pill, *I* get an effect, but since *I* get an effect, my pores must be extruding the medication in minute amounts, so EVERYONE GETS an effect. It's untrue, it's biased, and it's really not a good argument to vape.

Had you kept your musings to "it's impolite and rude." I would 100% agree with you.

You didn't. You said that studies show vaping is dangerous (in some ways) as FIRST hand vape and went on to apply it to second hand vape.

We have enough problems with VAPE HATERS doing that, let alone actual vapers.

I will never, ever, sign on to "second hand vape is dangerous" based on Mike P's temp data. I don't think it is relevant, I feel there are a few studies, completed in different ways, that indicated very little harm, or some harm. But, you aren't even citing the studies that show harm! I wish you would, so I could tear apart their methodology. I've read some (both ways) and I understand scientific methodology.

Also, stating "Someday we might know more" as a reason is not going to fly either .Someday, we may in fact know more about EITHER side, but until we do, it's not a good rationale, a scientific rationale, or anything else.

I do not base my life around the fact that someday, the sun may go supernova and swallow up the earth and all its inhabitants.

Nor do I base my vape life around the fact that "someday" second hand vape may be shown to be harmful or not.

I don't apply my second hand vape to non vapers because many don't like it. I actually was mostly exactly the same way with smoking. I was polite, because I was raised to be.

Why not just keep it politeness and you know, sanity based. The idea of not subjecting my vape to others is ALREADY reasonable to me. Making up stuff and trying to connect a bunch of studies that WERE NOT SECOND HAND VAPE STUDIES is irrational, and actually harmful to the cause of vaping, in my opinion. Whether later on it becomes shown harmful or not, well, vaping should be done politely. Going on about the kid in the stroller shows irrationality, because if VAPING POLITELY is your concern, then fine. But, it's not based on the dangers of second hand vape, nor should it be, not unless you can support ANY of your claims (hint, you haven't).

So why introduce lies, there are enough of them being promoted by the ANTI vaping community. The argument you are trying to make... Seems to be rather similar to hitting oneself in the head with a hammer. I am not going to say "I VAPE POLITELY BECAUSE, at some future date, it will kill you...... Possibly, and I base it on a study of FIRST HAND VAPOR." I will never say that.
a) It's false
b) It's false
c) It's really not beneficial to the cause of "vaping" generally and such false information is harmful to new vapers, and vaping generally.

IF at some point some sort of "minimal" harm is demonstrated, then great, I will state that as a rationale for not vaping near people who don't like it.

I still would like your study about THE HARM of second hand vape. Because so far, we are far from "proven" on that. No one is saying vaping does not carry any risk . NO one on this thread has stated that . But, if you can prove in a causal way, supported by a study, that 2nd hand vape is in any way dangerous, you are actually the one giving out "false" information. I really don't think that is necessary or appropriate.

Without a study, I'm done here. You have yet to provide ONE THING that supports your claims. It is disturbing, because I'm sure that isn't your intent. But, it is actually what you are doing.

Anna

Alright let me make this 100% clear then, I said that; we currently dont know enough to say that second hand vape is harmless, we might believe it is, and very well could be, but there's new studies coming out all the time that illustrate how little we know.

That said, coupled with the fact that it's annoying, it's not unreasonable for normals to want us to do it elsewhere. At least until there is scientific evidence which says that second hand vape clouds are benign. That, and the fact that most vapers I see out in the wild are complete dinguses, is my point in its entirety.

 

[stols001]

I agree with your point, and I'm glad you finally reached it. Where I was taking issue was the whole "Look at the TC data." Which you DID apply to your argument.

I cannot and do not base all my life decisions on "what may come to light in the future."

I agree with you wholeheartedly that not being rude in public matters,. It probably matters more than any future possible harm (which, as you state, is currently unknown).

I vape politely because I prefer that the image of vaping remain unharmed, and EVEN MORE as I stated, I don't vape around children because "modeling vaping" is not good. Just like "modeling smoking" is not good.

I only take issue with the idea that "future studies may.... whatever." Let us address future studies if and as they come along, not try to use TC vaping to "make vapers behave."

It annoys me when vapers don't, because it speeds up the time frame in which my right to vape will be curtailed.

But, I don't do it because "future studies may show harm." They also may NOT show harm, so it would be silly to use a Prediction of the Vaping Oracle that "someday, second hand vaping may show harm. That's the only part of your argument I take issue with.

I may drop dead tomorrow. I don't live my life based on "possible futures" as frankly, it's hard enough to keep things straight as they are. Etc.

Anna

 

[kiba]

I agree with your point, and I'm glad you finally reached it. Where I was taking issue was the whole "Look at the TC data." Which you DID apply to your argument.

I cannot and do not base all my life decisions on "what may come to light in the future."

I agree with you wholeheartedly that not being rude in public matters,. It probably matters more than any future possible harm (which, as you state, is currently unknown).

I vape politely because I prefer that the image of vaping remain unharmed, and EVEN MORE as I stated, I don't vape around children because "modeling vaping" is not good. Just like "modeling smoking" is not good.

I only take issue with the idea that "future studies may.... whatever." Let us address future studies if and as they come along, not try to use TC vaping to "make vapers behave."

It annoys me when vapers don't, because it speeds up the time frame in which my right to vape will be curtailed.

But, I don't do it because "future studies may show harm." They also may NOT show harm, so it would be silly to use a Prediction of the Vaping Oracle that "someday, second hand vaping may show harm. That's the only part of your argument I take issue with.

I may drop dead tomorrow. I don't live my life based on "possible futures" as frankly, it's hard enough to keep things straight as they are. Etc.

Anna

Go back and read my posts, bc I think you may have misunderstood somewhere, I brought that up as an example of studies illustrating facts about vaping that were previously unknown to us, which is happening all the time & if people can't have the common decency to not do it in public places bc it's annoying, then maybe use that as an incentive.

The only reason it got brought up past that is bc it was called into question that aldehydes are produced within a normal vaping range, which they are according to what I know (470F), but is totally outside my point.

 

[zoiDman]

 

[Letitia]

Thanks for returning this back into an enjoyable thread.