Please DO vap where you can't smoke!!!

[kristin]

Sam, it's not just a "gut feeling."

First, there is nothing considered toxic or dangerous in e-cigarettes. All of the ingrediets are approved for human consumption and use by the FDA and EPA for the short-term exposure a bystander may have. If people have a fear of brief exposure to e-cigarettes, then they should fear Broadway shows, nightclubs and haunted houses. They should also fear all of the food items which contain naturally-occurring nicotine and air fresheners, scented oils and anything else containing artificial scents and flavors.

Second, there are scientific testing reports that show that there is nothing in e-cigarette liquid that could be considered dangerous. The Health New Zealand study for one and the FDA testing for another. The worst thing the FDA could find was miniscule amounts of carcinogens and one cartridge with non-toxic levels of one toxic chemical. Trust me, if they had found anything worse, they would have announced it and played it up with glee. Health New Zealand declared e-cigarettes to be reasonably safe both inhaled and exhaled and not a significant danger to bystanders.

How is it illogical to theorize that propylene glycol, which is considered safe for oral, topical, inhaled and intravenous use would suddenly be dangerous to inhale in small amounts? How is it logical to assume nicotine levels which are barely registering in scientific testing with direct use would suddenly be a risk for bystanders? How could food-safe flavoring suddenly be dangerous in the tiny amounts found in e-cigarettes any more than natural oils in air fresheners?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that they ARE a danger to bystanders. And there is much more than just "gut feelings" to support that belief.

 

[garz]

I am chained to a computer at work for 9-10 hours a day. I have 5 people surrounding my desk in a U shape...

So, at first I was sneaky about it. Then one day I let this massive cloud of vapor out of my mouth, on accident.

OHH BOY! I look around me and everyone had the "deer in headlights" look on their faces. Next came the questions, followed up with answers, and then finally a piece of mind.

Everyone was very acceptive and allowed me to continue to vape freely with out any guilt or shame, in doing so. I even got a co-worker to look into getting one for her bf who recently quit smoking.

My boss was even thrilled at the fact that I didn't have to run out every half-hour to an hour, for a analog break. He sat there calculating approximately how much time I would've stolen from the business. Plus, he enjoys the different sudden bursts of scents that come from my direction. Luckily, they don't linger like analogs.

So, till the indoor ban is in full effect. I am pro indoor vaping!

 

[scinsc]

I thought this was interesting. Testing PG since the 1930's.
http://ecigs-today.com/?p=89

 

[DemonCowboy]

i was going to reply to sam12six's post but in the middle of it i realized that it's like trying to discuss the theory of evolution w/ an evangalist bible-thumper. if u'r ever curious though sam, do a google search on e-cigarette exhaled vapor.

or at least check out:
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf page 19.

(by the way i suggested the google search because there's more sources of data than just this )

and try to put 2 and 2 together for u'rself. u'r argument that cigarettes were considered safe in the past is flawed because they didn't have the technology to do the kind of testing then that we can do today. but those of us who do our own research can come to our own conclusions thank you. just because we can look at data and come to our own conclusions doesn't mean we are going on a "gut feeling" so next time i'm w/ my friends in the grocery store, i'll just vape there w/ them instead of excusing myself to go outside to have a cigarette like i used to have to do.

again, you do what seems right to you, and i'll do what's right according to the conclusions i've come to looking at the data.

well i guess it was still a reply after-all just w/o going through his entire post again

 

[DemonCleaner]

according to this girl we should all quit...it was fun while it lasted.

 

[kristin]

Actually the pressure is coming from the cigarette manufacturers and the drug companies, and regardless of what we do or don't do in public, they are the ones who are gonna kill it for us.... the guys with the big bucks.

So far there is no indication that the cigarette companies are targeting e-cigarettes. As a matter of fact, one just started selling e-cigarettes.

 

[Shel]

Everyone was very acceptive and allowed me to continue to vape freely with out any guilt or shame, in doing so. I even got a co-worker to look into getting one for her bf who recently quit smoking.

My boss was even thrilled at the fact that I didn't have to run out every half-hour to an hour, for a analog break.

Garz
Thanks for sharing.

Your feedback is precisely the response I've read from over 90% of people who've vaped indoors, in public, on these boards.

My only stake in this debate is an attempt to slow down, or stop regulations which will ban vaping, NOT because it's "bad for you", or even because "there haven't been enough studies"... (when has THAT EVER stopped our gov.t from allowing or disallowing anything), but because it will stop tax revenue for the gov.t, and/or stop the tobacco industry from making millions from smokers.

I really am not trying to tell anyone what to do. Do what YOU feel is comfortable, or right in your opinion.

I only started this thread as a response to the "Please don't vap in public" thread, because I feel that the more exposure vaping gets, the more acceptable, and more importantly, the more lives it may save!

At times I perhaps post in a tongue in cheek manner (such as my off handed "vap in church" line... didn't mean to offend anyone), but honestly, I find vaping SO amazing!

The abiltiy to QUIT SMOKING... something I've personally tried time and time again, with SO LITTLE discomfort... I guess I want to pass it on to as many people who suffer from smoking as possible, and want vaping to be around for a looooong time!

 

[kristin]

according to this girl we should all quit...it was fun while it lasted.

Like, uh my ghaad, uh-lectronic cigarettes give me like, nicotine breath!

Is she like, uh, brain dead?

 

[Zeroi]

U mentioned nicotine breath? I think i like the Polar Mint Flavor of all time. but do u mean the Throat Kick? i don't know how nicotine taste like issit the <numb> feeling?

Like, uh my ghaad, uh-lectronic cigarettes give me like, nicotine breath!
Is she like, uh, brain dead?

 

[sam12six]

i was going to reply to sam12six's post but in the middle of it i realized that it's like trying to discuss the theory of evolution w/ an evangalist bible-thumper. if u'r ever curious though sam, do a google search on e-cigarette exhaled vapor.

Some people here are saying, "Ecigarettes are harmless to the people around me. I believe that so I'm going to vape wherever I want."

I'm saying, "We don't have enough evidence to reach that conclusion. I'll respect others' space and not inflict my habit on them until we get such evidence."

How does that make ME the unreasonable zealot here?

or at least check out:
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf page 19.

(by the way i suggested the google search because there's more sources of data than just this )

Yes, cigarettes are bad...

and try to put 2 and 2 together for u'rself. u'r argument that cigarettes were considered safe in the past is flawed because they didn't have the technology to do the kind of testing then that we can do today. but those of us who do our own research can come to our own conclusions thank you. just because we can look at data and come to our own conclusions doesn't mean we are going on a "gut feeling" so next time i'm w/ my friends in the grocery store, i'll just vape there w/ them instead of excusing myself to go outside to have a cigarette like i used to have to do.

OK, you're claiming to have done a long term study of people who vape daily and are around it daily? You should really let someone know about it. I'd imagine you could sell it for a lot of money.

again, you do what seems right to you, and i'll do what's right according to the conclusions i've come to looking at the data.

well i guess it was still a reply after-all just w/o going through his entire post again

I totally agree. I never said don't vape, or even don't vape around other people, or EVEN don't vape where smoking's not allowed.

What I said was that I understand people's concerns about the cloud of vapor being bad for them. Since there's no long-term data on regular exposure, I would indeed be an ignorant zealot to try and shove the opinion that vaping, even long-term, will cause very little (if any) damage to someone (and that is what I believe) down people's throats.

As you said, we all make our own choices. I choose to treat vaping like the new technology that mimics smoking that it is. That means I'm smoking - just smoking something I hope and believe is less harmful.


PS - The girl in the video. I just want to pat her on the head and say, "At least you're cute. Find yourself a husband quick because 20 pounds or years and you might be in trouble!"

 

[DemonCowboy]

OK, you're claiming to have done a long term study of people who vape daily and are around it daily? You should really let someone know about it. I'd imagine you could sell it for a lot of money.

like i said sam, re-search...

Propylene Glycol - safe - even beneficial - look it up
flavorings - buttery flavors not so safe (don't feel like going and looking up the exact name of the chemical) but in general safe - look it up
nicotine - studys showing AT LEAST 98% absorption, meaning exhale has less nicotine (or vitamin B3) than is in a tomato - look it up

now tell me 1+1+2=?

PS - The girl in the video. I just want to pat her on the head and say, "At least you're cute. Find yourself a husband quick because 20 pounds or years and you might be in trouble!"

couldn't agree w/ u more there, but i'd b questioning the intelligence of the guy that married her, and how bright he'd have to b to not wind up divorcing and running like hell.

 

[sam12six]

like i said sam, re-search...

Propylene Glycol - safe - even beneficial - look it up
flavorings - buttery flavors not so safe (don't feel like going and looking up the exact name of the chemical) but in general safe - look it up
nicotine - studys showing AT LEAST 98% absorption, meaning exhale has less nicotine (or vitamin B3) than is in a tomato - look it up

now tell me 1+1+2=?

1+1+2 certainly equals 2. 1+1+?+? equals what?

That's right, we don't have access to data on people who have PG and VG vapor all day for years. Oh yeah, we also don't know what every flavoring when heated to vapor does under the same circumstances.

As I said, I agree with you. It's reasonable to assume (because of the long use of fog machines) that PG won't cause major damage (and certainly won't do it quickly). That is an assumption though because we just don't have data on people who daily, constantly, purposely inhaled it.

Again, I'm not saying, "You people are so wrong about it! Cigarettes are just as healthy as inhaling PG!"
I've just been saying that telling people it's completely harmless is dishonest because we don't know yet.

couldn't agree w/ u more there, but i'd b questioning the intelligence of the guy that married her, and how bright he'd have to b to not wind up divorcing and running like hell.

Ahh, but there's the thing. I know a ton of guys who are intelligent, educated, and have money who would happily cut their own throats if a cute woman smiled at them and asked.

In these times, finding a moderately well off husband and making his life hellish enough to divorce her is a pretty reliable retirement plan for a cute (but otherwise useless) woman.

 

[DemonCowboy]

1+1+2 certainly equals 2. 1+1+?+? equals what?

first...

1+1+2 certainly equals 2

sorry couldn't resist teasing that typo

other ppl don't have to worry about the +?+? because, i don't know about u but i don't think i could even stand anyone being THAT close to me for that long of a time period that it would even matter to them. even if she's really cute, intelligent and perfect in every way, i still need SOME space. so a non issue.

As I said, I agree with you. It's reasonable to assume (because of the long use of fog machines) that PG won't cause major damage (and certainly won't do it quickly). That is an assumption though because we just don't have data on people who daily, constantly, purposely inhaled it.

prolonged fog machine exposure - Google Search here you go,

Ahh, but there's the thing. I know a ton of guys who are intelligent, educated, and have money who would happily cut their own throats if a cute woman smiled at them and asked.

then if intelligent definitely not wise, though i really have no room to talk cause i figured that out the hard way and was a slow learner...lol now as long as they look acceptably healthy and have a decent personality and i can actually have a conversation w/ them... but like i admitted, it took me fair few times to learn too...lol

In these times, finding a moderately well off husband and making his life hellish enough to divorce her is a pretty reliable retirement plan for a cute (but otherwise useless) woman.

i thought that's y they made pre-nups...

 

[sam12six]

first...

sorry couldn't resist teasing that typo

Heh. It's the keyboard's fault. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

other ppl don't have to worry about the +?+? because, i don't know about u but i don't think i could even stand anyone being THAT close to me for that long of a time period that it would even matter to them. even if she's really cute, intelligent and perfect in every way, i still need SOME space. so a non issue.


prolonged fog machine exposure - Google Search here you go,

Again I agree. There's enough basis to make a good assumption, but that's not the same thing when you're talking about a different magnitude of exposure (and different chemical mixes).

The discussion (or at least my side of it) was about there not being enough evidence to say with scientific certainty (if there were, FDA approval would have already happened). In the lack of such certainty, "fake smoking" is going to be legally treated the same as real smoking as soon as awareness is widespread enough.

I guess, if anything, I think vaping should be kept on the down-low not to draw enough attention to have people changing laws to include PVs.

then if intelligent definitely not wise, though i really have no room to talk cause i figured that out the hard way and was a slow learner...lol now as long as they look acceptably healthy and have a decent personality and i can actually have a conversation w/ them... but like i admitted, it took me fair few times to learn too...lol


i thought that's y they made pre-nups...

They find more reasons every day to overturn prenups. One day, the wife must have a lawyer of her own. The next day, the wife must have a lawyer and the husband can't pay her legal fee. The day after, the wife must have a lawyer and the husband can't pay her legal fee and can't give her money that she might use to pay the legal fee.

I think they're trying to get to the point that every male child at birth is assigned a female child to give half his lifetime income to.

Before anyone jumps me for the respective roles I've been using for male and female, I just did it because women don't tend to marry down (economically speaking), or at least not so far down that a prenup is even a consideration.

 

[WarsawNan]

I guess, if anything, I think vaping should be kept on the down-low not to draw enough attention to have people changing laws to include PVs.

If every last one of us who uses a PV did so in total privacy and never spoke of it to a single sole from this day forward, wouldn't make a lick of difference. The bell's been rung. The FDA is in it, the vendors (and forums) are all over the internet, and the cigarette manufacturers & drug companies aren't about to pretend like we don't exist simply because we keep it on the DL.

Just seems silly to think that whether we do or don't vape in public is going to matter at this point as far as future laws and regulations. The big guns are gonna do what they're gonna do regardless of what "Joe the Plumber" might have to say about it. They did with cigarettes and they will with vaping.

 

[sam12six]

If every last one of us who uses a PV did so in total privacy and never spoke of it to a single sole from this day forward, wouldn't make a lick of difference. The bell's been rung. The FDA is in it, the vendors (and forums) are all over the internet, and the cigarette manufacturers & drug companies aren't about to pretend like we don't exist simply because we keep it on the DL.

Just seems silly to think that whether we do or don't vape in public is going to matter at this point as far as future laws and regulations. The big guns are gonna do what they're gonna do regardless of what "Joe the Plumber" might have to say about it. They did with cigarettes and they will with vaping.

Oh, I totally agree with you. At this point we're on borrowed time whether we think vaping without permission is rude or educational. I was just saying that keeping a low profile could extend that time by avoiding having the decision taken away sooner at the local level.

 

[WarsawNan]

Those who aren't vaping in public because they're "respecting others' space" until it's positively determined if there is any second-hand threat from exhaled vapor--do you also not drive? Or, if you do, is it an electric vehicle?

 

[sam12six]

Those who aren't vaping in public because they're "respecting others' space" until it's positively determined if there is any second-hand threat from exhaled vapor--do you also not drive? Or, if you do, is it an electric vehicle?

Actually, I don't drive. When I need to travel a good distance however, I do ride in an internal combustion driven vehicle of some sort.

The argument you hint at is a good one and it's right, a car probably produces as great a quantity of harmful fumes in a long trip as a lifetime of vaping (even smoking maybe) would.

That's a different issue though. We're not discussing whether we do other things that could pollute the air.

People are saying PVs are safer than cigarettes. I'll never disagree with that contention without seeing evidence stating otherwise because my personal experience has been a dramatic improvement in my respiratory health since switching. My argument is that we don't know for a fact that they are harmless in the long term.

As I said, smoking bans were predicated on the potential harm one could cause to others. There's a difference between saying PVs probably won't cause harm to others and saying that there is data proving this is true. Since such data doesn't exist (similar but not the same doesn't count) in the young vaping world, we can't say they're harmless. In other words, they are a cigarette substitute that's probably safer for everybody. Until "probably safer" becomes "completely safe" legally speaking, vaping is going to be treated as smoking as soon as the laws are adjusted to make that happen.

 

[kristin]

The discussion (or at least my side of it) was about there not being enough evidence to say with scientific certainty (if there were, FDA approval would have already happened). In the lack of such certainty, "fake smoking" is going to be legally treated the same as real smoking as soon as awareness is widespread enough.

I guess, if anything, I think vaping should be kept on the down-low not to draw enough attention to have people changing laws to include PVs.

My argument is that we don't know for a fact that they are harmless in the long term.

As I said, smoking bans were predicated on the potential harm one could cause to others. There's a difference between saying PVs probably won't cause harm to others and saying that there is data proving this is true. Since such data doesn't exist (similar but not the same doesn't count) in the young vaping world, we can't say they're harmless. In other words, they are a cigarette substitute that's probably safer for everybody. Until "probably safer" becomes "completely safe" legally speaking, vaping is going to be treated as smoking as soon as the laws are adjusted to make that happen.

Do people really think the testing already done by the FDA and other labs doesn't matter? Most studies ARE based on "previous and similar" studies and those are used as evidence. Just look at the footnotes in most research publications - they ALL base conclusions on previous studies that are similar, but not exactly the same.

There is no proof that long term, extended exposure is safer than cigarettes, but when discussing "second hand" exposure, we don't need that proof - just proof that brief exposure isn't dangerous. There is plenty of scientific data on short-term, brief exposure to ALL of the ingredients in e-cigarettes and NOTHING to indicate danger. Are we now going to ban everything new that doesn't even have a reason to believe that they'd be a danger until proven safe? No - wait - only anything containing nicotine apparently, since other FDA-approved products don't seem to have to abide by that standard. Chantix was put on the market and promptly started killing users, so obviously IT wasn't required to prove absolute safety before getting the green light.

The FDA obviously doesn't require "absolute certainty" to approve a product and any possible dangers have nothing to do with the fact that they haven't "approved" it. In fact, they usually don't bother to get involved in non-pharmaceutical products unless enough actual adverse affects have been reported. THIS all about power and money - not public safety. If you believe anything else you have a lot more research on the history of e-cigarettes and what has been happening.

The fact of the matter is that the future of e-cigs will not be safe until they get enough public support and they won't get that so long as the public believes the lies of the public health groups and FDA.

And why do you keep ignoring the studies that have been done? Several tests and studies, INCLUDING THE FDA TESTING have not found any toxic levels of chemicals nor dangerous levels of carcinogens to give any reason to suspect that they'd be dangerous to by-standers or even to users. Three years of real-world use and no adverse affects reported by users or by-standers due to exposure to the vapor.

Please tell me with what other products have people insisted that a product may still be dangerous even though it had been tested and shown to contain no toxic levels of chemicals and no dangerous levels of carcinogens? What risk of "potential harm" to others is even hinted at with a product that has shown to have no dangerous levels of chemicals?

No dangerous levels of carcinogens detected. No danerous levels of toxins detected. No ingredients not already approved for human consumption. No aerosols not already approved for short-term exposure. No reports of serious adverse affects to either brief or daily exposure to the vapor in three years of real-world human use.

In what universe does this indicate that there would be ANY potential harm to brief exposure to by-standers, especially since in this universe products are typically not given such scrutiny until they actually have reported complaints?

If this product was an air freshener product for public spaces, it would have already been approved for brief exposure in public based on the known facts. The only reason to oppose these as "potentially harmful" is politics and greed, not science. And the only reason to combat that is to get the general public to see that by exposing them not only to the facts, but to actual e-cigarette use and users.

If x=safe, y=safe and z=safe, there is no reason to believe that x+y+z=unsafe.

 

[Zeroi]

totally Agree, 100% agree, I like your post as always. i going to use ur post on my next Debate

Do people really think the testing already done by the FDA and other labs doesn't matter? Most studies ARE based on "previous and similar" studies and those are used as evidence. Just look at the footnotes in most research publications - they ALL base conclusions on previous studies that are similar, but not exactly the same.

There is no proof that long term, extended exposure is safer than cigarettes, but when discussing "second hand" exposure, we don't need that proof - just proof that brief exposure isn't dangerous. There is plenty of scientific data on short-term, brief exposure to ALL of the ingredients in e-cigarettes and NOTHING to indicate danger. Are we now going to ban everything new that doesn't even have a reason to believe that they'd be a danger until proven safe? No - wait - only anything containing nicotine apparently, since other FDA-approved products don't seem to have to abide by that standard. Chantix was put on the market and promptly started killing users, so obviously IT wasn't required to prove absolute safety before getting the green light.

The FDA obviously doesn't require "absolute certainty" to approve a product and any possible dangers have nothing to do with the fact that they haven't "approved" it. In fact, they usually don't bother to get involved in non-pharmaceutical products unless enough actual adverse affects have been reported. THIS all about power and money - not public safety. If you believe anything else you have a lot more research on the history of e-cigarettes and what has been happening.

The fact of the matter is that the future of e-cigs will not be safe until they get enough public support and they won't get that so long as the public believes the lies of the public health groups and FDA.

And why do you keep ignoring the studies that have been done? Several tests and studies, INCLUDING THE FDA TESTING have not found any toxic levels of chemicals nor dangerous levels of carcinogens to give any reason to suspect that they'd be dangerous to by-standers or even to users. Three years of real-world use and no adverse affects reported by users or by-standers due to exposure to the vapor.

Please tell me with what other products have people insisted that a product may still be dangerous even though it had been tested and shown to contain no toxic levels of chemicals and no dangerous levels of carcinogens? What risk of "potential harm" to others is even hinted at with a product that has shown to have no dangerous levels of chemicals?

No dangerous levels of carcinogens detected. No danerous levels of toxins detected. No ingredients not already approved for human consumption. No aerosols not already approved for short-term exposure. No reports of serious adverse affects to either brief or daily exposure to the vapor in three years of real-world human use.

In what universe does this indicate that there would be ANY potential harm to brief exposure to by-standers, especially since in this universe products are typically not given such scrutiny until they actually have reported complaints?

If this product was an air freshener product for public spaces, it would have already been approved for brief exposure in public based on the known facts. The only reason to oppose these as "potentially harmful" is politics and greed, not science. And the only reason to combat that is to get the general public to see that by exposing them not only to the facts, but to actual e-cigarette use and users.

If x=safe, y=safe and z=safe, there is no reason to believe that x+y+z=unsafe.