PSA/Ad: "Think Outside The Pack"

[jigtg]

Thad...really. Have you thought past the humerous PSA. What will be the backlash? We've already had groups monitor this very site to glean info that was cited in the court case with the FDA. Do you really think there will be no counter to your efforts indicating that you correctly quote the SHS danger, but seperate SHV from SHS, without proof?

Using another's info from research for comparison and contrasting is a fair and balanced way to present info...what you propose is no contrast just an illusion based on ...faith???...the PV and it's output (SHV) is not a hazard.

Get a chemist and prove it...there are a few on the board. Most studies on vapor refer to inhalation...not what we exhale. Once you see studies on exhalation you may become more aware of the difficulty in isolating confounding variables. The biggest one is obvious..air pollution, digesting (and off-gassing) a meal of cotinine rich foods such as eggplant with tomato sauce, individual genetic predisposition, age,...the list goes on and on.

You imply empirical study here. It is unlike such a study ever gets done because it is much easier to look at ingredients of e-liquid and become more convinced. And by the time such study gets done most people have likely left this forum.

I believe we have a failure to communicate because I understand these reports as a gathering of current research to inform the populace of trends. The sections begin, as all research papers do, with a historical review to date...than adds current work. Every research paper that gives any findings is based on an hypothesis. The hypothesis is proved or disproved via a "risk" analysis but almost always contains the terms...appear, may, seem to, and so on. The reason for the terminology is simple...the research needs to be replicated by other scientists before the value of the study is weighed.

Fortunately research on similar fields also adds to similar work. To imply that exhale vapor would be more dangerous than inhaled vapor would require chemical reaction to take place and I have never heard of this kind of effect be proven. Mixing jelly with mustard does not turn the mix toxic. And that is why the burden of proof is on the opposing side.

 

[jigtg]

Just to add that I tend to agree with ladyraj. Smokers get defensive and take a hike very easily if you start blasting with the killer stuff. ECF veterans should find something familiar in: "Why wouldn't you try something else for a change?" or "Nothing lost, all won."
Oh and if Webby is reading this, you are a bunch of pussies. I bet you are still arguing about which font to use for the logo. Efficient organization is run by small group of people making the decissions and rest whining around the corner. Enought people whine about the same thing and things start happening. Good stuff floats top and less important stuff gets forgotten. And if you do not like the decissions they are making you start kicking people off from the top.

 

[natura]

Great Slogan/Tag Line!!! Impressive

That is certainly the real deal in marketing and advertising. I wish you luck and can't wait to see the end results. If this line is any inicator..It is going to be great!

 

[ladyraj]

Hey jigtg when you wrote: "Mixing jelly with mustard does not turn the mix toxic. And that is why the burden of proof is on the opposing side."

When pharmaceutical companies want to get a drug on the market or fast-track their newest money-maker they call in experts to produce studies that demonstrate their products are low risk. Their studies on NRT actually proves the case for the PV but we lack the lobby group and researchers to demonstrate via an application for filing as "substantially the same" type of product.

For the PV...a case can be made either way (nicotine alternative or tobacco product). Since the cigarette is considered a drug delivery device for nicotine via court judgement, the PV is substantially the same as a cigarette and could be protected from being banned.

The burden of proof is never on the opposing side when the "precautionary principle" is in play. Even the Pharma companies must demonstrate the benefits of a drug versus the cost of side effects via studies.

Chantix is still available to treat the sufferers of the "tobacco epidemic" and some medicaid patients get the medicine at taxpayers expense. So, we are actually funding the alteration of brain chemistry in the poorest people of our nation and using them as guinea pigs. Makes one want to squeal doesn't it?

I really wish the population were aware of the amount of money spent on tobacco control in this country...the rate is appalling, yet the groups scream for more dollars all the while getting less bang for the buck. The smoking rates have remained constant for about the last 8 years. Teens are more afraid of smoking than unprotected sex and illegal street drugs. Now that's perspective for you!

Something is inherently wrong in the system. I'm waiting for the sleeping to wake up and realize that personal habits that are legal should not be legislated. When we put a legal/individual behavior on a ballot for majority rule, we face the consequences of inhumanity to the minority. I've been patient, but have grown weary and wary of individuals who can't tolerate a whiff of vapor or smoke because of a professed weak constitution or tendency towards socially legislated/licensed rude behavior.

I'm commited to advocating freedom to choose and protection of minority issues not simply the protection of the PV.

 

[ladyraj]

Thad wrote: "Ladyraj, if you want to convince me to see things your way, provide some sort of statistic that shows a potential for a negative backlash. The SG report cites that 80% of Americans believe that SHS is hazardous to bystanders and support some sort of indoor smoking ban. If thats not a large enough percentage to constitute an "overwhelming majority", it stands to reason that a good portion of the remaining 20% still think that SHS is hazardous but not enough to support indoor smoking bans."

The weakest type of research (and the cheapest) is via a survey or questionnaire. Some call these instruments simply polls...we have them on this site. Since I know this type of measurement is weak, is subject to test question bias, and can change depending on the time or place given...I pay no attention to them. I'm surprised you do. But it is a technique that many use for public relations purposes. Thus, these type of "facts" do nothing to convince me.

You want a statistic the groups aligned against the PV could use against your CONTENTION that vapor is not equivalent to smoke?

Ahhhh! Aren't you paying attention? Everything SHS related is being generalized to the output of PVs. Thus the percentages you cite above will be used to include the terms "electronic cigarette" in the SHS rhetoric. It's happening already. I fear this PSA is far too late in this blame game.

Why would any non-smoker want to research the validity of the SHS versus SHV argument? One must be vested to do the research don't you think?

Give me a topic and I can make the statistics prove anything you/I want. Didn't you know that Thad? The problem is not producing the stats...it's having the funds and the connections to deliver the message to change millions of minds on what "looks like smoke". It's chasing ghosts and putting out fires.

If, as you suggest via the SG poll, that 80% of the people believe SHS is a health hazard, then 80% will also believe that vapor is smoke, unless...you can prove it's not. The lack of combustion issue is poorly understood and the danger of nicotine is taken at face value.

Don't hate the messenger of an opposing view, but know your enemy, I am not the latter.

 

[Thulium]

The weakest type of research (and the cheapest) is via a survey or questionnaire. Some call these instruments simply polls...we have them on this site. Since I know this type of measurement is weak, is subject to test question bias, and can change depending on the time or place given...I pay no attention to them. I'm surprised you do. But it is a technique that many use for public relations purposes. Thus, these type of "facts" do nothing to convince me.

I didn't say they should convince anyone. I asked for information that is needed at face value: Evidence that a non-trivial group of people would be offended at the mention of the hazards of SHS. Your contention is that by mentioning the surgeon general's conclusion that SHS causes death and disease among non-smokers will raise the ire of smokers. My anecdotal experience and the research of the SG's office says otherwise.

You want a statistic the groups aligned against the PV could use against your CONTENTION that vapor is not equivalent to smoke?

No, I want evidence to support your CONTENTION that a non-trivial number of smokers would be offended by the ad in the OP.

Ahhhh! Aren't you paying attention? Everything SHS related is being generalized to the output of PVs. Thus the percentages you cite above will be used to include the terms "electronic cigarette" in the SHS rhetoric. It's happening already. I fear this PSA is far too late in this blame game.

Better late than never. However, since no electronic cigarette has yet been submitted to the FDA for pre-market approval, it certainly not too late.

Why would any non-smoker want to research the validity of the SHS versus SHV argument? One must be vested to do the research don't you think?

Why would a non-smoker have a vested interest in the effects of SHS on non-smokers? Ummm...Maybe because the Surgeon General has concluded that Secondhand Smoke can cause their death? As a non-smoker now myself (thanks to PVs), I know that I for one am interested. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a non-smoker who is vested to do the research?

Give me a topic and I can make the statistics prove anything you/I want. Didn't you know that Thad? The problem is not producing the stats...it's having the funds and the connections to deliver the message to change millions of minds on what "looks like smoke". It's chasing ghosts and putting out fires.

I gave you a topic. Massage me a statistic that shows a non-trivial number of people that do not accept the conclusion of the US Surgeon General.

If, as you suggest via the SG poll, that 80% of the people believe SHS is a health hazard, then 80% will also believe that vapor is smoke, unless...you can prove it's not. The lack of combustion issue is poorly understood and the danger of nicotine is taken at face value.

I can prove vapor is not smoke. For the sake of a short TV spot I will simply state that there is a difference and anyone vested enough to care is invited in the commercial to visit www.casaa.org to see the proof for themself.

Don't hate the messenger of an opposing view, but know your enemy, I am not the latter.

So far, YOU are the only evidence I have of anyone who does not accept the fact that secondhand smoke causes harm to non-smokers and you state that you aren't the enemy. Based on the evidence presented, I can conclude that the overwhelming majority of my target audience will either either accept the information in the ad or look for more information to confirm or contradict the ad--I consider both to be a positive outcome.

Ladyraj, if you do not accept the Surgeon General's conclusion that secondhand smoke causes harm, why did you stop smoking??

 

[ladyraj]

You have no evidence of anything regarding proof that hasn't been blown to bits by a single report from the FDA to the public at large. Welcome to the world of power groups making power plays using scary terminology. 8-o

No one...not even you... can prove something so primordial as to quantify the human's perception of what is...or isn't smoke. Outside of a movie set most people perceive whatever is blown out of the mouth that looks like smoke...as smoke. Perhaps while parents are rushing their children away from vaporers we can chase them down shouting but it's not smoke...it's vapor!!!

Those non-trivial numbers you disqualified in you head (thereby demonstrating your quantifying ability) are 20%, or 1 in 5 people in the USA. That's about 60 million people in which 75% are adult, so 45 million voices to ignore. Because Thad says go with the concensus on a polling question.

How many voices are being raised for consumer advocacy for the electronic cigarette? Let's take a poll of average Americans regarding the electronic cigarette usage around nonsmokers, guess what we'll find....

 

[Thulium]

You have no evidence of anything regarding proof that hasn't been blown to bits by a single report from the FDA to the public at large. Welcome to the world of power groups making power plays using scary terminology. 8-o

No one...not even you... can prove something so primordial as to quantify the human's perception of what is...or isn't smoke. Outside of a movie set most people perceive whatever is blown out of the mouth that looks like smoke...as smoke. Perhaps while parents are rushing their children away from vaporers we can chase them down shouting but it's not smoke...it's vapor!!!

Smoke and vapor are fundamentally different. Smoke consists of solid particles that are the product of incomplete combustion indicating a chemical change occurring in the environment, while vapor is merely change of state.

As far as

Those non-trivial numbers you disqualified in you head (thereby demonstrating your quantifying ability) are 20%, or 1 in 5 people in the USA. That's about 60 million people in which 75% are adult, so 45 million voices to ignore. Because Thad says go with the concensus on a polling question.

That's not 20% people who would be offended by the mentioning of the Surgeon General's report, that is 20% of people who don't support indoor smoking bans (for whatever reason). You haven't provided evidence that .1% of people would be offended, much less all 20% of the people who don't support indoor smoking bans.

I haven't disqualified any numbers. The only person that I'm aware of that is offended by the mentioning of the surgeon general's conclusion is someone who's already vaping.

How many voices are being raised for consumer advocacy for the electronic cigarette? Let's take a poll of average Americans regarding the electronic cigarette usage around nonsmokers, guess what we'll find....

What we'll find is the target audience for this ad.

But on second thought, perhaps you are right. I'll scrap this whole idea because ladyraj said that a whole bunch of people would be up in arms that the Surgeon General thinks that Secondhand Smoke is bad for you.

With all due respect and unless you actually have something constructive to add or evidence to back up your contentions, I'm finished discussing this with you.

 

[Webby]

Oh and if Webby is reading this, you are a bunch of pussies. I bet you are still arguing about which font to use for the logo. Efficient organization is run by small group of people making the decissions and rest whining around the corner. Enought people whine about the same thing and things start happening. Good stuff floats top and less important stuff gets forgotten. And if you do not like the decissions they are making you start kicking people off from the top.

Excuse me? How about posting your real name and contact info brave guy? CASAA's board is comprised of doctors, lawyers, users and suppliers who have all donated their time to writing published articles, studies, legal analysis and have organized public events and letter campaigns without taking a dime from anyone. I personally met with the Mayor and City Council of Mobile to organize a concert and fundraiser to show e-cig users in a positive light. Elaine has been published in USA Today. Kristin, Terri and others have written numerous articles. What exactly have you done for the cause?

Our strength comes from the fact that we DO NOT allow any one person to speak for the organization. Decisions are made by a consensus and agree or disagree we all stand behind them as a group. We don't hide behind screen names and name calling. If you have a legitimate problem with CASAA's direction or leadership I'm more than willing to hear it, but if all you have is "you're a bunch of pussies" then you just sound like a kid who was picked last for dodge ball.

 

[kristin]

Oh and if Webby is reading this, you are a bunch of pussies. I bet you are still arguing about which font to use for the logo. Efficient organization is run by small group of people making the decissions and rest whining around the corner. Enought people whine about the same thing and things start happening. Good stuff floats top and less important stuff gets forgotten. And if you do not like the decissions they are making you start kicking people off from the top.

Wow, where is that hostility coming from?

Many of us are very active in advocating e-cigs, here and offline, while trying to get CASAA organized.

Getting an organization like this off the ground takes an incredible amount of work and compromise. We were 13 strangers that have to learn about each other, find common ground and work toward a common goal - all while keeping the member's needs and wants in mind. There's a lot of details that need addressing - the font for the logo only being one in a million different decisions and tasks. There's building a website, organizing the board duties, the legal details in forming a NPO, collecting data and resources, etc. All while having regular jobs and families. This kind of thing doesn't happen over night. Considering what we are up against, I think we're making progress in the right direction.

If you have any actual useful advice, rather than ambiguous insults, I'd love to hear it.

 

[jigtg]

Excuse me? How about posting your real name and contact info brave guy? CASAA's board is comprised of doctors, lawyers, users and suppliers who have all donated their time to writing published articles, studies, legal analysis and have organized public events and letter campaigns without taking a dime from anyone. I personally met with the Mayor and City Council of Mobile to organize a concert and fundraiser to show e-cig users in a positive light. Elaine has been published in USA Today. Kristin, Terri and others have written numerous articles. What exactly have you done for the cause?

Our strength comes from the fact that we DO NOT allow any one person to speak for the organization. Decisions are made by a consensus and agree or disagree we all stand behind them as a group. We don't hide behind screen names and name calling. If you have a legitimate problem with CASAA's direction or leadership I'm more than willing to hear it, but if all you have is "you're a bunch of pussies" then you just sound like a kid who was picked last for dodge ball.

And what makes you think these people would have not acted regardless of whether they are CASAA members or not? In fact if people would have otherwise acted but don't now because they are tied to CASAA's inability to make decissions then don't you have counterproductive effect on people? What is the purpose of CASAA to begin with if it does not have its own identity to begin with?
What am I doing for the cause? I'm adding heat so you start performing better or get kicked out.

Wow, where is that hostility coming from?

Many of us are very active in advocating e-cigs, here and offline, while trying to get CASAA organized.

Getting an organization like this off the ground takes an incredible amount of work and compromise. We were 13 strangers that have to learn about each other, find common ground and work toward a common goal - all while keeping the member's needs and wants in mind. There's a lot of details that need addressing - the font for the logo only being one in a million different decisions and tasks. There's building a website, organizing the board duties, the legal details in forming a NPO, collecting data and resources, etc. All while having regular jobs and families. This kind of thing doesn't happen over night. Considering what we are up against, I think we're making progress in the right direction.

If you have any actual useful advice, rather than ambiguous insults, I'd love to hear it.

So you are reaching out to other groups without your website set up. Nice way to make a good first impression. You don't make fatal mistakes like this if you know what you are doing.

 

[Thulium]

Please take the off-topic conversation elsewhere.

 

[Webby]

And what makes you think these people would have not acted regardless of whether they are CASAA members or not? In fact if people would have otherwise acted but don't now because they are tied to CASAA's inability to make decissions then don't you have counterproductive effect on people? What is the purpose of CASAA to begin with if it does not have its own identity to begin with?
What am I doing for the cause? I'm adding heat so you start performing better or get kicked out.

You can't be serious. I thought you had a real problem with our efforts. You just don't like that we don't have bumper stickers and t-shirts yet. I'll give you that we need to have the site completed, but I've built several thousand sites over the past fifteen years and few had as much content as CASAA.ORG. Like it or not, this will take time and stalling the effort until we have the hubcaps polished is ludicrous. Democracy may be a failing of our organization to you but it is how we have chosen to do it.

Lack of a finished site does not mean that effort isn't being expended. Volunteers have built our own server, sent letters and are loading the hundreds of documents into the CMS for the web site. You need to look more into what IS being done before you make knee jerk comments like you did. Why don't you offer to help rather than slam us for not moving quickly enough (on the web site?) to suit you?

So you are reaching out to other groups without your website set up. Nice way to make a good first impression. You don't make fatal mistakes like this if you know what you are doing.

We are reaching out to other groups because that is what will make a difference - shared efforts and information. If you had bothered to join CASAA's 1,200 member base, you would already know what we're doing and where we need your help.

Be part of the solution.

 

[kristin]

And what makes you think these people would have not acted regardless of whether they are CASAA members or not? In fact if people would have otherwise acted but don't now because they are tied to CASAA's inability to make decissions then don't you have counterproductive effect on people? What is the purpose of CASAA to begin with if it does not have its own identity to begin with?
What am I doing for the cause? I'm adding heat so you start performing better or get kicked out.



So you are reaching out to other groups without your website set up. Nice way to make a good first impression. You don't make fatal mistakes like this if you know what you are doing.

Sorry Thad - last comment.

Jigtg, your comments pretty much show me you have no idea what you are talking about.

These are voluntary positions. No one on the board has anything to gain other than helping people. Kick us out if you want, but I have a hard time believing anyone else would step up to the plate the way these folks, ESPECIALLY WEBBY, have. Without Webby's hard work and dedication, there would be no CASAA for you to even complain about.

Most people complain loudly, but few answer the calls to action. The people working with CASAA are part of the group that actually DOES something, whether they do it in CASAA's name or not.

If you think you can do it better, be my guest. I'd love to see how fast you can get people organized and accomplish as much as Webby and the other board members did in the past couple of months. I look forward to seeing all of the work your new organization accomplishes in the future. Be sure to post your new website for us to check out.

Regards,
Kristin

 

[jigtg]

You can't be serious. I thought you had a real problem with our efforts. You just don't like that we don't have bumper stickers and t-shirts yet. I'll give you that we need to have the site completed, but I've built several thousand sites over the past fifteen years and few had as much content as CASAA.ORG. Like it or not, this will take time and stalling the effort until we have the hubcaps polished is ludicrous. Democracy may be a failing of our organization to you but it is how we have chosen to do it.

Lack of a finished site does not mean that effort isn't being expended. Volunteers have built our own server, sent letters and are loading the hundreds of documents into the CMS for the web site. You need to look more into what IS being done before you make knee jerk comments like you did. Why don't you offer to help rather than slam us for not moving quickly enough (on the web site?) to suit you?



We are reaching out to other groups because that is what will make a difference - shared efforts and information. If you had bothered to join CASAA's 1,200 member base, you would already know what we're doing and where we need your help.

Be part of the solution.

Step in to the shoes of other group and the first thing they want to know if you affiated with BT. Whops, actually turns out you only speak for e-cigs. You didn't really expect to be able to pick a name for your group that rings nice to your ears get away with it? You better get your story straight if you want to appear credible as right now your credibility is round zero. The next thing they want to know your take various forms of tobacco. Right, you have no idea. Until you sort out your identity crisis I'm done with you.

Sorry Thad - last comment.

Jigtg, your comments pretty much show me you have no idea what you are talking about.

These are voluntary positions. No one on the board has anything to gain other than helping people. Kick us out if you want, but I have a hard time believing anyone else would step up to the plate the way these folks, ESPECIALLY WEBBY, have. Without Webby's hard work and dedication, there would be no CASAA for you to even complain about.

Most people complain loudly, but few answer the calls to action. The people working with CASAA are part of the group that actually DOES something, whether they do it in CASAA's name or not.

If you think you can do it better, be my guest. I'd love to see how fast you can get people organized and accomplish as much as Webby and the other board members did in the past couple of months. I look forward to seeing all of the work your new organization accomplishes in the future. Be sure to post your new website for us to check out.

Regards,
Kristin

Even if you did everything right the amount of impact CASAA could have on countries that have already banned e-cigs is a drop in sea. The only thing that will have miniscule impact is whether you xxxx up things or not.

 

[kristin]

Step in to the shoes of other group and the first thing they want to know if you affiated with BT. Whops, actually turns out you only speak for e-cigs. You didn't really expect to be able to pick a name for your group that rings nice to your ears get away with it? You better get your story straight if you want to appear credible as right now your credibility is round zero. The next thing they want to know your take various forms of tobacco. Right, you have no idea. Until you sort out your identity crisis I'm done with you.

Even if you did everything right the amount of impact CASAA could have on countries that have already banned e-cigs is a drop in sea. The only thing that will have miniscule impact is whether you xxxx up things or not.

You speak in such vague generalities that it's hard to even know what your actual complaint is.

CASAA is only as small as it's membership. If Big Tobacco couldn't even fight smoking bans and regulation, with all of it's wealth and power, it is hard to imagine that we, with our currently small membership, can actually accomplish anything of significance. But, as we grow, that could change.

At least we are trying to do something, rather than just sitting on the sidelines, complaining that other people aren't doing enough for us. Seriously, you haven't answered the question - what exactly are you doing to help the cause, other than criticizing other people for not doing enough?

I'm not sure what your reference to "identity crisis" means. Can you be more specific? And if we are so insignificant, how can we even xxxx things up, as you put it?

Just what is it you expect CASAA to be doing right now, that isn't being done? You expect an infant, who is barely crawling, to be running against olympic athletes?

Honestly, I just don't get where you get off complaining.

 

[Mister]

Back to the topic, Thulium:

My next door neighbor is a man in his 70s who smokes heavily indoors. He coughs incessantly and has been told his lung function is under 30%. He's in bad shape. The residue on his computer screens, pictures, etc. is of course visible. Despite all this, and his non-smoking wife having tried for over a decade to get him to smoke outside only, he remains adamant that there is no such thing as second hand smoke.

I think that any quick (30 sec) spot which is meant to grab a smoker's attention would best carefully avoid any direct negative statement about smoking. Truth doesn't trump emotion. Most smokers (probably even my neighbor) know inside that it is harmful to them and to others. But they haven't been able to stop. And the result is often an angry, negative, and/or hostile emotional response to anything which rubs their nose in it.

I think you can do much better by just changing aim very slightly to stay on positives and carefully avoid pressing the buttons many smokers have developed.

For instance, instead of P1 saying something like "Not only does it reduce harm to yourself and eliminate the risk of harming others from secondhand smoke...I'm saving money too!"

How about something like: "No more smoker's cough! No more people ...... off at you. My wife told me to go ahead and vape in the car! And it costs less too!"

Its the same information. But instead of reminding the smoker of what he already knows and hates about himself, it tries to present the possibility of a happier future.

 

[Mister]

Oh, and continuing to the pan out and crowd behind, instead of "that's the lives you could be saving..." it could be "that's the lives being saved by switching to vapor." Again, just removing the direct button push of what this person already knows they ought to be doing.

 

[Thulium]

Oh, and continuing to the pan out and crowd behind, instead of "that's the lives you could be saving..." it could be "that's the lives being saved by switching to vapor." Again, just removing the direct button push of what this person already knows they ought to be doing.

I don't mind "softening" it like this, but to me it seems unnecessary to water it down like that. I think there may be a middle ground, however, that you are on the right track to finding. The script in the OP is still in draft form and I am absolutely open to suggestions or improvements.

"That's the lives being saved by switching to vapor" doesn't quite roll off the tongue as well, and there is less evidence to support it: If a vaper continues to use Nicotine, there remains a risk (albeit greatly reduced) of heart disease and the presence of trace levels of TSNA's in e-cig cartridges means that there even though the risk is probably very close to zero, it is still a "risk". However, the already miniscule risk is reduced to completely undetectable when speaking in terms of "secondhand" vapor:

Studies thus far have found a total of approximately 8 nanograms of TSNA's per gram of e-liquid in a 16mg cartridge. The amount of TSNA's varies by the nicotine concentration, but it seems to be right around 1 nanogram for every 2 milligrams of nicotine. A typical vaper only uses a few DROPS of e-liquid to replace the 10-15 liters of smoke produced by a cigarette and studies show that 98% of the nicotine is absorbed by the user. It would then follow that the half nanogram accompanying the milligram of nicotine would be reduced to less than .001 nanograms per liter of exhaled vapor...and even that dissipates very quickly--most people can't even SMELL the vapor that consists in large part of fragrance (flavoring). In other words, the danger of "secondhand vapor" is likely LESS than the "danger" of inhaling alcohol from someone's perfume. As Dr. Siegel phrased it: "There is no legitimate concern."

Also, please keep in mind that the dangers of SHS aren't actually the secondhand smoke, but the sidestream smoke that comes off the lit end of a cigarette and is not filtered or absorbed by the smoker. E-cigarettes do not produce sidestream smoke or vapor, so although this is an area deserving of further research, there is absolutely no reason to expect any measurable risk to bystanders.

I initially chose to focus on SHS because it is irrational fear of secondhand vapor that caused the ridiculous New Jersey legislation. I think we can agree that the dangers of SHS to bystanders are significantly less than the health problems to the user of analogs. E-cigarettes reduce harm by multiple orders of magnitude to the user, but they eliminate sidestream contaminants COMPLETELY...and I think that is the point that can be made here.

EDIT: Before anyone tries to criticize my unscientific mashup of several different studies, I'll leave you with this: The FDA report did not detect toxins in any of the vapor they tested with the asparager--and they didn't test exhaled vapor. For further evidence, I would defer to the New Zealand study.

 

[Mister]

"That's the lives being saved by switching to vapor" doesn't quite roll off the tongue as well, and there is less evidence to support it.

You're right. The original line there is far better. I wonder if the first part can be softened without changing the last.

Regarding the 98% absorption, I think that's the number for cigarette smoking and that the number for vaping hasn't been established yet. Forum member exogenesis may have an answer about this soon on this thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ine-destroyed-during-vaping-4.html#post863649

I don't imagine that the number will be anything which could be considered harmful to others. Just pointing out that we don't seem to have the actual number yet.