Reading the statements from so many vapers who think they are experts in toxicology explains why most the public want to regulate vaping.
Question for all those "only vape where I can smoke" people.
- Thread starter Mr. Miyagi
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Reading the statements from so many vapers who think they are experts in toxicology explains why most the public want to regulate vaping.
If I had kids in my home, yes, I would vape around them.
I grew up during the time when smoking was allowed and expected just about every where. Long before smokers were deemed to be the lowest form of life on this planet and deserved no consideration at all. Long before the powers that be discovered that they could fill their coffers from the sweat of the smokers brow if they demonized the smokes enough to get the public behind them.
I was raised during the time where parents could decide what was best for their kids and were expected to do it themselves but didn't base their decisions on fear mongering. My eldest brother is now just shy of 70 and the youngest is 56. 5 more in between those 2. We rode in cars while both parents smoked. Lived in a home where they smoked in the house--even in the same room we were in. If all the garbage put out there as fact was in fact true, you would think at least one of us would have had some of those second hand smoke horrors, happening to us.
Now the powers that be are trying to convince the public that vaping is gonna kill their kids and sadly, there are those that are so brainwashed, they believe it. And what is even more sad-----it is not just the general public that believes the lies----seems their are vapers that believe it too. Looks like the smear campaigns are working just as planned.
Ditto all that. I was born in '61, and grew up in smoke-filled houses and cars; nobody thought twice about it. My grandfather smoked pipes and cigars, but the cigars he would only smoke while cutting the grass or working in the garden; everywhere else, the pipe. My mother smoked EVERYWHERE. If I whined about the smoke in the car, I was told firmly to shut the hell up and crack my window.
My son was born in '88, when smoking had already been pushed from all stores and from the actual "audience" area of theaters, but was allowed in all restaurants and in the lobbies of theaters. Naturally I smoked around him, from the time he was born -- even when he was in the womb. I don't think the smoking while pregnant harmed him, he was a week late and weighed nearly 8 lbs, however I think the smoke indoors did harm his lungs; he developed chronic bronchitis that would morph into asthmatic bronchitis with every cold, so when he was 9, I started taking it outdoors; if he came out to talk to me, he either put up with the smoke without whining, moved upwind of me, or was told to get his .... back in the house. I still smoked in the car, with the window opened, because me driving without smoking was not a scenario that anyone wanted to see, least of all anyone in the car with me. and he still managed to go from 20 absences every school year, to zero absences, once I started smoking outdoors instead of indoors. And if he was still a kid, nowadays I'd vape in the car with him, for the same exact reason -- "doing without" is much too big a drain on my cognitive abilities to be done while driving. Fortunately he's now 26, 27 next week -- can you believe it, he survived being around all that cigarette smoke?
Andria
The vapers stated that there are studies. Do you want to comment this statement or the studies?
My take is this: if you upset someone, then they're not going to listen to reason and they're likely to continue to reinforce that opinion in the future as well. So it's just a matter of finding a balance.
If I'm somewhere that smoking is allowed then I will vape freely. If I am somewhere that smoking is not allowed, then I will use some discretion; I would ask for permission at a bar, for example.
I've seen people vaping at a place like a concert, throwing an obvious cloud for all to see; it created a bad reaction and the staff kept going to talk to the person. Even though the vapor isn't smoke, it drew a lot of attention to the person and it was, I feel inappropriate because it ended up shocking people. People that are reacting like that aren't going to be open to listening to facts, and they're going to go home and complain about how vapers are "pretentious jerks" and no better (or worse) than smokers.
On the other hand, I've had times that I was vaping while sitting on a sidewalk downtown (where people are at least somewhat prepared to encounter smoke), have them brace themselves to deal with the "smoke," then visibly have a light bulb go off in their head and relax when they realized that it's not anything like smoke. You can tell that those people went home thinking "gee, maybe those e-cigs aren't so bad." I've had similar reactions when I could stop vaping long enough to let someone pass by without the thing still producing some level of "smoke."
Vaping indoors is something that I take on a case-by-case basis, though, because even if nicotine is no worse than caffeine, I know that I'd still be upset if I had to drink a cup of coffee against my will. The vapor will dissipate when outdoors, but indoors they could be breathing it over and over.
I think that if we don't want to be lumped in with smokers, then we have to avoid setting off those trigger-ready reactions. When those reactions are set off, it's a lot harder to counter them because people just double-down on their feelings. Unfortunately people will see it as smoke as long as they don't know any better, so it's better to work with it than against the whole anti-smoking sentiment.
If I'm somewhere that smoking is allowed then I will vape freely. If I am somewhere that smoking is not allowed, then I will use some discretion; I would ask for permission at a bar, for example.
I've seen people vaping at a place like a concert, throwing an obvious cloud for all to see; it created a bad reaction and the staff kept going to talk to the person. Even though the vapor isn't smoke, it drew a lot of attention to the person and it was, I feel inappropriate because it ended up shocking people. People that are reacting like that aren't going to be open to listening to facts, and they're going to go home and complain about how vapers are "pretentious jerks" and no better (or worse) than smokers.
On the other hand, I've had times that I was vaping while sitting on a sidewalk downtown (where people are at least somewhat prepared to encounter smoke), have them brace themselves to deal with the "smoke," then visibly have a light bulb go off in their head and relax when they realized that it's not anything like smoke. You can tell that those people went home thinking "gee, maybe those e-cigs aren't so bad." I've had similar reactions when I could stop vaping long enough to let someone pass by without the thing still producing some level of "smoke."
Vaping indoors is something that I take on a case-by-case basis, though, because even if nicotine is no worse than caffeine, I know that I'd still be upset if I had to drink a cup of coffee against my will. The vapor will dissipate when outdoors, but indoors they could be breathing it over and over.
I think that if we don't want to be lumped in with smokers, then we have to avoid setting off those trigger-ready reactions. When those reactions are set off, it's a lot harder to counter them because people just double-down on their feelings. Unfortunately people will see it as smoke as long as they don't know any better, so it's better to work with it than against the whole anti-smoking sentiment.
Can you
Can you send me a link to those false studies. A friend said they saw some and I was curious to read them.
I don't claim to be an expert in toxicology, but I can read, and I can even usually interpret a study that I read. Are you an expert in toxicology? Would you like me to link the studies I've been referring to? I could, but you can also find them, and the threads discussing them here on ECF, usually in the media and general news section.
Most of the public wants to regulate vaping because they can't understand the differences between vaping and smoking, they don't understand the difference between nicotine and tobacco, and there are powerful forces at work that want to keep it that way.
So we have experts of toxicology attacking the other experts of toxicology? How about those claiming it's harmful actually put up some evidence. Burden of proof lies with the accuser.....
I never vape in public places why add extra pressure to us by outsiders, maybe they could make all vape fog colored so its obvious its not tobacco green clouds of deliciousness. and people would know its not a cancer stick.
Scotticus, I'm surprised that you haven't been bombarded with those studies as they always are all over the news, at least in Europe, which fits the TPD's agenda wonderfully.
I'm sorry that I'm not going to google
I also believe if you search for Dr. Kontantinos Farsalinos and visit his site, you'll find references to some of those studies.
I'm sorry that I'm not going to google
those studies now but I believe you may be able to find them in this and other forums. Many relate to experiments performed in not at all realistic lab environemnts, being that they would mean vapers prefer vaping in a way that they're constantly getting dry hits, hence breathing formaldehyde, which is released that way (which is also present in every cigarette). One of the most famous, the one I was thinking of, was conducted by a Japanese scientist a few months ago and the said scientist has connections to the WHO, an organization that's been opposing ecigs for ages. When it came out, saying e-liquids were ten times as carcinogenic as cigarettes (frankly, I still don't understand the "ten times" they referred to), it was all over the news throughout the entire day. Not just in Portugal, all over the world. There are several other studies like that or similar in intent.
I also believe if you search for Dr. Kontantinos Farsalinos and visit his site, you'll find references to some of those studies.
With all due respect, I think you get it all wrong. The only expertise needed here is our social instinct and humans are born with it.
You want to pollute indoor public spaces with your vapor, You want to force everyone to breathe your e-liquid vapors, even my newborn child or my sick mother. You know that a large number of e-liquids contain dangerous substances, (some, like Mother's milk have been tested way over safe established limits for diketones).
...you are telling everyone, '' prove that my vapor is bad or breath it and shut up '' !! This egoistic and intimidating behavior is forcing regulations that all of us vapers will have to live with.
A little common sense and social awareness may have prevented forced regulations but that is unlikely with the extreme positions being expressed here. ( and on the other side too).
Pollute? Dangerous substances all over and second hand vaping? Alright, that's your choice and totally respectable at that, but aren't you going against every serious study that has been conducted so far?
You are right about the powerful voices against vaping.
Good luck if you think you can convince the non smoking and non vaping majority that you have a right to force them and their children to breath your cloud of vapors, even in enclosed spaces like cars, houses etc...
Your addiction is YOUR problem, deal with it in a manner that does not affects us all is what the general public is saying with all the regulations being enforced everywhere.
Just curious. Where did you hear that most of the public want to regulate vaping? I'm sure some do, but I haven't seen any numbers.
Personally I vape in a way you would probably approve of. But I have to disagree with your conclusion that regulations could have been prevented by different behavior on the part of vapers. The drive for regulations is coming almost entirely from somewhere else, namely the revenue streams of the corporations and politicians.
The only numbers I've seen relating to public opinion don't support your position. Not long ago around 80% of the public thought vaping was a safer alternative to smoking. I know that has gone down, but last I heard it was still well above 50%. IMO that change is mostly related to the tidal wave of negative propaganda put out by the corporations and their political allies. The rare instances of inappropriate vaping may have had part in that drop, my own assessment is that it was likely a very small part.
If one reads the forums, a great percentage of people are allergic to PG. Some of us like high PG e-liquids, however. What happens to the PG in exhaled 'vapor?' Is it only vapers who are so prone to PG allergies?...
If I'm in an indoor area that isn't my house, you can't even tell I'm vaping. Also, exhaled vapor has been tested and proven to be no different than ambient air after being filtered by the lungs.
I love how you just assume that I'll be blowing enormous clouds in your baby's face. Talk about egotistical.....
The ones perpetuating regulations are the people like you that erroneously believe it's dangerous. I'm well aware of diketones, and I'm a diy'er that has researched them and I'm confident that I'm not going to be exposed to them at anywhere remotely close to an unacceptable level. Besides, we really don't have any proven link between diketones and real health problems.
The exhaled vapor is so miniscule it is unlikely to cause any problems. Despite what the guy awhile back believes about his nephew and nut flavored liquids. Lol
PG is so present in so many products of all kinds that anybody who has an allergy to PG should be already aware, it's just impossible not to have stumbled upon PG over and over. Having said that, some people are allergic to PG or simply intolerant, but certainly much less than what some vapers tend to believe. It's not really about vapour or something, it's about PG, simple.
@ Tangaroav: I fully agree with englishmick. That's why this is a struggle. If we lose, we lose. But you can't lose a war without first fighting it. I do have a few predictions regarding the future of vaping and they're somewhat dark-ish. That doesn't mean I'm right, only that my reasoning is correct. A lot of things may happen in the meantime and nobody can tell what the world will be like in the future, I would never have thought things would ever come to what they came. And, the future being unpredictable, it may lead absolutely anywhere, no matter what things look like currently.
@ Tangaroav: I fully agree with englishmick. That's why this is a struggle. If we lose, we lose. But you can't lose a war without first fighting it. I do have a few predictions regarding the future of vaping and they're somewhat dark-ish. That doesn't mean I'm right, only that my reasoning is correct. A lot of things may happen in the meantime and nobody can tell what the world will be like in the future, I would never have thought things would ever come to what they came. And, the future being unpredictable, it may lead absolutely anywhere, no matter what things look like currently.
So, now we cloud chase in the faces of babies? Thats the same thing as vaping around kids? Ooooo Kay.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
