I don't know where you got that from..?
If I can find posts where those 2 - 3 posters state that vaping somewhere where it's acceptable to vape is... erm.. acceptable (I can't believe you just made me write that), will you admit you're wrong?
Question for those who think we should not vape where we can not smoke...
- Thread starter DC2
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I don't know where you got that from..?
If I can find posts where those 2 - 3 posters state that vaping somewhere where it's acceptable to vape is... erm.. acceptable (I can't believe you just made me write that), will you admit you're wrong?
1) I didn't call it ridiculous.
2) I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Rather, that is how I characterize the action....of vaping anyway where it is banned. The only reason you would do that...is civil disobedience to the posted rule. (because the question was..."where it is banned").
3) I already said that I'm one that would ignore an outdoor ban....
So maybe re-read. You asked....
I answered. (Albeit someone else's point/question/post).
Same reasoning I use for way in which I vape indoors.
When I say inside, I'm using shorthand, just as when I say "vape everywhere." The way in which I vape indoors, there is between zero and very little imposition. I find that easy to do in most indoor public places I attend. I could be in large, super busy, indoor (or outdoor) arena, and find umpteen dozen places where no one will see me vaping. And for sure will have no knowledge that I did vape in a location that I chose to vape in.
I would think this depends on the (annoyed) person and the ventilation in the area, and the device being used, and the vapor being exhaled, and the way in which the vaper generally goes about their vaping when not in comfort of their own place.
In everything you chose to respond with, I'm mostly getting you addressing the safety of secondhand vapor aspect.
In most of these type of discussions, it is the courtesy/respect issue that is brought up with 'why it is not perfectly okay to vape indoors.' So, I'm still curious if you think it is perfectly okay to vape outdoors with idea that it is, at least sometimes, respectful and courtesy to do it? And as you can tell, your reasoning will likely be used by me, and others, as to why it is okay to vape indoors then. While for the anti-vaper, your reasoning will be seen as selfish justification for you to feed your addiction. Thus, as this thread's OP is driving at, from a certain perspective, the only courteous / righteous place to vape is in one's own home, as long as their residence doesn't share a wall with any other person, who presumably is a non-vaper.
So you're saying "The generalisations don't apply to me, because I'm nice"? That doesn't work. A pub won't let me run a diesel engine in it, even if I assure them it's very clean and quiet. It won't let me bring my pet pig in, even though he's very friendly and doesn't usually eat people's lunches, either.
That's just life in the real world.
I'm not even sure I can parse this.
You can't tell the difference between the interior of a building, where smells accumulate, where people have limited capacity to move around, and where an owner has prohibited you from doing something, versus the outside world, which is owned in common, and where you could smoke / vape literally as much as you like without leaving any distinguishable effect a few seconds after you stop?
Sure, there are degrees in between - outside, privately owned? I'd think it's weird if someone said I couldn't (unless it was for religious reasons or something), but I'd still respect it (normally, anyway).
Last edited:
Do you know how to science? Metadata analysis of single case studies is how links are made to bad drugs (phen-phen much?) FDA approval requests make claims to health benefits that are purely sponsored by those involved and thus can be misleading (again, phen-phen comes to mind
I'm not sure that you a) understand what a study is and b) what it takes to get a study published. Studies examine a hypothesis, perform analysis, testing, or observation to prove or disprove a hypothesis. The experimentation methods and data gathering methods must be declared in the study so that anyone can attempt to duplicate the study. It's when that duplication happens if the data remains consistent that study gets elevated in the scientific realm closer to fact, further away from guessing. And yes studies happen all the time that include data that contradicts the hypothesis (most of the studies i've read about vaping). Thorough researchers will spot and include mention of studies and potential flaws in their process (proof is required with these sort of claims) and potential reasons for why that data came out the way it did and possible hints of further study.
Lack of any of this tends to get those in charge of publishing papers to throw the study into the round file. So many posts and threads have come out claiming to be intelligent, open minded, and wanting the science to work itself out. Yet no-one thus far, I think realizes the amount of work and incredible amount of data that is generated for a single study. While I wont stand by a claim that has only one study, i do have to respect the conclusions of that study - once we have 10 or more studies all corroborating each other, I tend to think this is a done deal.
I think part of the problem here is that too many bunk science studies have gotten published in the past decade or so that have been pushed to mainstream media; the whole autism is caused by vaccinations created a serious anti-vax movement that endangers public health and kids are now getting sick because of it, all because of one flawed, and provably fraudulent, study that got published. And of course other areas of science get a bad rap too and get a lot of pseudoscience wrapped in. Dont even get me started on the fact that virtually nobody knows what a theory is.
<edit> tl;dr Vaping is one of the few studies that I can actually take at face value. Smoking was provably causing harm as early as the 1890's but BT was paying big dolla billz to supress the science and would fund science that came out favorable. The PV/APV/Ejuice market doesnt have a BT type company to fund science or suppress the science - further, most of the studies I've read are undertaken to prove that vaping is harmful but come out showing that there's no evidence of harm. In light of the context of our hobby; each and every one of our studies we point to in support of vaping has so much more weight to me than a lot of other areas of health.
I appologize for the long winded rant as well
</edit>
No Apology needed.
In fact, it is Nice to read posts like yours that are more Emotionally De-voided on a topic like this.
First let me make a Distinction with regards to your post regarding e-Cigarettes and Studies:
e-Cigarettes are Not being classified as a Drug or a Drug Deliver Method. So the Approval Procedure to the FDA you mentioned and the reference to Phen-Phen are not applicable. e-Cigarettes are being/have been deemed a Tobacco Product.
What is currently going on is Policy Formation for the Use of e-Cigarettes on many Different levels. Federal Policies, State Policies, Local/City, Private/Public Property, Workplace.
Whereas Drug Approval relies almost 100% on Clinical Trials and Studies Results for Claims of things like Effectiveness and Risk Assessment, Policies, such as e-Cigarette use, do not. Many factors go into making a Policy.
Some of these Factors are: Existing Scientific Evidence, Study Results, Health, Safety, Possibility of Litigation, Public Sentiment, Campaign Contributions, Re-Election Ramifications, Public Fear, Emotional Factors.
In a Perfect World, policies would be decided placing Importance on the Individual Factors more in the Order I have listed above. Existing and Verifiable Scientific Evidence should out trump something like Emotional Fears or Campaign Contributions. But we don't live in that World.
So herein lies the Problem as I see it. People want to go in front of a panel of Policy Makers on some level and convince them that e-Cigarettes should be Allowed where Smoking is Not Allowed. One of the First things that will be asked is "Are e-Cigarettes Safe? Safe for the User, and Safe for People around someone how uses an e-Cigarette?".
This would be a Great Time to produce a Published/Verified short term Clinical Trial and a Study or Two from a Major University, Hospital or Recognized Expert.
But to quote the Abstract of the Drexel Paper...
"... To date, a comprehensive review of the chemistry of electronic cigarettes and the aerosols they generate has not been conducted, depriving the public of the important element of a risk-assessment process that is mandatory for environmental and occupational health policy making. ..."
http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf
So what people are left with are trying to Fight Policies or Sway e-Cigarette Policy makers with limited resources.
I understand the process of conducting a Meaningful Study. And I have seen Firsthand just how much Time, Money and Hard Work it takes to perform one. And that is why I posted that many times on this Forum that I am Disappointed that OEM's and the Major Retailers haven't done more to Fund and Organize Studies. Because they alone have the Money to Fund such Studies.
As I mentioned earlier, e-Cigarette Use Policies are not going to hinge Solely on a Study Result regarding Safety. The plan and simple Truth is that Many Public Polices are based on what the Majority of the Population wants in a given area.
Right or Wrong. It is what it Is.
1) I didn't call it ridiculous.
2) I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Rather, that is how I characterize the action....of vaping anyway where it is banned. The only reason you would do that...is civil disobedience to the posted rule. (because the question was..."where it is banned").
3) I already said that I'm one that would ignore an outdoor ban....
So maybe re-read. You asked....
I concede you didn't call it ridiculous. I meant that in reference to the post I originally responded to, but I can see how it seemed I was saying it to you. Mia Culpa for my imprecise post.
You seemed to be saying I was claiming "victim status" and "my rights were being violated" in your post responding to me. If you say you didn't mean it that way, I take you at your word.
Tapped out
You have people who Don't want vapers using e-Cigarettes Non-Smoking Areas. How does using an e-Cigarettes in these areas do Anything but Anger and Inflame these people?
And prompt them to write their Representatives to call for More and Tougher Bans. Or for the Outlawing of e-Cigarettes Completely.
I just Don't See how Using an e-Cigarette in Non-Smoking Areas Promotes or Helps the vaping Community.
It does for me.
And in this real world you speak of, I can and do vape indoors, in places that have not given me explicit approval to do so. I can, and I do. In the real world.
Just as you can, and you do, in outdoor places where you have not been explicit approval from all persons outside.
Again, in places I vape indoors, I do not leave any distinguishable effect a few seconds after I stop.
And I feel sensitive types both indoors and outdoor would disagree with idea that regardless of how much exhaled vapor there is in the air, it is not distinguishable. I, of course, am inclined to agree with you. But anti-vapers would vehemently disagree with you, and non-vapers wouldn't know for sure.
So, just to be clear, if there was outdoor usage ban at place that you like to visit, would you ever vape there, or would you disrespect the law, at least sometimes, and vape in that outdoor location? And if yes, you would, would you do it when people were around, or never around? Could ask a whole bunch of other questions if you said yes, but to cut to the chase on all those other questions, just realize that any justifications and generalizations you would give for why you would, is how I currently operate with indoor use where there is some sort of restriction in effect.
Yeah, and when I was a teenager I sometimes sneaked into gigs without paying, or bought beer under-age.
I just don't pretend it's some kind of political statement.
I just don't pretend it's some kind of political statement.
Well, civil disobedience is a rebel act. Albeit, with justifiable motivation...e.g. the Rosa Parks act of not sitting in the back of the bus. She said "no". Why? Her civil rights were being violated by the rule. Thus...victim...of a civil rights violation.
However, my point was, with e-cigs, there are TWO sides to the argument. With Ms. Parks, there's no (real) impact to others if she sits in the front. With e-cigs there's vapor.
So, if you (the collective, vape-anwhere people "you") decide that you want to sit in an establishment, underneath the "No smoking or vaping" sign, and vape anyway, it's an act of rebellion. A proclamation of your opinion that you have a "right" to do it anyway. Civil disobedience. And that only happens if you think the rule violates your rights, placing you in victim status.
Or, you're looking to get kicked out, start a fight, or otherwise go against the establishment's rules.
I'm just saying that "Vape anywhere, even where banned" thing is an act of disobedience and people that do so must think they:
A) have the inherent right to vape anyway (e.g. victim of repressive rule)
B) don't expect any backlash and will "get away with it"
C) look'n for a fight/confrontation.
D) Just want to vape and have capability of ignoring cause->effect for actions (usually not a valid argument in adulthood).
Those are the only logical thought processes I can think of that a human would have for taking the action. Know of others?
So I'm assuming people believe they have the right. That they vape anyway. And deal with consequences if they arise.
My point was, that since it impacts the air of others, IDK if they (we) can claim that inherent right. The ANTZ can claim victim status too...on air quality basis.
This is all based on the premise that "You have a basic right, but your right ends where it impacts others"....e.g. "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." Basic law 101....I think.
Jman8 assures us that when he vapes in private property after the owners have asked him to stop it's because it's "for the cause".
I disagree.
FWIW, I have no particular problem with what I believe your position to be, although we might disagree on details.
Well, civil disobedience is a rebel act. Albeit, with justifiable motivation...e.g. the Rosa Parks act of not sitting in the back of the bus. She said "no". Why? Her civil rights were being violated by the rule. Thus...victim...of a civil rights violation.
However, my point was, with e-cigs, there are TWO sides to the argument. With Ms. Parks, there's no (real) impact to others if she sits in the front. With e-cigs there's vapor.
So, if you (the collective, vape-anwhere people "you") decide that you want to sit in an establishment, underneath the "No smoking or vaping" sign, and vape anyway, it's an act of rebellion. A proclamation of your opinion that you have a "right" to do it anyway. Civil disobedience. And that only happens if you think the rule violates your rights, placing you in victim status.
Or, you're looking to get kicked out, start a fight, or otherwise go against the establishment's rules.
I'm just saying that "Vape anywhere, even where banned" thing is an act of disobedience and people that do so must think they:
A) have the inherent right to vape anyway (e.g. victim of repressive rule)
B) don't expect any backlash and will "get away with it"
C) look'n for a fight/confrontation.
D) Just want to vape and have capability of ignoring cause->effect for actions (usually not a valid argument in adulthood).
Those are the only logical thought processes I can think of that a human would have for taking the action. Know of others?
So I'm assuming people believe they have the right. That they vape anyway. And deal with consequences if they arise.
My point was, that since it impacts the air of others, IDK if they (we) can claim that inherent right. The ANTZ can claim victim status too...on air quality basis.
This is all based on the premise that "You have a basic right, but your right ends where it impacts others"....e.g. "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." Basic law 101....I think.
I know of other reasons.
But first, let me ask this. When you are told not to vape outside due to a campus-wide ban, do you?
Tapped out
lol. I would. But I'd also proclaim that the ban is a violation of my basic rights (assuming I wasn't doing it by the entrance or in a crowd or somewhere where some ANTZ could claim harm.) And I'd claim victim status, and challenge the law/rule/ban on a civil rights basis. Basically, I'd tell the busybody rule-makers to go spit.
I can think of NOTHING that will Ensure the Prompt and Probably Excessive Enactment of e-Cigarette Bans more than this type of Action.
It also brings into the Question the "A" Word.
Well, perhaps my new line in anthrax e-liquid...
Don't Laugh.
But I am currently developing a Botox e-Liquid.
It helps people get off Analogs and at the same time, Reduces Wrinkles.
And since there are No Regulations regarding what I can put in an e-Liquid, I'm trying to Cash In Quick before there are.
Kinda like e-Solid.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
