Question for those who think we should not vape where we can not smoke...

[generic mutant]

You obviously don't understand how the law works currently. There is already a punishable by law ban on ecigs in private establishments if those establishments choose there to be (in the United States).
...

I don't think zoiDman is saying that the current law doesn't allow people discretion to create a no-vaping environment.

Just that the thought process of a lot of the people making the laws is "We need clarity, because a mish-mash of different bylaws and exceptions just creates too much confusion, and makes it hard for people to enforce rules they've set."

 

[Jay-dub]

What is really surprising to me is that more and more of the medical community aren't getting on board with e-cigs being a viable alternative and safer than smoking. Yet they are not being vocal? If they would stand up and be counted..... It seems as only those that are against it are getting the press. Yet time and time again I hear, from members here, that their doctor has either approved, recommended, or has seen the improvement of their patients in regards to e-cigs.

If we could somehow get those pro e-cig doctors to be counted..... Wishful thinking, I'm sure...

Isn't a healthier public bad for business? Our health care system is so flawed and the latest incarnation isn't much of an improvement. I hate to be skeptical but a few years ago there was a huge free health clinic here and most blood and urine test results were produced within half an hour of taking them. But at doctor's offices they usually make you schedule and pay for another appointment to get the results. Just furthering my point that health care is a business and doctor's have turned out to be no better than Wall Street brokers. Maybe if e-cig companies sent reps and gave kick backs to doctors they'd consider it.

 

[Bosco]

One question I have when I read these threads . . . do you think second-hand vapor is completely safe?

I'm not aware of any truly conclusive study that says second-hand vapor is harmless so I tend to agree/comply with people who don't want to inhale second-hand vapor.

For my own self - that's my guideline. If somebody is around to be annoyed by my vapor, I don't vape. If I'm at a place where vaping is allowed or outside I vape all I want. If I'm at a place where vaping is not allowed I usually still stealth vape . . but that's just me. I would've stealth smoked if it were possible, lol.

My attitude about vaping in public has changed a lot in the year-plus that I've been vaping. At first, honestly, I felt kind of ridiculous vaping in public so I rarely did it. E-Cigs, even a year ago, were no where near as common as they are now and I felt like people would assume I was doing something illegal because that's what I assumed the first time I saw a PV.

Now I see e-cigs everywhere. When somebody asks me about vaping now they ask "is that one of those electronic-cigarette things?" . .instead of "what the heck is that?!?".

But the safety of second-hand vapor is still a question to me. It's not the same as a hot shower or water heater because it has nicotine in it. I don't take my kids to the vape shop because the air is thick with vapor and, I assume, nicotine. I think it's better than smoke definitely .. but 100% safe? Not too sure about that. Sure, car exhaust is probably more dangerous . . but I'm not really concerned with what is more or less harmfull than second-hand vapor . .just whether or not second-hand vapor is harmfull.

 

[generic mutant]

Nicotine isn't the issue - pretty much everyone tests positive for nicotine, because it's in our diet anyway, and at the levels in second hand vapour in normal circumstances it won't be harmful.

There is some evidence I believe that PG can lead to asthma (from stage hands working around fog machines), and obviously people can have allergic reactions to lots of things.

But I think it's pretty much a scientific certainty that second hand vaping isn't anywhere near as harmful as second hand smoking. I'd always be hesitant to say 'harmless', but close enough to not need laws based on that argument.

 

[Jailbird]

I tend to vape only where smoking is acceptable. I just don't want to deal with the general public's harassment. Sometimes I see people vape just to draw attention to themselves so they can publicly profess how it isn't smoking.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[zoiDman]

...

My general mantra is, I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Our current data shows ecigs aren't harmful. If that changes down the road i'll be glad to reevaluate my opinion. Otherwise vaping is only an annoyance to other people, which is a legitimate gripe, but it certainly doesn't require an outright ban to solve the issue. People can figure this one out on their own.

I think herein lies much of the Problem. Especially in the Workplace.

In that the Way people in this Country work out problems "on their own" is thru the court system.

Trust me, I'm Not In Favor of more government regulations and control. I'm in favor of less.

And by the same token, I don't like the concept of Every Problem ending up in a Civil Court with some Bottom Feeding lawyer arguing that his client was Emotionally Scared and denied a chance to work in a Tobacco Free Work Environment. So they deserve $10,000,000 Federal Reserve Notes.

Or that some Smuck got Influenza because a Food Working blew Menthol e-Liquid Clouds on his Fish Taco.

The topic of Banning e-Cigarette use in Non-Smoking areas is a Complex Issue. One that has many Dynamics. Also one where Most People (perhaps 9 out of 10 or more) can't understand why a Person Can Not go without taking a Hit off an e-Cigarette while in those areas.

Which brings up the "A" word.

 

[zoiDman]

Nicotine isn't the issue - pretty much everyone tests positive for nicotine, because it's in our diet anyway, and at the levels in second hand vapour in normal circumstances it won't be harmful.

There is some evidence I believe that PG can lead to asthma (from stage hands working around fog machines), and obviously people can have allergic reactions to lots of things.

But I think it's pretty much a scientific certainty that second hand vaping isn't anywhere near as harmful as second hand smoking. I'd always be hesitant to say 'harmless', but close enough to not need laws based on that argument.

Yeah... I am Always Somewhat Amused when people say that 2nd Hand Vapor is Harmless.

A pretty Bold and Inclusive Statement seeing that there is No Regulations or even a working Standards for what is Inside an e-Liquid. Or what "Other", non-mentionable, substances people can place in a Clearo or Tank if they choose to.

BTW - Have you see this Stuff?

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...gel-paste-eliquid-concentrate-back-again.html

 

[DC2]

Yeah.....That's why they are more than ok to prescribe you Wellbutrin or Chantrix

Wellbutrin Side Effects in Detail - Drugs.com
Chantix Side Effects in Detail - Drugs.com

Yes, exactly, that's why they are more than ok to prescribe those to you...

If they are sued because of wellbutrin or chantix, their malpractice insurance will cover them.
If they are sued because of electronic cigarettes, their malpractice will not cover them.

It has far more to do with malpractice and standard of care than does who pays for their vacations.

 

[AegisPrime]

I'm not aware of any truly conclusive study that says second-hand vapor is harmless so I tend to agree/comply with people who don't want to inhale second-hand vapor.

Drexel University study:

By the standards of occupational hygiene, current data do not indicate that exposures to vapers from contaminants in electronic cigarettes warrant a concern. There are no known toxicological synergies among compounds in the aerosol, and mixture of the contaminants does not pose a risk to health. However, exposure of vapers to propylene glycol and glycerin reaches the levels at which, if one were considering the exposure in connection with a workplace setting, it would be prudent to scrutinize the health of exposed individuals and examine how exposures could be reduced.

The cautions about propylene glycol and glycerin apply only to the exposure experienced by the vapers themselves. Exposure of bystanders to the listed ingredients, let alone the contaminants, does not warrant a concern as the exposure is likely to be orders of magnitude lower than exposure experienced by vapers. Further research employing realistic conditions could help quantify the quantity of exhaled aerosol and its behavior in the environment under realistic worst-case scenarios (i.e., not small sealed chambers), but this is not a priority since the exposure experienced by bystanders is clearly very low compared to the exposure of vapers, and thus there is no reason to expect it would have any health effects.

 

[Orb Skewer]

Motion carried

 

[DC2]

One question I have when I read these threads . . . do you think second-hand vapor is completely safe?

Nothing it completely safe, and that is not a valid standard to use.
But there are few things I can think of that I consider safer than what we exhale.

Scented candles, air fresheners, perfume, cologne are all things I believe to be much more dangerous.
I won't even bother to mention car exhaust or smoke from a barbecue.

Heck, even things like your furniture and carpet might be more dangerous...
Off-Gassing » Chemically Injured

I'm not aware of any truly conclusive study that says second-hand vapor is harmless so I tend to agree/comply with people who don't want to inhale second-hand vapor.

Have you seen the Drexel University study yet?
Peering through the mist: What does the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tell us about health risks?

 

[generic mutant]

Motion carried

Someone should post a "The sky is blue" thread, and see what the argument's about

 

[zoiDman]

Someone should post a "The sky is blue" thread, and see what the argument's about

The Sky Isn't Blue. The Light Reflecting Off the Sky is Mainly Blue.

(Sorry... Couldn't Resist!)

 

[zoiDman]

From the Drexel Paper....

"...
Methods

Literature search

Articles published in peer-reviewed journals were retrieved from PubMed (Home - PubMed - NCBI) using combinations of the following keywords: “electronic cigarettes”, “e-cigarettes”, “smoking alternatives”, “chemicals”, “risks”, “electronic cigarette vapor”, “aerosol”, “ingredients”, “e-cigarette liquid”, “e-cig composition”, “e-cig chemicals”, “e-cig chemical composition”, “e-juice electronic cigarette”, “electronic cigarette gas”, “electronic cigars”. In addition, references of the retrieved articles were examined to identify further relevant articles, with particular attention paid to non-peer reviewed reports and conference presentations. Unpublished results obtained through personal communications were also reviewed. The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) was asked to review the retrieved bibliography to identify any reports or articles that were missed. The papers and reports were retained for analysis if they reported on the chemistry of e-cigarette liquids or aerosols. No explicit quality control criteria were applied in selection of literature for examination, except that secondary reporting of analytical results was not used. Where substantial methodological problems that precluded interpretation of analytical results were noted, these are described below. For each article that contained relevant analytical results, the compounds quantified, limits of detection, and analytical results were summarized in a spreadsheet. Wherever possible, individual analytical results (rather than averages) were recorded (see electronic Appendix A: ..."

What Exactly does this mean?

"No explicit quality control criteria were applied in selection of literature for examination, except that secondary reporting of analytical results was not used."

 

[Train2]

Spotted this last night. Well, my kid spotted it. And I didn't take this photo, I googled and found it - but it's the same sign.
Exactly the same sign - as you can see by the little palm trees in the background, because we were at an In-N-Out Burger.
So - somewhere, probably, people got irritated enough at In-N-Out enough that they made a chain-wide No Vaping policy, like Starbucks.

 

[RosaJ]

Or that some Smuck got Influenza because a Food Working blew Menthol e-Liquid Clouds on his Fish Taco.

I think the defense for that one is: "What is the difference between a non-smoker/vaper who is carrying the flu virus (or any other virus for that matter) and a vaper carrying the virus? None. Some viruses are airborne and it doesn't matter whether you breathe clear carbon monoxide or carbon monoxide with vapor. Both persons are going to spread it by breathing on top of the fish taco." Just because you don't see someone's breath doesn't mean they're free of contaminants.

 

[DC2]

What Exactly does this mean?

"No explicit quality control criteria were applied in selection of literature for examination, except that secondary reporting of analytical results was not used."

I think it means that they examined everything they could get their hands on.
They didn't pick and choose which things to include in their review.

But I could be wrong.

 

[Orb Skewer]

So to get some summary on this so far, we have

Gateway
Highly toxic, addictive nicotine
2nd hand vapour
We need a sledgehammer to prevent the odd random power vaping in a supermarket
It looks like smoking (and it is difficult to distinguish an e-cig from a real burning one)

 

[RosaJ]

So to get some summary on this so far, we have

Gateway
Highly toxic, addictive nicotine
2nd hand vapour
We need a sledgehammer to prevent the odd random power vaping in a supermarket
It looks like smoking (and it is difficult to distinguish an e-cig from a real burning one)

The one "It looks like smoking..." is if you're looking at the vapor from a distance. Once you get closer, you can plainly see it's not smoke from a burning cigarette.

 

[zoiDman]

I think it means that they examined everything they could get their hands on.
They didn't pick and choose which things to include in their review.

But I could be wrong.

I Sure Hope it Doesn't.

Because I'm sure you have heard the Expression with regards to Quantitative Analysis,

"Your Results are Only As Good as your Data."

and

Garbage In = Garbage Out