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

[DC2]

He provided an admirable framework for the discussion, agreed. So Kudos for that. However, he committed an (unintentional?) fallacy by implying that the "don't vape where smoking is prohibited" crowd isn't also using the more relaxed addendum "unless vaping is permitted". Basically "Ask first". So he's really targeting the extreme absolutist end of the "Don't vape where..." crowd. If they even exist. I think.

Actually, all I was doing was making a thread where I could gather all the information in the first post and then link to it later.
That way I don't have to keep trying to dig it up every time one of these threads comes up.


EDIT: I'm not sure I would believe that either
EDIT: I might have been trying to make some kind of point
EDIT: Or maybe I was just getting my frustrations out

 

[Orb Skewer]

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

Feellife are one of the worlds largest and longest established E-liquid manufacturers, alongside Dekang and Hanseng

 

[zoiDman]

I suppose? But that would mean they would have to question the technique of meta-analysis itself though, right?

From Wikipedia, I guess I can see what you are saying that some might say...
Meta-analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Certainly seems to be some debate, but it appears the Drexel study took the "best evidence synthesis" route.

There are Inherent Problems with Other People's Data when making a Health Claim. There is also the Issue of what Data was used and what Data Was Not used.

I could dig up a bunch of Study Results that were Very Favorable to the Position or Claim I wanted to make. But what to I do if I come across a Study that Isn't Favorable? Or even Flat Out Disputes my Claim?

Is it Wrong to Not Include that Study's Data?

If a Study's Data hasn't been Independently Verified, is it Right to include it in my Analysis. And a Big One, is the Study Data I collect Relevant to the Claim I would like to make in the First Place?

Saying something is Harmless is a Pretty Bold Statement. Saying something is Harmless based on what Other People say/have said can be Problem.

Just like saying that Nicotine is Safe because some Study doesn't Definitively link it to some forms of Lung Cancer. Cool, I might not get that certain form of Lung Cancer.

But does that Also mean that I can't get Heart Dieses or have a Higher Risk of Stroke if I put Nicotine in my Body?

Metaanalysis is good when you've got lots of high quality studies.

I think it's pretty clear we aren't there yet...

Amen Mutant.

 

[Orb Skewer]

One of my daughters is a Registered Nurse in a primarily women's and children's hospital. They permit vaping in a patient's room but not smoking. They are enlightened enough to understand the difference and promote vaping as an alternative to their patient's who smoke.

I'm sure this comes as a "shock" to the usual suspects on ECF and in this thread that believe that no one should ever vape where smoking is not allowed. They believe vaping should be restricted, banned and regulated by government, based on the possible behavior of the least respectful and most obnoxious vaper in the country. That "red herring" crops up repeatedly in these discussions.

I think DC2 provided an admirable framework for why the admonition that "one should never vape where smoking is prohibited" is patently illogical. The usual suspects who support this admonition in this thread and in many other threads, primarily resort to two tactics: either suggesting that restrictions that ban smoking to an absurd degree are not a reality or dumb down the issue to the unknown most obnoxious vaper in the country that seeks out small children in order to blow vapor in their faces. Oh, and one other tactic is that vaping openly but respectfully is the cause of all attempts to ban vaping even though bans were attempted long before anyone was vaping openly. All three tactics are weak and without merit IMO. But for the usual suspects on ECF, vaping IS the same as smoking and thus, their admonition: vape only in designated smoking areas. The fact that this admonition defies logic is irrelevant. I would like to see even one of the usual suspects just "own" their belief directly and not resort to weak examples to justify it.

Some even think that menthol carries the influenza virus -

 

[zoiDman]

Feellife are one of the worlds largest and longest established E-liquid manufacturers, alongside Dekang and Hanseng

Yeah... And 3M is one of the Largest manufactures of Organophosphates.

But that doesn't mean that I would want to Vape them.

 

[generic mutant]

Well, it's been a helpful thread despite it all.

We've gleaned further proof that obnoxious vapers do exist...

BTW - Here is an Good Read when it comes to Both Sides of the Vaping Coin.

http://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_.../i_just_made_my_bar_vape_free_am_i_a_bad_guy/

...and I believe we've also proven that "little mouse vapers" don't, or at least aren't infesting your forum.

Score 1 for the revolution. I'll certainly be linking back to this next time someone insinuates that I'm "part of the problem".

 

[Orb Skewer]

Yeah... And 3M is one of the Largest manufactures of Organophosphates.

But that doesn't mean that I would want to Vape them.

What do you vape-just out of interest ?

 

[zoiDman]

Well, it's been a helpful thread despite it all.

We've gleaned further proof that obnoxious vapers do exist...



...and I believe we've also proven that "little mouse vapers" don't, or at least aren't infesting your forum.

Score 1 for the revolution. I'll certainly be linking back to this next time someone insinuates that I'm "part of the problem".

I think what I get out of these threads Every Time is that there is a Wider Range of Opinions on e-Cigarette use than many perceive at first Glance.

We seem to be like Any Other Group out there. A Mixed Bag on what Levels of Regulations are Needed. And on just what is considered the Fair Use of where a person should vape.

 

[zoiDman]

What do you vape-just out of interest ?

DIY using Mostly Wizard Labs Nicotine Base and FlavorArt Flavorings.

 

[generic mutant]

I think what I get out of these threads Every Time is that there is a Wider Range of Opinions on e-Cigarette use than many perceive at first Glance.

We seem to be like Any Other Group out there. A Mixed Bag on what Levels of Regulations are Needed. And on just what is considered the Fair Use of where a person should vape.

Agreed entirely. But I also think it's self-evident that we need an inclusive movement that can include things like doctors and scientists (and probably needs to avoid claims like "passive smoking is a lie made up by the government", "there should be no regulation", "everybody who works in tobacco control is a shill for the pharma industry") to get very far.

The bloodletting might be entertaining (sometimes), but I seriously doubt it helps. You'll never know how many people read threads like this and think "I'm not joining that forum. It's full of hostile extremists".

 

[zoiDman]

Agreed entirely. But I also think it's self-evident that we need an inclusive movement that can include things like doctors and scientists (and probably needs to avoid claims like "passive smoking is a lie made up by the government", "there should be no regulation", "everybody who works in tobacco control is a shill for the pharma industry") to get very far.

The bloodletting might be entertaining (sometimes), but I seriously doubt it helps. You'll never know how many people read threads like this and think "I'm not joining that forum. It's full of hostile extremists".

Agreed on Both Points.

Especially on the Need for More MD's and Clinical Researchers getting on the Band Wagon.

 

[Bosco]

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


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?

Well .. I certainly respect your opinion but, to me, it is a valid standard to use. If somebody doesn't want to inhale second-hand vapor then I don't want to subject them to it. Whether or not I personally believe scented candles are more dangerous than vapor, I think the opinion of the other person is more important.

I have read a few studies about second-hand vapor . .maybe 1 or 2 . .. including the one you reference. While it's good enough for me to vape away . .I won't count on non-vapers having read it or wanting to read it . .and I don't really think it's conclusive. We're going to need a lot more studies to do that.

Second-hand vapor is optional . .ie . .it doesn't have to exist in restaurants, shopping malls, etc. So the question to me is not whether it is safer than this or that . .but is it harmless? If it is not harmless, then I think it's just a nice thing to do to not vape where its not welcome or where others would be subjected to it.

Personally I believe it's pretty close to harmless but I don't have or can't find a large enough body of evidence to prove it without a doubt. I'm sure that day is coming, though, as more studies continue to be done. I vape in my home around my children . . but I don't vape around other people's kids unless they do, too. To me it's more a question of courtesy than anything else.

 

[RayBans]

Vaping has come a long way in the past few years. Sure the newbies can grab a fake cig at the liquor store and vape and that vapor is nearly null. The problem I see happening is when you take out your RBA and blow a plume in public. All the uninformed public is going to see is "smoke" and be offended by that. In a few years I see e-cigs being banned everywhere cigs are, just cause of the carelessness of some vapors.
Vape wisely my friends...

 

[AegisPrime]

Well .. I certainly respect your opinion but, to me, it is a valid standard to use. If somebody doesn't want to inhale second-hand vapor then I don't want to subject them to it. Whether or not I personally believe scented candles are more dangerous than vapor, I think the opinion of the other person is more important.

I think the biggest problem is that vaping is being banned right now based on bad science, political and financial agendas and statements such as this:

“E-cigarettes release vapor that contains chemicals that can impact employees and visitors to state property,” Gov. Fallin said. “Additionally, many electronic cigarettes look like traditional cigarettes and emit a vapor that looks like smoke. This creates confusion for employees and visitors, and presents enforcement challenges for state agencies."

There seems to be a rush on the part of many politicians to get legislation through based on the premise that vaping is as undesirable as smoking - and once these policies are in place, good luck getting them repealed. By that point the damage will have already been done and vapers will be viewed by the public in the same way smokers are.

Bans should be enacted based on the evidence that vaping is harmful - here's a quote from Viscout Ridley of the UK's House of Lords:

The MHRA impact assessment says that the decision on whether to regulate e-cigarettes should be based on the harm that they do. Yet that very impact statement says that, “any risk is likely to be very small”, that there is, “an absence of empirical evidence” and “no direct clinical evidence”, that “the picture is unclear” and, my favourite quote states: “Unfortunately, we have no evidence”, of harm.

Right now there's more evidence that vaping is beneficial than it is harmful - and yet the bans continue.

 

[B1sh0p]

Actually, all I was doing was making a thread where I could gather all the information in the first post and then link to it later.
That way I don't have to keep trying to dig it up every time one of these threads comes up.


EDIT: I'm not sure I would believe that either
EDIT: I might have been trying to make some kind of point
EDIT: Or maybe I was just getting my frustrations out

You're trying to bait other members of the community? Productive.

 

[AttyPops]

Well, it's been a helpful thread despite it all.

We've gleaned further proof that obnoxious vapers do exist...



...and I believe we've also proven that "little mouse vapers" don't, or at least aren't infesting your forum.

Score 1 for the revolution. I'll certainly be linking back to this next time someone insinuates that I'm "part of the problem".

Don't forget; the ANTZ definitely exist.

I suppose the best argument for them is the "overwhelming social opinion" argument in a democracy...e.g. "I don't want my air filled with PG/VG vapor, is all."

Now, I think that most people these days are in the "meh" camp. But that vocal 2% of the population that are extreme ANTZ ruin it for everyone.

We, in this thread, are trying to make logical arguments. With scientific data. Alas, it's an emotional issue for many. And the screamers/complainers get noticed in most establishments and local government boards.

Regardless of the traffic going by outside belching exhaust, and the cooking grill oils, and candles on the table....someone will complain about a vaper. It's a lot of work to educate enough people fast enough to counteract these bans. Thanks to CASAA and others, some attempts have succeeded.

However, bans are bans. They can be revoked too, as people get more educated. And polite vaping is more likely to get our caused advanced than aggressive vaping, IMHO. The latter, can provoke a rash decision by establishment owners.

I really wish the Supreme Court would rule that outside air away from entrances is a "Free Zone" for legal stuff as long as it doesn't disturb the peace.

 

[wv2win]

Hmmm. The problem is these people don't seem to exist.

We've had a few people saying they choose not to vape indoors in public, for example to avoid confrontation. That is their right, I presume you'd agree.

I don't think there's been anyone actually saying that vaping should be banned in all places smoking is (apart from those that mean that smoking should be much less restricted).

If you can't link to any posts, I'm sure you'll withdraw your post as unfounded, won't you?

Look at post #7 in the following thread. And this is one of several. And many of the usual suspects advocate it all over this forum and "like" this so-called "thinking":

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/497528-e-cigs-public-places.html

Let's hope you will "retract" your previous post and not some how try to abrogate what is written in big, bold letters. Or you could, which will just support part of my previous post.

 

[Orb Skewer]

You're trying to bait other members of the community? Productive.

I would say so, productive and logical

 

[Uncle Willie]

The bloodletting might be entertaining (sometimes), but I seriously doubt it helps. You'll never know how many people read threads like this and think "I'm not joining that forum. It's full of hostile extremists".

I am reminded of "We have met the enemy and he is us." .. or "We are our own worst enemy" ..

Like I've said before, we all essentially want the same thing .. and when debating on ECF, for the most part, the preaching and what not is captivated by the target audience on a Website that in and of itself is pro PV ..

Maybe what we need is Face-Vape, or Insta-Vape .. where not only us, but the general public at large can come and play some Flash games about a guy that uses his PV everywhere and needs friends to send him liquid to advance in the game .. and we can post trivial info like what we ate last night and the latest PICS of our vehicle .. .. thus, the general non-PV user can see just how human we, the converted, are ..

 

[B1sh0p]

I would say so, productive and logical

Why? What's the motivation?