Survey: Atttudes on Smoking and E-cigarettes

[Vocalek]

The survey is over, so you can't participate, but the results are very interesting. Amazing how many non-smokers believe some of the sheer nonsense coming from the antis.

Survey: Anti-Smoking Claims.

 

[Noodoggy]

Not sure where the survey points out that non-smokers believe nonsense. One thing that I thought very interesting is that e-cigarette users believe that they arent harming others with their smoke. Now I wont get into "second hand or third hand smoke always causes cancer" but it logically follows that smokers put non-smokers at risk if they are themselves put at risk by smoking. I for one grew up in a smoking household, and I turned out fine...but my sister and my mother esp. didnt fare as well with respiratory health. But I for one am not gonna pretend that my smoking was just fine for my wife and daughter. Now vaping on the other hand is CLEARLY better than smoking. Heck, that's the reason why we are all switching. And it isnt b/c of price, b/c you can find smokes cheap enough if you look. I was a little saddened that a lot of e-cigarette users believe the "smokers" group's ideas that smoking is not harmful. If we vapers as a group want acceptance for our vaping, we have to distance ourselves from smokers, yet at the same time reach out to smokers. This is a fine line and I certainly dont have the blueprint for it, but I certainly will not continue to perpetuate false information in order to either make me feel good about myself or to boost my ego b/c I am a "rebel" (that can be read as a veiled reference to the people in the world who trot out issues that are not really issues - i.e. birthers: it doesnt matter where Pres. Obama was born, his mother was a U.S. citizen so he is a U.S. citizen no matter where he is born JEEZ!). Ok off my soapbox...lol
May your vaping be long lasting!

 

[Vocalek]

You don't think it is nonsense that a smoker's breath (when he or she is not in the act of smoking) can give someone cancer or a heart attack? Or that 3rd-hand smoke gives people cancer?

If that were true, nearly every baby boomer would be cancerous by now. When we were born half the country smoked so our generation was probably exposed to more 2nd hand smoke and more so-called 3rd hand smoke than any generation born post 1960.

The science behind the 3rd hand smoke involved no animals or humans. They were playing around with chemicals on surfaces. Where's the proof that there is a boatload of nitrous acid in the air of any significant number of homes or buildings? The best source in a home would be unvented gas applicances.

What about all electric homes?

What about homes that have all gas appliances safely vented? Seems to me that with unvented gas appliances, you'd have more to worry about than turning surface tar deposits into a carcinogen.

The authors only tested smoke residue. They did not test vapor. Yet they had the nerve to make this statement:

Users hold and suck on the device like a real cigarette, and the tip even lights up red to simulate smoking. Instead of tobacco, e-cigarette smokers inhale a nicotine vapor. Because there is no tobacco or combustion with e-cigarettes, they are not restricted by anti-smoking laws and are used indoors. UC researchers contend the smoky mist of nicotine released by e-cigarettes or exhaled by the smoker also may form thirdhand smoke.

I can attest to the fact that 1st hand smoke is harmful. My wheezing and productive cough have disappeared since I switched from smoking to vapor, and my lung function has improved by 50% (to a number that is impressive for a woman of my age).

I'm not so sure about health hazards of 2nd hand smoke. I do believe that there are plenty of folks with allergies that are triggered by it. But the meta-analysis that I have seen do not show a significant increase in such things as lung cancer in the non-smoking spouses of smokers.

But all these ideas have been touted by the media as "proven facts", and as the song goes "It ain't necessarily so."

 

[Noodoggy]

I applaud your enthusiasm for getting the facts right. I did see that study and thought it was sort of flawed, b/c they stirred up the environment...whatever that means. But even if and even though it was flawed, you cant negate the fact that smoking is bad...and that the thousands of chemicals in smoke are bad. Let's not set the bar so low that it has to cause cancer to be of any harm. There's alot of stuff that doesnt cause cancer that I certainly dont want near me or my family. All in all, what matters is a safer alternative to getting nicotine. period. Let's be done with propping up Big Tobacco. I am not against them, but I certainly dont want to help them ruin the health of more people. 500,000,000 million people will die this year from smoking related causes. Whether that number is too high or too low....who cares!? That's a damn big number! If we can get half of that to switch to vaping, think of the possibilities! More productivity, happier lives, less costs...etc.

Lastly, my biggest concern is the too close link between smokers and vapers attitudes. What's the point of vaping if its the same as smoking? All one has to do is read up on the history of electronic cigarettes. It is and was designed to be safer than smoking. End of story. I get a little worried that if vapers come across as against anti-smokers, we will be aligned with Big Tobacco...and that is not a good place to be. This all comes down to one thing. Better life, even for those poor saps like me that got their silly selves hooked on nicotine lol

P.S. The media are a huge part of the misinformation of all this. I am of the belief that if you ignore the fools...they go away. Also that to make a splash, you gotta practice the jump. So in other words...let's not get sucked in by media typecasting, and craft the vaping message in a thoughtful and deliberate way.

 

[Jacinda222]

Very interesting survey Elaine! Other than the fact that so many non-smokers believe silly things like smoking bans can lead to an instant 20-30% drop in the rate of heart attacks and that e-cigs are as bad or worse than real cigarettes, it was enlightening that e-cigarette users were the most skeptical about the ridiculous ideas that a smoker's breath or a whiff of smoke is able to kill you... even more skeptical in general than smokers.

I guess that shows that we e-cig users tend to do more self-educating than the other groups.

 

[kristin]

Lastly, my biggest concern is the too close link between smokers and vapers attitudes. What's the point of vaping if its the same as smoking? All one has to do is read up on the history of electronic cigarettes. It is and was designed to be safer than smoking. End of story. I get a little worried that if vapers come across as against anti-smokers, we will be aligned with Big Tobacco...and that is not a good place to be.

I swear there is no offense intended here, Noodoggy, but please do a lot more reading about the anti-tobacco prohibitionist movement and it's effects on the e-cigarette community.

Vapers have no option but to come across as "against anti-smokers" because anti-smokers are largely anti-vapers, as well. They have already fired the first shot in the war and put us on the offensive. "Anti-smoking" has morphed into "anti-smoker," "anti-tobacco," "anti-nicotine" and "anti-anything that looks like smoking." How do you argue with zealots who don't care that vaping isn't smoking or is safer because it still LOOKS like smoking? That mentality automatically puts vapers in the same war as smokers, albeit on different fronts. Every bomb they lob at smokers they lob at vapers, too. We didn't put ourselves in this position, THEY put us here.

Like it or not, vapers have a lot in common with smokers on just about every front. The only difference is what we inhale and exhale, which matters to us but makes no difference to the antis. Once you can accept that truth, you know who the real enemy is and what the real war is all about.

Good starting post: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/casaa/159166-rjr-eclipse-3.html#post3184177

 

[Thulium]

Like it or not, vapers have a lot in common with smokers on just about every front. The only difference is what we inhale and exhale, which matters to us but makes no difference to the antis. Once you can accept that truth, you know who the real enemy is and what the real war is all about.

While I completely understand that to be true, Kristin, we also must keep in mind what we have in common with "the antis" if we want to have any hope of educating them about harm reduction. In many ways, vaping is an "anti-smoking" activity: As my senses of smell and taste returned, not only did I enjoy vaping more, but I started to actually dislike smoking. That does not mean that we suddenly want to ostracize smokers or vilify anything remotely associated with tobacco like the prohibitionist extremists.

Even though the scare tactics of SHS, thirdhand, and even fourth-hand smoke are ridiculously overblown, there ARE health and social hazards from smoking indoors. Although I really appreciate the Libertarian view that the government should allow private business owners to make their own smoking policies, there are some very valid concerns about allowing people to smoke in indoor workspaces--especially when children may be present. Although SHS is probably not a major health concern, smoking indoors can be irritating or even harmful to sensitive bystanders who might not be able to get a different job.

 

[subversive]

There's no question that society largely looks at smokers as lepers these days, but I just wanted to point out that the survey only had 268 participants and was done by an e-cig website, meaning that the general public wasn't really effectively sampled.

 

[Vocalek]

There's no question that society largely looks at smokers as lepers these days, but I just wanted to point out that the survey only had 268 participants and was done by an e-cig website, meaning that the general public wasn't really effectively sampled.

True that it wasn't a representative sample, but they did manage to get 34% of nonsmokers to take the survey. That's interesting. Maybe these were family members of smokers visiting the site, looking for a way to save the life of their loved ones?

 

[Noodoggy]

While I completely understand that to be true, Kristin, we also must keep in mind what we have in common with "the antis" if we want to have any hope of educating them about harm reduction. In many ways, vaping is an "anti-smoking" activity: As my senses of smell and taste returned, not only did I enjoy vaping more, but I started to actually dislike smoking. That does not mean that we suddenly want to ostracize smokers or vilify anything remotely associated with tobacco like the prohibitionist extremists.

Even though the scare tactics of SHS, thirdhand, and even fourth-hand smoke are ridiculously overblown, there ARE health and social hazards from smoking indoors. Although I really appreciate the Libertarian view that the government should allow private business owners to make their own smoking policies, there are some very valid concerns about allowing people to smoke in indoor workspaces--especially when children may be present. Although SHS is probably not a major health concern, smoking indoors can be irritating or even harmful to sensitive bystanders who might not be able to get a different job.

Thank you, Thulium, for injecting some realism about who's side we are on. I for one am not anti-smoker. I was a smoker. I certainly cant condemn a smoker for smoking. But vaping is a win win for anti-smokers as well as smokers. Taking this view will accomplish much more than categorically separating ourselves into this camp or the other. And on the subject of libertarian views, I am no scholar on their views, but I would guess that it is along the lines of "if it doesnt harm anyone...I should be able to do it (even if it harms me)". If that's the case, one needs to be careful, otherwise you go down the slippery slope of what is harmful. I am just as self justifying as the next person when it comes to my actions, but I also try to see it from their point of view. If I can understand their view, I can usually come to a resolution that pleases both parties. Again, just my two cents. Now let's go out there and act like we all are one human race =)

 

[kristin]

I hear you Thad, but I did acknowledge that what we exhale and inhale is what makes us different from smokers - that can encompass various reasons. I'm not suggesting we have NOTHING in common with those seeking to actually improve public health. But my comments were pointedly toward anti-smokers, not anti-smoking for health reasons.

I am and always will be against "anti-smokers" because you know they have lost focus on the real issue - HEALTH. Being anti-smoker is doing no one any good and actually endangering lives by taking the focus off the problem - smoking - and vilifying SMOKERS....and vapers. It has nothing to do with the validity (or not) of second hand smoke or property rights. While I do feel that daily, close exposure to second hand smoke (such as in poorly ventilated homes and cars) cannot be any better for children or those with weakened systems than it is for the smoker (why many, if not most, vapers didn't even smoke around their kids), the "science" behind the effects of second hand smoke in large public spaces (and now outdoor spaces) is dubious at best and by their own admission part of the plan to ostracize and vilify smokers in the public's mind. That again takes the focus off of the true health issues to smokers and those closest to them and demonizes them instead.

You know as well as I how they are using the very same tactics to get vaping banned indoors. They attempt to vilify us as just "smokers seeking to circumvent smoking prohibitions" who obviously are still so rude and self-centered that we don't care that we are exposing them to "deadly nicotine vapors." THAT was my point - that they are using the exact same tactics against us and we cannot get sidetracked by their machinations or fears that we will be viewed as "siding with Big Tobacco." Buying onto their rhetoric will only cause us to lose focus ourselves, because our fight isn't against SHS (ie smokers,) it's against misinformation about smokeless alternatives and all about getting the truth out to smokers, which the prohibitionist refuse to do.

The only thing I have in common with any anti is that I think smoking is bad for the smoker and for those closest to them. Too bad so many antis have forgotten that helping smokers quit should be our common GOAL - not nicotine abstinence, not tobacco abstinence and certainly not making an enemy of smokers themselves.

If we don't care about the smokers' health over all else, really, who still does?

While I completely understand that to be true, Kristin, we also must keep in mind what we have in common with "the antis" if we want to have any hope of educating them about harm reduction. In many ways, vaping is an "anti-smoking" activity: As my senses of smell and taste returned, not only did I enjoy vaping more, but I started to actually dislike smoking. That does not mean that we suddenly want to ostracize smokers or vilify anything remotely associated with tobacco like the prohibitionist extremists.

Even though the scare tactics of SHS, thirdhand, and even fourth-hand smoke are ridiculously overblown, there ARE health and social hazards from smoking indoors. Although I really appreciate the Libertarian view that the government should allow private business owners to make their own smoking policies, there are some very valid concerns about allowing people to smoke in indoor workspaces--especially when children may be present. Although SHS is probably not a major health concern, smoking indoors can be irritating or even harmful to sensitive bystanders who might not be able to get a different job.

 

[kristin]

But vaping is a win win for anti-smokers as well as smokers.

WE see it as a win-win, but they don't. Anti-smokers are anti-vapers, period. However, folks who are honestly anti-smoking to improve public health and haven't been duped by the rhetoric will come to see vaping as win-win. THOSE are the folks we have a chance with.

If I can understand their view, I can usually come to a resolution that pleases both parties.

Their view is that no one should use ANY kind of tobacco, whether or not it has any health risks, no one should use nicotine unless it's as a treatment for nicotine addiction and no one should do anything that even remotely looks like smoking or tobacco use. Nothing less will please them.

Unless you are only vaping as a way to wean off nicotine and quit altogether, I honestly have no idea how we can understand or come to a resolution with that view.

 

[D103]

With all do respect:
Kristin is quite correct - read and learn as much as you can about the entire anti-tobacco prohibitionist movement before readily crawling into bed with the anti-smoking crowd. Anyone who thinks that one initial victory (NJoy vs FDA) will in anyway keep us safe from prohibition is being grossly naive about the entire anti-movement.

Ask the overweight people how that mind-set has worked for them...or people who drink alcohol, etc. All those who have stood idly by while smokers have been extorted, vilified and abused and either encouraged it or felt it had nothing to do with them now find themselves in the very same crosshairs. They simply do not understand the basic concepts of freedom, democracy, shared responsibility nor representative government. The slippery slope is well underway and involves a pathological mind-set that will not stop of it's own volition - you are mistakenly assuming reason, willingness and rationality where they do not exist.

I do not, nor will I ever consider my vaping as an "anti-smoking activity", I consider it a "Pro-Choice" activity. I have said this before and I will say it again: if it were ever put to me that in order for me to be allowed to continue vaping I would have to be willing to throw smokers under the bus, so to speak, I would resume smoking in a New York second, period. I understand that in order to secure my freedom to choose I too must be willing to stand up and fight for others rights to choose as well, whether I agree with their choices or not. While some indoor smoking bans may be appropriate, most are not and certainly not the outdoor bans and the extortionate taxation.

I would caution anyone against mistakenly assuming that just because some of our goals incidently coincide with those of the anti-movement that we have shared purposes or that they will in anyway be sympathetic to our cause for to do so is overlooking the larger picture and quite literally inviting defeat into your home.

 

[Stosh]

What struck me in the results of the survey was that it seems the e-cig users had
responses most in line with the available unbiased scientific evidence.