The myth of second hand vape

[zoiDman]

But will it last more than four hours ?

If it does... I think you are Supposed to Contact Someone.

LOL

 

[DC2]

Both of these are Correct in there own way DC.

And both of them will take some Time to Do.

And we are quickly losing ground and running shorter and shorter on time.
Actually, it's probably already too late.

However, I would argue that...

Not vaping where you can not smoke will have two unfortunate consequences...
--Help convince the public that vaping is as bad as smoking
--Reduce the number of opportunities we have to educate

Not vaping where you can not smoke probably also serves another purpose...
--Slowing down, to some degree, the rate at which businesses will forbid vaping in their establishments

But worrying about businesses banning vaping misses the bigger picture...
Cities, counties, and even states are banning vaping faster than businesses are...
And also taking away the right for those businesses to make those decisions for themselves...

Not to mention the fact that it seems to me to be a nonsensical argument.
It's essentially saying don't vape in a business because otherwise the business may ban vaping.

When you add all that together, vaping where you can not smoke is a losing proposition that will hurt us in the long run.

 

[stevegmu]

If it does... I think you are Supposed to Contact Someone.

LOL

If it does, my poor wife would have to contact someone...

 

[Veritas Obscurum]

As long as the media keeps using uninformed "experts", there will be a stigma attached to vaping as if it were the same as smoking.

 

[generic mutant]

And we are quickly losing ground and running shorter and shorter on time.
Actually, it's probably already too late.

However, I would argue that...

Not vaping where you can not smoke will have two unfortunate consequences...
--Help convince the public that vaping is as bad as smoking
--Reduce the number of opportunities we have to educate

Not vaping where you can not smoke probably also serves another purpose...
--Slowing down, to some degree, the rate at which businesses will forbid vaping in their establishments

But worrying about businesses banning vaping misses the bigger picture...
Cities, counties, and even states are banning vaping faster than businesses are...
And also taking away the right for those businesses to make those decisions for themselves...

When you add all that together, vaping where you can not smoke is a losing proposition that will hurt us in the long run.

Or, vaping where you aren't supposed to vape convinces politicians that letting businesses decide is untenable. Only legal restrictions can be enforced.

 

[Diogenes]

You know when you use insults like "Most Narrow Minded" it does nothing positive for perceptions on a post. And as usual you ignored the most important point of my reply to you, which is par for the course. Suggesting a change in other's behavior based on only your experience, is the issue. I find your reply quit disingenuous, unfortunately.

Isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black? You're chastising another member for using an insult when you yourself have insulted others by calling people with opposing viewpoints, like myself, the Vaping Police. You can't have it both ways, you know. You want to be respected, you need to be respectful as well.

 

[DC2]

As long as the media keeps using uninformed "experts", there will be a stigma attached to vaping as if it were the same as smoking.

This is the real problem right here.
Except I would say uninformed or lying experts.

 

[DC2]

Or, vaping where you aren't supposed to vape convinces politicians that letting businesses decide is untenable. Only legal restrictions can be enforced.

But these politicians have no business making such restrictions in the first place.
It is exactly the thing we need to be focusing on fighting.

And so far as I can tell from following all these city, county, and state bans, that has never been the issue.
What has turned the tide against us where we have lost is an influx of ANTZ lies and misinformation.

One thing that does really help, though, is when a politicians know someone who vapes.

 

[Diogenes]

Isn't that Lrrr?

Emperor of Omicron Persei 8.

Yes, yes it is. Always loved him in the show!

 

[Anjaffm]

@DC2:

I love your postings!
I love your good sense!
I love your thorough knowledge!
Thank you for putting things so well!

... and I really admire your patience with our resident ANTZies whose only purpose on this forum is to spread FUD - as in Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, in order to poison the minds of those who do not yet have the knowledge that many long-time vapers have....

Some of them cannot even spell their own mother tongue correctly. Great "teachers" indeed....

 

[generic mutant]

But these politicians have no business making such restrictions in the first place.
It is exactly the thing we need to be focusing on fighting.

And so far as I can tell from following all these city, county, and state bans, that has never been the issue.
What has turned the tide against us where we have lost is an influx of ANTZ lies and misinformation.

They didn't make the restrictions to restrict vaping - they were made for smokers.

Now we're in the unfortunate position of having appeared in a puff of magic, and everyone going "Ugh. What do we do about them. They don't fit the categories"

We aren't smokers, and we aren't close enough to 'non-smokers' to satisfy everyone. Lumping us in with the smokers is a panic measure.

All I'm suggesting is that a little restraint, and vaping where we're allowed to vape, might be all that's needed to convince the politicians that they don't need to make any decision at all (at least, ignoring other factors like financial interests, which we can't individually do anything about anyway). That private places can be left to manage their own affairs. As vaping becomes more popular, the pressure to create designated vaping areas in some publicly owned buildings will increase.

(of course, this doesn't apply to outside. Where I would vape - respectfully, but ignoring any blanket bans)

 

[stevegmu]

This is the real problem right here.
Except I would say uninformed or lying experts.

Paid experts is more like it.

 

[DC2]

All I'm suggesting is that a little restraint, and vaping where we're allowed to vape, might be all that's needed to convince the politicians that they don't need to make any decision at all (at least, ignoring other factors like financial interests, which we can't individually do anything about anyway). That private places can be left to manage their own affairs. As vaping becomes more popular, the pressure to create designated vaping areas in some publicly owned buildings will increase.

Well, I understand this argument, but I just don't agree that it will have any effect on their current decisions.

They are not passing legislation to ban vaping because of some influx of complaints about rampant vapers bothering everyone.
They are passing this legislation because of urging by the non-profit alphabet soup organizations.

I'm not saying that might not change in the future, but it's not the point we are at right now.
What we need right now is for every politician to know a vaper.

 

[generic mutant]

Well, I understand this argument, but I just don't agree that it will have any effect on their current decisions.

They are not passing legislation to ban vaping because of some influx of complaints about rampant vapers bothering everyone.
They are passing this legislation because of urging by the non-profit alphabet soup organizations.

Why can't it be both?

I'm not saying that might not change in the future, but it's not the point we are at right now.
What we need right now is for every politician to know a vaper.

I think we need to meet politicians. I'd just prefer to meet them indoors in places where we're allowed to vape (you can often find politicians in pubs here. Probably doesn't tell you anything beyond that you can normally find the English in pubs...). I think we can make the case much more convincingly when the first thing we have to do isn't justify why we're doing something that isn't allowed...

 

[stevegmu]

Wouldn't make a difference. Pretty sure just about every nazi knew a Jew...

 

[Baldr]

When someone asks me is vaping safe, I have no problem saying that it is safer than smoking, but still has risks due to lack of studies. At least I'm honest about it.

You aren't honest about it. You are telling them "It still has risks", despite the fact that you don't have any actual evidence of risks.

 

[DC2]

Why can't it be both?

It could be both if it was both, but that does not appear to be the case.

Of all the legislative hearings I've listened to there was only one time complaints were brought up.
That was the New York hearings where someone did in fact complain they saw someone vaping in a library.

I think we need to meet politicians. I'd just prefer to meet them indoors in places where we're allowed to vape (you can often find politicians in pubs here. Probably doesn't tell you anything beyond that you can normally find the English in pubs...). I think we can make the case much more convincingly when the first thing we have to do isn't justify why we're doing something that isn't allowed...

Are we talking about the same thing?

It sounds like you're talking about vaping where vaping is not allowed.
I'm talking about vaping where smoking is not allowed.

 

[DC2]

Wouldn't make a difference. Pretty sure just about every nazi knew a Jew...

I hear what you're saying, and at higher levels like state-wide bans I'm sure your point stands.
But at more local levels I have seen politicians that are familiar with vaping arguing in our favor and making a huge difference.

 

[generic mutant]

...
Are we talking about the same thing?

It sounds like you're talking about vaping where vaping is not allowed.
I'm talking about vaping where smoking is not allowed.

When you vape where smoking is not allowed, do you restrict it to where vaping is? (when you're inside)

If so, surely our positions amount to the same thing?

If not, surely the difference is you're vaping where vaping isn't allowed? Nothing to do with smoking at all...

 

[Anjaffm]

A little reading material on the subject.

This is aimed at those who are able to read. And able to understand what they are reading

.. these are just a few examples. There are many more.

1. educated articles on e-cigarettes

Why Is The FDA Shielding Smokers From The Good News About E-Cigarettes? - Forbes

Electronic cigarettes: The potential benefits outweigh the risks | Allwood | South African Medical Journal

2. studies on e-cigarettes

2 a. good summary - only 6 pages - quite comprehensive

http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/RSTREET11.pdf

2 b. studies

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-10-19.pdf

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jphp/journal/v32/n1/pdf/jphp201041a.pdf

2 c. further reading

Clinical Research: Electronic Cigarettes

The Science of The Electronic Cigarette | TVECA

---------------------------

Might I suggest that our resident ANTZ also take a look at those studies ... I correct myself.. might I suggest that they read and comprehend those studies before continuing to spout their FUD?

Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics and propaganda.

FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.

FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.

Finding so many deliberate lies in a vaping forum is ... a little tiresome. *sweet smile*

And yes, of course I am well aware of the fact that it takes time and effort to gain knowledge.
Whereas it takes no effort whatsoever to spread lies. *very sweet smile*

......
edit:
oooh I almost forgot Viscount Ridley of the UK:

http://saveecigs.wordpress.com/2013...-in-the-house-of-lords-how-it-should-be-done/

He is the author of one of my favorite quotations:

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.