The myth of second hand vape

[Diogenes]

And I fully believe right now, and for say last couple years, it would bring in more customers than it would lose. Get a few more anti-vaping articles, reports and sensationalized news stories that make it easy to shame vapers in society, and I'd agree that it would likely be more customers lost than those coming in. Yet, I don't see that magically getting better in next few years, especially if, or as, usage bans become widespread. The shaming factor is undoubtedly going to go up, even if science comes along as says what we all already pretty much think/know.

For there to be a significant loss in customers, now or at any point, the second-hand vapor myth must be in full gear. Non-vapers must believe that standing within 5 feet of a vapor will result in undue harm and harm akin to SHS. Perhaps they'll come to know it isn't exactly the same, but is close enough that if you are near a vaper, it is going to affect you adversely and thus best to avoid all locations where vapers are present.

I bolded the important part. I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, I just thought of trying to bring up some numbers regarding this. Hypothetically, you live in Dioville, population 200,000. D's market services 10% of that population, 20,000 people. In Dioville, how many people can we say vape? Let's go 5% total population, it's a small town. Sidenote, I live in Chicago, 2.7 million people inside city limits, not counting suburbs, and I have yet to see other people vaping outside a vape shop, where I have only seen approx 10 people in total. Anyway, total vapers would be 10,000.

D's Market suddenly allows open vaping, so let's say 1% of total vapers go to that store, 100 new customers, in addition to the 20,000 the market already services. Before anyone gets on me that my math is off, I am not adding in the 100 new to the 20,000 because I wanted to keep the math simple, and do it in my head.

Now, if 1% of D's Market existing customers left because of the new vapers coming in, that would amount to 200 people. With 100 new vapers coming into the store, you're still 100 in the hole on lost customers.

Hypothetically, you would lose customers. Maybe not in the numbers above, I'm just spitballing here. And in business, it's cheaper to cater to your existing customer base in order to keep them than it is to lose them and recruit new customers.

 

[Diogenes]

You can't study something for 60 years, as you have requested, until it has been around for 60 years. It's sad that you are so stupid you can't grasp that.

The 60 year study was cited to show you that long-term studies could be done, because you stated that long-term studies were magic and impossible. This is the third time I'm repeating that fact.

I was going to close with an attack in similar manner, but I feel that you would misunderstand that as well. Instead, maybe something like this can help you? Instead, maybe something like this can help you?

 

[BillyTheWild]

[...] the reason you are ...... at me is that you were lying and you got caught.

You can't simply accused someone of lying w/o proof. Why don't you just learn? I have just shown proofs that you lied but you can't me.

 

[Jman8]

I bolded the important part. I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, I just thought of trying to bring up some numbers regarding this. Hypothetically, you live in Dioville, population 200,000. D's market services 10% of that population, 20,000 people. In Dioville, how many people can we say vape? Let's go 5% total population, it's a small town. Sidenote, I live in Chicago, 2.7 million people inside city limits, not counting suburbs, and I have yet to see other people vaping outside a vape shop, where I have only seen approx 10 people in total. Anyway, total vapers would be 10,000.

D's Market suddenly allows open vaping, so let's say 1% of total vapers go to that store, 100 new customers, in addition to the 20,000 the market already services. Before anyone gets on me that my math is off, I am not adding in the 100 new to the 20,000 because I wanted to keep the math simple, and do it in my head.

Now, if 1% of D's Market existing customers left because of the new vapers coming in, that would amount to 200 people. With 100 new vapers coming into the store, you're still 100 in the hole on lost customers.

Hypothetically, you would lose customers. Maybe not in the numbers above, I'm just spitballing here. And in business, it's cheaper to cater to your existing customer base in order to keep them than it is to lose them and recruit new customers.

Agree with everything you said in this hypothetical. Disagree that even .01% would leave though in current reality. Subject to change with more propaganda from the anti-vapers.

 

[Jman8]

You can't simply accused someone of lying w/o proof. Why don't you just lean? I have just shown proofs that you lied but you can't me.

Who were the "some people" that you were referring to? Was it one person in particular or many people?

 

[RosaJ]

I think we need a time out:

The Three Stooges In a pie fight YouTube - YouTube

 

[Diogenes]

Agree with everything you said in this hypothetical. Disagree that even .01% would leave though in current reality. Subject to change with more propaganda from the anti-vapers.

You doubt that even 2 people would leave? Keeping with my example, first all it would take is a comparable market for people to go to. Secondly, all that has to happen is 1 person to have a bad experience, and call 3 friends and persuade them to boycott D's Market. Those 3 friends call 3 of their friends, totaling 10 people thus far. The number grows exponentially from there. Boycotts do work, sometimes....

 

[BillyTheWild]

Who were the "some people" that you were referring to? Was it one person in particular or many people?

OK. you wanna help him out? I'll make it easy for you. He accused me of saying that there are some posters who are against having ANY study done. I didn't say that. All I have said is that more studies, especially long term studies, are needed. Now, click on my user name and select "view forum posts". This thread started on 12/30/13. Start looking from there. Find one post of mine that I ever said that there are people arguing against having ANY study done. Do that!

 

[Jman8]

You doubt that even 2 people would leave?

Correct, I doubt that people would leave under current conditions of vaping.

I'll also add, as we are tossing around hypotheticals, that a manager could arrange indoor premises and rules so as to manage plausible situations that could arise. Like let's take movie theater that has 12 theaters in 1 building. One of those could be vape optional while another room is vaping restricted. All of the rooms could be well ventilated and marketed as such. Vapers could be encouraged, or restricted, to back of the room seating only. Amount of vapers in a room could theoretically be limited.

Or a manager could bypass all this and just present current data establishing relative harmlessness of SHV and proceed accordingly.

 

[Jman8]

OK. you wanna help him out? I'll make it easy for you. He accused me of saying that there are some posters who are against having ANY study done. I didn't say that. All I have said is that more studies, especially long term studies, are needed. Now, click on my user name and select "view forum posts". This thread started on 12/30/13. Start looking from there. Find one post of mine that I ever said that there are people arguing against having ANY study done. Do that!

Can't find any where you've done that.

But still wondering who these people (plural) were that you were referring to? Are they on this thread? This forum?

 

[Uma]

The benefit to a business having WiFi is that it brings customers in. There is no benefit to those that don't utilize it, but as I said, the potential risks (to those bystanders) is outweighed by the rewards (those that do use it)

Now, you could argue that a business could benefit the same way by allowing vaping, but that's currently not the case. In a few years, maybe, but not now. The average business would turn off more customers than it would gain by allowing vaping - which is the main reason for not allowing vaping, not health risks.

The NFL was forced to pass a vaping ban in their stadiums. Now they can't sell enough tickets to play the game. Patriots are tired of the socialism. Half of them were the small business owners that went out of business since the smoking bans began, the other half were Vapers. I took a consensus just like the antis do, except I didn't charge a million bucks to do so. Speaking of Patriots, a million more lost unemployment benefits this week. . Happy new year.

 

[Diogenes]

Correct, I doubt that people would leave under current conditions of vaping.

I'll also add, as we are tossing around hypotheticals, that a manager could arrange indoor premises and rules so as to manage plausible situations that could arise. Like let's take movie theater that has 12 theaters in 1 building. One of those could be vape optional while another room is vaping restricted. All of the rooms could be well ventilated and marketed as such. Vapers could be encouraged, or restricted, to back of the room seating only. Amount of vapers in a room could theoretically be limited.

Or a manager could bypass all this and just present current data establishing relative harmlessness of SHV and proceed accordingly.

I do like that idea of the movie theater you have there. As far as presenting data, I know I'm going to shoot myself in the foot for this, to some people, data is useless. I can't remember exactly which thread, but it was something along the lines that the vaper was trying to educate a non-vaper, and no matter what was said, the non would not change their stance that vaping was smoking, and it was bad.

 

[DC2]

I actually agree with you....for the most part. I understand what you are saying, but I still believe you are holding vape to an unreasonable standard compared to other activities. Let me try to explain.

There are many things, we as humans would call "safe" without knowing for sure. We step into an elevator and push a button and live as if we will arrive at our floor without incident. If someone asked us about how "safe" elevators are, we wouldn't qualify the answer with something like...Well, we don't know for sure, but it's safer than climbing outside the building....Yet that is what you are asking for in regards to vape.

If someone asked you an honest question like "Is flying safe". Would you spend 15 minutes qualifying your answer? Would you tell someone..."Well statistically, flying is safer than other modes of transportation, but there are a number of risks to flying that can not be calculated. Such as the mechanical condition of the plane you are flying, the experience and health of the pilot, etc. etc. etc...?

Perhaps you would, but most of us would go.....Yeah, it's safe. Knowing full well, there are risks involved. Man performs a risk assessment almost every moment he is alive. We have been doing so since the dawn of time.

Everyone who actively vapes has performed the same risk assessment, and when I vape in the presence of my kids, I also perform a risk assessment.

Your point, If I understand correctly is that we need to "qualify" our statements regarding the safety of vape.

My point is if I am not required to "qualify" my statements on the safety of other activities which have already been shown to be potentially more harmful than vaping but still within what is generally classified as safe, then why should vape be different.

If someone would ask me if second hand vape was safe, I wouldn't hesitate to say yes. Not because I know for sure, but because based on what I do know and what has been studied, vaping and second hand vape IS less risky than thousands of activities that are commonly recognized as "safe" that I or someone else may perform or a on a daily basis.

Quoted so that this can be the end of the thread...
Given, of course, that this is the correct answer to everything...

 

[Diogenes]

The NFL was forced to pass a vaping ban in their stadiums. Now they can't sell enough tickets to play the game. Patriots are tired of the socialism. Half of them were the small business owners that went out of business since the smoking bans began, the other half were Vapers. I took a consensus just like the antis do, except I didn't charge a million bucks to do so. Speaking of Patriots, a million more lost unemployment benefits this week. . Happy new year.

When I did a search, I came across this. As far as I can tell, only 5 stadiums lump vaping in with smoking.

Edit - I didn't check to see if the cities that the stadiums are in have passed bans as well, but it's the cities that would be the ones banning, not the NFL as the NFL doesn't own the stadiums.

 

[Uma]

Careful... Kalifornia has All Kinds of Wrongful Termination Laws. And Bottom Feeding, Ambulance Chasing, Scum Sucking Lawyers Outnumber the Legal Residents by Almost 2 to 1.

Sometimes the residents outnumber them one by one...
Take a look at what's happening with Jason singleton. I hope he hangs ... Or better yet, moves to Texas. .

 

[DC2]

When I did a search, I came across this. As far as I can tell, only 5 stadiums lump vaping in with smoking.

Edit - I didn't check to see if the cities that the stadiums are in have passed bans as well, but it's the cities that would be the ones banning, not the NFL as the NFL doesn't own the stadiums.

Well, if we're adding baseball parks, then add Petco Park.
I (supposedly) have to leave the entire ballpark to vape just like I would if I was a smoker.

I don't know the official rules of Qualcomm Stadium (Chargers) yet...
But I do know they told me I could not vape inside...

I have not seen an official rule in print however.

 

[Uma]

I bolded the important part. I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, I just thought of trying to bring up some numbers regarding this. Hypothetically, you live in Dioville, population 200,000. D's market services 10% of that population, 20,000 people. In Dioville, how many people can we say vape? Let's go 5% total population, it's a small town. Sidenote, I live in Chicago, 2.7 million people inside city limits, not counting suburbs, and I have yet to see other people vaping outside a vape shop, where I have only seen approx 10 people in total. Anyway, total vapers would be 10,000.

D's Market suddenly allows open vaping, so let's say 1% of total vapers go to that store, 100 new customers, in addition to the 20,000 the market already services. Before anyone gets on me that my math is off, I am not adding in the 100 new to the 20,000 because I wanted to keep the math simple, and do it in my head.

Now, if 1% of D's Market existing customers left because of the new vapers coming in, that would amount to 200 people. With 100 new vapers coming into the store, you're still 100 in the hole on lost customers.

Hypothetically, you would lose customers. Maybe not in the numbers above, I'm just spitballing here. And in business, it's cheaper to cater to your existing customer base in order to keep them than it is to lose them and recruit new customers.

Except you forgot that those are not all single people.
Mom, Dad, 3 kids per house. 1 adult Vaper per house.
Singles? Almost 1/2 are social Vapers. Well, smokers & hopefully Vapers before long. A quarter full time Vapers and a quarter non.
Even in puritanical homes lives a black sheep.
Its not just one person per family who won't go out on the town for a dinner and a movie, it's usually a party of 2- 5 and more.

 

[Uma]

You doubt that even 2 people would leave? Keeping with my example, first all it would take is a comparable market for people to go to. Secondly, all that has to happen is 1 person to have a bad experience, and call 3 friends and persuade them to boycott D's Market. Those 3 friends call 3 of their friends, totaling 10 people thus far. The number grows exponentially from there. Boycotts do work, sometimes....

So do families and social party animals.
One person with a stick up their hiney vs a nice family of 5 with Dad or Mom Vaper? They have friends, in laws, more families too. All these families & friends are happy he finally stopped smoking. A few of them did as well.

 

[Uma]

Remember the letter or article somewhere shared about the NFL having to request no vaping at their games because their big owner/sponsor said so? I wish I could remember the details.

Diogenes,
Google 700o unsold tickets... We find the Colts on down the line. There's one tonight on FB that is doing the same. They'll be in google soon too I'm sure.
Packers with 13000 still unsold http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/238234631.html?ipad=y

Between NYC, Washington, Boston, wherever whenever and this nfl ban, well... http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/smokingpoliciesNFLstadiums.pdf

 

[Diogenes]

Except you forgot that those are not all single people.
Mom, Dad, 3 kids per house. 1 adult Vaper per house.
Singles? Almost 1/2 are social Vapers. Well, smokers & hopefully Vapers before long. A quarter full time Vapers and a quarter non.
Even in puritanical homes lives a black sheep.
Its not just one person per family who won't go out on the town for a dinner and a movie, it's usually a party of 2- 5 and more.

Huh? Look, that was my hypothetical situation. You can't use it, it's mine!! My precious!!! Seriously though, and I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say this, but I have no idea what you are really saying here. IRL, not all houses have 2 parents and 3 kids. Not everyone in a house like that vapes as well. As far as being social vapers, personally, I'm social, and I'm a vaper, but I'm not a social vaper, at least not at this point. And to be honest, if I met some of the people on this forum IRL, some I'd actually hang out with, others, I'd end up in lockup.