Third-Hand Smoke ?

[Captu4ik]

There is a huge split within the anti-smoking movement between the lying abstinence-only prohibitionists versus those of us who tell the truth about health risks of different tobacco/nicotine products and who advocate for smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives for smokers.

Your professional honesty, by itself, should hold you beyond reproach from any smoker/ex-smoker. Your number one concern is obviously the Public's health, not tax revenue or the corporation's bottom-line ...

My point in starting this thread was to show, once again, how absurd some of the "experts" actually are. And how credible they can seem to some people.

And you are right about unity instead of division. But, as posted above, our energy here, on the Forum, would be better spent fighting the big fight, rather than quibbling between ourselves.

IMO, all attitudes should be checked at the door ...

 

[Stubby]

On another issue

As one who has spent the past 25 years campaigning to sharply reduce indoor tobacco smoke pollution, increase cigarette tax rates, eliminate tobacco industry target marketing to youth, increase cigarette tax rates, and hold cigarette companies legally accountable for their egregious past actions, I don't think it helpful for e-cigarette consumers to criticize or question the integrity/motives of tobacco harm reduction advocates who don't use e-cigarettes.

While I don't use e-cigarettes (except for two days at the Vapefest2010) or other smokefree tobacco/nicotine products, I've been educating the public (including most opponents of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) about the many health benefits of switching from cigarettes to smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives (including smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes and NRT products).

And for the past three years, I've been campaigning to keep e-cigarettes legal and affordable in the US and in other countries.

I would hope that all e-cigarette consumers communicate and collaborate with (instead of criticizing and trying to drive a wedge between) those who don't use e-cigarettes (but who advocate for the rights of e-cigarette users and for reducing tobacco diseases).

There is a hugh contradiction in the above statement as you have been advocating prohibition of cigarettes, only it's de facto prohibition by the back door via taxation. I assume you supported the SCHIP act, which raised the taxes on RYO tobacco by 2250% and raised the Fed cigarette tax from 62 cents to 1 dollar a pack. I also have to assume you supported the PACT act as I have never heard you speak against it except to say it should not include smokeless tobacco. The smokeless tobacco statement was a fantasy that didn't have a prayer. I also assume you support bill H.R.4439 which will increase the tax on pipe tobacco by 775%. As I said, this is prohibition via taxation. You just make it sound very reasonable.

The problem with all this taxation is there is a very good chance it's going to bite TC on the back side. We have now set up an ideal environment for the black market to explode in the US. If it's not to late already to stop it, and the PACT act may have done that, H.R.4439 may very well be the final spark. Nearly every tobacco user in the US is angry at TC and the government. I think you're underestimating that. When the van selling $15 cartoons pulls up in the parking lot they will have plenty of customers. There is a very good example of this in Canada where in Quebec around 50% of cigarettes are black market. Smoking among young people is also on the rise.

No one can say for sure if this will happen in the USA... but the market is certainly ripe for it.

The more progressive side of tobacco control made a serious error when you fell into the trap of thinking you could control the tobacco market with taxes. You have completely ignored the downside. Of course once it got started there was no stopping it. It was just way to easy money for the fed and states to pass up.

I'm all for reduced harm, and strongly advocate it, but I'm also a realist. If the black market hits the US as it has in Canada the idea of prohibition will go the way of the Passenger Pigeon. All bets are off as to what happens after that. Are we headed for an unwinnable forever war on tobacco as we have with drugs? No doubt the fanatical wing of TC will push for it. We need education not taxation.

 

[sherid]

What is abundantly clear to me is that e cigarette users do not understand the real reasons for anti-smoker groups' disdain for the electronic cigarette: it LOOKS like smoking. For that reason alone, anti-smokers are furious that their denormalization of smokers campaign is threatened by clouds of vape and acceptance by the non-smoking public. What I also see in this forum is a group of people, new to e smoking and fresh off Marlboros, trying to suck up to the anti-smokers. Their newly-found disdain for smokers, using the language of the anti-smokers (smelly, yuck, etc.: childish rants)in an attempt to gain acceptance by anti-smokers stinks. There is no real distinction between smokers and vapers other than the brand they choose to puff where this war is concerned. The battle is the same: human beings should be able to choose their poisons period. If you support the denormalization of smokers campaign, you guarantee your loss of freedom to vape. It LOOKS like smoking, and aside from MONEY, that is the only issue for the anti-smokers.

 

[Darrigaaz]

The van selling $15 cartons already exists here where I live. Plenty of times I've seen my regular customers not come in the store for a week because they bought from the van out back.

 

[harmony gardens]

What is abundantly clear to me is that e cigarette users do not understand the real reasons for anti-smoker groups' disdain for the electronic cigarette: it LOOKS like smoking. For that reason alone, anti-smokers are furious that their denormalization of smokers campaign is threatened by clouds of vape and acceptance by the non-smoking public. What I also see in this forum is a group of people, new to e smoking and fresh off Marlboros, trying to suck up to the anti-smokers. Their newly-found disdain for smokers, using the language of the anti-smokers (smelly, yuck, etc.: childish rants)in an attempt to gain acceptance by anti-smokers stinks. There is no real distinction between smokers and vapers other than the brand they choose to puff where this war is concerned. The battle is the same: human beings should be able to choose their poisons period. If you support the denormalization of smokers campaign, you guarantee your loss of freedom to vape. It LOOKS like smoking, and aside from MONEY, that is the only issue for the anti-smokers.

I've thought of that same thing,,, and I did that when I first came here. I've since smoked some cigarettes, and have to confess that I've enjoyed them. For that reason, I've felt a little out of step with the general thrust of the forum, but I still feel like vaping is the perfect compromise. Whatever your reasons for supporting vaping, it's important for your voice to be heard. I've always felt that there was wisdom in the words "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It's led me to a live and let live frame of mind, but I'm still waiting for reciprocation from those who I'm trying to tolerate.

 

[PaulB]

What is abundantly clear to me is that e cigarette users do not understand the real reasons for anti-smoker groups' disdain for the electronic cigarette: it LOOKS like smoking. For that reason alone, anti-smokers are furious that their denormalization of smokers campaign is threatened by clouds of vape and acceptance by the non-smoking public. What I also see in this forum is a group of people, new to e smoking and fresh off Marlboros, trying to suck up to the anti-smokers. Their newly-found disdain for smokers, using the language of the anti-smokers (smelly, yuck, etc.: childish rants)in an attempt to gain acceptance by anti-smokers stinks. There is no real distinction between smokers and vapers other than the brand they choose to puff where this war is concerned. The battle is the same: human beings should be able to choose their poisons period. If you support the denormalization of smokers campaign, you guarantee your loss of freedom to vape. It LOOKS like smoking, and aside from MONEY, that is the only issue for the anti-smokers.

Sherid makes some excellent points, I think. Although I would say the "newly-found disdain for smokers" some here like to trumpet is not so much a matter of sucking up to the anti-smokers as it is a psychological strategy to stay off cigarettes. So I let it go; whatever works...

And, I agree, the "looks like smoking" aspect of e-cigarette use--or more generally, that it's a pleasurable practice instead of a therapy or a punishment (see my avatar... ;-))--must gall a lot of anti-smokers, some of whose attitudes about people who smoke date back to their cradles. The anti public smoking movement as a serious force instead of a bunch of crackpots is now about a quarter century old. Today, some of these people, I am sure, have never been friends with a smoker, ever.

The "third-hand smoke" argument amuses me, but maybe it shouldn't: I'm old enough to remember when the second-hand smoke argument amused me as well. Then it took hold. (Not saying the latter is harmless, just opining that the risks are way exaggerated, and that it was originally just as much or more about abolishing smoking itself.) But put both arguments together, and perhaps they overtake the riskiness of smoking to smokers themselves. Perhaps I can safely go back to cigarettes full-time if I:

1.) Avoid other smokers (whether currently lit up, or not having changed their clothes since they last did).

2.) Minimize second-hand smoke by installing two outward-ventilating portholes in their walls: one for holding their cigarettes outdoors and the other for dragging and exhaling.

3.) Minimize third-hand smoke by washing their clothes in carbolic acid and likewise their carpets and walls. (Or better still, hiring others to do these things.)

I shouldn't joke. Something like third-hand smoke can become the science gospel in today's climate. As such, anything made up out of thin air about e-smoking likewise can.

 

[Stephra]

What is abundantly clear to me is that e cigarette users do not understand the real reasons for anti-smoker groups' disdain for the electronic cigarette: it LOOKS like smoking. For that reason alone, anti-smokers are furious that their denormalization of smokers campaign is threatened by clouds of vape and acceptance by the non-smoking public.

Read my comments earlier: I mentioned that complaints aren't truly about the smell, they are complaints about THE ACT OF SMOKING ITSELF. I then went on to mention people who instinctively react to vapor the same way they react to smoke: the anemic cough, the complaints about smells that cause headaches, etc.

What I also see in this forum is a group of people, new to e smoking and fresh off Marlboros, trying to suck up to the anti-smokers. Their newly-found disdain for smokers, using the language of the anti-smokers (smelly, yuck, etc.: childish rants)in an attempt to gain acceptance by anti-smokers stinks.

When you smoke for years, you forget (or talk yourself out of) the dangers and problems that come with cigarette smoke. My first several weeks off the cigs were VERY enlightening. It's not about sucking up to the antis- it's about the sense of surprise that comes the first time you smell a smoker and it hits you like a bomb: "Oh my god, that's what *I* smelled like!" We all "know" it beforehand, but actually experiencing it is an eye-opener. How could you NOT want to talk about it?

I haven't touched a cig in three months but my ashtrays are still on my coffee table. Why? Because I have friends who smoke. I'm not sending them outside because I KNOW what it's like. I've seen how the rights of smokers have been chipped away (those nasty taxes were one part of the reason I switched to e-cigs).

It saddens me that some of my (former) favorite smokes were whisked away because apparently only kids like flavors. It saddens me to watch people struggle against bans and price increases that do nothing to address how hard it is to kick the habit. People will carve away at their budget, run themselves short even, to continue smoking.

Trying to get the support of the antis isn't a bad thing. E-cigs are a product with the potential to make a bridge between the two camps. Emphasizing that it's US v. THEM is detrimental to the cause, in my opinion.

It's important to acknowledge that we UNDERSTAND that smoking is harmful, and we'd like to reduce it - and as former smokers, we've found a way to do so that will yield far more favorable results than their "proven effective" methods.

 

[JustMeAgain]

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pet droppings can contribute to diseases animals pass to humans, called zoonoses. When infected dog poop is deposited on your lawn, the eggs of certain roundworms and other parasites can linger in your soil for years. Anyone who comes into contact with that soil—be it through gardening, playing sports, walking barefoot or any other means—runs the risk of coming into contact with those eggs; especially your dog.

Some of the hard-to-pronounce parasites your lawn could harbor include Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Salmonella, as well as hookworms, ringworms and tapeworms. Infections from these bugs often cause fever, muscle aches, headache, vomiting, and ........ in humans. Children are most susceptible, since they often play in the dirt and put things in their mouths or eyes.

Rant over.

The coccidia parasite is carried by pets and can be quite serious. It is also transmittable to humans and is extremely difficult to remove. It is impervious to chemicals and the only way to get rid of it is to either replace the top soil or basically flood the area so that it is forced down further into the soil.

If my neighbor's dog carries this into my yard, would I have recourse to expect them to take care of this for me? Ummm, no, but if I smoke outside and an unpleasant odor permeates their delicate nostrils, they can criticize me? Sheesh...

Exactly, there are no such studies because all the second-hand smoke studies were done with an inflated alpha level to make them look significant. They were only published because they fit a political agenda, not because they were good science..... As others have noted, most people get more bad chemicals from car fumes they are exposed to daily than the little bit of smoke they might have to smell from smokers outside. Lord save us from the do-gooders.

You're right, Dave - Bus fumes (and sometimes perfume) can be horrendous, and at worst most people just mildly complain. I'm beginning to think a political agenda is the only important thing anymore.

I don't think the problem is that UnderWaterGoddess is a never smoked/never vaped person, and I'm one of the few who defended her right to be on this forum and said we need the support of folks who have never smoked or vaped.

I didn't realize there were non-smokers here (with the exception of those who are in professionals in favor of harm reduction).

Why would this forum even be remotely interesting to someone whose never been a smoker?

Read my comments earlier: I mentioned that complaints aren't truly about the smell, they are complaints about THE ACT OF SMOKING ITSELF. I then went on to mention people who instinctively react to vapor the same way they react to smoke: the anemic cough, the complaints about smells that cause headaches, etc.

I've had someone mention that she 'could smell the nicotine'.

The airport in Atlanta has a smoking-allowed bar/restaurant and there's an escalator that takes you directly into the restaurant. I liked to sit there and watch as people they got off the escalator. The rabid anti's were easy to spot ~ they looked like they'd just guzzled a glass of vinegar with a superiority chaser.

Geez, I sound cranky...but c'mon, surely they've smelled worse things in their lives.

Maybe we've just become so politically correct that all that nastiness that used to be spread around has become focused on smokers.

 

[sherid]

The coccidia parasite is carried by pets and can be quite serious. It is also transmittable to humans and is extremely difficult to remove. It is impervious to chemicals and the only way to get rid of it is to either replace the top soil or basically flood the area so that it is forced down further into the soil.

If my neighbor's dog carries this into my yard, would I have recourse to expect them to take care of this for me? Ummm, no, but if I smoke outside and an unpleasant odor permeates their delicate nostrils, they can criticize me? Sheesh...



You're right, Dave - Bus fumes (and sometimes perfume) can be horrendous, and at worst most people just mildly complain. I'm beginning to think a political agenda is the only important thing anymore.



I didn't realize there were non-smokers here (with the exception of those who are in professionals in favor of harm reduction).

Why would this forum even be remotely interesting to someone whose never been a smoker?





I've had someone mention that she 'could smell the nicotine'.

The airport in Atlanta has a smoking-allowed bar/restaurant and there's an escalator that takes you directly into the restaurant. I liked to sit there and watch as people they got off the escalator. The rabid anti's were easy to spot ~ they looked like they'd just guzzled a glass of vinegar with a superiority chaser.

Geez, I sound cranky...but c'mon, surely they've smelled worse things in their lives.

Maybe we've just become so politically correct that all that nastiness that used to be spread around has become focused on smokers.

Nowhere is Orwell's concept of doublespeak more evident than in the airport example. Jet fumes are so higly toxic that some scientists believe that those who live up to 20 miles from an airport are at risk for various cancers from jet fuel. Yet, here are the anti-smokers worried about the "toxic" fumes from shs as they stand breathing in jet fuel fumes. It never ceases to amaze me how brainwashed these poor souls really are.

 

[D103]

On this one I tend to agree most with sherid. I think is important for us all to "remember where we came from" - by that I mean, judging from the dates connected to most signatures, it hasn't been "all that long ago" most of us were smokers! And some of us still are - and my belief is, that is Okay - don't get me wrong here, I am eternally grateful for e-cigs and what they have done for my life, my health and my pocketbook. That said, not that long ago, I "loved smoking" and for most of the forty years I smoked, I loved smoking. And I felt very strongly and still do about "some" of the ludicrous and unfair smoking bans (especially those outdoor bans!!) and the unfair, disingenuous, and in my mind,criminal taxation practices attached to smoking (in addition to the phony lawsuits where less than 10% of the monies were ever put back into healthcare-which was the basis of their entire case). Almost everyone, I am guessing, has known an "ex-smoker" who now gets on the soapbox decrying the 'evils of smoking' and insisting that the rest of the smokers quit - and just how obnoxious that is! We risk becoming that unless we "remember where we came from." Our opponents are clearly self-righteous, intolerant bigots, driven by faulty ideology (smoking is a moral issue, thus evil) and abstinence (repentance) is "the only answer." Self-Righteous people, by definition, are not at all amenable to persuasion. They are often characterized by dishonesty with self and others, significantly lacking insight, pompous, arrogant and puffed up with false-pride which belies the truth underneath which is a lack of true ego-strength and a personality wracked with fear and anxiety which they, of course, project onto others - this serves to further justify their "right-ness" and their strong tendencies to bully others.
I agree with sherid that anything remotely close to "finger-pointing" about the "evils of smoking" are not received very well on this forum. Just my opinion.

 

[Thulium]

I agree with sherid that anything remotely close to "finger-pointing" about the "evils of smoking" are not received very well on this forum. Just my opinion.

In my opinion we should be talking less about the "evils of smoking" and more about the evils of smoke. The combustion of any organic material produces noxious fumes and airborne particulates. Even if smoke isn't as dangerous as some zealots would like you to believe, reducing or eliminating combustion will have a significant decrease in risk in all cases. Should we ban hybrid or electric vehicles until they are approved by the DEQ for use in emergency or military vehicles?

There is nothing inherently wrong, immoral, or unethical about the activity of consumption through inhalation (aka "smoking"); likewise, there is nothing inherently immoral about the recreational consumption of tobacco byproduct. ...Unless, of course, you are someone who has a moral problem with recreation of any kind.

The moral problem is when you continue to engage in hazardous activities (like the use of combustion) when there are less hazardous alternatives. IMO, we have a moral obligation to develop and promote safer and more effective alternatives to the best of our ability.

Would it be better if everyone would just stop using tobacco and nicotine altogether? Perhaps, but the hard reality is we will never know because it will not happen in our lifetime. It would also be better if people stopped drinking coffee and caffeinated products, that doesn't mean we should ban Decaf until the FDA approves of its use for caffeine cessation therapy. Should we force McDonalds to take salad off the menu because it teaches children that it is okay to eat fast food?

 

[JustMeAgain]

It would also be better if people stopped drinking coffee and caffeinated products, that doesn't mean we should ban Decaf until the FDA approves of its use for caffeine cessation therapy. Should we force McDonalds to take salad off the menu because it teaches children that it is okay to eat fast food?

I love the phrase 'caffeine cessation therapy'.

 

[CES]

I love the phrase 'caffeine cessation therapy'.

I do too, as long as I don't have to engage in it!

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

I smoked for 23 years. I've vaped for 1. One thing I realize is that I will never become an anti-smoker.

I continue to go outside during my work day to socialize with the smokers. They accept that goofy tube I suck on, and I accept their smoke. My BF smokes (we're still working on converting him to vaping, but, unlike me, he hasn't committed to vaping - it's too weird).

The biggest problem I have with the rabid anti-smoker extremists is simple - they have the power, they are blinded by idealism, and will stop at nothing in their zeal to deliver the entire recreational nicotine market squarely to the Pharma industry. They will use any means at their disposal to push their goal - fabrication of the truth, behavior modification, junk science, and turning a segment of the population into criminals all for THEIR ideal, dragging every single dissenter kicking and screaming along for the ride. They will ruin lives, careers, industries in their pursuit.

Nothing matters to the zealot except the goal.

This is no longer a war against smoking. This is a Jihad.

 

[Janetda]

Vicks makes a good point. Personally, I'll never be anti-smoker either. I think we have all seen how the powers that be bend, twist and make up the truth. The more I read, the more I'm not so sure how bad smoking really is. Frankly, I don't know who to believe about anything regarding smoking and I don't know who to go to to get real answers.

I'm to the point of wondering who do believe about a lot of stuff. Does my cholesterol level really matter? Should I take that medicine? Etc., Etc., Etc. How in the hell is someone suppose to make health decisions when you can't trust anything 'they' tell you. So am I going to slam smoking? Heck no.

 

[Stubby]

Vicks makes a good point. Personally, I'll never be anti-smoker either. I think we have all seen how the powers that be bend, twist and make up the truth. The more I read, the more I'm not so sure how bad smoking really is. Frankly, I don't know who to believe about anything regarding smoking and I don't know who to go to to get real answers.

I'm to the point of wondering who do believe about a lot of stuff. Does my cholesterol level really matter? Should I take that medicine? Etc., Etc., Etc. How in the hell is someone suppose to make health decisions when you can't trust anything 'they' tell you. So am I going to slam smoking? Heck no.

A real danger in this is TC and the medical establishment are losing credibility as far as tobacco goes. I do know that many of the claims on second hand smoke are greatly exaggerated. The dangers of third hand smoke are nonexistent. The dangers of smokeless tobacco are wildly exaggerated, etc. So were do I draw the line. Credible sources are hard to find. The danger is that, as an unashamed nicotine addict it's to easy to con myself into thinking that.... if there lying about all the above, then what else are they lying about... mmm... maybe smoking isn't such a bad thing... and then I'm back to a pack a day... which is not a good thing.

For myself I'm going with what I know. The people who have been advocating a tobacco reduced harm approach have been at this a long time and I have to trust in what there saying. Smokeless tobacco, and in particular snus, nasal snuff, and dissolvables are orders of magnitude less harmful then smoking. Even though PV's are relatively new, it's looking good that they are another legitimate reduced harm approach. If you go beyond that you're on your own. That's what the science is telling us.

 

[CaptJay]

As long as poeple from the ALA and ASh don't car pool religiously (and I dont mean 1 extra person I mean a car full) and drive vehicles with emissions that hurt everyone, and don't campaign about them and push for busses only in urban areas, (this is reduced harm for all) then the less I will listen to anything they have to say about 'lung pollutants'; if however they all drive electric cars or use pushbikes then I might consider their PoV.
If you live in a glass house then arming yourself with rocky missiles is always a bad move.

 

[Janetda]

For myself I'm going with what I know. The people who have been advocating a tobacco reduced harm approach have been at this a long time and I have to trust in what there saying. Smokeless tobacco, and in particular snus, nasal snuff, and dissolvables are orders of magnitude less harmful then smoking. Even though PV's are relatively new, it's looking good that they are another legitimate reduced harm approach. If you go beyond that you're on your own. That's what the science is telling us.

I can't even believe our beloved harm reduction activists. Dr. S's famous bartender study got us to where we are with smoking bans and I think the study is total bull. All the rest are big into the indoor bans too. I really think SHS dangers are just not proven, yet they drive public policy.

I also don't believe that smoking will cause all the stuff they say it does. You know as well as I do, that if you're a smoker, every little thing that is wrong with you is attributed to smoking. It's absurd. Do I think smoking is bad for you, sure I do. I'm all for harm reduction. But as long as we keep accepting the lies, then the public health folks will always be able to say that there is no such thing as harm reduction because NO level is safe enough.

 

[CJsKee]

I agree with you, Janet...100%! And what has really opened my eyes are the comments that are made on Dr. S's blog! Those folks and the links they post are nothing short of amazing.

 

[Unchainme]

It feels that the word tolerance does not exist any more. Everything I read in the news and else where is that the other person is wrong, bad, evil, etc. no matter what the subject. Everything we eat, touch, drink, do is so very dangerous for us!. This is not new but because of all the media exposure we now have it seems right in our faces all the time. I hate it. You all are right the studies are just headlines they don't explain most of the time that maybe they just took 20-50 people and this is the result. It is the big headline such and such.....kills. It all becomes a media campaign. I can't understand how we are still all alive!!