Vaping Hypocricy?

[vaperature]

Surely you aren't suggesting that the nicotine exhaled by a vaper must remain in the ambient air in sufficient concentration for bystanders' lungs to absorb it? Why would you argue in the same breath that the primary user's absorption rate is inefficient, but on the other hand, that the bystander's absorption rate is extremely efficient?

The dose makes the poison. Second-hand vapor poses no health risk. The argument that second-hand vapor may contain trace amounts of nicotine is a canard.

All I know is the nicotine is contained in the vapor. Since the vast majority of the vapor is blown out of my mouth or nose and not absorbed into my body, I will assume there is still nicotine in that vapor, because as far as I know there's no magic part of my anatomy that separates the nicotine from the vapor when it goes into my lungs and keeps it there while the rest of the vapor is exhaled. Now whether or not that vapor that I blow out is a risk to others, I don't know if it is or if it isn't. Since I don't know that, I'll side with caution since I don't lose anything by doing that.

 

[retired1]

First and only caution folks. If you can't post in accordance with the rules of ECF, don't post. Don't want to see any more reports regarding this thread.

 

[vaperature]

So basically you are saying: just be a hypocrite - I'll vape where it is prohibited as long as the chance of getting caught are low. But other than that, just obey the rules.

We instead believe in vaping openly almost everywhere but respectfully. We also believe in fighting against idiotic restrictions that are based on prejudice and ignorance. Some, obviously, can't be bothered with working to keep vaping from being viewed as the same as smoking.

I've already had that argument with someone else here and it resulted in the thread being closed down, so I'm not even going there. But I would suggest there is no WE. WE are all vapors with a vast and wide variety of opinions. Attacking each other or baiting each other into silly arguments is just counterproductive to whatever cause you're fighting for.

 

[Fulgurant]

Priceless. I guess we should encourage all pregnant women to smoke then, eh?

How did we end up talking about pregnant women and smoking?

As far as I can tell, this entire line of discussion was started by CJLaity's unsupportable speculation that exhaled vapor might contain nicotine, and that therefore it might pose a danger to pregnant women. Let us not demagogue the issue at hand by following a tenuously relevant sidenote to its most contentious extremes.

 

[EddardinWinter]

I'm really not on any mission to convince you of anything. If you don't believe it, that's fine, you may be right, so act accordingly. I on the other hand don't feel any need to take any risks at the sake of someone else's health. If the studies are blurry and things aren't clear I'll take the side of caution. I've heard that nicotine could potentially cause birth defects. I'm not trying to convince you it's absolutely true, I'm just telling you what I've heard. Since it's no sweat off my back if I vape outside or inside, I'd rather just play it safe.

Well I accept what you are saying.

When I assert something on a public forum, I am generally prepared to cite back up for the assertion. I wasn't accusing you of trying to convince me of anything, but when you state something I disagree with, I am gonna refute it. I don't take it personally, I just want to make sure that people reading this don't continue to accept the urban legends that are often repeated about nicotine. I am sure you made this suggestion in good faith and aren't trying to fool anyone. I encourage you to research it when you get the chance.

I respect your choice to vape outside only/privately only for any reason or no reason at all. Its your right to choose this!

 

[Mrs C]

You mean until you see a study that it IS in exhale vapor, right?

Yes I'll go edit my post. My asking for links is not just to argue for arguments sake. It's because of the rampant misinformation and speculation used by those who want to ban vaping. Saying studies have shown...without being able to provide the information is useless.

 

[Robino1]

I sure wouldn't want to inject nic, but I certainly wouldn't have a problem with vaping low mg nic if I was still of child bearing age.

No one had better tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body. I would hope that Edd would have the consideration NOT to dictate rules to his woman.

And this basically gets to the crux of this issue. When did the human race decide to dictate what an individual can do or not do with a product that is sold and purchased LEGALLY? You can place warnings (I'm in serious doubt about any warnings anymore after seeing all the crap that has happened with ecigs) but do not tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body.

 

[Fulgurant]

All I know is the nicotine is contained in the vapor. Since the vast majority of the vapor is blown out of my mouth or nose and not absorbed into my body, I will assume there is still nicotine in that vapor, because as far as I know there's no magic part of my anatomy that separates the nicotine from the vapor when it goes into my lungs and keeps it there while the rest of the vapor is exhaled. Now whether or not that vapor that I blow out is a risk to others, I don't know if it is or if it isn't. Since I don't know that, I'll side with caution since I don't lose anything by doing that.

I supplied evidence in my link. If you refuse to read or acknowledge the evidence, then that's your prerogative, but I am not obliged to accept your commitment not to educate yourself as a rebuttal of my arguments.

You've said repeatedly now that you don't care enough about the issue to get into a debate about it, and yet you keep posting here. Why?

 

[Robino1]

LOL, it doesn't cause them 100% of the time. It increases the risk. I survived a car crash without a seatbelt on in the 80's too, so apparently by your logic, seat belts don't save lives, right?

Sometimes they cause lives to be lost. Everything has a risk.

 

[DC2]

All I know is the nicotine is contained in the vapor. Since the vast majority of the vapor is blown out of my mouth or nose and not absorbed into my body, I will assume there is still nicotine in that vapor, because as far as I know there's no magic part of my anatomy that separates the nicotine from the vapor when it goes into my lungs and keeps it there while the rest of the vapor is exhaled. Now whether or not that vapor that I blow out is a risk to others, I don't know if it is or if it isn't. Since I don't know that, I'll side with caution since I don't lose anything by doing that.

You might want to read the link that I posted earlier.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Priceless. I guess we should encourage all pregnant women to smoke then, eh?

I notice on several posts now, a tendency to cherry pick portions of quotes and twist them into something they are not.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Double post.

 

[DC2]

I've already had that argument with someone else here and it resulted in the thread being closed down, so I'm not even going there. But I would suggest there is no WE. WE are all vapors with a vast and wide variety of opinions. Attacking each other or baiting each other into silly arguments is just counterproductive to whatever cause you're fighting for.

Not understanding the results of studies that have already been done is far more counterproductive.

 

[Joshinthecity]

Oh, I see. You're an optimist who understandably isn't up to date on what it is we're fighting, both in the United States and abroad. Don't worry; I didn't believe it at first either, but it turns out there's a whole industry full of human-sized leeches who have made it their job to restrict individual behavior in the name of public health. Why does that industry exist? Because there's money floating around looking for a purpose, and self-interest dictates that there will always be people happy to invent a purpose for under-employed funding.

I'm far from an expert on Australia, but rest assured, you have plenty of your own nutjobs -- the Cancer Council of Australia, for example.

On the subject of e-cigarettes, you have Simon Chapman.

Your positive attitude is laudable, but I'm afraid wishful thinking ain't gonna win the battle for you.

Nutjobs? We've got plenty !
Note how I'm not using isolated Country-specific insanity to judge opposing views ?
Could you imagine the result if I did ?

I appreciate the effort in research, but if the battle you're referring to is the "banning" of ecigs in various places, I'm sorry to say that the battle here is non existent.. And the reason for that is what I am trying to get across.
It's not wishful thinking, it's a fact of life here.
We have no bans on vaping in enclosed (shared) spaces, because we don't vape in enclosed (shared) spaces.
It's a self fulfilling prophecy. And the simplest thing in the world. We vape away from those who don't, because we WANT to. Not because we are TOLD to.
There will always be isolated examples for sure, but you can be 100% confident in this.. there will be no bans here unless the community at large demands them.. and they will only demand them if vapers are inconsiderate and selfish.
Again, it's just a cultural difference I think.
I'm simply suggesting that if you want a world with no ecig bans, create it.
Don't wait for the ban then fight it claiming freedom as the ultimate goal.

Let's not assume ignorance on either side (do we have sides now?)
I won't assume you're a sarcastic, insulated, gun-toting fundamentalist Christian who drives a busted-... F250 and you won't assume I'm a beer-swilling, publicly-swearing, ignoramus from an isolated backwards country who feeds babies to Dingos and feels superior about his ecig laws.
Lets, for the sake of the thread at least, assume we're both educated, reasonable humans learning from each others vaping issues and small victories.

I'm trying merely to shed some light on the issue by providing an alternate (working) scenario from another country.
If you want to win something, feel free, you're the winner...

j.

 

[vaperature]

Ok, I'm just going to mozy on out of here because it seems there's no winning for losing. No matter how polite I try to be, no matter how I try to clarify that I'm only speaking for myself and not trying to shove my way of thinking down anyone's throats, I get met with hostility. Take care guys, no hard feelings, have a good vape.

 

[spartanstew]

Sometimes they cause lives to be lost. Everything has a risk.

So why not reduce those risks?

I notice on several posts now, a tendency to cherry pick portions of quotes and twist them into something they are not.

Nothing there was twisted, I'm certainly not going to quote the entire diatribe to point out one or two things. Yes, I point out the illogical portions of people's posts.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Incorrect. And while not entirely conclusive, I certainly wouldn't let the mother of my child to be inject Nicotine in any form.

Information

Some of the highlights:

Use of nicotine replacement products during pregnancy is not contraindicated, however it is also not free from risk. In theory, it is considered safer than smoking, because the pregnant mother avoids many other toxins in cigarette smoke that harm the foetus. However, there is little research on the safety of nicotine replacement products during pregnancy, so its real-life effects have not yet been established. Nicotine gum and patches cause increases in the mother's blood pressure and heart rate, and a smaller increase in foetal heart rate, but other nicotine replacement products produce a smaller effect than smoking.

Nicotine (from cigarettes or by itself) changes hormone patterns, affecting the endocrine profile of the infant. It affects the structure and functioning of the oviduct (fallopian tube) in ways that may impair fertility and complicate the pregnancy. Nicotine impairs the transport of essential nutrients across the placenta. Nicotine can alter embryonic movements that are important in the early development of the organs. It may interfere with foetal brain and lung development, although the long-term effects are not clear.

Many other links will state the same thing. So, again, would you like the woman who's bearing your children to use nicotine (in any form), or would you rather she didn't? Sure, vaping or the patch or nicoret is better than smoking (while pregnant), but it's not "safe"

This is your citation?

I stated this:

It is not a well known fact that nicotine causes birth defects. I bet that all the studies you can find will indicate smoking is associated with higher risk of birth defects.

The very thing you cite says this:

However, there is little research on the safety of nicotine replacement products during pregnancy, so its real-life effects have not yet been established.

How does this prove my assertion wrong, exactly?

 

[spartanstew]

I would hope that Edd would have the consideration NOT to dictate rules to his woman.

I don't remember anyone saying he should dictate anything, I asked what his preference would be.



PS. See Winter, if she would have "cherry picked" the part of my post she was referring to, we could have all seen that what I said is not what she inferred. Easy peasy.

 

[Robino1]

So why not reduce those risks?



Nothing there was twisted, I'm certainly not going to quote the entire diatribe.

And that is the logic the government is using against us.

 

[spartanstew]

How does this prove my assertion wrong, exactly?

Yes, I know what the site said, and it certainly doesn't prove your assertion correct. As someone else in this thread also stated, I'd rather err on the side of caution (especially when it comes to unborn children). You're certainly free to act otherwise.