But you said I was incorrect, and cited this site as evidence of it.
Vaping Hypocricy?
- Thread starter Sane Asylum
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
But you said I was incorrect, and cited this site as evidence of it.
I am sure if you were to stick a non-vaper and a vaper in a small unventilated room then the non-vaper might get a noticeable dose of nicotine. But in well ventilated areas you may have to blow shotgun style hits into the mouth of the non-vaper to get any discernible levels.
I guess what I am saying is being a liquid that contained nicotine, its vapor form would still contain some nicotine. Only thing is you would have to try really hard to make those nic levels high enough to even register before the vapor dissipates. If say 50% of the nic is absorbed and 50% is exhaled, that 50% would be spread across a larger area and would be quickly thinning. So unless you are giving that person CPR with a mouthful of vapor, they would be getting at most a very tiny fraction of a fraction of whatever nic was left in the exhaled vapor.
So while CJ has a point about there being nic in exhaled vapor, I would be more worried about the average amount of car exhaust we breath in on a 5 minute car ride at that point.
If all you said is true, then it is not a cultural difference, it is a political difference.
But I don't buy that for one minute.
Again, I point you to the fact that electronic cigarettes that include nicotine are illegal in Australia.
That has nothing to do with exhaling vapor, and everything to do with the same political barriers that every vaper faces throughout the ENTIRE world.
To be clear, I'm not posting those links to judge Australia or Australians. I'm posting the links to point out that yes, there are external forces at work to enact various policies like the vaping bans that started this discussion, and yes, those forces exist in every country. It was your original theory that vapers in the United States had provoked (localized) bans by acting out in public places. Although I cannot categorically dismiss that theory for every specific case, I vehemently disagree with the theory as an explanation for bans generally.
There is a country-wide campaign to ban vaping (EDIT: in the USA). People like those I've cited are behind that campaign. And there are various people in the general public to whom the notion of restricting other people's behavior appeals, for whatever reason. Colloquially, they're known as busy-bodies, and every country has them.
I'm really not interested in proving you wrong or getting into an international pissing match. I've always had a soft spot for Australia and Australians, in fact. Probably has something to do with my Irish heritage; I feel an ancestral kinship with people placed on a remote continent because the British didn't like them.
To the extent that I question your preconceptions about the matter at hand (vaping), I do so in good humor and in good faith, because I truly do believe that over-reach within the tobacco-control movement is an international phenomenon. We all have busybodies, and we all have over-funded establishments in search of problems to solve.
All of that said, I appreciate the interesting and respectful discussion.
I didn't bother reading this whole thing since you didn't bother comprehending my statement. My allergies are my issues. Having discussions about those allergies has led to me hearing (and understanding) the viewpoints of others.
Plus in the part I did read you aren't making a logical connection but that might be a misunderstanding of how allergies work. Good thing my allergies aren't the actual topic.
Well then, perhaps you should. And do read it in monotone please. That's how I typed it - always flat unless otherwise noted with emoticons, bold type, all caps, etc.
Richmond, Carlsbad Ban E-Cigarettes | NBC Bay AreaIt is happening folks. Your freedom of choice is again being determined by "our elected officials" who in theory represent their constituents.
Not to mention every picture is a gathering, a meet, for Vapers testing or showing off production of certain products.
(Emphasis mine.)
That may very well be true. It's also true that if you put two human beings in a sufficiently under-ventilated space together, the accumulation of carbon dioxide exhaled by both parties will eventually asphyxiate them. As you point out, though, that's not a useful observation; based on toxicology studies, the danger to primary users of e-cigarettes is well within OSHA air-quality standards. That means that directly inhaling the average e-cig's vapor is no more unsafe than breathing the ambient air in a federally compliant workplace.
By extension, the danger to bystanders (non-primary users, or so-called second-hand vapers) is nonexistent in any otherwise-safe environment anyone's likely to inhabit. Arguments about extremely poor ventilation are at best irrelevant and at worst dishonest -- roughly on par, rhetorically, with claims that e-cigs contain chemicals found in anti-freeze. In other words, if poor ventilation is the problem, then fix the ventilation.
(None of the above is aimed at you, Fyerwall; I'm just expanding on one portion of your post.)
Last edited:
Although I'd like to apologize for not responding to the subject at hand, please accept my gratitude for all the exceptional links to studies, etc. I've not been able to read all yet, been reading this and a linked thread, I saved them and will do so tomorrow, when I'm awake.
Thank you so much, again! Good night all!
Deb - NCPatches
Thank you so much, again! Good night all!
Deb - NCPatches
This is the only Bill I agree with.
"Banning the use of e-cigarettes in workplaces and public places provides no public health benefits, but instead would protect cigarette markets by discouraging smokers from switching to exponentially less hazardous e-cigs, and would encourage many vapers to switch back to smoking lethal cigarettes." X Bill Godshall, of SmokeFree Pennsylvania.
"Banning the use of e-cigarettes in workplaces and public places provides no public health benefits, but instead would protect cigarette markets by discouraging smokers from switching to exponentially less hazardous e-cigs, and would encourage many vapers to switch back to smoking lethal cigarettes." X Bill Godshall, of SmokeFree Pennsylvania.
Apparently with fourteen pages of posts, there's still interest in discussing what I saw as a hypocrisy in two thread posted in the general e smoking discussion section. And if you read my original post, it was about what I saw as hypocrisy of vapers, not bans.
There is a tremendous repetition of subjects throughout the forum. No one is 'required' to read or respond to any thread. If I have no interest in a particular thread, I just skip it instead of spouting a condescending post to someone because 'I' am tired of the subject.
Someone like me? That's an interesting way to put it. Perhaps you've not read my other posts but I am about as fair and grounded as it gets. You, on the other hand, apparently think you're entitled to do what you want, when you want, because it's not "illegal." It's not illegal to scream at the top of my lungs during a movie, but I don't because it's common courtesy. If anyone here is feeling entitled, it's you. And I don't think you understand what the difference is between a "right" and a "privilege." It is a right to practice any religion you want. It is a right to own a firearm. It is not a right to drink alcohol, it is not a right to be vegan instead of carnivore, it is not a right to vape. All of those things are behaviors we are allowed to practice but we do so, hopefully, with a modicum of respect for those around us. This is simple humanity, man, it's not about vaping vs smoking or some rabbit hole like that.
Want to know why you can't carry an open container with reckless abandon down a crowded street? Because some other ....... who came before you acted a fool and caused someone in a position of power to care enough to outlaw it. If we "vape wherever we feel like" without consideration for others, we are that ........ I vape at work. I've stealh-vaped in restaurants. When I smoked I made sure I didn't do it near kids and I never blew smoke at someone. That's just common courtesy, it's not being entitled or pretentious. And the fact that your post actually got likes? That's really pathetic and just shows why we are not taken seriously. This shouldn't even be up for debate. Vape respectfully and responsibly - don't act out with it. There are thousands of others who do so responsible and we are depending on everyone else to not be that ....... who came before us.
I will vape anywhere. Until I am asked not to.
I dont blow clouds in any faces, I keep it discreet.
With the exception of small children present. There are Some places you just dont go.
I dont blow clouds in any faces, I keep it discreet.
With the exception of small children present. There are Some places you just dont go.
I agree. If I'm in my car with the windows rolled up......but the reasoning is that your car is not on your property. I'm rolling my eyes here.
I can relate to this topic firsthand, actually. I manage a group of 7 people for a software company. We all sit in fairly close quarters, but I am allowed to vape at work. About three weeks in, one of my team members sent me an IM and politely asked me to try and exhale behind me, instead of in front of me toward him. At first I was taken aback - vaping up to this point has been fairly odorless. Well, that was before I had an RBA and some genuinely high-quality juice. The stuff does smell - most like it but some don't - so I complied and checked in with him multiple times to make sure my changes were effective and he was no longer uncomfortable with me vaping. He agreed that things were better and he had no issues. That's how it should be. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we can do that thing with no regard for our neighbor. A civil, adult conversation is all it took for us both to be happy again.
Cheers, and vape on!
Todd
Cheers, and vape on!
Todd
I really don't have the need or desire to vape everywhere. I smoked for almost 20 years; during those years, I was not able to smoke everywhere and anywhere- less so, as time went by. I got used to it and considered a cigarette a treat, or sorts. Never smoked where I lived; smoking became banned from places I worked back in the 90's. Now, I vape in my vaperoom in my home, my car, airports and restaurants and pubs (while on vacation).
Perhaps I have developed a discipline after nearly 20 years of smoking many vapers who never smoked, or who only smoked for a short while, simply don't have.
Perhaps I have developed a discipline after nearly 20 years of smoking many vapers who never smoked, or who only smoked for a short while, simply don't have.
Very simple folks dont make an ... of yourself....but you dont have to be a puss either. Balance...
Unfortunately, more and more university's are banning all smoking and vaping on entire campuses. So if someone wants to have a cigarette or vape a little between classes, it's next to impossible to go off campus. Same is true on big hospital campuses. You have to walk blocks to have a cigarette or a vape. Not easy when a loved one is in surgery or you're taking a break from being with an ill loved one. I admit I've broken the rules on hospital grounds with not going as far away as I should on a hospital campus to have a cigarette. Especially when I've been with someone in an emergency room late at night. If a security guard wants to give me a hard time so be it (none ever have) but I'm not going to walk down the street into the not so safest area to smoke a cigarette. Thank God those days are over. You can make vaping much more inconspicuous. Otherwise, I just don't vape where smoking isn't allowed.
I agree but the problem is that there are vapors who claim that they have the right to vape wherever they want and that they're not affecting other people. Idealistically, if we lived in a courteous world, we wouldn't have so many damn 'laws'.
- Status
Similar threads
