The entire paragraph is ridiculous. My fav part is "nicotine and other narcotics" All I can say is that those wishing to find a reason to ban e-cigs will only attempt to find information to back that stance. They went looking for a reason to ban e-cig from your place of work. They did not start out with some unbiased view and look at research then make an informed decision.The ignorance stated in the policy has really ...... me off! Electronic cigarettes (e.g e-cigarettes, vapes, etc) are battery-powered or other devices that provide vaporized doses of nicotine, or other narcotics, to the user. Like tobacco products, the nicotine contained within contributes to a number of adverse health effects such as coronary artery disease and hypertension. Unlike approved nicotine replacement therapies, such as gum or lozenges used to help the tobacco-user quit, these devices are not a proven cessation aid according to the World Health Organization. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has also warned that they are unsafe, and many countries have banned these devices. For these reasons, electronic cigarettes are also prohibited as part of this policy.Please, somebody stop the earth, I want off. Wait, what? So the USP Nicotine in vaporizers is bad, but the USP nicotine in gum and lozenges is safe? The people in our HR dept are barely smart enough to make it to work on their own. I highlighted the part in red and replied asking them to cite their reference. So far I have not received a response. I understand it is their building, their rules, and I respect that. However, the clear misinformation I DO NOT respect.
Vapping banned at work, but the ignorant statements...
- Thread starter JasonK94Z
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
...and millions of people dying in the face of the means to prevent a significant percentage of it causes no gut churning at all.
This is a very serious matter, interference in the ability to prevent the deaths of millions of fathers and mothers and daughters and sons. Yes, just as serious as the prevalence of child abuse, spousal abuse and racism. In fact, I could have hit harder and still been well within the right range in that respect.
I watched my grandfather die right in front of me from emphysema caused from smoking several packs of Winchesters per day since he was 15. It was ugly and horrible and the worst kind of memorable. Multiply that by the billion that face the same fate in only the next hundred years. Perverse. That's the right word for it. No, criminal. That's an even better one, especially since it could be stopped.
Smoking-related deaths are worse than child abuse, domestic violence and the effects of racism, in fact, because there is no single solution for a vast percentage of the latter three tragedies. But now we have a single solution that could prevent a vast number of smoking-related deaths.
The government and many commercial entities are standing in the way of something that is so simple to verify. Five ingredients. Five. Not 4000, or 50, but 5. All of which have been approved by the FDA as safe for human internal consumption. Five things enter your body when you vape. And all of them have been not only familiar, but common in human consumption for many years.
Seriously? Blocking a cure that a college freshman could confirm as safe?
Oh well, it'll be an interesting next few years, to say the least. And I do truly enjoy writing. I think I'd much prefer it over what I'd feel obliged to do if this inane e-cig-phobia crap gets too far out of hand.
Perhaps if we all chipped in for little buckets the government troublemakers could cry into so they wouldn't get their shoes wet while whining and weeping about the made-up "dangers" of vaping...
EDIT: Reading back through the thread, I see now that we're facing some growing trolling issues. It's always suspicious when you get such passionate interest combined with a "gap" in logic and/or morality. Oh well. Wish I'd have seen it sooner. Could've saved myself several thousand keystrokes.
Last edited:
Electronic cigarettes (e.g e-cigarettes, vapes, etc) are battery-powered or other
devices that provide vaporized doses of nicotine, or other narcotics, to the user. Like
tobacco products, the nicotine contained within contributes to a number of adverse
health effects such as coronary artery disease and hypertension. Unlike approved
nicotine replacement therapies, such as gum or lozenges used to help the tobacco-
user quit, these devices are not a proven cessation aid according to the World Health
Organization. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has also warned that they are
unsafe, and many countries have banned these devices. For these reasons, electronic
cigarettes are also prohibited as part of this policy.
Please, somebody stop the earth, I want off. Wait, what? So the USP Nicotine in vaporizers is bad, but the USP nicotine in gum and lozenges is safe? The people in our HR dept are barely smart enough to make it to work on their own.
I highlighted the part in red and replied asking them to cite their reference. So far I have not received a response. I understand it is their building, their rules, and I respect that. However, the clear misinformation I DO NOT respect.
I guess my argument with this policy (at least only for me) would be that there is no Nic in my ejuice. So, would that exclude me since I don't vape nicotine at all?
I understand what you're saying and its totally contradicting, maybe they don't understand at all what they are saying.
You might find it Surprising how Much this Part Plays in Many Policy Makers considerations.
Especially as the number of State who have Decimalized the Recreation Use of certain Substances has Increased.
I went to the thread and I wouldn't say there's trolling as much as there are polarizing opinions. Some people care very strongly about this subject, up to point of resignations and/or starting a business of their own. But others no particular issues with abiding the rules a company sets, even though it may be motivated by broken logic. Personally, I'd rather keep my job and am not strong-willed or coolheaded enough to educate people who've clearly made up their minds from the start. I find it too frustrating.EDIT: Reading back through the thread, I see now that we're facing some growing trolling issues. It's always suspicious when you get such passionate interest combined with a "gap" in logic and/or morality. Oh well. Wish I'd have seen it sooner. Could've saved myself several thousand keystrokes.
And keep in mind that many people argue with logical fallacies without realizing it.
Last edited:
Please explain how gum and lozenges or patches can get into the systems of other people?
This is beyond belief.
I'm a vapor. The arguments by my fellow vapors are absurd. I need to hear something other than "what about cell phones and carbon mon from cars." Your company can terminate your employment. I would think they would have the right to ban vaping within their premises for any reason right or wrong. These arguments are ridiculous. Vapors are arguing "against City Hall." There is no way this will be a win. No way.
"provide vaporized doses of nicotine"
I would say that you are exempt from this ban! Carry on.
I would say that you are exempt from this ban! Carry on.
And how do you think the United Stats of America was formed? It was formed by a group of people standing up for what they thought was right against a government, monarchy, much bigger than any City Hall.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But some times you need the sword to get their attention.
Someone's ability to vape within the confines of their employers premises will not save 7 million per year from cigarette related cancer deaths- imho.
Do you have any studies on 2nd hand vaporized PG, VG, flavoring, sweeteners and all possible wick materials? Please post those. Thanks.
This is the justification for the Bill in New York to make the sale of e-liquid illegal:
If any employer ever got their hands on this, the vape party is so over.
Yeah, and it's not like you're allowed to smoke at places where you can't vape. So not being able to vape at work is not a reason to go back to the cigs. However, companies that ban smoking (and often vaping with it) from their premises are a bit over-zealous in my opinion. If it's outside, it can do no harm.
Might make a lot if vapers think about relocating to a state they can enjoy vaping in. Just seems like some people don't want anyone to enjoy something if they don't enjoy it themselves. I work right next to smokers and I've been asked repeatedly since I started Vaping if it bothers me. They enjoy it and it's not my place to stop them so I vape right along with their smoke!
sent from my damned S4!
why would anyone waste time and money studying such an absurd assumption as "all nicotine and other particles other than pg/vg/flavor are filtered out by inhaling/exhaling", please tell me people aren't this stupid
Electronic cigarettes (e.g “e-cigarettes”, “vapes”, etc) are battery-powered or other
devices that provide vaporized doses of nicotine, or other narcotics, to the user. Like
tobacco products, the nicotine contained within contributes to a number of adverse
health effects such as coronary artery disease and hypertension. Unlike approved
nicotine replacement therapies, such as gum or lozenges used to help the tobacco-
user quit, these devices are not a proven cessation aid according to the World Health
Organization. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has also warned that they are
unsafe, and many countries have banned these devices. For these reasons, electronic
cigarettes are also prohibited as part of this policy.
Please, somebody stop the earth, I want off. Wait, what? So the USP Nicotine in vaporizers is bad, but the USP nicotine in gum and lozenges is safe? The people in our HR dept are barely smart enough to make it to work on their own.
I highlighted the part in red and replied asking them to cite their reference. So far I have not received a response. I understand it is their building, their rules, and I respect that. However, the clear misinformation I DO NOT respect.
I agree with you, especially that bit about "other narcotics," as if to imply that nicotine is a "narcotic" -- a narcotic is an opiate drug, period, and nicotine has nothing whatever to do with opiate drugs of any kind, period.
Andria
you would have to intravenous inject ejuice for it to be a danger, if you drank it you would vomit and be very sick for a while, little bit of 100mg on the skin... really buzzed for a few hours, the fascist agenda is strong in this legislation
Quite right, but I think you are missing the point of the OP. The problem is not with the ban per se, it's with the phony science presented to justify it.
- Status
