Vapping banned at work, but the ignorant statements...

[AndriaD]

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.

Also -- their statement regarding adverse health effects to cardiovascular disorders is INCORRECT, according to this study published in "BMC Cardiovascular Disorders" -- BMC Cardiovascular Disorders | Abstract | Acute effects of using an electronic nicotine-delivery device (electronic cigarette) on myocardial function: comparison with the effects of regular cigarettes

Thought you would like some ammo for your battle.

Andria

 

[DeliciousClouds]

Also -- their statement regarding adverse health effects to cardiovascular disorders is INCORRECT, according to this study published in "BMC Cardiovascular Disorders" -- BMC Cardiovascular Disorders | Abstract | Acute effects of using an electronic nicotine-delivery device (electronic cigarette) on myocardial function: comparison with the effects of regular cigarettes

Thought you would like some ammo for your battle.

Andria

I agree that their statement is wrong.. For now. That's just a study that proves there are no immediate cardiovascular effects after 7 minutes of inhaling vapor. What about 7 hours? 7 weeks? 7 years? Nicotine doesn't get absorbed as well via electronic delivery as opposed to analog delivery, so the immediate effects are simply less pronounced, or in this case, absent. But only a long-term study will conclude whether it has any detrimental effect at all. At least they admit to as much.

It's a reduced harm alternative, not harmless.

 

[DrMA]

I agree that their statement is wrong.. For now. That's just a study that proves there are no immediate cardiovascular effects after 7 minutes of inhaling vapor. What about 7 hours? 7 weeks? 7 years? Nicotine doesn't get absorbed as well via electronic delivery as opposed to analog delivery, so the immediate effects are simply less pronounced, or in this case, absent. But only a long-term study will conclude whether it has any detrimental effect at all. At least they admit to as much.

It's a reduced harm alternative, not harmless.

here's a good start for all your questions as to the safety of nicotine and vaporizers.

http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/RSTREET25.pdf

 

[DeliciousClouds]

here's a good start for all your questions as to the safety of nicotine and vaporizers.

http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/RSTREET25.pdf

Thanks, I'll give that a read.

In addition to this, do we actually know what happens to flavoring when rapidly heated to the kind of temperatures a coil heats up to? Sure, they may food grade and even organic, but they're at the same time being used outside of their normal applications.

 

[AndriaD]

here's a good start for all your questions as to the safety of nicotine and vaporizers.

http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/RSTREET25.pdf

Excellent link! Thank you!

The main difficulty, of course, is getting ignorant people to READ anything. It seems to be against their religion, they'd rather just get their info from their brother-in-law's girlfriend who heard it at her nail salon.

Andria

 

[zapped]

Do you have any studies on 2nd hand vaporized PG, VG, flavoring, sweeteners and all possible wick materials? Please post those. Thanks.

CASAA.org

I suggest anyone who calls themselves a VAPER take the time to educate themselves properly on the subject before interjecting their opinions as gospel.

 

[Jman8]

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.

So, you're saying that misinformation will win.

The policy, and reasons for not vaping, are based on misinformation about what vaping entails. If they had cited a policy as simple as, "our premises, our right to disallow," then we probably wouldn't be having a polarized discussion. Instead, in OP the justification for the policy is stated, and the entire paragraph is deception/misinformation. I gave example in earlier post where the policy says FDA warned they are unsafe. That's not true. Therefore, policy is based on misinformation. If this were only example of misinformation in the paragraph, that could be seen as bit of oversight. Instead, the policy chose to go with several inaccuracies and then conclude with, "For these reasons, electronic cigarettes are also prohibited as part of this policy."

I suggested a seminar be given to people at that business to correct that misinformation. Doesn't have to be about changing the policy at all, but then again, that may be a result. Makes sense though to correct the misinformation so people reading the policy manual aren't likely to perpetuate the falsehoods.

 

[AndriaD]

So, you're saying that misinformation will win.

The policy, and reasons for not vaping, are based on misinformation about what vaping entails. If they had cited a policy as simple as, "our premises, our right to disallow," then we probably wouldn't be having a polarized discussion. Instead, in OP the justification for the policy is stated, and the entire paragraph is deception/misinformation. I gave example in earlier post where the policy says FDA warned they are unsafe. That's not true. Therefore, policy is based on misinformation. If this were only example of misinformation in the paragraph, that could be seen as bit of oversight. Instead, the policy chose to go with several inaccuracies and then conclude with, "For these reasons, electronic cigarettes are also prohibited as part of this policy."

I suggested a seminar be given to people at that business to correct that misinformation. Doesn't have to be about changing the policy at all, but then again, that may be a result. Makes sense though to correct the misinformation so people reading the policy manual aren't likely to perpetuate the falsehoods.

100%, right on the money. Sure it's their business, their rules, but to STATE the reason for the rule as such a completely WRONG, misinformed understanding of what vaping is, the risks of it, and what the gov't has to say about it, just shows how totally stupid and wrong-headed they are. It's like saying, "we heard from down the street that drinking water is bad for you, and some of our friends feel the same way, so we're taking out the water coolers, and anyone caught drinking water on the premises will be fired." Uhh.. what???? It's just WRONG. Now maybe understanding of vaping is not as great as the understanding that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, but that just means that someone needs to enlighten them!

Andria

 

[CKCalmer]

I went to the thread and I wouldn't say there's trolling as much as there are polarizing opinions.

I didn't mean the other thread, I meant this one.

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.

That brings up a good point. I hadn't considered the fact that not everyone would even want to try educating other people, especially when the "other people" will likely not be interested in learning in the first place. My apologies, and thank you for correcting me.

It's one of the most tragic aspects of humanity that those who most need to learn are often the ones who are the most opposed to doing it.

And keep in mind that many people argue with logical fallacies without realizing it.

Goodness yes. Credibility of message is one of the primary measures of the value of a person. (Another is morality of action.)

Never argue with a drunk, a child or a fool, for these are three kinds of people who either don't understand or do not care about credibility. At least the child will grow up and the drunk will sober up, but alas, there is no cure for the fool.

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.

Well written.

What's the saying? "Never doubt that a small but committed group of people can change the world, for indeed it is the only thing that ever has."

Excellent link! Thank you!
The main difficulty, of course, is getting ignorant people to READ anything. It seems to be against their religion, they'd rather just get their info from their brother-in-law's girlfriend who heard it at her nail salon.
Andria

And on that note, I think I'll join you in a facepalm...

 

[Jman8]

It's like saying, "we heard from down the street that drinking water is bad for you, and some of our friends feel the same way, so we're taking out the water coolers, and anyone caught drinking water on the premises will be fired." Uhh.. what???? It's just WRONG.

It's actually more like wanting to remove the water from outside the company based on a policy that reads:

Water (e.g “H20”, “aqua”, etc) is a beverage that provides doses of alcohol, or other narcotics, to the user. Like
beer, the alcohol contained within contributes to a number of adverse health effects such as cooties and bad breath. Unlike approved water, used to help alcoholics to quit, these water bottles are not a proven cessation aid according to the World Health Organization. The FBI has also warned that they are unsafe, and many countries have banned these items. For these reasons, water bottles are also prohibited as part of this policy.

I mean how could you dispute a policy as true as this one?

 

[WharfRat1976]

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

Please tell me that people are not so stupid as to believe that pg/vg, wick material, flavoring and any other bi-products are

filtered out by inhaling/exhaling.

Is there anybody dumb enough to actually believe this snake oil of a statement? That's embarrassing.

 

[WharfRat1976]

I agree that their statement is wrong.. For now. That's just a study that proves there are no immediate cardiovascular effects after 7 minutes of inhaling vapor. What about 7 hours? 7 weeks? 7 years? Nicotine doesn't get absorbed as well via electronic delivery as opposed to analog delivery, so the immediate effects are simply less pronounced, or in this case, absent. But only a long-term study will conclude whether it has any detrimental effect at all. At least they admit to as much.

It's a reduced harm alternative, not harmless.

and the sampling was 36 analog smokers and 40 ecig users. It proves absolutely nothing long term or short term. 76 people sampled and 500,000 die each year from analog related cancer....but believe this since we performed some pseudo science on 76 people.

 

[WharfRat1976]

here's a good start for all your questions as to the safety of nicotine and vaporizers.

http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/RSTREET25.pdf

This a pro ecig report written by a "Free Markets" organization. Here is their website: rstreet.org. This is part of their mission statement: "The R Street Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy research organization (“think tank”). Our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government."
They also take up cause for Global Warming, Copyright issues, provide weather information, an almost lampoon type of study on the negative effects of tobacco after a heart attack, ticket scalping concerns and many other ridiculous anti-government agendas.

The article is a non scientific harangue against Big Tobacco and Big Pharma. You only have to read half of it, actually much less than that, to realize it is more snake oil from anti government activists. The THR premise is laughable. The report admits in 20 plus places the dangers of "potential contamninants" in 2nd hand vapor. Particulary humorous was that it states that PG is used in the creation of "theatrical fog machines."

The article answers absolutely NOTHING as to anyone's "concerns" over the "safety of nicotine and vaporizers" other than to advance a completely biased agenda. Nice try.

 

[jpargana]

Quoted for truth and for emphasis. I'm going to re-quote my favorite line in bold because it's the one that inspired the rest of my post.

"Perpetuating lies because we're too scared to question so-called authority or to refute false statements is both lazy and defeatist."

There are some lies which, if allowed to pass unchallenged, can do tremendous harm.

Letting it pass when a father tries to explain away the hand-shaped bruises on his son's arms and legs by saying his son falls a lot is to passively condone child abuse.

Letting it pass when a woman with a black eye tells you, "He loves me, it's just that he gets mad because of stress at his job" is to passively condone domestic violence.

Letting it pass when someone tells you that people of a particular race are "less than we are" is to passively condone racism.

Letting it pass when someone says or acts as if e-cigs are toxic is to silently condone the oppression of a potential cure for the global pandemic of tobacco addiction. An addiction that has killed ONE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE in the 20th century. An addiction that is expected to kill TEN TIMES THAT MANY in the 21st century¹.

How many more people have to die before those with authority will finally stand up and say, "Maybe now is the time to change our strategies, because none of our strategies are working. More and more people are saying that using e-cigs 'saved their life', and more and more scientists are saying that e-cigs are not toxic to anyone. Let's take a closer look at e-cigs as a potential cure to this crisis."

Only if e-cigs are not completely trampled out of society might our leaders one day consider that perhaps e-cigs can do what a growing number of people will be saying they can do: Provide the most effective smoking cessation method in the history of tobacco use.

This is why we should never let it pass when ANYONE speaks wrongly about e-cigarettes. If it's the people in your company's HR department who are doing it, what you should do is always obey their rules to the letter, and then help educate them in a very respectful and constructive manner. Show them how e-cigs work. Show them that there are five chemical ingredients in most e-cigs, and provide concise information about each ingredient to demonstrate that there is nothing toxic in an e-cig. Show them concise information from scientific studies which show that those ingredients in second-hand vapor don't even come close to toxic levels when exhaled by an e-cig user. Show them how e-cigs can save lives, and how they in fact are saving lives.

I think we get blinded sometimes by the "hobby" aspect of vaping. We love our myriad gear. We love our myriad e-juices. Yes, vaping has become a hobby for many of us, but it's not JUST a hobby. Vaping is important to human society. And it's not something at which people should turn up their noses simply because they heard exaggerated or blatantly incorrect information on the six-o'clock news.

E-cigs can - and God-willing, will - save millions of lives in this century if, and only if, governments and commercial entities stop blocking their use, and instead learn verifiable facts about e-cigs so that they will know that vaping is not toxic to anyone, not to the vaper and not to the non-vaper standing nearby.

If our government and corporate leaders make it difficult for smokers to switch to e-cigs, a completely preventable tragedy will ensue.

If I were JasonK94Z, I would schedule a 30-minute meeting with my HR director. Half-an-hour is a reasonably small burden on a busy schedule, but it would give me enough time to present the information I described above, and to answer quite a few questions as well before the time is up.

You never know whether you can change a person's mind until you try.


¹ Source: The American Cancer Society


P.S.: JasonK94Z, that's a hot looking bike in your avatar. I'm speaking as someone who has never ridden, but wants to more and more each year that passes. First book I sell, I swear I'm buying a bike.

Oh. My.

 

[jpargana]

The only "truth" about vaping is there is no "truth" about vaping. I've read everything. Medical and Scientific "truth" is loaded with BIAS as our most vapors when you read some of this drivel. If you have a pink pair of glasses on, the world is pink. If you walk around with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

And, of course, "there are no studies", and "we do not know what's in there".

Deja mu: when you have definitely heard this B.S before

 

[jpargana]

Do you have any studies on 2nd hand vaporized PG, VG, flavoring, sweeteners and all possible wick materials? Please post those. Thanks.

Scientific Opinon: Electronic cigarettes

 

[DeliciousClouds]

I didn't mean the other thread, I meant this one.

Ah, it was a typo. I meant through the thread.

{MODERATED}

 

[CKCalmer]

Deja blu: When you and your compatriots have explained and re-explained and provided scientific findings and re-provided scientific findings to someone over and over, until you are all blu in the face.

 

[jpargana]

and the sampling was 36 analog smokers and 40 ecig users. It proves absolutely nothing long term or short term. 76 people sampled and 500,000 die each year from analog related cancer....but believe this since we performed some pseudo science on 76 people.

NOTHING in our everyday lives has been tested "long-term" BEFORE being released/used by the general public. Not even medicines.

The ONLY way to make a proper "long-term" study is to let a LARGE population use a certain item, for a LARGE time period.

And no, I'm not defending that people should be freely allowed to vape at their desks. But many of those "corporate vaping bans" include ALL outside areas. In some places, vapers cannot even vape in the parking lot. They have to drive outside the premises.

Do you really believe bystanders can be harmed by you vapour, if you are vaping outside...?

Outdoor ban is something already insane even for TOBACCO. Yes, we have long-term studies on tobacco. NONE of them showed associated risks for bystanders, OUTSIDE. Outdoor bans are based on ideology, NOT science.

The main concern of the OP was: management used poor/twisted science to "support" a decision borne of ideology ALONE.

THIS is why many of us feel so outraged about it. If they have an IDEOLOGY problem with vaping, they should simply stated that. "Our premises, our rules, because we WANT it to be this way."

Not because "We are concerned about your health".

 

[DeliciousClouds]

and the sampling was 36 analog smokers and 40 ecig users. It proves absolutely nothing long term or short term. 76 people sampled and 500,000 die each year from analog related cancer....but believe this since we performed some pseudo science on 76 people.

I wouldn't call it pseudo-science but the main problem here is sampling size and length of the study. The person who linked it probably meant well, but it just goes to show that there are people who don't think critically enough on both side of the e-cig debate. It's not easy to cut through the bullcrap when it comes to scientific studies, and a lot of people don't really care. At best, they just want to read a study that confirms the preconceived notions they already had, because what they really want is validation on a subject they care about.

And FYI: I'm not nearly intelligent enough to question all the things I read, I just want to promote critical thinking over confirmation-bias.