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

[AndriaD]

.
.
The only unintentional exposures (i.e., not the nicotine) that seem to rise to the level that they are worth further research are the carrier chemicals themselves, propylene glycol and glycerin. This exposure is not known to cause health problems, but the magnitude of the exposure is novel and thus is at the levels for concern based on the lack of reassuring data.

And the results of these novel levels of exposure seem to vary widely from person to person. My own issues with vaping have nothing whatever to do with nicotine, and everything to do with PG and the thick viscosity of VG, and I have found exactly nothing written down online about the potentially uncomfortable and/or dangerous results of this several-orders-of-magnitude-greater exposure to these carrier chemicals -- though my own thread regarding PEG400 has generated a lot more interest than I anticipated when I started it with my own questions. A great deal more research really needs to be done, to see if there are other chemicals that might be of use in vaping, and to see if the existing ones can somehow be altered to make them less hazardous for what appears to be a pretty fair segment of existing vapers, and therefore probably a great many potential vapers as well It's beginning to be pretty widely accepted that vaping is harm reduction, but as a lot of us keep saying, that doesn't mean harm REMOVAL; everything you do to your body carries some price, and for some, the price of the existing carrier chemicals may be a bit too high -- but that doesn't, shouldn't mean, "give up" -- it means we need to investigate this further, for our (vapers) own benefit.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

I read the 22 pages of the "Drexel Report." I kind of wish I had not. On page 18, it lists the checmicals that Vapors are putting into their lungs in aerosol form. The levels are considered "safe" based on a scale of 10 juxtaposed to the unsafe levels and additional chemicals inhaled by an analog smoking machine.

Any employer that gets their hands on the Drexel Report which was paid for by The CASSA Research Fund would have to ban ecigs in their workplace. The report states: "Burstyn reviewed all of the available chemistry on e-cigarette vapor and liquid and found that the levels reported — even in those studies that were hyped as showing there is a danger — are well below the level that is of concern."

Everything in your post, other than this bolded part, makes me conclude opposite of what you are saying.

Btw, Vapors ought to be Vapers and CASSA ought to be CASAA.

 

[AndriaD]

LOL... You're on a Roll Tonight.

BTW - There are a LOT of people who develop Cancer who Never Smoked.

You're absolutely right, because smoking is just ONE of the potential "straws that broke the camel's back" in the cellular-DNA mayhem that leads to cancer. Ever noticed how how many of those who managed to live thru WWII in Europe, and many of their children, developed cancer at some point years after WWII was just an unpleasant memory? And I even wonder about *all* those who were alive, and their children, at the end of WWII with Japan, when those 2 nuclear bombs went off, plus all the nuclear testing that went before them. If the study of ecology has taught us anything, it's that there is no such place as "away" -- all the crap we create down here in our environment, STAYS down here in our environment -- and nuclear fallout has how long a half-life? Thousands of years? It's probably dissipated now to such miniscule levels, dispersed throughout the whole atmosphere, it could never be detected, but that doesn't mean it's gone -- how many of those ions does one have to encounter in one's lifetime, before cancer develops, or if not actual cancer, but genetic changes in those 23 precious sex cells?

Andria

 

[Verb]

Isotopes, not ions, are associated with radioactivity.

 

[AndriaD]

Isotopes, not ions, are associated with radioactivity.

Sorry, not a physicist; I don't know all the terminology.

Andria

 

[jpargana]

Ahh, so THAT's why they don't want us to stop smoking and start vaping... we'll stop dying in such droves, and that hurts their bottom line, right along with BP's whose cancer/COPD drugs won't be so necessary anymore! That's exactly what I've been saying all along -- they actually WANT us to die, and if we stop smoking, not so many of us will, or at least, not as quickly. We'll live long enough to cause the liars all KINDS of problems! Hell yes! I've thought all along that BP has a great deal more to lose in this entire hullaballoo than BT does. If e-cigs were NOT "tobacco products," then BT wouldn't have to pony up as much to the states, which would actually reinforce THEIR bottom line.

Also.. I forgot to add, in what I said: "...that Smoking and SmokERS are EVIL and Must Be Persecuted With Lies?" -- "...and if it LOOKS like smoking, we'll just lie and persecute that too!"

So, what we have here are quite a lot of people who'd like to live longer, healthier lives, versus a lot of lying, cheating, death-dealing greedy multibillionaire corporations. But at some point, the truth must out -- that e-cigs save lives, and that is a GOOD thing.

Andria

The new European TPD, which will of course HELP tobacco sales - by getting rid of the ONLY real competition that has appeared in decades - is a fine example of the death-dealing greed you speak of: politicians were "convinced" into extending anti-smoking laws to smokeLESS alternatives. Who "convinced" them? The lobbies from BOTH BT AND BP!

That's because EVERYONE has something to lose:

BG loses 'sin taxes' revenue. The mith that those 'sin taxes' are just barely enough to cover for medical expenses has since long been exposed. BG has net PROFITS from those taxes. AFAIK, in the States, there is already a "tobacco tax" to sponsor pre-school education. Smokers are paying for it, and being despised by non-smoking parents whose child's education is being helped BY smokers... unbelievable.
I guess it does not take a lot of "convincing" for them to fight e-cigarettes.

BT loses, of course, tobacco sales. Some of those corporations are already jumping into the e-cig train, so maybe they will be the ones with less to lose in the future.

BP is the meanest of them all. The e-cig competition against "safe" and "effective" NRT's is a peanut business to them. Around 20% if BP income comes from the sales of expensive drugs for treatment of smoking-related diseases. For them, it's not really enough that you simply smoke. What they really hope for, is that you get really ill in the process.

With those three acting and scheming together, how can we NOT have a war on e-cigarettes?

 

[AndriaD]

The new European TPD, which will of course HELP tobacco sales - by getting rid of the ONLY real competition that has appeared in decades - is a fine example of the death-dealing greed you speak of: politicians were "convinced" into extending anti-smoking laws to smokeLESS alternatives. Who "convinced" them? The lobbies from BOTH BT AND BP!

That's because EVERYONE has something to lose:

BG loses 'sin taxes' revenue. The mith that those 'sin taxes' are just barely enough to cover for medical expenses has since long been exposed. BG has net PROFITS from those taxes. AFAIK, in the States, there is already a "tobacco tax" to sponsor pre-school education. Smokers are paying for it, and being despised by non-smoking parents whose child's education is being helped BY smokers... unbelievable.
I guess it does not take a lot of "convincing" for them to fight e-cigarettes.

BT loses, of course, tobacco sales. Some of those corporations are already jumping into the e-cig train, so maybe they will be the ones with less to lose in the future.

BP is the meanest of them all. The e-cig competition against "safe" and "effective" NRT's is a peanut business to them. Around 20% if BP income comes from the sales of expensive drugs for treatment of smoking-related diseases. For them, it's not really enough that you simply smoke. What they really hope for, is that you get really ill in the process.

With those three acting and scheming together, how can we NOT have a war on e-cigarettes?

I'm really surprised the Morticians aren't getting into it; surely it will hurt their bottom line too, when e-cigs eventually win -- and I'm going to operate on the principle that E-CIGS WILL WIN, while doing everything I can to make sure of it, because negative attitudes aren't helpful at all. If we all just give up because of the big bad guys against us, they win by forfeit.

Andria

 

[k75srider]

Same stupity at my place of work, I just stealth vape, or leave the grounds on my breaks. Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people!

 

[jpargana]

I'm really surprised the Morticians aren't getting into it; surely it will hurt their bottom line too, when e-cigs eventually win -- and I'm going to operate on the principle that E-CIGS WILL WIN, while doing everything I can to make sure of it, because negative attitudes aren't helpful at all. If we all just give up because of the big bad guys against us, they win by forfeit.

Andria

Oh, yes, the e-cig will definitely win!!

The European TPD, for example, will only delay the process, I believe. This new technology has helped too many people already to be extinguished by decree.

The e-cig business has almost doubled every year since around 2012. Hopefully, by 2016, we will be almost four times what we are now. Let them try to enforce the TPD by then...

We have heard of decent folk (family fathers and mothers, law-abiding people) confessing that they will resort to a black market, if need be.

When the law-abiding start questioning a particular law, then maybe it's time to change that law...!

 

[JMarca]

Vaping will never be banned because vaping was never meant to be banned.

No one wants to outright ban a potential source of tax revenue, if they did smoking would be all out banned years ago. They want to scare the masses inflict wide spread panic and then get into your pockets with cigarette like taxes. Then they'll be happy leave it alone and they can suck you bones dry at a hefty 8-15% tax rate. That's their real goal here folks.

 

[AndriaD]

Vaping will never be banned because vaping was never meant to be banned.

No one wants to outright ban a potential source of tax revenue, if they did smoking would be all out banned years ago. They want to scare the masses inflict wide spread panic and then get into your pockets with cigarette like taxes. Then they'll be happy leave it alone and they can suck you bones dry at a hefty 8-15% tax rate. That's their real goal here folks.

Well, that's just it... WHY!!! is this or that particular product or activity at the mercy of the tax wolves (referring to your sig line, which I truly appreciate!). They're just consumer products! WHY are we (the ENTIRE country, not just vapers!) sitting still for it!!!

I'm getting sick of all these sheep, and I refuse to be one! It's time for us to do some howling of our own!!!

Andria

 

[JMarca]

Well, that's just it... WHY!!! is this or that particular product or activity at the mercy of the tax wolves (referring to your sig line, which I truly appreciate!). They're just consumer products! WHY are we (the ENTIRE country, not just vapers!) sitting still for it!!!

I'm getting sick of all these sheep, and I refuse to be one! It's time for us to do some howling of our own!!!

Andria

That's easy, because it looks like smoking.
By merely intimating something that looks like something deadly they can scare the masses and hopefully collect profit on that via taxes.
It's not about the e-cigs, heck it's not even about smoking...

It's really all about the $ MONEY $.

 

[AndriaD]

That's easy, because it looks like smoking.
By merely intimating something that looks like something deadly they can scare the masses and hopefully collect profit on that via taxes.
It's not about the e-cigs, heck it's not even about smoking...

It's really all about the $ MONEY $.

I just don't get why smoking, something that looks like smoking, drinking, and probably other things that don't leap to mind, are *selected* to be "tax farms." What gives those nimrods in Washington the right? What makes those CONSUMER PRODUCTS different from every other consumer product? If they tried to do this to... oh, I dunno... electronics? housewares? pet food? everybody in the country would be rioting on Washington... so what makes these products so SPECIAL???

Andria

 

[Jman8]

Vaping will never be banned because vaping was never meant to be banned.

No one wants to outright ban a potential source of tax revenue, if they did smoking would be all out banned years ago. They want to scare the masses inflict wide spread panic and then get into your pockets with cigarette like taxes. Then they'll be happy leave it alone and they can suck you bones dry at a hefty 8-15% tax rate. That's their real goal here folks.

Hefty tax rate will create black market. Combustibles have a booming black market going on right now.

 

[JMarca]

I just don't get why smoking, something that looks like smoking, drinking, and probably other things that don't leap to mind, are *selected* to be "tax farms." What gives those nimrods in Washington the right? What makes those CONSUMER PRODUCTS different from every other consumer product? If they tried to do this to... oh, I dunno... electronics? housewares? pet food? everybody in the country would be rioting on Washington... so what makes these products so SPECIAL???

Andria

There is a hefty tax on drinks, you just don't see it as the consumer. Ask a bar owner, while you're at it ask him about the hoops he had to jump through to get a liquor license, although that may vary by state.

Hefty tax rate will create black market. Combustibles have a booming black market going on right now.

Yep, same as there is now on cigarettes, lots of contraband. But they won't really care I mean what else can they do? If they outright ban they go no money, if they leave it be but tax it heavily they get some money.

 

[AndriaD]

There is a hefty tax on drinks, you just don't see it as the consumer. Ask a bar owner, while you're at it ask him about the hoops he had to jump through to get a liquor license, although that may vary by state.

Yes, I did mention drinking, I'm well aware there is a federal tax on that too. What I STILL don't know is WHY! WHAT MAKES THOSE ITEMS SO SPECIAL!!!

Andria

 

[JMarca]

Yes, I did mention drinking, I'm well aware there is a federal tax on that too. What I STILL don't know is WHY! WHAT MAKES THOSE ITEMS SO SPECIAL!!!

Andria

They're addictive, therefore they're guaranteed money makers.

 

[Lurch]

I just don't get why smoking, something that looks like smoking, drinking, and probably other things that don't leap to mind, are *selected* to be "tax farms." What gives those nimrods in Washington the right? What makes those CONSUMER PRODUCTS different from every other consumer product? If they tried to do this to... oh, I dunno... electronics? housewares? pet food? everybody in the country would be rioting on Washington... so what makes these products so SPECIAL???

Andria

they are sin taxes. The majority will not complaint because it doesn't affect them. Easy to pass and even make some people happy!

 

[Jman8]

Yep, same as there is now on cigarettes, lots of contraband. But they won't really care I mean what else can they do? If they outright ban they go no money, if they leave it be but tax it heavily they get some money.

They could tax it very little, not create a black market, and make lots of money. This ain't rocket science!

 

[AndriaD]

They could tax it very little, not create a black market, and make lots of money. This ain't rocket science!

I wish I could like this post 10,000 times!

Andria