Watch CASAA on HuffPost Live Wednesday!

[Berylanna]

I sent Carl the link to this thread - hopefully he'll set us straight.

But I always keep in mind that there were plenty of studies showing ETS poses no significant health risk to bystanders in public places (and especially outdoors) and none that show it IS a real health risk in public, yet the ANTZ were still able to get smoking banned just about everywhere. Unfortunately, I think it will take much more than studies showing that the vapor isn't a threat to bystanders to keep the ANTZ from getting these bans passed.

THANKS for forwarding the question!

Those studies were based upon actual ETS only, and by definition would have been invalid if we already knew by then that even smoke from campfires and stove fires is a cancer contributor.

The difference with vapor is that we know EXACTLY everything that comes out. Not 6000 chemicals, it is 3 chemicals + food flavorings. So if we know that all 4 of those things are already in the air, we know it's no more harmful than restaurant air.

And notice I did NOT say harmless! I would not be at all surprised to find that studies of cooks or waitresses show that restaurant air is not as safe as, say, beach air. That is another reason I keep emphasizing the fajita connection (sizzling plates at the next table that are STILL cooking, emittting oils into the air!)

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

I can NOT buy the argument I hear from my Libertarian friends that it is OK for them to risk permanent harm to my children until it is proven non-harmful, and the proper remedy is a later lawsuit. Lawsuits do not undo such harm. I 100% agree with you that harm must be PROVEN before banning sales and private use of something, and even then it is arguable -- IMO there is a difference between what should be sellable in liquor stores vs. toy stores.

But the ONLY reason I'll vape upwind of my or ANYBODY ELSE's grandchildren is the collection of data and studies now available to THR advocates.

I also agree that all those other [unprintable] things the ANTZ say have to be countered at the Federal and regulatory level. But the state and city and landlord level is supposedly based upon bystander harm, and support for them is DEFINIITELY based upon a perception of bystander risk. So when talking where the public can hear, at the state level and below, I'd like to see us make sure that the FIRST thing we do is make the strongest scientifically-correct statement possible about our knowledge concerning SHV.

 

[carlvphillips]

Can someone ask Dr. Phillips? If we can just say right off the top that recent studies PROVE that second-hand vapor has no more risk than cooking odors, then we can say RIGHT AWAY that cooking odors are also not FDA-approved, and do they think those should be banned in restaurants and private homes?

[Edit: I think one reason the ANTZ keeps harping on all of those other issues is BECAUSE they know we'll win if we can focus on second-hand vapor safety instead of letting all their hand-waving distract from that issue.]

It certainly seems a safe bet to conclude that restaurant kitchens, cooking at home, wood fires, new carpet, and any number of other things create more indoor air pollution than vaping, but it is hard to be sure about every last chemical. Saying "this appears to be less of a pollutant than...." is certainly a valid argument to make based on what knowledge we have, and we plan to offer some more formal comparisons. Unfortunately, there seems to be only one study that actually measured the environmental ("second hand") product of actual vaping (Schripp 2012) -- all the other studies of the chemistry just looked at the vapor minus the vaper, so measured the exposure of the vaper, not the bystander.

And I suspect you are half right about the tactics. They know that eventually we will have enough data to make this point. However, this crowd does not hesitate to just change their arguments as they go, pretending that they never made the previous arguments. For a decade, they claimed that smokeless tobacco causes oral cancer. When finally it was impossible to keep up that story (more than five years after it became clearly unsupportable), they made up a claim about pancreatic cancer, which was then debunked, so they moved on. They are confident they can just memory-hole their past claims ("smoke-free society by 2010", anyone?) without cost.

 

[Vocalek]

And what I find egregious about their bait and switch game is replacing "smoking-related" with "tobacco-related" and setting the goal for a "tobacco-free" world, instead of "smoke-free."

 

[DC2]

And what I find egregious about their bait and switch game is replacing "smoking-related" with "tobacco-related" and setting the goal for a "tobacco-free" world, instead of "smoke-free."

This is the thing that pisses me off more than anything.

Honestly, I could care less about tobacco, but the lie is just so bald-faced...
And the public is so gullible...

And the ANTZ are so confident that they can get away with it...
And what's worse, so far they are 100% right that they can...

It seriously makes me want to work in a post office.

It's a complete and total perversion of reality.
And it seems to be working.

 

[Berylanna]

It certainly seems a safe bet to conclude that restaurant kitchens, cooking at home, wood fires, new carpet, and any number of other things create more indoor air pollution than vaping, but it is hard to be sure about every last chemical. Saying "this appears to be less of a pollutant than...." is certainly a valid argument to make based on what knowledge we have, and we plan to offer some more formal comparisons. Unfortunately, there seems to be only one study that actually measured the environmental ("second hand") product of actual vaping (Schripp 2012) -- all the other studies of the chemistry just looked at the vapor minus the vaper, so measured the exposure of the vaper, not the bystander.

And I suspect you are half right about the tactics. They know that eventually we will have enough data to make this point. However, this crowd does not hesitate to just change their arguments as they go, pretending that they never made the previous arguments. For a decade, they claimed that smokeless tobacco causes oral cancer. When finally it was impossible to keep up that story (more than five years after it became clearly unsupportable), they made up a claim about pancreatic cancer, which was then debunked, so they moved on. They are confident they can just memory-hole their past claims ("smoke-free society by 2010", anyone?) without cost.

I believe you wrt regulators, and legislators, and city councils etc.

HOWEVER, I think the second-hand-harm issue is the ONLY argument that the average moderate or liberal cares about (conservatives also care about freedom, but remember, in California, NOBODY outside of Tahoe and Death Valley consider it a hardship to go outside!!!!) And as goes California, eventually there goes the nation.

And I can't see how the studies are not enough. The Clear Stream study studied nicotine in people in room with vapers, and the rest of the studies show nothing bad comes OUT of an e-cig to begin with, so how can anybody claim we do not know the second-hand harm? Unlike smoke, which contains 6000+ chemicals, vape does not. Saying vapor is 9-450 times safer than smoke is too weak --- that is for ONE chemical in smoke.

Is it not already proven that there's nothing in vapor that is not allowed in restaurant air? PG is allowed, VG would come from some of the foods when cooked, especially with artificial flavors, food flavorings would come from the foods, nicotine has been shown to NOT be a problem in those quantities any more than coffee steam would be. So why can't we say "we are not putting anything into the air that restaurants don't put into the air except nicotine and that is the same strength as coffee steam, and the same kind of stimulant poison. So it does NOTHING for the air quality to ban vaping unless coffee and hot food are also banned in the same venue."

One ANTZ person recently asked "Do you think it should be allowed for teachers to vape in front of the classroom?"

My answer to that would be "Why are you trying to ban prayer in hospitals and private homes?" because that is their implication, that anything they don't ban everywhere is OK in front of the classroom.

IMO we also need to make it clear that we are NOT asking for it to be legal to vape anywhere, we are asking for it to be up to the property owners (with the exception of outdoor public property, where we pose no fire danger AND we are all part-owners.) I noticed that SEVERAL of the Connecticut speakers made a major point of this, and I bet it counted coup.

CASAA tried to make some of these points today and got cut off, and the camera went back to Cynthia.

 

[Paulette]

It was definitely a plus that the host obviously thought the ANTZ arguments were ridiculous. Too bad it wasn't a longer segment.

I totally agree with this! I couldn't believe the 1/2 hour was up when it was. I was disappointed too that Greg didn't get to speak as much as they should have allowed him, but Dr. Siegel was awesome!

 

[Lilkurty]

Thanks for posting this. I watched last night and commented (along with about 400 or so others!). As one who is certainly concerned about the future of vaping but not necessarily immersed in all of the back story, from my point of view being a relative newbie, I thought this was well done. It is important to include those that think vaping is bad as it really highlights the lack of a point that they make. It is also important to hear the arguments made based on theory and not science as one can form their own opinion and quickly come to the conclusion that the anti views are very weak and not based on science. The gentleman from CASSA did well in rebutting the anti lady (Cynthia?). It just appears that because they don't like it and are making assumptions about it that it should be banned.
The funniest part for me was when it was referenced that somehow you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a smoker and a vaper. I can tell immediately even if someone has a cig-a-like!!!


Also, I think that the hose was truly surprised by the number of responses that he was getting during his broadcast as he mentioned it a couple of times!!

 

[jtpjc]

Well, we can dissect and analyze and discuss all we want, matter of fact is that this was the greatest, relevant, factual public discussion about ecigs up-to-date. Kudos to the host.

 

[Berylanna]

Well, we can dissect and analyze and discuss all we want, matter of fact is that this was the greatest, relevant, factual public discussion about ecigs up-to-date. Kudos to the host.

You are right. I was wrong. Is there something I can take for ANTZ-allergy?

 

[Petrodus]

You are right. I was wrong. Is there something I can take for ANTZ-allergy?

A shot of Jack ... works for me

 

[Semiretired]

Well, we can dissect and analyze and discuss all we want, matter of fact is that this was the greatest, relevant, factual public discussion about ecigs up-to-date. Kudos to the host.

Totally agree... Now if we could only get more like it...

 

[2coils]

Okay, I watched it and I thought it was absolutely fantastic.

Sorry you weren't so happy with it Berylanna.


I agree that Dr. Siegel was awesome.
And he really looks and sounds like someone people can trust.


I think this was a great debate, and it touched on almost every relevant point.
This might be the first time an ANTZ ever dared debate this topic in public, and it might very well be the last.

And as a final note, the host was excellent, and I seriously think he might be a vaper.
Either way, he was certainly well-prepared.

Its disgusting to think that Ms. Cynthia Hallett believes the bull crap that comes out of her mouth. Utter nonsense. Dr. Siegel was great as was the host.