Why can't they just leave us alone?

[generic mutant]

Well, what I'm getting from more googling, and reading the blogs that Kristin linked (though I haven't finished yet - some of them are very good, so thanks for that), is that:

* Nicotine or its metabolites are basically proven to cause cancerous mutations in vitro. There isn't that much research on it, but what exists seems pretty conclusive.
* That's in scientifically interesting doses only, and might not be true at all in clinically relevant doses.
* In clinically relevant doses, there's more evidence that nicotine may 'promote' some tumours.
* The epidemiology linking NRT / snus and cancer is thin, and usually biased. If there is a link, it's a very small one - and it may well be that even that dissolves into confounding variables (like sneaking a ciggie, or being an ex-smoker, or still living with or being friends with smokers...) given time and more study.

My tentative practical conclusions are basically the same as what I started with, viz.:

* NRT and e-cigarettes aren't necessarily safe, but they're so overwhelmingly safer than cigarettes that there's not really much point directly comparing them
* At the individual level, they might be sufficiently safe to effectively say "they're harmless".
* At the population level, they might cause detectable harm, more study is needed.

 

[Robino1]

All I'm saying is if we're on the side of the truth, we have little to fear.

Unfortunately, that is untrue. I truly wish that was the case. They have passed laws in different communities banning vaping in the US based on the lies by the ANTZ.

Even if vaping was ever proven to be 100% safe without any possibility of being harmful, there are people in power that would still fight to ban them.

Truth does not always overcome.

 

[generic mutant]

I said "little to fear", not nothing. I don't doubt that it might be banned for no reason in various places, for a while.

But the wind is blowing against irrational drug laws, and towards harm reduction. There are now many well placed scientists and medical researchers, criminologists and sociologists, economists and politicians who are asking the previously unaskable questions.

Frankly, e-cigarettes are a very small front in a very big war, but it is one that is being slowly won by reason.

 

[CGlassford]

I love reading threads like this. It gives me a view of what it's like outside of the area I'm living in. I have had ZERO hassles about vaping. The people in this area seem to be all for it. The closest thing to a "hassle" I've had was a non smoker standing nearby while another vapor and I were comparing notes on our different devices at an outdoor event. She says "Maybe you shouldn't puff on those things so openly here." When we asked why not, her reply was "I don't know if it's legal." We just laughed and went back to our discussion.

I wear my pv on a lanyard so it's out there wether I'm puffing on it or not. Mostly I'm asked "Do those really make a difference?" or I'm told "My Aunt has one of those. She LOVES it!"

I have teen-age daughters and several of their friends have many questions for me about vaping so they can take the info back to their parents who smoke. I always tell them to check out ECF.

I vape somewhat discreetly in grocery stores, Wally World, restaraunts and very stealthy in movie theaters. Family and friends that smoke or not are all live and let live.

Like I said, I love reading posts like this. It makes me feel very lucky.

 

[SupplyDaddy]

I've actually been lucky.. Was working around Law Enforcement when I switched.. a few questions which I easily answered.. or made a big joke that won them over..
I've had people roll down their windows in vehicles next to me asking about "those things" and they seemed positive.. Have a "Vaping Lounge" 15 minutes from me and the few social type events I go to are fully open to vaping (they better be cause they are into some weird things in My social groups.. )

Just be you and vape on!

 

[Robino1]

I said "little to fear", not nothing. I don't doubt that it might be banned for no reason in various places, for a while.

But the wind is blowing against irrational drug laws, and towards harm reduction. There are now many well placed scientists and medical researchers, criminologists and sociologists, economists and politicians who are asking the previously unaskable questions.

Frankly, e-cigarettes are a very small front in a very big war, but it is one that is being slowly won by reason.

Have you checked out the Legislative Forum yet? You can find it here: Legislation News
There are instances where the bill against vaping is shot down then the person writing or sponsoring the bill gets it attached to other pending bills that have nothing whatsoever to do with vaping. Those people are trying to sneak their views in by the back door. Thank god we have vigilant people that understand politics watching for these sneak attacks.

 

[Robino1]

It's not just the FDA that we have to worry about.
Once a door is shut on vaping, it will be extremely hard to get it open.

 

[Butters78]

I've actually been lucky.. Was working around Law Enforcement when I switched.. a few questions which I easily answered.. or made a big joke that won them over..
I've had people roll down their windows in vehicles next to me asking about "those things" and they seemed positive.. Have a "Vaping Lounge" 15 minutes from me and the few social type events I go to are fully open to vaping (they better be cause they are into some weird things in My social groups.. )

Just be you and vape on!

Vaporessence? or is there another place I don't know about? lol.

 

[generic mutant]

I'm not trying to detract from the importance of local struggle for individual people.

For many, if vaping is banned, they will be effectively forced back to smoking cigarettes, and some of them will die.

I'm just saying that if you look at the wider war over the question; "How do we respond socially to people deliberately intoxicating themselves in a harmful way?", it's more or less over. The science has been decided.

It's much like racial purity, phrenology and racism. It isn't that local incidents of racism are any less horrible, just that the debate has been lost, and only the opposite side, in a sense, has a future.

 

[SupplyDaddy]

Vaporessence? or is there another place I don't know about? lol.

Thanks for Vaping.. On San Pedro near SAC!!

 

[Robino1]

I'm not trying to detract from the importance of local struggle for individual people.

For many, if vaping is banned, they will be effectively forced back to smoking cigarettes, and some of them will die.

I'm just saying that if you look at the wider war over the question; "How do we respond socially to people deliberately intoxicating themselves in a harmful way?", it's more or less over. The science has been decided.

It's much like racial purity, phrenology and racism. It isn't that local incidents of racism are any less horrible, just that the debate has been lost, and only one side, in a sense, has a future.

But it's in the small view where it starts, then the sickness spreads, slowly but insidiously. Look at what happened with smoking bans.
That started at the local level and people thought "that won't happen here" and then, before you knew it, it was country wide.

 

[generic mutant]

I personally support the smoking bans, on the strength of evidence I've seen that smoke harms other people.

If the fight you're fighting is 'Pro-vape', then sure, you might end up losing. If the fight you're fighting is 'Rational, evidence-led laws and medical interventions to minimise individual and social harm caused by drugs, with the recognition of the fact that people take drugs and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it', then I think you've won already on paper... it's just that politics often takes a while to catch up...

 

[Robino1]

Rational evidence-led laws?
Really?

 

[generic mutant]

Yes. Drug use, criminality associated with drug use, medical harm associated with drug use... All used to be 'moral problems', and have slowly morphed into technical questions of social policy. Questions amenable to rational analysis.

Around the democratic world especially, though other places too, moralising governments are in retreat. The 'harm reduction' lot simply won the argument.

 

[Robino1]

I'm beating my head against a brick wall aren't I?

SMH

 

[generic mutant]

Libertarian, I'm guessing? Well, you either support freedom for all drugs (e.g. shops can push crack ....... to your children), or you support laws against some of them in some circumstances.

The only point I'm making is that the debate over whether we should stamp out the evil drug users is over. We finally realised we can't, and we have to deal with them as they are. All that's left are questions of implementation.

 

[AngelsBreath]

I never realized that my rant would cause such a stir...but I'm glad it did. This has become a very informative thread and I am learning and reading a great deal on the subject of vaping and the laws as well as the ANTZ. I would personally like to thank everyone who is participating, for helping me to understand so much more than I did when I posted this 'rant' Thank you all so much!

 

[kristin]

I personally support the smoking bans, on the strength of evidence I've seen that smoke harms other people.

Where is this "strong evidence" of harm to non-smokers that justifies banning smoking on beaches and in parks and parking lots? Or even in well-ventilated bars and restaurants? Or faint whiffs creeping through apartment air ducts? I have yet to see any and I've looked. And now they are banning even smokeless products, too - with NO evidence of harm to bystanders at all.

All documented cases in research of lung cancer related to second hand smoke occurred with the spouses of heavy smokers over decades of such high exposure that they may as well have been smoking themselves and not brief public exposure. There is no evidence that occasional public exposure increases cancer risk anywhere near enough to justify public bans. All but one category in one of the studies in the Surgeon General's report showed a relative risk barely over 2.0 for workplace exposure, the rest were under 2.0. If anything, the "strong evidence" they have only justifies banning smoking in homes with adult non-smokers and that is a whole other can of worms.

If you believe that the ANTZ have provided strong evidence to ban smoking in public places then be prepared to support the ban of vaping in all of those places, too. Because they will use exactly the same kind of "science" to ban vaping. In fact, they already are.

(For the record, CASAA takes no position on smoking bans that do not attempt to include e-cigarettes or smokeless, so this is my personal opinion.)

 

[MonkInsane]

I personally support the smoking bans, on the strength of evidence I've seen that smoke harms other people.

If the fight you're fighting is 'Pro-vape', then sure, you might end up losing. If the fight you're fighting is 'Rational, evidence-led laws and medical interventions to minimise individual and social harm caused by drugs, with the recognition of the fact that people take drugs and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it', then I think you've won already on paper... it's just that politics often takes a while to catch up...

I agree with generic_mutant about the smoking bans (two weeks ago I wouldn't have LOL). We know that second hand smoke is harmfull and at the very least irratating to others. They have a right to not breathe in toxins (well no more than whats allready in the air we breathe). But vaping has no second hand smoke so it only affects the person vaping.

Governments are being ruled by petty politics and hidden agendas, if we can bring these agendas out of the shadows (I'm talking tangable evidence, we all know big pharma / tobacco are at the reigns, tricky part is proving it and making it stick ) and into public light, we could strike a major blow for our right to vape.

 

[RosaJ]

Where is this "strong evidence" of harm to non-smokers that justifies banning smoking on beaches and in parks and parking lots? Or even in well-ventilated bars and restaurants? Or faint whiffs creeping through apartment air ducts? I have yet to see any and I've looked. And now they are banning even smokeless products, too - with NO evidence of harm to bystanders at all.

All documented cases in research of lung cancer related to second hand smoke occurred with the spouses of heavy smokers over decades of such high exposure that they may as well have been smoking themselves and not brief public exposure. There is no evidence that occasional public exposure increases cancer risk anywhere near enough to justify public bans. All but one category in one of the studies in the Surgeon General's report showed a relative risk barely over 2.0 for workplace exposure, the rest were under 2.0. If anything, the "strong evidence" they have only justifies banning smoking in homes with adult non-smokers and that is a whole other can of worms.

If you believe that the ANTZ have provided strong evidence to ban smoking in public places then be prepared to support the ban of vaping in all of those places, too. Because they will use exactly the same kind of "science" to ban vaping. In fact, they already are.

(For the record, CASAA takes no position on smoking bans that do not attempt to include e-cigarettes or smokeless, so this is my personal opinion.)

I love your posts Kristin!

"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler's Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany. (Brainwashing).