Howdy ECF,
I was thinking of posting this as part of my reply to another thread, but I didn't want to take things too far off topic, so I thought I'd start my first thread with it. I realize, even before getting started with this post, that my POV probably won't be too popular here, but I'd like to share it here anyway because I honestly don't have anywhere else to share it.
Though I understand the reasoning behind it, it's puzzling to me that vapers expect to be treated differently than smokers when it comes to their (our) right to vape. Yes, I understand that it's just vapor (that is, after all, why I traded smoking for vaping), and that it is, as far as current studies have shown, harmless as second-hand. No harm, no foul, right? I agree. But even so, why should we expect to be allowed to vape in places that we weren't allowed to smoke? Let's face it, a lot of vapers (I'm inclined to say most/all, but I could very well be wrong about that) on this forum are/were smokers--it's not as though we're being treated any differently since picking up the "vaper" label. There certainly aren't additional restrictions being placed on us because we partake in a vape instead of a smoke.
The way I look at it: we get to enjoy something that is a very close approximation of smoking that isn't as harmful as actually smoking. That we can even have that is enough for me. I'll keep it outdoors, 25 feet away from doors and operable windows, away from dining areas, away from schools, away from children and pregnant women, etc. to be able to have that one thing. Vaping at it's core, to me, is about being able to stop smoking tobacco while keeping up the act of smoking at less risk to my health (that and it makes for a heck a tinkerer's hobby)--not about being able to have nicotine when- and wherever I want. As awesome as that would be, I don't ever expect that to become reality. It's kinda crazy to me that so many vapers do expect that reality. Especially when so little research has been done to determine what, if any, health risks there are to vaping and to secondhand vapor. Until the scientific community says there are no risks, I really don't think that it's realistic to expect that we'll be treated differently than smokers. There's just no way the non-vaping public will make a distinction between vaping and smoking until it is becomes scientifically accepted fact that secondhand vapor is harmless. And honestly, I'm ok with that. I know that many of you aren't, and I respect that we have differing opinions on the matter.
Anyhow, I see so much, "Our right to vape is in jeopardy," and so many opinions insisting that we should be able to vape anywhere and everywhere that I felt compelled to share a more moderate perspective: as much as it would suck if vaping wound up being no different than smoking socially and legally, it's not that big a deal. We still get to vape, and we're still better off than we were smoking analogs. I'm all for promoting our right to vape, but let's not forget why we got into vaping in the first place...as long as there isn't an outright ban we're still in pretty good shape. Thanks for reading.
Best wishes to you all,
Scott
A NON-Smokers opinion:
Im not a smoker and never have been. I know it is out of the norm but I am also not the only one here as I have pleasantly discovered. I Vape for relaxation purposes to help alleviate anxiety. Vaping is more practical, especially in social settings, than other relaxation techniques.
With that said, I obviously am a strong believer in keeping cigarette smoking out of communal areas as it has definitely been proven harmful many years ago. The molecular make-up of vapor and smoke are like comparing apples to oranges. I agree that their could be a possible danger from the direct inhalation of vapor because of the possible chemical reaction between the ingredients in the liquids, the substances in our atmosphere and, of course, heat. But this is only an admission of a possible danger. "Second hand" vapor is a completely different ball game. As soon as vapor is released into atmosphere, it immediately starts to cool. This is especially true with the vapor being released from a persons mouth because it would surely be well under the boiling temperature. When vapor starts to cool, it starts to condense and stick to particles in the air. It quickly becomes much larger droplets that can not be sustained in the air so they start to fall. They would be very heavy for someone to just inhale. Thus even if the vapor being emitted from Vaper had potentially harmful qualities, it would be unlikely that it would ever make it to another's lungs. Unless you put French kissing and vaping together (hmmmmm, interesting idea)
Also, many cultures have been using vapor for centuries within their health practices and most of their life expectancy rates surpass the U.S. And if you know anyone with severe asthma, COPD, Bronchitis, etc, then you have probably seen a nebulizer: a medicated vapor delivery system and it has obviously been deemed safe. My point is that regulation has NOTHING to do with health risks even though they would love for you to buy into that....
I respect all sides of this argument but I certainly lean towards less regulation. We have enough regulation (except for the things that should be, not gonna get political in here) I do NOT necessarily need to vape so I can wait to vape if I have to but I don't think I should have to. The more regulated it is, the more the general public will keep having negative assumptions and villainize it. Even worse, people who would benefit from vaping will continue to be skeptical and that is just sad. If Vaping is regulated, Vapers will be put into a negative social category by default. Its a perpetuating negative cycle that will hurt the vaping movement which will affect all of us who need or enjoy it. This is how the "man" kills things he doesn't like or cant control (ok, just one political statement, lol)
Either way, thanks for the post. These conversations need to be started. Friendly debating helps ideas and opinions evolve...
