Why Vapers are getting a BAD NAME.

[cat68]

I vape in public and haven't ever had an issue. If I am somewhere that I think someone would mind, I just don't exhale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[p.opus]

I vape in public and haven't ever had an issue. If I am somewhere that I think someone would mind, I just don't exhale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a revolutionary idea!!!

but be careful not to let one little vape slip out your nostril, cause if you do, you are the reason vapers get a bad name...If you follow the twisted logic of some of the folks participating in this thread.

 

[celticluvr]

I think it really depends on where you live and other peoples tolerance levels. I have read where a few people have vaped in public for years with no trouble. I just need to be courteous to the place, time, and/or situation. This is what I do.

It's really not my business what others do and it's not my business to tell others what to do. Just my

 

[p.opus]

I think it really depends on where you live and other peoples tolerance levels. I have read where a few people have vaped in public for years with no trouble. I just need to be courteous to the place, time, and/or situation. This is what I do.

It's really not my business what others do and it's not my business to tell others what to do. Just my

Exactly. I agree 100% There are decisions I make every day regarding the circumstances.

I really don't care whether or not you choose to vape in public or not. That is your own personal decision and it is how you choose to live your life.

However, when you feel that it is necessary to apply your own standards to me, and actively tell me I should behave to YOUR standards, that is when you've crossed a line.

The problem with the OP is that they had NO idea what was going on with the woman in the waiting room vaping. They didn't know if the woman was worried to death because her child was very ill, they did not know the circumstances that brought that woman into the waiting room vaping. Further more, they never bothered to ask. Yet despite this lack of knowledge regarding this particular woman's circumstances, the OP felt it necessary to confront this woman because they were offended.

Quite frankly, if I was in the Emergency Room with one of my children clinging to life, I would be vaping my brains out, and if you wanted to confront me on something as insignificant of my vapor while I am concerned about my child, I'm going to tell you where you can stick your opinion, and I will tell you right now, I am likely to be rather rude about it......

 

[Myk]

You are over simplifying.

In the case described by the OP, a person was vaping in a doctors waiting room where children were waiting to be seen.. probably a pediatrician.

Do you think a doctors waiting room is an appropriate place to vape?

How many doctors waiting rooms are bigger than a shoebox? How do you assure that a waiting room in a medical facility has good enough ventilation to assure minimally adequate air quality for the people who sit there? You can keep people making clouds out for one. It is irrelevant what the substance might be.. its a waiting room occupied by sick people who are probably unwilling to be subjected to anything more than air.

Are you 100% confident that vaping has no adverse effects on a person or child with asthma? allergic asthma? emphysema? bronchitis? lung cancer? cystic fibrosis? pneumonia? Many respiratory conditions cause extreme sensitivity to things as benign as a flower.

When my sister was a child, she spent many summers inside because pollen and even smelling a flower caused asthmatic reactions.

It may well be that VG, PG, and even nicotine are inconsequential to the average person.. or maybe it's not.
What about the compounds in the flavors?
Run that by a respiratory specialist.

Any medical facility should prohibit vaping on site. Breathing should be permitted and nothing else.

As for outside, I couldn't care less who vapes or where.

I'm over simplifying?
Where was it mentioned that anyone's kid had a cloud blown in their face like you've been ranting about?

I've already said what I think about the OP's story and how I treat doctor's offices.

My doctor's waiting room is quite large. I would guess it to be about 1500sq/ft but at least 1000sq/ft. My last one was well over 500sq/ft. I've tried to fog up my truck and haven't been able to manage. If you haven't noticed vapor is heavy and falls to the floor and dissipates quickly.

I would hope a medical facility with sick people coming and going all the time would have good ventilation. If they don't; #1, I don't want your sick kids in there running around my potentially immune compromised self and #2, you probably shouldn't want them there either.

Are you 100% sure your sick kids won't have adverse effects on me? I guess we all have to take risks here in the dangerous kitchen.
I am pretty sure vaping won't have an adverse effect on someone with asthma since asthma inhalers use PG and I've known plenty of smokers who've had asthma. I am almost positive it would have no effect on those other things you list, especially when considering a puff in a room.
I'm sorry to hear your kids have asthma, allergic asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, lung cancer, cystic fibrosis and pneumonia. Or were you're just grasping at straws because you realize how irrational you sound?
If someone has problems with something as simple as a flower it is up to them to protect themselves, we don't have to rid the word of flowers.

The compounds in flavors has also been brought up. I'm sure whether I vape or not there are going to be flavor particles coming off my ecig, that's what flavors do. Again if you're that allergic to random things it's up to you to protect yourself in public. The whole world doesn't have to do away with peanuts because someone has a peanut allergy.
But if someone had a known allergy to something I was using I wouldn't use it around them.

Speaking of outside, wouldn't those people you are so worried about with vapor drop dead as soon as a car drove by and they got a whiff of car exhaust?
You're trying to tell me that a lung full of vapor is bad when tests say that it's not, yet car exhaust is OK when many suicides say otherwise?

 

[stevegmu]

I wonder what will happen- legislatively, when someone has a severe allergic reaction to someone's vape and dies of anaphylactic shock... If someone can be allergic to peanut dust, surely there are people severely allergic to e-liquid vapor...

 

[BillyTheWild]

No one can call you ignorant, because you have been presented with facts which you choose to ignore. You have also consciously decided to hold the ingredients in e-liquid and SHV to a standard that you don't hold to any airborne ingredient that one is exposed to. Do you hold air fresheners and the chemicals in that to the same standard? Do you only clean your home with water? No.
So when one holds one thing to one standard and something else to a much higher standard, that's not ignorance, it's hypocrisy.

Your assumption about me is wrong. Assumption, that’s the problem with debates here often times. I have never posted anything that directly compare SHV with any other “airborne ingredient that one is exposed to” – well, I have responded to other posters’ posts comparing SHV with other “airborne ingredient that one is exposed to”, but I myself have NEVER held the view that SHV should be scrutinized any less OR MORE than anything else.

The best that I can explain my position is that it’s akin to a jury in a trial. 12 persons looking at the same evident, considering the same testimonies, listening to the same arguments, can have very different view as to the guilt of the defendant. Even in trials involving science. It just happens sometimes. It’s NOT at all necessarily b/c one juror is more ignorant than another. That’s why I’ve never called any of you guys ignorant or stupid or brainwash or sell-out or spying for the ANTZ. Why couldn’t you guys simply see me as just another vaper who has a different opinion? As YOU yourself have said that cigarette was once considered harmless, for quite a long time, right? I am NOT equating cigarette with vaping, not at all. I am just asking: Is it really beyond the reasonable doubts right now with SHV? Should we just stop all further study? Should no question be asked anymore? I don’t think that’s wrong for me to ask these question. This is the best I can explain my position.

 

[BillyTheWild]

That is to say, even if we all agree that SHV is absolutely completely harmless, does it then mean that vapers can vape whenever and wherever they want? That's the question upon us here in this thread.

[…]

The problem with your assumption is that you have place yourself as the supreme authority of deciding what is good etiquette and decorum based on your own opinions. Who made you Miss Manners?

[…]

My question to you is this? Why do you feel it necessary to inject your behavior and lifestyle choices on someone else? Who made you the moral authority?

Again, here is the problem. I have never asked or required anyone to follow my view of etiquette and decorum. Never. I wouldn’t have said that if I don’t know 100% sure that I haven’t said such thing.

Sure, I have voiced my opinion quite loudly and I have argued my logic quite relentlessly. But you will NEVER find a post of mine in which I have said or suggested that everyone must follow my standard. My opinions are given here so that they can be discussed. No way have I ever called anyone name or disrespect anyone b/c they don’t have the same view in etiquette and decorum as I do. Nor have I ever said everyone must follow my standard. I challenge you to find just one post of mine that I have done that.

 

[p.opus]

I wonder what will happen- legislatively, when someone has a severe allergic reaction to someone's vape and dies of anaphylactic shock... If someone can be allergic to peanut dust, surely there are people severely allergic to e-liquid vapor...

If there were someone that sensitive to PG or VG, it is likely that it would be a problem long before this person was exposed to vape.

We are VERY unaware of just how prevalent PG and VG is used in other products. These are not exotic ingredients. They are widely used in many applications. We are exposed to PG everyday and not aware of it. Anyone who has been to a night club is exposed to more PG than anyone could get from a random cloud.

PG has been used for over 50 years in many applications and there has not been ONE documented case of anaphylactic shock due to exposure to PG or VG.

In contrast it is estimated that approximately 100 people per year die due to anaphylactic shock due to peanut allergies.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/dis...eople-die-each-year-from-peanut-allergies.htm

Since there has been no legislative efforts to ban peanuts, I would think that we would need to reach levels of 100 people or more dying from PG exposure before we can reasonably justify any legislative bans on PG.

In fact, that is why PG is often used in medical applications, because it is so well tolerated.

 

[Myk]

"Taking stuff out of context"? I'd love to know which part of my post that you're referencing to and I'll gladly frame it within the context for you.



Yes, it is. I don't agree with you on some aspect of vaping but that doesn't mean that I am an anti-vaper. And how can a vaper be a anti-vaper? By the same token, if you want to label people I can very well label you as anti-rational vaper, or a mulitant vaper, or over-zealot vaper, etc. but I didn't b/c I don't believe in name calling.




Obviously you have a different standard that I do. Which is fine. I don't force you to accept my standard and I don't call you ignorant or stupid or brainwashed. Please do give me the same respect I give you, that's all.

Generally when you start splitting up posts there's a good chance you're going to take something out of context. When you split them so far you're splitting apart paragraphs you are taking things out of context. Take your pick.

Yes when you are blaming vapers for your prediction of the end of vaping that is anti-vaper.
I really don't know how people can be against their own group so much that they get irrational about what they criticize them of but it happens all the time.
Saying I'm anti-ANTZ isn't calling me a name, it's stating a fact based on my actions. When I had long hair you could say I was an anti-hippy-hippy. I've been told I was an anti-Wiccan-Wiccan because I'm overly critical of squishy minded liberals and that's what some think you have to be.

LOL, my "different standard" doesn't parrot what the negative articles say. My "different standard" is the standard of science not public opinion.

You don't consider calling someone ignorant name calling, I disagree but that's fine, that's you opinion. But it is wrong to automatically assume someone who holds a different view than yours is being ignorant.

I guess that would explain why you think someone who is against vapers being called anti-vaper is name calling.

Ignorance is a definition, it's not up to opinion. If you are not ignorant of the facts and hold a different view than the facts state, I can only think of something that would be name calling to describe that.

 

[CabinetGuyScott]

So, b/c a word is an adjective, it is not name calling? OOOH, I see, it's not a "name" (n.) that is being called. For "name" calling, it has to be a noun like calling someone an idiot (n.), that'll be name calling. But saying someone is stupid (adj.) is not "name" calling b/c you are not calling someone a name but instead you use an adjective to describe the person. OK, I've got it. Wow, thank you for the grammar lesson. You are really smart (adj.). This really contributes a lot to the discussion on hand! Wow.

So, for the sake of this argument, how about I take it all back. It's not "name calling", fine, but it's insulting -- so, substitute the "name calling" bits in my posts with "insulting" and I will be grammatically correct, right?

Sure, I'll agree with that. Be insulted all you want. Certainly if it will make you feel better

And just how about if I offer this thought - is the term ignorant a quantitative assessment, or qualitative?

Based on your earlier observations and the definition - it strikes me that the term is being used to assess one's level of knowledge to be less than someone else.

You mentioned that you have a different set of experiences / training / knowledge than others.

So the challenge is to do a comparative analysis to ascertain if the level of knowledge is truly < or > to validate the applicability of the term.

My intent to the above phrasing is to establish, at least in my little tiny world, you are taking insult[/I (an emotion)] at a quantitative assessment that you are lacking in knowledge.

That would be like the number 2 felt like it was being insulted & it's feelings hurt because someone assessed it to be < 4

You feel insulted because someone said your personal knowledge base was less than complete in certain areas.

Oh, okay...

If it were me, and it has been on a 'couple' of occasions in my many years, I'd ask the person for specific examples that led them to assess my command of the information to be lacking, e.g., ignorance.

Not so much the 'he's calling me names...'

And btw, the contribution to the discussion is to call you out for the distraction of "he's calling me names" which is a clear attempt to demean and discredit the other person. It's really not "becoming" of a person when that's what they have to resort to...

Words actually do mean things.

 

[Myk]

First of all, I have read the Drexel report -- it's very well known; get toss around here a lot -- and many other.

Second, this thread is not even a debate on SHV harmfulness. Many posters including myself are willing to take the position, in this thread, for the sake of discussion, that SHV is indeed harmless. However, the topic here really is about etiquette and decorum. That is to say, even if we all agree that SHV is absolutely completely harmless, does it then mean that vapers can vape whenever and wherever they want? That's the question upon us here in this thread.

OK, I withdraw the ignorant comment as it applies to you. You have shown it does not apply. I don't even want to pick a word for this because as I said all I can come up with would be name calling.
So what is this training you have that makes you stick with "we just don't know" in spite of you knowing?

Yes if vaping is completely harmless vapers should be able to vape anywhere until they're told not to. Just like I can wear deodorant or fart where ever I want to until someone tells me not to.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to? Because "it looks like smoking"? Because "it's going to renormalize smoking"?

I wonder what will happen- legislatively, when someone has a severe allergic reaction to someone's vape and dies of anaphylactic shock... If someone can be allergic to peanut dust, surely there are people severely allergic to e-liquid vapor...

Possible but I haven't heard of any flavoring allergies that bad and while there are some PG/VG allergies I haven't heard of any that extreme.
I think it would be more likely to happen to a vaper and it won't necessarily be limited to an allergy.

 

[Jman8]

I'm going to stand by the ANTZ insinuation for now. To be clear, I don't think anyone that has participated in this thread is full on ANTZ, but I do think statements in this thread do support the ANTZ position.

I hear the other side of the debate saying that vaping indoors goes against common courtesy and is what I understand to be their main point. As this isn't the first thread where this has been discussed, then for some of us (myself included), this isn't the first time we've had to make these points. And these points, from the side advocating vaping indoors with respect, amounts to an argument that says vaping indoors is not inherently rude. To hear that it is rude, against common courtesy, disrespectful and similar sentiments, sounds ANTZ-like. Even if it is coming from fellow vapers who are otherwise pro-vapers.

I tried to make this point earlier by way of a question, which I'll ask again here. If a fellow vaper was in a discussion with you on a thread, and was suggesting that vaping outdoors, in public, regardless of the venue was inherently disrespectful and going against common courtesy and felt that all vapers should refrain from this, or risk giving vaping a bad name, how would respond?

I will concede that your first response, and perhaps your first 10 responses wouldn't be to think this person is ANTZ-like. Yet, if they were sticking by the point that it really doesn't matter what the venue is, and it doesn't matter if vaping is indeed harmless, the point is that vaping anywhere outdoors in public is inherently rude, how would you respond and/or assess that sort of point, given the politics that we (as a vaping community) are up against?

 

[jwoode]

If no one is present, yes. If no one is present, and I vape, and 3 seconds later someone enters that space, still a yes.

If the room is crowded, I would not vape in that space, but would just assume wait until they show you to that room where you are all by yourself for a few minutes and a vape there instead. I've already done this (twice) in 2014.

I agree with you and I think I would do the same.

Though I got a question, what if the doctor of that office said, no problem? That he/she has done the research and knows the issues, and knows all the type of patients he/she sees, and says vaping is not a problem. Is it then still a matter of disrespect to vape in that space?

Good question.. I just don't know.. I'd defer to the doctor but I'd probably be unsure about it. Probably because I have not quite become used to the idea that vaping isn't going to kill me like my 2 packs a day were going to. I'll get there in time.

3) So, out of curiosity, if fellow vapers were making the case that vaping outdoors in public was just plain rude and disrespectful, what might you think about that vaper? Would you think they are carrying the torch for ANTZ on that one, or that they have a legitimate point and would make you reconsider your actions of whether or not vaping outdoors is actually an okay thing?

Well I have personally said nothing regarding people vaping outdoors.. and I see no issue with outdoors. Outdoors is wide open space and they can walk away from my vaping just as they would when I smoked.. They are not forced to stand in my face and I wouldn't be getting in theirs.. but i would be vaping I'm sure.

The only point in this thread that bothered me was the idea that people in an enclosed medical facility.. who realistically do not have the option to leave if they want to see their doctor.. would have to accept someone vaping in a confined space with them.. especially considering that some of those people may have acute respiratory conditions. Those people's rights would be infringed in my opinion.

I think I am basically in agreement with you.

 

[LDS714]

First of all, I have read the Drexel report -- it's very well known; get toss around here a lot -- and many other.

Second, this thread is not even a debate on SHV harmfulness. Many posters including myself are willing to take the position, in this thread, for the sake of discussion, that SHV is indeed harmless. However, the topic here really is about etiquette and decorum. That is to say, even if we all agree that SHV is absolutely completely harmless, does it then mean that vapers can vape whenever and wherever they want? That's the question upon us here in this thread.

Well. If it is completely harmless, why not?

I'm sick of bowing down and kissing the ring of the easily offended. They need to either toughen up (as in grow some callouses) or shut up. Screw 'em.

 

[Jman8]

Well I have personally said nothing regarding people vaping outdoors.. and I see no issue with outdoors. Outdoors is wide open space and they can walk away from my vaping just as they would when I smoked.. They are not forced to stand in my face and I wouldn't be getting in theirs.. but i would be vaping I'm sure.

The only point in this thread that bothered me was the idea that people in an enclosed medical facility.. who realistically do not have the option to leave if they want to see their doctor.. would have to accept someone vaping in a confined space with them.. especially considering that some of those people may have acute respiratory conditions. Those people's rights would be infringed in my opinion.

I think I am basically in agreement with you.

And I liked your post because of what you said and how you said it.

But I am still curious about the question of being confronted by a fellow vaper who is suggesting that vaping is getting a bad name because of people who do it in public outdoors. This person is saying it is inherently rude to do it there.

If if helps, I can play that role and feel I could come up with a couple 'logical' reasons for not vaping in public outdoors. To be clear though, I would be borrowing the line of 'common courtesy' as one of my logical reasons for not doing it outdoors. But I can think of other reasons (all ones I could also debunk).

Regarding the confined space thing, I don't see it as an issue like you do. I would go as far as saying vaping in an elevator is not inherently rude or disrespectful. I may not choose to do it there, but again, there are a few scenarios of a space that confined that would lead me to say, heck ya I'm vaping here.

 

[BillyTheWild]

Generally when you start splitting up posts there's a good chance you're going to take something out of context. When you split them so far you're splitting apart paragraphs you are taking things out of context. Take your pick.
Yes when you are blaming vapers for your prediction of the end of vaping that is anti-vaper.

I really don't know how people can be against their own group so much that they get irrational about what they criticize them of but it happens all the time.

Saying I'm anti-ANTZ isn't calling me a name, it's stating a fact based on my actions. When I had long hair you could say I was an anti-hippy-hippy. I've been told I was an anti-Wiccan-Wiccan because I'm overly critical of squishy minded liberals and that's what some think you have to be.

LOL, my "different standard" doesn't parrot what the negative articles say. My "different standard" is the standard of science not public opinion.

You don't consider calling someone ignorant name calling, I disagree but that's fine, that's you opinion. But it is wrong to automatically assume someone who holds a different view than yours is being ignorant.

I guess that would explain why you think someone who is against vapers being called anti-vaper is name calling.

Ignorance is a definition, it's not up to opinion. If you are not ignorant of the facts and hold a different view than the facts state, I can only think of something that would be name calling to describe that.

First, I break up your post b/c it is easier, IMO, to follow the debate. Especially for long posts. Otherwise it’s very tedious and confusing for everone, IMO. Having said that, if you feel / think that any of my citation of your post is misleading or otherwise do your post injustice, please feel free to alert me of that and I’ll gladly correct it. I’ll not break up your post this time … we’ll see if this is better.

Second, you have obviously confused me with another poster when you say “when you are blaming vapers for your prediction of the end of vaping that is anti-vaper.” I have never made any prediction as to the fate of vaping. Never!

Third, calling anyone ignorant, it is an opinion, not fact based. How can that be fact based when the same person being called ignorant by one group can be called a genius by another? Just for example, I will call Todd Akin (you know the ‘legitimate rape” guy) ignorant but I am sure his supporters will not call him that? So how it is based on fact? It’s purely a person’s opinion.

Fourth, I also disagree when you say “LOL, my "different standard" doesn't parrot what the negative articles say. My "different standard" is the standard of science not public opinion.”

I take that you mean that there have been scientist studies that point to the harmlessness of SHV and therefore it’s a matter of standard of science now but not a matter of public opinion. Well, as I have explained, it takes a lot for scientists to really come to a consensus with a lot of things. One camp of scientists may conduct studies and conclude that X=Y. Low and behold, another camp of scientists may conduct their own studies and conclude that X is not = Y. Trust me, it happens a lot! Like I said before, as brilliant as Einstein and Neil Bohr were, two very intelligent scientists, they actually held quite opposite view on a very scientific subject! Do any one of them call the other unscientific? Ignorant? No they didn’t. Do we call any one of the two unscientific? Ignorant? No we don’t. One scientist’s fact can very well be another scientist’s friction. It happens a lot.

So, it’s a weak argument to say that b/c some studies out there have indicated that SHV is harmless and therefore it is now an undisputable fact! 15, 20 years or even longer in scientific studies on subjects such those regarding health and physiology are more of a norm than exception! Before I leave this post I feel that I must re-emphasize the fact that I’ve never said SHV is harmful. And, I have never bought into any “negative” study only b/c it is negative just as I have never bought into any “positive” study only b/c it is positive. I scrutinize EVERY study with the same vigor and diligence.

 

[BillyTheWild]

Sure, I'll agree with that. Be insulted all you want. Certainly if it will make you feel better

And just how about if I offer this thought - is the term ignorant a quantitative assessment, or qualitative?

Based on your earlier observations and the definition - it strikes me that the term is being used to assess one's level of knowledge to be less than someone else.

You mentioned that you have a different set of experiences / training / knowledge than others.

So the challenge is to do a comparative analysis to ascertain if the level of knowledge is truly < or > to validate the applicability of the term.

My intent to the above phrasing is to establish, at least in my little tiny world, you are taking insult[/I (an emotion)] at a quantitative assessment that you are lacking in knowledge.

That would be like the number 2 felt like it was being insulted & it's feelings hurt because someone assessed it to be < 4

You feel insulted because someone said your personal knowledge base was less than complete in certain areas.

Oh, okay...

If it were me, and it has been on a 'couple' of occasions in my many years, I'd ask the person for specific examples that led them to assess my command of the information to be lacking, e.g., ignorance.

Not so much the 'he's calling me names...'

And btw, the contribution to the discussion is to call you out for the distraction of "he's calling me names" which is a clear attempt to demean and discredit the other person. It's really not "becoming" of a person when that's what they have to resort to...

Words actually do mean things.

Again, thank you for the English lesson. I appreciate it. Sooo, back to the subject, shall we?

 

[Jman8]

So, it’s a weak argument to say that b/c some studies out there have indicated that SHV is harmless and therefore it is now an undisputable fact!

Which incidentally is how I argue that SHS as harmful is NOT an undisputed fact. It is disputed, and hence, we can't even say with 100% certainty that SHS is harmful. I for sure think it is false to suggest that science says SHS causes cancer, but alas, I'm opening up another can of worms that just so happens to have everything to do with the main contention in this thread.

 

[jwoode]

A couple things.

1. What would your feeling be if the vaper in question had NOT expelled a cloud? Still a problem?

I wouldn't see a problem if no vapor cloud were expelled in a closed space with potentially sick people with unknown conditions.
Those people's rights have not been infringed.

2. What would your feeling be if the vaper in question had used a Nicotrol Inhaler? Still a problem?

A nicotine inhaler does not produce any phenomena that anyone could object to.
Again, no person's right have been infringed.

One problem with your statement is that you make an assumption that there is some inherent risk in the contents of PG and VG. And if your concerns about what is in your e-juice is that great, then I suggest you stop using it yourself. You still have the infamous FDA antifreeze statement on your mind. I suggest you actually research PG and VG and it's uses. I also suggest you look at the flavors being used. All these items are generally classified as safe by the FDA.

I'm not assuming anything. It is a fact that many flavors are naturally produced. The sources of many of those flavors can produce reactions in a child with cystic fibrosis, for example. I'm not discounting the drexel report.. I read it before I considered switching to vaping. I do not argue that it is very highly probable that vaping has no adverse effect on humans. But.. and it is a large but.. the circumstance described that we are all apparently arguing about is very specific.

Is it safe to vape in a doctors office waiting room where people with unknown medical conditions are sitting in an enclosed space with a vaper? The drexel report dose not address this question and the answer is far from certain. When they do a study on how children with various life threatening medical conditions react to all the compounds in vapor, then we will know.

I don't need a kid in a waiting room going into seizure to know blowing a cloud of strawberry malt with a touch of orange pineapple was a bad idea when he can't be exposed to strawberries.