Why Vapers are getting a BAD NAME.

[zoiDman]

...

ecig advocates could address a specific harm that is being claimed, for sure, and we should. But we can't prove something is safe, ever.

...

Things can be Shown t be "GRAS". And there are Establish Exposure Limits to Chemical Compounds by Agencies like OSHA.

But where the Huge Hang Up occurs is What is an e-liquid?

Is the e-liquid your Using as GRAS as the e-Liquid I'm Using? And are Both as GRAS as say an e-Liquid that was Tested in a Study?

Hard to say seeing there are No Standards for what a Person can Put in an e-Liquid.

Everyone is Waiting on the FDA.

 

[Bramble]

These tests have already been done and published. No effect on nic blood levels after 10 hours in a sealed chamber with vapers.

It doesn't matter. If someone from a trusted organization says it puts that stuff in the air, then it must be dangerous.

I listened to someone from the American Cancer Society talk for 1/2 hour about the tragedies he's seen as an oncologist, the harm from smoke. He never SAID that vapor would cause that harm. He just talked about it for 1/2 hour then said we should keep people, especially pregnant women, away from 2nd-hand vapor. Two statements back-to-back.

The impact on politicians: they must be related, right?

The "bad guys" in Stargate could resurrect someone nearly an infinite number of times, after they have died. Didn't even have to be immediate as long as it was soon-ish. That's what sarcophagi were used for in that show.

We kill it, they resurrect it. Infinitely.

Clearly I need to see Stargate LOL

Well, listening to the audio from the last reading of Rep. Ray's latest ban bill, they did a similar thing. Although we already have laws against providing eCigs to minors, they spent something like 45 minutes talking about why kids should not have them, which is not not portion of the bill opposed by anyone. They gave the opposing side like 10 minutes to address the online sales ban and "manufacturing controls" that we are opposed to, so the real issues of the bill didn't get heard at all.

I have likewise noticed how quickly the ANTZ jump from smoking harms to vaping again with no shred of evidence that one is even related to the other.

I would love to see the study showing that second hand vapor does not affect blood nic levels. If not available online would you know by chance who I could request it from?

 

[Bramble]

These tests have already been done and published. No effect on nic blood levels after 10 hours in a sealed chamber with vapers.

[...]

Actually, thanks for the explanation, and I have already found some studies

 

[Myk]

I agree, people can be extremely disrespectful it's ridiculous. Studies have found that vapor still contains carcinogens that second hand smoke from a cigarette would contain. It may not contain as much as a regular cigarette would but it still effects everyone around you who is exposed to your vapor. We are losing our rights very quickly, and we finally found a better alternative to smoking, but there's always someone who has to screw that up for everyone else. Stealth vaping is NOT okay when you're around people, especially children. Get your heads together people.

Right there is the reason we will lose. It has nothing to do with rude vapers. It has everything to do with the ANTZ brainwashing so well they even convince vapers to believe them and so deftly parrot the claims as to get by any mincing of words (they do contain what is claimed) and then making the ludicrous jump to claiming it affects those around it without actually claiming any harm. Assuming this person is legit (I haven't looked to decide) this is a perfect example why vaping will probably end up dead.

Look at what Myk said about Never EVER seeing people Blowing Clouds in Restaurants.

Even worse, I don't see people vaping at all. The only people I hear of vaping is people hiding at work hoping not to be told to go outside and a rare person in a restaurant where my nephew allowed it. No clouds because the vapers are rare. I'm sure there will be rude people once more people vape.

Of Course they Are. But that Isn't the Only Factor.

So If it is All About Money, which Bans Aren't but it is Part of It, can a Reasonably Intelligent person figure out a Way that they Can Make Money but we can get Most of what we Want?

Because if a Person Could, then those who You Say are Against Us would Suddenly be on Our Side. Because they could see a Way to Make More Money.

I'll leave you to think about that, Because I have to meet with Someone today.

Bans have everything to do with the money. Pushing vapers out with smokers is like making an alcoholic drink water in a bar. Enough will give in to keep people paying your tax, buying your NRTs and getting smoking diseases.

Kind of true. If you look at the acceptable levels of metals and toxins in USP Glycerin you have to admit they're there. Unless, a manufacturer is doing above the minimum refinement necessary. LOL! I made myself laugh...MSDS. As far as carcinogens... it's feasible. There's an allowance of 5PPMs of heavy metals. Pretty sure vaporizing a heavy metal, even in PPMs, produces carcinogens. But, probably less than in the air I'm breathing right now. Could be wrong... just thinking out loud.

Heavy metals don't change from what I know. They either are carcinogens or aren't. Even if they did change an ecig wouldn't produce enough heat. The only carcinogenic heavy metal I know of is cadmium (there's probably more, that's the only one I'm familiar with) and I would hope the people picking the metals avoid that (if I can avoid it in my solder everyone should be able to).

Does anyone have an idea of the evaporation rate of nicotine? Just curious, since I've blown my vapes out through a tube covered by a folded paper towel over a period of nearly three months. I gave up after that because I saw no observable change to the paper towel. Except for the evidence that I was exhaling a liquid mist. But the moisture would evaporate like water and leave no trace in a matter of minutes. I would have thought that a little nicotine would have stayed in the paper towel's fibers. Then, it would have darkened. None of which happened. So, it must not be exhaled in significant amounts, evaporates too fast to capture using my rudimentary methods, or I'm not a scientist so don't ask me.

It breaks down fast, but I don't think the answer is that easy. In PG/VG the nicotine is bound pretty tightly so I'm sure that changes the rate it dissipates. For instance a problem when extracting nicotine is it leaving to the atmosphere. That's not as much of a problem once it's in our liquids.

This isn't Exactly True.

In this Country, If I make something and the Intent is for it to be Put Into/Onto Someone's Body, the Burden of it Being "Safe" is on me. And not on Others to Prove that it is Not "Safe".

Actually in the US it is prove it's NOT safe outside of medical.
If I had a brew pub using aluminum or copper pots I don't have to prove they aren't causing metals to be in the beer. If someone wants to test the beer to prove they do it is up to them. (I use this example because it is something fairly recently tested but long in practice.)

 

[zoiDman]

Just Curious...

If Vaping in Public Bans are All about Money (3 People have told me this in this Thread), how do these Bans make Money for the People who are Behind them?

It would seem that the More People Vaped, the More Money they would Spend.

 

[zoiDman]

...

Actually in the US it is prove it's NOT safe outside of medical.
If I had a brew pub using aluminum or copper pots I don't have to prove they aren't causing metals to be in the beer. If someone wants to test the beer to prove they do it is up to them. (I use this example because it is something fairly recently tested but long in practice.)

The More I think about it, since e-Liquids are Currently Complete Unregulated, and if the Seller/OEM make No Claims to Effectiveness, e-Liquids Should have the Same Burden of Proof.

 

[Berylanna]

The More I think about it, since e-Liquids are Currently Complete Unregulated, and if the Seller/OEM make No Claims to Effectiveness, e-Liquids Should have the Same Burden of Proof.

E-cigarettes and e-liquids are PROVEN to be very harmful to Tobacco Company Profits, Pharma Company Profits, and Tobacco Tax and Settlement payments. Those in turn are very harmful to grants given to ANTZ. This has been verified by a number of world-class banking and stock experts. That is all the ANTZ need to know.

We, on the other hand, have to find metaphors for what GRAS really means since no scientist will every say anything is "not harmful."

it means if we want the same level of safety the ANTZ are requesting when they say "contains" things, all restaurants would have to switch to cold food only, cold drinks only, no hot food preparation indoors or outdoors in condominums, apartment buildings, parks. If your baby still needs her bottle heated, stay home, don't take her to the park with the older kids. (I guess breast milk could get a pass since it comes pre-containerized, but what if the baby belches?)

You should also not drive or park near a shop or restaurant door (25 feet?) or anywhere near the beach, or any city or county parks. No busses or trains either, all those metals might put particulates into the air. Well, I'm sure they do. Foragers are warned not to gather plants near freeways because there is a LOT of lead contamination, not from gasoline, but from cars running over the little lead weights that drop off of other cars. So now, after being on the freeway, you see that you cannot drive ANYWHERE without spreading an atom of lead here and there. So now we all have to go starve to death on the freeways.

 

[Myk]

Just Curious...

If Vaping in Public Bans are All about Money (3 People have told me this in this Thread), how do these Bans make Money for the People who are Behind them?

It would seem that the More People Vaped, the More Money they would Spend.

Usage bans get people to smoke or keep them smoking. Money made: NRT sales to pharma, smoking diseases to medical, cigarette taxes to government, cessation program support through taxes and tobacco settlement monies to ALA/ACS and other ANTZ groups.
Taxes should be obvious.

When you vape you have removed yourself from the money loop of all those who are fighting against vaping.
If it was all about not smoking as we have been told almost everyone of these groups would be promoting ecigs and talking about them giving them the ability to ban smoking completely.

 

[sonicdsl]

Someone asked for studies?

This may help? The peer-reviewed Drexel University study of 900+ studies on ecigs that concluded that there was no harm to the bystanders and >99% less risk to users:

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf


(Thanks to CASAA and the folks who helped to fund it!)

 

[LDS714]

Just Curious...

If Vaping in Public Bans are All about Money (3 People have told me this in this Thread), how do these Bans make Money for the People who are Behind them?

It would seem that the More People Vaped, the More Money they would Spend.

I refer you to the post by p.opus, although you seem to have successfully ignored it previously:

Our politicians are not doing "the voters will" because the public is outraged over vaping. There is no public "outcry" against vaping. That is an irrational fear that many vapers hold to and justifies their self righteous anger when they see someone else do it...."they'll ruin it for everyone" is the common clarion cry.

No, the overwhelming evidence is that the politicians and policy makers are responding to $$$$. When the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement was done in 1998. Big Tobacco agreed to pay 10 BILLION dollars to states as part of the settlement in perpetuity. This money is SUPPOSED to be used for public health initiatives and to prevent tobacco use in kids.

The idea was keep kids from smoking and let existing smokers die out. States soon realized that if there were no new smokers, then their settlement funds would dry up. After all, the settlement is based on percentage of sales. So a majority of states have done NOTHING to prevent youth smoking with the exception of public service announcements and the creation of organizations of groups like Tobacco Free Kids. Also, the states continue to pass groundless legislation that restricts WHERE you can smoke, but not where you can buy them. This is why you don't see State run Tobacco stores. The idea is keep them readily accessible, so that you can continue to collect your settlement funds.

Now comes e-cigs, which have grown into a 1 Billion dollar industry and our elected officials are now looking at a product that not only negatively impacts CURRENT tobacco sales, but has the potential to negatively impact future tobacco sales. Here is a product that could actually fulfill the goals set out by the MSA. Here is a product that actually could replace smoking, AND effectively shut out 46 states of roughly 10 Billion dollars a year.

And SHOCK...Youth smokers are turning to e-cigs as well. OH OH....10 BILLION Dollars per year to the 46 member states is now in jeopardy... AND don't think Big Tobacco isn't reminding states of this as well. If we don't sell our product, you don't get your money. So now we hear the "Save The Children" cry regarding e-cigs.....

So now the states are pressuring their local communities to ban e-cigs wherever smoking is banned and telling local communities if they don't pass these restrictions, they don't get a share of the Tobacco money because they are "non compliant". Meanwhile, States are attempting to ban internet sales, because a large part of the Billion dollar industry is based on internet sales.

As a result, towns and states are trying to kill the industry that can effectively cost them 10 Billion dollars a year alone in settlement money, not to mention the tobacco tax they receive based on sales, and vapers think that public vaping is the reason.....Wake up!!!

Follow the money.

 

[Bramble]

Just Curious...

If Vaping in Public Bans are All about Money (3 People have told me this in this Thread), how do these Bans make Money for the People who are Behind them?

It would seem that the More People Vaped, the More Money they would Spend.

The wrong people are making the money.

 

[zoiDman]

Usage bans get people to smoke or keep them smoking. Money made: NRT sales to pharma, smoking diseases to medical, cigarette taxes to government, cessation program support through taxes and tobacco settlement monies to ALA/ACS and other ANTZ groups.
Taxes should be obvious.

When you vape you have removed yourself from the money loop of all those who are fighting against vaping.
If it was all about not smoking as we have been told almost everyone of these groups would be promoting ecigs and talking about them giving them the ability to ban smoking completely.

But what I don't Understand is Once the FDA Rules, it would seem that BT would be able to Regain those Lost Profits because they will be the Major Player in the e-Liquid Market.

BP I can Understand. But BT is Not Going to Lose Out. At Least IMO.

 

[zoiDman]

The wrong people are making the money.

Now THAT I Can go With.

But that's all Going to Change in 2014 I Think.

 

[zoiDman]

I refer you to the post by p.opus, although you seem to have successfully ignored it previously:

I followed the Money.

And it All goes Back to BT once the FDA Rules.

Don't let this Little Trifle escape your Memory. Things Aint going to be like they are Today at the End of the Year.

 

[Myk]

But what I don't Understand is Once the FDA Rules, it would seem that BT would be able to Regain those Lost Profits because they will be the Major Player in the e-Liquid Market.

BP I can Understand. But BT is Not Going to Lose Out. At Least IMO.

BT winning could easily spell everyone else in the chain winning if they get BT to go along with adding ecigs with the tobacco settlement.
The tobacco settlement was the government protecting BT from further lawsuits which would've put them out of business. By agreeing to a big and constant payout to the government they assured the government would protect them, I don't think having ALA/ACS protect them was part of their plan but it may have been.

I didn't mention BT in my math. I don't think we've seen their attack on ecigs yet. I would expect similar to what went on with tobacco and they'll sell out to a tax as long as the smaller people get a bigger tax. I think the first thing they'll do is try to limit ecigs to the more profitable cigalikes that they want to sell.

 

[Myk]

I followed the Money.

And it All goes Back to BT once the FDA Rules.

Don't let this Little Trifle escape your Memory. Things Aint going to be like they are Today at the End of the Year.

You're too focused on the enemy the ANTZ want you to focus on. BT is not our enemy yet, at least not totally. I would hope vapers have driven it home to RJR they don't want to mess with us and taught all the others not to try to sell us out.

 

[Berylanna]

This is a great European rebuttal to an ANTZ Gov't Doctor in the UK. Most of it is relevant here.

Unable to take any more, I write to Dr Nathanson of the BMA « The counterfactual

 

[Jman8]

Hey, I'm Not saying that your Chances are Less of getting a Raise if you tell your Boss she dresses like a Cheap ..... 2 minutes Before you Ask for a Raise, but Common Sense tells me that it will.

Again, the appeal to emotion and false authority.

Like saying, Hey if you want to please your slave master, then by all means keep your vaping indoors to an absolute minimum, otherwise master will whip you for daring to vape in a place that he didn't say you could.

If you think that the "In Your Face" Attitude and the Vape Everywhere Approach is going to work Best with Non-Vaping Policy Makers, there isn't much to say to you.

I just Hope that you Don't Cause more Damage than Good. Because you can Educate a Hundred Smokers. And Even some of the Non-Smokers.

And I'll take the "vape everywhere" approach, in this day and time (as in right now) over the rolling over and playing dead for the banners that are amongst us. I've already spoken to vape openly with respect about 3 to 5 times in this thread. I've already clarified the vape everywhere position at least twice in this thread.

Causing more damage than good for politics of vaping is accepting indoor bans without question, because they said so. Because they have that right. If this were the way to go, then when government proposes bans on internet sales, or on amount of nicotine, or on flavors or on high taxes, then the 'proper' response would be to not fight that (i.e. go with 'in your face' response) and to instead realize that government is just exercising its right to do what government is in place to do.

Instead, a vaper who chooses to challenge these things will seek to understand why, and seek to overcome policies that are invoked due to ignorance or arrogance. I am yet to hear a solid reason of why not to vape in all the places you named and others will name (i.e. in a hospital, school, movie theater, etc. etc.). Which has been very easy to maintain the vape everywhere position. The reasons given so far, when weighted without any counter discussion are precisely the reason why no one should vape anywhere. Again, if it is rude to vape in a hospital (in all situations and all locations of a hospital), then it is likely equally rude to vape in a public park or beach area. If there is any part of you that would challenge / fight on the outdoor vaping in public location, then welcome to the "in your face" side of the debate. If you would not fight/debate this, then.... there is nothing I would say to you, other than make an ANTZ insinuation.

 

[Bramble]

You're too focused on the enemy the ANTZ want you to focus on. BT is not our enemy yet, at least not totally. I would hope vapers have driven it home to RJR they don't want to mess with us and taught all the others not to try to sell us out.

Oh I think it's in the best interests of BT to fight on behalf of eCigs... they have walked on to the playing field with their purchase of eCig companies, clearly they want a piece of that pie.

That's the thing about BT - in their case it's a matter of simple corporate greed, we know about it. Their motives are relatively simple and out in the open. The public is used to hating them. Furthermore in the most recent legislative discussion about the latest Ray-Ban, Rep. Ray said the tobacco lobby was opposed to his bill. Well duh of course it is. And I think we will have a task ahead of us to keep them from destroying their competitors. But it behooves them NOT AT ALL to sit back and watch the ANTZ destroy the manufacture and sales of eCigs.

With Big Pharma, the FDA, and even the government which has tried to play off "concern for public health" and of course The Children. But as a taxing entity and a recipient of cash from BT that gets more money the more cigarettes are sold... yeah there's more at stake for the government than what may meet the eye to most people. I think they are the slippery ones.

 

[Ohms Lawbreaker]

Everybody has read those set of rules, how to logically argue a point, or debate an issue on the web, or whatever. Those tenets are not Scripture. One person cites an "appeal to emotion and false authority" as a defense then turns around and says, "Hey if you want to please your slave master, then by all means keep your vaping indoors to an absolute minimum..." as if that is not an emotional rebuttal. Ridiculous.