Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Basically, the paper used a bunch of other studies that were admittedly poorly done to try and make some kind of conclusion. At the end of the day, risk levels for exposure do not approach those that would trigger laws impacting workplace safety standards for people in general occupations (bartender, watier, etc.). However, the vapor is not entirely benign as if it was exposure through industrial process, the workers would need to be monitored and handling precautions taken. Hardly a glowing proof that "vapers" should be allowed to indulge wherever and whenever they want.
You make it my business when you choose to "vape" next to me while I'm in public. All anyone is saying is that "vapers" should follow the same regulations as smokers. Thankfully the state of NJ is ahead of the curve on this one in recognizing that there are possible health impacts from "vaping" and treating the product just like a cigarette in terms of consumption/use in public places.
I don't understand your thoughts. The studies clearly show that vaping is alright for the vaper and even more ok for the passerby. They not only let allow the smoker to switch to a safer method of nicotine delivery, without the smoke and thousands of toxins, but if so desired, they can also be used for weaning oneself off the nicotine. Not everyone wants or needs to be free from nicotine. (Alzheimer's, ADD, et).
Here is a good question in this article by a renown cardiologist who has devoted his days to researching. 60 Millions de consommateurs
In fact, all of his studies and articles are worth a read.
. All anyone is saying is that "vapers" should follow the same regulations as smokers. Thankfully the state of NJ is ahead of the curve on this one in recognizing that there are possible health impacts from "vaping" and treating the product just like a cigarette in terms of consumption/use in public places.
Now, I understand where you are coming from. You could have spared the lengthily nonsense and gotten right down to it.
The long term effects of vaping from a vapers viewpoint:
1. No smoking. (Very limited if any smoking)
2. Body healing from not smoking. Every cigarette not smoked, yaddayaddayadda.
3. Economy stirred back into working order
The long term effects from an anti-ecig perspective:
1. No cigarette tax money. 21 billion dollars, worldwide, down the drain. What will we do? Our state needs that tax money!
2. No cigarette tax money to keep my long term organization funded! Where will we get the funds to lobby and promote propaganda? What about my retirement funds? My mortgage?
3. The economy will stir! How can we destroy America if the economy picks up?
I don't understand your thoughts. The studies clearly show that vaping is alright for the vaper and even more ok for the passerby. They not only let allow the smoker to switch to a safer method of nicotine delivery, without the smoke and thousands of toxins, but if so desired, they can also be used for weaning oneself off the nicotine. Not everyone wants or needs to be free from nicotine. (Alzheimer's, ADD, et).
Here is a good question in this article by a renown cardiologist who has devoted his days to researching. 60 Millions de consommateurs
In fact, all of his studies and articles are worth a read.
The studies, as stated in the abstract you posted, are poorly done and generally inconclusive. To date there have been no studies that have conclusively proven that the byproduct produced by e-cigarettes are 100% benign. In fact, the abstract went on to state that the byproducts do not meet the standard to trigger occupational health concerns, but they are not in fact 100% benign. Here are two statements I believe most would agree are factual:
1. E-cigarettes are safer than regular cigarettes.
2. E-cigarettes are not safer than "no cigarettes".
Until it can be conclusively proven that e-cigarettes are 100% benign and safe for people exposed to their byproducts secondhand they need to be treated the same as cigarettes. It will take a long time to prove this. Further complicating the matter is the lack of regulation and oversight meaning that there are a wide range of e-cigarettes out there each with widely differing chemcial make-ups. I feel you have the right to "vape" in your own property, outdoors, etc. and think you are making an overall better choice than smoking a regular cigarette. However, I do not think that your choice to "vape" is conclusively shown to be 100% benign to people exposed to the byproducts. Therefore you should not be allowed to "vape" wherever and whenever you please such as on the subway, bus, restaurants, offices, schools, etc. Essentially "vapers" should follow the same rules as smokers until evidence proves there is no risk from "vaping".
Now, I understand where you are coming from. You could have spared the lengthily nonsense and gotten right down to it.
Spared the lengthy nonsense? About half of the words in my post were taken from the research article you posted and informing you of what it actually said.
Quote:
The long term effects of vaping from a vapers viewpoint:
1. No smoking. (Very limited if any smoking)
2. Body healing from not smoking. Every cigarette not smoked, yaddayaddayadda.
3. Economy stirred back into working order
You can "vape" to your hearts content...just not in public places.
Quote:
The long term effects from an anti-ecig perspective:
1. No cigarette tax money. 21 billion dollars, worldwide, down the drain. What will we do? Our state needs that tax money!
2. No cigarette tax money to keep my long term organization funded! Where will we get the funds to lobby and promote propaganda? What about my retirement funds? My mortgage?
3. The economy will stir! How can we destroy America if the economy picks up?
First off, e-cigarettes are almost all manufactured in China and are consumed in such small quantities that they will have little chance or rescuing our economy. Further, the only real economic stimulus would be if they generated new consumer spending. I would venture that e-cig sales are mainly fueled from money redirected from traditional cigarette sales.
If we wanted to tax them, it wouldn't be hard, so the revenue loss isn't really such a big deal until they start to have a real impact on cigarette sales...which they haven't. I'm not "anti-e-cig" I just don't want you to "vape" next to me in a public place.
The studies, as stated in the abstract you posted, are poorly done and generally inconclusive. To date there have been no studies that have conclusively proven that the byproduct produced by e-cigarettes are 100% benign. In fact, the abstract went on to state that the byproducts do not meet the standard to trigger occupational health concerns, but they are not in fact 100% benign. Here are two statements I believe most would agree are factual:
1. E-cigarettes are safer than regular cigarettes.
2. E-cigarettes are not safer than "no cigarettes".
Until it can be conclusively proven that e-cigarettes are 100% benign and safe for people exposed to their byproducts secondhand they need to be treated the same as cigarettes. It will take a long time to prove this. Further complicating the matter is the lack of regulation and oversight meaning that there are a wide range of e-cigarettes out there each with widely differing chemcial make-ups. I feel you have the right to "vape" in your own property, outdoors, etc. and think you are making an overall better choice than smoking a regular cigarette. However, I do not think that your choice to "vape" is conclusively shown to be 100% benign to people exposed to the byproducts. Therefore you should not be allowed to "vape" wherever and whenever you please such as on the subway, bus, restaurants, offices, schools, etc. Essentially "vapers" should follow the same rules as smokers until evidence proves there is no risk from "vaping".
Yes, they are safer, by far! Some say safer than tobacco smoke by 99%. (Which I happen to believe firsthand)
As far as safer than breathing city air? Probably, again, 99% safer than breathing city air, in a lot of big cities.
There is nothing on the planet that is 100% safe. Not even air. Should we ban the air we breathe as well? Should we hold off on up breathing air until all the facts are in? Should we not exhale the air we breathe until everyone has left the room?
This reminds me of Stanton Glant's last presentation. He concludes that two people, sitting in the same room, produce formalgahide, and therefore, should not breathe the same air.
He also suggested, on a talk show, that cutting down on smoking is harmful and we should continue smoking as much as we desire, instead of switching over to safer alternatives while we are transitioning into non-smokers.
Btw, i believe Stanton Glantz is the president of all those orgs that keep morphing into other orgs as he sees fit.
First there was smokeFrr.org, then tobaccoFree.org, then nicotinFree.org, and I'm sure he's working desperately on vapeFree.org, SugarFree.org and ObesityFree.org and no doubt, freedomFree.org.
I have little respect for anti-non-smokers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
