Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Also, I didn't call him a moron, I asked if he was one. A small but important difference
NHS stop-smoking service 'a success'
- Thread starter CaNsA
- Start date
Also, I didn't call him a moron, I asked if he was one. A small but important difference
Actually it is simply the lack of consideration for others in a social setting. Which is clearly implied in my opinion that such actions are antisocial.
I wasn't making a scientific comparison, nor do I need a scientific basis to dislike something so your argument is moot. Neither is it irrational, it is based on my own preference as to the environment in which I eat and the actions of others, I would not infringe on the personal space of others so it is not irrational to expect the same level of consideration in return.
I did not state any such speciality either, so again your argument is moot. If fish is so repugnant to you, simply do not eat in a restaurant which serves fish..I would equally not eat in a restaurant which allows smoking or vaping to such an extent that the space in which people eat is infringed. If people vaping doesn't infringe on my space (ie The table at which I am sat) then I have no issue with it.
You don't get it? it seems very simple...I do not like eating in a cloud of smoke, whether it is from a cigarette or e-cig is immaterial..as is the smell. I think that vaping, as smoking should be something that people do within their own personal space when others are eating. It is, for me, simple etiquette in a restaurant.
And yes, on several occasions I have had people using e-cigs across from me who have blown smoke into my personal space whilst I was eating..and when I asked politely if they would not, I was either ignored or told to move if I did not like it...the latter was not so happy with my response.
Which makes no sense....
No it doesn't as I very clearly stated that they were not equally as bad in the context of harm in the very same post. I clearly stated the opposite from what you are saying...So you are jumping based entirely on your own lack of comprehension.
The [no more] statement is clearly within the context of my personal comfort, not whether it is more or less harmful medically. That is a supposition that you have made yourself.
You were simply and totally wrong, as no such implication was inherent in my statement, my wording was fine, your comprehension was off.
yes they did, and no I did not....
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
No, no one person can define what is 'antisocial'. I hate arguing semantics but a lone individual a society does not make.
You have no right to define personal preferences as 'anti-social' unless you have evidence that your opinion is supported by society.
I never claimed you needed a scientific basis to dislike something so any moot-ness is on your part here. I was pointing out that backing up your claim using science gives you credence, saying you don't like something just 'because' is nothing more than a whine and is therefore irrelevant to society or what should be acceptable to it.
The problem here is you are reading "irrational" a pejorative, it wasn't meant that way. I mean that you cannot rationally argue for something that it clearly a personal preference.
Agreed, but I don't agree that someone who is vaping a few feet away from you in 'invading your personal space'.
You said if I don't like the smell of some fish dishes I should avoid fish restaurants. I said that pretty much all restaurants sell at least one of these dishes, hence implying that avoiding fish specialist wouldn't get around my annoyance.
Or, I can realise that the world doesn't revolve around me and just relax. I am willing to tolerate the smell of certain fish dishes for my overall benefit.
Vapour =! smoke. This isn't pedantry, they are both physically and chemically different.
Fine, as long as you realise that is subjective and you have no right to force others to share it.
There will always be idiots about. But to assume all vapers are the same based on your personal experience is clearly flawed.
None, im on your side, readup.
I can see you've been busy,but that was a reply to [TW]sponge
I should have made it clearer :\
I'm with you until the last line. I don't care what it looks like. In my experience (it's allowed in my workplace), it dissipates quickly enough to not be an assault on other people (especially me) and that's all I care about.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Propylene glycol is not something you'd normally inhale and it probably isn't entirely safe. There are also other substances in the vapour that are potentially dangerous by inhalation, such as microscopic particles of metal.
So no, it is not obvious at all. It's far better than smoking, but it's not at all obvious that it's safe.
In the context I used, it simply means that it is inconsiderate of others in a specific social environment...which you have actually agreed with, more than once....
So you are beating a dead horse now.
Your words were exactly claiming that I had no scientific basis for disliking vaping...I pointed out that I need no scientific basis for my preference to be rational, all it needs is for it to be reasoned. I don't dislike vaping either, another thing you have introduced yourself...I simply do not wish to have a mouthful of vapour when I am trying to enjoy my food, so whether the smell is pleasant or not is immaterial as well.
It isn't irrelevant to society either, as it is an example of [in]considerate behaviour to others, which ultimately forms the basis of any productive society.
I am not reading it that way at all...I am merely informing you that I have a reasoned basis for my preference..therefore it is not irrational.
I did not say it was, as long as their vapour is not interfering with the enjoyment of my food i have no objection to anyone vaping..even on my table...my mother-in-law does it (she has a smokeless e-cig) but as you agree with my actual argument now, your continued disagreement seems rather non-productive from this point.
As it is generally smoked fish that has any real pungency at any distance from the plate I would simply avoid those restaurants if it bothers you that much...just as I would avoid a restaurant that was full of smokers or vapour. If it doesn't bother you that much, as you imply below, the that only further illustrates the differences in our relative examples.
Not that it is really comparable in context, as food (including fish) is inherent in a restaurant..vaping is not.
Which is your choice..it is one I would make in certain situations also..for example I am of the opinion that Bars should have the right to operate smoking lounges and I would ignore my dislike of smoking to socialise with friends that smoke, I find nothing more annoying than my friends being forced to leave a social gathering to smoke every so often.
I do not think that I need to ignore my dislike of having a mouthful of vapour when eating as it is a simple courtesy of the other party to vape (or blow their vapour) not in my direction. I do not think that is an irrational request to make in such a context or environment. It is simple social etiquette.
It is either pedantry or a lack of comprehension as I was clearly using the term informally as a descriptive and not making any comment on the relative molecular or chemical composition of e-cig vapour or cigarette smoke.
I did not imply that is was either definitive or that others should share my opinon...so you are introducing an argument I never made.
As above really, I never made such an assumption, so you are again introducing an argument I never made.
You appear to be under the mistaken idea that I think vaping (or smoking) is inherently antisocial...nowhere did I say or imply that...I said it CAN be antisocial, and gave an indication of a situation in which it can be consider such. Most, of not all, your counter argument doesn't deal with the actual example I gave, and where your argument does address what I actually said, you agreed with me...therefore I see no further productive discussion to be had here.
To be very clear here..I think that e-cigs are a good thing, more smokers should consider using them..I do not think they should be banned from pubs, clubs, restaurants etc and nether do I agree they should be taxed or somehow prohibited in any way...I simply think that people should be more considerate of others, just because the 'smoke' will not harm others, doesn't mean it is socially acceptable to ignore others comfort when enjoying your e-cig in certain social situations.
Last edited:
Quite..it is certainly safer than smoking, but to say it is entirely safe is a little premature without regulation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-18/vaping-may-be-hazardous-to-your-health.html
Last edited:
This may inform you, I believe there will be more soon.
http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Again, based on what evidence? You do know that PG is an ingredient in Asthma inhalers and we have 50+ years of evidence showing it is safe right?
4:35 to 5:15....
I use VG based juices anyway, a liquid that has been sold by every major chemist for decades....
http://www.boots.com/en/Boots-Value-Health-Glycerin-B-P-200ml_852418/
Bulls hit. Let me guess, you found an article where one rogue factory in China released one dodgy bottle of e-liquid?
There are no metals in 99.9999999.....% of e-liquids.
Also you do know that we know every single chemical that is contained in mass produced e-juices. Whereas there are still unidentified chemical in tobacco smoke despite it being in existence for well over 500 years?
I never said it is obvious that it is safe, I said there is no evidence to suggest it is dangerous. Just like we have no evidence the long term of effects of mobile phones or iPods is dangerous, but do we get all irrational and scared about the use of them just because the nature of their invention means we don't have long term evidence?
Last edited:
That points out, as Angillion did, the concerns about levels of PG and Glycerin in those using E-Cigs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
PG has been studied since 1946 and there's not a shred of evidence to suggest it is dangerous for humans. If there were, it wouldn't be prescribed in Asthma inhalers would it?
VG has also been sold as a throat soother for decades over the counter for human consumption. I'll concede the evidence on inhaling it, as opposed to ingesting it, is less well known but if you take the approach that everything is potentially dangerous we might as well stop all new inventions of foddstuffs now.
You are falling into the simpleton mentality that suggest because something has a scientific name, it must therefore be scary and dangerous for you.
Last edited:
I am not falling into anything of the sort....I am merely going by the scientific research paper that was supplied and pointing out what was stated by it....a few other sources I have read, none of which show any significant risks as long as the levels are within certain parameters, their is more concern over the E-Liquids themselves and other additives not mentioned or regulated hence why some are calling (and in the US I think it actually is going to be..) for regulation, to ensure that the e-liquids remain safe in the long term.
I see nothing inherently wrong with that, and your thinly veiled insult is unwarranted and frankly shows a distinct disregard for any other opinion than your own, no matter whether it is rational or not.
From your very own source (wiki)
So it isn't quite as straightforward as you portray, and no-one is suggesting that PG is at all harmful when used in a responsible way, it is ensuring that E-liquids conform to certain safety regulations that most people are concerned about, particularly with nicotine dosages, additives other than PG and correct labelling of E-Liquids, not debating whether specific compounds are harmful or not in normal use.
Last edited:
Indeed..but not 100% of people will die because they came into contact with water.
Well it points out that we are inhaling PG\AG, relatively benign substances, in a new and novel way.
However, although the risks are negligible it would be nice to actually prove its safe which this paper did not directly address.
But it did address any concerns to do with metal and other contaminants
and also passive vaping.
I am certainly not concerned myself about PG/AG, but its always good to be informed.