5 ms·

I could say the same thing about your vehicle exhaust, which unlike ecig vapor, is bad for your health.

• grzm 10y ago
  Vehicle exhaust is regulated. If it's not strict enough for your liking, work to have the regulations strengthened.
  • nske 10y ago
    Vehicle exhaust is regulated only because it has been proven to be harmful. Why should something be regulated otherwise?
    • grzm 10y ago
      We also regulate things that are only nuisances. Elsewhere in this thread are examples of where perfume and barbecue smoke are regulated. We have noise ordinances, too.
      • nske 10y ago
        Noise ordinances to the measure that the noise becomes really disruptive, as in, people can't sleep or function because of it. That is reasonable and regulating is happening only to the extent necessary to prevent this. If it was handled the way Vaping is handled in Australia, there would be blanket ban on music at public places, for example. Vaping is primarily a nuisance to those that (correctly) learned to consider smoke (but also, unfortunately, whatever looks like smoke) as something negative, due to decades of anti-smoking campaigns. It looks like smoke so it's bound to be bad. Anti-smoking campaigns and legislation exist not because smoking is a nuisance, but because it causes real health issues. Perfume is not really regulated by legislation in public spaces (unless there is some edge-case that I'm missing), obviously it can be regulated internally, as part of a private work policy for example -the same way that dressing code does. Totally different matter. Barbeque smoke, like any smoke, is harmful, so I don't think we should compare it either. If vaping becomes a disturbance to the extent that it needs to be regulated, any regulating should be done completely independently of any superficial similarities to smoking, based solely on facts relevant to the actual disturbance. The fact that most arguments I see are based on the possibility of unknown health effects -even though there is no evidence for such- and not on the fact that it is otherwise disturbing, to me indicates that it's no more disturbing than dozens of other things that are allowed in public places but nobody dares propose that they should be banned by law.
  • funnyfacts365 10y ago
    Just because it's regulated doesn't mean the harm isn't being done on enormous quantities.
    • grzm 10y ago
      Indeed. I understand my parent to be saying that since we allow this other thing that's more harmful, we shouldn't be so concerned, that there's an inconsistency. My point is that we do make the attempt to reduce the harm of vehicle exhaust, that we do attempt to limit harm (and nuisances, for that matter). We certainly can discuss whether those protections are adequate. And we very well may disagree on the level of protection necessary. That doesn't mean we should dismiss protections on one because we think protections on another aren't sufficient.
• brianwawok 10y ago
  I bike and walk when I can. But I don't sit next to you in the subway and blow vehicle exhaust in your face.
• tallanvor 10y ago
  There hasn't been enough research about e-cigarettes to say whether or not they're a health hazard people who are around users. And many of us who are anti-smoking (and anti-vaping), are also supporters of public transportation and reducing car usage.
  • nske 10y ago
    We have no reason to believe they would be a health hazard. Vegetable Glyrecin is approved for food consumption, most flavour concentrates likewise and, nicotine, well, at worse it could raise someone's blood pressure a bit, but due to the nature of vaping, it has been measured that "the level of cotinine in passive vapers is approximately 1200 times lower than active smokers" [...] "In conclusion, the levels of nicotine absorbed from passive vaping are not only harmless but do not even produce any biological effect (not even heart rate acceleration)" (quoting Dr. Farsalinos). We could, of course, assume that there might be ill effects even thogh we can't even imagine what those would be at this point, however we could do that with practically anything, couldn't we?
    • brianwawok 10y ago
      Sure, and I would vote we burn banning or incinerating anything in a shared public space. Not pick and choose X is ok but Y isn't. Just keep shared airspace as clean as possible.
      • nske 10y ago
        Clean of what though? Burning emissions have an actual impact on the environment, so yes, "clean" does make sense in this case. Vegetable glycerine vapour does not.
• izacus 10y ago
  And countries actively work on limiting the exaust fumes and subsidising zero emission transport.