POTV - Your vaping community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Why not sign up today!

Register

Risk profiles.. or the lack thereof

Discussion in 'Tobacco Harm Reduction' started by steffijade, Aug 30, 2014.

  1. steffijade

    steffijade Achiever

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    As I said in the op, the stance of banning until safety is proven could look like a sensible one on the face of it. The thing is, the risk profile for passive vapour is negligible at worst and folk like Mr Antz cannot accept the concept of negligible risk.

    Whilst vaping is still relatively new, some folk have been vaping for 6-7 years now with no associated health issues being apparent, in fact the only apparent effects are health benefits for smokers switching to vaping. I understand the concept that possible long term health issues may not surface for a few years yet but given the generally accepted fact that vaping is much safer than smoking, the possible dangers of 'passive vaping' should be similarly reduced. For Mr Antz to demand a ban on vaping in enclosed spaces is somewhat disingenuous when he may very well be engaging in activities that have a higher risk profile to both himself and others.

    The only reason he fels justified in demanding a ban is because he automatically associates any thing that looks like smoke (ie visible vapour) to be a threat and given that he has become accustomed to expecting a smoke free environment, he thinks it's only logical to extend this to vaping. Hence the refusal to accept the concept of an acceptable risk profile. This attitude needs to be challenged imho.
     
  2. Peeej

    Peeej Postman

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2014
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    272
    Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with the points in the OP just feel that some of the venom towards the haters is not the right way to approach this subject.
     
  3. nikki from mars

    nikki from mars Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    Messages:
    5,321
    Likes Received:
    1,397
    Peeej have no problem with most non vapers. .. only those who have the aggressive stance towards all vapers...don't hate anyone but. .. have come across the kind of attitudes that basically are smoke and die or stop all nicotine use except pharma approved NRT from ill informed and aggressive people and it is those people that I am objecting to...

    Sent from my GT-I9505 using Planet of the Vapes mobile app
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. nikki from mars

    nikki from mars Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    Messages:
    5,321
    Likes Received:
    1,397
    To be fair don't do anything in person other than try to educate and inform people but do get fed up when people are totally unreasonable. ..

    Sent from my GT-I9505 using Planet of the Vapes mobile app
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. steffijade

    steffijade Achiever

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    Sorry but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

    The anti smoking lobby has become very bold the last 10-15 years and it's now acceptable to label smokers as potential murderers for lighting up in the presence of others. A lot of the more vitriolic antz feel justified in making an easy switch of focus to vapers and want to transfer that same demonisation on to us. That's unacceptable as far as I'm concerned and I'll quite happily challenge anyone who wants to transfer that dogmatic, hate fuelled ideology to vapers with little or no justification.

    These people have felt safe in this persecution of smokers because they think that the passive smoke argument justifies it but with vaping, they're on the wrong side of the moral argument.. they just refuse to acknowledge that because they don't want to lose their sense of moral superiority.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. BucketMod

    BucketMod Postman

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    37
    How about we just go back to.... if somebody asks you to stop doing something because it's bothering them, then you should do so, out of respect, as long as they asked you respectfully.
    This can all be a lot simpler than everyone is making it out to be, is my point.
     
  7. Diche

    Diche Veteran

    Joined:
    May 5, 2014
    Messages:
    6,190
    Likes Received:
    1,760
    I have to say I can see the point of view of Mr Antz. As Peeej alluded to, for Mr Antz the question isn't about negligible risk it is about necessary risk. To take the car journey analogy. If Mr Antz wishes to get to Blackpool he must take a journey. He has a choice of forms of transport of which the car is the most dangerous. However it is also the fastest and the cheapest. So he decides that driving constitutes a necessary risk. He then makes a whole host of other decisions about wearing a seatbelt, obeying the speed limit and choosing to have the radio on. In each case he weighs up the perceived danger versus the received benefit. Arriving safely vs enjoying the journey. Allowing a vaper to vape in his car provides him with no benefits to balance the risks regardless of how negligible they may be. Now if he is catching a lift with said vaper the risk benefit analysis changes again, but saying someone should accept a risk because it is only very tiny doesn't make sense. People accept risks because they benefit by doing so. We can help ensure they consider our pastime sufficiently low risk by educating them. In situations where the air mass is greater we and they can choose to sit further apart to ensure that our exhaled particles dissipate before reaching them but in a very enclosed space such as a car or a lift asking someone to accept an avoidable risk regardless of how negligible because of a benefit to you rather than a benefit them isn't a sensible standpoint it is a selfish one. I vape in my local pub all the time. There is one lady who has had a reasonable conversation with me and expressed her concerns regarding the risks of passive vaping. I have provided her with information regarding the dissipation rates of my vapour to ease her concerns and happily vape away in her presence. However if I choose to join the table she is sitting at I refrain from vaping whilst there. If she chooses to join a table I am already seated at I continue to vape. In one scenario she has had the choice of making a risk/benefit analysis in the other she hasn't. Its called being polite as far as I am concerned.
     
  8. steffijade

    steffijade Achiever

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    2,167
    I can see where you're coming from and I'm in favour of politeness but the same politeness should be employed by non vapers too.

    If 'passive vapour' causes negligible harm, is it not polite for non vapers to tolerate it on a temporary basis? As to necessary risk, the risk is kind of necessary to the person vaping to avoid combusted tobacco.. what's wrong with non vapers who happen to be in the same space recognising this and being tolerant?

    The WHO are calling for a ban on indoor vaping btw, not politeness. A ban takes away the opportunity for both politeness and tolerance and imposes restrictions that are based on unjust comparisons with passive smoke.

    It comes back to the expectations of non vapers that they are entitled to 'clean air' when in practice, that air is more often than not anything but 'clean'. There will be contaminants/particulates present in any air sample, but because vaping happens to produce visible contaminants/particulates, non vapers automatically make an unconscious association with tobacco smoke and view it as an intrusion upon their 'clean' air. If we keep on pandering to these false assumptions, then blanket bans on vaping indoors will be pushed through without proper consideration or debate.

    It bears thinking about that just because you may choose to vape in an indoor space, there doesn't necessarily have to be anyone else present that objects. Today you can (for example) go into a pub that's sparsely populated, find a quite corner and vape without causing commotion. If a blanket ban gets put into place, you'd no longer be able to do this regardless of whether there's anyone present to offend by vaping or not.

    I have no issue with vapers being polite and considerate and despite my perceived POTV persona, I'm quite polite and considerate in real life and will treat people with the same respect they treat me with.. politeness will be met with politeness and douchebaggery will also be reciprocated.

    I've mentioned before that I believe the public have been brainwashed by a saturation of anti smoking propaganda and I still hold to this view. It's my belief that vapers need to challenge the automatic assumption that they need to defer to attitudes that have been formed with an anti passive smoke agenda. After all, it's not smoke, it's vapour and if it was really that potentially harmful why are all of us even vaping rather than smoking in the first place?
     
  9. Diche

    Diche Veteran

    Joined:
    May 5, 2014
    Messages:
    6,190
    Likes Received:
    1,760
    steffijade I have read many of your posts and I agree with many of the basic principles of what you say, but I do find you have a tendency to be militant in the way you express yourself lol.

    I have read all of the WHO report and personally I think their proposed regulations are draconian and counterproductive. Not because they would make current vapers go outside. After all we had to do that when we were smokers and whilst it was sometimes inconvenient it didn't effect my personal choice to continue to smoke. I disagree with them because they would have the effect of discouraging current smokers from switching to vaping. The negligible risk to non vapers/non smokers is to my mind far outweighed by the benefits of reduced healthcare costs for the population as a whole.

    I think we should all be able to breathe clean air free from contaminants not of our choosing. I think car manufacturers should be continually pressurised to lower emissions. I think manufacturing companies should have strict controls to prevent them from polluting the atmosphere.

    You aren't vaping indoors to avoid the risk of combusted tobacco. You are vaping indoors because you can and because you enjoy it. Personally I feel the choice regarding vaping indoors should be left to the owner of a given premises and that nonvapers should be tolerant because they want themselves and future generations to be free from the healthcare burdens of tobacco use. If me vaping indoors encourages other smokers to switch then the risk/benefit analysis of continuing to permit indoor vaping is met.

    The interesting question is what happens if all smokers were to switch to vaping. Where would we be then lol.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  10. Maxcat

    Maxcat Achiever

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    470
    Diche

    That's your free tin foil hat gone.;)
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page