nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why do some people think it's ok to vape indoors?

TaurenDruid

So, as the thread title says - why do some vapers/e-cigarette users think it's fine to vape indoors, at public venues like pubs, venues, cinemas, etc?

I mean, they all have signs up saying don't do it, it's not allowed. But you go into somewhere like the National Concert Hall, and there's a big, visible, cloud of vape smoke hanging in the air. I was in the 3 Arena the other night, and while it wasn't as bad, there were a good few vaping away all through the gig.

As an ex-smoker who used to have to wait it out for a few hours when going to a gig or a film, me and my mates did just that - we waited until we could get outside for a smoke. What's up with vapers and their constant need to get their hit?!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Orion

Esel wrote: »

Nothing personal, but when I see anyone puffing like a steam train I just think "What a dick!" Even more of a dick when they blow that massive cloud at the floor/ground instead of upwards, which at least shows some consideration for others.

Meant to address this too. Vapour is actually heavier than air. So blowing it up just means it spreads and then sinks. Blowing down means it stays there. So people tho blow it at the floor are actually being more considerate.

jonski

Orion wrote: »

Meant to address this too. Vapour is actually heavier than air. So blowing it up just means it spreads and then sinks. Blowing down means it stays there. So people tho blow it at the floor are actually being more considerate.

Well you could have posted this before I wrote an essay on it in the post above yours with my two finger typing . Maybe you should show a bit of consideration for slow typers .....oh look, typers isn't a word ....well it should be .

[Deleted User]

Orion wrote: »

MOD NOTE
Not even remotely true

OK, go on then. Explain the benefits.

Esel wrote: »

Serious question - what is the point of a massive (or big) cloud?

Shinobollo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

OK, go on then. Explain the benefits.

7 years vaping and not a single bronchial infection Vs 2 per year minimum when smoking!

[Deleted User]

Shinobollo wrote: »

7 years vaping and not a single bronchial infection Vs 2 per year minimum when smoking!

.. the benefits of blowing a large cloud out..

jonski

Deleted User wrote:

OK, go on then. Explain the benefits.

The benefits of the large cloud are when it's going in ( big nicotine hit ) , it just has to come back out again . Also depending on the device it can really enhance the flavour .

TaurenDruid

Shinobollo wrote: »

7 years vaping and not a single bronchial infection Vs 2 per year minimum when smoking!

Anecdote is not data.

TaurenDruid

jonski wrote: »

The benefits of the large cloud are when it's going in ( big nicotine hit ) , it just has to come back out again . Also depending on the device it can really enhance the flavour .

Big nicotine hit? Ok, it's vapour, not smoke, but you'd hardly notice the smoke from some smokers, outdoors, getting presumably the same nicotine hit from their Johnny Blue or Marlboro Light as the steamtrain puffing along up the road and visible for 200 metres.

iamtony

Didn't read the whole thread but I just wanted to let yis know vaping can set off fire alarms. I found this out the hard way when I set of an alarm in a hotel jax and got the whole hotel evacuated:o

On the plus side I was a living legend to the people I was in the bar with(who I told) as they gave free drink in the bar for the rest of the night.

ironclaw

I don't vape but for what it's worth, just because the cloud has dissipated, does not mean it's not present and/or harmful. The chemical composition is still in the surrounding atmosphere albeit being continuously diluted. It doesn't just disappear or become benign when it dissipates. By that logic, car emissions are harmless once they are a few inches from the exhaust.

FrancieBrady

ironclaw wrote: »

I don't vape but for what it's worth, just because the cloud has dissipated, does not mean it's not present and/or harmful. The chemical composition is still in the surrounding atmosphere albeit being continuously diluted. It doesn't just disappear or become benign when it dissipates. By that logic, car emissions are harmless once they are a few inches from the exhaust.

You'd wanna look into stopping others breathing, sweating, farting etc in your immediate vicinity and general direction too. Maybe stay at home in a hermetically sealed box like that guy on Better Call Saul?

Shinobollo

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Anecdote is not data.

Anecdote - definition -an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.

Safe to say that my evidence is not anecdotal. I can verify it as I was there ðŸ˜›

jonski

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Big nicotine hit? Ok, it's vapour, not smoke, but you'd hardly notice the smoke from some smokers, outdoors, getting presumably the same nicotine hit from their Johnny Blue or Marlboro Light as the steamtrain puffing along up the road and visible for 200 metres.

Sorry, I'm not understanding your point here . If it's outdoors is it the visibility that bothers you ? If you I am vaping something that is emitting big clouds then I take 2 maybe 3 puffs and it goes back in my pocket, thats enough nic for me . Maybe other are puffing constantly but that would be unusual.

ironclaw wrote: »

I don't vape but for what it's worth, just because the cloud has dissipated, does not mean it's not present and/or harmful. The chemical composition is still in the surrounding atmosphere albeit being continuously diluted. It doesn't just disappear or become benign when it dissipates. By that logic, car emissions are harmless once they are a few inches from the exhaust.

Any recent studies that I have seen seem to suggest that it is harmless to secondhand people . ( Thats probably not the correct term, I mean it's not like secondhand smoke if you get me ) More studies will be done in the coming years and obviously fresh air is the best thing for your lungs. It might keep people off cigarettes and as a side effect kills off a chunk of the cigarette industry , so it can't all be bad

TaurenDruid

jonski wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not understanding your point here . If it's outdoors is it the visibility that bothers you ? If you I am vaping something that is emitting big clouds then I take 2 maybe 3 puffs and it goes back in my pocket, thats enough nic for me . Maybe other are puffing constantly but that would be unusual.

The visibility - and the activity - bothers me indoors. I guess I've no choice but to put up with it outdoors. But no, my point was how come such a huge cloud of vapour is needed to get the same nicotine hit as someone used to be able to get from an ordinary cigarette. I guess if it's all coming from a couple of blasts as opposed to 5 minutes of smoking an ordinary cigarette the volumes would be roughly equal, though.

Any recent studies that I have seen seem to suggest that it is harmless to secondhand people . ( Thats probably not the correct term, I mean it's not like secondhand smoke if you get me ) More studies will be done in the coming years and obviously fresh air is the best thing for your lungs. It might keep people off cigarettes and as a side effect kills off a chunk of the cigarette industry , so it can't all be bad

What studies? Conducted by whom, published where, and what were the sample sizes? Tobacco industry studies used to claim that smoking and nicotine were good for you, then that they were harmless, and that they were certainly harmless for secondary smokers...

Thecageyone

I'm vaping 7 years now, and I have never vaped indoors besides my own home. I don't know any other vapers who do this either. I use the smoking areas in bars/restaurants or I go outside, I don't vape in anyone else's car, I tend not to 'blow clouds' in the midst of people, in fact I rarely vape while walking and I never vape in someone else's house - even if they say it's ok, I'll pop out to the garden [if they are non vapers/smokers especially]

Not every vaper blow huge clouds btw, there's such a thing as mouth-to-lung vaping and this has become popular again [thankfully] - there's no more 'cloud' than you'd see from cigarette smoke and I personally would much rather walk into this than the smoke that is for sure. I believe second hand vape is harmless, the worst thing you will experience is a fruity scent! the nicotine from vapour is quickly absorbed and all that is exhaled is left over Glycerine and flavoring. This is what I believe to be true, but I do realise not everyone is convinced, but like I say, I never bother anyone else with my vaping. It irritates me as a vaper to see those who do blow huge clouds out in public because it gives vaping a bad rep.

Esel

Thecageyone wrote: »

Not every vaper blow huge clouds btw, there's such a thing as mouth-to-lung vaping and this has become popular again [thankfully] - there's no more 'cloud' than you'd see from cigarette smoke and I personally would much rather walk into this than the smoke that is for sure..

Can you clarify a bit here please?

Is it that regular vapers do mouth-to-lung (like a regular smoker) and 'cloud' vapers use a straight inhalation (like normal breathing)?

jonski

Esel wrote: »

Can you clarify a bit here please?

Is it that regular vapers do mouth-to-lung (like a regular smoker) and 'cloud' vapers use a straight inhalation (like normal breathing)?

Pretty much , the vast majority of vapers use a MTL type device like the vape pens you see around .

Thecageyone

Esel wrote: »

Can you clarify a bit here please?

Is it that regular vapers do mouth-to-lung (like a regular smoker) and 'cloud' vapers use a straight inhalation (like normal breathing)?

Originally all vaping was done mouth to lung - you'll see vapers refer to 'mtl' vaping, it is the basic form. It's much like you would smoke a cigarette, you draw to mouth, before inhaling. Direct lung came about with sub ohm [coils below the 1 ohm level] - this is where you draw direct to your lungs like you would puff on an inhaler. I guess that's about the best way I can describe it. MTL vaping is really only possible or comfortable with hgher resistance coils. 1ohm or above, you get less vaper and often you up the nic level to suit.

LeBash

endacl wrote: »

Read the room. I wouldn’t vape in the cinema, where I don’t know if somebody might or mightn’t have an issue with the harmless 2nd hand water vapour. I would in my local, where even though it’s technically not allowed, even the staff do.

I vaped my brains out in the cinema last night.

Sat well away from everyone but never seen the cinema as an issue and now that 2 people have mentioned it, I'll be all self conscious next time.

kippy

Shinobollo wrote: »

This conversation is missing one very important fact.

Smoking indoors in pubs, clubs, workplace etc is illegal and for very good reason - second hand smoke causes cancer.
Vaping indoors is legal. In fact all studies to date that have investigated the effects of second hand vape state that second hand vape is harmless.

I don't agree with people blowing huge plumes of vape around in enclosed public spaces but thought it worth reminding contributors to this thread of the difference between vaping and smoking.

If we ban vaping indoors because some vapes smell of bubblegum or menthol, will the wearing of perfume, aftershave and deodorant be next ? Should we ban mints and chewing gum or my personal pet hate "Red Bull" too ?

Completely irrelevant.
The owner of the premises has the right to ban vaping on their premises whether this is backed up by law or not.
Smoking and indeed second hand smoke wasn't found to be harmful for decades.

[Deleted User]

My own personal belief is that vaping should be treated exactly like smoking and should be banned from any indoor place until its proven safe. That's my belief but that's just me. Vapers are perfectly entitled to vape in cinemas and pubs if the venue permits it. The last government was left wanting in its control of vaping and the sale of vaping products.

grindle

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The visibility - and the activity - bothers me indoors. I guess I've no choice but to put up with it outdoors. But no, my point was how come such a huge cloud of vapour is needed to get the same nicotine hit as someone used to be able to get from an ordinary cigarette. I guess if it's all coming from a couple of blasts as opposed to 5 minutes of smoking an ordinary cigarette the volumes would be roughly equal, though.

Ecigs are also inefficient for dosing nicotine relative to cigarettes, cotinine measures 30-40% of the typical cigarette smoker, smoke particles are smaller and get deeper into alveoli.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

What studies? Conducted by whom, published where, and what were the sample sizes? Tobacco industry studies used to claim that smoking and nicotine were good for you, then that they were harmless, and that they were certainly harmless for secondary smokers...

This "but they said this about cigarettes" argument has been done to death and negates both the facts that science & the means of chemical analysis have advanced and the amount of data collected has proliferated to an extreme extent.

Nicotine itself is a vasoconstrictor on the same level as caffeine except you can control the dosage much better so you're much less likely to get the jitters, it's addictive but relatively harmless unless you have a heart condition/very high blood pressure.

Here's a big waffle-post from back when these kinds of posts were exhaustingly regular and I had more motivation and time to waffle whenever people were spouting crap. The study linked at the beginning of that post has been lost from that original server, but I found it again!
It was funded by CASAA, a consumer advocacy group for ecigs, but the study itself is much like the Royal College of Physician's much touted (and very positive) study, an examination of many previous studies variously funded by pharmaceutical, tobacco & ecig companies, aiming to give a frame of reference re: output of ecigs and whether or not the vapour produced exceeds Public Exposure Limits.

Even when compared to workplace standards for involuntary exposures, and using several conservative (erring on the side of caution) assumptions, the exposures from using e-cigarettes fall well below the threshold for concern for compounds with known toxicity. That is, even ignoring the benefits of e-cigarette use and the fact that the exposure is actively chosen, and even comparing to the levels that are considered unacceptable to people who are not benefiting from the exposure and do not want it, the exposures would not generate concern or call for remedial action.

If you want to stay up-to-date or be informed about ecigs:
http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php
(cardiologist who approached ecigs expecting to lambast them, became a vaper)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
(the researcher whose studies were responsible for the world's second-hand-smoking bans and many billions being taken from tobacco companies

One of the points you bring up indirectly is the sheer quantity of juice consumed. Thanks to nicotine being vilified and conflated with the harm of cigarettes, many people (including very many vapers) think reducing nicotine to low levels but increasing volume of juice inhaled is safer for them for some reason, whereas they're introducing more of the compounds we know least about when heated and inhaled, the flavours. Still harmless and below PELs for "second-hand vapers" but it's the area that needs most study.

JustAThought

frightening cases coming out of the US with vaping and kids getting (incurable) popcorn lung from it. Few years back several consultants got together in cork university hospital and issued a statement to say they had now directly experienced over 30 cases of lung damage done to children by vaping. By all
means poision yourself and fill your home,
clothes and upholstery with peach or bubblegum or pineapple flavour chemical infested goo - but keep it to yourself. no, vaping is not acceptable. Poison yourself - not me or or mine.

grindle

JustAThought wrote: »

frightening cases coming out of the US with vaping and kids getting (incurable) popcorn lung from it.

Nope.

Dr. Anne Schuchat, the CDC's principal deputy director, says this sharp spike strongly points to a single culprit for most of these cases: vitamin E acetate, an additive found in illicit cannabis-containing vapes.

CDC Finds Possible Culprit In Outbreak Of Vaping-Related Lung Injuries
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
CDC Finds Possible Culprit In Outbreak Of Vaping-Related Lung Injuries
"That doesn't mean that there aren't other chemicals that can or are causing lung injury," Schuchat said during a telephone news conference. But backed with additional data about vitamin E acetate found in lung samples from people who were injured after vaping, she attributes the bulk of the outbreak to that additive.

JustAThought wrote: »

Few years back several consultants got together in cork university hospital and issued a statement to say they had now directly experienced over 30 cases of lung damage done to children by vaping.

This is the closest thing I could find to whatever you're on about, so if it's what you're on about:

1. Those kids ingested as in swallowed that ejuice.
2. Dr. Chris Luke, whenever he acts as a talking head about ecigs, ignores data in favour of preventive medicine, which is not a smart way to give up smoking.

jonski

Thanks Grindle ,

I started looking for the studies and I knew roughly where to find them but then I remembered I was done trying to justify my vaping to some random person on the internet . Maybe some of the posters here are genuinely interested but there are others that have already made up their minds based solely on headlines from the Daily Mail ( kinda unfair to name the daily mail when other more reputable news outlets have been as bad ) or the like .

And before anyone says anything ...I'm in my fifties .......I'm entitled to be grumpy .

grindle

jonski wrote: »

I remembered I was done trying to justify my vaping to some random person on the internet . Maybe some of the posters here are genuinely interested but there are others that have already made up their minds based solely on headlines from the Daily Mail ( kinda unfair to name the daily mail when other more reputable news outlets have been as bad ) or the like

Yeah, bit of a banging-head>brick-wall vibe to it, but lurkers exist and are the majority so I have to pipe up every once in a while in case they're misled by people who still believe ejuice causes popcorn lung or whatever other suspiciously-sourced crap has been printed - which is generally unedited PR blurb put out on behalf of a pharma company.

Thecageyone

Did this thread get kicked from another area to here? This kind of thing just promotes silly smack talk and scaremongering tbh. But in a way, it's good that those who are so easily led by the likes of The Sun, can get some actual solid advice and calm TF down

TaurenDruid

grindle wrote: »

...or whatever other suspiciously-sourced crap has been printed...

But studies funded and published by tobacco, nicotine and e-cig and vaping companies are beyond reproach?

jonski

TaurenDruid wrote: »

But studies funded and published by tobacco, nicotine and e-cig and vaping companies are beyond reproach?

I don't believe anyone on here said that .

grindle

TaurenDruid wrote: »

But studies funded and published by tobacco, nicotine and e-cig and vaping companies are beyond reproach?

I certainly didn't say or imply that at all, you need to keep your biases in check.

All studies no matter the source, should be, have been and are being pored over for signs of inconsistent methodology. These days ecigs have gotten well-known enough that it's become much harder for companies/lobbyist interests to outright scam results in a study or post generally favourable data yet the authors mysteriously write a negative conclusion (these studies usually have a tie to a man who used to work with Dr. Siegel named Stan Glantz, a truly revolting human being whose manipulation of truth you can read about on Siegel's blog).
Trusting an opinion espoused by a newspaper where the article's "author" has literally copy-pasted blurb from the PR company tasked with sending whichever company's study conclusion out to print is as brainless as it gets.

At the start it was both the pharma and tobacco companies manipulating test methodology to get a desired result, like having your inhalation machine fire an atomiser with thin wire @ 15-20w for 10 second bursts with a few seconds between bursts which meant the juice couldn't wick fast and ended up burning, while those atomisers are meant to be fired @ 5-10w for a few seconds and vaped like a normal human would (humans wouldn't continue vaping burnt juice and charred silica, or cotton nowadays). That was the worst study that came out about ecigs (well... not really, because the methodology was broken and designed for failure, but I digress), the one which was still taken into account as a worst-case-possible when the Royal College of Physicians and took ecigs down to "only" 95% safer than cigarettes.

There was a turning point for tobacco companies and their studies once they saw the threat of ecigs to their business and decided they should control the market by lobbying for tighter regulations because they can afford to do idiotic things like paying $100k per strength per flavour for their juice (thankfully gotten around by selling nic and flavours separately) but now they want to lock down device choice more than they already have.

A majority of these studies are available for you to read through pubmed or BMJ, come to your own conclusions based on available data rather than PR blurb. As it stands you're pontificating about and vilifying something which helps to keep millions of people off of cigarettes -a known killer where the cold turkey method of quitting has a 95-97% failure rate - based on... Being suspicious of them? Not liking fruity flavours? Very incorrectly assuming they pose a grave danger to your health?
Should the cloud-chuckers be more polite? Yup, I've gotten a face full of cloud before, thought the guy was a wánker. Should vapes be considered and treated as being as dangerous as cigarettes? If you're illiterate, maybe.