Hacker News Reader

Comment by draw_down | Hacker News Reader

I don't know enough to say how these changes will affect the industry, but I've seen ecigs lumped in with tobacco in lots of ways and it's super shitty. Everything from "don't smoke or vape within 50 feet" to public-advocacy billboards warning kids not to get sucked in to this ecig thing because they're just as bad, we swear!!

I'm not going to say they're good for your health but smoking tobacco is SO bad for you that lumping them together is just disingenuous.

View on HN

If people don't want you smoking by them, they usually don't want you vaping by them either.

Given the fact that it has no second-hand consequences to speak of should anyone really give a shit if someone doesn't want you vaping by them? Didn't think so.

It's true that studies show concentrations are so low they may not pose much of a health risk, however, ultra-fine carcinogenic hydrocarbons are still released into the air - and the 'fact' is, more data is needed before we fully understand any potential concerns.

Are you aware of any studies that examine the effects of the base fluids and /all possible/ additives on those with varying levels respiratory issues?

Also, when I go out to a park for exercise I'm going there for healthy fresh air. Not smoke of any form, or anything that looks like smoke, or adds funky scents. (I'd prefer if strong perfumes were also banned in public places; particularly restaurants and any form of waiting area.)

If you are going out into a public park surely you must expect to meet other people and the inconvenience that may cause you? I would also think that the pollution from cars (or from the leaf blower or any other equipment used to keep the park nice) would be a much bigger concern than anyone vaping? I imagine it must be terribly annoying living close to other people if you are disturbed by such minor things, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Just because there are other annoying or polluting things in public places does not mean we should add or allow more of them.

The e-cigarette manufacturers have succeeded alarmingly well in conveying the message that e-cigarette smoke is just water vapour. None explicitly say this now that government regulation is picking up, but it took root nonetheless.

A quick glance at the research published on this topic shows that the vapour from e-cigarettes contains significantly lower but not negligible amounts of carcinogenic compounds. If you are a smoker wanting to quit, this is probably a good trade off, but if you don't smoke, you are likely not to appreciate being treated to an unnecessary increase of harmful substances in the air you live and work in.

You are right to point out that these studies usually focus on a particular brand of e-cigarette filling or a limited range of them. Funky additives can add any amount of complex by-products to the vapour exhaled, further exacerbating the health threat. So yeah, treating e-cigarettes as normal cigarettes seems very sensible.

> I'd prefer if strong perfumes were also banned in public places; particularly restaurants and any form of waiting area.

Or deodorant for that matter. I vastly prefer a subtle hint of Chanel No. 5 over the musky clouds of deodorant excessively applied by teenagers to mask the underlying teenage angst.

Care to cite the research? I have seen no carcinogens noted, although there are some heavy metal compounds that are worth concern.

I can't cite any research with authority, as I lack the academic qualifications to do so in this field — like most of us I depend on the insights of those who do to form an opinion — but studies like these¹⁺² seem to indicate that e-cigarette vapour are at least not devoid of carcinogens.

Searches on Google Scholar yield a number of papers that mostly seem to indicate that more study is needed to fully comprehend the toxicity of e-cigarette vapour, but that via second-hand smoke (or vapour) you are at least exposed to nicotine, and probably to some quantities of other toxins, possibly including carcinogens.

1: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463913...

2: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc1413069#t=article

First of all "toxins" is not a word you want to be using in such discussions. It is a term that tends to be thrown around by people who do not understand chemistry. It is all about the dosage, and so far most research shows that we are talking about some very low doses at best. The heavy metals I noted are probably the most concerning, since those actually do bioaccumulate, but "probably" and "possibly" are not sufficient here.

I fondly remember from my childhood the smell of wood smoke from fireplaces, and leaves being burned in piles in people's yards. Namby-pambyism has not yet stopped all burning in my town, and I occasionally get reminders of those days.

The spice of life is like spice in food.

Just because it smells good and triggers nostalgia does not mean that it isn't terribly bad for your body.

> it has no second-hand consequences to speak of

Can you back that up?

Did they only look at the room as a whole, or also second-hand vapor from inches away?

Because if I'm sitting right near someone at a table who just exhaled a cloud of vapor, I have zero interest in breathing that in. (If I have no [polite] choice I hold my breath till the cloud dissipates, and I'm not pleased at having to do so.)

I'd much rather it either be illegal or there is proof that second-hand vapor inches away from the primary user has no consequences whatsoever.

And I do mean inches - cheek by jowl as they say.

I find intolerance in general mystifying. Inconvenience is inescapable. From my earliest age as a toddler, I was never bothered by cigarette smoke; in fact it was pleasant to me to breathe it in, and this used to give people some amusement. I myself have however never smoked a single cigarette. Now OTOH, I have always found even a whiff of perfume to be repellent and literally sickening. But I would never dream of trying to regulate either one.

> Inconvenience is inescapable.

So let's not add to it.

> But I would never dream of trying to regulate either one.

You will most likely feel different if you or your loved ones ever suffer from the effects of second hand smoking.

Cigarette smoke causes many people respiratory distress. Your anecdote is not data.

It is smelly and distracting.

It doesn't matter if you agree with their reasoning or not. If someone didn't want you doing something around them and you do it anyway, it's rude behavior.

Do you mind other people applying deodorant or perfume while standing right next to you? Do you mind other people farting or belching in your direction?

It doesn't have to be toxic to be rude.

> If people don't want you smoking by them, they usually don't want you vaping by them either.

Sure, and the decent thing to do is not to do it.

Can I get the law to enforce my preference regarding body odour? Can some racist get the law to enforce his preferences about the people he'd like to see?

The law shouldn't care about that, and it should care about smoking or vaping.

It's not the smoke, it's the nicotine.

Chewing tobacco cause mouth and gum cancer.

The 2006 UCLA study on marijuana, the largest of its kind, by an anti-marijuana professor who wanted to prove it's just as bad as tobacco, showed no increase risk of lung cancer.

Remember the effects from tobacco are slow. They take time. We won't know the effects of vaping for another decade at least.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com