You are aware that e-cigs and patches are not tobacco, aren’t you?
Is that a fact?
Well, yeah, they do. There exists (with all the studies that have been done) no evidence to suggest that nicotine causes or increases any risk of cancer. Plus most (if not all) nicotine is absorbed by the user. Ecigs don’t burn off the end while not actively being smoked, thus all of the vapor goes in the user first, the nicotine is absorbed, and the exhaled vapor is quite literally little more than water vapor.
But that comment of mine wasn’t just aimed at folks objecting to ecigs, I’m including folks objecting to good old fashioned smokers as well. As in, a smoker who is smoking where they have every right to smoke - meaning outdoors in a public place.
Smoking is increasingly being restricted to very limited spaces. As a non-smoker, one has practically unlimited spaces in which to go to avoid second hand smoke. Yet people will still object to a smoker who is smoking in one of the only places left to smoke.
Basically, my point is the ignorant/entitled believe either the world belongs to them (entitled) and they should never, ever have to even smell a cigarette (let alone breathe the second hand smoke) including spaces where smoking is allowed and will tell you (the smoker) that you’re somehow violating their rights - or the ignorant not realizing all they have to do is move to find cleaner air.
If I’m outside smoking where I’m allowed to do so and you don’t like it - the burden is on you to move if you want.
Wow, until I read this and went and read the Wikipedia article and followed up on the references, I hadn’t realized that nicotine by itself was a carcinogen; I only knew about the stimulant / heart disease effects.
ETA: Although the Wikipedia article does note that “While no epidemiological evidence supports that nicotine alone acts as a carcinogen in the formation of human cancer” before discussing the carcinogenic research.
Sorry I missed this earlier - yes I am aware. Sloppy writing on my part, I apologise.
What’s funny is that now that you bring it up, I have to wonder if the people writing the county regs for what’s allowed on county property are aware of the difference. They haven’t redone the wording to change “tobacco use” to “nicotine use” for the public, just added a phrase that e-cigs are also banned and didn’t really give a reason.
The wording and restrictions for employees are much more strenuous, and do reference nicotine use rather than “tobacco” only. Again, that’s my fault earlier, I was writing quickly and not being precise.
That’s cool Lasciel, thanks for acknowledging. What kind of public service do you work for where nicotine patches are not allowed? 
A nosy county government administration. 
I do want to clarify that they are allowed, just have to be officially noted and the person has to do extra training and pay extra insurance because of them.
I sympathize – I do think the pendulum has swung a bit past the sane point, but consider it payback for decades where anyone who couldn’t tolerate smoke carried the burden. There were few places one could go in public without being assaulted by noxious smoke. The worst was air travel, where you couldn’t escape. Eventually they had smoking and nonsmoking sections, but that was a bit of a joke since the air was recirculated anyway.
Regardles, a little empathy and tolerance goes a long way. Too many people don’t seem to realize that a rare minor problem isn’t worth fussing over. The repeated affronts are the ones that you have to deal with.
I have a few friends who did the non nicotine e-juice so there was no drug cloud at all. The 1 thing I have noticed from my smoking days is that ex-smokers are the very worst at being bothered by others smoking. I am trying to quit once again this time vaping. I try my hardest not to impose my habit onto anyone else.
Correct. Are you aware that Nicotine and Glycol are considered poisons.
Its unclear what would happen if a vape machine pumped its fumes direct toward someones face, it might cause blindness for example… the pump would move the toxic cloud FASTER than a cigarette, hence the increased danger in this regard.
See the entry on glycol … which is the deadly poison as known in radiator fluid.
As the European Parliament passed regulations requiring standardization and quality control for liquids and vaporizers, disclosure of ingredients in liquids, and child-proofing and tamper-proofing for liquid packaging, you can tell that its dangerous stuff. I think it should be banned, why would anyone decide that its OK to test out if the ordinary public should be allowed to become addicted to the breathing of toxic air ? it doesn’t make any sense to test, there is no reason to test it . Just ban it today.
Not completely correct.
Hennepin County in Minnesota (basically Minneapolis & suburbs, about 1/4th of the population of the state) has determined that e-cigarettes DO fall under their smoking ban, and so does not allow their use inside public buildings.
Completely and totally WRONG! Did you even bother reading your own link? You are thinking of ethylene glycol which is the traditional auto anti-freeze. Anything that lowers the freezing point is an anti-freeze - like salt for example. Propylene Glycol is used in safe, non-toxic anti-freeze. It’s also used for de-icing planes and many other industrial applications. You most likely consume it everyday since it has been designated GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) as a food addititive for decades. Most baked goods have it to maintain moistness. It’s in toothpaste and mouthwash. I just bought some a couple of weeks ago to try out as a mosturizer on my face since I was having some red, flaky, itchy spots. My face hasn’t looked so good in years. Some people might have some mild irritation from skin contact, but that’s not common since it’s in cosmetics also. Even in the eye, any irritation is short-lived once it is washed out. It is also used in theatrical smoke machines and by fire departments for testing and certifying smoke ventilation systems.
This article abstract, TESTS FOR THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF PROPYLEXE GLYCOL AND TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL ON MONKEYS AND RATS BY VAPOR INHALATION AND ORAL ADMINISTRATION, concludes “The results of these experiments in conjunction with the absence of any observed ill effects in patients exposed to both triethylene glycol and propylene glycol vapors for months at a time, provide assurance that air containing these vapors in amounts up to the saturation point is completely harmless”.
Wrong - as already pointed out to you, your own link contradicts what you posted. And what in the heck is a “vape machine”?
The FDA regards propylene glycol as GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe.) It’s in many, many food products.
Nicotine poisoning can happen, yes. But one has to ingest a ridiculous amount of it. Lots of everyday substances are poisonous if you ingest lots of it. Cleaning products. Paint. Motor oil. Alcohol. Salt. Glue. Perfume. Gasoline. Cat food. Both OTC and prescription medications. Shampoo. etc.
Anyway, to the OP - it depends on the location or venue. My county is about to ban it in all government buildings. I was finally able to quit smoking in favor of vaping, but if I were to see a sign in a public place that says “No Vaping” I’d honor that. And my line of work involves working in peoples’ homes so I always ask - have yet to have anyone say no. If a venue (say a movie theater, or restaurant/bar) does not put patrons on notice that vaping is specifically prohibited, I’ll do it discreetly. Nobody has ever complained. If anything I get comments about how nice it smells. 
Vaping is not the same as smoking.
I am going to indulge my inner bureaucrat for a moment and speculate that “no vaping” rules are more likely an enforcement convenience.
Objectively, there are cases in which using a vaporator (is that what they’re called?) has exactly zero practical effects that can be characterized as “second-hand”. The canonical silly but technically feasible case is vaping pure water. “I’m just inhaling pure steam, man!”
But if you’re doing that, who can tell it’s not cigarette smoking at a glance? It certainly looks like you’re smoking. People tasked with enforcing “No Smoking” will have to come over and bug you to make sure you’re not smoking in the customary sense: consuming tobacco by burning its dried leaves in some kind of inhalation device.
Rather than being forced to use judgment and take time on a case-by-case basis, they ban all activities which might be construed as smoking without detailed investigation. It’s simpler that way.
“Hmm… more work for me, or inconvenience and deprivation for you. Let me think, let me think… which should I choose…”
Cigarette smoke is such a powerful odor that if you’re close enough to see that someone is smoking, you can also smell it. Well, non-smokers can, anyway. I really don’t see this as an issue.
I’m of the opinion that vaping should be encouraged as the clear lesser of two evils. I would be pretty darn happy if all current cigarette smokers switched to vaping. The smells produced are pretty subtle and no worse than mild perfumes. It’s obviously healthier both for smokers and people around them, it improves air quality (vs cigarettes) and reduces litter. To that end, I’m not seeing a good reason to ban them in public places.
Burning zombies put off a lot of vapor and smoke.
They are starting to crack down on e-cigs in public place’s which i think is stupid because it dose not smell and only expels water vapor !
Moderator Action
Thread closed due to excessive zombification.