35 replies to this topic

[BigJ]

[quote name='capnhack' timestamp='1326564701' post='195502']
Good post BigJ, and you're right, but proving the safety of vaping (first and/or second hand) isn't possible right now,[/quote]

It isn't possible, period. The notion that you can prove something is safe - or even that you should - is a canard introduced into mainstream public discourse on health in the last 20 years, reaching a fever pitch with the ludicrous so-called "controversy" over MMR engineered by the media, which now won't lie down and die. What you can do, however, is repeatedly fail to demonstrate harm despite trying to do so, which is not the same thing.

[quote name='capnhack' timestamp='1326564701' post='195502'] so it's necessary to work with what we've got. [/quote]

Some analyses have already been performed on second-hand vapour and there's no reason not to perform more. Science is not hard.

[quote name='capnhack' timestamp='1326564701' post='195502']Also, the NHS and other organisations don't have to only safeguard the health of their non-smoking/non-vaping employees to the best of their ability, but also those who choose to smoke or vape. [/quote]

They're doing that by not allowing them to smoke or vape at work, by providing smoking cessation advice and so on. They have no - let me repeat - NO obligations whatsoever to take into account their employees' desire to smoke or vape. They DO have a duty of care to ensure that the actions of employees whilst in the workplace do not harm other employees.

[quote name='capnhack' timestamp='1326564701' post='195502']Due to that point, and since they don't say people can't smoke, they cannot demand that vapers be exposed to second hand smoke by having them spend time around the smokers. [/quote]

They're not demanding any such thing. They're saying "you can't vape in NHS buildings or vehicles". What employees do about that is up to them, but the NHS is in no way harming anyone with that policy; employees who smoke or vape are choosing to harm themselves - or potentially so - with their behaviour, but there's no conceivable legal position that would make the NHS responsible for that decision. Employers can ban anything - anything - that an employee doesn't have a legal right to do in the workplace (and something not being illegal is not the same thing as a legal right to do it), provided that so doing is not discriminatory on grounds of race, creed or gender. Even those latter criteria are superseded by Health and Safety considerations: that's the law. It's not really constructive to say "they can't do this or that" when what you really mean is "they shouldn't" or "I don't think it's fair that they are", and it's even less constructive to attack a straw man; in this case, the idea that they're forcing someone to spend time with smokers who are smoking, when they're not doing any such thing.

[quote=NHS]"Also, several ‘puffs’ are needed to give the nicotine replacement ‘hit’ needed, so in effect it’s the same as smoking a cigarette and should be used in a well-ventilated area in break times. The recommendation is to use an alternative nicotine replacement product at work and use the electronic cigarette in suitable situations, such as social events where the temptation to ‘slip back’ could be greater - but of course that is your personal preference/choice."[/quote]

They have NOT said "Company policy is that you should go and stand in the smoking shelter". My post was trying to address what they did say - "there is insufficient research relating to the effects of the ‘smoke’ vapour on individuals and others nearby" - rather than what one might choose to infer from it.

At the end of the day, they can ban vaping; it's that simple. The law allows them to prohibit vaping in the workplace, same as it allows them to prohibit singing, eating broccoli or wearing deeley-boppers in the workplace. They don't need a justification to ban it, they need a reason not to.

[quote name='capnhack' timestamp='1326564701' post='195502']...once studies have been done on exhaled vapour...[/quote]

Studies have been done - and are being done - on exactly that, although I have reason to question the methodology in many cases. The execrable FDA study is just one such! Don't get me wrong here, I'm entirely on the side of being allowed to vape at work, I'm just advocating that the correct approach is to tackle it from the basis of evidence, public health and harm reduction rather than emotive arguments which can be quickly countered with equally-emotive (and equally-unsubstantiable) claims of "risk to others". It sucks, but there it is

Edited by BigJ, 14 January 2012 - 07:06 PM.

[capnhack]

Alright, safe or not dangerous, they may not be the same but the conclusion in terms of damage is the same - none attributable. When I say more research and studies have to be carried out, I don't mean more just in general, but official independent stuff done here in the UK and verified by UK based organisations. There's a lack of those and more are required to give weight to their results. It does no good to look at this from the perspective of a scientist, since the people being presented with this information will not be scientists, they will be suited execs or HR people. As.. ethically questionable as it may be to present the information in a particular way to appeal to a particular audience, it works and, provided we don't fudge the numbers or lie, I see no reason not to use that kind of presentation. The other side of the argument certainly won't hesitate.

Since nicotine is addictive and smokers/vapers can be considered addicts, they absolutely have a duty of care to them that goes beyond simply telling them to stop it. They could tell people to start using patches or NRT instead, but studies have been carried out in the UK to show that they don't work very well and can cause far greater problems than they claim to solve. When viewed from a business perspective, NRT type stuff also falls down when compared with vaping. Lack of treatment for the physical addiction along with side effects would have an enormous negative impact on productivity and job satisfaction.

Evidence is great when it exists, but right now it doesn't, or at least not in a form that would be palatable to the board members or whomever it would be presented to. The choice is this: do we wait for what we hope is enough evidence to the contrary of harm from second hand vapour as the image of vapers becomes more and more intertwined with that of smokers, or do we step in and try to differentiate the two now before that goes any further? The first is the safest option but there's no way to tell how long collecting the various studies will take or if, when they are presented, they'll be that magic unknown number that counts as "enough". For now the emotive arguments and tailored presentation of hard evidence are better than nothing or raw evidence that means nothing to most people. Emotive arguments will be used by the other side either way, so we should have our own. Soft evidence can be countered by hard evidence, and we have enough of that to form a winning argument for vaping at, if not in, the workplace.

More evidence is clearly good for both our strategies, but I do worry that sitting back and waiting (as emotive arguments and fudged statistics are thrown at us) may mean that it's too late by the time we have significantly powerful verifiable UK based studies to bring to the table. We can't win this thing with mud slinging, or by playing to the detractors and rebutting their stream of lies, but we just might if we can take a stand and present irrefutable fact in a way that appeals to the right audience. We need to be on the front foot, we need to be the ones presenting the evidence as and when it is collected, and we need to set ourselves apart from smokers as the very first step. If we do this we can break any counter-argument they throw at us, and for once they will be the ones having to come up with those counters.

[Neozero]

It's not looking hopeful for any sort of straightforward solution here really is it?
In a bid to not slip back into the habit of heading for the back door of the garage to vape, an action intrinsically-linked with smoking in my brain, guess I'll have to hammer the snus etc more at work.
Also watch this space for an SDK cunningly hidden inside a Nicolette inhalator shell, or an asthma spray case? My dremel is on the case

[Kenny]

Neozero, on 14 January 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

It's not looking hopeful for any sort of straightforward solution here really is it?
In a bid to not slip back into the habit of heading for the back door of the garage to vape, an action intrinsically-linked with smoking in my brain, guess I'll have to hammer the snus etc more at work.
Also watch this space for an SDK cunningly hidden inside a Nicolette inhalator shell, or an asthma spray case? My dremel is on the case

That would be a good one for a modder to make for stealth vaping in the work place.

[Neozero]

On a slightly more serious note. It does appear I may have to resort at times to more 'traditional' Nicotine fix options. I've tried most and failed miserably on all so far! gum and lozenges are out.....tasted vile. Patches are a non-starter. The side effects were worse than nicotine withdrawal and the constant nicotine trickle is inclined to set off migraines (smoky rooms also do that now too ). I already own one of those horrible white tubes: pile of nasty-tasting crap. Drug route: forget it: Both zyban and chantix will interact badly with prescription meds I'm already on.....I checked.
So far as I can work out, that leaves the spray stuff. Once empty, can definitely hide a sneaky mod in that bottle
There's also the iolite...... Skip the VG I tend to add and 'As you can see, it produces a really crap amount of vapour'

[BigJ]

If we're talking pure practicalities, well... I'm certainly not going to be the one to suggest that anyone does anything that breaks company policy at work, but it's worth noting that if you just hold it for a second or two, the minimal vapour that escapes on the exhale isn't enough to reach the top of a toilet cubicle door. At least, not from my VGo and LR cartomisers.

I'm just saying, is all.

___

"Quod non videt oculus, cor non dolet"
___

[steffijade]

I think the simple fact is that the public have been drip fed a constant stream of propaganda about the evils of smoking by the anti smoking brigade for years. They see absolutely no benefit in nicotine.... unless it's the 'good' nicotine in NRT that only needs to be used for approx 6 weeks to be nic free for life... (shades of brass eye good aids/ bad aids). This being the case, they have little interest in differentiating between smoking and vaping...... actions that replicates smoking (even the ever evil sweet ciggy) allow authority figures to feel justified in taking a small minded, blanket inclusion approach... particularly if said authority figure is biased against smoking anyway. <shrug>

[Neozero]

Most annoying thing SJ is that the right-hand woman of the guy publishing this rule, ie: the area manager and our local manager both openly flout the smoking policy (I kid you not, there's 11 pages of that!) Both of them smoke in the garage here, when it's actually forbidden to smoke on trust property at all.
Ah well!

[wfx]

Shifty, on 13 January 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

At least you're not being tested for nicotine(yet) these things have an habit of spreading and there is a good chance it could start happening over here.

yes. sorry about this. the american 'puritan' ethic is definitely for export. i seem to recall you booting some folks offshore. that was a good call.

[easystreet]

Neozero, on 15 January 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

Most annoying thing SJ is that the right-hand woman of the guy publishing this rule, ie: the area manager and our local manager both openly flout the smoking policy (I kid you not, there's 11 pages of that!) Both of them smoke in the garage here, when it's actually forbidden to smoke on trust property at all.
Ah well!

fight them with their own rules neo. get evidence of them smoking in contravention to the smoking policy, then take it higher up (or blackmail them, hehe).

i love hitting people with their own rules... the thing is that people who like to make rules and tell people what to do, strangely don't like it when it happens to them...

[easystreet]

BigJ, on 14 January 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

I'm certainly not going to be the one to suggest that anyone does anything that breaks company policy at work,

i am, it's not illegal... stealth vape at work neo.

[BigJ]

easystreet, on 16 January 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

BigJ, on 14 January 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

I'm certainly not going to be the one to suggest that anyone does anything that breaks company policy at work,

i am, it's not illegal... stealth vape at work neo.

LOL! Normally I can come up with a quote for the occasion (the one in my previous post is, roughly, "what the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve") but I have no idea what the Latin for "what is not illegal, can still get your ass fired" might be

You're right though, easystreet. It's just that speaking as one of the "suited execs" who is too stupid to understand science, evidence, logic, corporate liability, employment law, risk-based decision making or indeed basic maths I feel I have to keep my end of things up by at least pretending not to cross the company-policy line in any advice I might give.

And I in NO WAY spend most of my long train journeys stealth-vaping. Nor did I stealth-vape at an industry standards body governance meeting. No sir. That would have been wrong, my word yes...

Good luck, Neo!

[Neozero]

Stealth vaping is strangly gratifying
Maybe the action of flouting a rule without anyone knowing, or the holding of breath and slooooow careful exhale yoga-fashion that are relaxing, or both

[sid]

I may have tried an electronic cigarette but I certainly didn't exhale.

[steffijade]

sid, on 16 January 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

I may have tried an electronic cigarette but I certainly didn't exhale.

hehe... nice 1.

[SteveMacc]

If you chew Nicorette gum, you must be breathing out some nicotine. But you can use that in your workplace. Why do they allow it and not vaping? If the vapour was invisible, what would they do. I was once challenged about this. I asked if I could suck on my PV without pressing thebutton. The answer was yes. So i do. I accidentally press the button quite frequently, but make sure I don't breathe out plumes of vapour. Don't use VG.