• Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem isn’t pushing it as an alternative to already active smokers, that’s what it was initially touted as…

    The problem is it became the new smoking fad. People who never smoked are taking this up, and are now the new generation of hungry addicts to keep the tobacco corps alive and well.

    • Sausage@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      An adult should be able to do whatever the fuck they want, as long as it doesn’t impact other people. Vaping doesn’t emit any carcinogens or toxic substances, and 10 times less nicotine than smoking does. At the end of the day, vaping does far less harm than smoking, and it’s easier to reduce the amount of nicotine consumed with vaping. Nicotine also has health benefits, such as slowing down the onset of Parkinson’s.

      If teenagers are vaping then that’s an enforcement issue, but at the same time I would be less worried if I found a vape in my kid’s bedroom than a packet of cigarettes. Teenagers will experiement with substances. Nicotne vapes are way down the list of ones I would be worried about.

        • Sausage@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which bit is false?

          From the first link:

          The key finding of this study is that e-cigarettes emit significant amounts of nicotine but do not emit significant amounts of CO and VOCs. We also found that the level of secondhand exposure to nicotine depends on the e-cigarette brand. However, the emissions of nicotine from e-cigarettes were significantly lower than those of tobacco cigarettes.

          • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In a scientific context “significantly less” essentially means “we were able to prove beyond our error threshold that there was less nicotine”

            As such, it doesn’t mean squat without numbers to back it up. There could be 1% less nicotine and it’d still be significant if their testing method was sensitive enough to reliably capture the difference.

            Whereas this:

            There’s evidence that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand vape aerosol absorb similar levels of nicotine as people exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke.

            Along with nicotine, nonvapers are also exposed to ultrafine particles from secondhand vape aerosol, which may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

            Would mean exactly what the person you’re replying to has said it means, assuming it’s true, aka. It’s patently false to say it’s safer for non-smokers to be around.

            • Sausage@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are numbers to back it up, in the study I linked. Is 10 times less not significant?

              The primary harm from cigarettes doesn’t come from the nicotine, it comes from all the other toxic chemicals released by combustion, which aren’t present in the aerosol exhaled from a vape.

              Nobody is claiming it to be 100% safe (what is?), but it’s not even in the same ballpark of harm as smoking is.

        • CoderKat@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m personally all for banning smoking in public places (besides designated areas and specialty clubs). I agree that exposing people to secondhand smoke is rude at best and a health risk for them at worst. But I do think that especially in the comfort of your own home, you can do what you want (with the caveat that if vaping has similar odor issues as smoking, I see it entirely reasonable that renters can be required to smoke outside).

      • ██████████@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        indeed man.

        waaaaA waaaaaaaA BUT I HATE SMOKERS WAAHHHHHHHH 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

        half the people here 👆 we get it you dont smoke. that means this aint your place to discuss something you are ignorant about

    • PenguinJuice@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Then don’t smoke or vape. No one is forcing you to. Please do not be a pearl clutcher and make decisions for everyone else around you. You’re not God and even GOD gave people the choice to believe in him.

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Okay but the only way we can not smoke or vape is for allayall smokers and vapers not to smoke or vape in places where the rest of us breathe. I can’t even go out on my balcony for several of the otherwise most pleasant hours because there’s a guy smoking cigars in the courtyard of the next building and the stench is nauseating. And there’s always a smell of vaping in the hallway of my own building, despite it being open to the outside air at one end. Y’all are so anosmic you have no idea how far your vapor and smoke spreads.

      • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, that’d be a great suggestion if it weren’t for the fact that we don’t get a choice in breathing those fumes in if we happen to be downwind of a smoker/vaper exercising their choice. You get to choose over your own body but you also get to make the choice over ours.

        Also, really not a great comparison considering the choice is believe in me or burn in hell for all eternity, and God knows which choice we’re going to make from the start (being omniscient and all)