> Got some proof that secondhand vapor causes harm?
Why is "harm" needed? If I am next to you I'm not interested in you forcing me to take drugs. I don't need to demonstrate harm, I just don't want you to send me drugs.
At least put a filter on the thing so no nicotine comes out of it (i.e. you breath both in and out of it, through the filter).
"I'm not interested in you forcing me to take drugs."
You have got to be kidding me. Whatever amount of nicotine you are getting from secondhand vapor is TINY. You are not getting drugged. It has no psychoactive effects or addictive potential at that level.
Since that whole line of thinking is ridiculous, we consider harm. Being near cooking food, say your neighbors having a BBQ, exposes you to volatile N'-nitrosamines, similar to one of the groups of compounds shown to have some carcinogenic potential in smoking.
These types of things are not found in ecigs (or only in incredibly tiny amounts). There is no burning, carbon monoxide, etc. You are getting more harm from stuff like cleaning product fumes or other air pollution from cars/industry.
With almost no independent studies being done on e-cigs and their impact on the environment around you almost none of the claims you just made can be substantiated as either true or shown to be false.
We need more reliable data.
In general e-cigs should be restricted until they're proven safe. Basically treated like any other kind of cigarette. It is clear from this thread and elsewhere that smokers have zero consideration for others.
There's tons of credible evidence out there that ecigs do not contain most of the carcinogens in burning cigarettes. Even studies done by scientists with big pharma funding will at least mostly acknowledge this.
Ecigs are clearly not "100% safe" but the same goes for the food you eat and all other types of things you put in your body. it isn't about proving 100% safety. It's about showing a vast reduction in harm for people who are addicted to and dying from smoking.
Speaking of "zero consideration for others", anti-nicotine zealots take a quit or die stance. You would rather ban ecigs and force people back to smoking?
That's just ridiculous. I think exhaust pipes from traffic are of much more concern than e-cigs around us. Personally, I find offensive when get hit by a whiff of someone's BO more than e-cigs (which if aren't flavored I can't even tell if they are 'smoking' them).
I'm just curious, do you eat potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant, or cauliflower? If so, you are already ingesting that evil, evil nicotine[1]. In all honesty, I doubt we would be put more at risk by inhaling any trace amounts of nicotine in secondhand vap than we would from interacting with everything else in our everyday lives. Hell, sitting in front of this computer and typing this response is probably shortening my lifespan more than a minuscule amount of nicotine.
Why is "harm" needed? If I am next to you I'm not interested in you forcing me to take drugs. I don't need to demonstrate harm, I just don't want you to send me drugs.
At least put a filter on the thing so no nicotine comes out of it (i.e. you breath both in and out of it, through the filter).