Re: Jesus, NO!
"Nothing worse that walking in a crowded area and suddenly being engulfed in a cloud of artificial-smelling nastiness because some bugger who lacks the self-discipline to quit properly has take a huge lug on a vape then blown the whole lot out... almost more disgusting that getting a whiff of the real deal."
Well, that's personal preference - if you run the business, it should be your choice, not a legal dictat, as to whether vaping is banned. That's sort of the point here.
"That plus I have witnessed several incidents where vapers who thought they were being sneaky and sly have set off fire alarms."
If they were americium based ones, I'd be amazed if enough vapour got in there to set it off before everyone else noticed - it needs to be fucking saturated to cause it to interfere. The optical ones can be more flaky depending on how cheap they are, but even they need serious provocation. I think this is a problem with people cheaping out on their fire detection equipment, or someone not being familiar with what 'sneaky' means. I need to seriously take the piss to set off my smoke alarms at home, and that's when using my big devices, with the windows closed...
"A full ban on all forms of smoking and vaping in all public places is long overdue... but of course it won't happen, not while it's a tax cash cow."
No, it's because it'd be hugely unethical, completely unsupported by the evidence, and would give a false impression that e-cigs are as harmful as lit tobacco.
As for your other post....
"No, because that's an entirely natural process. Whereas deliberately burning (or superheating) a chemical that has been proved to be addictive for the purpose of breathing it in - and as a byproduct, forcing anyone in your immediate vicinity to do so as well..."
1: Superheating - you keep using that word; either you don't realise that it doesn't mean what you think it means, or you don't realise that an e-cig does the literal opposite of what superheating is.
2: Nicotine, in any context other than lit tobacco, isn't addictive in any realistic sense (and certainly not any clinical sense). Even in lit tobacco, it doesn't fit pretty much realpolitic definition of addiction, which typically involve the user going to criminal lengths to get their fix.
E-cigarettes may be as or less addictive than nicotine gums, which themselves are not very addictive.
I'm not even joking - Clixor for datas on nicotine without smoke, because that last sentence is a direct quote.
and Clixor for research comparing tobacco smoke and pure nicotine which mentions that...
Nicotine is the drug in tobacco that leads to compulsive drug seeking or addiction. However, several lines of epidemiologic and laboratory evidence presented in this chapter indicate that tobacco-delivered nicotine is substantially more addictive than are pure nicotine forms. Other tobacco constituents, delivery methods, and processes may play a critical supporting role.
So I hope that clears up that little misconception.
3: Seriously, people need to stop insinuating that second hand vapour is a thing that affects anyone biochemically to any notable degree when used as directed. This is very well established. Here is one study, another study and yet another study that all say the same thing - there is little to no evidence of harm to bystanders in any measure that require attention.
You take the level of exposure to which someone working with a lifetime of daily exposure would be expected to show health effects (the threshhold level value, or TLV). The levels detected are under 5% of that. To the users of the devices. Second hand exposure is orders of magnitude lower.
Second hand vaping is, quite frankly, not a thing that needs attention other than in respect of etiquette, with plenty of evidence to back this up, and anyone purporting that it is a problem clearly isn't familiar with the evidence. This includes a large swathe of the public health world, too.
Steven "check my post history on this subject for more info - we've been here before" R