Only in that the exposure path for vapor to the lungs is much more direct than the exposure path from puss-weeping sores to intact skin.
Not when inhaled second-hand versus your direct contact. Also, one is a potentially contagious infection and the other is not. Also, the health concerns from one, if they exist at all, are only a cumulative effect while the other is already proven to be a health concern (active infection).
Lose again.
You have your nasty habit, I have mine. Mine is less likely to cause harm to others than yours.
Based on nothing more than your IMAGINATION so far. I happen to believe the opposite as far as second-hand exposure is concerned. Infrequent incidental second-hand exposure to exhaled vaping vapors almost certainly has less potential for harm to me than you directly putting a skin infection on my uninfected skin. I know that the negative effects if second-hand smoke have been over-blown in the (IMO, justified) war against smoking, but what kind of twisted world do you live in to think otherwise?! Just read your own statement again and tell me how you can possibly believe that without a shred of evidence to show that second-hand vapors are harmful.
This logic is straight up fucking stupid. They're not doing it to limit your freedom, they're doing it because a lot of that stuff literally means life and death. Just look at Europe who is freaking out because after they did a big push for diesels to help improve efficiency, they find out that they aren't as clean as they seemed and are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths a year (IIRC, for the EU, it is ~40,000 deaths a year from the diesel emissions).
LOL! How do you know it "literally means life and death" with absolutely no evidence that it is harmful to bystanders? You don't even have a working theory about how it even might be harmful to them!
"The logic" is straight up LOGIC. You can't infringe upon the freedom until you can show that it infringes upon someone else's. Until then, you have work to do.
By your argument we should've never banned mercury or lead in products. Who gives a shit if it literally makes you retarded and or kills you, waaaah, freedom! Seriously, removing lead from gasoline was similar to vaccinations in how much it improved public health. Is vaping that bad? No (just on numbers alone, gasoline is much more prevalent than vaping), but the issue absolutely could be similar.
Where do you get that? They have been proven to be harmful which infringes on others' rights to life, liberty, and genuine pursuit of happiness (psychosomatic annoyances obviously do not count). There were regulated AFTER the threat to liberties was shown to exist, exactly as I said it should work. I said that you have to prove the same about vaping FIRST and cannot skip this step. It doesn't work in reverse. You don't ban it and then determine if it is safe or not.
It's really simple. I don't know how you can be so confused that you'd think my argument does not support the regulation of lead or mercury. I specifically used cigarettes as an example because it fits better than lead or mercury. Did you intentionally ignore that one?
And as for your argument about dust. Well actually if they can do something about it then they should.
Considering the market (recreational drug use) and overall issues, I absolutely think that vaping manufacturers should have to prove the safety of their products before they can sell them to consumers, especially when a lot of them are claiming how much better they are than cigarettes. Wouldn't be surprised to see them pull the Vitamin Water defense "no reasonable person would actually believe us claiming that this is healthier for you is actually true, its their own faults for being so stupid!"
"Freedom" is doing only what the government allows you to do after you or someone has proven it safe. Gotcha.
Is vaping better than cigarettes? Yeah. Does that mean it should be given a free reign? Hell no. Especially if they can tweak the products just a little bit and improve their safety substantially.
Show them how they are unsafe first. You're still operating on the assumption that it is unsafe for bystanders, but if it's really so easy to remove your unspecified and unproven safety concern, why wouldn't they? You think they WANT to get regulated?
And come on. If you think your "OMG I'm throwing dust on you" argument is actually an apt analogy then you're either insane or intentionally trying to use a fallacious analogy to prop up your shitty argument. In fact considering that you made a callout thread over someone else's shitty analogy you should be ashamed. This is more like if you took compressed dust and were going around blowing it into the air around other people. I'm pretty sure they could cite you for doing that, just like how they've been passing laws over the jackasses "rolling coal" in their diesels just to be assholes.
Wasn't my call-out thread.
I knew someone would stoop to your ridiculous analogy, but to do it specifically while accusing someone else of such a ridiculous analogy is just rich. Are vapers really blowing exhaled vapor directly into your face? Is that
REALLY the health concern you and others are having?! That's very different than incidental second-hand smoke. It sounds like you are asking to ban an activity because you IMAGINE that it somehow correlates with this behavior. Here's your argument: Let's ban compressed dust despite whatever use it may have because some assholes MIGHT blow it directly in your face.
We already have laws about disturbing the peace.
If the vaping company can prove that their product produces inert and/or non-harmful substances, then great, they should absolutely get to sell their product and tout that. But half of the companies haven't even fucking tested their stuff so they don't even know. And a lot of these companies are ones that I absolutely wouldn't trust. They're the types that would throw random shit in just because some random dumb shit tester said it made them trip balls, and hey the FDA hasn't outlawed it so fuck yes put it in there! Fuck that, there should absolutely be oversight of this stuff.
So, just because YOU don't trust "half" the companies means that they need to be held to a different legal standard while others are given the benefit of the doubt?! You are tyrannical. And let's stop the disassociation tactic of only referring to them as companies and corporations. They are PEOPLE. Does little Susie need to prove that her lemonade stand has safe lemonade before she can legally sell it? She may need to face the consequences if it ends up NOT being safe and that is the exact threat of liability that most vendors face. What legal justification do you have for treating one vendor and product differently than another when it comes to your trust?
And believe it or not, there are actually government agencies that do have oversight about stuff like pollution and even "dust". Hell you should know better. Dust is a meaningless fucking term. There's a huge difference from say dust near asbestos, coal, and other mines, and other dusts. In fact, that's kinda why they outlawed asbestos is they found out the dust was causing cancer.
You walked right into that one too. The main thing that makes cigarette smoke worse than the same amount of smoke from most any other random plant material is that it is addictive so you voluntarily increase your daily exposure. If you exposed your lungs to the same amount of nearly any inert particulate (even dust) then cancer rates would also be elevated. You are smothering and killing lung cells, which need to be replaced. It's mostly the increased cellular replication that causes DNA and RNA damage mutations which ultimately lead to cancer. You can start listing all the chemicals and poisons and toxins in cigarette smoke and what concerns are linked to each one and I will tell you that you can get a similarly scary list from just about any kind of burned plant. The MAIN difference is the addictive substance forcing users to return for more so that environmental exposure to these particulates is increased exponentially and the effect accumulate. I don't willingly run over 40 ant hills a day with the lawn mower and inhale the dust without a mask just to keep up with a 2-pack a day smoker to compare the effects, but I'd be willing to bet that it would increase my chances for lung cancer exponentially.
I hope you learned something here.
Actually there very likely will be a movement to curb those aerosol scents and disinfectants as they've found those are making people unhealthy.
Did he actually make that argument? I'm not going to read back through the thread, and frankly you keep making horrible comparisons to try and prop up your argument. It doesn't even fucking matter if there's worse shit that you can breathe via dust or whatever that isn't illegal, since the discussion is about the vaping products. Plus, saying "yeah this other shit is bad too" is, well if you can't see how stupid that argument is to prop up your "freedom" argument then I don't know what to say.
*woosh*
I'm not saying "There are WORSE things so your argument is invalid." I am showing that you can't have a double standard and work backwards by requiring proof that it is safe. If people are working toward regulating air fresheners due to health concerns: GOOD. It's another example of how this is supposed to happen. If you had your way, they'd have banned aerosol and non-aerosol air fresheners from the get-go even if one is perfectly safe and the other isn't because they'd have to PROVE that they are safe first. That is not how things are supposed to work.
This is just another example of how horribly you comprehended what my scenarios are saying. It's amusing to see you mischaracterize my analogies while responding with your hilariously bad ones.
A lot of that other stuff is either naturally occurring or is coming from more legitimate use than someone just wants to breathe in vaporized chemicals for the effect/scent/taste. And plenty of that other stuff is misguided and should be addressed as well. People in general need to realize that spraying stuff into the air is actually generally bad for your health, especially in enclosed spaces. And the selfish assholes who like to impart more than their fair share (be it via vaping, incense, oils, perfumes, aerosols, etc) need to be addressed and also need to STFU about freedom.
Wow. So incense isn't for people who want to inhale chemicals for effect/scent?! Automatic air freshener dispensers in public places are even worse because they are specifically intended for making others inhale it! It is "selfish" to expect your psychosomatic objections to trump the freedoms of others from doing what the believe is perfectly safe when you have no reason to believe otherwise.
It isn't "misguided" just because you say so, darling.
Also, by the way, your arguments are actually quite similar to those used by gas and tobacco companies when they started to actually take a serious look at that stuff, and well, look how that turned out.
Are they really? My arguments are simply a Libertarian/Constitutional perspective that my liberties only end where they legitimately infringe upon yours
and vice versa. Your psychosomatic objections do not count because they would illegitimately infringe upon mine. I do not vape. I have no interest in vaping. I never will vape. I do not encourage others to vape except possibly as an alternative to activities that are PROVEN to be unsafe (traditional smoking). I simply see a disturbing trend where we give up liberty for safety even though that is not the government's job. It is supposed to protect our liberty rather than infringe on it. You cannot have perfect safety without giving up liberty and liberty can only be defended by taking risks.
It doesn't sound like our forefathers thought safety was a good enough reason to sacrifice liberty:
Benjamin Franklin said:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase ... safety, deserve neither...
Patrick Henry said:
Give me liberty or give me death!
I see what you are doing though. Nice try, jerk.
Facebook
Twitter