Hacker News Reader

Comment by dexwiz | Hacker News Reader

Combustion of "safe" molecules can produce unknown chemicals that are potentially hazardous. This is why smoke is bad. Vapes (ecigs) have a pretty wide operating range, especially when modded to operate at different wattages. They claim to only vaporize liquid, but at high operating temperatures they could break down molecules, which is still combustion, just to a lesser degree. When you start adding all assortments of aromatic compounds used in flavoring, saying everything is safe is impossible. They may be food grade flavorings, but they probably weren't all tested under the conditions seen in a vaporizer.

The main argument for vapes is that hey don't produce tar, which is one of the worst parts of cigarettes.

Are they as bad a normal cigs? Probably not. Are they completely, 100% safe? No.

View on HN

On the one hand, a known and potent human carcinogen.

On the other, an application of the precautionary principle that may well be just as applicable to the acrylamide on french fries.

How does this make sense as a vector for backlash?

The "backlash" is largely propelled by user's disregard for others around them. Users regularly can be witnessed using their e-cig indoors and in close proximity to others. These users often say "it's only water vapor", which is absurdly false.

> The "backlash" is largely propelled by user's disregard for others around them.

I can say the same thing about those having backyard firepits [1] whose output affects FAR more people than a single (e)cigarette. To my knowledge no one is campaigning against big campfire though.

Edit:

> These users often say "it's only water vapor", which is absurdly false.

Yes, but does second-hand e-cigarette smoke cause significant harm? For example second-hand cigarette smoke increases the chance of lung cancer by 20% when living with a smoker [2]. Contrast that with inhaling a puff of e-cigarette second-hand-smoke in a public place once in a while.

I understand that you may find e-cigarette smoke annoying but that's not a sufficient reason to ban something in a free society.

[1] http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml

[2] http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmok...

That's an argument to ban backyard campfires - not an argument to allow indoor e-cigarette use.

You don't get the right to harm other people's health (even in a "free society"), even if there are already other unhealthy things present.

Any time we walk outside with a cold, use your car, drive on less than 8 hours of sleep, or choose not to get a flu vaccine we put other people's health at risk. We accept a certain level of risk to function as a society. If the acceptable threshold of risk was less than "possible threat to another person of any magnitude" we would be a very different society. It seems to me that we use a different rule to decide when to ban activities which is "good evidence of substantial amount of harm(drinking and driving, or second hand smoke)". I would argue that in order to ban e-cigarettes we need to wait for evidence that e-cigarettes are likely to cause significant harm to bystanders.

> You don't get the right to harm other people's health, even if there are already other unhealthy things present.

What about the effects of pollution emitted when you drive a car?

This is the same exact argument you made above.

You are making really good arguments for banning/regulating other harmful things - You are not making good arguments for allowing a known harmful thing to continue unregulated.

I think the argument AlexandrB is making is: Compared to pollutants such as campfires and car exhaust, vaping is a rounding error. However much you care about banning vaping, you should care 1,000x more about limiting campfires or diesel engines. Even a tiny change in those would benefit public health vastly more than a vaping ban.

That's a fallacy of relative privation though. "B happens more frequently, is more dangerous, or causes more harm than A. Therefore A can be ignored."

AlexandrB was dismissing one argument because he found a bigger issue.

The difference is that vaping only benefits the vaper, but the harms caused by vaping affect everyone.

In contrast, everyone in society benefits from the mobility and economic activity facilitated by transportation. Even if you never drive a car, take a bus, or even leave your house, you are better off because of cars, busses, trains, and airplanes because of the increased economic growth they facilitate. The benefit and the harm are both fully socialized.

> To my knowledge no one is campaigning against big campfire though.

You must not be from the bay area. Lookup "Spare the Air".

Yep. In most of the cities I've lived in in California, backyard fires have been completely banned, and fireplace fires have been restricted.

> I understand that you may find e-cigarette smoke annoying but that's not a sufficient reason to ban something in a free society.

Of course it is! We ban a lot of things that are annoying. We have noise ordinances and various other public nuisance laws, as do all other free societies.

In my state its illegal to smoke vapes anywhere its illegal to smoke cigarettes. This largely keeps it out of public spaces. I don't know how this applies to other states.

Also there is debate in the community about respect. I have more friends that step out for a vape, just like they would for cig, so they don't bother non smokers, than puff away like its nothing. But that's purely anecdotal.

I'm a huge fan of personal freedom (don't care what people smoke), but yeah I have to agree with you here. I did some work for a firm where the system administrator walked around puffing huge clouds of this foul-smelling vapor that was something like a cross between strawberries and old socks, and it was really aggravating.

Did you talk to him about this? It seems to me that if someone is creating unpleasant or distracting sensations (noise, smell, vibration, flashing lights, etc), the best thing to do is ask them to stop. Wanting to ban the annoying thing is a bit of an overreaction.

To use an analogy: Lots of people on public transportation annoy me by playing music out of their phone's speaker. At no point do I think, "Phones should be banned." I just ask them to turn off their music or use headphones.

On one hand, chemophobia is rampant in our society. The infamous dihydrogen monoxide story is a prime example.

On the other hand, acrylamide is a single, testable molecule. Taking a mix of chemicals, heating them up to high temperatures, enough to evaporate them, and hoping that they don't break down into anything dangerous is much harder to test. Arbitrary organic compounds can decompose before water boils, or they can sustain high heats. Its really a case by case basis. And the solution for vapes may be similar, but the flavoring solutes vary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com