Vaping's Dirty Little Secret

[Tacachale]

At UNF we recently went smoke free. The biggest reason was because our surveys showed that the majority of people on campus wanted it - even a lot of self-reported smokers wanted it smoke free. In area where you've got around 20k people in a fairly tight area, coming in and out of the same buildings, walkways, and parking areas all day, second hand smoke is very obnoxious even for people that smoke themselves. Another major reason was one a lot of people didn't think about: the environmental cost. Even people sticking to designated areas were throwing butts all over the place. In addition to being bad for the environment, cleaning up this litter wastes a *lot* of the groundskeepers' time and energy.

One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. If they refuse, we let it go, but most people don't. And we put some more resources into existing health programs to help people quit smoking.

We decided to leave vaping out of the ban. The reason for that was that at the time, no one had established that it was truly bad for you or others, and in general it doesn't have the litter issue. It does appear that there's been an increase in vaping along with the decrease in smoking, and that people vape in areas where they usually wouldn't smoke (including inside or under covered walkways). But if fewer people are smoking cigarettes, I'd consider it a win.

[Adam White]

At UNF we recently went smoke free. The biggest reason was because our surveys showed that the majority of people on campus wanted it - even a lot of self-reported smokers wanted it smoke free. In area where you've got around 20k people in a fairly tight area, coming in and out of the same buildings, walkways, and parking areas all day, second hand smoke is very obnoxious even for people that smoke themselves. Another major reason was one a lot of people didn't think about: the environmental cost. Even people sticking to designated areas were throwing butts all over the place. In addition to being bad for the environment, cleaning up this litter wastes a *lot* of the groundskeepers' time and energy.

One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. If they refuse, we let it go, but most people don't. And we put some more resources into existing health programs to help people quit smoking.

We decided to leave vaping out of the ban. The reason for that was that at the time, no one had established that it was truly bad for you or others, and in general it doesn't have the litter issue. It does appear that there's been an increase in vaping along with the decrease in smoking, and that people vape in areas where they usually wouldn't smoke (including inside or under covered walkways). But if fewer people are smoking cigarettes, I'd consider it a win.

That sounds completely sensible to me.

As I mentioned before, I smoked for about 20 years.

[coredumped]

I'm shocked at how many young people smoke. Anyone under 40 knows how bad smoking is, its amazing anyone even starts.
Noit to mention the cost!

[Gunnar]

even a lot of self-reported smokers wanted it smoke free.

I find it hard to believe that a large part of active smokers would welcome a completely smoke free campus (i.e. without any designated smoking areas at all).

One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. 

Yup, that does not sound like disparaging / shunning people at all. 

"so every member of the campus community can play a part in keeping UNF smoke-free and clear of cigarette butts by reminding smokers that smoking isn’t allowed anywhere on campus.  "

Using the public to police "gently remind" miscreants of the error of their ways is a stronger deterrent than campus police handing out fines.

We decided to leave vaping out of the ban.

Probably for the time being (so that smokers think "I can't smoke but at least I'll be able to vape, so it's not that bad") but  I would bet this is going to be changed at a later time.

[Adam White]

One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. 

Yup, that does not sound like disparaging / shunning people at all. 

Wait a second... people reminding others of the law or the rules is not "disparaging or shunning". That logic is the same kind of logic supposedly employed by 'social justice warriors' - you hurt my feelings by reminding me I am not allowed to smoke on campus!

The bottom line is that smoking is a habit that, unfortunately, affects more than just the smoker. Ideally, there would be some sort of compromise whereby smokers would be allowed to smoke in designated smoking areas - because, although it is a choice, some smokers struggle going without a cigarette for an extended period of time.

[Gunnar]

One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. 

Yup, that does not sound like disparaging / shunning people at all. 

Wait a second... people reminding others of the law or the rules is not "disparaging or shunning". That logic is the same kind of logic supposedly employed by 'social justice warriors' - you hurt my feelings by reminding me I am not allowed to smoke on campus!

The bottom line is that smoking is a habit that, unfortunately, affects more than just the smoker. Ideally, there would be some sort of compromise whereby smokers would be allowed to smoke in designated smoking areas - because, although it is a choice, some smokers struggle going without a cigarette for an extended period of time.

I agree with you on the second part because the rule as it stands is to eliminate smokers from campus. Sure, they can vape for now but going by experience that option will disappear, as well. 

Regarding your first comment: It is a rule - the UNF is free to establish - but not a law. There is a difference. While it does not bar smokers from being a part of UNF (if they remain closeted), it does establish peer pressure to conform to said rule. And classifying that as being lenient is - at least for me - dishonest.

[Adam White]

One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. 

Yup, that does not sound like disparaging / shunning people at all. 

Wait a second... people reminding others of the law or the rules is not "disparaging or shunning". That logic is the same kind of logic supposedly employed by 'social justice warriors' - you hurt my feelings by reminding me I am not allowed to smoke on campus!

The bottom line is that smoking is a habit that, unfortunately, affects more than just the smoker. Ideally, there would be some sort of compromise whereby smokers would be allowed to smoke in designated smoking areas - because, although it is a choice, some smokers struggle going without a cigarette for an extended period of time.

I agree with you on the second part because the rule as it stands is to eliminate smokers from campus. Sure, they can vape for now but going by experience that option will disappear, as well. 

Regarding your first comment: It is a rule - the UNF is free to establish - but not a law. There is a difference. While it does not bar smokers from being a part of UNF (if they remain closeted), it does establish peer pressure to conform to said rule. And classifying that as being lenient is - at least for me - dishonest.

I wrote "law or the rules". It may be a law - the term is loose (including such things as byelaws) - but it's not a statute. It is definitely a rule. Either way, relying on the community to enforce the *rules* is less heavy-handed than using the police (not sure if the UNF police would enforce this *rule* as they are sworn police officers - if they do, then it is reasonably considered a law [still not a statute]).

We use 'peer pressure' to stop people making sexist, homophobic or racist comments in 'polite society'. That's established - when someone says something offensive, people speak up and point out that it's not acceptable behavior. That's not considered disparaging or shunning behavior (unless the reaction is excessive, which is not what we're discussing here).

[Gunnar]

We use 'peer pressure' to stop people making sexist, homophobic or racist comments in 'polite society'. That's established - when someone says something offensive, people speak up and point out that it's not acceptable behavior. That's not considered disparaging or shunning behavior (unless the reaction is excessive, which is not what we're discussing here).

Peer pressure itself can be used for and against anything. Just as much as it is used against sexism, homophobia and racism it can also be used for them. By its nature, peer pressure (and specifically calling for it) is excessive in that it turns everyone into the "police" (conform or be excluded from the group). Personally, I find this a much more effective than a non-peer group giving out fines.

[I-10east]

well eventually, its often hospice with the other cancer patients.
given whats currently known about vaping though, I am grateful for it helping my mom to quit smoking after 48 years.

That's so true. That's exactly what happened to my aunt. They took her to Ludlow Hospice on Sunbeam Rd in 2011; She obviously didn't wanna be be there, and I can only imagine that feeling. That place was the most eerily silent and melancholy I've ever been too, a far cry from those 'sunshine and rainbows' hospice commercials.

Similiar like your Mom Stephen, all of her siblings (excluding my Mom who never liked smoking) quit smoking a long time ago, but she couldn't stop that habit; She would've been here today if only she followed her other siblings.

[Tacachale]

This is getting beyond the vaping discussion, but I'll respond:

even a lot of self-reported smokers wanted it smoke free.

I find it hard to believe that a large part of active smokers would welcome a completely smoke free campus (i.e. without any designated smoking areas at all).

I saw the surveys, and it's true. Conceivably, even people that smoke don't want to walk through other peoples' second-hand smoke, deal with the litter, etc.

One thing we decided early on was that we did NOT want to be the kind of place that shunned or disparaged people for smoking. So the enforcement is pretty lenient. There's no fine or anything, we just leave it up to everyone on campus to remind folks that smoking isn't allowed on campus. 

Yup, that does not sound like disparaging / shunning people at all. 

I'd submit that it's not, in the way that handing out conduct citations or fines would be.

"so every member of the campus community can play a part in keeping UNF smoke-free and clear of cigarette butts by reminding smokers that smoking isn’t allowed anywhere on campus.  "

Using the public to police "gently remind" miscreants of the error of their ways is a stronger deterrent than campus police handing out fines.

Having seen this in play for other issues on campus, I doubt it. But if it really becomes a "stronger deterrent", so much the better.

We decided to leave vaping out of the ban.

Probably for the time being (so that smokers think "I can't smoke but at least I'll be able to vape, so it's not that bad") but  I would bet this is going to be changed at a later time.

The vaping issue will be revisited once there's more information. If the studies show that vaping has health concerns, or if it has some other issue, it likely will be banned, or restricted to certain areas.

Wait a second... people reminding others of the law or the rules is not "disparaging or shunning". That logic is the same kind of logic supposedly employed by 'social justice warriors' - you hurt my feelings by reminding me I am not allowed to smoke on campus!

The bottom line is that smoking is a habit that, unfortunately, affects more than just the smoker. Ideally, there would be some sort of compromise whereby smokers would be allowed to smoke in designated smoking areas - because, although it is a choice, some smokers struggle going without a cigarette for an extended period of time.

We used to have designated smoking areas, and they really didn't work. For one thing, the layout of the campus made it hard to find areas that were removed from buildings and common areas that smokers would actually use. And they did very little on the litter issue - people would throw their butts on the ground right next to ash containers.

I agree with you on the second part because the rule as it stands is to eliminate smokers from campus. Sure, they can vape for now but going by experience that option will disappear, as well. 

Regarding your first comment: It is a rule - the UNF is free to establish - but not a law. There is a difference. While it does not bar smokers from being a part of UNF (if they remain closeted), it does establish peer pressure to conform to said rule. And classifying that as being lenient is - at least for me - dishonest.

I wrote "law or the rules". It may be a law - the term is loose (including such things as byelaws) - but it's not a statute. It is definitely a rule. Either way, relying on the community to enforce the *rules* is less heavy-handed than using the police (not sure if the UNF police would enforce this *rule* as they are sworn police officers - if they do, then it is reasonably considered a law [still not a statute]).

We use 'peer pressure' to stop people making sexist, homophobic or racist comments in 'polite society'. That's established - when someone says something offensive, people speak up and point out that it's not acceptable behavior. That's not considered disparaging or shunning behavior (unless the reaction is excessive, which is not what we're discussing here).

There are both laws and university rules governing smoking at UNF. The state law on smoking in enclosed areas covers buildings and many covered walkways, for instance. As far as enforcement, I'd think it's more lenient to not issue fines or conduct violations than to issue them.

[BridgeTroll]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/vaping-is-about-reducing-harm-not-being-harmless-e-cigarettes-news-royal-college-of-physicians

Vaping Is About Reducing Harm, Not Being Harmless
 
Written by
KALEIGH ROGERS
STAFF WRITER
April 27, 2016 // 06:01 PM EST

A major public health group has come out strongly in favor of vaping as a way to quit smoking. The UK’s Royal College of Physicians—the same group that, in the 60s, first blew the whistle on cigarettes causing cancer—has released a report heralding vaping as an important public health tool that, the group argues, ought to be promoted far and wide as an alternative to smoking.

“In the UK, the use of electronic cigarettes has exploded and they’ve attracted a huge amount of controversy,” John Britton, the chair of the RCP’s tobacco advisory committee and a professor of epidemiology at the University of Nottingham, told me over the phone. “We were looking to provide reassurance to my colleagues in medicine and public health, but also to smokers and the general public, that these products are actually probably a good thing and we should be learning to manage the opportunity instead of considering prohibiting them.”

This endorsement is a pretty big deal because the safety and effectiveness of vaping as a way to quit smoking is still a point of contention for a lot of public health and anti-tobacco groups. These groups share information with lawmakers and the public, which can have a serious influence on policies and smokers’ choices. But, as the report points out, we’ve spent decades looking for ways to get smokers to switch to products other than cigarettes to get their nicotine fix (like the patch, gum, or pharmaceuticals). It’s still too early to know what kind of long-term effects vaping might have, but there’s no evidence to suggest it’s anywhere near as harmful as smoking, so why not add it to the toolbox?

“Yes, we have to be cautious in saying we don’t know what the long-term hazards are, but the key question is ‘are those long-term hazards likely to be as severe or remotely as common as the adverse effects of smoking?’” Britton said. “Electronic cigarettes, however harmful they are, will be nothing like as bad as smoking. So if you’re a smoker, you should make the switch.”
It’s all based on a theory of harm reduction rather than taking an abstinence-only approach to addiction. Obviously it would be great if every smoker just quit and never used any nicotine product again, but we’ve long understood that this isn’t a realistic expectation. So the next best thing would be to find a way to reduce the harm that nicotine addiction causes to both the smoker and the people around him or her.

Vaping, this report says, is potentially a great way to do that. It’s kind of like methadone for cigarette addicts.

There are some concerns about teens and youth taking up vaping not as a way to quit smoking but, y’know, just for fun. This does happen, and the report emphasized the importance of working to prevent youth access to any nicotine products, but noted the vast majority of youth who have tried vaping already had a history of smoking, and there’s not really any evidence right now that vaping is a ‘gateway’ to smoking.

According to the report, studies show that taking up vaping increases both the likelihood that a smoker will try to quit and that the attempt will be successful. Vaping has also rocketed in popularity as a stop-smoking aid, the report said, outpacing the patch, gum, prescription drugs, and therapy as the most popular tool used by smokers to help a quit attempt—only going cold turkey is more popular:



Britton said this is partly influenced by the fact that vaping maintains so much of the behavioural elements of nicotine addiction. Smokers don’t just need a shot of nicotine, they also often crave the feeling of drawing smoke into their mouths, the throat hit, the weight between their fingers, the habit of popping outside for a drag with friends or pairing a ciggy with their morning coffee or nightcap. All of these elements are removed when a smoker tries to go cold turkey or uses something like the patch, but with vaping, they still get it, just with fewer chemicals and no combustion.

One report isn’t going to change the minds of every public health agency and lawmaker, especially here in the US, and there's still lots to learn about how vaping fits into a public health strategy. But this report provides new fodder for the growing number of tobacco addiction experts who believe vaping may just be the solution we’ve long been waiting for.

[Dog Walker]

One of the best things about vaping is that it doesn't leave behind the little white pellets of poison that cigarettes do.  I would love to see a law outlawing cigarette filters.

Here's a futile request:  "Smokers, please don't throw you burned out cigarettes on the ground.  The filters last for years and are full of the poisons that belong in your lungs."

[BridgeTroll]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/what-is-the-cdc-implying-with-this-vaping-psa-e-cigarettes-smoking-tobacco

What Is the CDC Implying with this Vaping PSA?
 
Written by
KALEIGH ROGERS
STAFF WRITER
May 2, 2016 // 12:40 PM EST

Is vaping partly to blame for Kristy’s lung collapsing? That’s the question you might be asking after seeing this ad:

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/zwfC63Icczk" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/zwfC63Icczk</a>

That’s a screengrab of an in-app ad for a Centers for Disease Control campaign called “Tips from Former Smokers,” which has been going on since 2012. The ad was captured and shared by a vaper on Reddit. The “tips” ads are part of a pretty powerful campaign that shows the real life effects of smoking, but this particular ad—released last year—puts a bizarre emphasis on smoker Kristy’s e-cigarette use.

Kristy, a 35-year-old truck driver from Tennessee, started smoking when she was 13, according to the CDC’s site. At the age of 33, suffering from shortness of breath and a nasty cough, she tried switching to vaping but continued smoking at the same time. Eventually, Kristy went back to only smoking cigarettes, and soon after her lung collapsed. She has since quit smoking.

This isn’t exactly a shocking tale. If you smoke regularly for 20 years, there’s a risk your lung might collapse. In fact, that’s why so many vapers switch to e-cigarettes: to quit smoking and reduce their risk of events like that. But if you just glance at the CDC’s ad copy, it makes it sound like vaping had something to do with Kristy’s health issues.

There’s a chance the copy in the app’s ad wasn’t written by the CDC (I reached out to the CDC’s press office but have not yet heard back), but even still, the language of the campaign on the CDC’s website puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that Kristy wasn’t able to quit smoking by vaping.

“I thought I could quit smoking if I was smoking an electronic cigarette because it’s the same thing, they said, minus all the chemicals,” Kristy says in one of the campaign videos. “It wasn’t any better for me. I never did quit.”

The tagline for Kristy’s ads are that “cutting back isn’t enough,” which in general is true. Studies have shown that smoking even just five cigarettes a day doubles your risk of dying from heart disease, compared to never smoking.

But for a lot of vapers, continuing to smoke—called “dual use” in public health lingo—is just a phase, a stepping stone on the way to giving up cigarettes completely. One study showed that 46 percent of dual-users will quit smoking within a year, and another showed that cutting back on cigarettes per day increases a smoker’s likelihood of quitting by up to 290 percent.

The CDC has a history of being skeptical about vaping and—unlike some public health groups in the UK—has yet to embrace it as an aid to quitting smoking. It’s also flubbed up some vaping facts in the past, like that e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, and there’s no evidence showing they’re a “gateway” to smoking, according to Dr. Michael Siegel, a tobacco researcher at Boston University who runs a fact-checking blog on public agency statements about vaping.

"I think their main purpose here is to demonize e-cigarettes," Siegel told me over the phone. "What they're talking about is the importance of quitting and the fact that this one person tried to use e-cigarettes to quit and failed does not mean every smoker in the country should not even try."

In general, it’s understandable that the CDC would be hesitant about enthusiastically promoting a relatively new technology that’s still unregulated in the US and for which we still don’t know the long-term effects. But there’s a difference between being hesitant and casting e-cigarettes as a useless threat that could lead to your lung collapsing.

[Houseboat Mike]

I will just leave this here....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/05/feds-expected-announce-final-e-cigarette-rule-could-nearly-ban-them/83951786/

[Gunnar]

Do you find that in any way surprising ?