Shocked at colleague vaping in the office

[dazedandconfused2016]

Just that really. I think it's selfish, irresponsible and rude.

I work in several offices as I'm freelance, thankfully not very often at this particular workplace. I know that vaping is banned in another department of the same company so one would assume the ban applies throughout all departments.

Obviously the rest of the team are turning a blind eye to it. Perhaps because the individual concerned has a level of seniority.

I do not accept that vaping is "safe". Too little is known about it to say that definitively. In fact, some studies have indicated that there are health risks associated with vaping:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vaping-with-nicotine-is-heart-risk-r5tfssgt7

www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/concerns-explode-over-new-health-risks-vaping

Of course, some might say that if I don't like it I could stop accepting work from that employer but I imagine that I will be confronted by the same problem at other workplaces.

Husky I don’t buy the argument that smokers won’t trade smoking for vaping just because they can’t vape inside.

Really? It was one of my biggest motivations/rewards! Having a quick vape in a warm cosy pub rather than standing outside being tempted by cigarettes (or standing, cold and lonely in my own spot away from the sociable chatty smokers...)

Floella You might get a whiff of it if I get very close to you but I don't walk round town and spray it asunder like I'm in a Kate Bush video.

I recently mislaid my discreet little vape pen so popped into a vape shop to replace it. It was like walking in to some wizards den after they'd attempted to brew a sweet love potion that had gone horribly wrong; smoke steam everywhere, a guy behind the counter almost obscured by the haze, chugging away on this massive thing. He scorned my desire for a vape pen for the occasions I am tempted by fags, and mansplained the need for a big device (fner fner) that doesn't even feel like smoking a fag, let alone considering others.

So I can see both side of this! I think size of device and wankiness of vaper come into it!

It smells rank. YANBU

I think size of device and wankiness of vaper come into it!

That's Mumsnet in a tin! Just substitute car for device and driver for vaper. Or even wedding and bride!

I am loving the idea of trying to use a famous philosopher to justify an activity that many see as antisocial.

Slarti - I think you need to read Mills’ work before you say your stance is the same. Perhaps find another philosopher to back your argument, someone more nihilistic...

This is bizarre. You brought up Mills and now I'm accused of using him to back up my argument.

Here's what you said SimultaneousEquation:

Really interesting point by Slarti that in a free society one should be able to act unconstrained by the impact on others.

Compare that to what I actually said:

Unless there's proof that somebody's behaviour is harming you or putting you at risk of harm then their freedoms should not be curtailed.

So when you go on to say it's "almost the exact opposite of 'a person should be left free to pursue his own interests as long as this does not harm the interests of others'" that suggests to me you misread or misunderstood my post because the two statements are the same.

Many people - we find it unpleasant and antisocial

Slarti - I don't care unless you can prove I'm not harming you

What a charmer!

Slarti again, that's all gone into the wind I think! It is pretty obvious what you were saying and how it was tied up in knots to make a point.

Much like Laughing Girl, who couldn't care unless you do the impossible and prove a negative.

How exactly do the rules stand on vaping in food places or is it down to the discretion of the management? I only wonder because I popped into a small cafe this morning with a colleague and whilst we were queuing at the cash desk to order, we could see through the open archway to the kitchen beyond and were surprised to see a man, with an outside coat on vaping clouds of steam. He was standing right beside the food preparation island in the middle of the kitchen where there was uncovered food and plates lined up for serving. I mentioned to my colleague that that couldn't be right and let's hope that the Environmental Health don't wander in. The cashier must have heard and told the 'chef' because she then came out and explained that it was her Dad and he often comes to visit her in the cafe! (as though her explaination was a good enough reason/ apology!). I couldn't believe that she hadn't asked him to take a seat in the cafe and wait there (obviously not vaping) rather than stand right beside raw and cooked food blowing steam over the whole lot, where also his outside coat was brushing against the food preparation area.

Ah so you agree it's impossible to prove it's safe? But you still expect people who choose not to vape to accept it?!

Yep. Now I'm laughing at you

Rebecca... I am taking a wild guess here, but you didn't do all that well at science, did you!

Slarti - I don't care unless you can prove I'm not harming you

What a charmer!

I think you've got your wires crossed Rebecca. As I pointed out earlier in the thread I don't smoke or vape, I just respect the right of other people to follow their pursuits without harming others. If you read my posts instead of jumping in to insult me you'd have realised this.

If something does harm other people then there will be evidence of this and it is perfectly reasonable for the behaviour to be curtailed, as with the smoking ban which I thought was a perfect example of how the government should curtail the freedoms of one group to protect the health of another.

You seem to think that the government should ban everything until it is proven safe, but even by your own posts it is evident that you would never accept such proof and would say "what if science is proven wrong at some point in the future". That's probably one of the reasons why we don't adopt this "back to front" approach and use an evidence based approach instead.

This thread feels a lot like the "prove god isn't real" type debate.

This thread feels a lot like the "prove god isn't real" type debate Yup!

And I'm another who neither smokes nor vapes.

More laughter as I have a science degree, sorry. Why else do you think I'm so anti having vape thrust upon me?!

Why else do you think I'm so anti having vape thrust upon me?!

Because you believe it's harmful and think scientific evidence to the contrary will be proven wrong in the future, is what you've said on this thread. That's more of a faith based position than evidence based so it's not really surprising if people question your grasp of science.

Bloody hell! So go on, how do you prove a negative?

Nothing you have posted, to date, shows even the slightest hint of any scientific understanding!

rebecca you say governments should only allow things that have been proven to be safe but you also say it's impossible to prove it's safe. Sure you can see from that alone that your position is irrational! Here's one for you, can you prove you have a science degree?

I have linked to two scientific papers, peer reviewed and published in academic journals, on this thread. I have seen the NHS advice which is that vaping is much less harmful than smoking for the individual that does it. The very same documents that advise non-smokers not to take up vaping.

The scientific papers discuss the effect of nicotine on cancer pathways. I am a little nauseated by the attitude to science on this thread. It is par for the course in this post-truth era. I’m glad that vaping is banned in my office, and that it’s seen as socially inappropriate most of the places I frequent.

There's a huge difference between public health policy and best advice. I worked in a smoking cessation clinic for about 18 years and, until about a year ago, could have read you chapter and verse on all the extant science.

The thing to wait for now is a multi cohort, longitudinal study into vaping and health, current ones focus on cessation. Until then I'll probably go with researchers like Burstyn, I. or Stephens, W.E. on toxicology and encology.

Sure slarti, I'll post a picture of my degree certificate and some proof of address, how's that?! :)

When it comes to public health, even in private places, I prefer a practical approach. At present we have some studies that say it's not 100% safe; we have medical advice from our health body that only says it causes less harm than smoking; we have countries that have different types of liquid or people who can make their own liquid so there's no way to control over what is actually in the devices; we have people who may react differently to it - young children; pregnant women/unborn child; asthmatics - all these elements may well make for a fascinating philosophical conundrum for you, but they don't make it ok to recommend that people can vape freely indoors, around others unless/until people start developing cancer or other diseases from it.

Outside or in private, people can do what they want. Nobody on this thread has ever claimed otherwise.

Why don't you do a study on the long term effects of enforced passive vaping, curious? Sounds nice and ethical

Because I am no longer in education and it was never in my area of interest or expertise!

Because most of the money for such studies will, obviously, focus on the smoker - for whom all of the current body of evidence shows that switching to vaping is a positive move, for all health indices.

Because all toxicology studies I have read suggest that second hand vaping, measured indoors, is so negligible as to be nigh on non existent. See Burstyn, Peering Through the Mist for a pretty exhaustive systematic literature review.

We went for my sister's menu tasting at a very posh venue with a dining room of maybe sixty people.

Dad on the next table vaped through out the entire meal.

He was asked three times by waiting staff to stop until the manager came over and threatened he'd kick him out. He proceeded to huff every five minutes to go outside and vape there.