[jacobolus]

Okay, but so is standing near combustion-engine vehicles, cooking, soldering, shopping at stores full of air freshener, and many other things. There are many other common activities that have even higher risk of death/injury.

When walking around town with my 1.5 year old, I commonly see people smoking cigarettes outside freak out and start apologizing, worried that they might blow one puff of smoke in the general direction of a baby. But at that point we are talking about a ridiculous level of concern for a trivial risk.

As they say, the dose makes the poison. We should make public policy based on careful risk analysis, not absolutist reflex.

[Pulcinella]

Auto emissions are heavily regulated and many states also regulate in-door air quality including cooking so I am not sure what you are arguing for.

[jacobolus]

I speculate that standing near existing (heavily regulated) combustion vehicles, going to existing (heavily regulated) restaurants, cooking using existing (regulated) methods and tools, etc. has a decent chance of being a greater health risk than breathing nicotine alone. I am not an expert though, so would love to hear some actual evidence about it.

We have now had decades of (publicly beneficial) propaganda effort driving home the “frequent smoking = deadly” message. In many peoples’ minds that message has been broadened by association “frequent smoking = deadly” ⇒ “any smoking = deadly” ⇒ “breathing any second-hand smoke in any context for any amount of time = deadly” ⇒ “any use of nicotine = deadly”, so there is a natural inclination to reflexively ban the use of vaporizers as well.

But if the vaporizers are largely being used as a replacement for (orders of magnitude more dangerous) cigarettes, that seems like an unambiguously positive development which should be applauded, not restricted. Fears about second-hand smoke from vaporizers in well-ventilated spaces seem likely to be entirely baseless.

[cctt23]

http://acronymrequired.com/2011/10/the-four-dog-defense.html

It’s a bit wearying to hear the old chestnuts trotted out here of all places. It seems like bad arguments and FUD never really change, they just finds new adherents.

[alpos]

This seems like you are being argumentative for no good reason. You may have misread the above post.

It seems to me that jacobolus was not defending vaping but merely wondering if we're all being a bit over-reactive at this point.

That position is not so much comparable to your referenced four-dog-defense as it is to something like "you've got a better chance of being killed by a lightening bolt than killed in a terrorist attack".

And that is a valid point to make when discussing any issue involving risk. Humans are prone to reacting to perceived risks without considering comparative risks factors. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_ris...