= new reply since forum marked as read
Though I never fake sneezing to shame someone, or simply to get my way.
And it never occurred to me, that doing such a thing, would be based on science, or right or proper to do.
I guess I'm just not zealot enough.
You routinely ignore the fact that people, DUers in fact, have had lung disease regress from using them with scans to prove it.
You routinely go to great lengths to ignore clean air studies which show no danger of "second hand vapor".
The only "concern" that you can really shine a light on here, is that someone is doing something, namely vaping, and you do not approve.
Yeah, that ranks right up there with a mudslide which has in fact killed people. 
She CHOSE to tell him and she CHOSE to resist the temptation, after getting his input. That's all we know.
What she said is what she said:
"I wanted to start sneezing on the jerk but my boyfriend wouldn't let me."
Yes yes, that statement just SCREAMS self-restraint.
Oh, and continue to ignore the intent. Its amusing.
Lets see, you've gone from the implication you made about the event "have to make an effort to hold sneezes back", to "she chose not to".
How will you spin it next?
While you conflate smoke with vapor, and tobacco free nicotine with tobacco, and combustion with no combustion.
Please. Continue.
If "Heated tobacco products are already banned from public places", why does there need to be any new "no use in public" regs directed at e-cigs, eh?
"uh...uh...uh..."
I know, I know, shame on me for pointing out dishonesty when I see it.
Combusted tobacco products are the ones banned from public places. In case you didn't know, someone taking a dip of chewing tobacco, puts it in there mouth, where its heated to approximately 98.6 degrees.
Now you're desperately trying to ignore what just about everyone else on DU knows:
Theres a HUGE difference between combusted tobacco, and vaporized nicotine.
And yes, Dear, if you assert that e-cigs produce toxins into the air secondhand as you (and 1 or 2 others for that matter) have here on DU, the onus is on you to substantiate it.
Yet you never do...because you can't.
Do you remember saying this? :
"Apparently you don't remember when tobacco companies insisted that their products carried no risks either. So when Big Tobacco's Lorillard, the #1 e-cig maker today, says the same thing, they have zero credibility."
But when it is said that lorilard itself "estimates that it now holds about half of the U.S. market for e-cigarettes", you swallow that hook, line, and sinker.
All of a sudden, they have credibility?
You just believe some of what they say, and its only a coincidence that its the things you can use to try to bolster these pathetic arguments you keep trying to make.
Right?
Speaking of credibility, you have none.
As for "my lack information", I'm involved in this particular debate outside of DU. My wife is a CASAA member, and a former smoker and now vaper. She smoked for 40 years and tried everything under the sun to quit. Nothing worked until vapes. She was interviewed by NPR about vapes. neither of us, are or ever have been employed or benefitted in any way from "big tobacco". I also vape, and likewise, nothing worked for me over my 26 years of vaping. I read vape message boards daily, and keep track of the technology and where its going and whats new.
I spend daily a couple hours reading about these things, and I guarantee you, I learn more daily, than the entirety of your knowledge of e-ciggs that could be objectively gauged as accurate.
But the wife knows more. I'll have to tell her about this and see if she wants to come dance with you, but be warned, she'll step on your toes.
You forgot "the industry that sued" that quick did you? That was your standard line until people started getting wise and calling you on it. It only only took a month or two for you to revise it to reflect reality. Just an oversight, in spite of being told by several posters over that time period that you were wrong, right?
Its ok, had I said something so ignorant and flat out false, I'd want to forget it too.
I notice you don't dispute the rest of what I wrote at all.
It is, literally and legally, one of the products of processing tobacco, hence, a "tobacco product."
Apparently all that reading you've been doing has left a gaping hole in actual knowledge.
The FDA tried to classify e-cigs as a drug delivery device, but the judge overruled the FDA, leaving e-cigs classified with cigarettes and other tobacco products, instead of with drug-cessation devices like gum and patches.
It is irrelevant that 2/3 of the industry didn't exist at the time because all of those companies are free to apply to the FDA and submit the required research for their nicotine products. They can move themselves out of the "tobacco product" category whenever they get the required approval from the FDA.
Maybe you can understand this passage from a pro-vape website:
http://wivapers.blogspot.com/2013/07/are-nicotine-e-cigarettes-tobacco.html
It was this "intended use" criteria which kept the FDA from being able to deem non-therapeutic e-cigarettes as unapproved drugs. Judge Leon gave the opinion in Sottera, Inc vs. FDA that so long as the manufacturer/retailer made no treatment/health/therapeutic claims, they weren't considered a drug. But that meant the only other option was "tobacco product." The FDA defines a "tobacco product" as any product that not only contains tobacco leaf, but also any derivative (ie. "a compound derived or obtained from another and containing essential elements of the parent substance"
of tobacco. Nicotine is clearly a "derivative" of tobacco and while it is also a derivative of other plants, the nicotine in e-liquid is currently all derived from tobacco. However, since nicotine is classified by "intended use" and not the source, even nicotine from other plant material could be deemed a substantial equivalent and treated exactly the same as tobacco-derived nicotine, because of it's intended use. It's obvious to everyone that we use e-cigarettes with the same "intended use" as other tobacco products - mainly, the same way we used to use traditional cigarettes. It may be a far safer form of recreational nicotine use than regulators never foresaw, but it is still technically "recreational use" of nicotine derived from tobacco.
"It is, literally and legally, one of the products of processing tobacco, hence, a "tobacco product."
Yet it contains no tobacco.
"Apparently all that reading you've been doing has left a gaping hole in actual knowledge."
Nope. Just a thorough understanding of the facts, which helps me greatly in noticing when people play fast and loose with them, like you do.
"The FDA tried to classify e-cigs as a drug delivery device, but the judge overruled the FDA, leaving e-cigs classified with cigarettes and other tobacco products, instead of with drug-cessation devices like gum and patches."
Hey, you're actually being honest, accurate, and factual there. I hope it wasn't too painful.
"It is irrelevant that 2/3 of the industry didn't exist at the time because all of those companies are free to apply to the FDA and submit the required research for their nicotine products."
Its relevant to what you said about the industry that "didn't make a peep". An entity can not make a peep, if it does not exist, so you're attributing a lack of action to the majority of a group, who at that time, did not exist.
That's real honest. What it is though, is further evidence that you are less interested in fact than you are your own bias...as if more were needed...
The rest of what you say translates roughly into "I don't like it, so ban it in public", as usual.
Why don't you just be honest about your motivations, and admit it has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with the chip you carry around on your shoulder relating to tobacco.
are vaping no tobacco flavor and zero nicotine....
These made up pop culture words. If one uses them, one should define them in the post.
On edit: okay. I have it. This is about e-cigs. I just don't get why somebody would choose obfuscation over clarity in a post.
That is pretty much the gist of it from what I read here. 
