12-31-2013, 06:32 PM
I can't argue with that, Jman. I could see that happening, too.
Of course, there are those who think the "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous.
They never stop to think that the ANTZ made all of the scientific arguments fighting for separate smoking areas and then turned around and claimed that separate smoking areas were "like non-peeing areas in a swimming pool" and you'd need "hurricane-force winds" in a restaurant with a smoking area to make it "safe." So they argued smokers should instead be outside, where they didn't pose a risk to bystanders. Now, they are banning smoking outside, because it poses a risk to bystanders.
Nope. No "slippery slope" here. Move along, people.
12-31-2013, 07:29 PM
Amen sister! That is the quintessential example of slippery slope. Taking it to level of not even outside is okay, when not even inside is okay, means the slope has been set up to slide to the ultimate goal, smoking is not okay anywhere.
Originally Posted by kristin
Thus, it isn't really that vaping inside isn't okay, it is (as slippery slope will plausibly and inevitably show) that vaping anywhere is not okay. Hence, it truly does make sense, right now, to meet these points with the slippery slope logic taken to its extreme - that what we are actually up against is some people who are convinced that vaping anywhere is not okay.
Therefore, I continue to stand by the notion that the most logical position to take in contrast to this, is "vape everywhere." And I am yet to encounter a well reasoned argument that demonstrates why any generalized place (i.e. hospital) is never ever a good place to vape.