Zen & the Art of the Vape

[Thulium]

In order to keep the use of personal vaporizers legal, what is to stop us from claiming protection under the First Amendment as a religious sacrament? The Church of Scientology managed to get their use of the Hubbard Electrometer past the FDA by establishing it for religious purposes and including a label.

The E-Metercigarette is not medically or scientifically useful for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. It is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily functions of anyone.

Compatible with the tenets of Zen Buddhism promoting peace and tranquility, Wicca (It harm less, so mote it vape?), smoking is Haraam in Islam, using smoke from incense is integral to many Christian sects but holiness doctrines based on the body as a temple should encourage people to replace smoking with harm-reducing vapor.

Personally, I really find there is something deeply spiritual about the use of vapor. The ritualistic nature of smoking as a habit is almost religious naturally, but when you switch to vaping instead there is a potential for the connection to the user to run even deeper. When e-smoking/vaping, a spiritually minded person can feel an additional sense of connection to their environment, a clear focus on improving their life by reducing pollutants to their own body as well as to their family and environment.

Religion has impacted technology and technology has carried religion into the modern era: The harp and sitar have been replaced by the guitar and amp, the hymnal is replaced by the projector, incense has been replaced by Febreze, etc. Priests, rabbis, prophets, native chieftains, witches and wizards have long used pipes and burners to invoke spiritual experiences, should not the right to replace these practices with ones that are safer be protected as a freedom of religion?

I'm curious if anyone here has personal examples of how they have used personal vaporizers with religious intent or effect?

[Dredbull]

An issue with it as I can see it via a semi Buddhist point of view.
It is an introduction of a toxin or toxins into the body, but also man made instead of natural substances.

I would love to hear about it from a devote Buddhist tho.

[boondongle]

Keeping in mind that I'm not a lawyer, simply an educated person with an interest in the issue of religious protection, here's what I think you'd need in order to have vaporizing protected under a "vaporizing church" or something:

1. Church documents that demonstrate a belief in a supreme being, religious discipline, rituals, and tenets to guide daily existence.
2. Proof of sincerity of intent (and courts have gone to great lengths to investigate such claims).
3. A community of believers (a local, real-world community, like a neighborhood group, not a collection of individuals online) that practice the religion

If you have all that, then you can likely win a court case if and when one of your members is charged with something that is considered part of your church's sacraments. But even if you have all that, the court can still decide not to rule in favor of your church if the state has "a compelling interest" in stopping your practices.


On the other hand, if you're talking about shoehorning vaporizing into an existing religion, I'd guess that you'd need a statement from the leaders of that religion to confirm that they consider vaporizing to be part of their religious practices. Like I said, I'm just guessing there, but that seems likely. Otherwise, we'd have every Christian pothead in the country citing Genesis to demonstrate protection.

[rothenbj]

Originally Posted by boondongle

Keeping in mind that I'm not a lawyer, simply an educated person with an interest in the issue of religious protection, here's what I think you'd need in order to have vaporizing protected under a "vaporizing church" or something:

1. Church documents that demonstrate a belief in a supreme being, religious discipline, rituals, and tenets to guide daily existence.
2. Proof of sincerity of intent (and courts have gone to great lengths to investigate such claims).
3. A community of believers (a local, real-world community, like a neighborhood group, not a collection of individuals online) that practice the religion

If you have all that, then you can likely win a court case if and when one of your members is charged with something that is considered part of your church's sacraments. But even if you have all that, the court can still decide not to rule in favor of your church if the state has "a compelling interest" in stopping your practices.


On the other hand, if you're talking about shoehorning vaporizing into an existing religion, I'd guess that you'd need a statement from the leaders of that religion to confirm that they consider vaporizing to be part of their religious practices. Like I said, I'm just guessing there, but that seems likely. Otherwise, we'd have every Christian pothead in the country citing Genesis to demonstrate protection.

Your post gave me a good laugh and I had visions of Jim and Tammy Faye reuniting to raise out of the ashes and be reborn again in the house of vaping.

[boondongle]

Originally Posted by rothenbj

Your post gave me a good laugh and I had visions of Jim and Tammy Faye reuniting to raise out of the ashes and be reborn again in the house of vaping.

Hah! That is a funny image.

[breakfastchef]

Thulium, I like how you think, but the 'cat is out of the bag'. The e-cig was developed to address the smoking issue. It provides nicotine to the user, thereby making it a drug delivery system by design. Some domestic hawkers of this product have made it impossible for any straight-up vendors to claim that this device is purely a substitute to smoking in venues where smoking is not allowed.

[Brachinus]

If that would work, there'd be a lot more Rastafarians in America than there are.

It's a nice dream, though.

[Thulium]

Originally Posted by breakfastchef

Thulium, I like how you think, but the 'cat is out of the bag'. The e-cig was developed to address the smoking issue. It provides nicotine to the user, thereby making it a drug delivery system by design. Some domestic hawkers of this product have made it impossible for any straight-up vendors to claim that this device is purely a substitute to smoking in venues where smoking is not allowed.

Well, I don't mean it to take nicotine usage the Rastafarian route necessarily, but using smoke and vapor is an established part of many religions, and eliminating the toxins of smoke and replacing it with antibacterial PG vapor infused with scents or appropriate additives (frankincense, myrrh, etc) could make rituals healthier and thereby holier by some measures.

Alternately, "new age" religions that emphasize moralistic humanism or spiritualists who avoid traditional religious rites could also adopt personal vaporizers as a path to enlightenment. First Amendment protection isn't going to make something legal that was previously illegal, but it could ensure that the state understands it has an interest in preserving the availability of personal vaporizers for personal or religious use.

The point being, if there is an overriding reason that e-cigarettes should be illegal, then freedom of religion wouldn't be enough to protect them. But since there has been no evidence showing that e-cigarettes constitute any significant threat to public health or safety, there is no legitimate justification for a ban.

[McWhat]

Originally Posted by Dredbull

An issue with it as I can see it via a semi Buddhist point of view.
It is an introduction of a toxin or toxins into the body, but also man made instead of natural substances.

I would love to hear about it from a devote Buddhist tho.

There are many styles and philosophies in Buddhism. Smoking is a no no in all of them, I believe. Now, it's a bit complicated past that point, since Buddhism is more about spiritual growth and enlightenment than eternal risk or reward. I can't really speak toward any of the Zen style Buddhisms, but generally followers of Buddhism are held to a lower standard than the teachers/clergy. I know in Thailand monks aren't allowed to start smoking, but may continue to do so if they smoked when they became a monk. The "No Smoking" rule is actually aimed at Opium, but in modern times also includes everything else. So there's a bit of a sliding scale, with Opium being a bigger deal than a cigarette. It's mostly about leading a happy and healthy life. Obviously smoking isn't conducive to that goal. Now vaping may very well be allowable. Especially if it's toward the goal of quitting smoking. Or at least the goal of moving to a less harmful form of smoking. I have to be honest, I'm probably not enlightened enough to advise on this matter, and I'm biased.

[Dredbull]

Mcwhat that is why I brought it up.
Zen is a state of balance and enlightenment.

I do not know which path of Buddhism I follow nor have I devoted a huge chunk of time on it.
I tend to follow the basic precepts of yep there will be pain and yep it can be overcome.

As I said I follow a few basics not devoted even tho it interests me greatly. I always chat up the monks that come into my store, it trips me out to see em in the robes in a cell phone store.