UCSF bans e-cigarette use where smoking is banned

[Bill Godshall]

UCSF ignores stated purpose of its Smoke-Free Workplace policy, bans e-cigarette use by falsely redefining "smoking" to include the use of smokefree e-cigarettes.
550-10 Smoke-Free Workplace

Stan Glantz from UCSF forwarded the notice and weblink, and I suspect he also lobbied university officials to enact it.

 

[TomCatt]

Geez, that smoking definition seems vaguely familiar

 

[JAY73]

Ignorance is not always bliss...

 

[Vocalek]

Ignorance is not always bliss...

Yah. Sometimes ignorance is just ..... ignorance.

 

[Thulium]

Yah. Sometimes ignorance is just ..... ignorance.

When it is the result of intentional misinformation, its not even really ignorance...it's more accurately called a lie.

 

[aeroforce156]

You don't see where you stand in the world until you fight for something. Guess that saying that goes "where there is smoke there is fire" is no longer true. Now according to these guys, where there is "smoke" there could be someone using a vaporizer.

 

[DaveP]

Things could be worse. We could be under the medical umbrella, which would make it legal to use at work, but cost us an arm and a leg to keep prescriptions up to date. Then there would likely be a 90 day period in which we would be expected to quit nicotine altogether. I don't think the medical profession would expect us to vape for life (pun intended). I could see doctors titrating downward in nicotine levels from 24 to 12 to 6 to 0.

I never had an office job. I was the guy who rode all over town in a company vehicle and came into your office to repair your printer, copier, or electronic high speed printing system. I could take a break any time I wanted and sit in my vehicle or in the smoking area to smoke or vape. I considered myself especially fortunate not to be on a break and lunch schedule for smoking.

 

[littlehart]

You can get around the wording of that ban...It isn't a lighted pipe, cigar, or cigarette and you can say you didn't inhale

 

[zoiDman]

I don’t Understand a lot of this.

As Smokers, none of us seemed to have a Problem with Not Smoking where Smoking was Prohibited.

Why is vaping so Different?

Is having areas where you can’t vape such a Bad Thing? Do we need to Vape 24-7 Anywhere and Everywhere?

 

[TennDave]

zoiDman- I agree to a certain extent- I respect establishments not allow me vaping inside. Even if they do, sometimes I choose not to (I work in schools and I don't in front of kids in the buildings for instance). However, being placed in the same category is the issue here- we are not smokers but we are treated as such. Smokers are banned from certain areas because second hand smoke is not good for others. We produce no second hand smoke by vaping. To allow ourselves to be subjected to the same rules as smokers because we are perceived as using substances that are "bad," just like they are is the "foot in the door" discrimination that will continue down a slippery slope of bans for our PV's completely. So, it's best to stop this nonsense EVERY STEP of the way. Certainly, sensible vapors are needed. Those who flaunt and vape anywhere and everywhere (isn't there a brand, "smoke anywhere"?) gives all of us a bad name.

 

[Thulium]

I don’t Understand a lot of this.

As Smokers, none of us seemed to have a Problem with Not Smoking where Smoking was Prohibited.

Some smokers have a problem with that, but most understand that lighting something on fire creates carbon monoxide and thousands of other chemicals that creates fire and other risks and nuisances to not only the smoker, but to bystanders as well.

Why is Vaping so Different?

Is having areas where you can’t vape such a Bad Thing? Do we need to Vape 24-7 Anywhere and Everywhere?

Vaping is "so different" because nothing is lit on fire and there is no smoke, so there is no justification for restricting vaping just because smoking is not allowed. It would not be a problem having areas where you cannot vape as long as there is a good reason for it: Reasons like, "the property owner doesn't like what it looks like" might seem dumb, but at least its a reason. Simply throwing smoke-free products in with a smoking ban is simply prohibitionism dressed to look like a lazy legislator. It's not that anyone "needs" to vape 24/7, but if people are only allowed to use e-cigarettes where smoking is allowed, it deceptively communicates that vaping is just as harmful as smoking and removes the incentive for people to substitute or switch completely.

If anyone asks..."No, I'm an amateur magician practicing the illusion of smoking. Here's your sign: «give CASAA card»"

 

[DC2]

Is having areas where you can’t vape such a Bad Thing? Do we need to Vape 24-7 Anywhere and Everywhere?

That has nothing to do with this issue.

I don’t Understand a lot of this.

As Smokers, none of us seemed to have a Problem with Not Smoking where Smoking was Prohibited.

Why is Vaping so Different?

I must say, I'm somewhat shocked at this response.

Smoking bans were based on the idea that second hand smoke is harmful to others.

While it can certainly be argued that it is not as harmful as they want you to believe...
And it can clearly be argued that they are taking it way too far regardless...
And it can easily be argued that the slippery slope is in full pay now...

Vaping is not smoking, does not produce smoke, and harms no bystanders.
If facts and science were used to decide this issue, there would be ZERO justification for any such vaping bans.

Surely you are not advocating letting them walk all over us again/some more/endlessly/for no valid reason?

 

[DC2]

I mean seriously, just look at where things are headed with smoking bans...

--No smoking in a public park
--No smoking in your car with a child present
--No smoking anywhere in the vicinity of a school
--No smoking anywhere in the vicinity of a hospital
--No smoking anywhere in the vicinity of a government facility
--No smoking anywhere on the grounds of any government run housing
--No smoking in your own home if it is government run housing

Isn't that already more than enough to have a big problem with?
And if not, then what's next?

And would you really agree to abide by such absurd regulations being applied to electronic cigarettes?

 

[Thulium]

View attachment 76122 If anyone asks..."No, I'm an amateur magician practicing the illusion of smoking. Here's your sign: «give CASAA card»"

If you can't read it in the thumbnail, the sign says, "No Smoking within 20' of the building." Although Oregon's "Clean Air Act" requires smokers to be at least 10' from entrances or ventilation systems, this government-funded building extends the ban to a full 20' and does not have any designated or sheltered smoking areas: Smokers must stand in the rain, wind, and snow.

 

[sherid]

When vapers throw smokers under the dumpster and align themselves with anti-smokers, this is what you get. Don't mean to say we told you so, but we did. Placing yourself outside the concerns of smokers and not understanding that it's not the smoke or shs that anti-smokers are crazy for but it is the simple ACT of smoking whether it contains smoke or vaper. Wake up

 

[zoiDman]

zoiDman- I agree to a certain extent- I respect establishments not allow me vaping inside. Even if they do, sometimes I choose not to (I work in schools and I don't in front of kids in the buildings for instance). However, being placed in the same category is the issue here- we are not smokers but we are treated as such. Smokers are banned from certain areas because second hand smoke is not good for others. We produce no second hand smoke by vaping. To allow ourselves to be subjected to the same rules as smokers because we are perceived as using substances that are "bad," just like they are is the "foot in the door" discrimination that will continue down a slippery slope of bans for our PV's completely. So, it's best to stop this nonsense EVERY STEP of the way. Certainly, sensible vapors are needed. Those who flaunt and vape anywhere and everywhere (isn't there a brand, "smoke anywhere"?) gives all of us a bad name.

That has nothing to do with this issue.


I must say, I'm somewhat shocked at this response.

Smoking bans were based on the idea that second hand smoke is harmful to others.

While it can certainly be argued that it is not as harmful as they want you to believe...
And it can clearly be argued that they are taking it way too far regardless...
And it can easily be argued that the slippery slope is in full pay now...

Vaping is not smoking, does not produce smoke, and harms no bystanders.
If facts and science were used to decide this issue, there would be ZERO justification for any such vaping bans.

Surely you are not advocating letting them walk all over us again/some more/endlessly/for no valid reason?

I mean seriously, just look at where things are headed with smoking bans...

--No smoking in a public park
--No smoking in your car with a child present
--No smoking anywhere in the vicinity of a school
--No smoking anywhere in the vicinity of a hospital
--No smoking anywhere in the vicinity of a government facility
--No smoking anywhere on the grounds of any government run housing
--No smoking in your own home if it is government run housing

Isn't that already more than enough to have a big problem with?
And if not, then what's next?

And would you really agree to abide by such absurd regulations being applied to electronic cigarettes?

Lem-E compose my thoughts.

Neither way I'm gonna get Big Time Slammed, is any "Different" point of view Exceptabble(SP?), so I might as well make it Concise and Relevant to the OP post and my reply.




The Key words her is Exceptable and Slammed.

 

[DC2]

Lem-E compose my thoughts.

Well, I imagine you will talk about blowing clouds of vapor in the vicinity of those who breathe nearby.
And I for one honestly do understand that argument from a visceral standpoint, if that is where you're headed.

But the issue is that a realistic scientific line has to be drawn at some point.
And the problem is that the line is being drawn, and then erased and re-drawn with regard to real smoke without proper scientific justification.

But the REAL problem is that this bogus and ever-expanding line is being applied to vapor.
The scientific justification for that is completely non-existent.

 

[zoiDman]

When vapers throw smokers under the dumpster and align themselves with anti-smokers, this is what you get. Don't mean to say we told you so, but we did. Placing yourself outside the concerns of smokers and not understanding that it's not the smoke or shs that anti-smokers are crazy for but it is the simple ACT of smoking whether it contains smoke or vaper. Wake up

I'm not say'n I don't undestand what you are say'n or which side you are are on or what you're trying to say.

But I don"t Understand what you are say'n? Or which side you are on? Or what you are try'n to say?

 

[DC2]

We posted at the same time, so you may have missed my reply above...

 

[zoiDman]

You know what…


You are All right. I’m going to bow out of this one.

Not going to turn this into what it has already become. One Sided and Ugly.

Just do me one favor. Ask yourselves one question. Why isn’t anything getting done. In government? Or anything for that matter Anymore?

Ya know why Sunshine?

Because no one can compromise anymore. It’s all about the ALL for the Left or ALL for the right.

You want to fight Tooth and Nail so People Can Vape on University of California at San Francisco Campuses, Hey Right On. You go for it. You ain’t gonna win. You know that don’t you. Don’t you? But you stamp your feet and have a little Hissy Fit.

Me. I would rather engage in Compromise and give Them a Small Portion of what "They" want for a Large Portion of what "I" want. Let them have some Vaping Bans. Vapers need Boundaries Anyway. Big Time Boundaries. 24-7 Isn't Normal.

But then when the Big Issues come up Like Taxation we can look Cooperative and Not Juvenilia and Adversarial like we do now. It’s kinda a Carrot or the Stick Approach.

A good Tactician knows he can’t win every Battle. But to have a Fighting chance to win a War is all that was ever granted. Any Soldier will tell you this.

You want something?

Great. Well here is how the Universe works. You’re going to have to give up something to Get It. So give them a few bans and be an Adult about it.

And then Barter for something in Return. Remember: You Can’t Have Everything.

Vaping Is Not A Legal Right Garneted Under The Constitution. In The Eyes Of The Majority, We are Not Even the Five Percentile.

So Maybe it is time to get Smart and think of Other Ways to Get what you Want.