e cig NJ workplace Ban...whats the big deal?

[VictoryNotVengence]

The vaper I exhale has a scent My roomate smokes analogs and he has commented on the scent with any flavor juice I use, he says it smells like purfume (to me it smells like the PG tastes, kind of mediciny and sweet. A driver commented to me how his car suddenly smelled like coffee while I was smoking coffee liquid. I don't know if the lady who sits across from me at work wants to smell banana,bubblegum all day and I'm sure me blowing clouds of vaper around coworkers will distract them from their work. Just go outside, whats the big deal? You went outside to use nicotine before. Its not like they are trying to outlaw the sale of eciggs or liquid in NJ anymore than the other states (cept CT thats BS) they just want to give non vapers the choice of not having to breath/smell a vapers exhale.

 

[dave8944]

The vaper I exhale has a scent My roomate smokes analogs and he has commented on the scent with any flavor juice I use, he says it smells like purfume (to me it smells like the PG tastes, kind of mediciny and sweet. A driver commented to me how his car suddenly smelled like coffee while I was smoking coffee liquid. I don't know if the lady who sits across from me at work wants to smell banana,bubblegum all day and I'm sure me blowing clouds of vaper around coworkers will distract them from their work. Just go outside, whats the big deal? You went outside to use nicotine before. Its not like they are trying to outlaw the sale of eciggs or liquid in NJ anymore than the other states (cept CT thats BS) they just want to give non vapers the choice of not having to breath/smell a vapers exhale.

I have to smell all manner of ungodly perfume and cologne on random people wherever I go. I have to smell the fabric softner, soap fragrance, and bad breath of every one around me (now that I can smell again). Every single person, except me it seems, also use deadly cell phones emmitting exponential amounts of radiation as we were all exposed to in the past. A new WHO report shows evidence these devices are linked to an increased cancer risk in a 10 year longitudinal study. Many of the perfume odors have been linked to birth defects in infants. Why should our vapor, then, be any different than these bio hazards we live with every day? Vapping is more akin to these hazards than to smoking. It just looks more like smoking.

"Can't we all just get along?"
---Rodney King

 

[TheBoogieman]

You do realize the amount and extent of smoking bans nationwide. Putting ecigs into basically the same category as a Tobacco cigarette the same rules will apply.
There are anti smoking organizations that want tobacco cigarettes banned from being used outdoors. Parks, Beaches, etc.

NJGASP wants smoking bans in Multi-Unit Housing.
Smokefree Multi-Unit Housing

NJGASP provides technical assistance on smokefree homes and cars for children.
Protecting Children from Secondhand Smoke

Ash has a How To Page to use smoking in Custody Battles.
How YOU Can Fight Back If Your Spouse Smokes Around YOUR Child

If the use of an ecig are considered the same as the use of tobacco cigarettes.
The same rules will apply. I don't know about you. But thats not alright with me.
What restrictions are placed on tobacco should not in my opinion be placed on ecigs.
Smoking bans are in place because of harm from tobacco. Not because they might look harmful. Ecigs should not be banned because they look like a cigarette.
If the proposals from GASP go into effect the ecig goes down with the ship just as a tobacco cigarette.

 

[duke118]

Whats the big deal on going outside? I don't like freezing my ... off just to have a vape. Why should I be inconvenience do to the ignorance of other people? When I go out to eat I still pay full price I don't get any discount for my incovence.when I go for a beer I still pay full price no discount for my inconvenience but yet I'm treated as second class citizen. That's why I don't want to go out side.

 

[Giantfan]

It's about the erosion of freedom and an unjust campaign against e cigs. It's not about being considerate for other people.

 

[TropicalBob]

Actually, it's about the law, not freedom. And the court case now before Judge Leon will decide what an e-cig is. If it's a drug delivery device, then it will face a marketing ban until safety and efficacy studies have been completed and the products approved by the FDA. That's the law.

If it's a tobacco product, it will likely face restrictions now in place for smoking. That's the law.

But that's unfair.

Our e-cigs do not produce smoke and should be as legal to use as snus or nasal snuff or dissolvables. Those using these smokefree alternatives do not have to go outside in all manner of weather.

The e-cig's major problem, one it cannot overcome, is perception. The perception of someone "smoking" in no-smoking areas will not be warmly received -- by non-smokers, ex-smokers and/or authorities (four out of every five people are in this category!). That's the real reason for proposed public bans on e-smoking. And no amount of reason or science or rants about personal freedoms will overcome that perception. Only education and time can turn it around.

 

[kristin]

The reason I started using e-cigs was to get AWAY from tobacco smoke and now they want me to go sit back in the smoking section??

The amount of exhaled vapor is minimal and testing shows it contains miniscule amounts of PG and nicotine, which dissapates too quickly for bystanders to be in any danger. So the vapor is as harmless as if someone smelling alcohol on your breath after having a beer. What's next? Banning indoor drinking, because people claim their getting drunk off of alcohol funmes?? Banning e-cig use indoors is just as ludicous! If they can smell a coffee odor or peach odor, how is that different from my smelling their hairspray, cologne or deodorant??

Additionally, if e-cig users are lumped outside with smokers, people will see that and assume they are there because e-cigs are just as dangerous as tobacco smoke. If they think that, then they'll have no problem with it when legislators try to ban e-cigs COMPLETELY. Putting e-cigs outside implies that they are dangerous and they are NOT.

Look at the larger picture.

 

[gdogg]

PG and VG freeze at 0c

Being in Canada, even at -3c, it gets difficult to use the ecig outside

I find I get more liquid in my mouth during these temps and can use up a whole cart in a single smoke, or what I thought was equiv to a single smoke.

In -15 to -40 , I wouldn't even try smoking an ecig outside.

The issue is not, to do with using it in the workplace.

Its that this is , the first step to an all out ban.

Why? Cause it doesn't kill you like a cigarette or make you angry and depressed like alcohol would.

TBH, I bet if an ecig , did kill you, it would be in every store by now, marketed to our kids and even to us at birth , in vaccines

 

[NJDrew]

It's about the erosion of freedom and an unjust campaign against e cigs. It's not about being considerate for other people.

Actually, it's about the law, not freedom. And the court case now before Judge Leon will decide what an e-cig is. If it's a drug delivery device, then it will face a marketing ban until safety and efficacy studies have been completed and the products approved by the FDA. That's the law.

If it's a tobacco product, it will likely face restrictions now in place for smoking. That's the law.

But that's unfair.

Our e-cigs do not produce smoke and should be as legal to use as snus or nasal snuff or dissolvables. Those using these smokefree alternatives do not have to go outside in all manner of weather.

The e-cig's major problem, one it cannot overcome, is perception. The perception of someone "smoking" in no-smoking areas will not be warmly received -- by non-smokers, ex-smokers and/or authorities (four out of every five people are in this category!). That's the real reason for proposed public bans on e-smoking. And no amount of reason or science or rants about personal freedoms will overcome that perception. Only education and time can turn it around.

IMO, it’s about both law and freedom. These days laws are more about politics and opinion, then about fact. Law makers have come to believe in order to be successful they must institute new laws, which further restricts freedom. Case in point, the ban on flavored cigarettes. The law was created to discourage kids from smoking. Since you have to be 18+ years old to buy them in the first place, how does this new law really help? The fact is that the old law is not doing its job, so they create a new law to try and compensate.

Like I said in the other thread, all this is in vein. The bill will be passed and pv/e-cig users will be forced out into the cold. Ecigs are an easy target right now and they will be sacrificed in the name of public opinion. Once it is in place it will not be easily undone.

The reason I started using e-cigs was to get AWAY from tobacco smoke and now they want me to go sit back in the smoking section??

Ha, be happy you have a smoking section.

 

[Mac]

the big deal is that it is the antithesis of the reasoning behind banning smoking in public to begin with. E-cig user's are not smokers. They have made a concious descision to avoid inhaling all those nasty by-products and by forcing them into a smoking area you are forcing them to breathe in the same smoke they struggled to avoid. This forces non-smokers to breathe second hand smoke. Which is the exact opposite of the reasoning behind the ban in the first place. It is unethical and further more it is idiotic. You don't have to be terribly bright to see how messed up this is.

 

[PhiHalcyon]

Claiming the harmlessness of second-hand vapor (when no long-term studies of the harmlessness of first-hand vapor have even yet to be done) is simply not a credible position to take in the context of imposing that second-hand vapor on others. When people have been conditioned to associate second-hand smoke with real potential harm, it is going to take more than mere reason and supposition to persuade them to believe otherwise about a visible second-hand vapor coming from a person who appears to be smoking.

There is nothing wrong, unfair, nor inappropriate about this. It is just the way it is. For now anyway. And with effortless stealth vaping being so much of a welcome improvement over the old smoke or no smoke world, I think we can afford to be patient and understanding until the facts have been verified.

Claiming non-existing rights just makes us villains ... again.

 

[Mac]

Claiming the harmlessness of second-hand vapor (when no long-term studies of the harmlessness of first-hand vapor have even yet to be done) is simply not a credible position to take in the context of imposing that second-hand vapor on others. When people have been conditioned to associate second-hand smoke with real potential harm, it is going to take more than mere reason and supposition to persuade them to believe otherwise about a visible second-hand vapor coming from a person who appears to be smoking.

There is nothing wrong, unfair, nor inappropriate about this. It is just the way it is. For now anyway. And with effortless stealth vaping being so much of a welcome improvement over the old smoke or no smoke world, I think we can afford to be patient and understanding until the facts have been verified.

Claiming non-existing rights just makes us villains ... again.

Your rig must be very different from mine. When I exhale after drawing from mine the vapor is gone in seconds. It evaporates so quickly that you would have to be in kissing distance to possibly inhale even a trace amount. Whatever you are puffing on that makes a vapor so thick that someone several feet away can breathe it must be one hell of a hv mod. Where did you get it?

 

[PhiHalcyon]

I currently use a 510 - with the only modification being the replacement of the plastic cart/mouthpiece with an o-ringed knurled nut. But, this is irrelevant. For, a vapor gone invisible is not a vapor gone.

 

[Our House]

Claiming the harmfullness of second-hand vapor (when no long-term studies of the harmfullness of first-hand vapor have even yet to be done) is simply not a credible position to take...

I fixed your post to show you just how much your reasoning fails outside of communist China.

Not only IS it a credible position to take, but it's the ONLY position to take against people who are screwing you in the name of safety without having any evidence against your activity.

WE'RE the ones on the defense here, and our position is retaliatory.

 

[Mac]

I currently use a 510 - with the only modification being the replacement of the plastic cart/mouthpiece with an o-ringed knurled nut. But, this is irrelevant. For, a vapor gone invisible is not a vapor gone.

So you are saying that even though I can't see it or smell it and even though it leaves zero residue on anything I do it around it is still there and that justifies this? That's a pretty tall claim. I am assuming you can cite some sort of documentation that proves the existence of this invisible, ethereal, harmful vapor??

Incidently that is not what the lawmakers are saying and you are the first person I have ever heard assert this concept. The lawmaker's excuse was They called the vapor smoke on x website. Mindbogglingly stupid is what that is. They called it smoke on a website so it's smoke. Yeah that's genius. I defy you to provide even the tiniest shred of evidence that already evaporated vapor can even be ingested nonetheless that it is harmful.

 

[Mac]

On an added note I lived in NJ for years and saw first hand the huge toxic black clouds of smoke pumping out of exxon's chimneys. Where is the ban on that?

 

[PhiHalcyon]

I fixed your post to show you just how much your reasoning fails outside of communist China.

Not only IS it a credible position to take, but it's the ONLY position to take against people who are screwing you in the name of safety without having any evidence against your activity.

WE'RE the ones on the defense here, and our position is retaliatory.

Your infralogical delusions are witless.

 

[PhiHalcyon]

I defy you to provide even the tiniest shred of evidence that already evaporated vapor can even be ingested nonetheless that it is harmful.

You need evidence that the constituents of 'evaporated vapor' do not vanish into non-existence?!?

Where do you think they go? Down some worm-hole to a parallel universe?

 

[VictoryNotVengence]

If the workplace ban is passed that doesn't mean a dozen more laws will be passed to the point that PV's will be outlawed. Thats xfiles BS.

WHats the difference between my PV exhale and wearing colonge? I'm not blowing clouds of my cologne away from me torwards others.

You don't want to vape with analog smokers? Walk away from the smokers, you have the whole outdoors to go to.

To cold to vape? sit in your car.

It wouldn't be fair to my coworkers to force them to work with a distraction because I have a bad habit.

 

[Mac]

You need evidence that the constituents of 'evaporated vapor' do not vanish into non-existence?!?

Where do you think they go? Down some worm-hole to a parallel universe?

I have seen zero evidence that what you are asserting is true. Think about this. You seem rational. With all the groups and all their thousands of dollars and tireless efforts to demonize this product why are you the first person to assert this?

We are talking about NJ here. This is one the most horribly polluted places I have ever lived. Have you ever been there? Have you seen what exxon is pumping into the local ecology? Those smokestacks pump that garbage out 24/7 A quick drive up the turnpike will reveal as much. Have you seen the black water after it rains? Took a deep whiff of what newark and elizabeth smell like?

Be honest. Do you really think that the vapor you are exhaling is harmful to the people around you? Do you actually believe that?