Are you for or against being able to vape indoors in public places?
- Thread starter Nivek13
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If allergies were a justification for indoor bans, I would have thought perfumes would have gone down by now.
I also find it funny that the "allergy" angle keeps coming up. If we limit everything based on "someone might be allergic", I'm not sure what would be left.
Plus - I AM allergic to LOTS of things. I was sure vaping would cause me problems. It hasn't. Strange, huh?
The other day I was in a restaurant and guy ahead of me had visibly dirty jeans on. I found that slightly annoying, to the degree of me wondering if the restaurant allows that in there, then it says something about quality of the establishment. Thing is, unless I am just out of the shower, I can't at any point guarantee the cleanliness I am taking with me anywhere I go. So, slightly annoying would be about right. Yet, the context of this debate occurred to me. Cause I was thinking that (from the other side's position), it really wouldn't matter if the dirty jeans were known or not known to be harmful, but just the annoying factor would be enough it would seem to have it banned. Then started thinking about this cleanliness factor from a germaphobe perspective, and thought dirty shoes (soles) would be enough of an annoyance (for some) to consider it a public issue. Heck, a germaphobe would go with far less than this to establish (slight) annoyance.
To me, it is what this post is saying, and taking it down a notch. This post says: What about poor hygiene and excessive perfume?
I say, what about average hygiene and normal amount of perfume? These can both lead to unexpected circumstances, and are on par with SHV. If they are not annoying for you, great, welcome to the club of tolerant people. But if they are even slightly annoying for anyone, then according to rationale in this debate, it is enough to be considered rude / disrespectful. Wouldn't matter if person is 200 feet indoors in public away from other people, just that if they were caught by TPTB with this on them, it could be grounds not just for departure that day, but also you are never welcomed here again.
Hence, I do not think it a stretch to say that if you are this annoyed by the thought of someone vaping indoors in a place you visit (and you are a vaper), you are plausibly ANTZ-like on this issue. You may be very un-ANTZ-like on many other issues regarding vaping, but to say it can never be permissible to vape inside a hospital, a restaurant, or movie theater, or the other umpteen places, regardless of circumstances, plus with assumption that it is always (without exception) rude behavior, is IMO, the type of stuff that ANTZ logic is precisely made of.
I spent the first 8 or so yrs of my life one step away from death due to class 4 and 5 allergies to everything.
My wife also.
We see through the gaping ignorance.
Tapatyped
My wife also.
We see through the gaping ignorance.
Tapatyped
No, actually I've been pondering whether I should go back and change that to "fascists" because THOSE are the political vermin who want to squash everyone's rights, "for the children," or whatever other cockamamie rationalization they can dredge up; it's just in the US, most of those nannies who want to squash smokers and vapers like a bug tend to the socialist side of things.
Andria
That sounds completely wrong. All businesses have the right to ban anything they choose to. Sadly, many do not have a choice on what they may allow.
Personally, I think the liability issue is nonexistent - even if someone is vaping peanut vapor.
Nothing wrong with that, sometimes you gotta have one I do.
if someone is vaping straight up peanuts in the shell and a poor unfortunate soul with severe peanut allergies were out and about without an epipen, Benadryl or a mask then the poor unfortunate soul would surely not do so a second time. And If I were the business so affected by someone having an allergic reaction in my establishment I might consider suing the said severe allergy sufferer for causing pain and suffering and trauma to myself and my other guests should the peanut allergy sufferer be silly enough to bring their severe allergy in to my establishment without self protection.
thank goodness folks who have serious health issues learn very quickly how to protect themselves
As many have said here, in shared spaces one should observe common courtesy and property owners have the right to dictate what happens in their owned environment just as you have the right to make the decision not to be there if you disagree with their decision about it (for or against).
It saddens me that we have to regulate something that really is up to an owner and should be common courtesy and codify regulations around it. There are places where its obviously discourteous or even ill advised (ie: a daycare to take it to the extreme). Equally I would give restaurants that allow vaping in certain areas my business over those who don't. A coffee house is a great example of a place where a vape and a cup of joe go hand-in-hand. As it is now I spend less time in restaurants and more time in the drive thru as I can do whatever I want in my car - ultimately business owners who would accomodate me who are regulated to reject what I do and lose out on my business.
The very thing that makes vaping appealing as a substitute or cessation strategy also makes it look so close to smoking that its hard for non-smokers and non-vapers to appreciate the difference - its too subtle to them, and easier just to reject it than consider someone elses desire to vape - again, common courtesy cuts the other way and intolerance seems to be the general rule. Smoking sections properly set up never bothered me as a non-smoker (only smoked cigars at home) and if those working in those areas were okay with it and the ventilation and separation was acceptable, I never saw a reason to assert my "rights" as a non-smoker as I could make a choice about where I sat. We seem to live in a society where one persons rights can trump another, rather than find compromise. This is true in everything, not just vaping.
It saddens me that we have to regulate something that really is up to an owner and should be common courtesy and codify regulations around it. There are places where its obviously discourteous or even ill advised (ie: a daycare to take it to the extreme). Equally I would give restaurants that allow vaping in certain areas my business over those who don't. A coffee house is a great example of a place where a vape and a cup of joe go hand-in-hand. As it is now I spend less time in restaurants and more time in the drive thru as I can do whatever I want in my car - ultimately business owners who would accomodate me who are regulated to reject what I do and lose out on my business.
The very thing that makes vaping appealing as a substitute or cessation strategy also makes it look so close to smoking that its hard for non-smokers and non-vapers to appreciate the difference - its too subtle to them, and easier just to reject it than consider someone elses desire to vape - again, common courtesy cuts the other way and intolerance seems to be the general rule. Smoking sections properly set up never bothered me as a non-smoker (only smoked cigars at home) and if those working in those areas were okay with it and the ventilation and separation was acceptable, I never saw a reason to assert my "rights" as a non-smoker as I could make a choice about where I sat. We seem to live in a society where one persons rights can trump another, rather than find compromise. This is true in everything, not just vaping.
A lot of good arguments and points here. My main concern at the moment is not where I can vape (my feet still work), but this push to classify vaping as a tobacco product. When anti-smoking movements, big tobacco and insurance companies (who stand to gain the most) all agree with each other, we have quite the battle. In my mind that's the war and this debate on where vaping is allowed is just a battle. Probably equivalent to Gettysburg. Bigger things happening than etiquette and regulations. This is ground, once lost, we may never take back.
Classifying vaping as a tobacco product is more about tax money than anything else. There are more approved pharmaceuticals on the market that are far deadlier than vaping. Thats a battle I think we are destined to lose, as it will be controlled and taxed just like any other "sin" we can purchase. Governments get away with this because lobbyists are stupid enough to play their divided and conqueur game rather than stick to principles of freedom of choice.
Water is used to Boil Vegetables and is found Naturally in all Vegetables.
Is Water a Vegetable?
Is Water a Vegetable?
Well, can you say that about *anything* we use on or daily lives?
Are food colorants/ preservatives 100% safe? Have they been tested long-term before released into the market? Or are we the guinea pigs making that long-term study right now, as we are using them?
Is wi-fi radiation 100% safe? What about cellphone radiation? There's still some debate over that, and yet, I do not see people avoiding using their cellphones around their kids or having wi-fi at home - much less, trying to ban those.
Because we, in Portugal, still have very lenient anti-smoking laws, if compared to the US, for example.
In the US, it is forbidden to smoke in many *outdoor* areas already. What would be the logical reason behind NOT vaping in those places as well?
If it is NOT smoking, why should it be treated *specifically* as smoking, with no exceptions?
In an hospital refectory, there's usually no alchool beverages for sale. You will find, however, NA-beer. Just because they look similar, and are used in the same circunstances, it does not mean they should be treated the same.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
