first of all. I apologize for my lack of grammar skills. I am disabled(hands). second you cannot liken our plight to rosa parks. or such. sure, it can be heard in a courtroom. this is not a crime against humanity. sorry, it is our passion but it is just not that type of scenario. not everything is a right to freedom. especially when it opposes others. you guys just can't see through the wool because you are so enamored with our particular cause. I will tell you I love animals much more than ecigs but greenpeace always looses. simply because they approach their cause with tactics that are on the wrong side of the law. you can question my integrity al you wish but this would carry little weight in a court of the law. I mean this convention fiasco we are discussing. please, do read the statutes. are we under attack? yes! this was by and large brought on by the very community that now is screaming about it. also, you are correct the limit on wisonsin highways is 70mph up from 65mph. I do not know why I said 80. that was simply a formality on my part. still, you cannot go 85 at any point and not plan on getting stopped. I do agree it is fair to go 77 when merging etc and most law enforcement officers recognize that. there is in fact a cushion or threshold, margin for error.
Your concession on the point that the speeding laws are rules that are routinely broken matters much in the dispute that is prominent in this thread. It lends credence to the idea that some rules are meant to be broken.
FWIW, I took recent road trip in WI and people doing 85 was fairly common place. Vehicle I was in (not driving) maybe got up to 80, four or five times, but pretty much hovered around 76 mph.
I think it is highly relevant to discussion on this thread that most everyone reading this would acknowledge that people do speed, ergo break the law. But, I wouldn't say that on principle, speeding laws are rules that are meant to be broken. Just that they are widely accepted as rules/laws that are routinely broken, thus if one is claiming in this sort of debate that they will always follow the law, I'm going to wonder if they never drive over the speed limit. If they do, then they are lying about a very critical point to the debate that is in this thread.
that is not to be said you can vape in a restaurant where no vaping is posted. if it is not state law and not posted go at it. come on toasty, that does not apply to this. well, it can apply to anything but this is not oppression. which is what those instances speak of. why don't we all fight for the right to be intoxicated in public? there were many cases I would not take and this would have been one of them. I just see this as a non issue. I can't understand why it is such a passion to some of you. are you that addicted that you can't wait until you get to your vehicle or dwelling?
That this needs explaining on a vaping forum, surprises me, greatly. As if you and some others never experienced the 180 degree shift in politics toward smoking and how that is VERY VISIBLY out of whack now.
The don't vape in public rule is a rule that is meant to be broken. If you are one who will never vape in public place (let's say indoors for argument sake) because you wouldn't smoke there, then IMO, your position is a lost cause. You are in essence sheep. I realize that might not be received well, but I'm not making that assertion lightly. You are, IMO clearly, willing to believe, possibly espouse the "great dangers" of vaping. Plausible you would do this right now to help make points of why not vape in public, but also very possible you would do this when more studies come about, and are funded by what any politically aware vaper could, easily, cite as ANTZ leaning organizations.
The fact of the matter is that the SHS data, in reality, is questionable. That is neutral observation. Some might say SHS harms have been debunked. I'd lean toward that position, and would very much like to have that debate. I feel that debate is worthy of being revisited as it is blatantly what some vapers are saying is not reason to vape in public (because you can't smoke there, and strong implication is that the reason you can't smoke there is because SHS is known harm.)
Then there's the other side of the argument that says, "okay, perhaps not harmful, but annoying." Which further exemplifies that such a vaper is a lost cause for the political fight. And seemingly neglects that this event really did address that with signed agreement from all people attending, including the Senator. At this level of political gaming, it would be case of oppression to suggest that a privately held party in otherwise private location is guilty of breaking law that misidentifies devices used, overlooks signed agreements and produces counter propaganda that amounts to "wouldn't you be annoyed if you were in this situation?"
the bottom line is these devices can be offensive to others at the very least. on a greater scale they can be perceived as some as a damper to their pursuit of happiness. I respect others first and foremost. I never smoked in a non smoking section. how is this different? I know, it is not smoke. that is the vaping communities entire argument. it can be perceived as such. shall we educate the entire nation of non vapers on the subject? I would honestly be much more concerned juices and devices get banned because of the stink that is being raised. that, would in fact be an oppression of legal rights. also admissible in court and I am sure it would make it there. certain things are not a freedom if they can interfere with the (perceived) well being of others. however, having the right to use non pharmaceutical measurements at ones own discretion as a consenting adult is in fact. the right to vape indoors is just not going to become a revolution but you guys are free to prove me wrong. I am sorry I am against our very community but I am pretty sure I am on the right side of the fence. the whole thing boils down to the rights of others, not us. as it did with smoking which was a precursor to this some 60 years ago. remember at first you could smoke anywhere as well. those people ruined it for themselves as well.
Thank you for volunteering the points I made earlier that mostly demonstrate you're words represent that you are closer to lost cause than fighting for the vaping enthusiast.
The real bottom line is that our adversaries seek to shame us for our activity, ideally hope to eliminate it from existence as a recreational choice, and are likely split among themselves about whether it ought to be something that is allowed, but only on a prescription type basis or essentially treated as a drug. Some vapers seem to forgot that battle has already occurred in US courts and our opposition lost. Thus it is a recreational choice product. It may be for you something that saved you from smoking. And you do have every right to spread that via word of mouth, as may be your desire. But our vendors / industry cannot market in that way without it being subject to scrutiny that the product is being treated (by our side) as a wonder drug (you too can quit smoking by using this).
If it is closer to shameful activity, as recreational choice, then there is way more to be gotten from adversaries than an outright ban. Outright ban sounds ridiculously over the top and bad news for vaping enthusiasts (and would be), but it certainly would not end vaping. It plausibly could make vaping more popular, more lucrative, and more of a political issue than it already is. Yet, no one right now is really talking about outright ban, and so this isn't bottom line in shared reality. In shared reality, shaming and discrediting the recreational aspect(s) of vaping are what is occurring. It won't just be done via high taxation. High taxation seems likely and is part of the game plan. But if you are vaping enthusiasts you are hopefully aware of adversaries game plan (only need to remember what things were like as a smoker to have inkling about what game plan entails). The game plan also entails getting rid of it in all possible public places, indoors, outdoors, in own residence, wherever. That any one reading this thinks if we concede to just a few indoor places, we'll be okay 10 years from now, is as naive as thinking if we concede to price increase just this once, they will never do that again.
As a rule that is meant to be broken, this means that where there are clear rules, but they are not based on anything legitimate (i.e. actual harm), then those rules will be broken. You can pronounce all you may desire that this will ruin it for everyone or nonsense like that, but you come off as seemingly clueless on what our adversaries are up to now and have been for 50 years. "Seemingly clueless" is the most polite way I can state that.
Thus far, the vapers who have own rules in place for not vaping indoors (anywhere that smoking doesn't allow it) have presented very feeble arguments. So feeble that I, and others, generally have very little trouble overcoming them. I am, in fact, unable to consider a justification for the no vaping in public rule that would work for most places.
But that it works for any vaper in this particular case really does have me question where your loyalties lie? Or how equipped you are for the fight that is ahead? What level of integrity you actually have? Or how able you are to use reason in your arguments? Thus far, it shows up as, fairly incapable.
