second hand vape.
- Thread starter Spencer87
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
as if anything if it annoys someone don't do it.
Apparently this vaping thing is really under fire out there (as we know) but it's worse it seems these last few months as the govt, is visiting it, it's "newsworthy" , Father's Day, the family took my 85 yo dad to Luby's (that's where mom wants so that's where we go) but, I brought mine out for one quick puff while the old folks were still chewing and my daughter went off on me! and she vapes.
Apparently there's been a lot of fire out there she works at an artsy grocery store as a manager, and the misinformation and really rude vapers have given it a bad name in public (I am semi retired, more emphasis on retired part so I'm not out in it like I used to be) but the general public's misinformation and reactionary stuff to something new, is it's being treated like smoking.
so what can I do, the lobbying thing, lots of posts on here, and I visit the sites, and be a considerate vaper. So OP just vape where you're not annoying anyone (I know she's probably a you know what) but that's what we can do for now, and spread the REAL information in a considerate way.
Apparently this vaping thing is really under fire out there (as we know) but it's worse it seems these last few months as the govt, is visiting it, it's "newsworthy" , Father's Day, the family took my 85 yo dad to Luby's (that's where mom wants so that's where we go) but, I brought mine out for one quick puff while the old folks were still chewing and my daughter went off on me! and she vapes.
Apparently there's been a lot of fire out there she works at an artsy grocery store as a manager, and the misinformation and really rude vapers have given it a bad name in public (I am semi retired, more emphasis on retired part so I'm not out in it like I used to be) but the general public's misinformation and reactionary stuff to something new, is it's being treated like smoking.
so what can I do, the lobbying thing, lots of posts on here, and I visit the sites, and be a considerate vaper. So OP just vape where you're not annoying anyone (I know she's probably a you know what) but that's what we can do for now, and spread the REAL information in a considerate way.
Okay, this is where I think it starts getting silly. I have said before on here that I really do believe that if someone invented glasses that allowed you to see other people's breath the lawsuits and grievances would instantly multiply exponentially. So, it grosses you out that you might breathe the air that was just in someone else's yucky lungs, and ewwwwwww how gross?
I have a solution for you.
Move to Mars. Earth is full of icky HUMANS! You never know when you might be breathing what they just breathed out!
Last edited:
Well you know, it's the 10% Rule. 10% always have to be a-holes, and mess everything up for everybody. There's ALWAYS that 10%, you can't escape the nimrods.
Andria
Please read my post again, carefully.
And explain to us all where did you read about "movie theaters" or "enclosed spaces".
You "do agree that banning out of fear is wrong". And then, "you couldn't care less" about bans in places like public beaches or parks, because you either do not need to go there, or you dislike to go there. That's what we were discussing.
To me, this seems a little contradictory: what other motive, except fear, (as in fear-mongering news pushed by some people who have not-so-covert interests in banning our devices) would be behind a ban in outside places?
It is this fear, and hatred, that has been the origin of banning tobacco in open places, NOT because smokers were once inconsiderate in enclosed spaces.
In my country, you cannot smoke in most indoor public places anymore - that was due to health concerns, caused by "inconsiderate" smokers.
And yet, no-one would dream to push a law to ban smoking outside - most non-smokers would not even support that: they realize their health has been protected already, and that there is no need, from an health perspective, to go any further. Most non-smokers here understand that "I have the right to clean air inside, and they have the 'right' to smoke outside - it's only fair, because we do no allow them to smoke inside anymore."
Yeah, except the beach we were at was flat as a board with zero dunes, lots of picnic areas, lots of cement walkways and even a sprinkler park. The no sledding sign was just flat out ridiculous. A rule to be a rule, nothing more.
I'm not sure where you live, but here in New York there's LOTS of laws and policies that dictate certain outdoor areas are no-smoking zones. Some have even been challenged in court (like that smoking ban in state parks). Most hospitals are now no-smoking campuses, so you can't smoke anywhere on the property, even out in the parking lot away from the building. Many local town beaches have big no-smoking signs plastered around. Many college campuses (my daughter's included) are "smoke-free" campuses, and smoking on the grounds anywhere is prohibited.
So yeah, lots of ANTZ dream of pushing laws to ban smoking outside... and EVERYWHERE. Over the years as the anti-smoking laws expanded more and more I pretty much realized that it was going to be legal to smoke only in my house, on my own property and in my car. Anywhere else, you just can't expect to be allowed to smoke.
Last year a group called the New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, a smokers advocacy group, challenged the ban on smoking in state parks. A judge actually ruled in their favor. And that was with regards to SMOKING. We know vaping is a whole lot safer. As time goes on, I hope there will be groups to fight for our rights to vape in public spaces, especially if it's confirmed second hand vapor is benign. This idea that it "make smoking acceptable" or that just because it looks like smoke it should be banned is ridiculous.
Just because it ANNOYS someone isn't a reason to ban it. There's lots of thing people do that are annoying to one person or another... that doesn't make it illegal. Yes, we should be courteous, but how about the idea that we are owed some courtesy as well?
The question in law is not whether it annoys someone, it is whether it annoys a reasonable person. See my dog analogy earlier in the thread. If public opinion moves so much that any white clouds are seen as annoying to everyone, a ban will be a reasonable step to take. Before it gets that far we will have lost heavily.
I live in Portugal, and around here, we (still) have a somewhat balanced smoking policy:
- If your business establishment has more than 100 square meters, you can choose to have a separate smoking area, with proper air extraction - no more than 30% of the total area. Which, in many cases, is silly: there are bars and coffe shops where smoking patrons amount to 70 or 80% of the people who go there. When I smoked, I have once been crammed in a little separate room with the rest of the smokers - at the same time, in the bigger room, there were two guys standing by the counter. None of the tables there were being used.
- If you have less than 100 square meters, the law states creating separate areas is not practical - therefore, you can choose to have a smoking-friendly establishment - provided that you put in place proper equipment for air extraction. When the law was passed, I have seen many smaller business choosing "non-smoking" at first (to spare the money that would have spent in said equipment), losing costumers and revenue, and then later moving on to smoking-friendly. The loss of income did not make up for that money initially spared.
- Outside, of course, is fair game - you can smoke freely; the tobacco law is to be applied indoors, in enclosed spaces. This is seen as a kind of "balance" by many non-smokers: smokers get to sit outside in the winter, with the wind and the rain, and non-smokers endure a little whisp of tobacco smoke, when THEY start moving outside in the summer.
Seeing what is happening with the pubs in England, for example, I believe ours is a more balanced law: the owner (the one who has to pay the bills and get the business going) can actually choose what best suits his business interest. Rampant anti-smoking people can always avoid smoking-friendly establishment and choose non-smoking ones instead - there are still several of them. In less numbers, granted, but hey, it's not the smoker's fault that many non-smokers prefer to spend their evening running in the street or going to the gym instead of drinking a refreshing beer...
THIS !!
We were so used to being abused as smokers, that some of us vapers have surrendered the simple idea that we are owned some courtesy as well.
As smokers, we were actually making Govmt PROFIT from our sin-taxes - something many anti-smokers never understood, because they only looked at the "expenses" side of the coin.
As vapers, we are doing NOTHING to jeopardize other people's health - especially outside. The idea that we should keep hiding and skulking just because some people do not APPROVE what we're doing sound ridiculous to me.
Last edited:
This statement is both wrong and dangerous
. Laws are intended to protect rights irrespective of any "annoyance" factor. If that statement were true, there'd still be slaves, but also, perhaps, ignorant stupidity would be a capital offense. There is no such thing as the right to "not be annoyed".That being said, an increasing number of people thinking of themselves as the "moral majority" have a tendency to see The Law as a means to impose their morality on others (the "minority"). This is how the Taliban ruled and also what's happening now with the Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and Syria. Is that a system of government you'd want to live under?
In a free country, the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness trump any annoyance they may cause to the moral majority and laws ought to reflect that. And our choice to vape wherever we please falls under the purview of these inalienable rights, just as much as breathing.
This statement is both wrong and dangerous
That being said, an increasing number of people thinking of themselves as the "moral majority" have a tendency to see The Law as a means to impose their morality on others (the "minority"). This is how the Taliban ruled and also what's happening now with the Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and Syria. Is that a system of government you'd want to live under?
In a free country, the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness trump any annoyance they may cause to the moral majority and laws ought to reflect that. And our choice to vape wherever we please falls under the purview of these inalienable rights, just as much as breathing.
I was agreeing with you, in part UNTIL your last sentence where I simply DO NOT agree it's our right to vape wherever we please.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with the portion you disagree with. Maybe in open air environments we had the right to vape, but as being patrons in businesses, their right to refuse service based on criteria they set forth supersedes out right to vape in said business. They have the right to not only refuse service, but ask people to leave as long as their reason doesn't violate a person's constitutional rights regardless of race, sex, disability or religion. Vaping is not protected right by any means when it comes to being a patron in a privately owned business.
Like I said before, I hope open air vaping is never banned. But it's those few bad apples that will push the envelope as to what the majority will tolerate will cause businesses to react. Regardless of the self importance and entitlements people might think are protected rights, telling a business what to and what not to allow is not one of those.
You have as much right to vape in any business as much as I have the right to go into Chuckie Cheese and get passed out drunk. Chuckie Cheese won't even let me in the door without a child let allow carrying a case of beer. Me passing out in the ball pit doesn't really harm anybody, so why shouldn't I have that right?
Last edited:
Lets talk a little bit about second hand smoke or "environmental tobacco smoke" (ETS) There has not been any scientific proof that environmental tobacco smoke causes any health problems. So until then, banning smoking indoors is like bannig a spcific type of music....
So second hand vape would be not a problem.
See, when even tobacco smoke is inhaled then exhaled it enters the air and becomes environmental tobacco smoke in which the molecules change. All this about second hand smoke- none of which is backed by scientific facts.
So second hand vape would be not a problem.
See, when even tobacco smoke is inhaled then exhaled it enters the air and becomes environmental tobacco smoke in which the molecules change. All this about second hand smoke- none of which is backed by scientific facts.
I've seen this quote attributed to at least 4 different historical figures, but it doesn't change the way I feel about its truth:
"My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins".
I don't BELIEVE that vapor from my APV is harmful, but I also know there are people that may have a sensitivity to the ingredients. That. for ME, is enough reason to not vape all willy-nilly where I please.
I'm sorry, but the "I have the 'right' to vape anywhere and anytime I want" mentality is dangerous and will only serve to box us in a corner.
None of us. Again none of us can say with 100% certainty there is zero chance our exhaled vape is 100% safe for someone else to breath.
Sure we shouldn't be treated like criminals, but we shouldn't be militant about Vaping either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
None of us. Again none of us can say with 100% certainty there is zero chance our exhaled vape is 100% safe for someone else to breath.
Sure we shouldn't be treated like criminals, but we shouldn't be militant about Vaping either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Once the vape is exhaled it goes into the evironment and the toxic molecules change. We can in fact use science and statistics to show second hand smoke poses no threat at all.
Just google something like- "second hand smoke myth".
And there are loads of studies which say 2nd hand smoke is bad.
So tell me. I assume you smoked cigarettes? I have no clue if you have children, but does your position mean you'd feel no quilt smoking cigarettes in the same room as your children?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So tell me. I assume you smoked cigarettes? I have no clue if you have children, but does your position mean you'd feel no quilt smoking cigarettes in the same room as your children?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I have no idea about studies either way on that topic. What I do know is that my son, from birth to age 9, lived in a smoke-filled environment, and from kindergarten thru 3rd grade, missed upwards of 20 days out of each school year, which, despite his above-average intelligence and quickness, had a radical effect on his grades. When he started 4th grade, we moved to a new place, and I made a promise to my family to only smoke outdoors, from then on -- and that year, my son had perfect attendance in school, and also got straight-As for the first and only time.
So I don't really care about "studies" -- I conducted my own informal study, which told me that living in 2nd hand smoke was bad for chldrens' lungs, and that removing that smoke from their environment produced immediate and phenomenal results.
Andria
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
