The cops are at my door!

[Nestran]

Yeah, common thread, do what they want and they are nice, question and they demonstrate that power corrupts.

Not saying all but hey, not all dogs bite but I am still cautious around them.

Nestran

 

[Walrus]

i read a post from that guy i forget his name but i know he is a traveling business man and hes wearin a suit in his avatar hope this helps

I believe you are talking about RIAFlight25, who is a flight attendant, and his experience in Saudi Arabia. Here's the thread:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/travel-e-cig/26856-caution-when-vaping-saudi-arabia.html

 

[Superstargoddess]

I don't know, maybe the police just take you as more of a threat because you guys that have mentioned about them tend to be male. Must be one of those macho bravo things.

 

[undyingguitarist]

i dont understand how the law can actually do stuff like that, im glad your werent arrested tho

 

[NCChief]

Unfortunatly, like many people in every profession, most cannot maintain this and eventually snap.

Most? Are you saying that the majority of us will or have already snapped? Let me know when it is my turn, because in 21+ years, I haven't snapped on anyone. You want to know why we have to be asses at times? Read through some of these stories. A few of them were close, personal friends of mine:

The Officer Down Memorial Page, Inc.

 

[NCChief]

Tell ya what.... Lets get back to the topic at hand. Laws and Vaping. Some folks like us and some don't. Hell, I don't like child molesters or drug dealers, so it is everyones right to voice their dislikes. Let's get back to vaping.

 

[Superstargoddess]

Most? Are you saying that the majority of us will or have already snapped? Let me know when it is my turn, because in 21+ years, I haven't snapped on anyone. You want to know why we have to be asses at times? Read through some of these stories. A few of them were close, personal friends of mine:

The Officer Down Memorial Page, Inc.

Oh my gosh, I have known about that page for years. I can't even go to it anymore. The first time that I went there I had tears in my eyes and I am starting to get them right now just thinking about it! I've always loved police officers and my Uncle was a damn good officer in Columbus, Ohio in the 80's.

 

[Superstargoddess]

Tell ya what.... Lets get back to the topic at hand. Laws and Vaping. Some folks like us and some don't. Hell, I don't like child molesters or drug dealers, so it is everyones right to voice their dislikes. Let's get back to vaping.

Alright, back to vaping, but I have one more story for you- want to see what you think of it. Ok, two more, I'm feeling frisky suddenly.

1. At a school district around the way from here, teachers fought to not have the school board to do random drug testing on them. I'm talking like the most ferocious opponents of this on the tv were these ladies that looked like they were in their late 40's and 50's. Now why in the world would someone object to random drug testing unless they had something to hide. (Not to mention most other professions, even stuff like fast food, will randomly drug test you) You would think that since it is for the childrens sake, that these people would be alright with it... unless they were doing something wrong.

2. I accidentally found out one time (and this may also work for the e-cig) that if you get pulled over, and you happen to be smoking an analog cig, if you ask the cop as soon as he approaches the car if he would like for you to put it out- he really really appreciates it. (And I have only been pulled over around twice that I can remember while smoking real analogs, 1 time officer said to put it out and the other time the officer said to go ahead and smoke that he didn't care.

Alright then, sorry for running off at the mouth, no sleep and my meds makes me get sudden bursts of the diaharhea of the mouth!

 

[andybside]

Yes, I have. He makes some good points.

BTW, why are you talking to me?

HAHA! Now that's funny!

 

[chad]

1. At a school district around the way from here, teachers fought to not have the school board to do random drug testing on them. I'm talking like the most ferocious opponents of this on the tv were these ladies that looked like they were in their late 40's and 50's. Now why in the world would someone object to random drug testing unless they had something to hide. (Not to mention most other professions, even stuff like fast food, will randomly drug test you) You would think that since it is for the childrens sake, that these people would be alright with it... unless they were doing something wrong.

Ummm... Becuase suspicionless drug testing violates the fourth amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America.

2. I accidentally found out one time (and this may also work for the e-cig) that if you get pulled over, and you happen to be smoking an analog cig, if you ask the cop as soon as he approaches the car if he would like for you to put it out- he really really appreciates it. (And I have only been pulled over around twice that I can remember while smoking real analogs, 1 time officer said to put it out and the other time the officer said to go ahead and smoke that he didn't care.

Yes. You should exercise common courtesy and politeness to everyone you meet; be it an officer of the law or a homless woman on the street.

Alright then, sorry for running off at the mouth, no sleep and my meds makes me get sudden bursts of the diaharhea of the mouth!

What if suspicionless drug testing led to you losing your job because your employer deemed the "meds" you're taking to present too much risk to you, those around you, or the work you do (it's for the children after all). Even worse, what if that same drug test was used by your employer's insurance company to deny you care for the pre-existing medical condition you have?

 

[Superstargoddess]

Ummm... Becuase suspicionless drug testing violates the fourth amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America.


Yes. You should exercise common courtesy and politeness to everyone you meet; be it an officer of the law or a homless woman on the street.


What if suspicionless drug testing led to you losing your job because your employer deemed the "meds" you're taking to present too much risk to you, those around you, or the work you do (it's for the children after all). Even worse, what if that same drug test was used by your employer's insurance company to deny you care for the pre-existing medical condition you have?

1. "suspicionless drug testing"? I think that everywhere I have worked in my whole life has had a random drug test policy. And I have worked anywhere from fast food places when I was younger up to being a corrections officer in a state mens prison. If that violates the constitution, how do they still get away with random drug testing everywhere else?

2. I know that it's good to be polite to everyone, as I will be. I was just saying that officers of the law (and other people) especially appreciate when you are thoughtful and have a good attitude towards them.

3. As for the medication that I am on, and for anyone taking medication for mental health, a work place can't do anything to you about that. If I get a job and I have to take a drug test at any time, I need to tell them the medication that I am on because it WILL specifically show up on their drug test (unless it's a marijuana only test, then it won't show). However, as long as I show them my bottle and the amount that they detect of it in my body is the amount that is shown on the bottle, they can't say anything to me. As long as someone isn't "bat**** crazy" and dangerous, I don't think that they can discriminate against someone based on a mental health issue.

 

[Talen]

So I get a knock on the door this evening.. it is a city police officer. He tells me that somebody tipped the police that I was blogging about harmful electronic cigarette chemicals (http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-dipropylene-glycol-fragrance-grade-dpgf.html) and I was talking about how to mix the liquid etc.. TRUE STORY.

I showed him my old e cigarette and showed him the liquid and how the whole thing worked. He seemed impressed and told me that if it was illegal, which it is not, it would be out of his jurisdiction anyway. I explained to him how the chemicals are non-toxic food preservatives (PG) and water. He seemed slightly embarrassed and left.

Since my name is not anywhere in my profile, nor my address, and the only identifiable part of this blog is "gtmason" (and my location and avatar pic)... I knew immediately that the only one who would call the police about this is a person from my past who must really have a vendetta against me (to spend so much time online searching blogs for my username) trying to find dirt. What a waste of resources and time for the poor guy, he could have been off busting .... labs or arresting drunk drivers.

I bet I am the only person in the US that has ever almost been arrested over electronic cigarettes. LOL

I have been smoke free since April 5th 09 and I couldn't have quit without the ecig.

Sorry, I don't believe a word of this. Nice to get attention though.

 

[Superstargoddess]

Sorry, I don't believe a word of this. Nice to get attention though.

I can actually believe it. You must not have seen the other thread where a lady said that some kids weren't allowed to come over anymore to see her kids since someone said that what she was using was some sort of drug device. I can see it going further to the point of where someone would report a person for a device they suspect as being a drug device.

 

[perky]

1. "suspicionless drug testing"? I think that everywhere I have worked in my whole life has had a random drug test policy. And I have worked anywhere from fast food places when I was younger up to being a corrections officer in a state mens prison. If that violates the constitution, how do they still get away with random drug testing everywhere else?

Mmmm. In a work environment, including teaching, random testing could only be done if it's in the employment contract (meaning the employee has already agreed to it as part of that contract). If not you can't be made to take a drug test and be fired if you refuse, and you certainly can't force people to take them against their will, that's assault. To bring in random testing when it wasn't present before requires a change to their employment contract, and the employees are well in their rights to refuse. So employers don't 'get away with random drug testing', the employees consent to it. Suspicionless random drug testing of a person without their consent is not allowed by constitution, and that principle is still valid.

 

[Superstargoddess]

Mmmm. In a work environment, including teaching, random testing could only be done if it's in the employment contract (meaning the employee has already agreed to it as part of that contract). If not you can't be made to take a drug test and be fired if you refuse, and you certainly can't force people to take them against their will, that's assault. To bring in random testing when it wasn't present before requires a change to their employment contract, and the employees are well in their rights to refuse. So employers don't 'get away with random drug testing', the employees consent to it. Suspicionless random drug testing of a person without their consent is not allowed by constitution, and that principle is still valid.

Ah so in most places of employment, the stuff that you sign when you are hired basically says that you will agree to random suspicionless drug testing then? And if that isn't in there from the get go, you have the right to not agree to the change in policy and still be able to keep your job since them forcing you to resign a contract with such a policy in it is against the constitution? Just making sure that I understand that correctly.

If so, that's very interesting.

 

[gtmason]

Sorry, I don't believe a word of this. Nice to get attention though.

Sorry to hear that; I am not lying as God is my witness! I have better things to do than spend the time making this stuff up-- and I certainly did not write this to get attention.. I can see how people would be skeptical but I can tell you that I am not a liar.

 

[gtmason]

I can actually believe it. You must not have seen the other thread where a lady said that some kids weren't allowed to come over anymore to see her kids since someone said that what she was using was some sort of drug device. I can see it going further to the point of where someone would report a person for a device they suspect as being a drug device.

Thanks for backing me up I can tell you that the general public is generally not adept to the whole ecig thing.. The ignorant and uneducated person that called the police told them I was "mixing dangerous chemicals" and must have thought that I had some sort of illigal lab in my house..

 

[perky]

Ah so in most places of employment, the stuff that you sign when you are hired basically says that you will agree to random suspicionless drug testing then? And if that isn't in there from the get go, you have the right to not agree to the change in policy and still be able to keep your job since them forcing you to resign a contract with such a policy in it is against the constitution? Just making sure that I understand that correctly.

If so, that's very interesting.

Basically yes. A drug test generally involves giving a bodily sample of some sort, to extract that without consent is assault. The authorities could use sniffer dogs or detectors that are non-invasive to gain some suspicion, but you still have the right to refuse to give a sample. This may result in you being arrested, and a refusal to give a sample then may be seen by a court as evidence of guilt (as in the UK drink driving laws). The point being there must be reasonable suspicion.

 

[jamie]

Employment-related drug testing swept the U.S. as part of the War On Drugs/Just Say No hysteria of the 80s. Up until then testing was reserved for high-risk, clearly-related occupations like airline pilot and law enforcement.

It was supposed to End Drug Use In America among all but the hardest core street addicts (it didn't), save businesses and government hundreds of millions to billions per year in related costs (it didn't), and result in skyrocketing productivity (it didn't). In fact, it's been a net loss by every measure - we spend spend spend on testing, and create income and legal hassles for the guilty and innocent alike.

What it did do though, very effectively, is cement the mindset that folks who object to their life and body being examined by employers or government must be guilty of something - further normalizing guilty until proven innocent.

It's also proved a great way for employers, especially potential employers, to get around medical privacy laws - getting people who 'volunteer' for drug testing to also 'volunteer' their medical information so as not to get caught up by drug test results.

The refusal to employ tobacco users is a direct next step (slippery slope) result of suspicionless low-risk-employment drug testing, as is low-risk-pre-employment credit checking. Prior to this it was rarely considered appropriate for an employer to concern themselves with such personal activities of their employees. War On Drugs hysteria turned that on its head to where you have to prove your free time or non-impinging activities leave you worthy to be employed.

As ever, most 'drug-related' losses continue to be associated with alcohol use.

---------
Original topic - What a threatening and frustrating experience for the OP. And congrats on your ecig success.

 

[Stric9]

Corvallis, Oregon!!! Geez does that bring back memories. I usta work for a software company that was based in Corvallis (out by the airport). And YES I believe the Po-Po paid gtmason a "visit". Corvallis is a small college town and Oregonians in general are kinda quirky about legal issues. Whenever I would vist the office out there the locals would refuse to ride with me because I would not wear a seat belt. "That's against the law" was the standard answer. So some there are pretty .... about following the law.