UCSF bans e-cigarette use where smoking is banned

[zoiDman]

BTW – Feel free to just Slam this all to Heck.

I’m not going to reply because Very Few Understand what I am Saying anyway.

Funny in a Way. What good is a Thread when All we do is Sit Around and Agree with it.

Kinda Tan but then again, That Just Me.

 

[deluxe]

The bad thing about this ban is not that employees who vape are inconvenienced (even though I do consider it an unfair and unnecessary inconvenience). The bad thing is that student who might otherwise have switched to vaping and discontinued cigarette smoking are being given the wrong message, and have less incentive now to make the switch. IMO it's a short-sighted policy that doesn't take into account the welfare of student smokers.

BTW I work at a non-smoking campus (not UCSF). Smoking is not allowed anywhere on campus including parking lots and green spaces. It is now 2 years since the ban was instituted. People were fairly cooperative at first but the ban is now commonly openly ignored. It is a 10 minute drive just to leave campus so trying to get away for a smoke break can be extremely challenging :/.

I do vape at work (only inside my office with the door shut and the window cracked). I'll never stop, even if they decide to ban the e-cig. It'll be interesting to see what happens along the lines of campus bans since a medical researcher at my school authored one of the positive medical studies on PV safety.

 

[Vocalek]

You know what…
[SNIP]
Why isn’t anything getting done. In government? Or anything for that matter Anymore?

Ya know why Sunshine?

Because no one can compromise anymore. It’s all about the ALL for the Left or ALL for the right.

[SNIP]
Me. I would rather engage in Compromise and give Them a Small Portion of what "They" want for a Large Portion of what "I" want. Let them have some Vaping Bans. Vapers need Boundaries Anyway. Big Time Boundaries. 24-7 Isn't Normal.

But then when the Big Issues come up Like Taxation we can look Cooperative and Not Juvenilia and Adversarial like we do now. It’s kinda a Carrot or the Stick Approach.
[SNIP]

You want something?

Great. Well here is how the Universe works. You’re going to have to give up something to Get It. So give them a few bans and be an Adult about it.

And then Barter for something in Return. Remember: You Can’t Have Everything.
[SNIP]

That all sounds very logical. Very grown up. The problem is that "compromise" is what got us into this mess in the first place. Have you ever heard the saying, "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile"?

The antis don't need to have the entire world made smoke-free in order to protect the health of non-smokers. They could have stopped after they got the smokers out of the areas where bystanders would be exposed, but that was not the master plan.

The antis who want to eradicate all use of tobacco and nicotine from the face of the earth knew that if they demanded to have smoking prohibited everywhere, there would be shouted (or laughed) out of the room. So they decided to do the "Frog in the pot of water" trick.

If you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump right back out. But if you put it into a pot of nice tepid water, it will sit tight. It will continue to sit tight while you increase the temperature, little by little, until eventually the frog's goose is cooked (so-to-speak).

The first version of the Clean Air Acts back in the early 1980s called for a ban on smoking in the common areas of public buildings. Smoking would still be permitted in private offices, private apartments, private rooms, private cars, so smokers had a place to retreat to. They quietly compromised.

The next version of the laws called for the entire building to be smoke free, except for a separate smoking room with separate ventilation. Smokers still had a place to retreat to, so they quietly compromised.

Next, the antis' publicity claimed that there was leakage from these designated smoking rooms that was causing people to drop dead on the spot of heart attacks and strokes or develop huge disfiguring tumors due to second-hand smoke exposure (OK, OK. I'm exaggerating about what they claimed, but not by much!). So the smokers were sent outside, but provided with shelters to provide shade and shelter from the wind and rain. They still had a place to retreat to, so they quietly compromised.

Next....

I could go on and on, but by now you should get the picture. This did not "just happen." It was part of a carefully crafted plan: The Godber Blueprint.

Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

So you go right ahead as an individual, and surrender unconditionally. You can call it "compromise" if it makes you feel better. But you will not get anything in return from them...except empty promises. You might get temporary appeasement of some type. But it won't last.

As for me, I intend to fight. Enough is enough.

What's next? Should we all be forced to go around with a big red "S" on our chests? This would warn others to keep their distance to avoid exposure to 666th-hand smoke from our clothing.

I have been using an e-cigarette daily for nearly three years. In all that time, my use of the devices has not caused even a minor illness on the part of any bystander. I see no reason why I should meekly accept being punished for a crime I have not committed.

You say, "Vapers need Boundaries Anyway. Big Time Boundaries. 24-7 Isn't Normal." Thanks, Mom.

Who are you to say what is normal or not normal for another person?

Why should you (or anyone else) be given the power to dictate where everyone's Boundary lines should be drawn?

 

[DC2]

BTW – Feel free to just Slam this all to Heck.

I don't see anyone slamming you, just presenting opinions that differ strongly from yours.
That, of course, feels like slamming but really isn't.

Sort of like how vaping feels like smoking, but really isn't.

I’m not going to reply because Very Few Understand what I am Saying anyway.

I fully understand what you said, and I suspect almost all of us understand what you said.
The only thing is, we simply do not agree with it.

In fact, I'm sure some of us vehemently disagree with it.
But that is not slamming you either.


I for one appreciate you taking the time to state your position.
It certainly provides something to think about.

 

[zoiDman]

I was pleasantly surprised Not to wake up to an Inbox full of Flame. I know my opinion on some vaping bans isn’t going to be received well here. But it is how I feel.

I just don’t see any good way to let Vaper’s have some of the things that they want Without Compromising with Anti-Vaper’s and giving them some of the things they want also.

I would much rather see the Hard Work , Time and Money that Pro-Vaping groups expend placed on Making Deals with Policy Makers verses a perceived attitude of we will Fight to Last Man for Vapers so they can vape When Ever and Where Ever they chose.

Face it. Vaping as we know it Today is Changing. The Taxation is starting as are more Bans.

You can’t stop change. But by working together instead of “Line in the Sand” Fighting over issues, perhaps Both sides can get Some of the things they want.

BTW – It really isn’t an “Give an Inch and They Take a Mile” thing. If there is No Compromises or Deals that can be Struck with Policy Makers, they’re going to take the Mile Anyway. I say Trade Horses with them and Try to Get Something out of it for your side.

 

[sherid]

There is no compromise with anti-smokers. Reread Vocalek's post. Anti-smokers are vile, unyielding tyrants, and those of us who oppose your stance do so because we have watched them at work for way too long. We are no longer cooperating with unreasonable and vengeful people.

 

[Vocalek]

Compromise might work in the land of politics. Just about zero of any of the bills that have been introduced were the idea of a politician. There is a strong well-organized, well-funded group of groups behind the introduction of these bills.

The people leading the charge fall into one of two categories: 1) Zealots who firmly believe that there is no difference between nicotine addiction and addiction to street drugs that make people violent and crazy, and 2) those who are financially dedicated to preserving the profits of the pharmaceutical companies that make the products you have probably spent hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on, without being able to quit smoking.

They have plenty of drug-company money to spread lies, too. http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/campaign/anti-e-cig-campaign-funding.html

They love the idea that people use these drugs to quit for a while, and then relapse (which actually is good for them because they also receive money from tobacco companies through the Master Settlement agreement), and then use their drugs again. They really don't want you to find a way to stop smoking permanently! That would stop the gravy train.

They are masters of propaganda techniques.

Read the Amicus brief signed on to by organizations that claim they want to help smokers quit.

The District Court’s injunction would hinder efforts to reduce the mortality
and morbidity associated with tobacco use and harm the public health ......7...

a. The District Court’s injunction would allow the marketing of
potentially dangerous and ineffective nicotine products ......................7...

b. The District Court’s injunction would likely lead to greater nicotine
use and, eventually, to tobacco use among children ..........................1..1...

c. The District Court’s decision would discourage tobacco users from
using FDA-approved smoking cessation products to help them quit ..1..2.

d. The District Court’s injunction would undermine the incentive to
develop new, better alternative nicotine products ...............................1..3..

http://www.casaa.org/files/ALA_brief_ct._app..pdf

And that's just the table of contents!!!

Indoor use bans are just the tip of the iceberg. The ANTZ are getting legislation introduced to stamp out e-cigs every way they can think of, from imposing taxes of 70% of wholesale to outlawing home delivery of e-cig products. These are just a stepping stone to getting all sales, everywhere, banned.

 

[DaveP]

You can get around the wording of that ban...It isn't a lighted pipe, cigar, or cigarette and you can say you didn't inhale

Except for the fact that they used the term "heated" Cigar, Pipe, or Cigarette in their definition.

 

[DaveP]

I think that the ecig has miffed the powers that be so much that they are changing the terminology to exclude them, too. If it looks like a duck ...

I can see the problems with seeing a cloud of vapor, calling security, and waiting, just to find out that it's a personal vaporizer. Banning them all is an easier proposition than pointing and saying, "You can use yours, but YOU have to put yours out!"

 

[Vocalek]

Funny, we have not had any problems like that in Virginia, where the Attorney General ruled that e-cigarettes are not included in the statewide smoking ban. I use my e-cig at the bowling alley, and nobody even gives me a second look now. Back when they gave me a first look, it was to find out what I was using and where they (or a friend of theirs they wanted to help) could buy one. People quickly get used to the idea. Really.

 

[Vocalek]

This is correspondence from a legislator who is sympathetic to our side.

You all need to bring a strong group to the Capitol to testify. Dress well, dont allow anyone to smell of cig smoke, pick a few well spoken people to make testify, and have documentable scientific facts to give out (not from cig or e-cig industry). The next possible committee hearing that this could be put on the agenda is Monday at 8:00 am in room 20 of the west building on Utah Capitol Hill. Even if it's on the agenda, it could get pulled off again. The group must remain vigilant and persistent. Once you lose e-cigs indoors, you will never get it back because the Cancer Society is working very hard against you.

Does that sound as if "compromise" is even something on the table, as far as the true opponents (not the law-makers) are concerned?

 

[LibertariaNate]

I understand where you're coming from zoiDman. I've struggled internally with this issue as well. Actually, I still do.

I don't agree with the bans, but for my own selfish reasons. At the same time, I don't vape out in public much. Outside, sure, but not while shopping or at the movie theater. Not because of any bans or because I'm scared it might draw attention, but because I don't feel the need to. I understand it isn't that way for everyone.

I understand why there are some who are pushing for these bans. There are many here who are quick to point out that vapor is not smoke and is therefor not harmful to bystanders. When discussing PG safety, the "Exhibit A" is the FDA's approval of it for use in medicine, food, etc. and therefor safe, but how many threads do we see FDA bashing? When someone has a reaction to vaping, "sensitivity" to PG or flavoring is suggested. Potential bad reactions are too quickly "poo-pooed" and questioned away with "How many years did you smoke?" We see potential health issues mentioned all the time here, so how can we be 100% certain others might not be affected negatively?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for harm reduction and I am against these bans. Try to look at it from a non-activist perspective though. All they see is one group trying to ban smoking EVERYWHERE and another group arguing they should be able to vape EVERYWHERE. Both sides sound and look extreme.

 

[DC2]

Try to look at it from a non-activist perspective though. All they see is one group trying to ban smoking EVERYWHERE and another group arguing they should be able to vape EVERYWHERE. Both sides sound and look extreme.

I often worry that both sides look extreme to an outsider or non-stakeholder.

And I also have concerns about turning people off by blowing out big clouds in public.
I generally stealth vape in enclosed public spaces for this reason.

But in my opinion this should be a courtesy and common sense issue, not a legislative issue.
At least until the day comes that it can be shown that there is any potential for harm to bystanders.

And that's a day I very strongly doubt will ever come.
In fact, thinking it through logically, it does seem almost impossible to me.

 

[LibertariaNate]

I often worry that both sides look extreme to an outsider or non-stakeholder.

I mentioned the proposed Utah ban to my wife when I learned about it. She just shrugged her shoulders and said, "Meh." While she's thrilled I no longer smoke, she couldn't care less about the issue. She doesn't smoke or vape, so bans and taxes don't personally affect her. She's apathetic. I'm sure that's how most people who don't have any skin in the game feel.

But in my opinion this should be a courtesy and common sense issue, not a legislative issue.
At least until the day comes that it can be shown that there is any potential for harm to bystanders.

I agree... The world would be a better place if more people just followed the "Golden Rule." Sadly, we don't live in that world.

And that's a day I very strongly doubt will ever come.
In fact, thinking it through logically, it does seem almost impossible to me.

I hope you're right.

 

[TennDave]

Unfortunately, this "ban on campuses" has been happening right under our nose- all over the U.S. in public schools (with staff being discriminated against more than students). Because they are using the argument that if kids see adults using e-cigs, it might trigger them to smoke the real thing...so they classify e-cigs to be the same as "smoking." Anyway, I started a thread about this here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/casaa/264297-call-action-not-knoxville-tennessee.html
It's the same 'ole story...but because of this, it doesn't surprise me at all that this mentality is filtering up into higher education.

 

[sherid]

I have two kids in college. Neither of them smokes, however if they did, and they were forced to go off campus to smoke and put their immediate lives in danger because of campus smoking bans; I would sue that school for every cent of their endowment fund. Universities are places where our kids are supposed to be able to make both good and bad choices as they make their way to adult life.

 

[Placebo Effect]

UCSF's Legacy Tobacco Docs, which is funded by American Legacy and RWJF, is attacking e-cigs on Twitter

https://twitter.com/#!/ltdlnews

#tobacco marketing restrictions shld apply to Ecigs-no health claims, flavors, youth focus #itsaboutabillionlives @CTCREatUCSF @FDATobacco

Ecigs marketing to youth - social media tie-ins, flavoring, celebrity endorsements #itsaboutabillionlives @CTCREatUCSF

Ecigs using health and therapeutic claims to sell products - same as camel ads from pre1950s #itsaboutabillionlives @CTCREatUCSF

I tweeted back

A reminder about @ltdlnews from @mbsiegel: Legacy has significant conflicts of interests, and they wanted e-cigs banned http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/09/american-legacy-foundation-policy.html

.@ltdlnews @CTCREatUCSF You really hate to see people quit smoking without NRT's, huh?

.@ltdlnews There is no youth focus, and flavors help people stay smoke-free. You won't win.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Yesterday, UCSF held its "Billion Lives" seminar, which included a presentation by one of Stan Glantz' post docs trashing e-cigs.

 

[deach]

Man lots of views here. Now I know at least some of what's wrong with this country.....

 

[TennDave]

zoiDman mentioned "compromise." I'm wondering what this means.
What do we expect them to "give" us for letting go just a little bit?
I have thought about this and cannot think of one thing that would be a "compromise" on their end.
Can you think of ANYTHING at all that would be?