A bit annoyed: vaping indoors all of a sudden upset ONE coworker

[Lova]

Lova, you didn't insult anyone (certainly not me), it was all perfectly cordial if you ask me - much appreciated though, and so i apologise likewise. You're a fine chap.

Last word on the hair matter, i think it was a case of multiple mutual misunderstandings. ^ See, that's why i guess it boils down to cultural differences. In the UK / USA it's not "different" or "blasphemy" anymore since long, but became a uniform of SJWs (an illiberal, statist cabal per definition) - hence my kneejerk "socialist" accusation.
Which is a shame if you ask me. (If i was in my twenties / 30s, chances are i'd very much like to have blue hair and i'd be mightily ...... off that the SJWs hijacked and ruined it beyond wearability. And i'm someone who never gave a toss about how others perceive me - but it's one of the very few things i wouldn't want to be associated with, ever.) I can imagine it's entirely different in Finland.
And hereby i admit i made a rash judgement based on your hair, apologies for that.


Agreed! I also like the Corto Maltese look, suits you mighty fine!

Thanks, and I do use those glasses most often, not just with that specific "suit" or style, which I do wear sometimes, but not as often as I'd like to admit. You seem like a nice dude also, and I do sincerely mean what I said in those couple of posts about my rash arguments also.

I do like to have blue hair, it's just now more like "pastel blue" than it's used to be, as I use shock colours, which do dye my hair really really really deep blue and I do have one bottle of the same colour I used to dye my hair just waiting for me to get some rubber gloves and just dye my hair again

As far as bodymods go, my line of work I do doesn't really look at if I have any specific bodymods, and I do think the same way, that it's a shame that having bodymods and dyed hair nowadays is a "sign" for someone "not as intelligent as others" in a way. I actually have planned to get new tattoos and other piercings and bodymods relating to biohacking, e.g. magnetic implants in my fingers (feeling electric fields, yay!), orbital piercing to my right ear, bridge piercing, so I don't have to use my glasses regularly anymore (magnetically locks onto the bridge piercing ) then on top of those, double tongue piercings e.g. snake-eyes and tongue bifurcation eventually along with snakebites lip piercings.

I don't see how having any of those denote me from others and it's really weird to see that having bodymods and tattoos is concidered somewhat a taboo over there, over here it's so damn common to have multiple ear piercings and tattoos, it's became somewhat a "social norm" over here, so nobody really gives a damn about having tattoos or piercings. My aunt actually got two tattoos herself, and she was a tattoo-hater for a long long time aka not wanting any due to the possible pain from them, and now she's addicted

 

[pluviose]

Thanks, and I do use those glasses most often, not just with that specific "suit" or style, which I do wear sometimes, but not as often as I'd like to admit. You seem like a nice dude also, and I do sincerely mean what I said in those couple of posts about my rash arguments also.

I do like to have blue hair, it's just now more like "pastel blue" than it's used to be, as I use shock colours, which do dye my hair really really really deep blue and I do have one bottle of the same colour I used to dye my hair just waiting for me to get some rubber gloves and just dye my hair again

As far as bodymods go, my line of work I do doesn't really look at if I have any specific bodymods, and I do think the same way, that it's a shame that having bodymods and dyed hair nowadays is a "sign" for someone "not as intelligent as others" in a way. I actually have planned to get new tattoos and other piercings and bodymods relating to biohacking, e.g. magnetic implants in my fingers (feeling electric fields, yay!), orbital piercing to my right ear, bridge piercing, so I don't have to use my glasses regularly anymore (magnetically locks onto the bridge piercing ) then on top of those, double tongue piercings e.g. snake-eyes and tongue bifurcation eventually along with snakebites lip piercings.

I don't see how having any of those denote me from others and it's really weird to see that having bodymods and tattoos is concidered somewhat a taboo over there, over here it's so damn common to have multiple ear piercings and tattoos, it's became somewhat a "social norm" over here, so nobody really gives a damn about having tattoos or piercings. My aunt actually got two tattoos herself, and she was a tattoo-hater for a long long time aka not wanting any due to the possible pain from them, and now she's addicted

Well, not a taboo, far from it - i think something like 60 - 70 % of people in the UK have tattoos? It's certainly more the "norm" than the exception. (I don't have any, but i can attest those stats - most people i see have some.)

Those magnetic implants sound very interesting, never heard of them! They sound very useful actually (my mind is already wandering into a "how could be used to pull off the Perfect Bank Robbery" direction, ha!)

 

[Jman8]

I do apologize for making so negative comments about vaping in general, but as I said, I count it to being "social shock" or culture shock from my end and possibly from your end also towards my comments and arguments and opinions; around here, no vaper would even think of vaping in a store or schools, even if there are no "no vaping" signs around. I do see why you would do that around there, but I personally still don't fully understand it.

So, now I'm trying to understand how things in Finland got the way they are. I have a prejudiced opinion on this, but am hoping to stay open minded.

Has it always been the case, as far as you know, that you could not say smoke anywhere indoors in Finland? Or was it like the States where back in the 1950's one could smoke just about everywhere, and then policies were changed and now it is no smoking anywhere? Plus, with advent of vaping, Finland just decided to lump that activity in with smoking and be done with any discussion/debate?

If it's always been the case that in Finland no one ever smoked indoors (except in own home), I can better accept the vast cultural difference(s). But if it is something that changed in policies in the last say 30 years, then that would fit with my prejudicial view. Which I will likely elaborate on, but rather hear from you what you understand to be the case.

Also just wish to state that I'm sure there are things / behaviors that people in Finland do that people in the U.S. would find strange. That to me seems obvious. But also, it's not like in the U.S. or anywhere else, there isn't the other side saying we all think this is cool here. In the U.S. almost all things are met with mixed impressions. I think that has a lot to do with freedom of expression. Some people are going to be very okay with vaping indoors, some are going to be anti indoor vaping and (IMO) vast majority doesn't even care on way or the other.

 

[Lova]

Well, not a taboo, far from it - i think something like 60 - 70 % of people in the UK have tattoos? It's certainly more the "norm" than the exception. (I don't have any, but i can attest those stats - most people i see have some.)

Those magnetic implants sound very interesting, never heard of them!

http://gizmodo.com/5895555/i-have-a-magnet-implant-in-my-finger
http://io9.gizmodo.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-getting-magnetic-finger-imp-813537993

There's couple of good articles about them, they are either gold-coated and silicone coated magnets, or titanium-coated with another biosafe material on top of them, and they are placed near the nerves on the tip of the finger, which causes you to "feel" all magnetic fields around, like live mains wires through a wall or the security gates in stores.

Quite interesting concept, and it would be really interesting to get them, at least I think that way

 

[Lova]

So, now I'm trying to understand how things in Finland got the way they are. I have a prejudiced opinion on this, but am hoping to stay open minded.

Has it always been the case, as far as you know, that you could not say smoke anywhere indoors in Finland? Or was it like the States where back in the 1950's one could smoke just about everywhere, and then policies were changed and now it is no smoking anywhere? Plus, with advent of vaping, Finland just decided to lump that activity in with smoking and be done with any discussion/debate?

If it's always been the case that in Finland no one ever smoked indoors (except in own home), I can better accept the vast cultural difference(s). But if it is something that changed in policies in the last say 30 years, then that would fit with my prejudicial view. Which I will likely elaborate on, but rather hear from you what you understand to be the case.

Also just wish to state that I'm sure there are things / behaviors that people in Finland do that people in the U.S. would find strange. That to me seems obvious. But also, it's not like in the U.S. or anywhere else, there isn't the other side saying we all think this is cool here. In the U.S. almost all things are met with mixed impressions. I think that has a lot to do with freedom of expression. Some people are going to be very okay with vaping indoors, some are going to be anti indoor vaping and (IMO) vast majority doesn't even care on way or the other.

It's mostly due to the finns being quite quiet and silent in general. Smoking was allowed pretty much everywhere, but nowadays, during the 21st century in general, smoking hasn't been allowed anywhere. The EU Article 20 is going to lump vaping with smoking anycase, nowadays vaping isn't really regulated in any way and there's no taxes on vaping gear. It's going to be lumped together with smoking, and it's just general consensus over here, that vaping is a smoking cessation aid, that's similar to smoking in a sort, so it's concidered to be close enough to smoking, that it's more of a "common thing/courtesy" to not vape where smoking isn't allowed. There are bars and such which allow vaping indoors, but as far as stores and such go, there's only the underaged guys who vape there, and all 18+ vapers look down on them in general for making vaping seem bad in general.

It's a social stigmata, I understand that, but as 99.9% of all 18+ aged vapers follow it and look down on everyone not following the same stigmata, it's looked down by security guards/police/store employees, and vaping indoors where smoking isn't allowed could cause you to get banned from that store for couple of days or so in the worst case scenario along with a fine for doing it, where it's not socially allowed.

 

[Jman8]

It's mostly due to the finns being quite quiet and silent in general. Smoking was allowed pretty much everywhere, but nowadays, during the 21st century in general, smoking hasn't been allowed anywhere. The EU Article 20 is going to lump vaping with smoking anycase, nowadays vaping isn't really regulated in any way and there's no taxes on vaping gear. It's going to be lumped together with smoking, and it's just general consensus over here, that vaping is a smoking cessation aid, that's similar to smoking in a sort, so it's concidered to be close enough to smoking, that it's more of a "common thing/courtesy" to not vape where smoking isn't allowed. There are bars and such which allow vaping indoors, but as far as stores and such go, there's only the underaged guys who vape there, and all 18+ vapers look down on them in general for making vaping seem bad in general.

So, my prejudicial opinion is that ANTZ influenced Finland's national governing body to make it so smoking was disallowed in most places and then also influenced same body to lump eCigs in there. I wouldn't be surprised if there are kickbacks (money) that made this decision easier for that body to go along with.

But at very least, it strikes me as odd that it would be such cultural shock for a Finland person to try and understand why we might allow it in the States. Here, we seemed to take the smoking in public places ban lying down, and I think that is attributed to many things, but near the top was that social networking (online) didn't exist and so we were individuals who kept thinking, okay they'll just control airports and that's it. Okay, just hospitals and that's it. Alright just schools, and that's for sure it. Wait, let's eventually include all indoor places and after that keep harping away on the inflated concerns of SHS and all things tobacco and act like our position has no glaring holes in it. Then vaping came along and same tactics were employed, but social networking was already well established. Now, if they want to go after say hospitals or schools, okay sure, you'll probably have a majority agree with that. But keep pushing or make a blanket city or state-wide ban on indoor places and either expect push back on that or disobedience. Probably both. IMO, both are fully warranted given the actual nature of SHV.

It's a social stigmata, I understand that, but as 99.9% of all 18+ aged vapers follow it and look down on everyone not following the same stigmata, it's looked down by security guards/police/store employees, and vaping indoors where smoking isn't allowed could cause you to get banned from that store for couple of days or so in the worst case scenario along with a fine for doing it, where it's not socially allowed.

Glad I don't live in Finland. Nothing personal toward you. Just don't think I'd do well there and yet would be as respectful / courteous as I am in the states, but would be wanting to challenge the status quo there, and well, it might get ugly.

 

[AndriaD]

I'm sorry I haven't read this entire thread (usually try but tired this eve). What I don't get is where do objectors get the right, including employers, to subject you to the very real risks of unnecessary external exposure to weather for instance? Or the likely risk of evaluations of underperformance or lack of diligence due to your activity? And where do they get off objecting to smoking yet making decisions for you? As if your health were any less important than anyone else's?

I'm not disputing an employer has a right in most places to determine the workplace policies for their premises. But isn't it irrational to put you at a risk they themselves might object to? Say, for their cologne. And doesn't your offense matter as much as the next persons to unreasonable coercion?

When does the discussion actually turn to real facts rather than prejudice, impugned harm and marginalization? The minute you've made the claim of no combustion you've put the onus on them to put up or shut up. Really. Logically and perhaps even legally. Why can't we make the claim of harassment? Why are so many of us sitting still for this?

It's not an employer's job to protect others at your expense. The truth is out there.

Whenever I run across an objector I immediately offer to stop, if they have the reasonable information to persuade you that your causing any harm. Offer to help. Expose the prejudice.

"A powerful preventive against pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases may be promised by a brilliant series of experiments conducted during the last three years at the University of Chicago's Billings Hospital. Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson last week was making final tests with a new germicidal vapor—propylene glycol—to sterilize air. If the results so far obtained are confirmed, one of the age-old searches of man will finally achieve its goal." —Time, Monday, Nov. 16, 1942

Vape on! Sterilize 'em.



Good luck.

This is an excellent point, and one I've questioned even about "no smoking" policies -- why do NON-SMOKERS have ALL the rights, and smokers have none? For years it was explained that it was because SHS "harmed" them -- which now has been shown to be complete and utter BS -- it harms nothing except their esthetic sense of not wanting to smell something "bad."

So now vapers are being subjected to the same UTTER BS??? When it's already been shown that second-hand vapor IS THE SAME AS ANY OTHER EXHALED BREATH???

Sorry, but I have rights too, and one is the right to be free from gratuitous harassment.

Andria

 

[Lova]

So, my prejudicial opinion is that ANTZ influenced Finland's national governing body to make it so smoking was disallowed in most places and then also influenced same body to lump eCigs in there. I wouldn't be surprised if there are kickbacks (money) that made this decision easier for that body to go along with.

But at very least, it strikes me as odd that it would be such cultural shock for a Finland person to try and understand why we might allow it in the States. Here, we seemed to take the smoking in public places ban lying down, and I think that is attributed to many things, but near the top was that social networking (online) didn't exist and so we were individuals who kept thinking, okay they'll just control airports and that's it. Okay, just hospitals and that's it. Alright just schools, and that's for sure it. Wait, let's eventually include all indoor places and after that keep harping away on the inflated concerns of SHS and all things tobacco and act like our position has no glaring holes in it. Then vaping came along and same tactics were employed, but social networking was already well established. Now, if they want to go after say hospitals or schools, okay sure, you'll probably have a majority agree with that. But keep pushing or make a blanket city or state-wide ban on indoor places and either expect push back on that or disobedience. Probably both. IMO, both are fully warranted given the actual nature of SHV.



Glad I don't live in Finland. Nothing personal toward you. Just don't think I'd do well there and yet would be as respectful / courteous as I am in the states, but would be wanting to challenge the status quo there, and well, it might get ugly.

Yeah, social constricts work in different ways. I do understand why it seems odd for me to challenge what you do over there, but it's extremely weird for me to even begin understanding, that if a person is challenged when vaping indoors by someone who explicitly doesn't want to see them vaping indoors, it's such a high tolerance to not go outside and vape there, but rather just keep on vaping indoors in an office and rant about how there's someone against the idea.

Another thing, which is kinda why I see the same way about USA that you do about Finland, is the weird legal system over there. Seems like you can just about sue anyone about just about anything, e.g. spilling coffee on your lap while it's hot, coffee's not hot enough etc. If you were to try that over here, you would just get laughed at and get slapped with all court fees if you are persistent enough to pursue that ideology. I'm not saying that it's something everyone does, but some people do, and in most cases, those weird "spilled hot coffee on my lap, it's the coffee shop's fault"-suing things end up in the favor of the person suing the coffee store.

And again, I don't want to offend anyone, just trying to make some sense on the whole legal system over there and trying to explain why it's weird for me to rant about things that are commonly socially not that well accepted over here. If I were in that situation, where I get rights to vape indoors, and someone would complain about me vaping indoors in an office, I'd just go outdoors and vape.

 

[AndriaD]

I'm a 54 yr old female, and *I* have a tattoo!

From the thickness of the black line, you can tell I got it more than 30 yrs ago -- I was 18, it was early '80, so that would be right at 36 yrs.

I also have pierced ears, though unfortunately the holes have grown back together. I have sebaceous cysts in my earlobes, so unfortunately I can't let just any ol body pierce them, and I can't afford for a doctor to do it.

Really don't get the appeal of piercings in other places, but I reckon I don't need to. Really don't get the "full sleeves" tats either, but then, I dislike pain. That one little heart wasn't *too* bad, but I just can't imagine sitting still for THAT much needle; that would require some serious medication.

Andria

 

[Rossum]

vaping indoors where smoking isn't allowed could cause you to get banned from that store for couple of days or so in the worst case scenario along with a fine for doing it, where it's not socially allowed.

How do you get fined for something that isn't against the law, something that's only "not socially allowed"?

 

[Lova]

How do you get fined for something that isn't against the law, something that's only "not socially allowed"?

Civil disorder, if the police wants to be annoying. And I did say in the worst case scenario, most likely you would just be asked to leave the store.

 

[Rossum]

OK, we have something similar here, it's generally referred to as "disorderly conduct". I totally forgot about that....

 

[skoony]

@Lova No need for apologies. People here in the states tend to forget the cultural
histories of other countries and how it influences opinions that we as Americans
don't understand. When I realized you were in Finland it became clear to me why
your opinions were so much different than mine. Finland's and Europe's culture in
general is for lack of a better description more accepting of the dictates of the
ruling classes. From Feudalism to Parliamentary Democracies Europe has run
the gamut of political ideologies that still is in a state of flux to this day from
it's start in the last half of the 19th century through the first part of the 20th.
From Kings,Queens, ArchDukes of this and that,Prince's and Princess's,Barons
adinfinitum to elected Representatives and Parliaments there still is lingering
cultural attitudes at play.
For perspective most Europeans do not understand America's so called love
affair with the gun. This is understandable when one realises for hundreds of
years armaments were only owned by Royalty, the monied and the military.
Most of the masses only were allowed the most rudimentary types of weapons
which were basically tools. Axes,knives,clubs, a hoe which could be made into
a spear if necessary when the king called you to battle. In most case Joe the
rag man wasn't allowed to have a crossbow,let alone full armor a shield and
a sword. Of course this was just as much because of the expense as it was
to keep the masses in their places. It's understandable why Europeans think
we are gun nuts. Their understanding of weaponry in general and who should
have weaponry is a result of hundreds of years of cultural influence.
For those in Europe if one realised weapons were freely available for the most
part throughout our history as they were a necessity in the expansion and
creation of our country from coast to coast. Until modern times one could
order a working machine gun via the mail. Not just your basic tommy gun.
One could get belt fed weapons. The rifle used in the assassination of President
Kennedy was mail ordered. Gun Control for the most part is the product of
changes in attitude that occurred in the last half of the last century. Most
Americans haven't come to grips with it yet. We May not ever come to
grips with it.
But I digress. Feel free to comment here whenever you see fit.

Regards
Mike

 

[englishmick]

OK, we have something similar here, it's generally referred to as "disorderly conduct". I totally forgot about that....

They have a good one in the UK.

Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO)


Anyone over the age of 10 can be given an ASBO if they behave antisocially.

There are different rules for ASBOs in Scotland.

Behaving antisocially includes:

• drunken or threatening behaviour
• vandalism and graffiti
• playing loud music at night

Getting an ASBO means you won’t be allowed to do certain things, such as:

• going to a particular place, eg your local town centre
• spending time with people who are known as trouble-makers
• drinking in the street

An ASBO will last for at least 2 years. It could be reviewed if your behaviour improves.

Penalties for not obeying your ASBO
Breaking or ‘breaching’ the ASBO is a criminal offence and you can be taken to court. The sentence you get will depend on the circumstances and your age.

Young offenders
You can be fined up to £250 (if you’re aged 10 to 14) or up to £1,000 (if you’re aged 15 to 17). The fine may have to be paid by your parents if you’re under 16. You might also get a community sentence or, if you’re over 12, a detention and training order (DTO) for up to 24 months.

Adult offenders
You can be fined up to £5,000 or sentenced to 5 years in prison, or both.

 

[MacTechVpr]

OK, we have something similar here, it's generally referred to as "disorderly conduct". I totally forgot about that....

Another variant…public nuisance. What fun.

Good luck.

 

[bigdancehawk]

In the US, you cannot enlist in the military with tattoos in most cases, "body mods" or anything like it, and I would think Finland is the same.

That's not correct. There are some restrictions on content, size and location, but all branches of the military will accept enlistees with tattoos.

 

[bigdancehawk]

And how does hair colour really matter in any case?

It doesn't. It's in no way relevant to the discussion.

l attacks towards me and how "too young, not knowing life properly, how I'm worse as a person for having differently coloured hair and bodymods etc." I am.

Such comments have no place here and I think the vast majority of ECF members agree.

 

[DC2]

Where do people like me come in who want a smaller government providing more services and a helluva lot less legislation?

I believe you want to belong to the Party of Logic and Reason.


Legislation often comes with increased oversight, burdens, and costs.
And often for no good reason whatsoever.

Unless of course you consider an ever-growing bureaucracy to be a good thing.
I know some who do.

And that's when the legislation actually does what it was intended to do.
Often it actually just makes things worse, and requires further legislation to fix.

Queue Kent C and his lessons on unintended consequences.
Or Jman8 and his black market soliloquies.

 

[bigdancehawk]

I did say "kick out", but that's one of the worst case scenarios, you'd be asked to leave firstly, if you don't comply, the security has every right to use necessary force to take you out of the store, unless they decide to call the police first.

Wouldn't they just politely ask you to stop or vape outside? Why ask a paying customer to leave?

One thing I don't get, is that people seem to be fixated on my 'boheme' outlook

I don't get it either and most people here will agree with me.

 

[AndriaD]

I believe you want to belong to the Party of Logic and Reason.


Legislation often comes with increased oversight, burdens, and costs.
And often for no good reason whatsoever.

Unless of course you consider an ever-growing bureaucracy to be a good thing.
I know some who do.

And that's when the legislation actually does what it was intended to do.
Often it actually just makes things worse, and requires further legislation to fix.

Queue Kent C and his lessons on unintended consequences.

It seems perfectly clear to me; if you want gov't to do more, they're gonna need more people to get it done, and they have to pay them, ergo, they're going to charge the taxpayers for whatever it costs to offer that extra stuff. Perfectly clear. Most of the stuff they try to do, or say they want to do, I don't really care if they do or not, and some of it, I really wish they wouldn't waste money on. But it's impossible to have yet more people involved without it necessarily costing more money. I think they need fire at least 50% of them, not hire more for god's sake.

Andria