Nothing like some vapers trashing a smoking ban bill that exempts vaping (after we urged AL legislators to do so).
Banning smoking in workplaces is not "throwing smokers under the bus".
Rather, workplace smoking bans are one of three key reasons e-cig sales have rapidly grown (the other two key reasons are high cigarette taxes and health benefits of e-cigs).
If AL were occurring in some isolated vacuum of space and the only state currently enacting bans on workplace / indoor space air quality, I'd think these points have some merit.
But, it is not and our opposition has been entirely vocal (prideful) that attacks on smoking in last 50 years have been great/victorious. Legislation around smoking, it would seem from the opposition, can't go far enough. So, when we who are pro-vapers support those sort of bans, we are literally on their side. All one big community that is okay with banning smoking in as many places as possible.
Which is throwing the pro-smoke sub-community under the bus.
So, as pro-vapers, we can strategize and think that's smoking, this is vaping. Two very different things. As long as they won't do this to vaping, then we (pro-vapers) can cut that loss, and do what we can to ensure it doesn't go that way for vaping.
But it is, right now, going that way for vaping. AL is currently an exception to how things are going, yet AL is basing their smoking ban partially on "public nuisance."
Some vapers consider vaping indoors, anywhere in public, a public nuisance. Non-vapers are likely to consider the same. Perhaps not all of them, but as their numbers are considerably higher, then 5% of all non-vapers considering vaping indoors a public nuisance would pretty much cover the entire vaping community. Then there are the anti-vapers, who just so happen to be the anti-smokers, and they are doing all they can to make sure all non-vapers realize vaping equals smoking when it comes to usage bans.
I know you, Bill, and many others here get all this, but the strategy to me is questionable. Not, I'm right you're wrong thing. I see us on the same side. The pro-vaping side. But I see our side, all too often, throwing the pro-smoke bunch under the bus. And it is my belief that it is only a matter of time, likely still in 2014, that this exemption is seen for what it is, an attempt to get around the public nuisance claim that anti's will realize, and will prey on when (not if) it comes time to reconsider vaping as a public nuisance. If you (non-vaper or vaper) were okay with the indoor smoking ban, then surely you'll see no issue with the indoor vaping ban, as both are, clearly a public nuisance, or so says the anti-vaper.
Besides, the anti smoking activists in AL have been pushing this legislation for more than 20 years without success. Thus, once it is enacted, there is little if any chance that AL legislators will amend the new smoking ban (to also ban vaping) for at least another 20 years.
I truly hope you are right on this claim that undoes what I just said above. I do see it being far less than 20 years, and do see all the vaping usage bans popping up for a reason that is not too challenging to figure out. Quash vaping / decimate the industry, and a very significant gain will be had by the anti crowd.
I truly think if vapers can agree to reasonable regulations (none of which ought to include bans, as that would be unreasonable), then we ought to also be strongly considering reasonable regulations for smoking/smokers (none of which ought to include bans). Whenever a usage ban comes up for smoking, it makes usage bans for vaping far far easier for society to consider.
Perhaps in one of these states we can make the issue about the principle, rather than looking to buy time for the pro-vaping crowd.
Admittedly though, given what (or who) we are up against, and given how divided our own community is, perhaps the best we can hope for at this point is buying some time for pro-vaping.
)
