Also need to stop these fools!

[dijohn76]

Here's what I do. I go in and take a seat ( say an eating establishment) when the waitress comes over I say " I just wanted to show you this so that you know I'm not smoking". I then proceed to show her what it's made of, how it works, and take a puff. Almost 99% of the time they either laugh or ask questions and say fine. The 1% that say I don't think so, I thank them for their time and tell them i won't be placing an order and I leave. I agree it is their establishment and they have the right to say yes or no, but, it is my money and I don't have to spend it where I and and my e-cig are not welcome. I am always polite about it, but, again refuse to spend MY money just to be polite. I then go to somewhere that I have previously been allowed to use it with no problem.

 

[Sar]

Check out the BS and self righteous group at the link. I am sure the Pharmacies are funding them.
ecigpetition

As someone already mentioned, this is the work of the illustrious J. Banzhaf. There is, of course, money issue with e-cigs. Since they are not taxed as a tobacco, people switching to e-cigs would cause the government miss on incredible amount of tax revenues (billions of dollars each year). Who will pay for the health care? The government may even have to -- the horror!!! -- ask the rich to pay more. Look at the following press release from Banzhaf just few months ago (March 2009):

Don't Tax Health Benefits - Tax Smokers Who Squander Them! /// Making Smokers Pay Their Share is Fairer and Slashes Costs for Everybody, Says ASH

Some quotes:

"... requiring them [smokers] to pay more than nonsmokers for health insurance, is fairer than taxing the health benefits of higher income taxpayers ..."

"It would be a perversion for the Obama administration to tax health benefits to help pay for overhauling the health care system, as some spokesmen have suggested, if they do not truly overhaul the health care system by reducing the major preventable cause of health care costs."

"To those who argue that many smokers are poor and could not afford a tax on health benefits, ASH notes that ... the $10 a 2-pack-a-day smoker will spend on cigarettes amounts to almost $4000 a year -- a figure probably far smaller than the addition tax on smokers he would pay, but much less than the cost he imposes on the health care system."

 

[sherid]

I'm going to post something I already posted on another forum simply because I believe it applies here also.

I just returned from an out of town wedding and made some observations. First, the resort facility where the event was held proudly claimed it was "100% smoke free" As I watched the bride's step-father, the bride's father, the bride's grandmother, myself and an assortment of other guests who had dropped $200-300 to come to the wedding and support the newlywed couple, I was appalled to see these people standing in the shadows outside in their best clothes having a smoke. What always amazes me is that, despite TC's very best efforts to denormalize and dehumanize smokers there we were laughing and enjoying the company of other smokers and not feeling even a shred of shame for being there. I thought of the bride's father and step-father who together had dumped about $30,000 on this "100% smoke free place" and how maddening it must be to drop that amount equal to a very nice new car and then be told to just go outside and smoke your "vile, dirty butts" This morning I was talking to my friend's former mother-in-law. She is in her mid 80's, and she at least was ....... She has been waking up to the same morning habit of coffee and a cigarette for about 70 years now, but in this place, she could not do that because it is, after all, "100% smoke free" As an 85 year old woman who actually escaped from the Nazis, running barefoot for 15 miles until she was safely in France and then boarding a ship and coming to America to start a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. She was a nurse until her late 70's; her husband became a doctor, working in emergency rooms in NYC then finding their way to small town Ohio to set up a family practice and raise their own family. I compared her to my friend's own mother who is the same age and a vocal anti smoker all of her life. The smoker grandma had to assist the anti smoker gandma because of her failing health. I wondered if anything TC says about smoking is actually true since I regularly see healthy smokers of advanced age helping unhealthy non-smokers. Seeing such a large collection of the old, those that were "exposed" to shs for so many decades, all gathered to dance and celebrate: not one oxygen tank in the group of 300 guests, is indeed an eye opener. I left the fancy resort with a heightened distaste for the "100% smoke free" resort, a place that would deny an 85 year old woman, alone in her pricey room, the right to light up with her morning coffee as she has done for 70 years. There is an irony that a woman who ran 15 miles and escaped the Nazis during WWII now finds them outside her door at a "100% smoke free facility."

 

[Vapor Pete]

BTW If things like water pipes and such are legal because there is no drug in them doesn't that also apply to our ecig aparatus minus the juice? In my estimation if I have the hardware I can vape straight "no nic" juice that I make myself. Am I wrong?

You are sort of wrong. Water pipes, hookahs, and bowls are designed, marketed, and sold as tobacco pipes. To my knowledge, e-cigs were developed as a "healthier way to smoke", and to provide smokers with nicotine while in smoking ban areas. Cant really compare the two.
My best,
-VP

 

[Vapor Pete]

If a group is saying "Look at these people with their e-cigs... touting them in non smoking areas, thinking they are being healthier...blah blah blah..." then so what? What business is it of theirs? Vaping isn't smoking is it?

Please refer back to my other posts. It isnt about whether its their business or not. I call it perception.

They could also say "Look at these people with their orange juices...touting them in non alcohol allowed areas, thinking they are being healthier..." So we should stop drinking orange juice in alcohol free zones because it looks like drinking whiskey?

I see what your getting at, but this would only apply if it were a no orange juice area. However, and I've used this analogy before, what you wouldnt do is pour water into a beer can, and walk around a no-alcohol area. Nor would you drive down the road sipping water out of vodka bottle. Nor would you drive while drinking NA beer.

VP with respect, while agreeing 'touting' and 'flaunting' are provacative, how do you breakdown this groups influence with the public without being 'out there', showing and educating?

I appreciate your respect. I have never said we shouldnt be educating, or showing. In fact, I personally turned four people onto e-cigs last week. This was not done in a non-smoking area. Again, if the "groups" aim is to turn us into "get around the ban a-holes", doing so will not break the influence but strengthen their message.
But listen, this is going in circles, so I will just say we will all do what we want as we see fit. As the old Wiccan saying goes "Do as ye will, harm none"... words to live by.

My best,
-VP

 

[Glock]

O.K. the hole idea of limiting vaping is as silly as telling people not to breath around me or even better pass gas or cough into the air their germs, but it simply is what it is. I think we should exercise common courtesy and not vape or pass gas around others or in each other's face and maybe we wouldn't need so many laws...

I have no problem not vaping in a confined space and I wouldn't nearly crap my pants in a confined space either. It is just common courtesy, why does there even need to be a law. Funny though there are those people that will walk down the aisle of a grocery store and nearly crap their pants just as their are those that will insist on vaping where common courtesy dictates not to whether you ask permission or not. Problem is our vapor is visible and easily identified, their ... vapor is not as traceable to the source. Therefore laws can be enforced against PV's, but not asses.

Anyways, my point is life is not fair, but it is what it is and the more negative of an image (right or wrong) you generate in public the worse it will be for vapors in the future. Your kidding yourself if you think you will ever be able to vape freely and in the face of others. If you want a law telling you so, keep doing what you are doing.

The great thing about vapor is when applying common courtesy it is a lot easier to be courteous (e.g. all laws aside, I can vape in my office without bothering anyone, but if I smoked an analog in my office the rest of the office would complain). In other words the confined space courtesy can be much less restrictive. But yeah, right or wrong go vape in a resteraunt and see what that does for the opposition and my ability to be able to vape in my office in the future.

The image would be much better for PV's if we could somehow get all PVers not to use it to get around smoking bans and to make it well known to the media (in interviews, etc.) that we have no desired to use it to get around smoking bans. I think if you ever do an interview, don't do it where you could not smoke an analog. If PVers all banded together on this we could snuff that out of their argument and make them look silly. The right response would be "No, I don't want to get around the smoking ban, vaping just makes it much better for me to keep my habit from bothering others and then go on about all the positives and how I am only exhaling very small trace amount of nicotine as opposed to..."

Obviously this will never happen and there will continue to be those that want to vape in the face of others for their God given rights just as there will be those slobs that think it is o.k. to nearly crap their pants in front of me. This world could use a little more common courtesy and a lot fewer laws. I suppose as long as people do not exhibit common courtesy there will be more laws. Now if we could only find a way to enforce a law against flatulence in public places.

SE marketing approach hasn't helped the cause in a couple of ways, but it probably helped their pockets in the short term anyways.

Funny, I can't understand why VP catches so much crap around here. His posts seem completely logical and based on common sense and then he seems to get stuck going back and forth with a poster or two (who sometimes even has the same point, but just seems to miss it). --just a funny observation.

 

[sherid]

There are those, like me, who definitely did start "vaping" to get around the smoking ban. There are others, like me, who believe that smoking bans are a travesty built upon faulty science and an even faultier campaign to denormalize people who smoke, drink, do not exercise, or weigh twenty pounds more than the a holes running these campaigns think people should weigh. I choose, and I know there are more people than just me, to denormalize the denormalizers. Perhaps you don't like that. I could care less about that. Perhaps you believe that you can sidle up to the anti smokers and they will then ALLOW you the pleasure of vaping. They will not. They will find more and more places where it is not acceptable, and then, like the smokers, you will be outside by the dumpsters sucking on a Screw Driver. Then, they will say that you cannot vape there either because some ... rat in the dumpster might see you and become addicted to the idea of puffing on something that slightly resembles smoking. That, of course, would be unacceptable to expose the poor dumpster rat to the concept of smoking. I do not wish to vape in grocery stores or church or at an old folk's home any more than I would smoke in those places. However, I reached my end with the denormalization campaign some time ago, and I REFUSE to play into it any longer by not reclaiming my right to live as I please and vape/smoke in places where no one is being harmed. Your way limits those places to where the anti smoking crowd now relegates smokers: first out by the dumpster and then shortly nowhere.

 

[ladyraj]

Sheri, I can't agree more. We smokers, of ANYTHING, have been tiptoed to the banning of our existence in the social world. Reality check...A lot of people are unaware that smoking bans were initially welcomed by courteous smokers who felt that we should not subject people to our smoke at work or in restaurants. Thus, we voted thinking that places such as bars, night clubs, comedy clubs, bingo halls, VFWs, etc would have exemptions. But no...the great joke on we courteous smokers was that if there was 1 employee...no exemption. Did the powers that be stop there...NO...now there is no exemption for a family owned businesses, are they done yet? No, now you can't smoke on beaches, at some colleges and universities, in some places you can't smoke in your car, nor house a foster child, and in some cases you can't adopt. You may be evicted from your apartment, townhouse, or condo if there is a shared wall, ceiling, or hallway.

We were baby-stepped to this scenario and it isn't over yet. The fight is not lost though you may think it is. I will be just as courteous with my vaping as I am with my smoking, and I happen to be a very courteous person. ASH is my enemy and yours too, if you think you can fight them this way I shall watch and await your hopeful success as you travel a road I'm very familiar with. If the e-cig rules the day and somehow is allowed by the busybodies, I can only hope that all smokers will be accepted back into society once more. After all, smoking is insuring the healthcare of millions of children (quote from a friend).

But I must leave my hopeful and positive outlook aside for a moment and point out some facts. Smoking tobacco was an accepted habit in society, currently it is not. Anything that resembles smoking will suffer the same fate. The e-cig group is even smaller than the 45 million smokers in America. All of the major "charitable" organizations are against the fate of the e-cig except for a few harm reduction groups and individuals. Everyday I come to this board I am amazed about the abusive attitudes towards smokers, the myriad of health side effects complete with irresponsible answers, and posts about overdosing on nicotine. The call to be reponsible with the PVs in public are simplistic given the fact that everywhere on the internet where there is talk of smoking and bans, you will find in the comment section links to e-cig suppliers spouting health effects that are quickly disproved by this very forum. It was a great marketing strategy but has brought the attention of unwanted groups before a plan to fight the FDA was in place. That is short-sighted and unfortunate. I am a smoker and a rebel at heart thus I wanted to try this new product. If I cut down on my cigarettes that is a bonus. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford both habits but I am weary of intolerant people. Remember...we are all smokers of a substance. The mine is better than yours attitude does not win over anybody to the cause.

 

[sherid]

For those of you who may have forgotten how smoking bans started...not with a bang but with a whimper, look over the timeline with the monster at ASH, Banbanbanzhaf This is how it started. Look where it is now. The SAME will be true of vaping if e smokers coddle up to the anti smokers

 

[RandallFlagg]

For those of you who may have forgotten how smoking bans started...not with a bang but with a whimper, look over the timeline with the monster at ASH, Banbanbanzhaf This is how it started. Look where it is now. The SAME will be true of vaping if e smokers coddle up to the anti smokers

I'm with ya.
There comes a point where we have to say, "NO MORE!"

 

[sherid]

I'm with ya.
There comes a point where we have to say, "NO MORE!"

and that time is NOW

 

[ladyraj]

For those of you who may have forgotten how smoking bans started...not with a bang but with a whimper, look over the timeline with the monster at ASH, Banbanbanzhaf This is how it started. Look where it is now. The SAME will be true of vaping if e smokers coddle up to the anti smokers

Hey Sheri, that was hysterical, thanks for the link! This is kind of like watching a train wreck in slow motion, you know it's going to end really bad!

 

[ladyraj]

ASH and other groups are worried about appearances when it comes to the children when they go to the movies and the solution is to give every smoking scene an automatic R rating. Now how do you think that would work with e-cigs? Would a disclaimer be offered that all smoking scenes were simulated with personal vapors? I think not, we can't confuse the little critters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/movies/28smoke.html?_r=1

Cartoon characters under scrutiny:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv/2460966/Does-the-Simpsons-promote-smoking

The Simpsons could be encouraging another generation of young people to take up smoking.

One of the most popular television shows in history contains a "large number" of tobacco-related scenes, say researchers who watched 400 episodes of the cartoon for science.

 

[Vapor Pete]

Funny, I can't understand why VP catches so much crap around here. His posts seem completely logical and based on common sense and then he seems to get stuck going back and forth with a poster or two (who sometimes even has the same point, but just seems to miss it). --just a funny observation.

All I can say is thank you. You even have a different way of going about vaping, but at least you can see that there is another side, give it a nod, admit it makes sense, and move on.

Most of the people in this debate are not looking for trouble when they are out in public, and I am one of them. I guess all I am saying is I believe its better to stick to the "Im not going to vape, where I couldnt/didnt smoke" line of reasoning... THIS IS BASED ON THE CURRENT CLIMATE OF THE E-CIG DEBATE... and nothing else.
Yes we need to educate, yes we need to show people what this is all about and how its helped us. Fear is fed by ignorance. But as I said before, four people have purchased an e-cig kit in one week because of me... and none of them were standing in a non-smoking area when I turned them on to it. Thats all. Just my take.
My best.
-VP

 

[Vapor Pete]

The SAME will be true of vaping if e smokers coddle up to the anti smokers

Im sorry. I dont look at it as coddling up to anti's... I look at like its not giving them anymore s**t to sling. But whatever.
My best,
-VP

 

[frightline]

Amen to that!!!!
Just another bunch of "Fools" with nothing better to do than sit around and think of things to ..... about!!!

 

[tamiflu]

No doubt pushing the limits is what will ruin what we have. If is says...Don't smoke. That means vaping too.

 

[ladyraj]

Im sorry. I dont look at it as coddling up to anti's... I look at like its not giving them anymore s**t to sling. But whatever.
My best,
-VP

Hey VP, you make valid points that I totally agree with and adhere to them in public. The rebel in me wants to use my e-cig wherever I choose. The cautious side of me tells me not to shoot myself in the foot!!! I really do hope the e-cig will pass the litmus test of harm reduction because it has proven to be so enjoyable and beneficial.

That being said, I've been thru this all before and it is not new to me. My campaigning ideas are based on my experience when working with these groups that lobby against the e-cig. Some may view it as negativity or mere complaining, but the reality is that someone must address these issues, in a very frank manner, in order for the group to be successful. What I can offer this campaign are logical arguments based on "if" "then" scenarios to foster the ability to make predictions in trend analysis over the course of this struggle. The arguments may not be pretty but neither is the fight. People are relying on these endeavors and I judge them to be worthy, therefore I have been spending lots of time on this forum.

Yes we can all be free to disagree...but, splitting hairs over nuances and semantics may merely serve to split a group that needs to be more cohesive.

In a previous post I offered links to the tobacco control researchers and medical assocciations calling for R-ratings for any movies (or cartoons) that have smoking scenes. The jist of their argument is that the sight of smoking is harmful to children because it sends the wrong message. How will the e-cig campaign deal with this issue? This is a biggie when it comes to public image.

My best to you too VP!

 

[sherid]

Im sorry. I dont look at it as coddling up to anti's... I look at like its not giving them anymore s**t to sling. But whatever.
My best,
-VP

Oh please, here's what happened to me an hour ago.
This morning I find a message from my employer, a public school, announcing an important change to our health insurance rates. You know where this is going. As of Jan. 2010, if I do not quit using nicotine, my rates will increase dramatically. "Starting January 1st, tobacco-free employees will no longer be subsidizing the medical insurance premiums of tobacco users. This means that tobacco users will pay a significantly higher insurance premium than non-tobacco users...nicotine testing will likely play a role." I am seething right now, attempting to stop myself from firing back an angry retort to this nonsense. The last significant claim I had to my health insurer was the birth of my son 16 years ago. I have not even met the $500 family deductible for my plan since then. I take no prescriptions and have no known health issues, yet I am blamed for the rising health care costs of my peers who are obese, hypochondriacs, alcoholics, etc It is somehow MY fault, despite my lack of claims and health problems that health care is rising. Excuse me, I have to go sob in the corner after I vomit.
It is not about smoking. It is about NICOTINE. Please FIGHT BACK

 

[ladyraj]

Oh please, here's what happened to me an hour ago.
This morning I find a message from my employer, a public school, announcing an important change to our health insurance rates. You know where this is going. As of Jan. 2010, if I do not quit using nicotine, my rates will increase dramatically. "Starting January 1st, tobacco-free employees will no longer be subsidizing the medical insurance premiums of tobacco users. This means that tobacco users will pay a significantly higher insurance premium than non-tobacco users...nicotine testing will likely play a role." I am seething right now, attempting to stop myself from firing back an angry retort to this nonsense. The last significant claim I had to my health insurer was the birth of my son 16 years ago. I have not even met the $500 family deductible for my plan since then. I take no prescriptions and have no known health issues, yet I am blamed for the rising health care costs of my peers who are obese, hypochondriacs, alcoholics, etc It is somehow MY fault, despite my lack of claims and health problems that health care is rising. Excuse me, I have to go sob in the corner after I vomit.
It is not about smoking. It is about NICOTINE. Please FIGHT BACK

Jeez...! If nicotine users can't get a job, or pay more for their insurance once they get a job, it is the equivalent of assigning a nice big yellow star to their chest. They have ways of making you comply. Drug tests for nicotine...what a wonderful world we live in.