Are you for or against being able to vape indoors in public places?

[beckdg]

I wasn't talking about a government building either, I am saying no business owner is going to take the time to evaluate each vaper on a case by case basis. It's only going to cost them time and create situations that are undesirable to the operation running smoothly. From a business perspective it just makes more sense to not allow it or allow it all.

If it's my business, there's no monitoring or case by case about it. It's as simple as "damn, that's a huge cloud".

Then we approach that person and kindly let them know that either they keep their vape unnoticeable or they'll have to be removed as a nuisance.

Tapatyped

 

[93gc40]

This makes no sense? Chemically (physically) they're different, but they're the same?

No - vapor LOOKS like smoke. That's where the similarity ends.

If it walk like a duck and talks like a duck............

The "smoke" that leave the stacks of MOST factories, is STEAM. Steam that is CLEANER than you exhale vaping. Yet we regulate them for pollution. That is regulation and taxation based on a perception.

I'm sorry The E-cigarette, by whatever name you give it will always be a cigarette first. In my life experience vaping is what drug users do. I know because I got my first vape in 1980. I am an ex cigarette smoker who now uses an electronic cigarette or E-pipe. I can say I don't smoke cigarettes and tobacco anymore, but I cannot say I do not smoke. While I am exhaling what looks like smoke I will always be a smoker. Too me and too those that SEE me.


1

 

[beckdg]

If it walk like a duck and talks like a duck............

Then it's probably a cartoon.

Tapatyped

 

[kaahn]

Lol

How many municipalities have you frequented bars before and after smoking bans?

I lived in a town with 14 bars in a square mile.

All packed to capacity all weekend, every weekend.

In comes smoking restrictions.

Out go customers.

Ghost towns from standing room only in mere weeks.

Tapatyped

I agree but the same could be said about nonsmokers with smoking establishments. Just because you don't see doesn't mean it isn't/wasn't happening or the topic of discussion in those circles. Of course you were a smoker so in the bar scene im sure it was quite noticeable and probably/most likely the topic of discussion at the time especially among smokers. I know it was where I'm from when the ban hammer hit. Hell I stopped going to any restaurant/public venue in defiance. But now it doesn't bother me...even when I was still smoking. It's just how it is...the way of life.

 

[beckdg]

I agree but the same could be said about nonsmokers with smoking establishments. Just because you don't see doesn't mean it isn't/wasn't happening or the topic of discussion in those circles. Of course you were a smoker so in the bar scene im sure it was quite noticeable and probably/most likely the topic of discussion at the time especially among smokers. I know it was where I'm from when the ban hammer hit. Hell I stopped going to any restaurant/public venue in defiance. But now it doesn't bother me...even when I was still smoking. It's just how it is...the way of life.

Why focus on discussion when we can recite actions and known results?

At the same time I watched the same thing happen in new york, new jersey, Philadelphia and maryland.

I've seen a lot of bars change owners and management 3 or more times, never gain traction and shut down indefinitely.

Tapatyped

 

[kaahn]

Might as I try, I still cannot see why it should be a free market for bars and pubs, and NOT for restaurants.

Thing is, a vegan restaurant is just as "family, all ages" business as a stake house (And it is NOT a "public" venue. Just like a bar, it's a *privately* owned business with public service. But it's not really *public* in the sense of a court, an hospital or a public service building, where people *must* go when they need to. No-one really *must* go to any specific restaurant, or to go to bars)

And yet, I do not see vegans demanding that *every* restaurant should be vegan, because "ours is the healthy way to eat", and besides, "I have the right to enter *any* restaurant I choose without being bothered with the disgusting smell of roasted beef".

What they do, is choose a vegan restaurant. And if there's not one around (because there are not enough vegans nearby to support a new venue), I guess they cook and eat at home. It may sound unfair, but it's the market working, after all. No business owner should be *forced* to open a soon-to-fail business just because some vegans have the "right" to eat outside just like everyone else.

Likewise, no-one should be forced to open a smoke-free environment, if there are several already, and in the other hand, there are a lot of smokers nearby that would like to hang out in a smoking restaurant.

That kind of draconian law ruined the pub business in England. Because it went completely against what the market, and costumers, desired. And it was demanded by people who were NOT even supporting the business in the first place. After having pubs the way they demanded, they never had the courtesy to show up.
How bothersome could it possibly be for them, to have people smoking in places where they did not go to anyway?

Restaurants, most of the time, have children present. So if you want to make it an adult only restuarant then sure, by all means, allow smoking.

 

[JimDrock]

Disallowed unless explicitly posted?

What is this society coming to?

You want to take my liberties, have the decency to put forth the effort to write it down.

Tapatyped

It is about common decency, restrain yourself unless you know it is cool to do otherwise. Infringing on others so you can exercise your "Liberty" is not Liberty for all. It is really that difficult? Or do we need the government to step in?

As for "Where is our society coming to", this so easy, "Its the all about me society", that's what it's "coming to".

 

[retired1]

As a reminder: Why we don't allow drug talk | E-Cigarette Forum

 

[jpargana]

If it walk like a duck and talks like a duck............

The "smoke" that leave the stacks of MOST factories, is STEAM. Steam that is CLEANER than you exhale vaping. Yet we regulate them for pollution. That is regulation and taxation based on a perception.

I'm sorry The E-cigarette, by whatever name you give it will always be a cigarette first. In my life experience vaping is what drug users do. I know because I got my first vape in 1980. I am an ex cigarette smoker who now uses an electronic cigarette or E-pipe. I can say I don't smoke cigarettes and tobacco anymore, but I cannot say I do not smoke. While I am exhaling what looks like smoke I will always be a smoker. Too me and too those that SEE me.


1

How would you like to be "perceived" as an irresponsible drunkard who drinks a dozen NA-beers and then gets behind the wheel?
"Oh, but I am NOT drinking...!"


Well, by the same logic, "Yes you are, you irresponsible fool! Because THAT looks just like regular beer! I'm calling the cops on you !!"

 

[kaahn]

Would be something, wouldn't it?

Tapatyped

What ever happened to respect, scruples, common sense? Now that would be something. But we revert back to nads...really. Now thats draconian.

 

[beckdg]

It is about common decency, restrain yourself unless you know it is cool to do otherwise. Infringing on others so you can exercise your "Liberty" is not Liberty for all. It is really that difficult? Or do we need the government to step in?

As for "Where is our society coming to", this so easy, "Its the all about me society", that's what it's "coming to".

I expect that before posting here, we all assume we're discussing with adults.

I guess that's too much to ask.

I would never ask someone with your stance to stand on the foundation of liberties this country was founded on.

Wouldn't want someone defecating on them.

I have infringed on noone. Had you bothered to check my prior posts in this thread alone, you'd know that.

But as long as these discussions can be twisted as such, there will always be your side to ensure government does step in if I'm reading that last sentence in your first paragraph right.

Tapatyped

 

[beckdg]

What ever happened to respect, scruples, common sense? Now that would be something. But we revert back to nads...really. Now thats draconian.

What's draconian is the laws and taxes coming and the fact vapers don't have the nads and sense to band together and dictate where the legislation is going just like any other minority interest group does.

Now to speak of respect, scruples and common sense.

Common sense...
Have the nads to fight for it or know you'll lose it

Scruples...
Stand the higher ground until. your ship is sinking... Then realize you need bigger nads to stay afloat.

Respect...
Do you think without knowing in which context my post was referencing that your post shows any?

Coming across very hypocritical right now.

Tapatyped

 

[crxess]

Still Waiting on the FDA to tell me what I think.............

Sarcasm off:

Op original post is a good wake up call.
Vaping isn't what it was just 2 years ago.

I'd have no problem with a wispy no vapor cig-a-like breezing my way under most conditions. However, I would not care for a cloud hanging over my Filet or blocking my view at an event.

 

[jpargana]

Restaurants, most of the time, have children present. So if you want to make it an adult only restuarant then sure, by all means, allow smoking.

Ohhhhh, the "chiiiiildrun"...!

I was hoping you would mention that.

So, let me ask you:

Why would non-smoking parents go to a smoke-friendly restaurant in the first place? On top of that, with their kids trailing behind? Just to annoy smokers about their "filthy addiction"? **
Why would smoking parents have any trouble about smoking in a restaurant around their kids, if they already do it in their homes anyway ?

** Maybe because it is a great place to go. OK. If a smoker goes to a non-smoking restaurant, only bacause it a great place, he must refrain from smoking. Doing so would disrespect other people by ruining their expectations. People there would expect to have a meal in "non polluted air".

But suppose that great place to go, is smoke-friendly. Still, a non-smoker decides to go there anyway. And then, proceeds to berate smokers about their smoking.
Now, people there expected to be able to smoke in peace, without unwanted, uncalled for whining and nannying about SHS. Maybe they had enough of that BS already during the day, and now they just want to relax in "their" space.
Isn't the non-smokers disrespecting other people also, by ruining their expectations?

How is this *any* less disrespectful, done in a smoking environment, than lighting up in a smoke-free environment?

 

[kaahn]

C'mon... really ??

Back to the smoking ban in Portugal, in venues less than 100 square meters, where the owner had to choose between smoking, or non-smoking, because separation was not possible:

- Before the ban, smoking was usually allowed
- After the ban, some owners chose non-smoking - they did not want to spend the money on the required air extraction equipment.
- Some of those, however, changed their minds later. Seeing how business was falling, they ended up spending that money after all.


Do you think those owners were worried about the "hipothethical non-smokers who might NOT come here, after I change from non-smoking to smoking-friendly" ? No. Non-smokers were NOT going there anyway. What they were worried about, was about the multitude of smokers who USED to go there, and STOPPED going there because the owner choosed to have a non-smoking venue. Later, owners realized it was a BAD business decision - and changed that to keep their businesses open.

Maybe in Portugal... But here in the US things are leaning more to the health conscious side. So...yes really. See there is no way for sure he knows that there may be some people not frequent his place of business just because he allows smoking/vaping. He does not know for sure that those potential customers have decided to patronized xyz business that sells the same product/service that he offers but in a non-smoking/non-vaping enviroment. Again, if we are speaking to the bar type establishment that is an adult 21yrs old to enter place then as I said in a previous post I think its utterly ridiculous that smoking/vaping is banned in bars.

 

[kaahn]

Ohhhhh, the "chiiiiildrun"...!

I was hoping you would mention that.

So, let me ask you:

Why would non-smoking parents go to a smoke-friendly restaurant in the first place? On top of that, with their kids trailing behind? Just to annoy smokers about their "filthy addiction"? **
Why would smoking parents have any trouble about smoking in a restaurant around their kids, if they already do it in their homes anyway ?

** Maybe because it is a great place to go. OK. If a smoker goes to a non-smoking restaurant, only bacause it a great place, he must refrain from smoking. Doing so would disrespect other people by ruining their expectations. People there would expect to have a meal in "non polluted air".

But suppose that great place to go, is smoke-friendly. Still, a non-smoker decides to go there anyway. And then, proceeds to berate smokers about their smoking.
Now, people there expected to be able to smoke in peace, without unwanted, uncalled for whining and nannying about SHS. Maybe they had enough of that BS already during the day, and now they just want to relax in "their" space.
Isn't the non-smokers disrespecting other people also, by ruining their expectations?

How is this *any* less disrespectful, done in a smoking environment, than lighting up in a smoke-free environment?

Respect begats respect. If you disrespect me, I'll disrespect you right back. And if you continue to disrespect me I'll punch you in the face. It's that simple.

If a nonsmoker chooses to take his/her kids to a smoking establishment they fully know what their choice is. If they choose to smoke in their home around their kids its their choice not anyone elses. Likewise in a non-smoking establishment. If you choose to go into a non-smoking establishment you have a reasonable expectation to enjoy that meal in a non-smoking enviroment.

 

[kaahn]

I don't dine in most 5 star restaurants. I find the food isn't better than a down home restaurant in most cases, the prices are off the chain, the staff usually doesn't have the time for proper care and cleanliness and there's usually a pretty serious rodent and insect infestation.

This from a decade in the business, a decade in commercial refrigeration and a quarter of my family with a life time investment in commercial refrigeration.

If I'm not able to inspect the kitchen, 5 stars means beware.

Tapatyped

5 stars is a matter of opinion. I too consider my 5 star restuarant to be the greasy, and fattening mom and pop southern home cooking hospitality type 5 star restuarant. The greasier the better!

 

[beckdg]

5 stars is a matter of opinion. I too consider my 5 star restuarant to be the greasy, and fattening mom and pop southern home cooking hospitality type 5 star restuarant. [emoji38] The greasier the better!

As someone who's run a very successful kitchen (5 kitchens simultaneously) at a catering kitchen with a restaurant attached;

I like greasy food
I like classy food
I like down home cooking
I like ritzy cooking

But i eat where the kitchen is clean and free of pests and the meals are prepared well and taste good... When I have a choice.

On the road I don't always have much of a choice. That's another subject.

But when I see 5 star critic reviews posted on the front of a restaurant... or tastefully framed somewhere that doesn't distract from the decor... it scares me every time.

Food critics seem to not care what conditions their food is prepared in. I mean, sure, surprise the restaurant and don't let them know who you are until you're done your meal.

But then introduce yourself and ask to inspect the facility. If they disallow it, regardless how the meal tastes and looks, make your whole review about the fact their hiding something in the kitchen.

Then give them half the stars the food deserved, if any.

 

[caramel]

[...]
I don't really care about charts. Like I said I go into a steak house I expect to smell steak not bubblegum cream strawberry cottoncandy vapor. [...]

So we're moving it to a purely subjective discussion now?

If you were to state "I prefer that others don't vape in the restaurant while I'm there" I would had not replied at all.

I replied to your mentioning of "clean air". There's no such thing and thus honest researchers will refer to it as "outdoor air". In addition to the charts, there's the article body and many similar articles showing that "outdoor air" contains a lot more than pure nitrogen and oxygen, and even second hand cigarette smoke doesn't make it significantly more "dangerous".

The "clean air" and "fresh air" syntagms are nothing but deceptions perpetrated by Dr. Antz in order to bring the discussion of pollution/harm to absolute vs. relative levels. 'Cause in a relative to real outdoor air discussion his arguments don't stand.

 

[kaahn]

What's draconian is the laws and taxes coming and the fact vapers don't have the nads and sense to band together and dictate where the legislation is going just like any other minority interest group does.

Now to speak of respect, scruples and common sense.

Common sense...
Have the nads to fight for it or know you'll lose it

Scruples...
Stand the higher ground until. your ship is sinking... Then realize you need bigger nads to stay afloat.

Respect...
Do you think without knowing in which context my post was referencing that your post shows any?

Coming across very hypocritical right now.

Tapatyped

I read the context and apologies are in order. My apologies. I did take that comment totally out of context. However there is a time and place as vapers to show your nads not over my prime rib and baked potato.