I think that you'll have a hard job convincing anyone that this is true. Just because something can't be seen doesn't mean it's not happening.
-
Need help from former MFS (MyFreedomSmokes) customers
Has any found a supplier or company that has tobacco e-juice like or very similar to MFS Turbosmog, Tall Paul, or Red Luck?
View thread
Are you KIDDING ME??? Vape banned for 4th of July!
- Thread starter Shel
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I think that you'll have a hard job convincing anyone that this is true. Just because something can't be seen doesn't mean it's not happening.
you have to witness me do something to convict me of doing it, I can not be convicted because you think I might have maybe but you didn't see me actually do it. I actually didn't do it, that's why you didn't see it. plain and simple, did anyone witness me vape? I didn't vape
Breaking regulations does not make us look like a good community.
No. If it can be proven that you have done it (think internet crime) it's not necessary to see you do it.
Against every municipality and every building and venue that bans vaping? Love the idea of class action lawsuit, just that you have to have somebody to sue.
The way in which class action suits are brought, the proposed class aggregates (after the proper notification via publishing and broadcasting for specified period of time to inform members of said class), then files suit with one or several named plaintiffs.
Seems like vapers, as a group, would be bringing lawsuits against 100 of pages --- maybe thousands of pages----of defendants, across many differing states in the US.
Then you have to get the class certified, meaning you need names of all the parties to the suit so that sufficient numerosity can be proven.
Each state also has certain laws in place for class actions......some are better than others.
It's a huge undertaking, and I suspect that by the time all the stuff is put in place, many many years.....vaping laws and such may have changed drastically. ?
1 - Wouldn't that depend on the nature of the regulations?
2 - Wouldn't make us look good to whom?
I am curious how that would work with what we are talking about in general, but also specifically with what turbocad6 is getting at?
While looking at picture of Fireworks event on city's website, I was wondering what it would be like to go and report people who are there as person(s) I think "might be smoking." Say I know for sure they are not, but I think it appears like they could be, and so I report them. What happens then? Especially given this new reasoning being put forth that it is not necessary to see them doing it, but that it could magically be proven that they did, despite lack of evidence.
If the venue has said that you can't vape then how they police that is a matter for them. It would be good to persuade them that vaping is a benign activity, but if that can't be done then they set the rules as they see fit.
I still hold that simply because something can't be seen being done this does not mean that it is not being done.
Honestly, your first paragraph is simply a history lesson. I say this not as to offend but, my reply would derail the topic.
Your second, why be obnoxious in the first place?
Third, the event is theirs. They have the right to post their own rules. Aside from the fact that vaping is allowed in the public, just not there at their event.
Smokers can't smoke, drinkers can't drink and vapers can't Vape.
Having a cocktail certainly does not have ill effects on those inthe area.but, I have a hunch the committee that launched these rules feel that their rules are geared and the best of interest for a family event.
Hence, I go back to my earliest post of education.
So again, I personally I don't want too and won't Vape where not allowed.
This thread has taken many directions and your post now is about vaping in public. Go Vape in public. In fact, it's allowed. But, when specific arena's like, hospitals, schools, family events, commercial business, airports, etc. follow their rules. No big deal.
Right now the battle we should be fighting is the sale of supplies, extreme taxation, internet availability, local, state and Federal decriminalization and so forth.
1. No
2. Media sensationalism, politicians, the uneducated....
We are fighting a larger battle than you may think. I guarantee this isn't even on CASAA's radar.
Well, because the e-cig is not a "tobacco product", and it does not emit SMOKE, so, it SHOULD be treated diffently. (And before people start pointing out the nicotine, let me remind you that we CAN choose zero nic, and that NRT's have nicotine, ALL of them - and NONE is considered a tobacco product).
So, I'll take your good example about alchool and make a parallel example that better describes what's happening with the e-cig: it's not really the issue of "not being allowed to drink alchool because of an alchool-fre law", but rather "not even be allowed to enjoy a refreshing, tasty NON-alchoolic beer, because ALCHOOL use has been forbidden". That's really the point, IMHO. Just like people would not understand why an "ALCHOOL-free law" should be unfairly extended to something that only RESEMBLES real beer, but has no ALCHOOL in it (might as well forbid drinking water in the rocks too, because it "resembles" vodka), most vapers have trouble understanding why tobacco laws, that were allegedly written to adress the problem of tobacco SMOKE (and that are already way too harsh - even for fobacco), should now be arbitrarily extended to something that only MIMICS smoking, but does not by any chance have the same risks. We get troubled when we realize that those laws are NOT about "protecting people's health", but rather about denormalizing and discriminating a certain behavior. We get double troubled when we realize that WE are the "targets" of those insane laws. WE are the ones that are being unfairly discriminated. That's why WE tend to react this way. (Of course, there are those among us who are totally cool with it...
)
After a while you do get used to the discrimination. Not that it really gets any better, but you do get rather numb. And you do learn to pick your battles and how to fight them. The hard part, I've found over the years, is to learn to not get angry when people who 'sympathize' instead tell you to go back in the closet. The sad part is seeing the ones who don't make it out alive.
The saddest of all are the people who attack those who are willing and able to stand up for their freedom. But then again, it's another lesson humans don't seem to be able to learn. We always seem to love attacking those who protect us or take on the jobs we're unable or unwilling to do ourselves.
Myself, I think vaping is one of those perfect test examples for individual freedom. Technically, nicotine doesn't even have to be isolated from tobacco. And vaping is not inherently (or at least can be argued legally) tied to nicotine at all. So ultimately there's no legal standing for banning vaping and plenty to defend it with. Even in today's society.
Just remember, 60 years ago the punishment for homosexuality in England was draconian enough to drive one of the greatest minds of the 20th century to suicide. Today, because many, many very brave men and women were not willing to hide and keep it behind locked doors and 'not offend anyone' we have Will and Grace. Ok, maybe not the best example.
(And I'm sure these arguments to stay hidden were exactly the same as we're seeing here. Personally, I like the modern way better. Yeah, it gets a little rocky sometimes while things are settling out and it's very scary, but the end result is worth it.)
The saddest of all are the people who attack those who are willing and able to stand up for their freedom. But then again, it's another lesson humans don't seem to be able to learn. We always seem to love attacking those who protect us or take on the jobs we're unable or unwilling to do ourselves.
Myself, I think vaping is one of those perfect test examples for individual freedom. Technically, nicotine doesn't even have to be isolated from tobacco. And vaping is not inherently (or at least can be argued legally) tied to nicotine at all. So ultimately there's no legal standing for banning vaping and plenty to defend it with. Even in today's society.
Just remember, 60 years ago the punishment for homosexuality in England was draconian enough to drive one of the greatest minds of the 20th century to suicide. Today, because many, many very brave men and women were not willing to hide and keep it behind locked doors and 'not offend anyone' we have Will and Grace. Ok, maybe not the best example.
(And I'm sure these arguments to stay hidden were exactly the same as we're seeing here. Personally, I like the modern way better. Yeah, it gets a little rocky sometimes while things are settling out and it's very scary, but the end result is worth it.)
We had a christmas show not too long ago here, where there were pyrotechnics happening alongside the town hall (UK)...No smoking signs everywhere because of the fuel being used and the police actively pursued smokers and moved them out of the area in which spectators were standing.
The OH and I were vaping and stood at the fence where the pyros were happening. Two officers came and stood by as we vaped, peeked over, showed him it wasn't a cigarette and he promptly said "Those are fine, they don't ignite." and walked away.
The extra man power needed would be called observation, intelligence and small bit of knowledge on how ecigs work. All it takes is a glance to determine something is not a cigarette.
The OH and I were vaping and stood at the fence where the pyros were happening. Two officers came and stood by as we vaped, peeked over, showed him it wasn't a cigarette and he promptly said "Those are fine, they don't ignite." and walked away.
The extra man power needed would be called observation, intelligence and small bit of knowledge on how ecigs work. All it takes is a glance to determine something is not a cigarette.
Oh, that gives me hope for the future. Wow, common sense... what a concept! Thank you for sharing.
Thank you very much indeed for this very sensible posting
And thank you very much indeed for showing that it is, in fact, possible to distinguish vapor from tobacco smoke.
And I'm with turbocad6 on this, you're not going to catch me if I don't want to be known as vaping at that event. Yet, I would vape at that event, especially at night.
IMO, given what's currently at stake, I feel it is worth to vape openly at the event with 0 nic and challenge the fine afterwards legally. Worth it enough either for a group to do the protest, or for single individual that could have lawyer from our side going into that sort of civil disobedience.
The set rule is the issue, and based on article I quoted and what I would call common sense, along with common courtesy, it is worth the challenge. It is that unreasonable of a regulation.
Feeling confident that if CASAA called forth a CTA, no one would argue that, and many vapers would be all over this. Me suggesting it, is like pulling teeth to get fellow vapers to understand how big this is. This is city property. Possible that those seeking and obtaining indoor bans today could look at online arguments like this, among vapers, and realize it would be pretty easy to roll over vapers on no outdoor vaping on any publicly owned property.
And I still am waiting for that explanation for how that would work. Kinda seems like you ignored what I wrote.
Regardless of answer to that, I hope that all of us vapers, on a vaping forum, living many miles away from this event, might all agree this is the sort of thing that is best served fighting up front than after the fact. The rationale given, in article I quoted, is that SHV is as dangerous/harmful as SHS. And some vapers seem to think it is generally acceptable to go along with that.
And honestly, the history lesson you are referring to refers to history of banning usage of vaping in America. Your response of "so what" from earlier, applies to the first history lesson. It is the apathetic response in light of why not to fight our opposition on this. Yes, the first historical event is way bigger in scope, but very similar in principle.
To demonstrate hypothetically that the 'so what' thing does go two ways. To establish the point that this regulation is obnoxious.
'Their' event is one being held by the public for the public. City ordinance against vaping outdoors, in certain locations, goes into effect July 1st, 2014 and thus covers what might occur July 4th. IMO, this is worth protesting at the event and/or worth fighting against collectively before the event starts. To the degree that is downplayed via 'so what' and not worth it, I say then be prepared for outdoor bans of vaping usage to pop up and likely not be fought for by fellow vapers. About a year ago, I believe most vapers on ECF would've thought outdoor usage bans would never happen, while some had the apathetic position toward indoor usage bans. If I were opposition, I would see that it is very easy to roll over vapers on this issue. I would think the whole THV argument is realistic whereby vaping in own home and own car is plausibly something that could be outlawed.
And I cited the article and rationale that deals with why no vaping. SHV is equal to SHS in terms of harm to bystanders. That is why no vaping is justified here.
If THV advocate puts forth argument that says no vaping in own home per city ordinance, would you fight this? Or have a 'so what' attitude? And maintain position of won't vape where it is not allowed?
We can fight all of that, but the usage one is the most prevalent fight we face now.
This thread was always about vaping in public. OP presented it like it is about this event, but if you go look at city's website, it doesn't come up as a prohibited item at this event. Again, from article I linked to in post #140, this is what OP and everyone that attends the July 4th celebration is up against:
Thank you! I do appreciate what you're doing. I'm probably going to get a couple of 0 nic flavors for school just in case the administration decides to get obnoxious. But what you're doing takes a lot more guts. Cali LOVES to legislate and regulate. Here we can't decide if people are allowed to wander down the street naked.
Which can be good, bad or hysterically funny depending on the condition of said person and the situation.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
