I think it was except in buildings, no?
Banning of e-cigarettes on College Campus
- Thread starter EddardinWinter
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I think it was except in buildings, no?
Let's assume you're a student or an employee at a university which has a campus ban on smoking, but not vaping.
If you're smart, you'll carefully stealth vape and resist the "stupid criminal" urge to brag about it to anyone. If you're caught, no problem because there's no policy about it.
If you're not so smart, you'll vape openly with pride, wearing your Vaping Rocks or whatever t-shirt, relishing every confrontation as an opportunity to educate. You'll be the one educated in how quickly "or vaping" can be added to a "no smoking" ban, and you'll screw it up for those who were smart about it. Now, if any of you are caught, it's an infraction, disciplinary action, or firing.
Think about this before becoming a martyr for the cause.
If you're smart, you'll carefully stealth vape and resist the "stupid criminal" urge to brag about it to anyone. If you're caught, no problem because there's no policy about it.
If you're not so smart, you'll vape openly with pride, wearing your Vaping Rocks or whatever t-shirt, relishing every confrontation as an opportunity to educate. You'll be the one educated in how quickly "or vaping" can be added to a "no smoking" ban, and you'll screw it up for those who were smart about it. Now, if any of you are caught, it's an infraction, disciplinary action, or firing.
Think about this before becoming a martyr for the cause.
It's 7 PM. Should I close the thread now?!
No way, we are nowhere NEAR at each other's throat enough yet! Keep 'er going! There's plenty of room!
Plus, the OT possibilities are wide-open.
Also, it is nowhere near 7pm here. And in the interest of fairness and representing our own rights, I assert my right for it not to be 7pm here even though it's 7pm on the east coast.
I'm actually considering forming a coalition about this. I'll call it the Give Us Time coalition.
This just in from PBusardo....
"The more we're d#%$s about vaping, the more they'll be d#%$s back to us."
Couldn't agree more.
"The more we're d#%$s about vaping, the more they'll be d#%$s back to us."
Couldn't agree more.
You're talking an extreme case here NicoHog, but this is the down side of vaping everywhere to educate people. No-one knows which is better in the long run, this or keeping a lower profile. I've also seen reasonable people say it doesn't matter what we do as individuals, the politics matter a lot more.
This is what I and others are doing at work. Its inevitable that there will be a vaping ban eventually, their policies toward smoking are harsh and inflexible. But so far, there have been no incidents involving PVs ...
One of our vice presidents walks out to the public bus stop to vape, unless there are passengers waiting. Then he vapes in his car, parked on a public street ...
Two things I am convinced of, vaping saves lives, and vaping will be persecuted by the ignorant with the same fanaticism as smoking ...
I would expect to be banned from use indoors but outside vape and cigarettes should be allowed.
It's not as extreme of a case as you might imagine. Every university administration who doesn't already have one is considering a campus-wide smoking ban (thanks to the links DC2 provided); however, at this time, there are many who have never even heard of vaping or e-cigarettes. I'm with rico942 on this... and agree a vaping ban is inevitable pretty much wherever there's a smoking ban. But if you don't have to deal with it now, postpone it as long as possible. It's simple math that can be used in casinos, and reduces the total probability of negative consequences.
That all sounds quite logical, but there are few things that seem fairly certain to me...
1) Vaping will never be accepted by an uneducated public
2) The media is not going to educate them
3) We are going to have to be the ones to educate them
4) We will be able to educate them faster the more interaction we have with them
5) It is possible that restrictions will be in place nearly everywhere before the public gets educated
6) Restrictions are going to be very hard to lift once they are in place
It seems to me our only chance may be to educate as many as possible as fast as possible.
If we accept that the end result is inevitable then I guess you're right we should just give up and enjoy it while we can.
Except that those that believe it is inevitable are not really it enjoying now anyway, so I'm confused.
EDIT: Please note that I am only talking about attempts to always lump vaping in with smoking
EDIT: Also please note that when I say "enjoy" I don't mean to vape like a douche-rocket
EDIT: I do recognize that when I'm supuposed to leave Petco Park entirely in order to vape, we are already behind the curve
Last edited:
That's a well reasoned post. Some of us who believe in the inevitable are stocked to vape for the next ten years or so. We're enjoying it immensely and not worried.
"Education" can backfire. One well-intentioned public vaper can result in a "No Vaping" sign under the No Smoking sign at a business. Henceforth, the first experience of hundreds or maybe thousands of people to "vaping" will be associated with smoking. First impressions are hard to overcome. OTOH, converting smokers to vapers, rather than confronting the non-smoking, non-vaping public, may be far more fruitful.
"Education" can backfire. One well-intentioned public vaper can result in a "No Vaping" sign under the No Smoking sign at a business. Henceforth, the first experience of hundreds or maybe thousands of people to "vaping" will be associated with smoking. First impressions are hard to overcome. OTOH, converting smokers to vapers, rather than confronting the non-smoking, non-vaping public, may be far more fruitful.
Wow, you guys did so well. Thanks!
Even with old Dusty tittering about, a lot of grown up exchanges.
So when vaping advocate supreme DC and NicoHog are in agreement (to a certain extent), what are our conclusions?
1) Vaping should be permitted outdoors, but the property owner's wishes trump reason. (sad, but true if you believe in individual property rights, I do)
2) Any college has the right/authority to restrict vaping indoors in dorms, offices, classrooms. Mainly to preserve order and control the environment where teaching is happening, and where the students reside.
A bit of respectful disagreement on:
Vaping publicly and openly (not obnoxiously) will lead to more awareness, or greater restrictions.
So to shift, just a bit, from the OP...
So how far can the University/College go in restricting freedoms? Vaping restrictions seem to be reasonable to many of us. Fine. What about say, use of energy drinks? They clearly have an effect on the body's biochemistry, and have some health risks. These are legal products used by adults for their intended use. What if State U. decides, "We have determined that the use of energy drinks is detrimental to the health of our students. As such, we are banning them campus-wide, to protect the young people attending State U." This means employees of State U., contractors, and even people using the campus as a part of their route to work are subject to the ban.
Does this seem reasonable?
Even with old Dusty tittering about, a lot of grown up exchanges.
So when vaping advocate supreme DC and NicoHog are in agreement (to a certain extent), what are our conclusions?
1) Vaping should be permitted outdoors, but the property owner's wishes trump reason. (sad, but true if you believe in individual property rights, I do)
2) Any college has the right/authority to restrict vaping indoors in dorms, offices, classrooms. Mainly to preserve order and control the environment where teaching is happening, and where the students reside.
A bit of respectful disagreement on:
Vaping publicly and openly (not obnoxiously) will lead to more awareness, or greater restrictions.
So to shift, just a bit, from the OP...
So how far can the University/College go in restricting freedoms? Vaping restrictions seem to be reasonable to many of us. Fine. What about say, use of energy drinks? They clearly have an effect on the body's biochemistry, and have some health risks. These are legal products used by adults for their intended use. What if State U. decides, "We have determined that the use of energy drinks is detrimental to the health of our students. As such, we are banning them campus-wide, to protect the young people attending State U." This means employees of State U., contractors, and even people using the campus as a part of their route to work are subject to the ban.
Does this seem reasonable?
Last edited:
Ahem.. this is an e-cigarette forum! I rather we not discuss the use of "mind changing elements" including energy drinks if you don't mind, Lion.
Sorry folks, this thread stays on topic or gets shut down.
Sorry folks, this thread stays on topic or gets shut down.
Meh, maybe it has run its course. I don't know how to phrase my question above any differently...I will edit out the reference.
No, but we certainly have a right to challenge the reasoning behind their policies. Hence the topic. To observe that property owners (public or private) have a right to institute (most) any stupid policy they wish on their own grounds is to state a truism. At best it's a pointlessly obvious observation; at worst, it's an actively disingenuous attempt to derail the debate.
We know they have a right to make the policy. The questions are why do they make the policy, where their reasoning comes from, and what the unopposed perpetuation of that reasoning means for us in the long term. Do we want vaping to become synonymous in the public's consciousness with smoking? Do we want any prospective former smoker to feel as if trying e-cigarettes isn't worth his time, because both activities are equally subjected to increasingly oppressive restrictions? Do you really think it's reasonable to ban e-cigs on outdoor college grounds?
I know (or I have reason to suppose, based on what I've seen of your post history) that you think topics like this one are overwrought or alarmist, but it really isn't a stretch to argue that we discuss a matter of life or death. There are powerful forces who, for a variety of reasons (consciously malicious or benign but misguided), have declared themselves in opposition to tobacco harm reduction products of all shapes and sizes. That is a fact. If you don't think it's worth your trouble to oppose them, then that's your prerogative; I certainly won't judge you for making that choice -- but please, don't patronize the rest of us by painting our cause as some sort of childish misunderstanding of private property rights.
This raises an interesting question that I really had not considered myself. Do smokers in general think that switching to vaping will free them from any and all restrictions ?
The Blu commercials, "Let's take our freedom back", would seem to indicate this, but the reality is that vaping is fresh meat for behavioral control fanatics to attack and demonize, now that smoking has been effectively "denormalized" ...
I switched to vaping purely for health reasons, and then I found it to be a vastly superior delivery system for nicotine, more effective in satisfying the craving than tobacco ever was ...
Well, at least now I have some hope of living long enough to see how this plays out ...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
