After how many studies over the past 30 years they still can't decide if freaking EGGS are good or bad for us. I appreciate the work done in one study, but it's not definitive.
- Status
After how many studies over the past 30 years they still can't decide if freaking EGGS are good or bad for us. I appreciate the work done in one study, but it's not definitive.
My point still stands. Just because science is currently of the opinion that something is without harm doesn't mean it's always going to be that way. Remember that there was a time when Cigarettes were considered safe.
In the end it all comes down to respect. I respect those around me not to subject them to anything they might not want to inhale, regardless of whether I believe it's harmless or not. People can rant and rave about the "Antz" (a term I find annoyingly adorable and condescending) but it's really smoker's fault that bans are in place, and it'll be vaper's fault when the ecig bans spread all over as well. No point banning something you can't see, so vape responsibly and subtly and we'll all be fine.
Way to bring in an extreme position that's impossible to defend and compare it to my viewpoint! Next you can get REALLY original and mention Hitler or the Nazis.
From what I've seen of this discussion there are two viewpoints:
1- People that think that our behavior influences regulations, and says that we should try to avoid drawing attention to ourselves.
2- People who think that we're an unjustly persecuted minority, and espouse screaming and yelling until we get our own way.
I see nothing wrong with organizations like CASAA and other forms of activism. I've been to town hall meetings in my area to contribute my views on Vape Bans, something I doubt many of those that rant and rave about the anti-tobacco activists probably haven't done. At the same time I practice what I preach, don't vape in public areas, and have never had an issue. Coincidence?
Because they have to?
Perhaps some people Can Not go as long Without a hit off an e-Cigarette as they could with an Analog?
What point? That any activity that hasn't been proven 100% safe after an arbitrarily long period of study might not be safe? That's not a point; it's innuendo supplied in the absence of a real point. And innuendo doesn't stand; it skulks.
In this case, by the way, it isn't just that science "is currently of the opinion that [vaping] is without harm;" it's that science keeps giving us that result despite that nearly the entire public-health industry seeks the opposite result.
Do you deny that anti-nicotine zealots exist? Do you deny that they occupy positions of power?
Citation needed. The evidence suggests otherwise.
Last edited:
@SimianSteam:
Oh yes, and if the women in many parts of the world had not left their houses - if they had not been at the wrong place at the wrong time, thus encountering somebody who then did violence to them - they would never have had an issue either.
great logic
Oh yes, and if the women in many parts of the world had not left their houses - if they had not been at the wrong place at the wrong time, thus encountering somebody who then did violence to them - they would never have had an issue either.
great logic
Oh, well. The Anti-Antis have taken over this thread as well. Anyone that disagrees with them will be attacked mercilessly, discussion and expression of any other POV is strongly discouraged, etc, etc...
I'm SOOO very sorry that I don't share y'all's perspective (not), and your bullying method of disagreeing with me has effectively changed my mind! Congratulations!
I'm SOOO very sorry that I don't share y'all's perspective (not), and your bullying method of disagreeing with me has effectively changed my mind! Congratulations!
And your ad-hominem-laced martyr act adds so much credibility to your unsupportable arguments. Congrats on that.
Care to back that second one up with quotes from this thread? Or any thread?
If yes, may the Force be with you.
Good theory but that hasn't been the practice. The anti e-cigarette folk and politicians were trying to ban the use of e-cigarettes in places before they had ever even seen them and before there was widespread use. So, if they hadn't even seen e-cigs being used in public, what was the motivation to ban the use? And why would vapers still not vaping in public change that?
The fact is, simply being told by the ANTZ that e-cigarettes could be used in public instigated most of the bans - not actual vapers using them in public. So, it was fear driving these bans, not rude or inconsiderate vapers.
Since I coined the acronym, I can say that it was created very much to be "annoyingly adorable and condescending." "Anti Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots" (ANTZ) refers to a very specific kind of anti-tobacco person. They aren't "just trying to save lives," they are such zealots that anything to do with tobacco, smoking or nicotine is literally "evil" and they will put the lives of smokers at risk to accomplish their agenda of a smoke -, tobacco - and nicotine-free world. They refuse to acknowledge e-cigarettes will save millions of lives because of ideology. It's "quit or die" and anything that continues "smoking behavior" and nicotine use is unacceptable, regardless of how many lives could be saved. That's a special kind of crazy and I have no respect for them - hence the condescension and quick, easy to remember and accurate name: ANTZ.
Last edited:
My father's parents smoked for 40 years. My grandmother died about 12 years ago, and spent the last 15 years of her life hauling an oxygen tank around. My grandfather was also on oxygen near the end, and he was DEFINITELY what you would consider an 'ANTZ'. His experiences made him that way. I would never have criticized his extreme anti-tobacco views, however. I just never vaped around him because I didn't want to upset him. Discounting his perspective would have been massively disrespectful, and also would've shown a lot of immaturity on my part. I guess I'm one of those rare people that doesn't think I'm the center of the universe.
Completely discounting the opposition's opinion is what zealots do. Granted there are plenty of anti-tobacco zealots, but the pro-ones are just as bad. There's an 'Original Sin' factor to consider here as well. The vast majority of us were smokers. We perpetuated a habit that we KNEW was harmful, but we were more concerned about getting our fix. Now that we've switched to something that's less harmful some of us are still in the junkie mindset of, "Don't mess with my addiction!". SMH.
Reality Check: It's a recreational habit. It's not the end of the world if they ban vaping in public places. I'm not even sure it SHOULD be fought against. There's no reason why we can't just vape in our homes and cars. Alcohol is restricted as far as where you can consume it. Why shouldn't other recreational chemicals?
Completely discounting the opposition's opinion is what zealots do. Granted there are plenty of anti-tobacco zealots, but the pro-ones are just as bad. There's an 'Original Sin' factor to consider here as well. The vast majority of us were smokers. We perpetuated a habit that we KNEW was harmful, but we were more concerned about getting our fix. Now that we've switched to something that's less harmful some of us are still in the junkie mindset of, "Don't mess with my addiction!". SMH.
Reality Check: It's a recreational habit. It's not the end of the world if they ban vaping in public places. I'm not even sure it SHOULD be fought against. There's no reason why we can't just vape in our homes and cars. Alcohol is restricted as far as where you can consume it. Why shouldn't other recreational chemicals?
Belief that tobacco and nicotine is bad does not make one an ANTZ.
You lost me at "fix" and "junkie." I don't see myself that way and I think it's quite insulting.
It's not just "recreational habit," it's a tobacco harm reduction method that has the potential to save millions of lives.
And if we let the ANTZ have their way, vaping in homes and cars will be banned, too.
You lost me at "fix" and "junkie." I don't see myself that way and I think it's quite insulting.
It's not just "recreational habit," it's a tobacco harm reduction method that has the potential to save millions of lives.
And if we let the ANTZ have their way, vaping in homes and cars will be banned, too.
Hey now, I resemble that remark!
Problem is, it's those other people that are in charge of teaching their kids. If they don't do it properly is it really someone else's fault? I have said this before and will continue to say it; I smoked for most of my children's lives and they've never picked up a cigarette. Why? Because I started informing them about the dangers and plain old inconvenience of being smoking dependent early and often. I also taught them to think for themselves and not to do something just because their friends were; the exact reason I started smoking. If they had started up anyway I would have considered it my failing, not that of some person that just happened to be smoking in their presence, but maybe I'm just weird that way.
As for vaping, the only way I tend to hide it is if I'm somewhere smoking and vaping have been made synonymous or when within a large group of non-smokers/vapers I'll double inhale so that there isn't any vapor exhaled. I regularly vape in movies, on planes, and in chain restaurants that I know would say something. No one has ever noticed because there wasn't anything to notice. I vaped openly at my local Wal-Mart because I had been standing around for 15 minutes waiting for someone to come fix the wigged out self checkout machine I was using and I was frustrated. The associate in charge of the section told me that the store didn't care if I used it because it wasn't smoking. Whether that's the whole chain's policy or just my particular Wally World, who knows? Maybe it's just because they have trouble enough keeping shoes on their customers.
Last edited:
Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-.......html
Nicotine is a drug. Without this drug we go through withdrawals. We therefor do whatever we can to ensure that we would continue to get that drug.
We're junkies. Deal with it.
Please don't act like we've got some kind of rare medical condition and are being persecuted because of it. At some point we all made the decision to start smoking, and while eCigs are a great tool to quitting they will not single-handledly save any lives. The desire to change will, however. eCigs do make it easier, but that doesn't mean that we should be given special treatment to use them wherever we want like they were asthma inhalers. It's recreational.
Last edited:
The same could be said about my mother and her anti-depressant drugs. Is she a junkie?
And I must have missed the news reports of nicotine addicts knocking over liquor stores and prostituting themselves, doing whatever they can to ensure their nicotine fix.
Last edited:
Every year, only 3% of smokers quit for good and nearly the same number of people become smokers, which keeps us right around a 20% smoking rate. And 30% of smokers never even try to quit.
E-cigarettes are not just a "quitting tool" or "recreational," they are a far safer alternative for smokers who cannot or will not quit. By eliminating their exposure to smoke, they eliminate their risk of smoking-related diseases. If they aren't getting smoking-related diseases, their lives will have been saved by the e-cigarettes.
Maybe e-cigarettes aren't saving your life, but they do have the potential to save the lives of inveterate smokers and significantly reduce the risks of those who won't quit today, next week or even in the next decade.
- Status
Similar threads
