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.
So you were timid with regards to your own opinions and desires in regards to your elders. You're not the first and won't be the last. Some of us are less timid and yet still respectful.
What this post and all the ones calling for 'be respectful' and/or 'be considerate' are missing is the idea that the opposition is certainly not playing by that rule. If they were, I'd be allowed to smoke the cigarettes that I still choose to smoke, in certain locations. Instead, it is assume SHS is harmful and don't ask any questions on that, as we've all made up our mind on SHS. No respect, no consideration to be given there. Them the breaks. Deal with it.
Well, because I am likely to be only person not only in the room, but perhaps in my entire area that thinks SHS propaganda is not only blown way out of proportion but is, in essence, highly susceptible, I may not take up that cause in public. Then again, I might. Yet, with vaping, as Kristin is saying, it takes a particular breed of personality to say that also must not be allowed in public, out of respect. On this one, I will not play the timid game, especially as things politically are still up for discussion. And I will do what I can to make my points respectfully, but given the level of current discussion, if people are bringing up ANTZ logic and/or making passionate points about 'be considerate' I may go to another level that to some observers won't look pretty nor tame, but is what I see as par for the course. Essentially, opposition has gotten to a point with SHS where shouting down opponents and being blatantly disrespectful for all
considerations to the contrary is deemed permissible. IOW, being a jerk towards smokers is now very okay.
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.
Again, I am a smoker still, and prefer vaping. I'm also one who's gone cold turkey in my adult life for 8.5 years. So, I feel I truly understand perspective from all sides of this political issue. When I was non-smoker, I was a little ANTZ, but nowhere near what a) some ex-smokers now vapers are acting like and b) non-smokers who are clearly over the top with their rhetoric.
People in all walks of life enjoy getting a fix of some sort. If the term "junkie" is being thrown around loosely, then there are likely way way more junkies around us then some in this thread care to acknowledge as it may not serve their agenda.
Smoking does pose a degree of harm to it that vaping certainly does not appear to. But I'm the vaper in the room (or this thread) that will take issue with any vaper / ex-smoker who keeps harping on how awful, bad, stinky, rotten, immoral smoking is FOR THEM. And as I have the perspective within my experience of non-smoker, not getting the fix, I feel I have ways of understanding where they are coming from, but also quite able to discern when their rhetoric is over the top and, quite accurately, coming across as highly disrespectful.
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?
Because we now live in a world where these recreational items are being stripped away from all possible choice for respectful usage. I cannot think of a substance currently that isn't heavily regulated and, in some cases, argued for public bans or even outright bans. Based on "for the children" nonsense and "because it is dangerous/harmful."
I feel bans in vast majority of cases are an unreasonable regulation, and will use reason, respect and courage to stand up to those who espouse that position of ban first and eh, maybe, if we're being nice, will consider some questions later.
Just as banning vaping in public is not the end of the world, so is vaping everywhere not the end of the world.
And as long as that is the two options currently on the table, I know which side I'd rather stand on.
Thank goodness reality allows for a happy medium that the truly respectful and truly considerate get without going into a hissy fit about their version of 'perceived harm.'
