Blatant Disrespect IMHO

[Jman8]

Playing devil's advocate here...

Honestly, why not? What is so offensive about seeing a little vapor in a DMV line or courthouse hallway? If they cannot smell it and it's not causing them physical irritation or harm, what is the issue?

A lot of the behavior I see described as "rude vaping" is exactly that - rude vaping. Making a scene because an owner or manager asks you to stop is rude, not the vaping itself. Blowing clouds in someone's face is rude, but not typical vaping nearby. Blowing vapor in front of a movie screen is rude, because it distracts from the screen, like standing up or talking loudly in a movie. Using a pungent liquid that can be noticed by others and possibly make them gag from the smell is rude, but not vaping something that isn't noticeable.

Not all public vaping need be considered "rude" just because it can be seen. It's not the vaping that is rude or inconsiderate, it's the behavior of the vaper while vaping that is rude and inconsiderate.

(I basically agree with your post, just elaborating, lol.)

Your earlier post and this one have me wanting to ask is there any behavior in a public place, when spun a certain way, is not rude? Like, let's take standing still, being very quiet, and looking at no one in particular. Harmless and not rude right? But what if this person refuses to budge from that position? What if when asked a question, they choose to remain quiet?

I could go on with other behaviors, and purposely chose one that is I think the most tame one I can think of. But point is, everything done in public is plausibly rude in someone else's eyes. So, then comes the 'common sense' portion, but that has at least 2 points pertinent to this thread.

Common sense to vapers is that what we vape is not harmful, and not in itself rude to do. It truly seems to me in these discussions that some vapers think vaping in front of anyone is inherently rude. That is not common sense, but more like some sociological hangup for those who consider it to be inherently rude.

Second is, most of the people that hang around and care to discuss this, and are in favor of public vaping, aren't espousing to scream at top of your lungs if someone suggests to you on the scene to not vape in the establishment. In fact, we would either put our device away (begrudgingly) or attempt to educate, and exercise proactive common sense.

Common sense, right now, in today's political climate, when it comes to vaping is to do it where you can and to do it proudly. To do it stealthily or relegate one's self to only outdoor vaping is leading others, particularly non-vapers, to think it is something that is either shameful or hurtful to those in the vicinity of vaping.

Then beyond the rude portion is the political sense. Let's say all you who think not vaping in public is a good thing are faced with situation where now that 'we' managed to get that obnoxious vaping thing out of the public, how about we seek to ban it altogether in your local area? Perhaps that's going too far, but how can you disagree if you are one that says it ought to never be done in public? Perhaps on your internet vaping forum, you'll find people who shake their head and can't agree that a local ban is a good thing, but why should a non vaper go along with that position? If its rude/bad in public, regardless of the circumstances, then it is likely bad in private even if you can't bring yourself to admit to that.

The vapers who think that umpteen years from now the public will be more educated than they are now regarding vaping are living in a fairy tale, IMHO. If you aren't able to stand up right now and be bold to educate those around you, in public places, then what hope is there 10 years from now if vaping anywhere outside your home is not allowed? Are non vapers going to magically google search for education on vaping and take the time to explore all the items we have explored? And who will be their fair teachers on this subject? IOW, if ANTZ types get their way on public vaping, you think they'll stop right there and now decide a fair and balanced message can be taught, or instead will they go for more over the top rhetoric about the grave harm that comes from anyone who chooses to vape nicotine?

 

[Jman8]

If you aren't able to stand up right now and be bold to educate those around you, in public places, then what hope is there 10 years from now if vaping anywhere outside your home is not allowed?

Nothing like a little hypocrisy in one's life to make things interesting. So, within 5 hours of the quote above, I managed to not be bold enough to educate when given the opportunity.

Was playing cards (in private residence, vaping completely allowed) and played with a gentleman I've never played with until tonight. Who just also happened to be a retired medical doctor. And an ex-smoker (who remembers smoking in his office back in the day, also noting how patient rooms would have ashtrays). Anyway, finally got around to asking him what exactly he thought about eCigs, and while not really ANTZ like in his response, he was harping on nicotine addiction and how vaping has that as a 'significant drawback' as nicotine, according to him is a 'toxin.' Felt like educating him, and I mean really wanted to because given what I feel I've come to learn about the topic, his claims struck me as over the top rhetoric. But then thought it would be very challenging to be only person in the room having that discussion and I'd be having it with a medical doctor. I did stand up a little, but wasn't feeling bold enough to educate which made me laugh to myself, as I was aware of this quote I typed earlier in the night.

The good news though is I got to vape, no complaints. Host was a non vaper, and as usual I was the only vaper in the room.

 

[kristin]

I bet seeing and smelling the vapor was an education in itself to that doctor, though and that first-hand experience will always be in the back of HIS mind now.

 

[Jay-dub]

I'm sorry but I see a fatal flaw repeated over and over again in thread after thread. You all keep assuming that knowledge and reason prevail over ignorance and emotion. Unfortunately that's not usually the case. You all keep assuming that standing up and annoying people because they're ignorant is going to somehow champion your cause. It's public opinion you want to sway so do you really think a confrontational approach is going to win favor? Maybe pre-planned "vape-ins" done in a non-disruptive way and clearly promoted as public education could help but mess with people's emotions and no matter how many facts you have on your side they're going to want to see you go down. If you want to win the public over - an adversarial approach is the wrong way to go. Look at professional negotiating strategy. You empathize and gain trust. You can't just start of by giving demands. You have to convince the other side that you both, in the end, want more or less the same thing. And before someone comes in complaining that I'm just talking off the top my head or haven't vaped as long as others therefore what I say is invalid know this: I've fought pending regulations, industry destroying ballot measures and legislative initiatives for more than a decade. I've used reason and studies and established facts and the notions of freedom and choice. Guess what works? Emotion. Fear is easy and not in our favor so you won't be able to utilize one of the most effective drivers of human decisions. That ball's in the oppositions court. Oh well, if I say more it's just going to get rebutted by people who've already labeled me as opposition.

 

[kristin]

Folks need to remember that the initial objection to smoking had nothing to do with health. It was a matter of being considerate. The ANTZ said they just wanted separate areas. When smokers said that it was the beginning of a slippery slope that could lead to bans everywhere, maybe even in private residences, the ANTZ said that was a ridiculous claim. Fast-forward 30 years and the ANTZ are trying to ban smoking in private residences. Once they opened the door to social objections and that wasn't enough to get smokers to quit, they moved to junk science about second and third-hand smoke "dangers" and the idea of a "right to zero exposure." They want bans to protect children in homes and cars.

Vaping is going down the same path. First ban it in public, then use the myth of danger from ANY exposure to even infinitesimal amounts of any chemical to get bans everywhere. Because no matter how safe vaping is shown to be, there is always some freak allergy or condition or trace chemical dangerous at high levels that can be pointed to as a "risk." They will use that, same as they used the tiny risks from second hand smoke and even the imaginary risk of third hand smoke.

Public bans are just step one in a long list of tactics they use. They actually have these methods written down in a guide for ANTZ, so we know public bans are just a part of an overall strategy.

What allowed the ANTZ lies about smoke to gain traction with the general public was one major factor - the public found smoke to be an irritant, foul-smelling and annoying. Everything after that was pure propaganda the ANTZ can also use against vaping. The trump card of vaping is that the majority of the public finds it does NOT find vapor offensive like smoke. THAT is our huge advantage over the ANTZ tactics. But if the public never experiences vapor first hand and just believes what they read, we lose that advantage.

 

[JacobDaniel]

I blame allot of this (people thinking they can vape anywhere) on them stupid TV adds for cheap e-ciggs. Most of the TV adds claim you can vape anywhere. Like I said most, not all, lol

on a funny note, I did see a lawyer vaping in the court room.

 

[kristin]

One reason for those ads is the law prevents companies from telling consumers the most important benefits of vaping - quitting smoking and harm reduction. If they weren't prohibited from talking about the major benefits, they wouldn't be forced to focus their ads on silly secondary benefits. Talking about being able to use them anywhere is also a subtle (legal) way of getting the message out to the public that vapor is not a health hazard like smoke.

 

[Baldr]

Some people on here act like they'd take the fattest toke possible and blow it in someone's face. Sure, you'll leave an impression.

Yes, people can be rude while vaping in public. That doesn't mean they need to stop vaping in public, it means they need to stop being rude.

It's also rude to pretend that everyone who vapes is doing it by blowing vapor in peoples faces to be a jerk.

You seem to think that the only way to vape in public is "Blow the vapor in their face while you flip them off". That doesn't say much for your intelligence.

 

[Uncle Willie]

One reason for those ads is the law prevents companies from telling consumers the most important benefits of vaping - quitting smoking and harm reduction. If they weren't prohibited from talking about the major benefits, they wouldn't be forced to focus their ads on silly secondary benefits. Talking about being able to use them anywhere is also a subtle (legal) way of getting the message out to the public that vapor is not a health hazard like smoke.

Yet we certainly don't want the PV to be classified as a "smoking cessation device" ..

There is a faction of the population at large that will always be rude .. or at least be rude based on each of our own definitions of rudeness ..

I would like to see public PV use widely accepted, sure .. but we the users are biased in favor of ourselves ..

If the smoking of tobacco had never been discovered, and the PV then came along, with no prior prejudice or judgement .. then there would have never been a basis for anti - public everywhere PV use .. but, as it stands, wrongfully so, we the PV user are dealing with the legacy inherited through years of anti-smoking sentiment ..

It is a hard legacy to overcome ..

 

[Jman8]

I'm sorry but I see a fatal flaw repeated over and over again in thread after thread. You all keep assuming that knowledge and reason prevail over ignorance and emotion.

Yep, reasonable people tend to engage in this 'flaw' often. I'm sorry, but you were saying...

Unfortunately that's not usually the case.

So common sense, and common courtesies are off the table. That's probably helpful to know.

You all keep assuming that standing up and annoying people because they're ignorant is going to somehow champion your cause.

Exactly what we, who argue for vape everywhere are saying. To annoy people. Not! Instead, I believe vast majority are providing anecdotal evidence suggesting that currently vaping, openly, in public places is met with zero complaints from nearly all people in line of sight. Yet, what is potentially at stake, via the annoying factor, is establishment owner/manager, citing 'no vaping allowed' because you know, vapers are, or look like they are, smoking.

It's public opinion you want to sway so do you really think a confrontational approach is going to win favor?

As 'confrontational' is inaccurate spin, it is challenging to respond. It's one side of discussion, spinning rationale to fit their position. Akin to the other side asking, you think staying at home and vaping only in your closet is going to win favor?

Maybe pre-planned "vape-ins" done in a non-disruptive way and clearly promoted as public education could help but mess with people's emotions and no matter how many facts you have on your side they're going to want to see you go down.

Would you acknowledge that there are people amongst us who wish to see vaping, anywhere, go down? And that these people are operating very boldly, with idea that people's emotions will side with them if misinformation is allowed to go unchecked.

If you want to win the public over - an adversarial approach is the wrong way to go. Look at professional negotiating strategy. You empathize and gain trust. You can't just start of by giving demands. You have to convince the other side that you both, in the end, want more or less the same thing. And before someone comes in complaining that I'm just talking off the top my head or haven't vaped as long as others therefore what I say is invalid know this: I've fought pending regulations, industry destroying ballot measures and legislative initiatives for more than a decade. I've used reason and studies and established facts and the notions of freedom and choice. Guess what works? Emotion. Fear is easy and not in our favor so you won't be able to utilize one of the most effective drivers of human decisions. That ball's in the oppositions court. Oh well, if I say more it's just going to get rebutted by people who've already labeled me as opposition.

I think this discussion is always good among vapers as we do tend to operate in a community that gravitates toward self regulation. Yet, our opposition is, I think rather clearly, ANTZ. And as I noted in another thread (on same topic), there is plausibly ANTZ who are vapers. I have looked in the mirror at various times in my life and seen ANTZ looking back at me. Though as long as I've been vaping, my personal degree of ANTZ is between extremely low to non-existent.

Joe Public, who may be a non-vaper, is not our opposition regardless of fears, hang-ups and emotions Joe happens to possess. IMO, ANTZ of vaping is taking ANTZ of old to another level. Joe Public is more or less coming to vaping from position of ignorance, and at best, a live and let live general philosophy. ANTZ of vaping is coming from perspective that is founded on ANTZ of old, but engages in arrogance to win the day, because of many battles ANTZ won previously with smoking. I do believe that ANTZ of old, that is aware of vaping, desires to rid vaping from society. And that banning vaping in public is one, rather significant step, toward that goal.

The 'vape everywhere' crowd, of which I am one, is not espousing their position to be confrontational to Joe Public, but instead to draw a line that is actually reasonable, and is proportional to the end game of ANTZ. Compromising from vape everywhere stands, IMO, a far better chance of vaping legally anywhere (includes own property) if starting with the vape everywhere position. By acknowledging that certain places and situations are inherently not feasible for vaping is playing into hands of ANTZ. It conveys message that there is something inherently wrong with vaping, and even vapers know this. IMO, the vapers who do this, do so inadvertently, and don't think they are doing anything to support ANTZ, but instead are arguing for position of community respect, especially to Joe Public.

But here in this golden era of public vaping, it can accurately be reported that through the end of 2013, very very few relatives of Joe Public have taken issue with public vaping when they saw it. And those who have taken issue with it in public, have done so based entirely on misinformation and with their own political agenda fairly obvious. Example: it looks like smoking, and I don't want smoking in my store. And no, I won't have any discussion on this, because smoking is just wrong. Second hand smoking kills people you know!

 

[Jman8]

I bet seeing and smelling the vapor was an education in itself to that doctor, though and that first-hand experience will always be in the back of HIS mind now.

Hours before I asked the good doctor about his opinions on eCigs, he asked me if it was working. I was honest and told him I still choose to smoke which was met with most people in the room saying, "see it doesn't work." But I quickly clarified, with further honest information, and told the doctor that I smoke about a pack a week, or less. He said, then it is working!

 

[Jay-dub]

Yes, people can be rude while vaping in public. That doesn't mean they need to stop vaping in public, it means they need to stop being rude.

It's also rude to pretend that everyone who vapes is doing it by blowing vapor in peoples faces to be a jerk.

You seem to think that the only way to vape in public is "Blow the vapor in their face while you flip them off". That doesn't say much for your intelligence.

Nice. Stay classy. You may want to make sure you comprehended my posts before you start questioning my intelligence. You even put up quotes as if that was something I said. Isn't that intellectually dishonest? SOME PEOPLE... you know, as in not everyone, is what I said. I actually haven't said that we shouldn't vape in public either. I just don't want people being annoying about it and dissuading people from even wanting to be informed on the subject. Now I'm curious to so how else you'll attribute things I haven't even said to my lack of intelligence. Whaddya got?

 

[Baldr]

Whaddya got?

I think you are showing your lack of intelligence yourself and that you don't need my help.

You can pretend I made it up, but you *did* post about people taking a big toke and blowing it in peoples faces. That isn't something that's actually happening, it's just crap you are making up.

 

[lvm111]

"...........Common sense, right now, in today's political climate, when it comes to vaping is to do it where you can and to do it proudly...... "

If that were true, we wouldn't have vaporers posting on here saying it is dumb, stupid, and lacking common sense to vape in the grocery store checkout line. I mean besides myself of course! lol.

Which is it? You're addiction to nic is so great you can't wait five minutes? Or, you just want to show off your "tattoos", so to speak.

Imagine this scene. Everyone in line is vaping. Or, everyone at the ball park is vaping. What a mess that would be!

best regards, larry mac

 

[patkin]

Two schools: 1) Courtesy 2) Entitlement.... unlikely they'll ever meet in the middle as they haven't on other issues yet... wouldn't expect vaping to break the pattern.

 

[Jay-dub]

Yep, reasonable people tend to engage in this 'flaw' often. I'm sorry, but you were saying...?

Nice veiled insult. I've learned to expect it here. Starting to be rather entertaining. I've never been part of such a cannibalistic community so this is new.

So common sense, and common courtesies are off the table. That's probably helpful to know.

Misconstrue a point if you can't argue it directly, very good.

Exactly what we, who argue for vape everywhere are saying. To annoy people. Not! Instead, I believe vast majority are providing anecdotal evidence suggesting that currently vaping, openly, in public places is met with zero complaints from nearly all people in line of sight. Yet, what is potentially at stake, via the annoying factor, is establishment owner/manager, citing 'no vaping allowed' because you know, vapers are, or look like they are, smoking.

I agree that that's a tough hurdle to jump and will require a lot of patience on our part. I just don't see how we can tell private business owners what they can or can't allow on their property without turning vaping int a civil rights issue and vapers into a discriminated class.

As 'confrontational' is inaccurate spin, it is challenging to respond. It's one side of discussion, spinning rationale to fit their position. Akin to the other side asking, you think staying at home and vaping only in your closet is going to win favor?

My worry of people getting confrontational about vaping is inaccurate. As you can see in this community.

Would you acknowledge that there are people amongst us who wish to see vaping, anywhere, go down? And that these people are operating very boldly, with idea that people's emotions will side with them if misinformation is allowed to go unchecked.

Just, wow. Borderline paranoia. More cannibalism. I'm starting to think there was more sanity on XBL...

I think this discussion is always good among vapers as we do tend to operate in a community that gravitates toward self regulation. Yet, our opposition is, I think rather clearly, ANTZ. And as I noted in another thread (on same topic), there is plausibly ANTZ who are vapers. I have looked in the mirror at various times in my life and seen ANTZ looking back at me. Though as long as I've been vaping, my personal degree of ANTZ is between extremely low to non-existent.

Yeah...

Joe Public, who may be a non-vaper, is not our opposition regardless of fears, hang-ups and emotions Joe happens to possess. IMO, ANTZ of vaping is taking ANTZ of old to another level. Joe Public is more or less coming to vaping from position of ignorance, and at best, a live and let live general philosophy. ANTZ of vaping is coming from perspective that is founded on ANTZ of old, but engages in arrogance to win the day, because of many battles ANTZ won previously with smoking. I do believe that ANTZ of old, that is aware of vaping, desires to rid vaping from society. And that banning vaping in public is one, rather significant step, toward that goal.

The 'vape everywhere' crowd, of which I am one, is not espousing their position to be confrontational to Joe Public, but instead to draw a line that is actually reasonable, and is proportional to the end game of ANTZ. Compromising from vape everywhere stands, IMO, a far better chance of vaping legally anywhere (includes own property) if starting with the vape everywhere position. By acknowledging that certain places and situations are inherently not feasible for vaping is playing into hands of ANTZ. It conveys message that there is something inherently wrong with vaping, and even vapers know this. IMO, the vapers who do this, do so inadvertently, and don't think they are doing anything to support ANTZ, but instead are arguing for position of community respect, especially to Joe Public.

So, vape everywhere regardless of who we annoy and that'll win public support?

But here in this golden era of public vaping, it can accurately be reported that through the end of 2013, very very few relatives of Joe Public have taken issue with public vaping when they saw it. And those who have taken issue with it in public, have done so based entirely on misinformation and with their own political agenda fairly obvious. Example: it looks like smoking, and I don't want smoking in my store. And no, I won't have any discussion on this, because smoking is just wrong. Second hand smoking kills people you know!

I get it already. The false equation is BS. We should be able to vape in Church and while witnessing in court or what have you. Awesome. I'd be down with that but don't see it as a realistic outcome. People like to have demons to slay. Look at how quickly I got labeled ANTz. You really think facts and reason are drivers especially when it comes to group mentalities?

 

[wv2win]

.............. You all keep assuming that standing up and annoying people because they're ignorant is going to somehow champion your cause....................

There is almost always a "strawman" part of your posts which is one of the reasons why your posts get "dismissed" so quickly.

The majority of us have advocated vaping openly most places but respectfully and with common sense. You take our position and "twist" it into "standing up and annoying people". Trying to make a point by standing on top of the few "extremes" just lacks merit and serious thought.

 

[kristin]

Imagine this scene. Everyone in line is vaping! Or, everyone at the ball park is vaping.

Imaginary scenarios that are highly unlikely to happen in the real world?

(Only 20% of the population smokes. So even if they all switch to vaping, it would be nearly impossible to find a scenario where anywhere near "everyone" is vaping in the same place - organized vape meets being the exception, of course.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That said, some of the "sub ohm" vapers do concern me. Some of them seem to have the sole goal of creating as much vapor as possible. Just one device can possibly fill a room with vapor and that would be pretty rude if you're trying to eat and this haze is forming in front of your eyes and it's not an appealing scent. Doing that at a vape meet or in a vape store is one thing, but if we are vaping in public, I think it's a reasonable expectation that we vape in such a manner so as not to infringe on other peoples' space. "Typical" vaping keeps visible vapor in your immediate space/area and that should be socially acceptable, IMO. PG is a known irritant (not harmful, but an irritant), as anyone who has been in a club filled with concert smoke and had their eyes start watering can attest to. When you start making people's eyes water and forcing them to smell your cigar-flavored vapor (or honey flavor - which even smells gross to me in vapor form), that is firmly in "rude" territory.

The whole benefit and point of vaping indoors vs. smoking is that it DOESN'T smell or physically irritate bystanders. If you take that benefit away, it's no less annoying to the non-vaping public and they will support bans. But if you're sitting in your booth and your nearly odorless vapor is hanging only around you, most people wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[Uncle Willie]

Nice veiled insult. I've learned to expect it here. Starting to be rather entertaining. I've never been part of such a cannibalistic community so this is new.

As a guy that dates back to UseNet / BBS, I can safely assure you that ECF is not an exclusive member of the community you describe ..

 

[kristin]

I honestly don't get the feeling from Jay-dub that he is against public vaping. It seems to me he's more against public vaping in a manner that could cause the general public to turn against us. Most of us here seem to agree that there are polite ways to vape in public and conversely, there are ways that are creating an annoyance or public nuisance. It's just that we don't all agree what is rude and what isn't.