Call to BOYCOTT - HASTINGS bans e-cig use in stores nationwide

[kristin]

Firstly it has been mentioned we should never refer to our e-cigs as e-cigs, but rather "PV's" or I like to just call it a "vaporizor" or better yet an "inhaler".

So, next time someone asks me what I'm using, I'm going to say it's a vaporizor. If they ask if it's a e-cig, I'll say no, there is no nicotine in this product, only flavor. Here is the cavet to the new laws they are proposing...
"n. Smoke means the gases, particles, or vapors released into the air as a result of combustion, electrical ignition or vaporization and the apparent purpose of such release is for human inhalation of the byproducts. Smoke, for purposes of this definition, does not include combustion of material that contains no tobacco or nicotine where the purpose of inhalation is solely for smell, such as smoke from incense. The term Smoke includes, but is not limited to, tobacco smoke, electronic cigarette vapors, and ......... smoke.
o. Smoking means the carrying of a lighted pipe, lighted cigar, an operating electronic cigarette or a lighted cigarette of any kind, or the lighting of a pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind, including, but not limited to, tobacco, or any other weed or plant.
p. Tobacco Product means any manufactured substance made from the tobacco plant, including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff, chewing tobacco and smokeless tobacco, or products prepared from tobacco and designed for smoking or ingestion."
http://www.comptoncity.org/agenda/2011/10_2011/112510/18450710202011065821528.pdf

new legislation is grouping vapor with smoke, but not other types of smoke like from inscense. Basicly if the smoke or vapor is NOT used to deliver nicotine it's okay. So what if my liquid is 0% nicotine and I'm only vaping for flavor? That is my new defense against the ignorant masses, especially the "enforcers"

I'm not an attorney, but after dealing with a few of these I don't think this law provides the loophole that you think. It basically says that it must not be for the purpose of inhalation and must not contain nicotine. Should people with nicotine e-cigs, who do inhale the vapor, just lie if "caught?" That seems to me a scary thing to tell people to do & could lead to confiscation of devices. It's also ridiculous considering they shouldn't be banned in the first place because they have not been shown to, nor give any reason to believe that they cause harm to bystanders. Instead of skirting the law, vapers need to fight it.

I know you have all the best intentions and this discusion about what to call them has been ongoing for years on ECF, but so far as calling them "PVs" or "vaporizers" (which is also the name in some states for the device used for medicinal pot, so that could cause a worse association for some people) you can call them anything you want, however, the media has unfortunately latched on to "e-cigarette" (an unfortunate marketing scheme that worked - how many smokers would have tried "vaporizers") and the scientific community insists on ENDS (Electronic Nicotine Delivery System). I'm afraid the horse is out of the barn on that one. Trying to get the entire population to call them something else at this point will be nearly impossible. Besides, what they are called has no bearing on the irrationality of the proposed laws. Would they ban e-cigarettes if they were just gag gifts - with no vapor or nicotine - just because of the name? (Notice that what they are called is not addressed in the proposed ordinance at all - just what they do.) Drug addicts could start calling a crack pipe a "chemical delivery device" or something like that, but it still wouldn't make it OK with the public or health groups.

I understand people believe that it's the name that is causing a lot of the backlash and it does cause some misconceptions and knee-jerk assumptions with the public, but it's how they are used and what is in them that is causing us the real problems. So long as these devices cut into the profits of Big Pharma, create vapor, can deliver addictive nicotine and promote harm reduction rather than abstinence, you could call them "googly mooglies" and they will still try to ban them. We need to change public perception of what an e-cigarette is and educate them about their safety and efficacy. What we call them is irrelevant.

 

[Tanis143]

Here is my take on this: You are in THEIR establishment. Whatever the local laws say does not mean that they can NOT ban the use in their establishment. For instance: Alcohol is no longer prohibited by the US, however many counties have banned the sale/use of alcohol. For instance, Lynchburg, where Jack Daniels is made, is a dry county where the use/sale of alcohol is not permitted. Its also not permitted in many parts of Alaska. This goes along with restaurants, bars, cafe's, etc. Regardless what the local law permits, if they ask you not to use your pv, you must comply. You can politely explain to them what it is, and if they still ask you not to use it, DONT! My local bowling alley banned them because people saw their use and mistook them for cigarettes and lit up themselves. Right now its too easy to confuse them for analogs and smokers will think its ok to lite up their own smokes.

I agree that education is the best path, but at this time arguing or calling for boycotts is not the correct answer.

 

[oldpaintdoc]

Just my thoughts here.

We do not have a right to vape any where we want!
If a business owner does not want you to vape in his/her place of business it is their right.
If they do not like you they have the right to refuse you of their business.
If I do not want you to vape in my house/car it is my right.

Again just my thoughts.

Let the bashing begin. I can take it.

 

[ruet]

Here is my take on this: You are in THEIR establishment. Whatever the local laws say does not mean that they can NOT ban the use in their establishment. For instance: Alcohol is no longer prohibited by the US, however many counties have banned the sale/use of alcohol. For instance, Lynchburg, where Jack Daniels is made, is a dry county where the use/sale of alcohol is not permitted. Its also not permitted in many parts of Alaska. This goes along with restaurants, bars, cafe's, etc. Regardless what the local law permits, if they ask you not to use your pv, you must comply. You can politely explain to them what it is, and if they still ask you not to use it, DONT! My local bowling alley banned them because people saw their use and mistook them for cigarettes and lit up themselves. Right now its too easy to confuse them for analogs and smokers will think its ok to lite up their own smokes.

I agree that education is the best path, but at this time arguing or calling for boycotts is not the correct answer.

And if said establishment decides to ban patrons with died hair? I love when sheep berate others into herding along with them. Your money is one of the only measures of power you have in this country. Use it and stop trying to convince others not to.

 

[Vocalek]

Just my thoughts here.

We do not have a right to vape any where we want!
If a business owner does not want you to vape in his/her place of business it is their right.
If they do not like you they have the right to refuse you of their business.
If I do not want you to vape in my house/car it is my right.

Again just my thoughts.

Let the bashing begin. I can take it.

The reverse is true as well. If a business establishment wants to prohibit something that I want to do, I am free to take my business elsewhere. For example, I usually don't ride the subway because I like to sip coffee or a soda during my ride and that's prohibited. So most times, I drive my own car.

There's a report that Mariott charged a woman a $250 cleaning fee for using an e-cigarette in her room. That's good enough reason to make me avoid staying at a Mariott!

 

[oldpaintdoc]

The reverse is true as well. If a business establishment wants to prohibit something that I want to do, I am free to take my business elsewhere. For example, I usually don't ride the subway because I like to sip coffee or a soda during my ride and that's prohibited. So most times, I drive my own car.

There's a report that Mariott charged a woman a $250 cleaning fee for using an e-cigarette in her room. That's good enough reason to make me avoid staying at a Mariott!

I agree 100%.
That is the only right we have is to not spend our money with these business'.
I was just pointing out we do not have a right to vape everywhere.

 

[ruet]

I agree 100%.
That is the only right we have is to not spend our money with these business'.
I was just pointing out we do not have a right to vape everywhere.

I have to disagree with you here. If demonstrable damage cannot be shown to person or property; vaping should be allowed anywhere perfume or cologne is.

 

[oldpaintdoc]

I have to disagree with you here. If demonstrable damage cannot be shown to person or property; vaping should be allowed anywhere perfume or cologne is.

So if I had you over to my home and told you I did not allow vaping in my home you would still feel it is your "right " to vape here?
I understand what you are saying but, I just do not feel it is a right.
Again this is just my thoughts.

 

[ruet]

So if I had you over to my home and told you I did not allow vaping in my home you would still feel it is your "right " to vape here?
I understand what you are saying but, I just do not feel it is a right.
Again this is just my thoughts.

Apples and oranges. My house isn't open to the general public and not a place of business.

 

[(So) Jersey Girl]

The reverse is true as well. If a business establishment wants to prohibit something that I want to do, I am free to take my business elsewhere. For example, I usually don't ride the subway because I like to sip coffee or a soda during my ride and that's prohibited. So most times, I drive my own car.

There's a report that Mariott charged a woman a $250 cleaning fee for using an e-cigarette in her room. That's good enough reason to make me avoid staying at a Mariott!

How in the heck could the Marriott even know someone used an e-cigarette in the room? And what did they have to clean? Sheesh, anything to make a buck!

 

[kristin]

The reverse is true as well. If a business establishment wants to prohibit something that I want to do, I am free to take my business elsewhere. !

And the reverse SHOULD be true in another way, as well. If an establishment WANTS to allow a legal activity in their establishment, they should be allowed to do so. Unfortunately, uneducated and zealot folks want to ban these activities in privately-owned establishments - based on no scientific evidence of harm. Several municipalities have included e-cigarettes in smoking bans. This is largely because of false information being put out by the ANTZ without people ever actually being exposed to an e-cigarette in use. I have yet to have a non-smoker object to my e-cigarette being used in their vicinity once they know they cannot smell anything and it doesn't bother them. But if we do not at least ATTEMPT to expose people to e-cigarettes in use, then most people will continue to try to ban their use in public places. So, if we want to get the public on our side, we need to at least TRY to get establishments to allow it, so more people experience it and see it isn't a nuisance.

I don't think anyone here has suggested that people should vape wherever they want even if they've been asked not to by management. I'm not sure why that is even being brought up here. That is completely different from choosing to patronize another establishment that DOES allow it. Before the statewide smoking ban in our state, there was a bar & grill in my neighborhood that was 100% non-smoking. Back when we still smoked, we chose NOT to go there - because we wanted to go someplace we would be free to smoke. How is choosing a vaping-friendly establishment over one that prohibits vaping any different? Maybe then the ones that prohibit it will finally "get it" that vaping is NOT smoking.

 

[Uncle Willie]

I am all for PV use anywhere and everywhere .. and, I am all for educating the public ..

However, the industry as a whole has done little to nothing to accomplish any form of public education .. those of you may debate that point ad nauseum, however, it's true ..

Like I have said, many, many times .. if you blow smoke, or what looks like smoke, prepare to get hassled .. and if you want to spend 15 minutes explaining and educating those that may confront you, excellent ..

What people see is based on perception .. if they perceive you are "smolking" ...

Just how long will it take to counter act years and years of anti-cig activism .. ?? It's not going to happen in our lifetimes unless a consorted National effort takes place to distance the PV from the analog .. as well as standards within the business community that sells the goods ... it's a simple equation ..

 

[Uncle Willie]

And on the "don't patronize those that won't let me vape in their place of business .." hogwash .. it's the other non-user patrons that are the issue here .. most any small business / bar / etc wants your money and could care less if you are using a PV .. it's the OTHER non-user folks that become the pain in the .... to the owner / manager when they see someone blowing what for all intents and purposes looks like smoke ..

I'm constantly amazed that so few seem to take this into consideration when spreading the "Gospel of PV Use In Public" ...

 

[Mattdogg]

How in the heck could the Marriott even know someone used an e-cigarette in the room? And what did they have to clean? Sheesh, anything to make a buck!

Um, yeah, just bumping this, good question. How in the world did they find out....?

 

[ruet]

And on the "don't patronize those that won't let me vape in their place of business .." hogwash .. it's the other non-user patrons that are the issue here .. most any small business / bar / etc wants your money and could care less if you are using a PV .. it's the OTHER non-user folks that become the pain in the .... to the owner / manager when they see someone blowing what for all intents and purposes looks like smoke ..

I'm constantly amazed that so few seem to take this into consideration when spreading the "Gospel of PV Use In Public" ...

It's not hogwash to expect the owner/manager to effectively manage his/her place of business and inform the complainant that vaping is not smoking. Until they do, they don't get my business. Explaining this from a position of power is more effective educationally than simply affirming an inaccurate prejudice. Solidifying bad policy will get vaping banned in more places than not.

 

[kristin]

And on the "don't patronize those that won't let me vape in their place of business .." hogwash .. it's the other non-user patrons that are the issue here .. most any small business / bar / etc wants your money and could care less if you are using a PV .. it's the OTHER non-user folks that become the pain in the .... to the owner / manager when they see someone blowing what for all intents and purposes looks like smoke ..

I'm constantly amazed that so few seem to take this into consideration when spreading the "Gospel of PV Use In Public" ...

And I'm amazed that so few seem to take into consideration that most bars were the last outpost for smokers, which made smokers the majority there and non-smokers have not spilled in to fill the void of smokers staying at home. They demanded smoke-free (and now vapor-free) bars and they got them - so where are they? Unlike the regulars (usually smokers) they still only go out to that bar a couple of times a month. Many times everyone in the bar (including the workers) is a smoker who cannot smoke even though there is nary a non-smoker to be found. I drive past small, corner bars these days and see 8 smokers out on the sidewalk and 2 non-smokers (if anyone) sitting inside - and you would have the vapers be standing outside with them - all to basically avoid a fuss from the 2 inside. What sense does that make?

Education that IT'S NOT SMOKING is the key. The industry may not be picking up that charge, but CASAA and the ECCA certainly are. And they need people in their communities to help with that education. If vapers just sit quietly and accept all of the bans without even attempting to make a point, then all is lost. Next thing you know, you won't even be able to use one in your own condo. (Just as with smoking, it starts with government buildings and institutions, moves to privately owned establishments and then on to your car and home. Are we just going to sit by and watch that happen to vaping??)

 

[kristin]

Um, yeah, just bumping this, good question. How in the world did they find out....?

According to a follow-up story, the vaper believes the hotel cleaning staff saw her e-cigarette sitting on the bed and reported that she was "smoking." They also claimed that they smelled cigarette smoke in the hallway outside of the vaper's room - which we all know is not possible with an e-cigarette, so it couldn't have been from her room.

 

[Uncle Willie]

It's not hogwash to expect the owner/manager to effectively manage his/her place of business and inform the complainant that vaping is not smoking. Until they do, they don't get my business. Explaining this from a position of power is more effective educationally than simply affirming an inaccurate prejudice. Solidifying bad policy will get vaping banned in more places than not.

So, the boss should spend their day educating non-PV users .. essentially offering on the spot seminars whenever necessary .. ?? Or perhaps they should hire a full time PV educator .. ?? I've owned and run small businesses .. you need to enter the real World ..

 

[Uncle Willie]

And I'm amazed that so few seem to take into consideration that most bars were the last outpost for smokers, which made smokers the majority there and non-smokers have not spilled in to fill the void of smokers staying at home. They demanded smoke-free (and now vapor-free) bars and they got them - so where are they? Unlike the regulars (usually smokers) they still only go out to that bar a couple of times a month. Many times everyone in the bar (including the workers) is a smoker who cannot smoke even though there is nary a non-smoker to be found. I drive past small, corner bars these days and see 8 smokers out on the sidewalk and 2 non-smokers (if anyone) sitting inside - and you would have the vapers be standing outside with them - all to basically avoid a fuss from the 2 inside. What sense does that make?

Education that IT'S NOT SMOKING is the key. The industry may not be picking up that charge, but CASAA and the ECCA certainly are. And they need people in their communities to help with that education. If vapers just sit quietly and accept all of the bans without even attempting to make a point, then all is lost. Next thing you know, you won't even be able to use one in your own condo. (Just as with smoking, it starts with government buildings and institutions, moves to privately owned establishments and then on to your car and home. Are we just going to sit by and watch that happen to vaping??)

Trust me, I'm on your side .. and don't assume I'm not by stating " and you would have the vapers be standing outside with them - all to basically avoid a fuss from the 2 inside" ..

Consider this .. an ordinance is an ordinance .. or a statewide ban, whatever .. so, the non-user thinks they are not getting satisfaction with the small business proprieter .. thus, they file a formal complaint with the State or City .. now, the proprieter has to contend with that .. so, they still lose .. that example comes from real life from a "corner bar" that I am a partner in ..

As I've said it seems like a million times on the forum, the INDUSTRY needs to work on these issues instead of the vendors and manufacturerers sitting on their duff collecting as much money as they can while the INDUSTRY is in a growth phase and caring one whit about the issues that face us (yes us) on the street ..

 

[rothenbj]

According to a follow-up story, the vaper believes the hotel cleaning staff saw her e-cigarette sitting on the bed and reported that she was "smoking." They also claimed that they smelled cigarette smoke in the hallway outside of the vaper's room - which we all know is not possible with an e-cigarette, so it couldn't have been from her room.

I liked your comment, but I also could see this particular incident as a potential "dual user" where he/she did use an E cig and also had a few cigarettes. Within the last decade or so, i was in such a position where I ended up in a non-smoking situation. Oh my, we're talking over 9 years since that's how long I've been retired.

Anyway, I was on a business trip and on an overnight in a motel waiting for my flight out. They gave me a non-smoking room and told me they had nothing else. I smoked in the room, but was able to smoke out the window. No issue, AT THAT TIME.

The other instance was a two week rental at the shore that I was not informed in the search or the lease. It wasn't until I took occupancy that the non-smoking status was divulged on a rules paper on the kitchen table. did my best to smoke on the porch, but we still smoked, at times, in the rental. Never turned out to be an issue, but I was prepared to go to battle.

Today, I'm sure I would have had a battle on hand.

We live in a very ugly time for smokers and I'd be d....d if I would accept any claim that I did anything wrong by vaping in either situation and would spent money to gigth them. Plus, I'd like to see the reaction to the tissue test in a court of law.