Dems propose ban on ecigs????

[rothenbj]

"To be perfectly honest there are some bans that I support.

1) Banning ecigs to minors. This imo is a no-brainer. It wont stop them, but anything to make it harder gets my approval. I started smoking cigarettes as an idiot thirteen year-old in Chile, where nobody even thought twice about selling me cigarettes or even cartons.

2) Banning ecig use in places marked as no smoking areas. This one I am on the fence with. If it is the only way that law makers can get their heads out of their rears for long enough to give venue owners a way to ban ecigs from their venue, fine. Is it perfect? No."

I totally support banning the sale of e cigs to minors, something the ?non-profit?"health" associations have fought against, go figure. However, I temper this with not making it illegal for minors to use e cigs. There are too many youth smoking that could get off cigarettes by vaping which would make it easier to keep them away from further cigarette use. Let's face it, the longer you smoke, the harder it becomes to quit. The decision to vape should be one made within the family, no by government intervention.

As to point two, this shouldn't be a government decision, unless there by some miracle it is determined that there is some health risk to non-vapers. The case of second hand smoke was very weak in the first place that the claim of second hand vapor health issues is almost absurd. Smoking or vaping should never been government controlled other than in government buildings. The only regulation required was that businesses that allowed either should have been required to place signs at their doors to allow the public to decide whether they wished to enter. JMHO

 

[DC2]

I am still trying to totally understand the vaping bans.

The vaping ban phenomenon was started by the ANTZ many years ago.

This is where the ANTZ came from...
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

Some of them do it for money, and some of them do it because they hate the tobacco industry with a true and real passion.
They have infiltrated all of the anti-smoking and "non-profit" health organizations.

These hardcore ANTZ are paid very well, and are funded mainly from two sources...
--Big Pharma, who wants vaping to disappear
--Money from the Master Settlement Agreement against the tobacco companies

Regarding the Big Pharma involvement and funding of the ANTZ please see this piece as a start...
FORCES International - News Portal

Vaping threatens the ANTZ very existence, in almost every way.

For decades these hardcore ANTZ have brainwashed the public into going along with, and even participating in the demonization of smokers.
This brainwashing has helped turn many otherwise normal, everyday people into mini-ANTZ capable of reciting the gospel of demonization.


There can be some argument as to whether or not inconsiderate vapers are starting to be the cause of some lower-level bans.
It is likely that such inconsiderate vapers may at least contribute to the rise and or passing of such lower-level bans.

But the large vaping ban efforts at the city, county, and state levels are initiated by the hardcore ANTZ.

 

[wv2win]

To be perfectly honest there are some bans that I support.

1) Banning ecigs to minors. This imo is a no-brainer. It wont stop them, but anything to make it harder gets my approval. I started smoking cigarettes as an idiot thirteen year-old in Chile, where nobody even thought twice about selling me cigarettes or even cartons.

2) Banning ecig use in places marked as no smoking areas. This one I am on the fence with. If it is the only way that law makers can get their heads out of their rears for long enough to give venue owners a way to ban ecigs from their venue, fine. Is it perfect? No.....................

I would fully support the ban of ecigs in areas such as government buildings. And would fully support legislation forcing public venue owners to advertise the fact that vaping is allowed, with the assumption that if not advertised, it is prohibited.

First, read the Drexel University report, since you are unaware of what it says about whether there is any harm from second hand vapor.

Second, when you start to ban BY LAW (not private owner prerogative) activities that are not harmful to others, the door for much more restrictive and ever growing bans begins to explode. If you are going to ban an activity in a government building, then there is NO reason not to also ban it on all other government property including parks, beaches, mountain trials, parking lots, college campuses, government funded housing, etc. You are very naive and/or uninformed if you think that hasn't already happened and will not happen with vaping.

 

[Racehorse]

Actually I dont get my news from any of the highly biased major media outlets.

You are correct.......no intelligent person gets their opinions from the talking heads of network television.

To be obeyed, one must be believed.
-russian brainwashing scientist

Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.
-Eric Hoffer

But Nataani, it seems many people DO let others think for them.

I used to carry a notebook, copy down every catch phrase Rush Limbaugh used in his radio show. Then, in the next 24 hours, I would mark next to each catch phrase how many times I heard it repeated over the next 48 hours by people I ran into.

It was ....... astonishing.

I don't have the solution to this, I just know it happens. On all sides of the political spectrum. Which is why I am undeclared on my voter's registration. I'm not joining any of the political cults.

 

[Racehorse]

I vote neither R, D or I. I vote the Constitution. Meaning I vote for the politician that stands to support and defend the Constitution.

If you believe vaping is protected by a specific Constitutional *right*, then you should call the ACLU. They love this kind of thing.

Or, the American Center for Law and Justice, or the {libertarian} The Institute for Justice.

There is also the Individual Rights Foundation, "As a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of First Amendment rights and other rights guaranteed in the Constitution the IRF undertakes _pro bono_ representation of those whose liberties have been infringed."
1-800-752-6562

The ACLU is the most powerful, and actually has quite a lot of conservatives on staff, they defend The Bill of Rights. Which is a conservative thing to do. (It's just that some on the right don't agree with everything they defend and brand the ACLU as left-leaning).

Is is interesting to look thru their roster, what rights under the Bill of Rights they have defended. Right now they seem to be the lone voice against gov't. surveillance .... I sure wish more conservatives would get behind this important issue, our right to privacy under the Bill of Rights....but it seems the 4th Amendment has been ignored somewhat compared to the 2nd Amendment. .

Anwyay, good luck. Report how you make out.

 

[sdennislee]

If you believe vaping is protected by a specific Constitutional *right*, then you should call the ACLU. They love this kind of thing.

Or, the American Center for Law and Justice, or the {libertarian} The Institute for Justice.

There is also the Individual Rights Foundation, "As a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of First Amendment rights and other rights guaranteed in the Constitution the IRF undertakes _pro bono_ representation of those whose liberties have been infringed."
1-800-752-6562

The ACLU is the most powerful, and actually has quite a lot of conservatives on staff, they defend The Bill of Rights. Which is a conservative thing to do. (It's just that some on the right don't agree with everything they defend and brand the ACLU as left-leaning).

Is is interesting to look thru their roster, what rights under the Bill of Rights they have defended. Right now they seem to be the lone voice against gov't. surveillance .... I sure wish more conservatives would get behind this important issue, our right to privacy under the Bill of Rights....but it seems the 4th Amendment has been ignored somewhat compared to the 2nd Amendment. .

Anwyay, good luck. Report how you make out.

I do get that vaping is not one of our enumerated rights. My whole point was the more government intrusion we allow the more we can expect and that we should fight all government intrusion.

Wish I had captured your 4th amendment reference, very current.

 

[MacTechVpr]

..The fact of the matter is that by vaping around others, where they have no say in the matter, you are imposing your habit on them, without their say so...

Nonsense. Not any more than my failure to wear underarm deodorant in your presence. It happens to be established custom in many parts of the world. But it would no more habituate anyone than having to suffer the indignity of drinking unsavory public water. Not saying you, but that's just too unpalatable for some people. There needs to be a law.

It's this type of non-sensical argument based on unfounded truisms that mainly drove me off forums. The assumption that it will never happen to me, affect me (if authority happens to act to protect me from something that offends me). And therefore others should see, as clearly as I do, that no harm should come to them if only they would accept this reasonable compromise of rights.

Unfortunately such reasoning skewers an essential human right. Our right to independent thought and action, of freedom of association (by arbitrary exclusion). It is the worst type of self-delusion, elitism. It affords a privilege to (A)uthority by our tolerant indifference to marginalize classes (others, not us) as it may select. And many of us choose to believe this is justified for the most frivolous of reasons.

All compromise of rights is a taking, a taking from one to give to another. A great sacrifice of one even with consideration and consent.

So please don't all come back with the public good slippery slope argument we already restrict this or that. It doesn't trump the individual. That's what our Constitution protects.

Show the harm done, conclusively. Then we'll talk.

Don't feel bad Nataani. I'm really not trying to single you out. Just pointing out the moral hazard of a common thought process we all suffer from. And I was no less susceptible. You see, I was a Democrat.

Good luck all with these insane arguments. Me I'll focus on getting as many to quit (and vape if they wish) for their self-interest as I can. There is safety in numbers.



“There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are ‘just’ because the law makes them so.” —Frederic Bastiat

 

[Nataani]

First, read the Drexel University report, since you are unaware of what it says about whether there is any harm from second hand vapor.

Second, when you start to ban BY LAW (not private owner prerogative) activities that are not harmful to others, the door for much more restrictive and ever growing bans begins to explode. If you are going to ban an activity in a government building, then there is NO reason not to also ban it on all other government property including parks, beaches, mountain trials, parking lots, college campuses, government funded housing, etc. You are very naive and/or uninformed if you think that hasn't already happened and will not happen with vaping.

I have read the Drexel university report, as well as the Oxford journals report. While second hand vapor does not expose people to combustible toxicants, it does expose them to nicotine.

You are essentially advocating that I should be able to sit in say the waiting line for the DMV with my 0.15 ohm dripper and fog the place up. If I happened to be vaping on 18 mg (which would give me one hell of a buzz) that is going to be far more than enough to affect people around me. But hey, its my right, so who cares about those pesky people who don't want to breathe in my vapor right?

If people vaped in public in a tolerant manner, stealth vaping, with decent resistance coils and mostly just keeping it all to themselves, there really wouldn't be a problem. The fact of the matter is that I have seen more times than I care to count, people essentially cloud chasing in very public areas. The people doing it are usually young and full of the "its my right!" argument.

I am an avid vaper, I was an avid smoker, I support my right to vape, I also support the right of non vapers or smokers to not have to breathe in my habit. That should be their right.

Regarding the slippery slope argument that you have pointed out. There is actually a huge reason why one makes sense and the other doesn't. A government building is, by definition, enclosed, thus trapping vapor in an area where others will be exposed to it. Parks, beaches, etc, are not enclosed, the vapor can easily dissipate.

I am far from naive sir, I have done my reading, I know the consequences. But, I tend to think about those around me more than I do myself. Selfishness is not one of my strong suits.

 

[Nataani]

Nonsense. Not any more than my failure to wear underarm deodorant in your presence. It happens to be established custom in many parts of the world. But it would no more habituate anyone than having to suffer the indignity of drinking unsavory public water. Not saying you, but that's just too unpalatable for some people. There needs to be a law.

It's this type of non-sensical argument based on unfounded truisms that mainly drove me off forums. The assumption that it will never happen to me, affect me (if authority happens to act to protect me from something that offends me). And therefore others should see, as clearly as I do, that no harm should come to them if only they would accept this reasonable compromise of rights.

Correct. I do believe that for the good of those around us, some should have to compromise our perceived rights. Those rights that we should have to compromise are those that harm others without their consent. There are also places in this world that the public humiliation and stoning of women is not only accepted but encouraged, I wonder why we don't do that here? I mean, its a right in some places of the world isn't it?. While someones uncleanliness sure does offend me, it doesn't harm me, there in lies the difference.

Unfortunately such reasoning skewers an essential human right. Our right to independent thought and action, of freedom of association (by arbitrary exclusion). It is the worst type of self-delusion, elitism. It affords a privilege to (A)uthority by our tolerant indifference to marginalize classes (others, not us) as it may select. And many of us choose to believe this is justified for the most frivolous of reasons.

All compromise of rights is a taking, a taking from one to give to another. A great sacrifice of one even with consideration and consent.

So please don't all come back with the public good slippery slope argument we already restrict this or that. It doesn't trump the individual. That's what our Constitution protects.

In a perfect world I would agree with you. If everybody was tolerant of others, actually cared about others beyond their own selfish desires, this kind of legislation would not be needed. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people aren't. Too many for my taste. Too many tout their rights as an excuse to do whatever they selfishly please, wherever they want, with no consideration for others.

Show the harm done, conclusively. Then we'll talk.

Nicotine sensitivity is a real thing. My sister in law is one who suffers a rather severe form of it. It just so happens that when I have vaped around her in the past, which I did with her consent, she suffered severe dizziness, and a rather bad headache to follow.

So, I speak from experience. I have done harm with my vaping.

 

[JoanJ]

The vaping ban phenomenon was started by the ANTZ many years ago.

So again it is the follow the money thing. But also almost cultish.

 

[Frenchfry1942]

I vote for less government. Less meddling in my life. I am responsible.

 

[DC2]

Nicotine sensitivity is a real thing. My sister in law is one who suffers a rather severe form of it. It just so happens that when I have vaped around her in the past, which I did with her consent, she suffered severe dizziness, and a rather bad headache to follow.

So, I speak from experience. I have done harm with my vaping.

So she is unable to eat tomatoes, cauliflower and eggplant?

 

[Frenchfry1942]

I emailed each of my politicians.

 

[Coelli]

So she is unable to eat tomatoes, cauliflower and eggplant?

Don't forget potatoes.

 

[Nataani]

So she is unable to eat tomatoes, cauliflower and eggplant?

She is fine with tomatoes, as long as its not in a very large quantity, same goes for potatoes, and peppers. I don't know about cauliflower as I hate the stuff. She usually just avoids the foods. As far as I know she has only had weak reactions to these foods when consumed in quantity.

She has however had strong reactions to eggplant and earl gray tea.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

To be perfectly honest there are some bans that I support.
<minor ban stuff snipped for brevity on the grounds that 99.99% of vapers agree>
2) Banning ecig use in places marked as no smoking areas. This one I am on the fence with. If it is the only way that law makers can get their heads out of their rears for long enough to give venue owners a way to ban ecigs from their venue, fine. Is it perfect? No.

I suspect I have caused some controversy because I also agree that indoor vaping in public places (with the exception of designated areas) is not a good idea, and that I support such legislation. It's a cloud, it may contain nicotine, and I don't believe I should have the right to breathe it on someone in a non-designated indoor area of a public place, no matter what the property owner may think.

The real problem IMO is that the restrictions on tobacco smoking are multiplying into a vast sea of regulations - banning interstate sales; confiscatory taxation; effectively-prohibitive regulations on the avaibility of B&M outlets, etc. Oh yes, and did I mention the right of landlords not to rent to smokers, the refusal of employers not to hire them, and higher health insurance rates. We will later see bans on vaping in private vehicles (if on public streets), within privately-owned apartments and private offices (even if all occupants consent and they are not open to the public or clients, etc.), etc.

All on the grounds of either (a) protecting minors and/or (b) reducing the number of tobacco smokers; and/or just (c) demonizing smokers because 'we' (= society-at-large) find their behavior abhorrent, their moral values deficient, and ... well, we just frankly hate their guts.

Combine these attitudes, regulations and practices with statutes and ordinances that treat vaping as smoking ... and the result is that vapers are now being flushed down the toilet with smokers.

This is the core of the problem, as I see it. And I don't think vapers can win by insisting that vaping is or should be regarded/defined as (effectively) indistinguishable from breathing for all purposes. We have to have a third status, otherwise we'll end up being treated just like smokers for all purposes.

The "third status" idea is gaining a little bit of traction in some places. For ex., Mt. Prospect IL recently did so in a city ordinance. Utah vapers are working with Davis Co UT to do the same. I've heard that Heathrow airport in London has a vaping lounge (tobacco smoking isn't allowed in the airport). There are also pending bills in WI and AL which would exempt vaping from the statewide Clean Air Acts.

Many vapers regard my position as a kind of "sell out" ... in other words they see any effort to give any ground as a total surrender. I see it as a strategic retreat, in part justified by the reasonableness of the underlying policy (i.e. no one should "have" to breathe my vapor in an indoor space), but equally sensible on practical grounds (i.e. we can't possibly expect people to view vaping as no different from breathing - regardless of what the studies may say).

That doesn't mean that I'm going to stand up and cheer when the City of Chicago tells me that I have to be twenty-five feet away from a doorway to vape, or the City Of New York (and now Adams MA, see the news forum) tells me that I can't vape in a public park. (Ditto numerous "smoke free" campuses - both of the educational and private industry variety.) Or a landlord tells me that I can't vape inside a rented apartment, because the children next door may suffer (etc. etc.).

 

[8dragon9]

Just throwing a quick two cents in, harmful or harmless. Regardless of the evidence in either direction the public bans and vaping bans in certain stores I totally agree with. When I was a smoker, I wouldnt want or even think of lighting up in the middle.of walmart. I can wait untill I step outside, why cant this apply to vapeing, I dont see why its a right or why I have to be able to vape 24/7 wherever I happen to be, hell as a vaper it irritates or annoys me when a fellow vaper is blowing something I dont enjoy in my face. It does boil down to simple courtesy

sent from the s4 of DOOOM

 

[MacTechVpr]

Correct. I do believe that for the good of those around us, some should have to compromise our perceived rights. Those rights that we should have to compromise are those that harm others without their consent. There are also places in this world that the public humiliation and stoning of women is not only accepted but encouraged, I wonder why we don't do that here? I mean, its a right in some places of the world isn't it?. While someones uncleanliness sure does offend me, it doesn't harm me, there in lies the difference.



In a perfect world I would agree with you. If everybody was tolerant of others, actually cared about others beyond their own selfish desires, this kind of legislation would not be needed. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people aren't. Too many for my taste. Too many tout their rights as an excuse to do whatever they selfishly please, wherever they want, with no consideration for others.



Nicotine sensitivity is a real thing. My sister in law is one who suffers a rather severe form of it. It just so happens that when I have vaped around her in the past, which I did with her consent, she suffered severe dizziness, and a rather bad headache to follow.

So, I speak from experience. I have done harm with my vaping.

You are entitled to your opinion and your perceptions.

I believe it's better to train than to constrain. It just works better. And it makes you feel better.

I think others should follow that example. Talk is cheap.

But that's just my opinion.

I can see a heck of a lot of people gonna have to start vapin'.

Good luck.




"To do good is noble; to teach others to do good is nobler, and no trouble." — Mark Twain

 

[Frenchfry1942]

I guess that I really get angry about is how vapers are being perceived publically by all these anti-vaping actions. I just don't think that it should be something that vapers should be ashamed of.

 

[BackDoc]

Nonsense. Not any more than my failure to wear underarm deodorant in your presence. It happens to be established custom in many parts of the world. But it would no more habituate anyone than having to suffer the indignity of drinking unsavory public water. Not saying you, but that's just too unpalatable for some people. There needs to be a law.

It's this type of non-sensical argument based on unfounded truisms that mainly drove me off forums. The assumption that it will never happen to me, affect me (if authority happens to act to protect me from something that offends me). And therefore others should see, as clearly as I do, that no harm should come to them if only they would accept this reasonable compromise of rights.

Unfortunately such reasoning skewers an essential human right. Our right to independent thought and action, of freedom of association (by arbitrary exclusion). It is the worst type of self-delusion, elitism. It affords a privilege to (A)uthority by our tolerant indifference to marginalize classes (others, not us) as it may select. And many of us choose to believe this is justified for the most frivolous of reasons.

All compromise of rights is a taking, a taking from one to give to another. A great sacrifice of one even with consideration and consent.

So please don't all come back with the public good slippery slope argument we already restrict this or that. It doesn't trump the individual. That's what our Constitution protects.

Show the harm done, conclusively. Then we'll talk.

Don't feel bad Nataani. I'm really not trying to single you out. Just pointing out the moral hazard of a common thought process we all suffer from. And I was no less susceptible. You see, I was a Democrat.

Good luck all with these insane arguments. Me I'll focus on getting as many to quit (and vape if they wish) for their self-interest as I can. There is safety in numbers.



“There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are ‘just’ because the law makes them so.” —Frederic Bastiat

MacTech,you are on the money..glad to see Logic and common sense , thanks