Does anyone reading this (anyone at all) think that non-smokers were responsible for smoking bans in public? I mean, at one point, you could do it everywhere (including hospitals) and then a couple decades later, nowhere (including 3 blocks within a hospital). If non-smokers had any pull on that front, it would've changed way before the 1980's. Way way before.
In my understanding, it is solely to mostly ex-smokers that lead us down that path. Having guilt/shame with own usage, decided to project that out and make sure no one else was comfortable doing what they once did, but now don't and have guilty complex.
Our current opposition isn't ex-vapers (at least I don't think so), but they are not the non-vapers we are running into while vaping in public. I am another vaper who vapes in many places (including hospitals) and have heard zero complaints from non-vapers. But am aware that usage bans are popping up. You go to legislation forum, or witness a hearing on usage ban, and you will find zero non-vapers raising an issue on this front. None. It is opposition (ANTZ) that seeks these bans. And they are clearly taking pages from the anti-smoking playbook, to attempt to have usage bans have any muster.
Yet, here on these type of threads, we see that the complainers are, at least some of the time, fellow vapers. Methinks, that doesn't bode well going forward, as some fellow vapers will one day become ex-vapers, and suddenly whistle a different tune about the (not so) wonderful world of vaping. Becoming poster children for our opposition, exploited as in step with 'common sense' from the ANTZ perspective.
I'm sure some reading this have run into non-vapers in the wild who had hissy fit over public vaping. But please realize that is a very small minority. Just like the disrespectful vaper who is intentionally blowing clouds in people's faces. Very very small fractions of overall population. Most people in public have a live and let live disposition. For every vaper that is theoretically giving all vapers a bad name, there are a hundred more re-establishing the good name that vaping does have.
I've seen no way in these type of threads to sway opinions in any visible way. One side says it is about self control, courtesy and vaping where smoking is permitted. The other side says it is about freedom, courtesy and vaping openly to educate by example. The self control side seems to suggest that courtesy is vacant on the other side, and IMO, shaming is very visible on that (self control) side. I loathe the idea of those people become ex-vapers and carrying over what appears like a very visible shaming aspect to the vaping public. But I accept the idea that they may not and may be another member of the majority who practice live and let live philosophy.
But I would be like to be abundantly clear that for our opposition, as was case with smoking, that this is not about common courtesy, nor about public health. Those points are as superficial as "for the children" claims. It is all about shaming and cutting down usage through fear and guilt. For ANTZ, there is no way to vape in public and it not be shameful.
Which is why the vape everywhere, with respect, position still is the most reasonable position I know of.
In my understanding, it is solely to mostly ex-smokers that lead us down that path. Having guilt/shame with own usage, decided to project that out and make sure no one else was comfortable doing what they once did, but now don't and have guilty complex.
Our current opposition isn't ex-vapers (at least I don't think so), but they are not the non-vapers we are running into while vaping in public. I am another vaper who vapes in many places (including hospitals) and have heard zero complaints from non-vapers. But am aware that usage bans are popping up. You go to legislation forum, or witness a hearing on usage ban, and you will find zero non-vapers raising an issue on this front. None. It is opposition (ANTZ) that seeks these bans. And they are clearly taking pages from the anti-smoking playbook, to attempt to have usage bans have any muster.
Yet, here on these type of threads, we see that the complainers are, at least some of the time, fellow vapers. Methinks, that doesn't bode well going forward, as some fellow vapers will one day become ex-vapers, and suddenly whistle a different tune about the (not so) wonderful world of vaping. Becoming poster children for our opposition, exploited as in step with 'common sense' from the ANTZ perspective.
I'm sure some reading this have run into non-vapers in the wild who had hissy fit over public vaping. But please realize that is a very small minority. Just like the disrespectful vaper who is intentionally blowing clouds in people's faces. Very very small fractions of overall population. Most people in public have a live and let live disposition. For every vaper that is theoretically giving all vapers a bad name, there are a hundred more re-establishing the good name that vaping does have.
I've seen no way in these type of threads to sway opinions in any visible way. One side says it is about self control, courtesy and vaping where smoking is permitted. The other side says it is about freedom, courtesy and vaping openly to educate by example. The self control side seems to suggest that courtesy is vacant on the other side, and IMO, shaming is very visible on that (self control) side. I loathe the idea of those people become ex-vapers and carrying over what appears like a very visible shaming aspect to the vaping public. But I accept the idea that they may not and may be another member of the majority who practice live and let live philosophy.
But I would be like to be abundantly clear that for our opposition, as was case with smoking, that this is not about common courtesy, nor about public health. Those points are as superficial as "for the children" claims. It is all about shaming and cutting down usage through fear and guilt. For ANTZ, there is no way to vape in public and it not be shameful.
Which is why the vape everywhere, with respect, position still is the most reasonable position I know of.
