Drop the Entitled Attitude

[tenshi]

I vape anywhere outside. Even though all the studies I've read that the mist we produce is harmless to humans, out of courtesy I ask those around before I vape. Although I'm exceptionally shy, one of my main reasons I do that is it opens up a natural conversation to give me the opportunity to educate the general public about vaping which I feel is necessary for us to gain acceptance. I don't like the fact that they group us together with abusers (whether it's analog smokers or illegal drug users), and I think that education of the subject matter while it's still in it's infancy is our best chance to continue growing in order to help those who are still on analogs.

 

[Tober138]

My personal "Rule of thumb"
E-smoking is permitted UNLESS its "Posted" that e-smoking is not allowed

Many places do not have signs posted stating that talking on one's cel phones is prohibited. That does not change the fact that people who blithely yap away on their cel while sitting in a restaurant or standing in line at the store are being tacky and annoying.

 

[Petrodus]

Many places do not have signs posted stating that talking on one's cel phones is prohibited. That does not change the fact that people who blithely yap away on their cel while sitting in a restaurant or standing in line at the store are being tacky and annoying.

I agree ...
However, "posted" signs was only a partial quote from my Rule of Thumb

My personal "Rule of thumb"
E-smoking is permitted UNLESS its "Posted" that e-smoking is not allowed
OR a business manager informs me that e-smoking is not permitted.

I don't ask ... "Mommie may I"

 

[MrStik]

The general rule of thumb (for civilized people) should be to be to not vape in any establishment unless permission is granted. To automatically assume that vaping is allowed because there are no signs prohibiting it is pretty "entitled" if you ask me. No analogies needed; as adults here, we can all figure it out.

As a fellow vaper, I would be annoyed if there was a person vaping next to me as I am having a meal. As non-offensive as the scent of the vapors are, if I was having a really nice meal, I wouldn't want to smell anything more than my meal. Also, it does not say not to Vape in a movie theater, but how annoyed would it be trying to watch a movie and see plumes of vapor wafting around?

Common sense and common courtesy should dictate that a person should be granted permission to vape in certain public venues.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Petrodus]

Actually, I don't assume vaping is "officially" approved everywhere.
I assume management will not tell me vaping is not allowed.
"Mommie May I" ... gives the impression to others that I THINK
there is something wrong OR I THINK many will be Offended.

Asking management if it is OK ... Puts management on the spot
of "officially" approving where they would normally say nothing
if they saw someone vaping. Many managers approve but do
not want to "go on the record" telling everyone their establishment
"officially" approves and welcomes vapers.

I totally get it ... We live in a Politically Correct Nanny State
where most are afraid of Offending anyone. The lady in the next
booth at the restaurant "pouring on" cheap perfume that will
knock your socks off ... Ain't concerned about PC and offending anyone.

Common Sense ...
In restaurants or movie theaters ... I don't blow huge vapor clouds !!

Bottom Line
If you are one who is Worried about vaping in public ...
Ask permission, or vape outside where no one can see you, in the car, or at home.
If your comfortable vaping in public without going around everywhere
and asking permission ... DO IT !! ... just use some common sense
like not blowing huge vapor clouds to "stir up the pot" drawing attention.

There must be THOUSANDS of threads on the ECF with discussions
about vaping in public ... REASON: Many are reluctant to vape in public
for fear of (fill in the blank).

 

[Dontae92]

Granted I don't visit restaurants often, I do tend to vape everywhere. Even in class at times. But NEVER blow huge clouds. I usually will just hold it in long enough to lose its visibility or exhale quickly downward. Most don't even notice it. But of course if it's bothering someone I will politely stop.

 

[Koman]

Granted I don't visit restaurants often, I do tend to vape everywhere. Even in class at times. But NEVER blow huge clouds. I usually will just hold it in long enough to lose its visibility or exhale quickly downward. Most don't even notice it. But of course if it's bothering someone I will politely stop.

I do the same!

 

[Agorizer]

Again, all of this is all well and good -- and I agree with you on the property rights vs personal rights issue in a private situation -- the majority of this is opinion, and that ignores the purpose of the initial post. When he said 'harm reduction', he specifically meant using 'harm reduction' with PV's is spin -- not across the board. As far as the chemical portion goes -- this is a willful choice to ignore the fact that PG/VG/Nic/Flavor extracts are not as simple a compound as water, and their interactions at that point essentially create a new amalgam -- an amalgam of which the properties are currently unknown. Anything that we perceive as a benefit, is just that: perception. Nothing more, just opinion. There simply isn't hard data to back any of it up outside of ancedotal.

Anecdotal evidence=the same way that it was "proved" that second hand smoke "kills". They interviewed non-smokers who had developed lung cancer, and cherry-picked those who had some memory of being in a smoky environment. They didn't consider the SHS exposure of anyone who WASN'T suffering from cancer. That is what passes for "science" among the ANTZ. Sure; respect property rights. If we did that, AND understood the difference between "public" and "private" properly (just because one hangs out a shingle to be "publicly" part of the Agora, does not make the place public PROPERTY), almost all confrontation could be avoided. It is called anecdotal EVIDENCE, not anecdotal conjecture. Words have meaning. I will not cower before some ANTZ indignation at my exercise of self-ownership as long as I'm right with the property owner, nor will I take it on myself to obey a regulation(no smoking) in "public" when I'm not subject to the regulation. I WILL use the concern, however UN-informed, of someone who questions my vaping in public to educate--using whatever evidence (and common sense) I can muster.

 

[Agorizer]

Yes it's a better alternative for the person that smokes, but what is the better alternative for the person that doesn't? This discussion has to be about what the non smoker wants as it is what the person that vapes wants.

Discussion, perhaps. Policy, absolutely NOT. But the problem is, most think that the best way to "fix" a perceived "offense" is to bring in the guns of government--always achieving something close to the opposite of rationally desired consequences.

There have been two room air quality trials on ecig vapor so far. Neither could find measurable amounts of anything in the room-size chamber they used. One found nothing they could measure, the other found traces that were not reliably quantifiable. As a result they both changed to using a small container for the exhaled air tests, one of them was a 10 litre container IIRC.

They found measurable quantities of compounds when vapor was basically exhaled direct into their test equipment, but not in free airspace in a room-size chamber (10m2 I think). This infers that solids quickly deposit out of the vapor; and that to get any 2nd hand materials you need to be kissing the vaper on exhale. This is a cheap way of vaping but better results are obtained by buying your own supplies.

One study was an 'open' one where they just reported the results, the other was funded by the antis, so they buried the fact they found nothing measurable in the room air deep in the small print and instead used results taken from measurement of direct-exhale vapor. (Then of course published a lurid PR implying ecig vapor is dangerously toxic, as per normal.)

As regards the quantity of nicotine you would be able to breathe in from room air where a vaper was situated, it would result in an increase of your blood plasma nicotine level between ten million times and one million times lower than the detectable level already present from your normal dietary consumption of nicotine. This is my personal estimation based on about as much scientific evidence as is usually present in any report by Glantz, Hahn, Gratziou or any other pharma pimp / loony toon.



Refs: seen elsewhere on ECF, in CASAA resources, etc.

Stop with all of that non-FDA approved anecdotal evidence, will ya?

I have an entitled attitude because I am entitled. I can do anything I want unless you can make a compelling argument that that what I'm doing somehow interferes with or tramples on your right to do what you want. There is no onus on me to "prove" that what I'm doing should be acceptable to you. How I choose to live is not a subject that will be vetted and scrutinized for your approval. The pervasive, ever-growing tendency to monitor, regulate, proscribe and control the personal choices people make needs to be seen as the neofascist oppression that it is, and it needs to be resisted.

Resistance engaged. Sad that it needs to engaged here within our own camp sometimes.

If you choose to live in a society of your fellow man, you need to understand you don't have the "right to do what you want". Your rights end where mine begin.

Did you actually read the entire post. Every time someone responds to an assertion such as his (that comes with the caveats that his did), they always ignore the caveats and/or are ignorant of what "rights" should encompass. IE: you do NOT have a right to never be offended.

 

[Agorizer]

So then it's OK to inconvienience others that don't want to deal with it .. ?? This speaks exactly to the point of the thread .. entitlement mentality

You original post said that you "didn't want to deal with it". In THAT scenario, it is you who are inconveniencing yourself. Again, no one has a right to not be offended. That is what "PC" conjures to me--those who believe that they should never, never, EVER have to expose their brains to anything that contradicts what they believe to be "moral". I do not feel "entitled" to offend; but I know that I'm not entitled to not be offended---it happens here regularly.

 

[Trick]

There's a line between courtesy and supporting ignorance.

I take issue with the suggestion in the OP that banning vaping in places like work environments is about professionalism. It's not. Smoking was considered fine until people got wise to the health risks, and then it was banned to prevent health issues for other workers. It's not just some politeness thing -- there are real reasons why there are laws that prevent smoking near others.

What are the real reasons for banning vaping near others? When you stop to think about it, there are none. There are no indications that it's unhealthy, and plenty that it's not. People are perfectly justified in feeling entitled to partake in an activity that poses no known danger to anyone, any time they want, anywhere they want.

This idea that it's an "entitlement issue" strikes me as very egotistical. It's like the OP is saying "if you don't think like I do about this, there's something wrong with you." I could just as easily say that, by caving to pressure from the ignorant to refrain from doing something that poses absolutely no known harm to anyone, you're only feeding their fear and ignorance, and walking right into the hands of people whose primary goal is to force an unfounded morality on everyone else. You're condoning that actions of those who want to take freedoms away from people, just because they can.

The way I see it, there is absolutely no reason not to feel like you can do whatever you want, as long as you're not harming anyone. That's not an "entitled attitude;" that's freedom.

 

[Racehorse]

I dont understand the whole professional thing. It wasnt too long ago where people were allowed to smoke indoors at work. Society is just soft and politically correct these days.

I have a tremendous amount of compassion for all the non-smokers who had to go to work, day after day, and sit in smokey rooms for 8 hours. Even BEFORE the health risks were ennumerated......

Can you imagine how uncomfortable that was for them? Thank goodness they finally received their right NOT to have to subject themselves to that.

It's about respect for other people-----not about soft and politically correct-----but either way, then bring it on!

 

[Racehorse]

I want to vape everywhere. Personally, I don't think it's a danger to anyone else, but I also acknowledge others' right to perceive it as a danger, or as a nuisance.

I feel that way about my extremely well-trained dog. Who obeys every command, and is way more polite than most small children I meet.

Yet, there are so many places people just do not want him around.

I have no idea why. Maybe they are just ANTZ but dog ANTZ?

Just sayin'..........smells, allergies, a stray hair here and there.........who knows. If an establishment or area doesn't want me to bring my dog I have to decide if I want to go there.

At workplace, it was never a question in my mind. They are paying me, I'm on THEIR time, therefore, they can tell me what rules I have to observe while paying me. If I don't like their rules, I look for another workplace.

One of my friends trained a seeing eye miniature horse. Around here, the restaurants and almost all the shops welcomed her into their establishment. She (the horse) even sat in the booth at the local mexican restaurant. It was being trained for a blind woman whose religion does not permit dogs inside. Neat little horse, and tiny too. Min horses also live a long time, whereas w/seeing eye dogs, you may have to train with, and bond with, many over your lifetime if you are blind.

 

[patkin]

I bought a house with an huge, beautiful, ornamental olive tree in the back yard that extended only over my property. After living there 20+ years, a new neighbor moved in just over the backyard fence and wanted me to cut it down because they were allergic. Why did they buy the house? Why did they think I should accommodate them? They were raised (babied enough) to believe THEY were entitled and I should comply with THEIR needs. Do I blame them for that attitude? Nope. I blame their mothers and schools. Incidentally, they became politically active and got olive trees banned in the city but only new plantings of them. Solved their future needs being met but not their immediate one.

 

[ShaneBlack]

The law goes that if your tree has limbs going over onto their property them they can make you trim it. That is the law in N.Y, but when I moved down south the people down here tend to not give a damn in helping you out, We have a tree leaning alot towards our house and could fall anytime and destroy our home. But no one even cared and wouldn't even trim the branches over on our property. Long story short, if there is no danger to their house then there is no reason why you should do anything for them that you don't want to.

 

[patkin]

The law goes that if your tree has limbs going over onto their property them they can make you trim it. That is the law in N.Y, but when I moved down south the people down here tend to not give a damn in helping you out, We have a tree leaning alot towards our house and could fall anytime and destroy our home. But no one even cared and wouldn't even trim the branches over on our property. Long story short, if there is no danger to their house then there is no reason why you should do anything for them that you don't want to.

Yeh, we have that law too. Like I said, wasn't the case here.. just the type of tree. Since they passed the nanny-plants law, as we call it, that this neighbor helped write and get passed, no one can plant them anymore... but its not the only thing... many types of plants were included in that law. One was morning glories (which I had on trellises around the pool) "because" cattle eat them and get colic. Another was daisies because, technically, they're weeds. Oh, did I mention this is a city ordinance in a huge city with no rural areas within its borders? LOL People from all over the country move to Arizona to escape their allergies and asthma then proceed to get involved in government and outlaw what's been growing here for years... hey, they're entitled... they have to live here afterall.

 

[ShaneBlack]

many types of plants were included in that law. One was morning glories (which I had on trellises around the pool) "because" cattle eat them and get colic. Another was daisies because, technically, they're weeds. Oh, did I mention this is a city ordinance in a huge city with no rural areas within its borders?.

LOL, the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever heard. Sometimes its so unbelievable how our government works. lol morning glories. And Daisies grow everywhere, are the going to have a daisy police force that goes around spraying them with poison. lol what a joke, I'm sorry you have to deal with that.

 

[Ansah]

... many types of plants were included in that law. One was morning glories (which I had on trellises around the pool) "because" cattle eat them and get colic. Another was daisies because, technically, they're weeds. Oh, did I mention this is a city ordinance in a huge city with no rural areas within its borders?

This is much more than ridiculous or nonsensical. It's depraved, institutionally-sponsored clinical insanity. It's also emblematic of a lost and paranoid developed world's ongoing criminally destructive war against nature, effectively mandating that that everyone's home lawn become its own mini WMD toxic dump site.

That I am ensconced in a society that can see this as a kind of normal absolutely terrifies me...

 

[zapped]

Yeh, we have that law too. Like I said, wasn't the case here.. just the type of tree. Since they passed the nanny-plants law, as we call it, that this neighbor helped write and get passed, no one can plant them anymore... but its not the only thing... many types of plants were included in that law. One was morning glories (which I had on trellises around the pool) "because" cattle eat them and get colic. Another was daisies because, technically, they're weeds. Oh, did I mention this is a city ordinance in a huge city with no rural areas within its borders? LOL People from all over the country move to Arizona to escape their allergies and asthma then proceed to get involved in government and outlaw what's been growing here for years... hey, they're entitled... they have to live here afterall.

You would think, with the climate in Arizona that Olive trees could be a decent cash crop. This law and your neighbor is beyond ridiculous. I despise people who try to impose their afflictions on everyone else. How did their allergy become everyone else's problem?

 

[tater_salad]

also stop vaping in stores / etc.. you just look like an @$$, especially when you argue with folks telling you to stop.