Establishments Banning E-Cigs - 2 reasons

[Anjaffm]

Well, but you see, that's exactly the problem with patches, lozenges and all the BS Big Pharma has produced so far... they don't look like smoking, neither do they feel like smoking to a smoker, and therefore they simply do not work (well, around 94-96 per cent of the time anyway...), because they do not address the behavioral aspect of cigarette addiction.

Those idiotic ANTZ's who put ideology before objectivity have yet to realize this: it is precisely because the e-cig mimics smoking, that it has such a better sucess rate! Being anti-smoking as they are, one would expect for them to be happy bacause finally, something showed up that really works at keeping smokers away from tobacco...!

But no... blinded by ideology and conficts of interest, those people are actually attacking something that actually works.

I liked it the way Dr Siegel once put it on his blog: on a twist of fate, the e-cig is thriving not because of support from those groups, but despite their opposition...

You hit the nail right on the head, jpargana! Thank you for putting it so well!

.............
and @Racehorse:

As your proposed methods of coercion (like in the army and in the workplace) obviously do not work in the issue at hand - at least you no longer mention them - what would you suggest now?
You suggested methods of coercion.
Some users pointed out that methods of coercion do not work among people whose behavior / attitude is entirely voluntary.
The ball is in your court now

And please do remember to write for those grants. I am sure that the money will be appreciated.

 

[MacTechVpr]

While worrying about the FDA, BT, and BP, instead of grooming "solidarity" among vapers, we have name-calling of other vapers going on (self loathing vapers, troll).

It is not just childish, it's actually damaging to our cause.

This was one of the reasons I suggested starting or joining more locally-based advocacy groups.

When you are involved in such a group, up close and personal, you "learn" about tactical and strategic ways to accomplish goals, build consensus and solidarity, stay focussed and present a united front. You have speakers (attorneys, local politicians, doctors, business leaders, scientists) who can come in and mentor people, and show them how it's done, and "activists" get educated and groomed about how to carry out initiatives as an advocacy group. And how to appropriately "frame" issues.

Some of the posts I see in these topics make me question if some of the {well meaning vapers} folks have any real experience in formal acitivism, let alone actually accomplishing a shared goal working with a large team of other people.

Because, on no team that i have ever been involved with, would some of these behaviors be even close to acceptable.
Name-calling, for one.

When you are working on a large project, with deadlines and goals, there is little time to "psychoanalzye" your team members' personality traits, and since it has no real value or worth to the project anyway, it would be considered a hindrance.

You actually echo here many of my sentiments as well as the point of my posts.

We accomplish little with classification. We accomplish much by finding common fertile ground.

So, I propose we do little. What little each of us can do with confidence and preparation is exponentially more over time than anything that can be conceived to be used against us. It is, in time, overwhelming in its momentum. And what comes then is the moment of social fusion that I would like to see happen in this country. On this issue.

So while I detest the notion of sacrificing my individuality in the face crass and opportunistic vilification, I will do so to produce a good outcome for myself. And I would hope others see this too. That each of us produce it for ourselves, and each other. That, we could celebrate.

I am reminded of the movie A Beautiful Mind. There is a reward for the math of sound reasoning in this universe. The recognition that a consistent win, albeit small, wins in the end over the desire to win big and overwhelmingly. I would rather be the consistent small winner, along with the rest of us, and rest assured that we all win in the end. That means doing what we can, as we can, with that productive majority most willing and disposed to joining us. This comprises the vast bulk of Americans who know nothing but the impression that we now have the opportunity to leave upon them. We are at the threshold of consciousness right now as we become more and more visible and can set the stage for what happens next.

For the reasons you cite here and I have observed in many organizations, failure has personal difference at its roots. Whereas personal conviction in a mature reasonable adult seldom fails. It is understood, respected, appreciated. We cannot afford to fail. We need to adhere to our convictions and a good strategy. To do what little we can in our own self-interest. Each of us. And it works for all of us.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

Good luck!

 

[wheezal]

common ground?


i know some common ground!


we all agree Chuck-E-Cheese is just terribad. Penguins are evil. Cake is a lie.

now lets build on that!

 

[MacTechVpr]

common ground?


i know some common ground!


we all agree Chuck-E-Cheese is just terribad. Penguins are evil. Cake is a lie.

now lets build on that!

Are you mocking me wheezal?

Bad boy. No supper for you!

 

[wheezal]

Are you mocking me wheezal?

Bad boy. No supper for you!

if you see my post history you will see i'm incapable of mocking anyone, EVAR! i just dont haf the brain power for it.


no supper? hah! jokes on you, i'll just haf a big late lunch!

 

[MacTechVpr]

common ground?...now lets build on that!

Let me reframe this in a representative example...

In 1984 Apple was met with largely skepticism by a data and systems environment that was largely institutional in mindset. As was most of society.

Their strategy in part was to recruit an army of not merely users, but zealots! For the concepts.

It wasn't about being right, but getting it right. For them. Illustratively, Apple's attention to ergonomics.

The approach had "value".

I should know. I was connected in 1983.

(And I was a systems guy. I hated Mac's. Something about preconceived notions, prejudices, I think.)

Good luck!

 

[Anjaffm]

@Mac TechVpr:

Whereas personal conviction in a mature reasonable adult seldom fails. It is understood, respected, appreciated. We cannot afford to fail. We need to adhere to our convictions and a good strategy. To do what little we can in our own self-interest. Each of us. And it works for all of us.

Thank you very much for this great statement.
In Europe, we are very active indeed.
And each person who wants to contribute contributes what he / she can, in the way that is right for him / her. Every person's contribution counts
...............

Are you mocking me wheezal?

Bad boy. No supper for you!

I was not going to have supper in a truck stop men's room anyway. At least not while wheezal is doing "masculine things" in there. Neener neener

 

[kristin]

Both are true, in the context they are used.

I have the right to vape. Full context is that I have a right to vape anywhere there are not specific laws against it or rules against it.

I think the issue is the definition of the word "right." You do NOT have a right simply because there is no law or rule against something. The lack of prohibition does not make it a "right." A right is so-called "god-given" or legally protected. Vaping in public is neither.

On the other hand, one does have property rights, under which a legal activity would be covered. That means that, at this time, vaping is covered under our property rights as a legal activity. But once you leave your property, there is no right that covers vaping. We shouldn't confuse "not prohibited" as a "right," because that has and will be used against us by the ANTZ.

Under the same terms, the ANTZ are lying when they say they have a "right" to breathe clean air and that is the basis for banning public vaping regardless of the lack of health risks.

 

[Richard75]

I think the issue is the definition of the word "right." You do NOT have a right simply because there is no law or rule against something. The lack of prohibition does not make it a "right." A right is so-called "god-given" or legally protected. Vaping in public is neither.

On the other hand, one does have property rights, under which a legal activity would be covered. That means that, at this time, vaping is covered under our property rights as a legal activity. But once you leave your property, there is no right that covers vaping. We shouldn't confuse "not prohibited" as a "right," because that has and will be used against us by the ANTZ.

Under the same terms, the ANTZ are lying when they say they have a "right" to breathe clean air and that is the basis for banning public vaping regardless of the lack of health risks.

This may sound blasphemous, but I can kind of understand why some places are wary of APVs. I remember when I first saw a mod (a Silver Bullet), I thought to myself "Oh my god, that looks insane!" Now, for me, mods are the only thing I use. It's important to know about laws, but you have to also think about the human condition. Carrying around giant pipe-looking things that emit clouds of "something" just looks weird to people, especially if they've never seen one before. And these people will distance themselves from you just as they would do if you proclaimed you were Jesus (which is also legal to do) no matter how good your argument is. If enough of these people gather together, then you have a mob. Except instead of running after you with torches and pitchforks like Frankenstein's monster, they go to the courts.

My apologies if this is not quite coherent, it's head cold season and these meds make me loopy!

 

[justagirl]

My experience with vaping an ego in public did not turn out well. Outside Bed Bath and Beyond.... Dad with kid walk by and he walks back and whispers to me, "I know that s**t is legal but, cant you wait till you get home." I had no time to explain that it was not what he thought it was. What EVERYONE here thinks it is. For that reason I bought an e roll that I carry in public.

I vape where it is appropriate. If I have to ask myself if its ok then I just wait till I am outside. I personally did not like being that girl that was the reason that dad got upset. It is not mainstream where I live and until it is I am a bit skeptical about breaking out my provari and taking a huge puff in a line at Whole Foods.

@Mac- I like your avatar also. Huge Bruce Willis fan... BTW, you write quite eloquently.

JAG

 

[MacTechVpr]

"You do not have a constitutional right to vape". That's true, as far as it goes, but I never claimed to have a constitutional right...

You do have the Constitutional right to do as you damned well please...as long as you don't infringe on the rights or property of anyone else (or anyone to whom you have delegated them!).

And that's the rub isn't it? When others assume that you don't, or have. When they self-delegate to appropriate what is yours. I won't call it what it is in mixed company.

No need for any person to walk around insisting on their rights. In a free country they can. In one that assumes, one must.

Good luck!



All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom; justice; honor; duty; mercy; hope. —Sir Winston Churchill

 

[Ranic85]

I vape in the grocery stores here all the time with my sub-ohm build. I just do it in the isles that are empty. Blow a huge cloud, pocket the mod, and disappear! No one is the wiser.

 

[Anjaffm]

You do have the Constitutional right to do as you damned well please...as long as you don't infringe on the rights or property of anyone else (or anyone to whom you have delegated them!).

And that's the rub isn't it? When others assume that you don't, or have. When they self-delegate to appropriate what is yours. I won't call it what it is in mixed company.

No need for any person to walk around insisting on their rights. In a free country they can. In one that assumes, one must.

Good luck!



All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom; justice; honor; duty; mercy; hope. —Sir Winston Churchill

Wow! Just wow! You put this very well indeed!

Will you marry me in the next life?
(as long as our wedding party does not have to take place in wheezal's mens room?)

 

[Fulgurant]

I think the issue is the definition of the word "right." You do NOT have a right simply because there is no law or rule against something. The lack of prohibition does not make it a "right." A right is so-called "god-given" or legally protected. Vaping in public is neither.

Yes, there isn't, and will never be, a constitutionally protected, inalienable right to vape. We were not "endowed by our creator" with personal vaporizers. (Provarinati beliefs notwithstanding.)

But the very document that guarantees our rights doesn't exist to tell citizens what they can and cannot do. It exists to tell the government what it can and cannot do. Baldr may not be semantically correct, but he's correct in fact: the bedrock principle of any free society is that individuals can engage, without state interference, in any behavior against which there in no just or reasonable prohibition. In the absence of compelling evidence of a public health risk, the state must (but sadly, probably won't) allow individuals to decide for themselves whether they wish to vape, or whether they wish to allow vaping on their property.

The million dollar question is whether the state will be (unjustly) emboldened by widespread private bans.

To that point, the original post addresses the reasoning behind various establishments' banning of e-cigs. The OP, in my view, speaks poorly on that subject, or perhaps it would be fairer to say that the OP is awkwardly framed. It's certainly true that vapers' behavior serves as a catalyst for certain business' bans of e-cigs, but those bans in most cases would have occurred anyway. Our culture abhors cigarette smoke, and the authorities have gone to great lengths to draw a false equivalence between e-cigs and regular cigarettes. Thus, if a business receives complaints about e-cigs, the most likely cause of those complaints isn't that vapers act obnoxiously; the most likely cause is an overreaction to any sighting of a vaper in the act, discrete or not, polite or not.

Obnoxious vapers exist, but to spend any time emphasizing their influence on the larger picture is to lose all perspective.

 

[darkstorm]

You do have the Constitutional right to do as you damned well please...as long as you don't infringe on the rights or property of anyone else (or anyone to whom you have delegated them!).

This is pretty much my feeling on the issue. A private business can request you not chew gum, or bring in outside food, or vape in their establishment and such a request should be honored. When on public property your rights to free expression, association and the pursuit of happiness should extend to being able to use a personal vaporizer. Its harming no one, misperception and misinformation be damned.

 

[LDS714]

Ya know, bottom line is that establishments and property owners have the right to make the choice whether or not to allow it.

Removing from them the ability to make that choice is wrong. Period. THAT is the action people should find offensive and be made uncomfortable by.

 

[DC2]

Our culture abhors cigarette smoke, and the authorities have gone to great lengths to draw a false equivalence between e-cigs and regular cigarettes. Thus, if a business receives complaints about e-cigs, the most likely cause of those complaints isn't that vapers act obnoxiously; the most likely cause is an overreaction to any sighting of a vaper in the act, discrete or not, polite or not.

Obnoxious vapers exist, but to spend any time emphasizing their influence on the larger picture is to lose all perspective.

And now that the truth has been put into words, this thread is over.
And we will never again see another thread like it.

 

[Anjaffm]

@Fulgurant, darkstorm, LDS714:

AMEN!

 

[NicoHolic]

News Headline (eP)

A small number of nicotine addicts on an Internet forum
failed to find common ground this week on whether or
not they have the right to get their next fix, their way,
when and where they want. An ANTZ observer we tried
to interview could stop laughing only long enough to say,
"Mark three twenty five." We're not sure what it means.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Ya know, bottom line is that establishments and property owners have the right to make the choice whether or to allow it.

Removing from them the ability to make that choice is wrong. Period. THAT is the action people should find offensive and be made uncomfortable by.

I agree. And government intrusion through regulation is an obstruction of commerce. Business is strongly guided by public sentiment. If opinion is erroneously manipulated it may affect the bottom line forcing the business owner uncomfortable choices they would not otherwise make. However, I feel that business, particularly small business, is strongly benefited by not having such choices between prospective markets compromised. They should be very interested and supportive of organizations like CASAA for this reason. And I believe as an organization CASAA has a prominent target and source of revenue there.

Business will have a powerful influence on the outcome of public perception. If there is to be activism, in my opinion, it should be driven there. By activist organizations and individuals by avoidance.

I mentioned the one incident earlier in this thread where I was ever challenged. Of the manager behind a glass wall chugging on his stogie. He saw me vape. He looked away.

Money talks. Customers walk.

Were not going to change the hearts of those already hypnotized by the rhetoric. They've already kicked their last punt.

But we can help inform those who give a damn.

Good luck all!