How do these two people find common cause? They are both good people who want to
vape in their own way.
John Smith thinks the way to protect our right to vape is to "full court press" the FDA (and it's allies who want to regulate
vaping into something less than it is today). He believes that the practice of vaping publicly is an opportunity for each vaper to enjoy the fruits of the decision to quit smoking, and an opportunity to educate the public about the habit. He sees the FDA, BT, and BP as his enemies. He supports CASAA in an active way.
Jim Doe wants to urge every vaper to go outside and vape in the smoking section. He thinks anyone who vapes outside of a smoking section is selfish and the reason we are seeing vaping bans. He feels that appearing humble and compliant will give us the best possible outcome from the FDA, local governments, etc. He views vapors who misbehave and "rock the boat" as his enemies. He supports the FDA, hopes for regulations to make his juice safer, and refuses to participate in CASAA since he views many members as extremists.
How do those two form a coherent team?
I feel the path to coherent team work here is to challenge each other, in a respectful way.
Having persons in the discussion who have ability to acknowledge / respect the other position is of great help. Sets an example for those in either camp who feel ultra righteous and are expressing themselves as if there is no wiggle room from their position.
But the challenge of each position, while respectable, must be dealt with courage and honesty.
With that said, I've raised questions to those who oppose indoor vaping, and I have not seen responses in this thread to those questions.
IMO, what we are up against with vaping indoors is misinformation. And is why I think the 'don't vape indoors' position doesn't have a solid footing. "Be respectful/polite" sounds like solid footing until you realize that there are people in the fold who are willing to engage in kicking people out of the room for no other reason than 'it just looks bad.' Of all the responses in the vein of 'why I choose not to vape in public' I see them all based on misinformation and not wanting to perpetuate
that misinformation.
If bans are put into place that result in property owners not having rights to determine what is allowed on their property (i.e. what 'they' did with smoking), the Jim Doe's will plausibly view that as, 'see, I told you Mr. Smith that your rocking the boat would lead to this. If only you would've listened to me.'
IMO, saying someone can't vape anywhere within 3 blocks of a hospital is akin to saying no one can use a mobile device anywhere within 3 blocks of hospital. If I were in the camp that said no one should use their mobile device anywhere on or near the grounds of a hospital, I'd expect to be reasonably challenged on that position, with questions that dealt with my perception of problems that would result in people using their mobile devices in such situations. If I stuck to, 'it's the respectful thing to not do this' and that's all I got, then that stubborn streak will not lead to a coherent team approach for the community.
Thus education is key, but might take awhile. Almost all bans with regards to vaping are ones I see as temporary. I see them occurring because of the misinformed perspective that assumes vaping = smoking. When enough decision makers are made aware of that falsehood, the tide will change. Here in 2013, the vaping movement is just now coming out from the underground position it maintained for a half decade. In the olden days (i.e. before 1990), the shift to inform the masses may've taken a good 20+ years before people realize they were greatly misinformed about a subject. Here in the information age, I'm not certain how fast a shift could occur, but I'd reckon within 10 years or less, the misinformation tide will turn.
Funny thing about politics, the people that are most oppressed tend to have the most power, even while on the surface of things, the exact opposite always appears to be true. The pendulum may be swinging one way right now, but it is bound to swing back the other way. Misinformation tends to crumble at the altar of truth.
