Welcome to ECF, Aaron!
Facebook Bans A Billion Lives
- Thread starter navigator2011
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Welcome to ECF, Aaron!
It's great that FB has changed their position in this particular instance, though I'm sure they have not changed their stance on the general matter.
Kudos to all for being heard, rather than herd.
Kudos to all for being heard, rather than herd.
Seen those very annoying commercials about McD's now offering breakfast all day? I've only been agitating for that for 40 yrs now. I told my husband the other night... if social media can make this change finally come about... WE'RE GONNA RULE vaping!
Andria
I've also wanted Egg McMuffins available all day for years now! Of course they would wait until I retired and no longer take nearly as many of my "meals" (I use the term loosely in reference to ANY McDonald's food) on the go.
The last time I went on a Big Diet, I eliminated the sausage biscuit+hashbrowns x 2 first thing; haven't found any reason to go back to it -- I only got in the habit of that when I used to take my son to school, and it was just too tempting to cruise thru the McD's drive-thru for that yummy fat-laden breakfast, but he's been grown for years now. Now I fix my own breakfast, which is just as yummy, but has some actual nutritive value and a whole lot less fat and calories.
Andria
I was re-reading this post, thinking about the whole "SHS kills" campaign that pretty much everyone has bought into -- except yourself, of course.
(and me too, to some extent) I think the problem is that there actually is *some* risk, particularly to *some* people, and they have taken this very slender factoid and blown it completely out of proportion to the *actual* risk to *most* people. Many, if not most of us, have known someone who actually was adversely affected just by regular exposure to tobacco smoke, and we've been encouraged to think that the adverse effect is *always* true for *everyone* -- which, if that were true, probably none of us over 40 would have even been born, because our parents' and grandparents' generations were very high in smokers and thus also high in those exposed to SHS.There is a good reason I smoked around my son till he was 9 -- because almost every adult in my life, when I was a child, smoked -- and they didn't run outside to do it, either -- they sat right in their own living room or at their own kitchen table and smoked their numerous cigarettes -- to me, it was a very rare thing to walk into a bldg where there was no smoking -- my aunt's apartment was the only place i knew like that, because she never smoked; her place smelled like dried eucalyptus.
But restaurants, grocery stores, schools, doctor's offices, hospitals, even churches in the offices and vestibules. Nobody had a cow about it; it was just a regular part of life. Lots of people smoked, and those who didn't needed to be polite, or have a legitimate medical reason why it was unwise/unkind to smoke around them -- my eldest uncle's emphysema, for example. But mostly the smokers were polite; it was very common to hear "Mind if I smoke?" and if someone really objected, most people were polite enough to refrain.The world has changed, and in so many ways, not for the better.
Andria
The main 'objects' of most of the legislation/bans/smoking designated areas were the employees who worked at bars mainly, but some restaurants. And at the time of smoking everywhere, they knew (at least to some extent) what they were hiring into.
As I pointed out earlier - customers and workers have a choice - when they make the choice to work there instead of say a restaurant with smoking designated areas where they could reasonably request to service only the no-smoking areas (and did in cases I know) then that's still their choice. OR work where smoking was prohibited by the employer.
What got me on restaurants with smoking designated areas, is that there became the choice of smoke, no smoke, or both. The 'both' choice allowed non-smokers to sit in smoking designated areas and many would then wave their hands if anyone was smoking next to them
And they 'took' seats that smokers then had to wait on. A smoker didn't have the same option.
And the problem is. . . ?
The main 'objects' of most of the legislation/bans/smoking designated areas were the employees who worked at bars mainly, but some restaurants. And at the time of smoking everywhere, they knew (at least to some extent) what they were hiring into.
As I pointed out earlier - customers and workers have a choice - when they make the choice to work there instead of say a restaurant with smoking designated areas where they could reasonably request to service only the no-smoking areas (and did in cases I know) then that's still their choice. OR work where smoking was prohibited by the employer.
What got me on restaurants with smoking designated areas, is that there became the choice of smoke, no smoke, or both. The 'both' choice allowed non-smokers to sit in smoking designated areas and many would then wave their hands if anyone was smoking next to them
As a smoker, I would happily sit in a non-smoking area if a seat became available before a seat opened in the smoking area -- but I wouldn't expect them to cater to me and put up with my smoke in a non-smoking area; I'd simply refrain from smoking -- far harder for a smoker to do, than for a non-smoker to put up with smoke, when they've voluntarily taken a seat in a smoking area. Why are non-smokers so freaking obnoxious in their demands, that everyone must cater to THEM, with ZERO regard for the feelings of others who may be smokers? And they have the ever-loving NERVE to say SMOKING is "rude"? GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK!
Andria
LOL sorry Nermal. Wasn't directed at you
I just can't take certain posts seriously anymore, my brain automatically reads them in Eeyore's voice.
This.
Most of the time, I am complimented about the nice smell of my vapour. But I also had two *complaints*, on diferent occasions, about my vaping, coming from NON-smokers - in a SMOKING-friendly venue !!
Apparently, other people's SMOKE did not bother those nut-cases. No, they simply *had* to come over the *only* person who was *mimicking* smoking, but not *really* smoking. I made sure to point that out, asking if ther would prefer if I smoked a cigarette instead (That was a bluff, of course - I cannot stand a cigarette anymore
)Usually, the owner is very quick in fixing this kind of matter - by asking the *offending* non-smoker if he did see the sign at the door. He's not even a smoker himself, but he has a business to run.
The second time, however, he was busy somewhere, so the conversation lasted a little while. People around us were looking at this guy as if he had two heads. And I made him *clear* about this:
If *I* went to a non-smoking place just because it's a great place to hang out and watch a soccer game, and then proceeded to smoke a cigarette (or in my case, vaping), then *I* would be the nuissance. People there expected to be in a clean-air environment, and *I* woud be the one being RUDE by RUINING those expectations. If *I* simply cannot refrain from smoking/vaping, then it is *I* who must leave and find another place - maybe not such a great place to be, but one that best suits *me*, without *disturbung* or *offending* others.
Inside a smoking-friendly business, people's expectations change. People expect to go there and smoke in peace, without uncalled for/unwanted preaching about "smoke-related health concerns" and "second hand smoke" (which do not even apply to be, because I use a SMOKE-less alternative to tobacco cigarettes).
If a non-smoker decides to enter that business anyway, just because it's a great place to hang out and watch a soccer game, and then proceeds to berate another NON-smoker about his "non-smoke", then *he is being just as rude as a smoker smoking in non-smoking areas*. He is the one RUINING other people's expectations this time. And if *he* cannot stand smoke, or a wiff of vapour, then it is up to *him* to find another place - maybe not such a great place to be, but one that best suits *him*, without *disturbung* or *offending* us.
This guy was already red by the end of this little conversation. Then the owner approached him, and asked him about the sight at the door, as he always does.
The nut-case paid and left.
I was re-reading this post, thinking about the whole "SHS kills" campaign that pretty much everyone has bought into -- except yourself, of course.
There is a good reason I smoked around my son till he was 9 -- because almost every adult in my life, when I was a child, smoked -- and they didn't run outside to do it, either -- they sat right in their own living room or at their own kitchen table and smoked their numerous cigarettes -- to me, it was a very rare thing to walk into a bldg where there was no smoking -- my aunt's apartment was the only place i knew like that, because she never smoked; her place smelled like dried eucalyptus.
The world has changed, and in so many ways, not for the better.
Andria
I agree that the possible harm of secondhand smoke has been leveraged as a justification for banning smoking, but some justification or change was needed and the rest of your post points at why. Yeah, there was the "mind if I smoke" but if you said yes I mind, well I certainly felt some guilt or felt like the "bad guy". Some of the people that would ask this already knew I minded. Almost all non-smokers minded. That's polite asking a question that you know the answer of already, knowing most likely the person will GIVE IN?? I take exception to even asking.
I didn't start smoking until age 32 and it was due to constantly being in secondhand smoke, figured it would be better to get some firsthand too. As I actually got some agreement in another thread, some of the irritations such as motion sickness may actually be worse for secondhand than firsthand. I know it smells like dirt at best, was everywhere, doesn't stay put, and people love doing it in restaurants (me too, later) where people are eating yummy aromatic food that is spoiled by even one person smoking.
Face it, the smokers WALKED ALL OVER the non-smokers and it's not at all surprising what has happened. It would have been far more honest to just start a campaign that yes, non-smokers' rights SHOULD trump that of smokers, rather than manufacture a factoid that SHS is so harmful, but it would have been a least somewhat less effective.
I agree that not all smokers were polite... but why is it, exactly, that some peoples' rights trump the rights of others? I have a really hard time with that one, in the absence of a medical need.
My aunt didn't smoke, nor my grandmother, but neither of them had anything to say about SHS -- people smoked in my grandmother's house (including my grandfather! though he smoked his pipe indoors and kept his cigars outdoors), and even in my aunt's apt; neither got excited about it.
Just have a really hard time understanding why some people have "rights" and others don't. It's kinda like... discrimination.
Andria
Welp, Andria, there's power in being "offended"; and get enough people offended together you can have a rep. make what offends you a crime.
The 'ends justifying means' strategy has resulted in the current situation, where the goal has morphed from ending smoking into ending threats to smoking. When Public Health abandons honesty, they abandon credibility, public confidence and public health.
Facebook sucks whatever their views on vaping.
They could be totally pro vaping and they would still suck.
I don't see why anyone does facebook.
They could be totally pro vaping and they would still suck.
I don't see why anyone does facebook.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
