...deleted, I totally misunderstood the post I was quoting...not in a bad way or anything, but my reply would have been very confusing...
Last edited:
Forcing vapers to breathe second-hand smoke
- Thread starter Eranda13
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Then I guess it is up to you to handle smoking outside. Touche. It is not up to the government or your workplace to force others to your vaping choice.
BTW have you ever had a peanut allergy reaction? I am allergic to many things.. but it nothing like a peanut allergy reaction or other nut.
Just so you have the facts.. A peanut allergy cannot be curtailed with meds..
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/peanut-allergy/DS00710/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs
No offense but please know what you speak of before doing so.
Last edited:
I don't really understand this...legally, yes, you are protected from smokers in exactly the same way non-smokers are protected from smokers...by having smokers stand X amount of feet away from a given entryway or establishment, etc.
You never have to go stand with the smokers. Ever. If the requirement is that you stand 25 feet from an entrance, then you stand 25 feet in the opposite direction from the entrance that the smokers are standing. If the requirement is that you either smoke or vape in a designated smoking section, you still have the choice simply not to vape there, but to go somewhere else.
Legally, you are exactly as protected as any non-smoker, from smoke. What you do with that regarding vaping is your choice.
And yes, I get that vaping is non-harmful compared to second-hand smoke. But that doesn't really have anything to do with how much you, as a vaper or as a non-vaper, are protected from smoke. We are still equally protected.
Yes, I get that it's an inconvenience to find an entirely different spot. Choices and freedoms often do come with an inconvenience. And it is your choice(and mine) to vape. Nobody is making you vape.
I need to be protected from public stinky farts.
Who's gonna be my advocate, huh? WHO??
Nobody. Nobody cares about the people who have to be around gassy people in elevators, etc.
Who's gonna be my advocate, huh? WHO??
Nobody. Nobody cares about the people who have to be around gassy people in elevators, etc.
I need to be protected from public stinky farts.
Who's gonna be my advocate, huh? WHO??
Nobody. Nobody cares about the people who have to be around gassy people in elevators, etc.
OMG I can not believe you just said this, EvilZoe, I was JUST going to make a farting comparison! LOL! Though kind of in the opposite way...I was going to say, it's technically my right to fart but I'm probably going to off a ways even though it's not quite convenient to me. I realized it's not really a comparison as there's no such thing as a farting section in establishments (AFAIK) nor are there laws against farting (again, AFAIK) but since you brought the subject up...
Last edited:
I need to be protected from public stinky farts.
Who's gonna be my advocate, huh? WHO??
Nobody. Nobody cares about the people who have to be around gassy people in elevators, etc.
The baked-bean lobby is a powerful force.
Actually, it is the right of the workplace to put any strictures they like on vaping just as much as smoking...just wanted to point that out. They require no government "help" (read: interference) to enforce their own rules in their own establishment.
The same way they can say "no, you can't eat at your desk" or "no, you may not wear jeans to work".
Yes I know. I was responding to the "ts not up to legislators to ban rose perfumes/colognes either." from their post. It would take ages to write out everything.. so I just respond to what is said to me.
Oh please don't even go there, if there actually is such a coalition I'm pretty sure my husband will be joining it.
I know, I smell them all the time.
They may want to work on that if they want to remain incognito. And no, those mirrored sunglasses really are not helping.
Well, in our 'version of the universe',
Let's not forget that this is not just about the twisted mind of those who created them. In every country, there are regulatory agencies that decide what ads can be displayed, and what ads should be banned. So, people with ruling power decided that it was OK to let them be displayed... because, you know, as far as anti-smoking is concerned, anything goes...
One thing is having gruesome medical images attached to a pack of cigarettes. That sort of campaign is specifically targeted towards smokers (people who buy cigarettes, anyway), and while I don't quite agree with it, I can at least see the logic behind it: trying to 'scare' smokers into skipping that next cigarette they were about to smoke, maybe trying to convince them to cut back.
On the other hand, there is... that... is it targeted to smokers? No way; it is displayed outdoors for everyone to see! Is it effective, from a tobacco control perspective? No smoker in the world will look at those pictures and think "OMG, now I realise how society sees me!! I feel so ashamed, that I will stop smoking right now!!".
Really...
No, no... this is a campaign targeted at the rabid anti-smoker. The message is, "If we (the creator of the picture, the ruling agency that allowed it to be displayed...) can mistreat smokers this way, so can you. Follow our lead."
Ironically, that ad was sponsored by a so-called "Association for Nonsmokers' Rights". I guess that says it all: an association of non-smokers who believe they have the right to vilify and de-humanise smokers.
Maybe you, individually, do not feel mistreated as a smoker. That's your personal view, and you're surelly entitled to that.
For my part, something like that makes my blood boil... and I'm not even a smoker anymore. That's hardly the point anyway, because in the closed minds of those who actually enjoy that kind of advertising, vaping equals smoking...
By reading a bunch of good examples already put on this thread, I believe a fact remains: most smokers (and vapers alike) feel indeed mistreated in their everyday lives... and rightly so, in my personal opinion.
Then what's the difference between anti-smokers drilling smokers about smoking. And the vapers drilling non-vapers about vaping?
Are the non-vapers being 'mistreated' too?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Sorry, but I don't understand the question... are non-vapers being mistreated and vilified (sometimes in an aggressive manner) by the vaping community, because they don't vape? Does our community really believe that non-vapers should conform to our own way of life - i.e., 'they should start vaping too'?? Is there even a possible comparison between that and what anti-smoking ideology has done with us in the past??
From the OP:
(...)
But in many cases, I'm only allowed to vape in smoking areas with smokers, which forces me to be exposed to second-hand smoke.
I chose NOT to smoke anymore. I quit a dangerous and destructive habit for the benefit of my health.
But the policies of most businesses and municipalities put me in a position where in order to engage in a legal and non-dangerous activity, I must accept being exposed to the very (dangerous) thing that I've gone to great lengths to avoid.
(...)
Now, get this: complaining about being forced to vape in smoking sections does not necessarily mean that the OP wants to vape in enclosed spaces, near non-vapers, forcing upon them the dreaded 'second-hand vapour'... one thing is not being allowed to vape inside, for example. Other thing, is being forced to walk 25 feet away from an entrance to be able to vape (Near second-hand smoke).
Some people seemed to object that the OP could easily walk 50 feet from the entrance, and thus be away from smokers (Provided, that is, there are no smokers there already, 25 feet away from the next entrance...).
Where the sense in that? From an health-wise perspective, were is the harm of letting the OP vape, say, 10 feet from the entrance? Is she jeopardizing non-vapers's health? Hard to believe... Now, is she upsetting non-vapers? Maybe, but only from an ideological perspective... and we all have seen where ideology can lead.
I can really understand not vaping inside, along non-vapers, if the business owner does not allow it (I would probably take my business elsewere, in a peaceful manner, but that's for another thread). But I would be damned if some 'rent-a-cop' decided to push me 25 feet from the entrance, while I was already vaping out in the open, just because vaping is lumped irrationally with smoking.
I truly believe THIS was the OP's original concern, but I apologize if I'm wrong...
- Status
Similar threads
