I am heartbroken. Public E-Cig smoking has been banned in King Co (Seattle) Wa.

[Dave_in_OK]

E-cigarettes are a tobacco product, so please stop wasting time arguing otherwise | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
http://wivapers.blogspot.com/2013/07/are-nicotine-e-cigarettes-tobacco.html

Yours is a noble thought, but whenever anyone argues that e-cigs shouldn't be called e-cigs, he implicitly (and understandably) rubber stamps the fallacious notion that tobacco or tobacco use is a bad thing per se. "If only we could get those irrational, tyrannical busybodies in the public-health industry to see that what we're using isn't as bad as the evil tobacco!"

The thing is, our opponents are the ones who put forth that notion to begin with. The very reason they oppose e-cigs now is that they're afraid that the smoke-like appearance of vaping will ruin all of their hard work to demonize cigarettes. They don't care whether e-cigs themselves are harmless; they don't want us to indulge in anything that is made from tobacco and/or resembles tobacco use. They oppose anything that might allow the tobacco industry to continue to exist, or worse yet, to thrive even in a world without cigarettes or widespread cigarette-caused disease.

The tyrannical busybodies won't be appeased. Their entire industry is based on a corrupt and anti-rational ideology. The proper approach to take, then, is not to appeal to that ideology, but rather to oppose and ultimately to refute it. There is nothing wrong with tobacco use except for the associated health risks. Therefore, when the associated health risks are practically eliminated, opposition to tobacco use should cease. And yet hundreds of so-called experts and billions of dollars do oppose near-risk-free tobacco use. After all, simply handing tobacco addicts a harmless replacement is so so simple that the process wouldn't require a bloated ersatz-science and lobbying establishment to craft and oversee it.

The bottom line is that smokers are the most obvious audience for e-cigs. The more abstruse and exotic the name you choose to give to e-cigs (personal vaporizers or whatever), the less likely it is that a given smoker will regard the e-cig as a viable alternative. There is no second chance at a first impression. For what it's worth, I sure as hell wouldn't be here if e-cigarettes had a different name.

Great post! One I completely agree with and like you I doubt that if this forum had a different name I ever would have found it let alone have spent untold hours of reading / studying it's content.

 

[DaydreamingRobot]

I don't think vaping inside will last too long. Its visually offensive and spatially intrusive. Too many inconsiderate vapers won't and don't recognize this. I'm a chain vaper but I only do it in places that it can't bother others. Sometimes I just blow it into my shirt and people show an imdeiate look of reliefe on their faces when they notice its dissipated.

No matter how we try to hide it, some total idot cloud chaser will be filling the room with vape to satisfy their
Histrionic personality disorder issues. Then come here and try to defend it further under a guise of reason and respectful logic.

Its the new eljerko. Except its vaper and not cigar smoke.

 

[jpargana]

E-cigarettes are a tobacco product, so please stop wasting time arguing otherwise | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
http://wivapers.blogspot.com/2013/07/are-nicotine-e-cigarettes-tobacco.html

Yours is a noble thought, but whenever anyone argues that e-cigs shouldn't be called e-cigs, he implicitly (and understandably) rubber stamps the fallacious notion that tobacco or tobacco use is a bad thing per se. "If only we could get those irrational, tyrannical busybodies in the public-health industry to see that what we're using isn't as bad as the evil tobacco!"

The thing is, our opponents are the ones who put forth that notion to begin with. The very reason they oppose e-cigs now is that they're afraid that the smoke-like appearance of vaping will ruin all of their hard work to demonize cigarettes. They don't care whether e-cigs themselves are harmless; they don't want us to indulge in anything that is made from tobacco and/or resembles tobacco use. They oppose anything that might allow the tobacco industry to continue to exist, or worse yet, to thrive even in a world without cigarettes or widespread cigarette-caused disease.

The tyrannical busybodies won't be appeased. Their entire industry is based on a corrupt and anti-rational ideology. The proper approach to take, then, is not to appeal to that ideology, but rather to oppose and ultimately to refute it. There is nothing wrong with tobacco use except for the associated health risks. Therefore, when the associated health risks are practically eliminated, opposition to tobacco use should cease. And yet hundreds of so-called experts and billions of dollars do oppose near-risk-free tobacco use. After all, simply handing tobacco addicts a harmless replacement is so so simple that the process wouldn't require a bloated ersatz-science and lobbying establishment to craft and oversee it.

The bottom line is that smokers are the most obvious audience for e-cigs. The more abstruse and exotic the name you choose to give to e-cigs (personal vaporizers or whatever), the less likely it is that a given smoker will regard the e-cig as a viable alternative. There is no second chance at a first impression. For what it's worth, I sure as hell wouldn't be here if e-cigarettes had a different name.

Thank you.

 

[Albantar]

I don't think vaping inside will last too long. Its visually offensive and spatially intrusive. Too many inconsiderate vapers won't and don't recognize this. I'm a chain vaper but I only do it in places that it can't bother others. Sometimes I just blow it into my shirt and people show an imdeiate look of reliefe on their faces when they notice its dissipated.

No matter how we try to hide it, some total idot cloud chaser will be filling the room with vape to satisfy their
Histrionic personality disorder issues. Then come here and try to defend it further under a guise of reason and respectful logic.

Its the new eljerko. Except its vaper and not cigar smoke.

I'm sorry but I disagree. I live in the Netherlands, vaping is not very common here yet (but the "oil stain" is spreading fast). I make it a point to vape wherever I am. And strangely, I have yet to encounter a negative reaction. Many interested reactions, though.

I'm not doing anything that's wrong or harmful. Yes, some of the liquids I vape leave a slight scent - but our HR director's perfume is 1000x more present. Most people will say "well, I do smell it, but at least it doesn't stink." And explaining that nicotine in itself isn't any more harmful than cafeine helps a lot too - especially while the person you're speaking to is holding a steaming hot cup of coffee or tea.

At my workplace, vaping is now totally accepted - even embraced by our management (no more smoke breaks, better employee health, no "smoker's breath" that could offend clients). And why shouldn't it be? Why should I hide something that is completely harmless - or at least not more harmful than many other things that we don't hide, such as a cup of coffee or a Mars bar?

 

[wv2win]

I don't think vaping inside will last too long. Its visually offensive and spatially intrusive. Too many inconsiderate vapers won't and don't recognize this. I'm a chain vaper but I only do it in places that it can't bother others. Sometimes I just blow it into my shirt and people show an imdeiate look of reliefe on their faces when they notice its dissipated.

No matter how we try to hide it, some total idot cloud chaser will be filling the room with vape to satisfy their
Histrionic personality disorder issues. Then come here and try to defend it further under a guise of reason and respectful logic.

Its the new eljerko. Except its vaper and not cigar smoke.

Another strawman argument which tries to hide a lack of reasoning. Resorting to the extremes always highlights the weakness of the presenter and the point.

 

[Ansah]

E-cigarettes are a tobacco product, so please stop wasting time arguing otherwise | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
http://wivapers.blogspot.com/2013/07/are-nicotine-e-cigarettes-tobacco.html

Yours is a noble thought, but whenever anyone argues that e-cigs shouldn't be called e-cigs, he implicitly (and understandably) rubber stamps the fallacious notion that tobacco or tobacco use is a bad thing per se. "If only we could get those irrational, tyrannical busybodies in the public-health industry to see that what we're using isn't as bad as the evil tobacco!"

The thing is, our opponents are the ones who put forth that notion to begin with. The very reason they oppose e-cigs now is that they're afraid that the smoke-like appearance of vaping will ruin all of their hard work to demonize cigarettes. They don't care whether e-cigs themselves are harmless; they don't want us to indulge in anything that is made from tobacco and/or resembles tobacco use. They oppose anything that might allow the tobacco industry to continue to exist, or worse yet, to thrive even in a world without cigarettes or widespread cigarette-caused disease.

The tyrannical busybodies won't be appeased. Their entire industry is based on a corrupt and anti-rational ideology. The proper approach to take, then, is not to appeal to that ideology, but rather to oppose and ultimately to refute it. There is nothing wrong with tobacco use except for the associated health risks. Therefore, when the associated health risks are practically eliminated, opposition to tobacco use should cease. And yet hundreds of so-called experts and billions of dollars do oppose near-risk-free tobacco use. After all, simply handing tobacco addicts a harmless replacement is so so simple that the process wouldn't require a bloated ersatz-science and lobbying establishment to craft and oversee it.

The bottom line is that smokers are the most obvious audience for e-cigs. The more abstruse and exotic the name you choose to give to e-cigs (personal vaporizers or whatever), the less likely it is that a given smoker will regard the e-cig as a viable alternative. There is no second chance at a first impression. For what it's worth, I sure as hell wouldn't be here if e-cigarettes had a different name.

Really well-said! No reason not to quote you and repeat this yet again.

 

[Recycled Roadkill]

And you found the forum how? If it was anything like me, every time I tried to google ecigs, this forum was always at the top of the search list. That is why it will continue to have the name it has. Not to mention the largest active vaping community on the net. It just might have something to do with being called the E-cigarette-forum. People buy Blu's, get disatisfied with them, google ecigs to find something better and wind up here. I think it's brilliant actually

I've been involved with forums that have changed names and retained their original name. Such as Private Vaping Forum, formerly E Cig Forum. Redirects are easy for those that code and names can retained. I'm sure that all mods and folk here that run things behind the scenes have someone that knows how to accomplish that.

How did I originally get here? After my initial starter purchase I googled EVOD.

And do I expect that my little suggestion would ever to update the name here would be taken because I bothered to it? Hardly. But the only thing that I see here that we all agree on is that we, our vape juices and equipment should be left alone by government.

 

[soba1]

Sheeple mentality

 

[soba1]

Dang. The wet side strikes again I had a security guard at Quest field tell me to either put it away or he was going to take it from me. I put it my pocket and walked away. He's lucky I was so nice as my mood wasn't very good being that the Seahawks where kicking my Niners butts.

Thats when its either I like to see you try or say (censored) u and leave.

 

[Nunnster]

First off, when I was an analog smoker I hated these types of bans while outside. Now I understand around a park (not that I agree, but I understand) but while I am outside even if a ban was in place, I would still smoke. I was only ever approached once (no one was around, I was never a jerk smoker who lit up just cuz, I know people dont want to be exposed to it and I respect that) and I told the officer that smoking bans are unconstitutional, and that there are a few state courts that agree, he just mumbled "put it out" and walked away. Now that I vape, I will still vape when I want, regardless of a ban while outside in public spaces. Its an infringement on my rights as a "free citizen". People who make these rules only have power because we allow them too. I know it makes me sound like a crazy nut job, but this country (the USA) was founded by men who were hell bent, tax dodging rebels who hated the unjust laws of England and fought hard to try and establish a country free of this type of tyranny. Its not going to get better until we wake up and become like Washington, Franklin, Adams, Paine, and Jackson.

From Thoreau's Civil Disobedience
"Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels