It is IMPORTANT to Vape in PUBLIC

[wv2win]

I think if you thought about it, the term "Zealot" can apply to Either side of a Position.

And what does that have to do with you expousing the same BS that ASCH does about vaping being a danger because the FDA found trace elements of TSNA's in one eliquid cartridge. Because that is EXACTLY what you did. Don't run away from your comments by focusing on the word "zealot". It does not change the point that you are making the same BS arguement that ASCH makes.

 

[sailorman]

I think if you thought about it, the term "Zealot" can apply to Either side of a Position.

It can but, in this case, it doesn't. A zealot has certain characteristics. Among them is a willingness to overlook contrary facts. The anti-tobacco zealots have a long history of that. I, for one, do not overlook and deny facts. I simply insist that they are indeed facts.

Again, you fall into the trap of believing all opinions are equally valid. They aren't.

 

[wv2win]

This is a result of the relatively recent cultural phenomenon that holds that all opinions and points of view are equally valid and equally legitimate. It's a form of political correctness that, ironically, was largely spawned by right wing media, notably Fox News, who is commonly forced into the unenviable position of having to defend the indefensible by pretending that all points of view are equally valid and carry equal intellectual weight.

Accurate and well stated.

 

[zoiDman]

This is a result of the relatively recent cultural phenomenon that holds that all opinions and points of view are equally valid and equally legitimate. It's a form of political correctness that, ironically, was largely spawned by right wing media, notably Fox News, who is commonly forced into the unenviable position of having to defend the indefensible by pretending that all points of view are equally valid and carry equal intellectual weight.

I Don't have to say Anything more. I think sailorman summed it up quite well. You can’t have an Opinion or Point of View Unless it is the Same as sailorman’s (and also wv2win).

And if you do, you got it from the Right Wing News Media Fox New’s.

ROTFLMAO.

 

[wv2win]

So, companies are extremely protective of their image, brand, and identity. While we all know that vaping is OK, that it's very beneficial, that doesn't mean that companies view people sitting around in their establishments with tendrils of vapor wafting over their heads or flowing from their mouthes as a good image. Honestly, if I owned a store or restaurant that banned smoking, I'd likely be inclined to uphold that ban against vaping inside my establishment as well. My opinion will likely be an unpopular one, but I understand why businesses have a resistance and why it likely will never go away.

That being said, outdoors, or in places like lounges and bars (in which there are often more people standing outside smoking than there are IN the establishment) I'd say, if I was the owner of said establishment, I'd allow it. Those are traditional adult smoking places. Outdoors, there should be no question.

I'm not even going to say "oh but the children! We can't let children see!" Kids will eventually know anyway, or their parents will eventually have to explain addiction to them. I've never been one for sheltering my own children and I'm not really interested in sheltering someone elses. haha.

I'll actually stand behind any business that doesn't want to allow vaping in their establishments. I get why. It's an image thing, NOT a health thing. I know a lot of people won't agree with me though. I'm ok with that.

Overall I don't disagree with your premise. I believe it is incumbent upon those of us who vape to educate business owners to the differences, but ultimately we have to respect their decisions. We don't, however, have to support their business with our money.

 

[sailorman]

And what does that have to do with you expousing the same BS that ASCH does about vaping being a danger because the FDA found trace elements of TSNA's in one eliquid cartridge. Because that is EXACTLY what you did. Don't run away from your comments by focusing on the word "zealot". It does not change the point that you are making the same BS arguement that ASCH makes.

People who believe in the inherent equality of all opinions are highly susceptible to propaganda. They have a reduced capacity to distinguish between valid information and invalid information. They often attribute an exaggerated degree of credibility to an information source because of it's perceived position of authority. They lose the ability to exercise an appropriate degree of skepticism and are easily overwhelmed by information that comes from a source that holds itself out as authoritative without investigating the basis of such claims of authority.

 

[sailorman]

Now you REALLY are sounding just like the zealots from ASCH. When you resort to this type of meaningless BS comment is when you need to really think what your objective is: just to argue is what this looks like.

I already explained what was meant by "Few Only". If he can't figure out a simple table, even after it was "dumbed down" from other data for public consumption, there's not much use in arguing with him.

 

[zoiDman]

People who believe in the inherent equality of all opinions are highly susceptible to propaganda. They have a reduced capacity to distinguish between valid information and invalid information. They often attribute an exaggerated degree of credibility to an information source because of it's perceived position of authority. They lose the ability to exercise an appropriate degree of skepticism and are easily overwhelmed by information that comes from a source that holds itself out as authoritative without investigating the basis of such claims of authority.

Man… This stuff is Hysterical.

Tell us More sailorman.

 

[MickeyRat]

I understand why businesses have a resistance and why it likely will never go away.

Exactly what evidence do you have that businesses have a resistance? There are a very few large businesses that have made public announcements but, even their employees aren't aware it of in many cases. I have vaped in many businesses and if they were small establishments, I usually asked. I've never been turned down. The reason I have to say usually is that it's happened so many times now that sometimes I forget to ask. In those cases I didn't have any trouble either. The fact is, there doesn't appear to be any resistance. So, there doesn't appear to be anything to go away. For the most part, the resistance is an inaccurate assumption on your part.

The closest I ever came to being turned down is when the manager of a restaurant told me he had trouble with a guy using something that resembled a cigarette with a red LED and too many people thought he was smoking. He said it would be fine but, I'd have to stop, if there were complaints. That was reasonable. I was using a homemade bottom feeder box mod with a blue LED. Only a lunatic would think it was a cigarette. I had no trouble.

The funny thing is, he was very interested in vaping and he got lots of info from me. The next day he rode his motorcycle to madvapes (about 80 miles from here) and bought all kind of stuff. When I asked for my to go box he threw in a free dessert. Is that the kind of resistance you're talking about? I'll take it.

 

[sailorman]

I Don't have to say Anything more. I think sailorman summed it up quite well. You can’t have an Opinion or Point of View Unless it is the Same as sailorman’s (and also wv2win).

And if you do, you got it from the Right Wing News Media Fox New’s.

ROTFLMAO.

I can see how someone with limited reading comprehension might get that impression. I apologize. I'm not used to simplifying my posts to such a great degree. Let me try again with an analogy.

Joe says the earth is flat and that is his opinion.
Tom says, "Joe, you're wrong. The earth is not flat."
Joe says, "I'm entitled to my own opinion. It's a valid opinion."
Tom says, "No. It's not a valid opinion because it's not based on facts."
Joe says, "Are you saying that I don't have the right to my own opinion?"
Tom says, "No. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions are equally valid."

Then, zoiDman chimes in: "Tom thinks that nobody can have an opinion or point of view unless it's the same as Tom's."

Then, zoiDman does what everyone does when they are incapable of understanding a point of logic, or have no coherent rebuttal. He tries ridicule. "ROFLMAO"

That about sums it up. Understand now?

 

[sailorman]

Man… This stuff is Hysterical.

Tell us More sailorman.

Sociology 101. Did you laugh and eat popcorn in school as well?

Ridicule. The last line of defense for the mentally overwhelmed.

 

[zoiDman]

I can see how someone with limited reading comprehension might get that impression. I apologize. I'm not used to simplifying my posts to such a great degree. Let me try again with an analogy.

Joe says the earth is flat and that is his opinion.
Tom says, "Joe, you're wrong. The earth is not flat."
Joe says, "I'm entitled to my own opinion. It's a valid opinion."
Tom says, "No. It's not a valid opinion because it's not based on facts."
Joe says, "Are you saying that I don't have the right to my own opinion?"
Tom says, "No. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions are equally valid."

Then, zoiDman chimes in: "Tom thinks that nobody can have an opinion or point of view unless it's the same as Tom's."

Then, zoiDman does what everyone does when they are incapable of understanding a point of logic, or have no coherent rebuttal. He tries ridicule. "ROFLMAO"

That about sums it up. Understand now?

Sociology 101. Did you laugh and eat popcorn in school as well?

Ridicule. The last line of defense for the mentally overwhelmed.

Your on a Roll sailorman.

 

[wv2win]

And what does that have to do with you expousing the same BS that ASCH does about vaping being a danger because the FDA found trace elements of TSNA's in one eliquid cartridge. Because that is EXACTLY what you did. Don't run away from your comments by focusing on the word "zealot". It does not change the point that you are making the same BS arguement that ASCH makes.

It can but, in this case, it doesn't. A zealot has certain characteristics. Among them is a willingness to overlook contrary facts. The anti-tobacco zealots have a long history of that. I, for one, do not overlook and deny facts. I simply insist that they are indeed facts.

Again, you fall into the trap of believing all opinions are equally valid. They aren't.

I Don't have to say Anything more. I think sailorman summed it up quite well. You can’t have an Opinion or Point of View Unless it is the Same as sailorman’s (and also wv2win).

And if you do, you got it from the Right Wing News Media Fox New’s.

ROTFLMAO.

When you can't support your position and counter your opponent's position, then the next Straw Man arguement to make, is simply change the subject and attack your opponent.

 

[sailorman]

Your on a Roll sailorman.

Yep. Remember that kid in school who was always ROFLMAO, cutting up and making snide remarks, and never really contributed anything to the discussion but was a sort of semi-interesting distraction?

Then, it turns out that the reason he was acting up was because he didn't understand the subject matter and his ridicule and attempts to make people laugh were a kind of defense mechanism. Remember that kid? He's still among us.

 

[zoiDman]

When you can't support your position and counter your opponent's position, then the next Straw Man arguement to make, is simply change the subject and attack your opponent.

Maybe there isn't any need to Support or Counter anything.

You can only discuss something with someone if they are Listening. If they are not, and only want to Argue or Tell you their Position, there isn't much point in saying much.

 

[zoiDman]

Yep. Remember that kid in school who was always ROFLMAO, cutting up and making snide remarks, and never really contributed anything to the discussion but was a sort of semi-interesting distraction?

Then, it turns out that the reason he was acting up was because he didn't understand the subject matter and his ridicule and attempts to make people laugh were a kind of defense mechanism. Remember that kid? He's still among us.

I knew one of those Kids too. I think his name was Tom?

Or maybe it was Joe?

 

[sailorman]

Now, Zoid... Would you like to get back on topic?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to indicate that there are any more harmful components in vapor then there are in, say, your barbeque grill, or your car, or lawnmower, or the air freshener in every building in America, or tap water, or processed food or cosmetics or the musty ventilation systems in most buildings or a fireplace or a bus or the air within a mile of any highway or the off-gassing of carpet glue or vinyl furniture or a new car?

Anything besides speculation about the existence of some heretofore undiscovered mystery toxins that only appear when PG, VG, nicotine and food flavorings are heated to approx. 200 degrees, and that not only manage to escape absorption by the vaper but detection by laboratory analysis as well?

You say you can only discuss something with people who are listening. Well, I'm all ears if you have something to say besides idle speculation and already debunked ANTZ propaganda.

 

[MissThree33]

Exactly what evidence do you have that businesses have a resistance? There are a very few large businesses that have made public announcements but, even their employees aren't aware it of in many cases. I have vaped in many businesses and if they were small establishments, I usually asked. I've never been turned down. The reason I have to say usually is that it's happened so many times now that sometimes I forget to ask. In those cases I didn't have any trouble either. The fact is, there doesn't appear to be any resistance. So, there doesn't appear to be anything to go away. For the most part, the resistance is an inaccurate assumption on your part.

The closest I ever came to being turned down is when the manager of a restaurant told me he had trouble with a guy using something that resembled a cigarette with a red LED and too many people thought he was smoking. He said it would be fine but, I'd have to stop, if there were complaints. That was reasonable. I was using a homemade bottom feeder box mod with a blue LED. Only a lunatic would think it was a cigarette. I had no trouble.

The funny thing is, he was very interested in vaping and he got lots of info from me. The next day he rode his motorcycle to madvapes (about 80 miles from here) and bought all kind of stuff. When I asked for my to go box he threw in a free dessert. Is that the kind of resistance you're talking about? I'll take it.

I'm totally sure that's the case.

However, I'm from a slightly different part of the country. I can be quite sure that no business that caters to the public would allow it here. Or if they did, it would be very far and few between. In fact, in my county (the same county Seattle occupies), PV usage is subjected to all the same laws cig usage is. Although I'm sure very few are aware of that. Currenly, smoking is prohibited in almost all public places. Parks, bars, restaurants, everywhere...

In Seattle, it's more acceptable to take a Sunday bicycle ride through the streets of Seattle buck naked (which is NOT illegal) than it is to smoke or appear to "smoke". It's a social engineering thing that's so ingrained in people's heads, that it's going to be nearly impossible to change. Would I like the attitude to change? Sure, but I really don't think it will.

The only thing that could possibly change the attitude is for unbiased studies to be completed, then for massive public acceptance and education to happen from a group like the AMA or other authority the common non-smoking, non-vaping public will follow sheepishly. That's just how people are. It's sad, but it's true no matter how much we don't want it to be.

 

[sailorman]

I'm totally sure that's the case.

However, I'm from a slightly different part of the country. I can be quite sure that no business that caters to the public would allow it here. Or if they did, it would be very far and few between. In fact, in my county (the same county Seattle occupies), PV usage is subjected to all the same laws cig usage is. Although I'm sure very few are aware of that. Currenly, smoking is prohibited in almost all public places. Parks, bars, restaurants, everywhere...

In Seattle, it's more acceptable to take a Sunday bicycle ride through the streets of Seattle buck naked (which is NOT illegal) than it is to smoke or appear to "smoke". It's a social engineering thing that's so ingrained in people's heads, that it's going to be nearly impossible to change. Would I like the attitude to change? Sure, but I really don't think it will.

The only thing that could possibly change the attitude is for unbiased studies to be completed, then for massive public acceptance and education to happen from a group like the AMA or other authority the common non-smoking, non-vaping public will follow sheepishly. That's just how people are. It's sad, but it's true no matter how much we don't want it to be.

You're right. It's a rear-guard action where you live. Even if authoritative information is produced, it's extremely difficult to "undo" bans. So, you have a terribly uphill battle in front of you to avoid being treated like a smoker. Facts will only make it marginally easier. Once PVs are legally treated like analogs, it becomes exponentially harder to break that association in the minds of the public, whatever the facts and regardless of how accepted they are by scientists and the medical community.

In other parts of the country, we are trying to avoid that. If people in Seattle were informed and as used to seeing vapers as they are to seeing cyclists, those bans might have been met with some significant opposition. But maybe not. It IS Seattle after all.

Where PVs are not yet treated like analogs, we are trying to prevent a situation where the ANTZ can convince people that smoking and vaping are essentially the same thing. Most business owners have been receptive to vaping, in my experience. Particularly receptive have been bars and restaurants, where smoking bans were met with some serious opposition.

Any good bar owner, for example, knows full well that every time a smoker goes outside, there's a chance he will leave for the night. They were the most vehemently opposed to the smoking bans and I have yet to encounter a bar owner or manager that was opposed to vaping, as long as it was not illegal.

Shop owners and restaurant owners are a slightly harder nut to crack. I have had no problem vaping in restaurants, but I tend to be more discreet about it. Not "stealth", but discreet. Restaurants will overlook it if no one complains and most have no set policy one way or the other. It's kind of a "wink-wink-nod-nod" situation. Dont' ask, don't tell.

The more we vape in public, the less chance of vaping bans gaining public support. Education is the key and you can't do that when you're standing in a smoking area. We need the support of non-smokers and non-smokers don't hang around in smoking areas to find out what you're doing. They see you there. They see what looks like a cigarette and they assume they know what you are doing... smoking, or something as equally offensive. Otherwise, why would you be doing it in a smoking area?

 

[MickeyRat]

For the old farts like me, I think banned in Seattle is what banned in Boston used to be.