It is IMPORTANT to Vape in PUBLIC

Status
Not open for further replies.

wv2win

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Feb 10, 2009
11,879
9,045
GA by way of WV
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.

Rat, sailorman and I are listening, but we just are not buying your poorly conceived and poorly supported arguement that we should all act like vaping and smoking are the same thing. And you are quite accurate when you state you are not "saying much".
 

wv2win

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Feb 10, 2009
11,879
9,045
GA by way of WV
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?

On a positive note, a bill in Nebraska and a city council in MO are actually moving in the right direction and in the MO example, the AHA actually agreed that vaping should be removed from smoking bans:

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LR499.pdf

Smoking ban supporters say they'll accept limited changes | Springfield News-Leader | News-Leader.com
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,589
1
84,625
So-Cal
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.

Good Points Missthree33

The Entire Vaping in Non-Smoking Areas is a Complex Issue.

And at the Heart of it is if there was such a Unbiased Study or Clinical Trial that it would be much Simpler. But without it what are we left with.

Merchants who’s Majority Clientele may not do Business at their Establishments because of Fear of Second Hand Vape.
Employer’s who know that an Employee may bring a Lawsuit Claiming a Unsafe Work Environment if e-Cigs are Allowed in Enclosed Work Spaces.
Elected Officials Angering a Larger Sector of Votes by Not Enacting Bans of Unregulated e-Liquids and e-Cig Use.
Governments who are Drooling at the Chance to Tax e-Liquids but must First find a Way to Do it.

It’s just not a Black and White Issue and it doesn’t have a lot to do with Right and Wrong.

Like you said, It’s kind of Sad but It’s also just kind of How it Is.
 

Stoggy24

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 1, 2012
1,644
2,973
37
lebanon,mo
On a positive note, a bill in Nebraska and a city council in MO are actually moving in the right direction and in the MO example, the AHA actually agreed that vaping should be removed from smoking bans:

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LR499.pdf

Smoking ban supporters say they'll accept limited changes | Springfield News-Leader | News-Leader.com
yep i live 50 miles from springfield and im pretty sure they are going to revise ecigs outta the smoking ban
 

wv2win

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Feb 10, 2009
11,879
9,045
GA by way of WV
Seattle is really an interesting area
On one hand they are fanatics about smoking and e-cigs
but on the other hand...Seattle continues to host the
annual Hempfest: LINK
:p

Agreed. I'm fairly sure that what happens in Seattle, just like San Fransico, has little to no sway with the rest of the country.
 

MissThree33

Full Member
Mar 24, 2012
42
37
58
Seattle
Seattle is really an interesting area
On one hand they are fanatics about smoking and e-cigs
but on the other hand...Seattle continues to host the
annual Hempfest: LINK
:p

Trust me I know, it's totally weird. LOL. There's legislation in our state right now that's going to attempt to make certain herbs which I've never partaken in, legal. I actually support that movement.

Hempfest is a HUGE deal here. Seattle is weird, totally weird. LOL. Rabid recyclers, rabid tree huggers, fanatically anti-smoking, pro-nudity, some of the loosest alcohol production laws in the nation (with some of the harshest distribution regulations), and other very very strange goings ons in this state. I've lived here for 45 years its always been like living in the most schizophrenic place on the planet. LOL.
 

sailorman

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jun 5, 2010
4,305
2,840
Podunk, FLA
Good Points Missthree33

The Entire Vaping in Non-Smoking Areas is a Complex Issue.

And at the Heart of it is if there was such a Unbiased Study or Clinical Trial that it would be much Simpler. But without it what are we left with.

Merchants who’s Majority Clientele may not do Business at their Establishments because of Fear of Second Hand Vape.
Employer’s who know that an Employee may bring a Lawsuit Claiming a Unsafe Work Environment if e-Cigs are Allowed in Enclosed Work Spaces.
Elected Officials Angering a Larger Sector of Votes by Not Enacting Bans of Unregulated e-Liquids and e-Cig Use.
Governments who are Drooling at the Chance to Tax e-Liquids but must First find a Way to Do it.

It’s just not a Black and White Issue and it doesn’t have a lot to do with Right and Wrong.

Like you said, It’s kind of Sad but It’s also just kind of How it Is.

I think a lot of people have a totally distorted perception of what's involved in bringing a lawsuit against an employer. A massive media campaign by the U.S. Chamber and tort reform proponents are largely responsible for the mis-perception. The classic case in point is how the McDonald's coffee case was distorted and ridiculed and held up as an example of a "sue crazy" society when the facts of the case point to an entirely different conclusion. That was not just irresponsible journalism, it was a deliberate, focused campaign funded by the Chamber and orchestrated by large PR and law firms.

Propaganda aside, it's extremely difficult, time consuming and expensive to bring a suit against an employer for any but the most grievous offenses. In fact, more and more employers are insisting on mandatory binding arbitration as a condition of employment. That totally precludes any possibility of such a lawsuit. Such was the predicament of the Halliburton employee who was gang raped in Iraq by her fellow employees, then held under armed guard in a shipping container by Halliburton.

With what is presently known, and likely to be known in the future, the chances of having a lawsuit like you describe is very close to nil. Even if a lawyer would take it, it's doubtful they'd risk taking it on a contingency basis. A plaintiff would need significant financial resources to risk on a suit like that. Even if it was filed, there is no evidence to support it and, like other frivolous suits, it would be tossed out in a New York minute.

This issue is nothing like other occupational hazards, such as tobacco smoke or chemical exposure or other forms of workplace toxin exposure. There is plenty of evidence in the Health New Zealand study that the exposure levels of toxins posed by vapor is far, far below any established safe limits for workplace exposure. The same could not be said of tobacco smoke, so to compare the two is apples and oranges.

An employer might well have other legitimate reasons to prohibit vaping. Fear of lawsuits is not one of them.
 

yvilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 18, 2008
2,063
575
Rochester, NY
Sailorman and WV, Laugesen has some newer studies available to refer to now as well. This poster was presented at the Society of Toxicology meeting in San Francisco, on March 14, 2012: http://www.healthnz.co.nz/News2012SOTposter1861.pdf

And IVAQS is being readied for submission for publication as we speak. An abstract will be available at the Chicago fests this weekend. Yeah!
 

sailorman

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jun 5, 2010
4,305
2,840
Podunk, FLA
Good Points Missthree33...

Merchants who’s Majority Clientele may not do Business at their Establishments because of Fear of Second Hand Vape....

This point is exactly why it is important to vape in public. The more people who are exposed to vaping in public, the fewer will hold such unfounded fears. So, instead of taking it as a foregone conclusion that people will be afraid of vapor, it is important to educate them "in the field". That can't be done by segregating yourself in a smoking area, "stealth vaping", or only vaping in private.
 

wv2win

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Feb 10, 2009
11,879
9,045
GA by way of WV
Sailorman and WV, Laugesen has some newer studies available to refer to now as well. This poster was presented at the Society of Toxicology meeting in San Francisco, on March 14, 2012: http://www.healthnz.co.nz/News2012SOTposter1861.pdf

And IVAQS is being readied for submission for publication as we speak. An abstract will be available at the Chicago fests this weekend. Yeah!

Thank you, yvilla! Maybe I missed it in my quick read, but I am assuming that "RL" means "not present" or "not significant"?
 

Joe Normal

Senior Member
Mar 5, 2012
70
21
Europe
Obviously, you didn't bother to read the link.

I don't recognize Godwin's law as being applicable when the reference is not inappropriate, frivolous, illegitimate or gratuitous. My use of the word was none of those. To apply Godwin's under such a circumstance is merely intellectual bullying and a form of attempted prior restraint.

Since you obviously didn't read any of the link I posted, you are criticizing with no legitimate basis in fact, so I feel free to disregard your criticism. If you bother to read the link and then have a disagreement on whether the word applies, we can have that discussion. But please forgive me if I don't feel obliged to comply with any blanket prohibition you care to impose on what words I choose to use.

I'm not in Germany. I have no reason to be hyper-sensitive to the word. I am not accustomed to the atmosphere of censorship that exists there in regards to what you so delicately refer to as the "......". The "......" has an entirely different connotation and a specific meaning here. We have our own form of linguistic propriety. I don't need to have yours imposed on me as well.

OF COURSE IT WAS FRIVOLOUS, UNFITTING, GRATUITOUS AND ILLEGITIMATE.
YOU COMPARE ANTI-VAPERS TO THE .......*** GENOCIDE-COMMITTING, FOREIGN COUNTRY-INVADING BROWNSHIRTS, DUDE!

IN WHAT WAY IS THAT NOT GODWIN'ING YOUR OWN THREAD?

Words do have meanings. Firm meanings. Your usage of the word "nazi" here in this thread is inapropriate and fulfills every single criteria of Godwin's Law.

EOD.
 

sailorman

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jun 5, 2010
4,305
2,840
Podunk, FLA
OF COURSE IT WAS FRIVOLOUS, UNFITTING, GRATUITOUS AND ILLEGITIMATE.
YOU COMPARE ANTI-VAPERS TO THE .......*** GENOCIDE-COMMITTING, FOREIGN COUNTRY-INVADING BROWNSHIRTS, DUDE!

IN WHAT WAY IS THAT NOT GODWIN'ING YOUR OWN THREAD?

Words do have meanings. Firm meanings. Your usage of the word "nazi" here in this thread is inapropriate and fulfills every single criteria of Godwin's Law.

EOD.

If you believe that, then you are unaware of the nature of the anti-smoking movement in the Nazi party.

...One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.
Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

Such enthusiasm is very much still present in the modern anti-tobacco movement.

I'm not hyper-sensitive to the word. It's not banned here. It's not the "......".
I am not accusing the anti-tobacco zealots of genocide or invasion, even thought their absolutist positions do cause deaths. I'm accusing them of a mindset in regards to tobacco that is very, very similar to that of the Nazi anti-tobacco cult. If that makes you uncomfortable, that's an issue you have to work through. I don't deny the existence of people who share certain attitudes with Nazis. They are still with us and not only in the anti-tobacco movement. Unlike some in Germany, Americans don't try to erase history, or atone for it, by banishing it from our lips. I'll feel free to use the term when it fits.

So you've won no discussion. You've simply chosen to close your eyes to any evidence of the similarities between the propaganda techniques of the modern anti-tobacco zealots and the Nazi health and anti-smoking cult. You stick your fingers in your ears, chant lalalalala and declare that you've won the discussion.

Read the link I provided the other day. Then come back here and tell me the Nazis were singularly unique in the anti-tobacco zealotry that pervaded a significant segment of their party. But no, you won't do that. You're above that. You prefer to keep your fingers in your ears.
 
Last edited:

sailorman

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jun 5, 2010
4,305
2,840
Podunk, FLA
I feel comfortable vaping around the people that know me but I rarely vape in the public. I don't want to have to explain myself to strangers. Just my thoughts on the whole thing.

That's perfectly understandable. Personally, I don't see it as explaining myself. I see it as explaining my vaporizer, just like I'd explain my unusual car, or the workings of my sailboat, to an interested person. I appreciate the opportunity and see it as important if we don't want to be crammed into a closet with the smokers.
 

Maestro

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 19, 2012
912
1,141
Windsor, Ontario
Seeing the hostility that develops between people who are supposed to on the same side reinforces how nasty the vaping issue is likely to get in the future when it comes to the forefront and opposing sides really start facing off. Before I joined here last month, I had no idea there was so much contention over the issue and I doubt 99% of population realizes it either. Interesting times coming up as the vapers increase exponentially.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread