Judge rules against antis in Ohio

[aubergine]

To conflate anti-public-smoking and anti-public-vaping legislation is one of the worst mistakes that the pro-vaping lobby could make.

Our best hope if vaping falls under "smoking alternative" legislation is that we can move public perception toward thinking of them as something like snus. This will be difficult enough simply because they produce vapor, look like cigarettes and etc. Vaping publicly, in my opinion, is not and should not at this point be anywhere near the top of the agenda for this reason. Babies get thrown out with bathwater.

We sure don't need an alliance with the pro-public smoking groups. And I for one don't want one, anyway. Public smoking truly does deeply annoy non-smokers (I can't eat w/o gagging near a lit cig now that I've quit, and was courteous when I did.) That one's a no-brainer and is not gonna be rolled back significantly.)

These should be two very separate debates IMHO.

 

[bobtow]

Before the smoking ban here in Ontario Canada, Some restaurants went smoke free. I was a smoker then and avoided those restaurants. Then the law was passed that there had to be smoke free zones. At this time restaurants should have provided a good filtration system to protect the none smokers. But they didn't, and the law said that none smokers were breathing second hand smoke through the air return systems. I know of a now defunct hotel that had ioizers in the beverage rooms. These they had disconnected to save on costs. All the little things that could have been done to assure smoking in public places, were ignored. Then these same restaurants were the first to cry foul when the smoking bans hit the cities. I blame the short sightedness of the public service industries for the draconian laws that were eventually passed.

 

[WerkIt]

Well I am glad to see not all judges have been hoodwinked by anti zealotry.