You misread me, I said that the reason ISN'T because people are exhaling microscopic amounts of nicotine, because if that were so it would be illegal to breathe while eating anything containing tomato, pepper, or eggplant.
Legality of Vaping Indoors in King County
- Thread starter parametrization
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You misread me, I said that the reason ISN'T because people are exhaling microscopic amounts of nicotine, because if that were so it would be illegal to breathe while eating anything containing tomato, pepper, or eggplant.
Maybe I did Misunderstand you.
But you have to admit that Analogies to Eating foods and then Exhaling are somewhat Bizarre at Best. Not a Very Firm Legal Foundation.
I'll be honest with you. I don't agree with much of the Current Legislation regarding e-Cigs that I read. And much of it Needs to be Contested. But fighting bans for e-Cig use in Non-Smoking Indoor Areas is Un-Winnable.
Not taking about Right or Wrong. Good or Bad. Safe or Unsafe. All that can all be Debated.
But getting a Legal Persistent for e-Cig use in Indoor Non-Smoking areas, it just Aint Going to Happen.
When resources are Limited, Choose your Fights Wisely. Reasonable Taxation would seem like a more Winnable Cause.
I have to agree. It's going to be banned where smoking is banned. It's not because of science or logic, but simply politics. On the bright side, it's much easier to get away with. It's hard to hide smoking in motel room or a bathroom because of the smell. It's immediately noticeable. I'm actually looking forward to vaping in the first "no smoking" room I rent.
My experience says you're wrong. People do react positively. The odor and percieved health effects are what turned people off of smoking. Most people actually do understand that that the tar in cigarettes is the primary cause of the health issues not the nicotine. They even know that PVs produce no tar. Unless you're using some really funky juice, when you're using your PV around them people aren't offended by the smell and they see it doesn't linger.
All of that said, what you are really saying is that's there's going to be a ban no matter what we do. So, hiding it makes no difference one way or the other. If that is the case, we might as well take advantage of the situation while we can.
I think this is a Very Bad way to look at things.
Vaping where Smoking is Not Allowed does Nothing but give ALL vapers Bad Name. It just gives Credibility to the e-Cig ANTZ.
If you want to vape in some Indoor Public Place. Ask the Owner or Manager. If He or She says its Cool, Go For It. But if they say it isn't, then Man Up and Don't Vape.
BTW - Why is that when People Smoked Analogs they could somehow get thru a Dinner at a Restaurant or Sit thru a Movie without Smoking. But Now that they Vape they Can't.
Maybe the Addiction to Vaping in some ways is Worse that the Addition to Analogs.
I'm sure the ANTZ would jump all over the Concept that a Vaper cannot Control their Adiction Long Enough to Eat a Meal or Walk thru a Shopping Mall.
Last edited:
I usually do ask in restarants. I've never been turned down. In bars I don't feel the need. Some places like Disney World or common areas in a mall, it's hard to know who to ask. Really though, if someone complained, it wouldn't occur to me to stomp my feet and insist that I have the right. I'd either stop or leave. I might even do that, if I just got dirty looks.
Lots of people wear or do things that others would rather they didn't but, if you expect to be allowed to wear and do what you want within reason, you have to tolerate that. Sure I don't have to vape in that restaurant but, that's not the point. If I would like to vape and it doesn't bother anyone, why shouldn't I? The point you're missing is that, for the most part, it really doesn't bother anyone. That's honestly been my experience. People realize almost instantly that it's not like smoking and they really don't mind.
Perhaps.
But Not Everyone I have had the Pleasure of running into sees Vaping as you or the People you have meet do.
I can think of One Person in Particular who went Screaming at the Top of Her Lungs to the Powers that Be that a Person was Using "Nicotine" in a Smoke Free Office Area where I work. That prompted a Organization Wise Ban of e-Cigs to Only Areas where Smoking is Allowed Two Days Later. No Exceptions.
If you follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, what you are really saying is, if we don't act like there's a ban, there's going to be a ban. I fail to see the difference between acting like there's a ban when there isn't one and having an actual ban.
As I said previously, the knee jerk reaction is to ban. The only way that's going to change is for people to see that these things are different than smoking. We can't simultaneously lurk in corners and stealth vape and show people what vaping is actually like. The worst thing that will happen is that the ban will happen anyway.
I do admit that, in fact that is the point: Banning the vapor from less than a teaspoon of flavored liquid makes about as much sense as banning the vapor escaping from a cup of coffee or a pizza with tomato sauce and peppers.
The ANTZ have *no* legal foundation for their argument, what they have is a gut reaction to anything even remotely related to tobacco and the fact that vapor looks similar to smoke is enough to send them over the edge.
Winnable or not, we don't even need to fight for it any more than we need to fight against bans on gum chewing. It might seem like a stupid and annoying rule, but since there is no way to stop people from doing it discretely...it's mostly just annoying.
I understand where you are going, but I don't think it is impossible. Not everyone who wants to reduce smoking is an Anti-Nicotine/Tobacco Zealot, and anti-smoking lawmakers can be encouraged to pass laws that allow vaping where smoking is prohibited in order to encourage people to switch to smoke free alternatives. If smokers are allowed to use e-cigs or other smoke-free products where combustible cigarettes are banned, more people might actually try them and find that they can switch completely and stop smoking altogether.
Several places have specifically excluded e-cigarettes from their smoking bans--even in Pierce County, Washington where e-cigarettes are included in the smoking ban, their use is allowed in non-smoking bars and private workplaces....so that is already a precedent of e-cigarette usage being allowed in non-smoking areas, even though it came in the form of a e-cig usage ban!
Last edited:
Whether or not something makes sense is irrelevant. This is political, where common sense is usually absent. There is absolutely no risk of harm to anyone from second-hand smoke in a park (a possibility of a whiff, but no actual harm) yet more and more places are banning them anyway. When the bans against smoking in parks, parking lots, etc went into place without much opposition, the floodgates opened and a valid reason was no longer needed. It's going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle. E cigarettes will be included in smoking bans because some people are against it and that's enough for them. I think it's revolting, but I believe that's how it's going to happen. I hope I'm wrong, but no matter how low I judge the IQ of the general public, I usually find I overestimated.
Well let me jump in. It does come down to politics, and unfortunately it is based on lack of knowledge and thus a knee jerk reaction.
In Pierce County it took The Vaporium's owner, Kim, to fight for our rights even before I knew about vaping. She went to the health board and educated them. But it really took getting the head of the board, .... Muri, to realize that why should politics trump something that may help the public quit smoking!
King County took the other approach.
I do agree that we as vapers need to lead the fight and educate others, but need to do so respectfully.
It would be great to create FB pages or Forum threads listing "vaping friendly" establishments. Or even a website! I wish I knew more about computers/programming to do so! A directory would not only help us identify businesses that support us, but could even have a section that list the local laws! This could be set up nationally so a search by zip code could be done.
Maybe I need to get a website for dummies book and start!
Jeff "Jagellpuff" via iPhone using Tapatalk
In Pierce County it took The Vaporium's owner, Kim, to fight for our rights even before I knew about vaping. She went to the health board and educated them. But it really took getting the head of the board, .... Muri, to realize that why should politics trump something that may help the public quit smoking!
King County took the other approach.
I do agree that we as vapers need to lead the fight and educate others, but need to do so respectfully.
It would be great to create FB pages or Forum threads listing "vaping friendly" establishments. Or even a website! I wish I knew more about computers/programming to do so! A directory would not only help us identify businesses that support us, but could even have a section that list the local laws! This could be set up nationally so a search by zip code could be done.
Maybe I need to get a website for dummies book and start!
Jeff "Jagellpuff" via iPhone using Tapatalk
All say One more thing and then I'll let this go. Most, if not All of this has been said before. The Food Analogies are becoming Tiresome.
If you want to fight Indoor e-Cig Bans in Non-Smoking Areas, Go For It. But I don't see it as a Winnable Cause. Not with the Ratio of e-Cig users to the General Population and Not with the Current Feelings/Laws about "Tobacco" products use in Public .
I will also say this, You Bring a Lawsuit where a Person Who Uses a e-Cig and Exhales Vapor Containing Nicotine on another Person in a Indoor Non-Smoking Area and the Court Rules that the Vaper Has the Right to Exhale Vapor Containing Nicotine on Other Parties, and you might have a Chance of Stopping e-Cig Indoor Bans.
But if you Lose this Lawsuit, well, what do You think is going to happen then?
Or perhaps you can Reverse the Players. What happens if a Lawsuit is brought forth by an Individual Claiming that they were Exposed to Nicotine in an Indoor Non-Smoking Area?
Just stealth vape. Dont try to walk in the middle of a group of grocery shoppers and be like 'oh i hope they see me so i can tell them its vaping.........'. Thats what i do at least.
Dont show off, just be relieved no one smells smoke across the store like you were smoking a cigarette. Take advantage of that.
Dont show off, just be relieved no one smells smoke across the store like you were smoking a cigarette. Take advantage of that.
There's a difference between being intentionally disruptive and just minding your own business and doing what makes you comfortable. Again what's the difference between acting like it's banned and living with a ban?
It's all about being respectful.
King County Housing Authority tried banning vaping in rentals/low income housing on balconies/porches. When they were educated on vaping they backed down as they realized we don't vape outdoors. It is educating them that helps.
If an establishment says no to vaping, I say ok and take my biz elsewhere. That simple.
Unfortunately King County is just too uptight right now.
Give it time, the more that switch, the more data and research done, the more everyone gets educated, things will change.
Jeff "Jagellpuff" via iPhone using Tapatalk
King County Housing Authority tried banning vaping in rentals/low income housing on balconies/porches. When they were educated on vaping they backed down as they realized we don't vape outdoors. It is educating them that helps.
If an establishment says no to vaping, I say ok and take my biz elsewhere. That simple.
Unfortunately King County is just too uptight right now.
Give it time, the more that switch, the more data and research done, the more everyone gets educated, things will change.
Jeff "Jagellpuff" via iPhone using Tapatalk
It's not an analogy, it is a fact that tomatoes, peppers, and eggplant contain nicotine and there is no reason to suspect that someone using an e-cigarette exhales more nicotine than someone using smokeless tobacco, pharmaceutical nicotine, or eating foods that contain nicotine.
In my state, if you don't fight indoor vaping bans in non-smoking areas, it would be illegal to vape indoors and that makes absolutely no sense, is not backed by any science, and only serves to perpetuate the demonization of tobacco users. FIRE and SMOKE have been shown to cause diseases, tobacco is only guilty by association.
A judge is certainly not going to rule that anyone has a right to exhale "on other parties", but that doesn't mean that you don't have a right to exhale.
How could a lawsuit like this possibly be lost? How is the bystander going to prove that they were harmed? What damage could they prove has been done? Do they have any evidence that any nicotine was actually exhaled? If any nicotine was exhaled, is there any reason to believe that it would be enough to have any effect? If there was a measurable amount of nicotine exhaled, what diseases or dangers to bystanders do you suspect might be caused by nicotine and not carbon monoxide, tar or any other dangerous byproducts of combustion?
Again, they'd need to prove that they were exposed to dangerous levels of nicotine. How do you suppose they could do that?
Truth. Especially in King county.
I lived there for several years. Loved the geography and most of the people I know there, but the politics is
.- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
