My wife asked her work and recieved this reply

[sam12six]

It's obviously an unpopular opinion on this forum, but I believe we're still smoking - we're just smoking something that we believe is less harmful than cigarettes.

The only difference is the substance itself, we put something in our mouths, inhale, then exhale a cloud. We can call it whatever we want, but as long as we're doing this, the majority are going to call it smoking and treat it accordingly.

Now, if we were using an aerosol type atomizer that just gave us a mist containing nicotine like an asthma inhaler produces a mist containing asthma medicine that we can't blow smoke rings with, people would have a reasonable gripe. Most of us are not though. We're using a device that was designed to mimic smoking as closely as possible without the combustion.

While I know I'm wasting my breath (or finger motions as it were), but imagine a 9 year old kid walking down the street drinking apple juice out of a beer bottle - should the kid be self righteously upset that the uneducated people around keep stopping him to tell him he can't do that? He deliberately set out to perform an action that mimics a prohibited activity and people are reacting to him based on this. Ecigarette developers set out to create a device that mimics smoking (and early incarnations of the device itself were designed to mimic the appearance of cigarettes).

 

[expat]

Expat, please tell us the name of the company you worked for. I need to make sure that I or anyone I know never applies there.

Let's me see: they pay little, yet they fine you for drinking off duty, smoking (I assume off duty as well), and being overweight.
Oh, and let's not forget this one: they reward interoffice snitching. Way to foster a happy workplace.
Where do I apply?

By the way, do they fine you for being on a nicotine patch as well? I would take a band-aid, stick it on my shoulder and go to any testing they made me do. Heck, I'd buy a box and keep it on my desk. How are they going to police that?

I think that is why no one was able to quit. All afraid of any stop smoking aid that had nicotine in it. The company agreed to go half on Chantix, but given the stories about that they didn't get many takers. They would not allow anything other assistance.

It was like working in kindergarten really. Tattle tales and all.

 

[BenJammin]

I didn't realize until reading all the previous comments just how lucky I am to be working for people who 'get it'. We're primarily a high-end Audiovisual and Systems Integration company, and therefore are staffed by people who are more likely to be accepting of, if not enthralled with, "shiny new gadgets." As a general rule however, I don't typically go about in a perpetual cloud of fog. I just take a few puffs when needed and go about my business. My supervisors have noticed the overall improvement in my health (and corresponding productivity) and are generally supportive of my e-cig use. We have an incentive program that rewards employees who successfully quit (and stay quit for a year) with a vacation and a hefty bonus. When asked if I wanted to sign up, I declined, explaining "Any confirmation tests you do for nicotine will still come up positive so there would be no way for you to verify I wasn't smoking beyond 'the sniff test'. I've given up Smoke & Tar, not nicotine. Anyway, quitting with these is so easy it feels like cheating. It wouldn't be fair to all those guys who had to struggle through with those inferior methods." Nothing beats working for people who actually appreciate and respect you.
EXPAT, after hearing your horror story about working for The Gulag, I'd happily drive to frick'en Mars if it meant not working for bloodsuckers like them. I don't think that's how "Employee Ownership" is supposed to work. Last time I checked, slavery was illegal. I'll never complain* about my pitiful 2.5 hour commute again.

*I still reserve the right ..... about all the crappy drivers though

 

[expat]

It's pretty wild I agree. At least it was only 5 minutes from home. The people I worked with are still there, still smoking and still paying $25 a pay packet for the privilege. It is unlikely the company would ever do right by their staff, if the staff simply grumble and then comply.

Never been a sheep. I was hat coat out the door.

That is some wicked commute you have there BenJammin. Wow. But it sounds like a forward looking company who do have an understanding of what you are doing, and a respect for their staff unheard of around here.

 

[Secti0n31]

I work in a major (insert retail store here) in a department that's mostly outside. Out of courtesy to the employees that smoke (about 90% of the store) I will not walk around the aisles outside puffing on my ego. Our health insurance carrier offers huuuuge cash incentives to people who don't smoke, but all they test for is nicotine, and I'm really getting a lot of nicotine.

That being said, I have NO problem vaping my ... off in a bathroom stall, or walking slightly outside of surveillance cam view and hitting it ONCE in a while, but when I go take a "smoke break" I go to the same spot where the rest of the smokers go, or to my car if its raining. I don't want to offend customers or other employees.

My previous job was in a factory where again, 90% of the employees smoked. If I had a PV back then and tried to use it, even occasionally, on the factory floor, I'd have gotten serious grief, or just straight up fired because they're wicked trigger happy.

Edit: I also won't vape in the grocery store, wal mart, target, or a nice restaurant (don't want to look shady), but if I'm in a bar, or a pool hall, or a driving range, or somewhere that I'm gonna be indoors for extended periods of time for socialization or recreation, I'll probably puff on the PV.

 

[Zal42]

It's obviously an unpopular opinion on this forum, but I believe we're still smoking - we're just smoking something that we believe is less harmful than cigarettes.

Except that it's not an opinion. We're not smoking, by definition. We aren't inhaling the products of combustion. It may appear to be smoking, and others may perceive it as such, but that doesn't change what's actually happening.

Now, if we were using an aerosol type atomizer that just gave us a mist containing nicotine like an asthma inhaler produces a mist containing asthma medicine that we can't blow smoke rings with, people would have a reasonable gripe.

So if we stealth-vape, thus producing no visible vapor whatsoever, then that changes everything?

While I know I'm wasting my breath (or finger motions as it were), but imagine a 9 year old kid walking down the street drinking apple juice out of a beer bottle - should the kid be self righteously upset that the uneducated people around keep stopping him to tell him he can't do that?

I don't have to imagine it. When I was a kid, most root beer came in brown beer bottles that were indistinguishable from beer bottles!

But the point isn't "self righteous" indignation at the confusion. The point is prohibition. When I was a kid if people actually tried to stop me from drinking my root beer rather than just seeing what I was drinking, I would have been very upset -- and been right to be so.

Although I am of the opinion that the employer gets to decide whether or not to consider vaping as smoking so far as the rules go, I think that it's understandable to be a bit upset of it.

 

[sam12six]

Except that it's not an opinion. We're not smoking, by definition. We aren't inhaling the products of combustion. It may appear to be smoking, and others may perceive it as such, but that doesn't change what's actually happening.

As I said, some people insist on the definition of smoking as inhaling the product of combustion. Others consider the act of vaping to be smoking, just a different substance.

So if we stealth-vape, thus producing no visible vapor whatsoever, then that changes everything?

Nothing to see, nothing to complain about, so yeah.

I don't have to imagine it. When I was a kid, most root beer came in brown beer bottles that were indistinguishable from beer bottles!


But the point isn't "self righteous" indignation at the confusion. The point is prohibition. When I was a kid if people actually tried to stop me from drinking my root beer rather than just seeing what I was drinking, I would have been very upset -- and been right to be so.

I remember those bottles and remember how cool it was to pretend I was drinking beer when I was 8. I would have also been upset that someone would not want a child drinking beer, but then I was a child and childishness would only be expected.

Although I am of the opinion that the employer gets to decide whether or not to consider vaping as smoking so far as the rules go, I think that it's understandable to be a bit upset of it.

If I walked around the store where I worked with a realistic rubber phallus hanging out of my zipper, would I have the right to be upset that people were mistaking me for a flasher? Would I have the right to be upset that management told me not to do it because they don't want to deal with complaints and the cops being called on me?

Vaping looks like smoking. In terms of people's reaction, that means vaping IS smoking. Brandishing a realistic toy gun is as illegal as brandishing a real one. Most of the business owners/managers I know couldn't care less about whether someone smokes in their workplace beyond odor and insurance issues. One thing they universally do not want to deal with though, is complaints that someone is smoking.

It is far easier to just ban vaping in smoke free areas than to explain to complainers what the difference is and to police people who might decide to light cigarettes because "that guy's smoking". Does it make it right? No, but unless cigarettes become banned altogether, vaping resembles smoking too closely to realistically expect the majority to actually differentiate.

Understand what I'm NOT saying. I'm NOT saying vaping is as bad as smoking. If I ran a place of business, vaping would be OK with me. What I AM saying is that if something is prohibited, it makes perfect sense to also prohibit people "pretending" to do that something. Since vaping is by design intended to mimic smoking as closely as possible, people who get thoroughly offended by someone not wanting them to vape in a smoking prohibited area are being silly.

 

[Zal42]

Understand what I'm NOT saying. I'm NOT saying vaping is as bad as smoking. If I ran a place of business, vaping would be OK with me. What I AM saying is that if something is prohibited, it makes perfect sense to also prohibit people "pretending" to do that something. Since vaping is by design intended to mimic smoking as closely as possible, people who get thoroughly offended by someone not wanting them to vape in a smoking prohibited area are being silly.

Oh, I understand. However, the reasons employers give for prohibiting vaping is not that others will be offended, but either compliance with a clear air act, insurance, or that others will be injured (shs). None of those, except arguably insurance, apply to vaping.

Personally, it would be no skin off my nose if my employer were to make such a restriction. I'd just stealth it. However, I don't think it's silly to be upset about being restricted from a harmless activity unless it actually disturbs your coworkers. It is silly to proclaim that the employer is restricting rights or somesuch.

 

[rscd_shadow]

Good example of "Why would anyone want an ecig to resemble a cigarette." Almost everyone that I know, that now vapes, including me when I started, said 'it has to look like a cigarette.' Thankfully, this mindset quickly changes. When asked now, 'what is that in your hand', I say it is my personal vaporizer.....I know it is just a matter of wording but I have seen that it makes a difference in the way others react to it. Games people play....such a shame.
sas

This is a good example of how important it is to use words accurately when discussing a topic. Because you tied the word vaporizer to the description of the device, people psychologically do not tie the device to smoking.

 

[sam12six]

Oh, I understand. However, the reasons employers give for prohibiting vaping is not that others will be offended, but either compliance with a clear air act, insurance, or that others will be injured (shs). None of those, except arguably insurance, apply to vaping.

Personally, it would be no skin off my nose if my employer were to make such a restriction. I'd just stealth it. However, I don't think it's silly to be upset about being restricted from a harmless activity unless it actually disturbs your coworkers. It is silly to proclaim that the employer is restricting rights or somesuch.

I definitely agree with you that their rationales are silly. The world could use a little less PC and employers would be better off just saying, "'Cause this is how we want it."

The fact is, there are no long term studies on the effect of inhaling PG, VG, and various flavorings all day (because people haven't been doing it for very long in the big scheme of things). Since we don't know the long term effects of either primary or secondary regular exposure to the various mixes of chemicals in ejuice, telling someone there is no danger is a lie. With that in mind, isn't it more responsible for a company to err on the side of caution where the health of their employees and customers is concerned?

Now granted, I and virtually everyone who looks at the facts (not to mention those of us who can compare how we feel versus how we felt when we smoked cigarettes) are happy vaping is available as an alternative. There's just a leap of faith and disconnect in logic to say they're completely safe (especially when the majority of people are vaping juice without knowing exactly what's in it.)

Anyway, my main issue is that I get the impression that the majority of people who get actively upset about not being to vape absolutely everywhere seem to have gotten the impression of vaping as not at all related to smoking and want to be embraced by the smoking nazis for quitting. That's not going to happen - ever. As far as they're concerned, you haven't quit. You've switched brands. A safer, healthier option does not necessarily means a completely safe and healthy option.

It is just as ignorant to claim falsely that you know something is safe as it is for someone to claim falsely that they know it is dangerous.

All of us who vape are still smokers. If PVs and suppliers of PVs were to magically disappear tomorrow, within a couple of weeks, an extremely high percentage of vapers would be in the nearest store buying a box of smokes and would once again be one of those stinky people with their dirty analogs that they look down on now (the same kind of high percentages you find with other smoking cessation options).

As long as vaping is an option, I'll be continue using ejuice instead of cigarettes for my nicotine and be thankful that I've discovered the option. I'm still not arrogant enough to believe the world ought to accommodate my habit by allowing me to smoke "my brand" in areas where other brands are prohibited.

 

[garyinco]

Typical HR Department CYA stance. You asked, they said "no". So now you have to live by it. I wonder what they would say about doing so in a bathroom. My employer doesn't care, so I'll occasionally take a hit or two in my office. No one ever even notices unless its a juice with some toffee flavoring (which I like) then everyone notices something and asks questions about the smell. Not complaints, just questions. At least the company did a Google search to at least identify the parts (atomizers, etc.). Sucks, but what'cha going to do...

 

[Red Dog]

OHowever, I don't think it's silly to be upset about being restricted from a harmless activity unless it actually disturbs your coworkers. It is silly to proclaim that the employer is restricting rights or somesuch.

I would disagree. Would it be a restriction of your rights for an employer to say that you could not take a medication while at work? Does it in any way effect your job performance, or that of other employees, if you take some aspirin or acetaminophen if you have a headache? If anything, it would improve your productivity. So is the use of an e-cig really any different? aah, but those are medications you say... and my response would be so is nicotine. In spite of what the non-smokers will have you believe, nicotine actually is beneficial in many ways.

http://web.as.uky.edu/biology/faculty/cooper/bio401g/nicotineSchiz.pdf
Researchers Light Up for Nicotine, the Wonder Drug

There was another study done in the 90's that I'm trying to track down a copy of. But basically they took a variety of psychiatric patients and gave them nicotine patches instead of their usual psych meds. In many cases, it was found that the nicotine was more effective, and had fewer side effects, than their usual medications.

 

[TheHoochCow]

Haha yea my job didn't care one bit about me using e-cigs at work then one HR person with the intelligence and listening skill of a door knob went ape .... on me as it looked like a cig and produced what she called "smoke" despite my best efforts to explain the difference. When I took up her BS with management they said "for constancy reasons we can't override her telling you not to use that in the building" Of course where I work all of the upper management and HR is out the building shortly after I arrive. My solution was wait till they buggar off and be around the night management and workers who don't give a damn and think she was being a stupid ..... in their words.

 

[KissOfDeath]

What i find most amusing is that whilst my wife was in her office not vaping, i was down the pub with an old friend of mine who is dieing of cancer (the main reason why i have decided to try to save my own life now). I vaped for 3 hours in the pub and the only people that questioned me were smokers. I could have sold 4 Titan Tank kits right there on the spot and given 4 people a second chance if only i had realised that this is possibly the most important invention of the century to date.

 

[Valsacar]

Sorry sam, smoking requires SMOKE, which requires combustion. No combustion means no smoke.

Banning something because it LOOKS like something else and someone might think it's ok does not make a good reason. That's like saying you can't drink a soda because it could be confused as beer and therefore someone might think it's ok to drink beer publicly. Or banning smoking because it looks like the use of an illegal drug, and someone could confuse it as such and therefore think it was ok to use illegal drugs.

And there HAVE been studies on inhaling PG and VG for well over FORTY YEARS. Now the flavors you are correct, there have not been studies on all of them, but some have been used in various other purposes (cigarette flavorings, some inhaled medications have flavorings to make it easier to use, etc). There have been quite a few studies (see CASAA.org) on the contents of inhaled and exhaled vapor from PVs, they support the case that it is harmless.

 

[Valsacar]

What i find most amusing is that whilst my wife was in her office not vaping, i was down the pub with an old friend of mine who is dieing of cancer (the main reason why i have decided to try to save my own life now). I vaped for 3 hours in the pub and the only people that questioned me were smokers. I could have sold 4 Titan Tank kits right there on the spot and given 4 people a second chance if only i had realised that this is possibly the most important invention of the century to date.

I started buying Riva sets and keeping them at my local pub for that reason. Sold (mainly just to cover cost/shipping) over 20 of them in no time.

My office lets me vape at my desk (and I'm a contractor with the US government). My bosses justification, there's nothing harmful about it, it's not smoke, and I'll stop taking 15 minute breaks all day. Only a couple actual smokers left in my office now.

 

[sam12six]

Sorry sam, smoking requires SMOKE, which requires combustion. No combustion means no smoke.

I agree and disagree. The dictionary definition of smoking would be something along the lines of "Inhaling the smoke from burning plant matter for recreation or ceremony". If you focus on the burning (which obviously most vapers do), you're completely right. If you focus on the actual activity (which is what most of the rest of the world does), the substance you're inhaling is irrelevant.

Banning something because it LOOKS like something else and someone might think it's ok does not make a good reason. That's like saying you can't drink a soda because it could be confused as beer and therefore someone might think it's ok to drink beer publicly. Or banning smoking because it looks like the use of an illegal drug, and someone could confuse it as such and therefore think it was ok to use illegal drugs.

We'll just have to disagree on that point. If a computer room has a no food or drink policy, I'd personally consider it understandable if someone got bent out of shape if I walked through pretending to sip from an empty cup. How nice they were about it would depend on the individual, but I'd bet the bottom line would be that I would be asked not to do so.

And there HAVE been studies on inhaling PG and VG for well over FORTY YEARS. Now the flavors you are correct, there have not been studies on all of them, but some have been used in various other purposes (cigarette flavorings, some inhaled medications have flavorings to make it easier to use, etc). There have been quite a few studies (see CASAA.org) on the contents of inhaled and exhaled vapor from PVs, they support the case that it is harmless.

There have been studies on inhaling VG and PG directly off an atomizing element all day, every day for well over 40 years? And yes - I understand that's a stupid distinction but that's the way the burden of proof works. The studies that support the case that it is harmless (and this is what I personally believe) are not studies that PROVE it is completely harmless, and this is the level of proof necessary to make the case that vaping in smoking prohibited should be allowed on the basis of PVs being safe for everyone.

The bottom line is that you can make the arguments that smoking laws do not apply to vaping and be right legally because the combustion thing is written into most laws to stop people from trying to get around them by inventing alternate methods of combustion. This will only last as long as it takes legislation to catch up to technology.

I guess what I've been trying to say is that PVs are changing what "smoking" means. We can call it anything we want, but those of us who are honest with ourselves will accept the fact that we're still smoking, just smoking something besides the cigarettes that we once smoked. I blame a lot of this attitude on the marketing of PVs as a "smoke anywhere" method of skirting smoking laws. They had the opportunity to market an entirely new thing to save smokers' lives (and I wholeheartedly believe it's doing that for many of us), what they did instead though, was market a way to smoke where people don't want you to do so.

Maybe I'm unique in my view of vaping, but I long ago decided I'd be a smoker for life and that it would be the primary cause of my death. When I discovered vaping, I felt like I had a chance to continue an activity that relaxes and focuses me without the whole "side order of death". I couldn't care less where it's allowed. I long ago accepted that the activity was verboten in some places and don't see a reason to try and crusade to have my personal choice of smoking be exempted from other smoking laws. If I were a crusader, I'd be trying to build support to overturn the draconian smoking laws that supercede the rights of a privately owned business to decide whether or not smoking is allowed on its premises.

 

[KissOfDeath]

Maybe I'm unique in my view of vaping, but I long ago decided I'd be a smoker for life and that it would be the primary cause of my death. When I discovered vaping, I felt like I had a chance to continue an activity that relaxes and focuses me without the whole "side order of death". I couldn't care less where it's allowed. I long ago accepted that the activity was verboten in some places and don't see a reason to try and crusade to have my personal choice of smoking be exempted from other smoking laws. If I were a crusader, I'd be trying to build support to overturn the draconian smoking laws that supercede the rights of a privately owned business to decide whether or not smoking is allowed on its premises.

I'll give you one reason to crusade. Every person you converte has a second chance at life

 

[sam12six]

I'll give you one reason to crusade. Every person you converte has a second chance at life

Oh, I'm definitely evangelical about how much better I feel since I made the switch. I've made plenty of converts (some of whom literally thank me for saving their lives). I'm just not going to go off like my civil rights are being violated if I'm not allowed to vape everywhere.

 

[KissOfDeath]

[QUOTEThis is what I want to write. Does it sound ok ?
After some thought I would like to appeal on the decision you have made regarding my use of the e-cigarette to help me quit smoking in the work place for the following reasons:
1) The use or banned use of the e-cigarette is not in the company policy.
2) E-Cigarettes are not included in any smoking policy as the word smoking entails the use of tobacco chemicals which are lit and where smoke is produced. The e-cigarette is not set alight, flamable and does not produce smoke. It produces steam like a kettle would, which vaporises into the air within seconds of being exhaled.
3) It is legal by both goverment law and council law (I checked with an HR counciler) that you may use this in any building be it offices, pubs or restaurants, without breaking any laws.
4) The e-cigarete is an inhalor, much like an asmatha inhalor. We inhale nicotine which is absorbed straight into the bloodstream via the mouth and lungs, the same way an asthmatic gets there steriods.
5) The correct term when using one of these is vaping.
6) The e-cigarrete does not always look like a cigarette, and mine certainly does not as this defeats the object, when i don't smoke cigarettes but roll-ups anyway. They can be in the style of pens, screwdrivers and various other normal items. Example:
7) Using the e-cigarette in the smoking shelter also defeats the purpose, as i would still have to put up with other peoples second hand smoke and therefore may as well smoke normally.
8) The use of patches does not help me as this gives a constant hit all day, so it feels like your smoking all day which I do not do. It can also cause halucanatic dreams and nightmares.
9) The gum won't work for me either as I dont chew gum and abhor people who sit and chew all day.
10 I do not believe your decision was reached in any other way other than googling e cigarette and reading the first post you saw. I believe there are personal reasons for this denial and that if i take this further you wil be found out as the Biggot you really are ( delete this )
In conclusion the e-cigarette works for me as i use it at home and didn't smoke a single roll-up last night.
Regards
][/QUOTE]

just as a point of interest, this is my wifes first response to the company, point 10 was added by myself as i kind of humourless joke and is not intended to be delivered.