My wife asked her work and recieved this reply

[VapingRulz]

Trying to explain to some people that vapors aren't smoke will be a challenge, especially since the nicotine can get you fired as noted in an earlier post. Then we have the analysis about what exactly make analogues so bad and e-cigs so much better? Of course we know about the absence of tar, smoke and chemicals of analogues but will they be willing to understand that?

It took DECADES for the medical authorities to prove that smoking IS dangerous - and it is dangerous precisely because of the tar, smoke and chemicals involved in burning tobacco. As e-cigs contain none of these ingredients and you don't burn anything, the onus should be on the medical/political entities to prove that e-cigs ARE dangerous. Not the other way around.

I'm wondering why so many people are so willing to be told what to do without putting up even a reasonable fight?

 

[cowfodder]

It took DECADES for the medical authorities to prove that smoking IS dangerous - and it is dangerous precisely because of the tar, smoke and chemicals involved in burning tobacco. As e-cigs contain none of these ingredients and you don't burn anything, the onus should be on the medical/political entities to prove that e-cigs ARE dangerous. Not the other way around.

I'm wondering why so many people are so willing to be told what to do without putting up even a reasonable fight?

Eggs are good...... Wait, no, eggs are bad....... Wait, sorry, we were wrong. Eggs are good....... Well I'll be damned, we were wrong again. Eggs are bad....... Wow is my face red! Eggs are actually good.........

You get the idea. The medical establishment has no idea what it is talking about most of the time. If this isn't enough just look at how wrong the food pyramid is for a lot of people, yet it's still taught to everyone, or the arguments about raw milk, or the "Food Safety Bill", or many other things.

 

[sam12six]

I'm wondering why so many people are so willing to be told what to do without putting up even a reasonable fight?

I agree 100%!! Why should companies be willing to be told that people are going to vape on their property whether they like it or not? Shouldn't they put up a fight?

What's stupid about it is that a store manager, for example, can boot you from the property because the manager doesn't like your shirt, voice, cologne, whatever. Granted, that's not a great customer relations move, but legally that's how it is. Now if the manager wants you to not vape while on the property, what's the point of getting all offended like he strip searched your kid?

This applies even more to employers. An office can have a dress code. People aren't trying to channel Rosa Parks and wear cutoffs and flip-flops because that's their right dammit!! Why then are people so outraged that their vaping isn't allowed everywhere?

For those who insist vaping is not smoking, here's an idea. Get yourself some nicotine lozenges and you can suck on them virtually anywhere with no issues. If getting a nicotine hit without the hand-to-mouth and the feel and sight of inhaling something is not satisfying enough - sorry, you're a smoker. If you get nicotine from something that involves all that and keeps you off cigarettes - sorry, whether it meets the current legal definition or not, you're smoking. If you're no longer a smoker, why vape?

In today's tough economy, shouldn't you just save your money and quit vaping? Before anyone jumps in and tells me about how much they love the taste of their waffle ejuice, I've heard tons of people make the same claims about cigarettes because they didn't want to admit they had an addiction.

There are different levels of addiction:

Some people are addicted to nicotine.
Some people are addicted to nicotine and/or other chemicals found in tobacco.
Some people are addicted to nicotine and/or the other chemicals and/or the chemical by products of burning tobacco and/or the hand-to-mouth, inhale-exhale ritual. These last are called smokers. I'm one of these myself. Patches, gum, lozenges - I tried them all. They didn't work at all. All that happened was that I lived with a massive headache because between them and cigarettes, I was constantly ODing on nicotine.

Now, if you're a nonsmoker, I envy you. I'd love to be able to pop a piece of gum to eliminate my craving. Unfortunately, for me (and a lot of other SMOKERS), vaping is the only alternative I've found that works. It sucks to have developed an addiction to smoking. As a smoker, it also sucks that an activity I enjoy isn't allowed everywhere. I'm not under the impression though, that when I started vaping as an alternative to cigarettes, that suddenly my right to vape supercedes others' right to decide whether they will allow vaping on their property.

The thing that scares me is that just like rude, inconsiderate smokers upset enough people that my right to smoke in bars, restaurants, and other public areas was taken away. Now, I see people trying to force my "new brand" on the world and know that if they manage to upset enough people, my right to vape will disappear too.

For those who keep telling me about the health studies on various substances, those do not apply to the specific use we're putting them to. The health risk thing is just a rationale to tell us what to do without sounding like an authoritarian police-state. And rather than try to convince me that those studies do apply, understand this - IT DOESN'T MATTER!! It's all about money.

If the government truly cared about the health of the populous, cigarettes would be illegal. Proving PVs cause no harm is impossible because the whole "proving a negative" thing, doesn't really work.

 

[Pur3Rush]

I'm so very sorry, I never thought I would do this here. And what I have to say in means is an attack on you personally just on the words you typed.

This is an amazing unprecedented example of blantant and rampant douchebaggery. Please wipe up your mess!

 

[DC2]

I wish both sides could see that both sides are right.

 

[fray]

I do not allow vaping inside the plant where I work. I take it outside and require the other vapers do also. It is a safety hazard and a productivity problem.

We have explosive areas that cannot have any source of heat or combustion.

I was seeing too much fiddling with PVs at the line causing them to be distracted. They were also getting juice on product.

So now they (and me) take it outside on scheduled breaks only.

I would love to be able to vape inside but people cannot be responsible an ruin it for everyone else.

 

[Valsacar]

Some people are addicted to nicotine and/or the other chemicals and/or the chemical by products of burning tobacco and/or the hand-to-mouth, inhale-exhale ritual. These last are called smokers. I'm one of these myself. Patches, gum, lozenges - I tried them all. They didn't work at all. All that happened was that I lived with a massive headache because between them and cigarettes, I was constantly ODing on nicotine.

So, I like nicotine, I do not like (or get) the other chemicals in tobacco, I do not like (or get) chemical byproducts of burning tobacco, I do like the inhale-exhale ritual... that means I'm smoking? Sorry, logic fails here, I'm not inhaling smoke, I'm not exhaling smoke, therefore I am not smoking.

Now, when it comes to company policy, it's their company and they can make any (legal) rules and policies they want. You can submit and defend your case, and hopefully they will hear it and consider it. But at the end of the day, if their policy goes against your wishes, you only have one choice left. Work there, or leave. Same goes for being a customer.

I'm lucky in that most of my company (one guy, whom is senior management, is against it, but the guy above him has no problem with vaping) allows me to vape at my desk. I don't do it in front of customers, I don't use ones with strong smell (like french toast) inside. But sitting at my desk I can puff all I want, and it keeps me working more hours out of the day than a smoker.

If you can't win the fight to be able to vape at your desk, perhaps you could convince them that you do not want to be subjected to the second hand smoke of smokers and request they create a designated vaping area outside in the same manner that a smoking area is created. That might be a reasonable compromise to them, though they might need to spend a little if they provide a smoking area with some level of protection from the elements (normally just from rain/snow).

 

[VapingRulz]

I agree 100%!! Why should companies be willing to be told that people are going to vape on their property whether they like it or not? Shouldn't they put up a fight?

You are assuming that all of the companies are actually in agreement with the non-smoking laws. For many businesses, the decision was taken out of their hands entirely. Many businesses that ban vaping out of hand seem to do it out of fear or ignorance - they assume that it's the same thing as smoking. It's not.

This applies even more to employers. An office can have a dress code. People aren't trying to channel Rosa Parks and wear cutoffs and flip-flops because that's their right dammit!! Why then are people so outraged that their vaping isn't allowed everywhere?

I'm sorry. I tried - but I can't figure out what your point is here.

For those who insist vaping is not smoking, here's an idea. Get yourself some nicotine lozenges and you can suck on them virtually anywhere with no issues. If getting a nicotine hit without the hand-to-mouth and the feel and sight of inhaling something is not satisfying enough - sorry, you're a smoker.

Sorry - you're not a smoker unless you inhale burning plant matter. That's the definition of smoking. Where there's no smoke, there's no fire... literally.

In today's tough economy, shouldn't you just save your money and quit vaping? Before anyone jumps in and tells me about how much they love the taste of their waffle ejuice, I've heard tons of people make the same claims about cigarettes because they didn't want to admit they had an addiction.

Really? Are you serious? I've repeatedly read people posting about their addition to nicotine.

Now, if you're a nonsmoker, I envy you. I'd love to be able to pop a piece of gum to eliminate my craving. Unfortunately, for me (and a lot of other SMOKERS), vaping is the only alternative I've found that works. It sucks to have developed an addiction to smoking. As a smoker, it also sucks that an activity I enjoy isn't allowed everywhere. I'm not under the impression though, that when I started vaping as an alternative to cigarettes, that suddenly my right to vape supercedes others' right to decide whether they will allow vaping on their property.

You are [very conveniently] forgetting that unlike smoking, there is NO LEGAL BASIS for banning vaping. There is no good reason for banning it. They can ban it because they're wimps and they want to take the easy way out, but that's just not very smart from a business perspective. Vaping is not hurting anyone. Furthermore, it can be done covertly. They won't be able to stop vapers because, well, where there's no smoke... there's no fire.

The thing that scares me is that just like rude, inconsiderate smokers upset enough people that my right to smoke in bars, restaurants, and other public areas was taken away. Now, I see people trying to force my "new brand" on the world and know that if they manage to upset enough people, my right to vape will disappear too.

You are wrong. The decision to take away your right to smoke in bars, restaurants and other public areas was not made as a result of pushy or inconsiderate smokers. Not even close.

It's all about money.

That's the first sensible thing you've said. Of course it's all about money.

Proving PVs cause no harm is impossible because the whole "proving a negative" thing, doesn't really work.

That's not what I said. I said that the onus is on the antis to prove that vaping IS dangerous/harmful, just as they had to do with tobacco cigarettes. Absent that proof, the legal assumption should be that they are not harmful.

 

[momonie]

WiTH DIGITAl PV's(vaping), if you are using nic liquid, you're still addicted to nicotine which we all know constricts the arteries. However, 2nd hand "vape" has no proven dangers, and by giving up tobacco cigs, we are greatly extending our lifespan. By the way, if there was a thing such as second hand nicotine anyway, wouldn't non-smokers or vapors be getting addicted to the nicotine in the vapor or smoke and be then craving a cigarette? LOL....Case in point!!!
Marc S./momonie


<a href="http://www.vapininthecape.com/?AffId=5"><img border="0" src="http://www.vapininthecape.com/assets/images/affiliateBanners/affiliateBanner1.jpg"></a>

 

[sam12six]

You are assuming that all of the companies are actually in agreement with the non-smoking laws. For many businesses, the decision was taken out of their hands entirely. Many businesses that ban vaping out of hand seem to do it out of fear or ignorance - they assume that it's the same thing as smoking. It's not.

No, I'm assuming people insist on trying to force companies to allow something they don't want on their property. The reasoning behind their not wanting it is irrelevant.

I'm sorry. I tried - but I can't figure out what your point is here.

I understand. The point is that most companies dictate to employees that certain types of perfectly legal clothing are not to be worn and no one seems to think it is a big deal, but a company telling them only to vape in smoking areas is suddenly a breach of their constitutional rights.

Sorry - you're not a smoker unless you inhale burning plant matter. That's the definition of smoking. Where there's no smoke, there's no fire... literally.

In most places you're right. When the government banned smoking in certain areas, they wanted to write the legislature in such a way that it would be future-proof. Knowing that banning cigarettes, cigars and pipes would just lead people to find other ways to do it, they legally defined smoking as the combustion of plant matter. What they didn't anticipate was technology going the other way and offering a way to smoke without burning, so the laws in most places don't cover vaping - yet.

Really? Are you serious? I've repeatedly read people posting about their addition to nicotine.

Me too. I've also heard people pontificate that they smoke because they like it and could quit today if they wanted because they're not addicted. You haven't?

You are [very conveniently] forgetting that unlike smoking, there is NO LEGAL BASIS for banning vaping. There is no good reason for banning it. They can ban it because they're wimps and they want to take the easy way out, but that's just not very smart from a business perspective. Vaping is not hurting anyone. Furthermore, it can be done covertly. They won't be able to stop vapers because, well, where there's no smoke... there's no fire.

You are very conveniently forgetting that something that looks like a crime is usually treated like a crime. Stand on a street corner selling bags of oregano or walk into an airport with an alarm clock and a big block of silly putty strapped to your chest and the results will be educational.

You are wrong. The decision to take away your right to smoke in bars, restaurants and other public areas was not made as a result of pushy or inconsiderate smokers. Not even close.

We'll just have to disagree. My entire life I've seen people mutter and give dirty looks to someone smoking in a restaurant when it was legal. Go to any public park and each picnic table is surrounded by hundreds of cigarette butts. Smoking bans were proposed on the (thin) premise that they would protect the health of the public, but where the rubber meets the road (voters), the decision was made based on people having the chance to keep smoke away from them just because they could.

That's the first sensible thing you've said. Of course it's all about money.

So, you think the government is going to allow vaping to become a widespread thing and lose the billions in taxes from converting smokers? Until the government works out a way to tax ejuice to a level that compensates it for lost tobacco tax, it's going to fight vaping (and win).

That's not what I said. I said that the onus is on the antis to prove that vaping IS dangerous/harmful, just as they had to do with tobacco cigarettes. Absent that proof, the legal assumption should be that they are not harmful.

This would be true if the inventors of vaping had jumped through the necessary hoops to get the technology approved as a smoking cessation method. That would have cost time and profits though, so what they did instead was offer PVs to the world as a way to smoke where it's illegal to smoke.

I've said before in this thread, and I'll say it again now - Legally, you're completely right. In most places, vaping is not covered by the legal definition of smoking. Again, this is because the definition covers the material smoked and not the activity. I'd love it if that doesn't change and hope it doesn't.

That's not what this thread was about though. This thread was about a company looking at the issue (however briefly) and deciding that the policy would be no vaping in areas that smoking is not allowed, followed by a bunch of outrage that the ignorant just don't understand that we are not smoking.

Here's how I see it:

Imagine a company has a no food at your desk policy. Now, someone decides to bring pieces of cardboard to their desk each day and chew it up and swallow it. The argument that vaping is not smoking because there's no smoke is as ridiculous as the hypothetical cardboard swallower arguing that since cardboard is not considered food, he's not eating at his desk.

People have been jumping me like I said vaping is as bad as smoking and should be banned.

What I've been saying is that the activity is the same, just with a different substance. Nagging about how the change in substance makes everything OK is not going to make a company or the public change its mind because that's just arguing. The only way to bring about a different image of vaping is to get rid of all the smoking connections (like ecigarette, and I switched from analogs to my ego) and have it recognized as a smoking cessation tool. That's not happening without a lot of medical backing (which is unlikely to happen until the government can tax the crap out of ejuice).

Unless and until that happens, the only choice is to offer whatever medical studies and opinions on the subject that you can find. If, after seeing those, the company decides it STILL wants to take the easy out and classify vaping with smoking, tough. That's their right.

 

[Valsacar]

In most places you're right. When the government banned smoking in certain areas, they wanted to write the legislature in such a way that it would be future-proof. Knowing that banning cigarettes, cigars and pipes would just lead people to find other ways to do it, they legally defined smoking as the combustion of plant matter. What they didn't anticipate was technology going the other way and offering a way to smoke without burning, so the laws in most places don't cover vaping - yet.

Really? New Invention of 1963: The Smokeless Non-Tobacco Cigarette | The Electronic Cigarette & E-Cigarettes by Instead

Here's how I see it:

Imagine a company has a no food at your desk policy. Now, someone decides to bring pieces of cardboard to their desk each day and chew it up and swallow it. The argument that vaping is not smoking because there's no smoke is as ridiculous as the hypothetical cardboard swallower arguing that since cardboard is not considered food, he's not eating at his desk.

Except that, in your example, he is in fact eating because he is ingesting a substance that is being digested. I'm not inhaling smoke.

 

[cowfodder]

Both sides of this argument remind me of something I first heard from a teacher years ago after trying, unsuccessfully, to explain something to a student.

I'm paraphrasing:

There is no way to convince someone of something when they already know that they're absolutely right.

Or something to that effect.

As for the OP, printing some materials from CASAA and ECF and resubmitting your request with the statement that, if you are not allowed to vape in your work area, you would like a dedicated space away from second hand smoke would probably be a good course of action, should you decide to do this. Luckily for me my manager's dad switched to an ecig a while ago to try to quit due to emphysema, so he's cool with me vaping.

 

[sam12six]

Really? New Invention of 1963: The Smokeless Non-Tobacco Cigarette | The Electronic Cigarette & E-Cigarettes by Instead

While interesting, I'm not sure how you think this is applicable as a rebuttal to what I said. I never said the current incarnation of the PV was the only way to inhale flavors, just that legislators didn't anticipate something that would be satisfying enough to replace cigarettes.

Except that, in your example, he is in fact eating because he is ingesting a substance that is being digested. I'm not inhaling smoke.

Do company policies generally state that there will be no ingestion and digestion in certain areas? or Do they generally say no food or drink allowed in certain areas?

While no analogy is perfect, this guy getting offended and saying, "Show me something that lists cardboard as food.", is as goofy as people being fixated on the fact that the definition of smoking requires actual smoke instead of understanding that the activity itself is what most people consider smoking, regardless of the actual contents of the "smoke".

Both sides of this argument remind me of something I first heard from a teacher years ago after trying, unsuccessfully, to explain something to a student.

You're right of course, but this is a situation where both sides are right so discussion is a good thing. After this post though, I will bow out because my head is sore and the wall seems fine.

Companies can mandate anything they want from employees (within worker safety laws). They need no rationale (though they generally try to offer some to forestall argument); it can be a completely arbitrary decision on the company's part.

They can dictate that no employee may wear pink shirts because the CEO believes pink is sinful. You can argue that your shirt is fuchsia and the policy says 'pink' all you want. They still have the right to tell you to change or leave. They have the same right to restrict smoking, vaping, fogging, fuming, huffing, eating, drinking, listening to music, or dancing a freaking jig to certain areas on their property. Most people are aware of this but just don't believe it is applicable to vaping - that's the part I can't wrap my mind around.

 

[cbabbman]

There is a bottom line here that has nothing to do with the difference between smoking and vaping.

The company you work for has the right to ban any activity that they feel is disruptive or that they just don't want done in their facility. They also have the right to ban anything that may interfere with, harm or contaminate their production and products.

That one doesn't like it doesn't change the fact that the company has the right and ability to dictate their own terms, regardless if one likes them or not. If it is so offensive to someone, then they have the right to NOT work there.

This attitude that "there is no law against it" is the attitude that will continue the idiocy that has pervaded society as a whole. And when one adopts that attitude, what makes them any different than those who want THEIR attitude of intolerance adopted and followed?

 

[Moonflame]

The main problem I have with the company's stance is not that they don't allow it in the building, but that they insist you go to where the smokers smoke. There would be no issue for me if the rule was that you had to step outside on your break to vape. The problem is that they are forcing someone to be exposed to second hand smoke even though they don't create it themselves.

 

[Tracy211]

I'd reply with

Thank you for forcing me to inhale other's second hand smoke even though I've chosen to get my nicotine in a way that is 1000 times safer for myself and others than cigarettes are. It is nice to know that even though I am concerned with my health and would like to not be exposed to others smoke, you insist I do so.

That is a great come back! I might have to steel that from you! If people try to shoo me out of anywhere. Thanks!

 

[MissVapor]

The problem is that they are forcing someone to be exposed to second hand smoke even though they don't create it themselves.

Actually, you are the one forcing yourself to be exposed to smoke b/c as an adult you are chosing to vape. Maybe you can walk around the corner and vape away from smokers?

 

[cookiebun]

This is ONE THING that I have a serious problem with. The premise for a 'tobacco user' seems to be the chemical resultant of the breakdown of nicotine in the blood which will not differentiate between smokers and vapers... We are still one in the same as long as all the tests still come back positive.

Right, even if you go the NRT route successfully, as long as you are still using NICOTINE you are still considered a smoker.
That's really crap. I've heard of plenty of people who give up analogs in favor of the gum or lozenges. Why should health insurers be allowed to continue to treat them as smokers? It's the smoke that's causing the health issues. But they don't test you for TOBACCO , they test you for NICOTINE I work with a couple of guys who said they were just going to continue to smoke because of this. Why go through the ordeal of trying to switch to something less harmful if you are still going to be treated like a smoker? Improving their health wasn't enough of an incentive.

 

[JBlaze5]

How long does it take for the vapor to disappear? I would just blow it under my desk or into my shirt if it goes away quickly

 

[DiabloBlanco]

The same policy is in place at my job. However since no one has ever complained, the sups don't care if I vape at my desk. I can't say I like policies like that but I do understand them.

BTW- I'm Brenden. Vaping for about 2 weeks now, 3 analogs since then. WOOHOO

Hey, im Brenden too.

Just wanted to say hi to another Brenden, lol there are very few of us ive found. Day 2 for me with my bmf and i love it, no analogs yet.

Oh and im currently sitting at my desk at work vaping with my boss right next to me, he doesnt care.