All that link showed was that the 2 groups shared one issue that was mutually detrimental to both organizations. Not that the two groups are aligned in any other aspect.
No Ecigs allowed
- Thread starter caged imp
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
All that link showed was that the 2 groups shared one issue that was mutually detrimental to both organizations. Not that the two groups are aligned in any other aspect.
Now im new to all of this stuff but throughout history sides that do not agree on much have aligned when it suited
both there cause it does not mean they have to take long windy walks together holding hands it just means that at
that moment in time they had the same agenda. but that said we should not be bickering amongst ourselves we should
be uniting to show everyone else vaping is good it can save lives and change them for the betterment of all if this means
we have to put up with some silly rules to make our point then so be it after all people we put up with so much more when
we were smoking analogs lets stick together and get our point across god next ill be shouting up the revolution!
keep on vaping
both there cause it does not mean they have to take long windy walks together holding hands it just means that at
that moment in time they had the same agenda. but that said we should not be bickering amongst ourselves we should
be uniting to show everyone else vaping is good it can save lives and change them for the betterment of all if this means
we have to put up with some silly rules to make our point then so be it after all people we put up with so much more when
we were smoking analogs lets stick together and get our point across god next ill be shouting up the revolution!
keep on vaping
Maybe there are two definitions for "hypocrisy" and I missed the one that you use. My local park prohibits vaping. You are telling me it is fine to sit on a bench in that park and vape. In fact, you state it's fine to smoke in that park. Yet you categorically state to not vape where you can't smoke.
You also imply that there could be one to one hundred studies that demonstrate what several studies have already shown, that vaping is safe for non-vapors, but we need to wait 30 years before we should have the right to vape openly.
You also state that vaping openly BUT respectfully is "shoving it in their faces".
So to sum up, you believe being hypocritical and using extreme examples to totally misrepresent a position makes your "vape only with smokers" position somehow valid and that we should act like vaping is the same as smoking (unless we can get away with it and not get caught).
There are groups who buy into that "thinking", they also don't support vaping.
You are either misunderstanding me or purposefully misunderstanding me. Let me assume the former.
What I mean is that a line must be drawn by the officials and I can guarantee you that they won't be cherry picking locations where you can or can't vape.
· Do I believe that it is disrespectful to vape on a park bench when the park is not very crowded? No.
· Do I believe that it is disrespectful to vape on a bench in central park on a sunny saturday afternoon with 10 000 people around me? Yes.
What will the officials do? Easy: Vaping in parks - Prohibited...period.
Yes, that one you got right.
Short term studies are so far very encouraging, each study adds to the body of evidence in our favor...
However, long term data is what really matters and will be the ultimate decider.
No, if that's what you understood let me rephrase.
I am saying that people in general are not respectful so a line needs to be drawn. Sucks for the people who are respectful but that is the inconvenience of living within a society, the a-holes always makes to good people pay. Thinking that every body will vape respectfully is magical thinking (which I am not accusing you of... just pointing it out).
No comments.
And again, you accuse me of being anti-vaping.
The George Dubya "Either your with us or against us!" argument is getting old.
The world isn't black or white.
You forgot the third option. Maybe he's incapable of understanding you. It's unfortunate, but it happens on occasion.
If you go back and check the beginning of this thread, it started with a discussion about a sign on a bus. How did we get to the park? Oh, I remember, the person who was accusing people of using unrealistic examples introduced it.
I think maybe his is. It's unfortunate, but it happens on occasion.
I also think I'm done here. It was a good discussion and I think most of the posts were in favor of being respectful no matter where you vape, which I think is a good sign and will bode well for the future of it.
As someone else mentioned. I am more concerned about our bought and paid for politicians supporting their true con$tituent$, big tobacco and big pharma and removing the one thing that makes this industry great, the independence of the manufacturers, retailers, and innovators who have wrested it from the hands of big business and delivered it to us. OK, maybe sorta got carried away there, but I think the essence of that is true.
I just want to point out that wv2win's is in favor of being respectful no matter were we vape. We just disagree on why vaping should or shouldn't be allowed were smoking is prohibited.
The only one who is "misleading" anyone, is you. You have stated in "big, bold statements" all over ECF, do not vape where smoking is prohibited.
Yet you then state that it is fine to vape or smoke where both are prohibited if only a few people are around, such as in my park example.
You also state that "perceptions" of vaping being different than smoking is meaningless and unimportant. Yet many of us who vape openly most places but respectfully have had the exact opposite reaction from non-smokers. My experience is that when I vape respectfully in some of the county courthouses I have been in, I have had very positive interactions with non-smokers who have told me it changed their minds on whether vaping is a good thing or just another form of smoking. I have had several non-smokers tell me they assumed that vaping was exactly the same as smoking because they have only seen someone vaping with other smokers in restricted areas.
Basing restrictions on the small minority and few in society who act without respect, creates the "dumbing down" of the country and errodes all personal freedoms.
And you make no claims to being a doctor or having a Phd in biology, yet you state that we must wait 30 years before it is determined if second hand vapor is harmful to others. Yet there are many doctors and Phd's who have viewed the current studies and categorically state that second hand vapor is not harmful. Whether there is some considerable reduced harm (compared to smoking) to those who vape may take many years to determine. But the "second-hand" vapor question should be a closed issue.
Your arguments lump everyone who vapes openly and respectfully as being the same as the very small minority that one finds in all societal groups and are incongruent on at least one level.
Last edited:
It saddens me to see so many swallowing ANTZ propaganda hook, line & sinker.
Do we bow to the wishes of our Overlords, or do we fire them and hire actual public servants in their place?
Do we bow to the wishes of our Overlords, or do we fire them and hire actual public servants in their place?
Jebus. If you go to that extreme then eCigs are the least of this country's problems. We've got a non-functional congress, a hypocritial president (that I voted for, and am ashamed to admit it now due to his drone and spying policies.), a collapsing infrastructure, etc, etc, etc...
Aren't you also ashamed because he appointed a Big Pharmaceutical lobbyist to run the FDA knowing how hypocritical that appointment is? (I guess we would have to go to the "Outside" sub-forum to discuss his drone policy as that is one of the few policies many of us believe he got right. I know, I know, it's OK to kill thousands of Americans and then do nothing but cry about how terrible it is in the UN, because being pro-active in defense to save American lives is so wrong.)
Last edited:
Not sure that firing dysfunctional, self-centered, self-aggrandizing, lying, thieving "public servants" should be considered extreme, but seeing how things have been going over the last couple of decades, I guess it is...
Oh, I don't think the action would be extreme at all. IMHO they need to give everyone in congress the boot and start from the ground up again, but that's not what I was saying. This discussion is a microcosm, a small issue. To juxtapose it onto a huge issue is extreme. It's like saying, "I'm having trouble paying my water bill, just like the US is having trouble handling it's Multi-Trillion dollar deficit.". It's a scare tactic.
You can't cure diseases by simply treating secondary or tertiary symptoms.
Ok.. Time out!
You accuse me of being an ANTZ, a troll, you say that I'm misleading, hypocritical and all that good stuff...
I don't remember accusing you of anything, so I don't know why you started your last rebuttal by saying that: "The only one who is "misleading" anyone, is you".
The only thing I did was sharing my point of view, which you happen to disagree with... and that is perfectly fine. No symphony can be played on a single note, I welcome your opinion.
Now.
Let's cut a deal.
Instead of accusing me of being a hypocritical troll, can you simply lay your arguments on the table without insulting me so that we can have a constructive conversation instead of a fist fight? You might even change my mind... But right now, I still believe in every single thing that I've said.
I am not the enemy here, I am not trying to hinder vaping, on the contrary I want vaping to succeed as I think it is the #1 life saving invention of the 21st century. I hope that e-cigs will join the ranks of the vaccine and antibiotics as things that have changed the world.
We just happen to disagree on how to get there... no big deal.
I will reply to your post that's being quoted in this one in my next reply.
OK, I think I should put one more in here without quoting anyone. Here's how I see it shaking out over the next 5 to 10 years. There will be an over-reaction by the fervent anti-smoke folks. There are many in the building I work in. Laws and rules will be passed basically limiting vaping to the same areas as cigarette smokers. There will be little we can do about this. I'm not being passive or resigned, just realistic in terms of recognizing numerical advantages of the anti-smoking folks. Americans are in an overly sensitized state regarding their health (and their "rights.")
I think this will soften over time and there will be exceptions made for vaping. It will start in bars and possibly spread to restaurants, where they will be able to have "vaping areas" without all of the hideous restrictions of ventilation that was first required for inside smoking before it was banned altogether in many areas. Beyond that, I'm not sure how relaxed it will get. It probably depends upon published research. While there is some now, the more that is done, the more likely the word will get out and it will effect policy. I don't think you will ever see it allowed in many offices and government buildings. It is vapor after all and the smell may bother some people, no matter how pleasant what you are vaping seems to you. (Like when I lived in an apartment and my downstairs neighbor used to cook cabbage.) Again, the best you can hope for there is a segregated area where you can vape away. I still remember the glass rooms they used to have at the airport for smokers. It will probably be something like that, only much more pleasant. Sorry, that's the best I can see, but it's not bad. And if I don't want to live within those restrictions, I can quit altogether or move somewhere where it's allowed anywhere anytime.
That's my vision of the future. It doesn't mean I won't try to educate people, campaign and vote to support something that I think has improved my quality of life and may very well end up extending it some.
BTW - I'm not ashamed at all for voting for President Obama, considering the president we had for 8 years before him and the alternatives the other party offered in the last two elections. I can't imagine where we'd be right now with Mitty in charge. We probably wouldn't have a former lobbyist for big pharma at the helm of the FDA. It would probably be eliminated!
I think this will soften over time and there will be exceptions made for vaping. It will start in bars and possibly spread to restaurants, where they will be able to have "vaping areas" without all of the hideous restrictions of ventilation that was first required for inside smoking before it was banned altogether in many areas. Beyond that, I'm not sure how relaxed it will get. It probably depends upon published research. While there is some now, the more that is done, the more likely the word will get out and it will effect policy. I don't think you will ever see it allowed in many offices and government buildings. It is vapor after all and the smell may bother some people, no matter how pleasant what you are vaping seems to you. (Like when I lived in an apartment and my downstairs neighbor used to cook cabbage.) Again, the best you can hope for there is a segregated area where you can vape away. I still remember the glass rooms they used to have at the airport for smokers. It will probably be something like that, only much more pleasant. Sorry, that's the best I can see, but it's not bad. And if I don't want to live within those restrictions, I can quit altogether or move somewhere where it's allowed anywhere anytime.
That's my vision of the future. It doesn't mean I won't try to educate people, campaign and vote to support something that I think has improved my quality of life and may very well end up extending it some.
BTW - I'm not ashamed at all for voting for President Obama, considering the president we had for 8 years before him and the alternatives the other party offered in the last two elections. I can't imagine where we'd be right now with Mitty in charge. We probably wouldn't have a former lobbyist for big pharma at the helm of the FDA. It would probably be eliminated!
I don't believe I directly called you personally a troll. I don't believe you are a troll, although there are trolls that spend time on ECF.
When I point out the incongruent or incompatible parts of your statements, I by no means I'm attacking you personally. I did use the word "hypocritical" to describe two of your statements that were polar opposite. I believe the meaning of the word encompasses that. I can see where that can come on too strong and will apologize for it. In my defense, however, when you state in BIG, BOLD, LETTERS to only vape with smokers and in smoking sections because vapers are the reason for restrictions and bans, that is a strong, negative statement that must be challenged. That is like yelling "FIRE" in a movie theater but on a political level, IMO, since bans on vaping have proven to have nothing to do with a few inconsiderate vapers.
I believe there is a middle ground, namely, vaping openly most places but respectfully and with common sense and educating the uninformed about vaping and why it is not harmful to others. All of your posts that I have read appear to state that there is no middle ground. Vapers are the same as smokers, should act like smokers and should be treated like smokers. That is what the FDA, Big Pharm., ASH, etc are also stating. I can't see the logic in agreeing with and acting in accordance with these groups beliefs or how it is beneficial to those who vape.
If I misunderstood your statements on how we should vape, I'm willing to listen.
Last edited:
Excuse me, but the media and ANTZ were tying "vaping to the other" long before CASAA and NORML ever found themselves on the same side in California. You know very well that CASAA could have nothing to do with NORML and the media and ANTZ would still be saying e-cigarettes could be used for "other drugs." Reason Magazine did an article way back in 2010, New E-Cig Menace: You Can Put Your Weed in There, where it mocked John Banzhaf for fear mongering about e-cigarettes. So the association has nothing to do with CASAA or NORML "working together."
And you are blowing (what you call) our "collaboration" way out of proportion. There was one, private "heads up" email from a former CASAA director about a proposed ban in Berkeley, after NORML used its considerable political influence (which California vapers lacked) to stop the proposed ban in Sacramento. It's not like CASAA was/is issuing public statements that it's working with and shares the same goals as NORML. We didn't and never would do anything like that, because we aren't and don't.
Just as we sometimes find ourselves on the same side as tobacco and e-cigarette companies, we will find ourselves fighting along side other groups who share similar opposition to bad legislation. What should we do? Back off and quit fighting for our members - just because NORML gets involved - so it doesn't "look bad?" The ANTZ and media are linking vaping with drugs whether we fight along side NORML or not, so us backing out and abandoning our members because NORML is involved wouldn't change a damn thing. But we cannot ignore the fact that the ANTZ are collaborating and they have considerable political influence that e-cigarette advocates do not have. If vapers don't cooperate, even privately, with powerful groups that can help them, then they only have themselves to blame when the bans happen.
I apologize if I'm interpreting this wrong, but publicly and falsely implying that CASAA has or will have some sort of ongoing, working relationship with NORML - and is thereby jeopardizing vaping - only seems to serve one purpose: an attempt at discrediting and vilifying CASAA within the vaping community. I just don't understand this animosity you seem to have for CASAA? You seem to always be looking for reasons to criticize it.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
