No Ecigs allowed
- Thread starter caged imp
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
C'mon... really ??
Everyone is bound to eventually do something that might make someone uncomfortable. We had several examples on this thread already, so I'm not even going to repeat them. So, it's utopic to believe that everyone has the right to be 100 per cent confortable, while dealing with other people.
In the emphasized bit of your post, you seem to believe that everyone will be offended by our vaping. In reality, most people don't even bat an eye. It's a small minority of very vocal ANTZ's, backed up by 'health' organizations mostly sponsored by BP that has brought us most of the bans. When I started vaping, in the beginning of 2009, the lies and misinformation had already started. There were not many of us yet... 'juvenile' or otherwise.
There is a place and time for everything. I will proudly vape anywhere outside, where I know I'm not harming anyone's health. If people can 'smoke' exhaust fumes from motor vehicles, they can also breathe my vapour (which they will not, or barely, notice anyway). Some of the perfumes (or lack of them) people wear are waaaaay more noticeable... and I must live with that.
If the problem is because it mimics smoking, too bad... that's an ideological point of view. Maybe the kind of clothes the easily offended decided to wear also offends me... and I still must live with that.
Inside, I will vape if the owner allows it. Is there anything 'juvenile' about that attitude?
You are maybe mixing up being 'juvenile' with being respectful, and yet not being subservient. Subservient to illogical laws that were passed to protect the interests of both BT and BP (the e-cig poses a threat to both). Laws that are already insane, from an health perspective, even for tobacco. Some of those laws exist not to protect people's health, but to demean smokers. Well guess what? I'm not a smoker anymore!
If showing already mis-informed people that the e-cig is NOT tobacco is being 'juvenile', so be it. But I will NOT hurt our cause by lumping the e-cig with tobacco, by vaping in smoking designated areas only... that will only give already mis-informed people the wrong idea. That vaping equals smoking. I will also NOT confirm, in an implicit manner, the lies and half-truths the ANTZ's have been sprouting in the last years...!
The media and the left will tie the 2 together, in a false campaign to "save the children" you say? Right, because the left is so quick to vilify "the other", using propaganda as their means. I think you interjecting your political bias into this conversation where it just doesnt make sense.
Glad to be Unafiliated and proud
Oh yeah, btw. You mentioned how you didnt want your provari to be tied to the other because then it would be deemed paraphernalia and taken from you. Well I sure have seen alot of gas stations selling packs of rolling papers that can be deemed paraphernalia, yet as long as they arnt found together with illicit drugs they cant be called paraphernalia and taken. As long as the Provari has a legit purpose and your not misusing it, you have nothing to worry about.
When I smoked, many of my friends smoked, but nobody in my family did. Thus, I've always been very careful of when and where I smoked. This habit has carried through in my vaping. I vape in my house, but in certain areas, but I try not to vape around those who may find it remotely confusing. Although I do find no harm in it, I just don't want to cause any unnecessary drama for anyone.
But I must share, while at my anti-cigarette parent's house, they are more than happy to let me vape inside since they are glad to see I finally quit analogs after many years of badgering.
But I must share, while at my anti-cigarette parent's house, they are more than happy to let me vape inside since they are glad to see I finally quit analogs after many years of badgering.
I follow about the same rules for vaping. I think it is rude to vape everywhere. If it's a no smoking environment, I use common sense that people there don't want to see or smell my vape. But I'm seeing a lot of people just vaping everywhere. So as with anything in excess, It's bound to happen that people put up no vaping signs. I know that my DW does not mine most of the smell of my juices, but there are some that bother her.
My family is the same, there so happy I quit smoking they could care less about vaping inside
The only no vaping sign I've seen was in Portland, OR on the max (their train) stops. I was allowed to vape in Portland airport a few months ago (I asked 4 different security guards before I even tried, and every one of them approved it), but not outside waiting for the train.
i think it only makes logical sense to ban exhaling water vapor all together when e-cigarettes are banned places.
i think you missed the entire point of my statement. when vaping, you are exhaling water vapor, just like you do when you exhale a normal breath.
Really? Just what happens to the nicotine, PG, VG, flavors, additives, preservatives and colorings? They magically disappear?
Many years ago, people tried to explain the difference between smoke and what comes from e-cigarettes by using steam (ie. water vapor) as a better comparable. Many people started saying e-cig fog is "just like water vapor, not like smoke at all" and that got changed (like the old telephone game) to "it's just water vapor." Unfortunately, that statement makes vapers sound disingenuous. Clearly, what we exhale does contain water vapor, but it is actually mostly PG/VG vapor with a bit of nicotine and flavorings.
The big thing is that it has more in common with steam or fog than it does with smoke. Smoke is a result of combustion like what comes off a burning log in a fireplace and e-cig vapor (which is really not vapor but condensation or cooled vapor often called steam) is more like the visible steam from a kettle. When you heat a liquid to vapor and then it cools into steam, it is still pretty much the same liquid as before. If you combust something, the item changes into something else and creates smoke. Steam from heating water cools back into water. Smoke from a burning log does not cool back into a log. Even though they look similar in the air, steam and smoke are two completely different things. E-liquid vapor cools back into e-liquid - just like water vapor cools back into water. But e-liquid vapor is not "just water vapor."
We have to be careful how we say things, because it can be turned around and used against us. A better way to say it would be "its SIMILAR to water vapor and not at all like smoke."
Ironically, the vapor we exhale most likely still isn't any more harmful to bystanders than what we exhale in a normal breath, so you are still partly right!
Last edited:
Kristin, thank you. Very well spoken. (Especially the part about playing telephone!)
The big thing is that it has more in common with steam or fog than it does with smoke.
<Snip>
We have to be careful how we say things, because it can be turned around and used against us. A better way to say it would be "its SIMILAR to water vapor and not at all like smoke."
Ironically, the vapor we exhale most likely still isn't any more harmful to bystanders than what we exhale in a normal breath, so you are still partly right!
The bolded part is precisely how I took Jarbs original point.
And is the big thing. Where's the proof that exhaled breath is 100% safe? Oh, that's right, there isn't any. But we pretty much all go with anecdotal evidence when out and about and doing whatever it is we do in public places, or private places with strangers around. We simply trust that what people are generally exhaling won't be of enormous harm to me/us. Yet, if we were to follow similar, if not same, standard applied to second hand vapor, it would be grounds for banning all persons who exhale their own breath in public.
It does seem, to me, to be a stretch to go that route, but I truly believe it is equal to the idea that someone is plausibly harmed by exhaled vapor. It is a stretch to say this vapor would cause undue harm and is unique in its properties in leading to a sense of harm. It is not unique nor 100% safe. Yet, anecdotal evidence on that front is sufficient enough for seemingly overwhelming majority to make it through their day without feeling like they are constantly being intruded upon. When in reality, they are constantly being intruded upon.
If your exhaled breath looks similar/same as exhaled breath of a person with the common cold, then really, isn't the mere fact that it looks the same enough to ban it? I mean out of respect for all those who can't tell the difference?
I haven't vaped in public yet so I enjoy reading this thread. It helps me prepare to answer questions.
Most non-vapers (especially ANTZ) would say breathing is a right not a choice like vaping. So, while we vapers get the irony, the rest of the world looks at us like we're crazy if we make that point. This fallacy of a "right to clean air" is just too pervasive. Just ask the smokers' advocates, who have truthfully (yet unsuccessfully) argued for years that SHS is no more of a public health risk than automobile emissions and other average pollution. The whole "if I have to stop smoking then you have to stop driving your car or gripping or using your fireplace" argument never worked. So essentially saying "if I have to stop vaping you have to stop breathing" will probably fall even flatter.
The ANTZ are masters of doublespeak. They carefully say "Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death." This is a great ANTZ statement because it is misleading in two ways: 1) They use the words "tobacco use" to describe SMOKING, which is akin to saying "car use is the leading cause of preventable vehicular deaths" to describe drunk driving (ie. blaming general use of an item rather than HOW its being used) and 2) most people miss or misunderstand "preventable" and believe tobacco use is the leading cause of ALL death.
Most non-vapers (especially ANTZ) would say breathing is a right not a choice like vaping. So, while we vapers get the irony, the rest of the world looks at us like we're crazy if we make that point. This fallacy of a "right to clean air" is just too pervasive. Just ask the smokers' advocates, who have truthfully (yet unsuccessfully) argued for years that SHS is no more of a public health risk than automobile emissions and other average pollution. The whole "if I have to stop smoking then you have to stop driving your car or gripping or using your fireplace" argument never worked. So essentially saying "if I have to stop vaping you have to stop breathing" will probably fall even flatter.
Agreed, but the updated argument could be presented as you have a right to breath, but is must be filtered. You must wear a mask in public to filter your breath. Until you can prove 100% safety from all persons in the place, you do not have this right you think you have to freely exhale. People used to do this in the past, but we are well aware of air borne contaminants occurring in that history of civilized humanity. We, who care, wish to minimize that and suggest you wear a mask now everywhere you choose to go in public.
Such a movement, pushing for that, would make sense if secondhand vapor is deemed a significant issue, and enough to warrant usage bans.
It is or would be equally disrespectful and lacking common sense to not wear a mask that filters your exhaled breath, while going about your business in public. The masks could be government subsidized. Get the free, mundane, version anywhere you go, or spend a little more money if you are vain and care how you look in public.
If nanny state wishes to perpetuate a myth of disrespect under the false guise of 'safety' and use secondhand vapor as point to make that argument, then let that state take things to the next logical level to hopefully wake people up. Arguments against the mask will be arguments that favor the relative harmlessness and 'common sense' approach to secondhand vapor in public.
- Status
Similar threads
