Please DO vap where you can't smoke!!!

[sam12six]

Do people really think the testing already done by the FDA and other labs doesn't matter? Most studies ARE based on "previous and similar" studies and those are used as evidence. Just look at the footnotes in most research publications - they ALL base conclusions on previous studies that are similar, but not exactly the same.

There is no proof that long term, extended exposure is safer than cigarettes, but when discussing "second hand" exposure, we don't need that proof - just proof that brief exposure isn't dangerous. There is plenty of scientific data on short-term, brief exposure to ALL of the ingredients in e-cigarettes and NOTHING to indicate danger. Are we now going to ban everything new that doesn't even have a reason to believe that they'd be a danger until proven safe? No - wait - only anything containing nicotine apparently, since other FDA-approved products don't seem to have to abide by that standard. Chantix was put on the market and promptly started killing users, so obviously IT wasn't required to prove absolute safety before getting the green light.

The FDA obviously doesn't require "absolute certainty" to approve a product and any possible dangers have nothing to do with the fact that they haven't "approved" it. In fact, they usually don't bother to get involved in non-pharmaceutical products unless enough actual adverse affects have been reported. THIS all about power and money - not public safety. If you believe anything else you have a lot more research on the history of e-cigarettes and what has been happening.

The fact of the matter is that the future of e-cigs will not be safe until they get enough public support and they won't get that so long as the public believes the lies of the public health groups and FDA.

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of both the FDA and big pharmaceutical. If big pharmaceutical were marketing ejuice that killed 1 out of a thousand users on the first puff, it would still have immediately been given FDA approval (after all, they get away with marketing products where the fast-talking description of side effects at the end takes as long as the actual commercial). If they can market a drug to prevent a runny nose that causes you to projectile vomit blood and urinate pure Clorox bleach, they can pretty much do whatever they want (please, no one ask for a link to the runny nose drug - I made that up).

And why do you keep ignoring the studies that have been done? Several tests and studies, INCLUDING THE FDA TESTING have not found any toxic levels of chemicals nor dangerous levels of carcinogens to give any reason to suspect that they'd be dangerous to by-standers or even to users. Three years of real-world use and no adverse affects reported by users or by-standers due to exposure to the vapor.

Please tell me with what other products have people insisted that a product may still be dangerous even though it had been tested and shown to contain no toxic levels of chemicals and no dangerous levels of carcinogens? What risk of "potential harm" to others is even hinted at with a product that has shown to have no dangerous levels of chemicals?

No dangerous levels of carcinogens detected. No danerous levels of toxins detected. No ingredients not already approved for human consumption. No aerosols not already approved for short-term exposure. No reports of serious adverse affects to either brief or daily exposure to the vapor in three years of real-world human use.

In what universe does this indicate that there would be ANY potential harm to brief exposure to by-standers, especially since in this universe products are typically not given such scrutiny until they actually have reported complaints?

Cigarettes are already proven to the public's satisfaction to equal death. Most distributors of PVs market them as e-cigarettes - in other words, a cigarette that's different. As the market grows, this is changing, but the most well-heeled advertisers still market a product that looks just like a cigarette. By doing so, they have deliberately invited the world to give the e-cigarette the same treatment as cigarettes.

The only, ONLY way to separate PVs from cigarettes in the minds of people is that 99% proof that they do no harm. Had they been introduced as a completely new and separate thing, this would have been different, but you're right, greed is rampant and they targeted the product to try and take market share in the vast smoker demographic (for which I'm personally happy, because I don't smoke cigarettes any more).

If this product was an air freshener product for public spaces, it would have already been approved for brief exposure in public based on the known facts. The only reason to oppose these as "potentially harmful" is politics and greed, not science. And the only reason to combat that is to get the general public to see that by exposing them not only to the facts, but to actual e-cigarette use and users.

If x=safe, y=safe and z=safe, there is no reason to believe that x+y+z=unsafe.

You're saying it's impossible to take 3 chemicals that are separately benign, mix them together, and add heat and have the end result be toxic?

Oh, wait!! You're saying testing has been done on every flavor distributed by every company, right?

The area I live in was moonshine country during prohibition. There are tons of stories (anecdotes at this point, I'll grant) where someone wanting to break into the business experimented with their recipe and ended up killing people (or making them go blind or have a permanent palsy or whatever).

In the absence of testing and regulation (and the FDA is in charge of that, corrupt as they are), there's no definitive way to say this isn't going to happen in the ejuice market.

If we were all vaping flavor-free pure PG, your 2nd hand exposure argument would be totally correct. I personally haven't met anyone who does this.

I still contend that any of us buying pre-mixed ejuice who tell people it's completely harmless is lying because we don't know what's in it and don't know what chemical reactions take place when that particular mix is heated. Even with DIY flavors, unless the recipe you use has been tested as a whole, we're still not sure.


As I've said, I'm totally on the PV bandwagon. It's the only thing I have ever tried that could make me put down cigarettes for a month with no pain. I'm also on the ejuice bandwagon. As I type, I'm enjoying some peanut butter cup flavor (don't have a clue what's in it, but it be tastin' sweet). If I went the next step and said it won't do me any harm or blew it in someone's face and insisted it would do them no harm, I'd be an idiot (see the don't have a clue what's in it).

 

[kristin]

You need to differenciate between harm to the user and harm to the by-stander. All non-smokers care about is second-hand vapor and based on existing studies, there is no reason to believe that second-hand exposure would cause any harm. The only thing we don't have studies on is long-term, first-hand exposure.

Considering that PG is already used in many artificial flavorings as a base liquid, there is no reason to believe that incidental exposure to minute amounts diluted by surrounding air would be dangerous. Other than diacetyl, there have been no reports of illness or injury linked to even long-term exposure to vapors at other artificial flavoring companies. - and that is flavoring undiluted by PG. Considering that first-hand, excessive exposure has yet to produce illness or injury to date, it's reasonable to extrapolate that diluted, second-hand exposure would have the same effect or less.

Here is what would have happened if e-cig companies had sought FDA approval (absent the financial opposition, of course):

1. They would have to test the liquid to make sure that there were no obvious toxins or carcinogens.

2. Then they would test it on lab animals.

3. Then they would test it on controlled human subjects in a lab setting with controlled, unrealistic methods of usage.

4. Then they would release it to the public and watch what happens, because lab and animal testing isn't foolproof (as seen by Chantix and the Eissenberg study). BTW - the FDA does not require long-term studies to provide evidence that a product won't cause adverse effects in the long-term, so long as the short-term studies and chemical makeup of the product doesn't indicate that long-term exposure is a significant concern.

So, what happened? They basically skipped 1-3 and went to 4 and so far - no adverse effects in 3 years. Additionally, subsequent testing back to step #1 has shown that there are no toxic levels of chemicals and no dangerous levels of carcinogens anyhow. What else is there to prove? Should they go back and waste tax dollars killing lab rats and testing humans to see if e-cigs work as a cure for nicotine addiction, which isn't even the intended use for most users, when 3-7 years of real-world use has shown no adverse affects?

As far as indoor vaping and the minor exposure second-hand vapor would have, there is no reason to theorize that it is a danger to by-standers and even if they did all of the required lab rat tests, they'd still be forced to acknowledge that there is no reason to suspect that e-cigarettes are a significant health hazard (especially compared to smoking) and would release it to the public. We'd only know in 15-20 years whether or not they are a long-term hazard anyhow - and that applies to ANY FDA-approved product.

Additional testing won't do anything. But getting the word out about existing testing and reasonable science will.

 

[sam12six]

Kristen, What we need to differentiate is actually the safety of e-cigarettes and whether their use should be allowed in places where smoking is prohibited.

As for the safety, I'll say again - I share your opinion. Nothing I've seen (or experienced personally) leads me to believe PVs are a hazard to anyone's health (certainly not more of a hazard than the polluted air most of us breathe every day anyway).

The fact that I share it doesn't change the fact that it is an opinion.

The big problem with the safety testing and research that has been done is that we're not talking about something with a single source. We're talking about a cottage industry where people are marketing a product for human consumption in their basements.

If you're satisfied that your particular juice vendor isn't putting a few drops of antifreeze in each bottle to add sweetness, great. I am too (or I wouldn't be vaping now) because unless I see something that indicates it's a prevalent activity, I'm not going to worry about it.

Can you agree that you're lying if you tell someone that something is perfectly harmless when you don't know what is in it? If not, we're just from different planets and won't understand each others' viewpoints no matter how long we discuss it.

The second issue is people believing that because they share our opinion on the relative safety of PVs, that they should be allowed to vape where smoking is prohibited.

I think emotion is getting in the way of rational discussion, so let's not talk about our beloved PVs at all. Let's follow trolley into the land of make believe...

Imagine if tomorrow R.J. Reynolds revolutionized the cigarette industry by introducing the Camel Safe, a cigarette that uses a chemical oxidation process to simulate the smoking experience. The Safe would taste, look, and feel exactly like a cigarette without harmful chemicals or odor (I know it's impossible, we're make-believing). This has been completely proven by testing.

Should the Safe be allowed in places where cigarettes are prohibited?

Should restaurant managers everywhere you go be required to come out and confirm that you're actually using a Safe, and not a regular cigarette?

Should those same managers be required to run around the bar wasting their man-hours telling everyone else to put out the Newports they pulled out and lit after seeing you given permission to smoke your Safe?

Should busy clubs be forced to hire a "sniffer" whose job is to constantly circulate and sniff customers to ensure that they are using a Safe and not a regular cigarette?

Keep in mind, not only the smoker will get a fine if caught by police. The business owner will get a heftier fine.

I've said before and I'll say again: I'm totally against blanket indoor smoking laws. That said, in places where such laws exist, does the fact that I believe my activity to be harmless give me the right to overrule the owner's desire to minimize hassle and expense (and possible legal consequences of an inadequate policing plan) by adding "Includes Safe" to their NO SMOKING signs? Would I not be a jerk to assume that since it isn't specifically prohibited that I have permission to use my Safe?

Now go back and insert EGO everywhere Safe is.

Again, I've not said don't vape inside. I've said I personally won't do it without permission (and where I can't get permission, I'll vape in the smoking area). The places where I hang, there are only a couple of people vaping at most. If someone says, "Well, that guy's smoking.", the waitress can tell them that's just sam using his thingamajig. Should vaping get so prevalent that clubs look like a Whitesnake video (which lots of bars resembled toward the end of the night, back when smoking in them was allowed), the effort to separate smokers from vapers would cost business owners a ton of money.

As long as vaping resembles smoking, it's going to be treated as smoking. When they come up with vapeless juice that gives the same satisfaction as current juices, that will change.

 

[Shel]

Should the Safe be allowed in places where cigarettes are prohibited?

Yes!

Should restaurant managers everywhere you go be required to come out and confirm that you're actually using a Safe, and not a regular cigarette?

Well, they run around and taste my kids 7-up, to make sure that there's no vodka in it. They can confirm that I'm using a "Safe" cig at the same time they're tasting my kids 7-Up for vodka...

Oh... wait. No, they actually do NOT taste my kids 7-up to check for vodka. So how do they know that my 10 year old isn't drinking alcohol from their bar???

You know, the owners of the restaurant/bar can GO TO JAIL if my kid is drinking a vodka tonic!

Strange....

Should busy clubs be forced to hire a "sniffer" whose job is to constantly circulate and sniff customers to ensure that they are using a Safe and not a regular cigarette?

I guess you would say they SHOULD hire "sniffers"... but the good news is, the sniffers can double as tasters... for those times I go to a restaurant with a bar, and bring my under 18 kids along, and order them a coke or 7-up (hey, there's no way to know that I didn't order a 7 & 7 for myself, and switch it with my kids 7-up, is there?)

 

[Shel]

As long as vaping resembles smoking, it's going to be treated as smoking. When they come up with vapeless juice that gives the same satisfaction as current juices, that will change.

Sam... I don't mean to pick on you, honest.

But tell me, people in Georgia don't notice that blue, or red led light GLOWING at the end of the e-Cig? They don't happen to notice that there is NO SMOKE emulating from the tip of your cigarette? No ashtray, no matches, no lighter....

You say "the effort to separate smokers from vapers would cost business owners a ton of money"... REALLY???

How many people would it take to point out the BURNING, SMOKING cigarettes from the PLASTIC LED TIPPED FAKE cigarettes to a bar full of people???

You know, people that I encounter... even if they have NO IDEA of what vaping is, and have never heard of it, they come over and express curiousity... they've NOTICED that there is no smoke, no ashtray, no matches. That nothing is burning...

Of course, where I live, people can also tell the difference between a Shirley Temple, with a cherry in it, and a vodka tonic. Never ONCE have my kids, ages 5, 10 and 11, been carded while drinking!

Imagine!

 

[Drozd]

Kristen, What we need to differentiate is actually the safety of e-cigarettes and whether their use should be allowed in places where smoking is prohibited.First we also have to buy into the propaganda that there is a danger of second hand smoke to begin with instead of a smear campain based on image and social acceptability of the way smoking looks (I don't believe the propaganda the science from OSHA indicates otherwise).... then we take it a step farther in that vaping is a reduced risk alternative... so we're taking something where there is no realistic risk and decreasing that by magnitudes....kinda makes all the rest of it fall apart

As for the safety, I'll say again - I share your opinion. Nothing I've seen (or experienced personally) leads me to believe PVs are a hazard to anyone's health (certainly not more of a hazard than the polluted air most of us breathe every day anyway).
the long term studies that have been done and presented in the journal of pharmacology in the 40s as far as prolonged inhalation of PG as well as the Nasa study on PG inhalation in spacecraft certainly indicate that there's no hazard as far as PG goes..

The fact that I share it doesn't change the fact that it is an opinion.
opinions proven by science are called facts...

The big problem with the safety testing and research that has been done is that we're not talking about something with a single source. We're talking about a cottage industry where people are marketing a product for human consumption in their basements.

If you're satisfied that your particular juice vendor isn't putting a few drops of antifreeze in each bottle to add sweetness, great. I am too (or I wouldn't be vaping now) because unless I see something that indicates it's a prevalent activity, I'm not going to worry about it.

Can you agree that you're lying if you tell someone that something is perfectly harmless when you don't know what is in it? If not, we're just from different planets and won't understand each others' viewpoints no matter how long we discuss it.

The second issue is people believing that because they share our opinion on the relative safety of PVs, that they should be allowed to vape where smoking is prohibited.

it's a matter of law....smoking is prohibited...by it's very definition smoking requires combustion...vaping does not use combustion...ergo no smoking..therefore no law against it... you're arguing perception...it's also not illegal to be black, jewish, or gay no matter what your perception may be...in fact to discriminate against them or deny service to them regardless of your perception is illegal

I think emotion is getting in the way of rational discussion, so let's not talk about our beloved PVs at all. Let's follow trolley into the land of make believe...



As long as vaping resembles smoking, it's going to be treated as smoking. When they come up with vapeless juice that gives the same satisfaction as current juices, that will change.

I agree emotion is getting in the way of logic and reasoning...

it's not against the law and I will vape where i choose...if the owner of an establishment wants to deny me service and remain ignorant that is his right...and I have the right to take my business elsewhere..

 

[wv2win]

Sam... I don't mean to pick on you, honest.

But tell me, people in Georgia don't notice that blue, or red led light GLOWING at the end of the e-Cig? They don't happen to notice that there is NO SMOKE emulating from the tip of your cigarette? No ashtray, no matches, no lighter....

You say "the effort to separate smokers from vapers would cost business owners a ton of money"... REALLY???

How many people would it take to point out the BURNING, SMOKING cigarettes from the PLASTIC LED TIPPED FAKE cigarettes to a bar full of people???

You know, people that I encounter... even if they have NO IDEA of what vaping is, and have never heard of it, they come over and express curiousity... they've NOTICED that there is no smoke, no ashtray, no matches. That nothing is burning...

Of course, where I live, people can also tell the difference between a Shirley Temple, with a cherry in it, and a vodka tonic. Never ONCE have my kids, ages 5, 10 and 11, been carded while drinking!

Imagine!

++111. good points.

 

[sam12six]

Sam... I don't mean to pick on you, honest.

But tell me, people in Georgia don't notice that blue, or red led light GLOWING at the end of the e-Cig? They don't happen to notice that there is NO SMOKE emulating from the tip of your cigarette? No ashtray, no matches, no lighter....

You say "the effort to separate smokers from vapers would cost business owners a ton of money"... REALLY???

How many people would it take to point out the BURNING, SMOKING cigarettes from the PLASTIC LED TIPPED FAKE cigarettes to a bar full of people???

You know, people that I encounter... even if they have NO IDEA of what vaping is, and have never heard of it, they come over and express curiousity... they've NOTICED that there is no smoke, no ashtray, no matches. That nothing is burning...

Of course, where I live, people can also tell the difference between a Shirley Temple, with a cherry in it, and a vodka tonic. Never ONCE have my kids, ages 5, 10 and 11, been carded while drinking!

Imagine!

Here's an idea. Get a bunch of empty beer bottles, fill them with apple juice, then take your kids into a restaurant that serves beer and see just how long it takes to get someone's attention when they start drinking. Now imagine an entire restaurant interspersed with kids drinking their apple juice from empties, and imagine the thoughts of managers and owners who know they can get shut down if one of those kids actually has beer instead of apple juice. You don't think they'd quickly post a sign stating "Drinks to be consumed only from provided containers" or something of the sort PDQ?

You don't respect a business owners right not to have to deal with separating those breaking the laws from those who are deliberately mimicking illegal activity - fine, your life to live as you will

You follow your own rules of courtesy and I'll do the same. I mean, I can walk walk around telling old ladies, "I hope you die, you useless old bag of bones!!" I mean, it's not illegal.

No one's said don't be a Richard. Some of us prefer not to. Just don't be surprised if your actions jump-start the legal process to eliminate your chosen vehicle of dickery (that's already going on in places where vaping has become high profile enough to cause people to really take notice).

 

[Drozd]

No one's said don't be a Richard. Some of us prefer not to. Just don't be surprised if your actions jump-start the legal process to eliminate your chosen vehicle of dickery (that's already going on in places where vaping has become high profile enough to cause people to really take notice).

really? seriously? where are these places?....I can almost guarantee that none of those places really had anything to do with anyone being a jerk about it...rather corrupt politicians fearful about taxes (new jersey)... or antis trying to pass laws based on perception or fear of lost revenue...
and the antis ARE very much concerned about perceptions and the look of social acceptability...so much so that it was mentioned in the FDAs original anti e-cig press release...
last I checked it was a dickish move to make laws based on how something or someone looks....but that's what they're doing

 

[sam12six]

really? seriously? where are these places?....I can almost guarantee that none of those places really had anything to do with anyone being a jerk about it...rather corrupt politicians fearful about taxes (new jersey)... or antis trying to pass laws based on perception or fear of lost revenue...
and the antis ARE very much concerned about perceptions and the look of social acceptability...so much so that it was mentioned in the FDAs original anti e-cig press release...
last I checked it was a dickish move to make laws based on how something or someone looks....but that's what they're doing

I completely agree with you. From the POV of these greedy politicians and zealous antis, do you think thumbing your nose and saying, "Look, I found an alternative and can now deprive you of your taxes and clean air (even if that part is only perception)" won't accelerate their efforts?

Look, when they proposed a ban on indoor smoking in public locations in my home town, I laughed. Everyone I spoke to laughed and agreed that it was idiotic (and borderline, if not over-the-border unconstitutional).

I mean, seriously - If the sight and smell of people eating disgusts me, how much of an idiot do I need to be to go into restaurants and complain about it? If I hate cigarette smoke, I'd avoid bars or other places that allow smoking.

Of course, the ban was passed easily.

Now we have vaping. It looks like smoking, was designed to mimic smoking as closely as possible. I believe (after seeing their power in the blanket smoking bans) it is inevitable that vaping be included in the bans with the activity it is designed to emulate and replace (I'd love to be wrong, but as I said, the blanket smoking ban was laughable).

Now take people saying they'll vape wherever they want because it's legal (not because the courts have decided in their favor but because the whole thing is up in the air).

On one hand, there are people saying that vaping everywhere without getting explicit permission first will educate and spread awareness of vaping as a good thing. On the other, there are a couple of us saying that it will only draw the attention and increase the efforts of people who already want to control your lives.

Either argument (or both arguments) could be correct (Which is why I said I had such mixed feelings in my first post. Apparently I'm one of the very few here who can actually understand and accept the legitimacy of an opinion I don't share).

All these pages after the first couple have been full of people arguing over whether vaping is safe (I've stated that I believe it is but can't prove it), whether the reports on 2nd hand cigarette smoke are exaggerated (I've hinted that I believe this to be the case), and whether vaping is different from smoking (it is).

None of this matters to the core argument of the thread:

Whether you believe giving someone a "Nyaah! Nyaah! I'm technically not smoking, so deal with it!!" is more productive than being respectful of others' concerns and using a less evangelical approach to build support for vapers as respectable people (and by association, vaping in general).

In our legal environment, I just don't believe a passionate crusade has a chance in hell. Our government loves nothing more than the status quo, and has enlisted the society at large to assist in stamping out all boat-rockers.

All of us on this forum are on the same side, I just happen to think it's more productive to build allies than rush to fight.

 

[BCB]

To Sam12Six: It seems like you are being fair and are aware of the validity of both sides of the argument. I guess I'm just sick and tired of acquiescing to the anti's. I have lost all patience with it. I had to look up acquiesce to spell it correctly. It is defined as: submit or comply silently or without protest. I can't do it anymore. Too many years of being tossed to the side like a lesser being. I courteously vape everywhere I go and will continue to unless asked to stop. Then I'll take my business elsewhere.

 

[Shel]

Apparently I'm one of the very few here who can actually understand and accept the legitimacy of an opinion I don't share).

I do find it interesting that you state the above quote...

Whether you believe giving someone a "Nyaah! Nyaah! I'm technically not smoking, so deal with it!!" is more productive than being respectful of others' concerns and using a less evangelical approach to build support for vapers as respectable people.

and yet, seem TOTALLY unable to accept what I and others have stated quit clearly... that we vap in PUBLIC for the same reason we vap in PRIVATE... that we LIKE to vap, and that it is NOT ILLEGAL.

Please stop saying that we, who favor vaping in public, are doing so to say Nah nah nah... to stick it in people's faces... to get even... or any other ridiculous reason that might strengthen your position!

As I've said, and this is THE LAST TIME I'll say this... I am VERY curteous when vaping in public. I blow the vap AWAY from others, take a seat, when possible near the outdoors, find a seat away from others... I DO NOT TRY to stick it in peoples faces!

And... if asked, I'll either stop vaping or get up and leave. It's never happened, but I am NOT looking for an arguement, or to make a statement.

Oh, last thing.

Again tonight, I went out to dinner, and vaped. The waitress came over, noticed my eGo and asked me what that was, she'd never seen one!

I explained about vaping, gave her the URL for e-cigarette-forum, and told her to check it out. She told me she's six days without a cigarette, but she is climbing the walls, and can't wait to go home and read up on vaping. She also told me she has a friend who BADLY wants to quit, but can't seem to do it. She's going to tell her friend about vaping.

THAT is why I vap in public!

 

[Sar]

This is a lively thread. My own vaping-in-public experience has been rather uneventful. I don't vape to seek attention, but I do not hide it either. I am not about to go into some vape-closet in order not offend someone's sensibilities. My vaping will not become that "inhale that dare not speak its name."

I haven't smoked for nearly two years thanks to PVs, but I still have some smoker friends. That is why I always have a clean ashtray at home. The smokers still go to have smoke in a kitchen, but not because of me, but to be polite to others. I actually ended up liking that arrangement because it was painful to watch a smoker trying to be considerate and twist in the most unnatural way trying to blow smoke away from everybody else.

I have never been asked not to vape in a restaurant. But I mostly go to few "regular" places and tip well. The few times I've been to a bar this year, I've never asked anyone's permission to vape. Few people asked if that was the "electronic cig" and wanted to know where to get one, but otherwise no problem.

 

[WarsawNan]

Holy FLUCK, Shel!! Had no idea when you started this thread it would get so screwy! Think I've followed it long enough. LOL

 

[Shel]

Holy FLUCK, Shel!! Had no idea when you started this thread it would get so screwy! Think I've followed it long enough. LOL

Think I'm going to follow you outta here!

 

[curiousJan]

Apparently I'm one of the very few here who can actually understand and accept the legitimacy of an opinion I don't share).

I do find it interesting that you state the above quote...

Whether you believe giving someone a "Nyaah! Nyaah! I'm technically not smoking, so deal with it!!" is more productive than being respectful of others' concerns and using a less evangelical approach to build support for vapers as respectable people

and yet, seem TOTALLY unable to accept what I and others have stated quit clearly... that we vap in PUBLIC for the same reason we vap in PRIVATE... that we LIKE to vap, and that it is NOT ILLEGAL.

Please stop saying that we, who favor vaping in public, are doing so to say Nah nah nah... to stick it in people's faces... to get even... or any other ridiculous reason that might strengthen your position!

As I've said, and this is THE LAST TIME I'll say this... I am VERY curteous when vaping in public. I blow the vap AWAY from others, take a seat, when possible near the outdoors, find a seat away from others... I DO NOT TRY to stick it in peoples faces!

And... if asked, I'll either stop vaping or get up and leave. It's never happened, but I am NOT looking for an arguement, or to make a statement.

Oh, last thing.

Again tonight, I went out to dinner, and vaped. The waitress came over, noticed my eGo and asked me what that was, she'd never seen one!

I explained about vaping, gave her the URL for e-cigarette-forum, and told her to check it out. She told me she's six days without a cigarette, but she is climbing the walls, and can't wait to go home and read up on vaping. She also told me she has a friend who BADLY wants to quit, but can't seem to do it. She's going to tell her friend about vaping.

THAT is why I vap in public!

Thank you, Shel, for saying what I wanted to in a much more controlled and polite manner ... I have such a hard time remaining polite when I'm repeating myself and being repeatedly labeled with blatantly untrue character attacks.

Jan

 

[ddarklighter]

Exactly my point, they would think you are smoking where smoking is NOT allowed.
Thus .... the thinking "what a ...." part.

It all goes back to the long lost art of COMMON COURTESY.

I'll pass on making people think I'm an .... Different strokes for different folks i guess.

Some people are happy just not doing something wrong
Others don't even want people to THINK they are doing something wrong.

I have to disagree on this being 'Common Courtesy'. It is not 'Common Courtesy' to pander to ignorant people. I don't care if something thinks I'm a ...., because let's face it - we all have at least one vice, and if that vice is completely harmless to you and everyone around you, not to mention the lack of an unpleasant smell (and often quite the opposite) then 'Courtesy' really doesn't enter into the debate. If I'm walking into a grocery store vaping, it isn't because I want people to see me vaping, it's because I LIKE to vape and because there is no law or rule telling me that I can't.

 

[ddarklighter]

I do find it interesting that you state the above quote...



and yet, seem TOTALLY unable to accept what I and others have stated quit clearly... that we vap in PUBLIC for the same reason we vap in PRIVATE... that we LIKE to vap, and that it is NOT ILLEGAL.

Please stop saying that we, who favor vaping in public, are doing so to say Nah nah nah... to stick it in people's faces... to get even... or any other ridiculous reason that might strengthen your position!

As I've said, and this is THE LAST TIME I'll say this... I am VERY curteous when vaping in public. I blow the vap AWAY from others, take a seat, when possible near the outdoors, find a seat away from others... I DO NOT TRY to stick it in peoples faces!

And... if asked, I'll either stop vaping or get up and leave. It's never happened, but I am NOT looking for an arguement, or to make a statement.

Oh, last thing.

Again tonight, I went out to dinner, and vaped. The waitress came over, noticed my eGo and asked me what that was, she'd never seen one!

I explained about vaping, gave her the URL for e-cigarette-forum, and told her to check it out. She told me she's six days without a cigarette, but she is climbing the walls, and can't wait to go home and read up on vaping. She also told me she has a friend who BADLY wants to quit, but can't seem to do it. She's going to tell her friend about vaping.

THAT is why I vap in public!

Thank you! Brilliantly written

 

[ScottB]

I’m a regular at a local watering hole and I vape inside without hassle because the owners know & trust me. And so far, I’m the only vaper there. I wander outside with the smokers when they pile out en-masse because it’s a preferable social experience for me. I’m educating both indoors & out for sure, and many have tried my device. Most of the time though, I just get asked about my eGo; “Is that your one-hitter?” That’s their preconceived notion and it’s always a PITA to displace. After I do my show & tell, complete with disassembly, I have to show them what’s inside my carrying case and somehow get past the fact that there are small bottles & my carto syringe… I always take the time to follow thru to the end of the story (I no longer smoke and you should really try this too...), but fairly soon I’m going to tire of the process.

I see & agree & disagree with both sides of this issue… There is really no correct stance – depends entirely on your specific environment… But to generalize…

Vaping is not “legal”. Except where legislation exists, vaping is by default not-illegal. Fine point to be sure, but not to be ignored – because without legislation, for or against (and for could only be anti-discriminatory), individual policies can be formed by individual establishments. And we vapers make up a tiny part of the general population. We are a long way from having strength in numbers… that’s not to say that a small group of dedicated, thoughtful people can’t make a difference – but it’s much more difficult and requires planning & strategy.

Walking into a grocery store vaping may lead a customer or six to complain strongly to management and their knee-jerk response will almost certainly be to post their new policy that vaping isn’t allowed in the store. It’s just easy to do. Refer to our lack of numbers. The policy would only be thought of as good for business. Cater to the many rather than the few.

Vaping in a theater could be impolite for potential patron visibility impairment unless you’re in the very back row. They might need to create a vapers-only-section. Hassle for them. And if the smoking patrons can handle restrictions, why can’t vapers? Non-vaping policy forms.

Restaurant vaping has been beat up already in this thread… you get the idea…

When a group of local businesses adopt a policy of no vaping to keep the majority of their clientele happy, it’s not a big leap at all for them to ask their local government to legislate it into officialdom – strictly to bolster their enforcement… then we’re in trouble. There aren’t enough of us to hurt their bottom lines by our lack of patronization. Period.

There are two adages that spring to mind when I think about confrontation with a non-vaper:

You are not who you think you are. You are in fact who others perceive you to be.
Never argue with an idiot (or word of your choice) in public. All the public sees is two idiots arguing. They cannot tell any difference.

 

[ddarklighter]

I’m a regular at a local watering hole and I vape inside without hassle because the owners know & trust me. And so far, I’m the only vaper there. I wander outside with the smokers when they pile out en-masse because it’s a preferable social experience for me. I’m educating both indoors & out for sure, and many have tried my device. Most of the time though, I just get asked about my eGo; “Is that your one-hitter?” That’s their preconceived notion and it’s always a PITA to displace. After I do my show & tell, complete with disassembly, I have to show them what’s inside my carrying case and somehow get past the fact that there are small bottles & my carto syringe… I always take the time to follow thru to the end of the story (I no longer smoke and you should really try this too...), but fairly soon I’m going to tire of the process.

I see & agree & disagree with both sides of this issue… There is really no correct stance – depends entirely on your specific environment… But to generalize…

Vaping is not “legal”. Except where legislation exists, vaping is by default not-illegal. Fine point to be sure, but not to be ignored – because without legislation, for or against (and for could only be anti-discriminatory), individual policies can be formed by individual establishments. And we vapers make up a tiny part of the general population. We are a long way from having strength in numbers… that’s not to say that a small group of dedicated, thoughtful people can’t make a difference – but it’s much more difficult and requires planning & strategy.

Walking into a grocery store vaping may lead a customer or six to complain strongly to management and their knee-jerk response will almost certainly be to post their new policy that vaping isn’t allowed in the store. It’s just easy to do. Refer to our lack of numbers. The policy would only be thought of as good for business. Cater to the many rather than the few.

Vaping in a theater could be impolite for potential patron visibility impairment unless you’re in the very back row. They might need to create a vapers-only-section. Hassle for them. And if the smoking patrons can handle restrictions, why can’t vapers? Non-vaping policy forms.

Restaurant vaping has been beat up already in this thread… you get the idea…

When a group of local businesses adopt a policy of no vaping to keep the majority of their clientele happy, it’s not a big leap at all for them to ask their local government to legislate it into officialdom – strictly to bolster their enforcement… then we’re in trouble. There aren’t enough of us to hurt their bottom lines by our lack of patronization. Period.

There are two adages that spring to mind when I think about confrontation with a non-vaper:

You are not who you think you are. You are in fact who others perceive you to be.
Never argue with an idiot (or word of your choice) in public. All the public sees is two idiots arguing. They cannot tell any difference.

Ahh, but nobody is arguing a business owner's right to allow or disallow ANY behavior. However, simply because some people don't understand it is not a reason, in my opinion, to not do it.

Interestingly, you bring up a good point about the movie theater, and I've already decided that if I do vape at the theater, I'll probably intentionally sit in a position that does not impede visibility. However, I would argue that smoking was not disallowed in theaters because of visibility issues.

Good points, but I still disagree. Something is most definitely *legal* when there are no restrictions or restraints placed upon it legally - this isn't a agree/disagree, it's a simple fact.