Please, don't vape where you can't smoke

[dawhoo]

So.... you would willingly give up your right to an activity that harms no one

two fallacies are at play here. 1) you don't have the right, you have the privilege. 2) the ingredients are toxic.

Then there's the straw-man fallacy and an ad-hoc fallacy piled on top.

It's this "my right" attitude that's going to be the undoing of ecigs and vaping. If you don't understand the law and how legislation works, then stop pretending, particularly if you're going to use such obvious fallacies and unsupported claims.

Whatever you do, I am sure you're good at it, but when it comes to the law, legislation and valid procedure, you aren't getting it. It doesn't make your opinion less valid, but it makes your legal viewpoint flawed.

Seeing something as being "pessimistic" is only a valid point when you understand the point.

When using a nicotine liquid, we are exhaling toxic clouds of vapor - there's no arguing that point. Nicotine is toxic. I am still amazed that you can vape on some flights.

We don't need to be hiding, we need to be considerate. If you think consideration and hiding are the same thing, then you should go ahead and hide.

 

[AlphaTau99]

two fallacies are at play here. 1) you don't have the right, you have the privilege. 2) the ingredients are toxic.

Going to have to disagree. It *is* a right.

Nicotine is, in its purest form, quite deadly. When diluted to the strengths of most of our juices, it may not be the healthiest substance, but deadly? No. In doses as small as the ones we take when vaping,
especially since Nicotine is water soluble, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority is absorbed into our lungs before we exhale. Regardless, the fact that our vapor dissipates so quickly seems to take some steam from the "we exhale clouds of toxic vapor" argument.

Is water toxic? No. Is Proplyene Glycol toxic? No, and as has been stated before, it's classified as safe by the FDA. One study showed vaporized PG may actually prevent respiratory infections, but I can't remember the link (if someonie read the study I'm talking about, could you post a link please?). Vegetable glycerine? Nope. Flavors? Nuh-uh.

In summary: if, due to the lack of research, we can't say E-Cigs are beyond a shadow of a doubt healthier than analogs, you don't get to say they're poisonous either. At least, until there's more research on the toxicity of our vapor clouds.

Oh boy, DEBATE time! Are we going to start calling out fallacies like we did in Speech Comm.?

 

[radicaljd]

Going to have to disagree. It *is* a right.

Nicotine is, in its purest form, quite deadly. When diluted to the strengths of most of our juices, it may not be the healthiest substance, but deadly? No. In doses as small as the ones we take when vaping,
especially since Nicotine is water soluble, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority is absorbed into our lungs before we exhale. Regardless, the fact that our vapor dissipates so quickly seems to take some steam from the "we exhale clouds of toxic vapor" argument.

Is water toxic? No. Is Proplyene Glycol toxic? No, and as has been stated before, it's classified as safe by the FDA. One study showed vaporized PG may actually prevent respiratory infections, but I can't remember the link (if someonie read the study I'm talking about, could you post a link please?). Vegetable glycerine? Nope. Flavors? Nuh-uh.

In summary: if, due to the lack of research, we can't say E-Cigs are beyond a shadow of a doubt healthier than analogs, you don't get to say they're poisonous either. At least, until there's more research on the toxicity of our vapor clouds.

Oh boy, DEBATE time! Are we going to start calling out fallacies like we did in Speech Comm.?

Well,

As a lawyer, I'll need to disagree with both of you. Vaping is neither a "right" nor a "privilege." A privilege is something officially sanctioned and usually regulated by a governmental entity, such as the privilege to drive.

A "right" is something that is protected in some way, or deemed to be among the pnumbra of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court.

Generally speaking, however, you are free to undertake any activity that is not proscribed by statute or, in some cases, by common law. Federal (within constitutional bounds), state, and local governments have the right to prohibit some activity or item that is not a "right." Since vaping is not a "right," as such, it could be regulated or made illegal by statute. This has not occurred in most places, so for most folks, vape away!

RadicalJD

 

[cr12]

i try to be considerate, i also dont vape much around people i dont know too well, i live in a small town, and people would think im smoking crack or something, i do stealth vape in stores sometimes and in the movies. its unfortunate but it will have to be this way until its more mainstream.

 

[fmx]

This thread is getting ridiculous.

Bottom line is that traditional cigarettes are deadly to those that use them and those around them. The government "allows" them because they make $$$ off of them. E-cigs threaten those tax dollars so the government is unhappy.

Why is the FDA even involved? Did they approve analogs and I missed the memo?

 

[Superstargoddess]

Well,

As a lawyer, I'll need to disagree with both of you. Vaping is neither a "right" nor a "privilege." A privilege is something officially sanctioned and usually regulated by a governmental entity, such as the privilege to drive.

A "right" is something that is protected in some way, or deemed to be among the pnumbra of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court.

Generally speaking, however, you are free to undertake any activity that is not proscribed by statute or, in some cases, by common law. Federal (within constitutional bounds), state, and local governments have the right to prohibit some activity or item that is not a "right." Since vaping is not a "right," as such, it could be regulated or made illegal by statute. This has not occurred in most places, so for most folks, vape away!

RadicalJD

-purrrrrr- I love lawyer talk!

 

[Rockalot]

two fallacies are at play here. 1) you don't have the right, you have the privilege. 2) the ingredients are toxic.

Then there's the straw-man fallacy and an ad-hoc fallacy piled on top.

It's this "my right" attitude that's going to be the undoing of ecigs and vaping. If you don't understand the law and how legislation works, then stop pretending, particularly if you're going to use such obvious fallacies and unsupported claims.

Whatever you do, I am sure you're good at it, but when it comes to the law, legislation and valid procedure, you aren't getting it. It doesn't make your opinion less valid, but it makes your legal viewpoint flawed.

Seeing something as being "pessimistic" is only a valid point when you understand the point.

When using a nicotine liquid, we are exhaling toxic clouds of vapor - there's no arguing that point. Nicotine is toxic. I am still amazed that you can vape on some flights.

We don't need to be hiding, we need to be considerate. If you think consideration and hiding are the same thing, then you should go ahead and hide.

Sorry, I don't believe what we exhale is any more "toxic" than the environment we live in as a whole and I am betting it's a lot less. We are surrounded by toxicity and e cigs are the least of our problems.

I hope once they do all the studies and jump through all the hoops and you see what actually is going on with the numbers you rethink your use of the word toxic. The toxicity of vapor from us would such a minuscule amount there is no way it is going to hurt anybody.

Vehicle emissions are far worse yet we drive cars around people every day. No study needed just suck on an exhaust pipe for a bit and tell me how you feel. Pesticides, BPA, even lipstick can have lead in it.

I think if you are concerned you should focus upon things that we KNOW threaten our health (cigarettes) instead of making up bad things to say about a product we use to try and better our health (e-cigs).

You imagine it MAY be bad for the people around you. Imagination can be a bad thing sometimes.

I do not believe in any way what I exhale is hurting anybody and I think saying that it's toxic, is fear mongering, misinformation and really not helping our cause at all.

 

[dawhoo]

Going to have to disagree. It *is* a right.

Legislation would say and continues to say differently. So I will stick within the confines of US Law Code and say, as proven many times, it is a privilege.

Ask the suppliers how they like the new Oregon legislation. And how shipments being seized are affecting business.

E-Cigarettes Spark New Smoking War - WSJ.com

Oregon is the latest state that is seeking to ban e cigarettes, but far from the last.

Nicotine is a known toxin, co-carcinogen and is linked to heart disease.

Actually water can be toxic - hyponatremina (sp?). But that's a moot point.

Many non US hospitals (i think some US as well) use a PG vapor in certain areas of the hospital and it has been shown to be antimicrobial. It's actually "good for you" in about the same way that antibiotics are good for you. Of course, to some people, an antibiotic will kill them. But again, water,PG,VG,PEG, et all. - moot. It's about the Nicotine and the actual rights of a person to not be exposed to hazardous or potentially hazardous chemicals in public.

In summary: if, due to the lack of research, we can't say E-Cigs are beyond a shadow of a doubt healthier than analogs, you don't get to say they're poisonous either. At least, until there's more research on the toxicity of our vapor clouds.

Oh boy, DEBATE time! Are we going to start calling out fallacies like we did in Speech Comm.?

Might want to brush up on RRO given that statement...

I will concede that an ecig is WAY healthier than an analog, however I only have anecdotal evidence to support that opinion. However, being healthier than an analog is not, nor will it be the point of ecigarette legislation. The known toxicity of nicotine, it's role and a co-carcinogen ,the link to heart disease, FDA Class D classification, unknown quality/manufacturing procedures, all of these and more are all going to be the catalyst for legislation.

And the most important thing to remember is these people don't need more proof, it's already there. It has been there. The FDA has had nicotine as a Class D drug for decades. The prudent thing would be to enjoy your ecig and not arouse undue attention. But the cat is already out of the bag, so to speak. Municipalities and state governments are already banning ecigarettes in public places. Suppliers (like Cignot, Freedomsmokes and others) are having their packages seized. It's already started.

 

[DemonCowboy]

two fallacies are at play here. 1) you don't have the right, you have the privilege. 2) the ingredients are toxic.

Then there's the straw-man fallacy and an ad-hoc fallacy piled on top.

It's this "my right" attitude that's going to be the undoing of ecigs and vaping. If you don't understand the law and how legislation works, then stop pretending, particularly if you're going to use such obvious fallacies and unsupported claims.

Whatever you do, I am sure you're good at it, but when it comes to the law, legislation and valid procedure, you aren't getting it. It doesn't make your opinion less valid, but it makes your legal viewpoint flawed.

Seeing something as being "pessimistic" is only a valid point when you understand the point.

When using a nicotine liquid, we are exhaling toxic clouds of vapor - there's no arguing that point. Nicotine is toxic. I am still amazed that you can vape on some flights.

We don't need to be hiding, we need to be considerate. If you think consideration and hiding are the same thing, then you should go ahead and hide.

i wholeheartedly disagree about whether it's a right or not. it most certainly IS a right, just as if i chose to end my own life by whatever means i chose, that would be a right to.

the problem is you are confusing rights w/ unconstitutional laws have nothing to do with rights. especially corrupt laws. it's us as a people that determine our rights. if we leave that to others then we deserve what we get.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Ben said it even better.

Going to have to disagree. It *is* a right.

Nicotine is, in its purest form, quite deadly. When diluted to the strengths of most of our juices, it may not be the healthiest substance, but deadly? No. In doses as small as the ones we take when vaping,
especially since Nicotine is water soluble, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority is absorbed into our lungs before we exhale. Regardless, the fact that our vapor dissipates so quickly seems to take some steam from the "we exhale clouds of toxic vapor" argument.

Is water toxic? No. Is Proplyene Glycol toxic? No, and as has been stated before, it's classified as safe by the FDA. One study showed vaporized PG may actually prevent respiratory infections, but I can't remember the link (if someonie read the study I'm talking about, could you post a link please?). Vegetable glycerine? Nope. Flavors? Nuh-uh.

In summary: if, due to the lack of research, we can't say E-Cigs are beyond a shadow of a doubt healthier than analogs, you don't get to say they're poisonous either. At least, until there's more research on the toxicity of our vapor clouds.

Oh boy, DEBATE time! Are we going to start calling out fallacies like we did in Speech Comm.?

actually i'll reinforce your point that if nicotine is handled properly it's not a danger, just like any chemical under your kitchen and bathroom sinks or in your sheds or what have you. it's all about responsibility. irresponsible use of anything including water can be deadly.

the questions is are we going to let someone else tell us how responsible we are or treat us like children?

 

[IMWylde]

In open carry states where I vape is never an issue.

 

[cr12]

i think his point is that not to attract negative attention, i dont know how we got to this rights laws thing, i mean you can pick your nose in public, doesnt mean you should.

 

[radicaljd]

-purrrrrr- I love lawyer talk!

Well, shucks! I wish it worked with my wife.

 

[dawhoo]

Sorry, I don't believe what we exhale is any more "toxic" than the environment we live in

totally agree. Couldn't agree more actually. Particularly about the car exhaust. A pristine rainforest, at the right time of year, is more toxic.

But whether it's more or less toxic isn't the point of any of the legislation currently pending. Being a drug, classified by the FDA, that is know to have health risks is the issue.


I vape every single day and it would really change my life (for the worse) at this point if there were an outright ban on ecigarettes. I don't want to see that happen. You don't want to see that happen. This we can all agree upon, I hope.

 

[dawhoo]

Public perception is important. What people think you're doing matters. I doesn't matter if you're breaking the law or not when you openly vape in a restaurant or bar, it draws attention, both positive and negative. I've never said, don't vape outside. I said be considerate of those around you. I started this thread in March. I wanted people to

"refrain from conspicuous indoor public building vaping".

Since that time, ecigs became very popular here. There were more than a few "it's my right to vape" people around. They had a story on the local news about it and showed people inside bars, where smoking was banned, vaping away. 3 months later, the City is seeking to add ecigarettes to the cigarettes that are already banned in any public building or within 15 feet of a building. After the third reading, I think they're going to pass the motion to ban ecigarettes here. Most of the cities around here are considering or already have enacted similar laws.

 

[Chelseafn]

I always ask when I go to bar. Never had a problem yet. I never smoked when I went out to eat so that deosnt bother me. People do give wierd looks but thats because they dont know what it is. Sometimes they ask and I just fill them in on what Im doing. Educate them if you will. I never vape in a mall,grocery store or anything like those. Thats just me. Now if I was on a plane for about 6 hours thats a different story. I did go into the bathroom when I was in orlando airport. Just stealth vape. no need to draw attention to myself. But I do agree with most of the op's. Unless it becomes illegal please dont tell me where I can vape or not. Thats up to the person vaping. Not for anyone else to decide. Just my nickle.

 

[Nobodyatall]

two fallacies are at play here. 1) you don't have the right, you have the privilege. 2) the ingredients are toxic.

Then there's the straw-man fallacy and an ad-hoc fallacy piled on top.

It's this "my right" attitude that's going to be the undoing of ecigs and vaping. If you don't understand the law and how legislation works, then stop pretending, particularly if you're going to use such obvious fallacies and unsupported claims.

Whatever you do, I am sure you're good at it, but when it comes to the law, legislation and valid procedure, you aren't getting it. It doesn't make your opinion less valid, but it makes your legal viewpoint flawed.

Seeing something as being "pessimistic" is only a valid point when you understand the point.

When using a nicotine liquid, we are exhaling toxic clouds of vapor - there's no arguing that point. Nicotine is toxic. I am still amazed that you can vape on some flights.

We don't need to be hiding, we need to be considerate. If you think consideration and hiding are the same thing, then you should go ahead and hide.

Good sir, I take issue. But have it your way, and since YOU are exhaling carbon dioxide, known to be deadly in sufficient concentrations, will you please refrain from any further breathing? Think of your fellow human beings around whom you have been exhaling your noxious poison. This is not to mention the methane and other noxious and undoubtedly lethal vapors you emit from your nether regions.

And in the very least, do it for the children!

Phrased in your style:

When breathing, we are exhaling toxic clouds of carbon dioxide - there's no arguing that point. CO2 is toxic. I am still amazed that you can breathe on some flights.

Silly, no? But if one is sufficiently legalistic, then the absurd becomes rather simple to achieve.

Incidentally, I was hardly expressing any sort of "legal viewpoint", and must confess my profound disrespect for the corrupt manner in which "the law" is often used as a weapon to coerce, extort, obstruct, and occasionally persecute the innocent whilst used to enrich the corrupt on other occasions. Likewise I've no respect for those who cling to the supposed sanctity of legalities to justify whatever argument they wish to make.(No, I'm not necessarily pointing that at you, but if you WANT to feel insulted, go ahead. That's your "right".)

So... I can comfortably stand on this: If I harm not another, who has the right to tell me I cannot do a thing? (from a standpoint of simple morality and ethics) And just what is that "Unalienable Right" thing about anyway?

I'm not talking about the legalistic "bow to Big Brother and pray he doesn't step on me, be afraid or he will take my toys away" bit. Sure, the Gov sticks its nose into whatever it can and "some people" bow down in awe, as "might makes right" in their eyes. We could spend the rest of our lives inditing ham sandwiches if we wished, but to what end?

More to the point, what does the phrase "life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness" actually signify TO YOU? Should we amend it to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, but only if approved by law, and subject to numerous regulations by one or more of the following: FDA/FHA/DHHS/DHS/DEA or any applicable UN treaty not covered under paragraph 32 of the European space agency budget and only after a vote of the UN Human Right Council"?

Must common sense be supplanted by legalism in every case?

I am reminded of the philosophy that "An unjust law is no law at all" (St. Augustine). I subscibe to the philosophy as well, ergo I urinate in the general direction of your legalism!

(Care to go another round, this is fun. And hopefully, people will be amused. I know I am. This is recreational, in case someone needs a clew.)

 

[dawhoo]

Must common sense be supplanted by legalism in every case?

Every case - no. This case - yes. Our ban goes into effect on Sep 1, 2010. ecigarettes will be classified as cigarettes. eCigs can not be used in a public building, other than a "smoke shop". ecigarettes are banned on the sidewalks. In this city (Nov,2009), a special permit is required to sell cigarettes. No new permits have been given since that time. A statewide ban is being considered and will likely pass. This is a tobacco state and has(had) one of the lowest tobacco taxes in the country. I can't help but feel that PM/RJR have a hand in this matter, but that's my personal opinion.

... be afraid or [Big Brother] will take my toys away

Yes he will and he will do it under the auspices of health, protecting the innocent and helping people stop smoking.

On June 29, 2010. The USPS shipping regulations for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products was set to go into effect. At this time, our ecig juice is not considered a tobacco product. An adendum to the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act will be added on August 30, 2010.

The current act can be found here:
DMM Revision: Treatment of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco as Nonmailable Matter

BigBrother is putting his foot down. I have already ordered my supplies, just to be sure. With more and more municipalities adopting ecigarette legislation that treats ecigarettes as a tobacco product, the future of the industry is uncertain.

EDIT: the future of ecigarettes will continue, there's just too much demand, but I do believe we will see more and more regulation as the FDA becomes involved.

 

[LowThudd]

Every case - no. This case - yes. Our ban goes into effect on Sep 1, 2010. ecigarettes will be classified as cigarettes. eCigs can not be used in a public building, other than a "smoke shop". ecigarettes are banned on the sidewalks. In this city (Nov,2009), a special permit is required to sell cigarettes. No new permits have been given since that time. A statewide ban is being considered and will likely pass. This is a tobacco state and has(had) one of the lowest tobacco taxes in the country. I can't help but feel that PM/RJR have a hand in this matter, but that's my personal opinion.



Yes he will and he will do it under the auspices of health, protecting the innocent and helping people stop smoking.

On June 29, 2010. The USPS shipping regulations for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products was set to go into effect. At this time, our ecig juice is not considered a tobacco product. An adendum to the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act will be added on August 30, 2010.

The current act can be found here:
DMM Revision: Treatment of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco as Nonmailable Matter

BigBrother is putting his foot down. I have already ordered my supplies, just to be sure. With more and more municipalities adopting ecigarette legislation that treats ecigarettes as a tobacco product, the future of the industry is uncertain.

All the more reason to resist the beaurocracy. See what happens when you let people walk all over you? They back the truck up and do it again. Trust me, L.A. smog is MUCH more unhealthy than e-cig quickly disipating vapor. Lookie: EPA: 600 neighborhoods have toxic air - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com I will not go quietly. The squeeky hinge gets the oil. If we have to, we DO have the right to peacefull protest. Letting the powers that be take our freedoms an incrememnt at a time is a foolish thing to let slip past us. Your suggested response to the changing laws is just that. I won't just let it go. That has already happened too much.

 

[HeatherC]

"Bureaucracy is the art of making the possible impossible" Javier Pascual Salcedo

 

[Nobodyatall]

All the more reason to resist the beaurocracy. See what happens when you let people walk all over you? They back the truck up and do it again. Trust me, L.A. smog is MUCH more unhealthy than e-cig quickly disipating vapor. Lookie: EPA: 600 neighborhoods have toxic air - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com I will not go quietly. The squeeky hinge gets the oil. If we have to, we DO have the right to peacefull protest. Letting the powers that be take our freedoms an incrememnt at a time is a foolish thing to let slip past us. Your suggested response to the changing laws is just that. I won't just let it go. That has already happened too much.

Dawhoo, I'm with LowThud.

Besides, passing a law and making something illegal is one thing, enforcing it, quite another.

Just look what a success that old War On Drugs is.

Why, I'm sure there are a lot less drugs on the street now than when Ronnie Ray-gun started it! (Don't get me wrong, I love the Gipper. But the war on drugs has just been a repeat of Prohibition. It don't work too good, but it gets a lot of money into the hands of the DEA and criminals.)

There IS at least one constant in life: 99.9% of the time, the Government screws up in whatever it tries to do. And I have so much faith in the Government to operate at its normal level of "high" standards.

There is strength in numbers, recruit people!

And you have my respect. You didn't fall headfirst into the satirical poke. Most do.