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

[LowThudd]

I gave up with the gun analogy on my last post. The point is that people will perceive a threat. That is, until they get convinced by the surgeon general getting on TV with the President and says vaping is ok, or CNN runs a feature on a lab test where 10 generations of Rhesus monkeys survive non-stop vaping with no ill effects. Or something else just as absurd that the general public finds credible. I'm not saying it's right - that's just how it is.

John Q. Public isn't going to believe some stranger blowing vapor in line at Walmart. Or particularly give a care that it's helping a poor, addicted smoker kick their habit. Unless they happen to be a smoker.

Sure you might find a few non-smokers that will understand and listen to your opinion on vaping when they confront you in a non-smoking area. But for every one of them, you'll turn 10 more into zealots that will want the product banned altogether.

What we will disagree upon is that we're "hiding" and "not doing anything wrong." I don't hide when I smoke cigarettes and sure not starting now with a PV. However, it -is- wrong for me to subject others to my habit, especially when there's been no real scientific study that proves it's totally harmless. I believe it is less bad than tobacco smoke, but I'm not convinced it's harmless. At least I haven't seen the Surgeon General and the President on TV talking about it or any vaping monkey experiments

Every encounter I have had w/ others has been positive. I have not had one complaint yet. I think you underestimate the average inteligence of the general community.

 

[RedForeman]

From what I understand, the indoor ban was mostely to protect the employees. Not the patrons. Working 8+ hours in a secondhand smoke filled room is not so healthy for them. And you know what? (here come the flames) I kinda agree w/ that. Why should someone have to be subjected to that just to earn a living? However, my oppinion has always been that there should be a permit process for a certain number of bars/restaurants to apply for to be able to remain a smoking optional facility. Here in SoCal there are plenty of Cigar shops and Hookah bars that allow indoor smoking. Not sure quite how they get away w/ it.

I agree on subjecting employees to that environment. For example, ATL airport still has smoking lounges. Talk about nasty. I don't use them and I smoke. What I can't imagine is how they get people in there to clean. I guess they hire smokers who won't care?

The non-smoking laws in Georgia are usually pretty strict. There was one restaurant in Gwinnett County that tried to get an exemption by installing air handlers that were more powerful than the ones they use in casinos. But no such luck and they had to go smoke free. I do believe that some stand-alone tobacco dealers that restrict patrons to over 21 do get a pass on the indoor ban just by the nature of their business. Around here that's mainly cigar stores.

 

[Drozd]

I agree on subjecting employees to that environment. For example, ATL airport still has smoking lounges. Talk about nasty. I don't use them and I smoke. What I can't imagine is how they get people in there to clean. I guess they hire smokers who won't care?

The non-smoking laws in Georgia are usually pretty strict. There was one restaurant in Gwinnett County that tried to get an exemption by installing air handlers that were more powerful than the ones they use in casinos. But no such luck and they had to go smoke free. I do believe that some stand-alone tobacco dealers that restrict patrons to over 21 do get a pass on the indoor ban just by the nature of their business. Around here that's mainly cigar stores.

again the ETS is a political not scientific game..

Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).
Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.
Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.
It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.
So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.
In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.
Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.
Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed) that were generally safe.
This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level...[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking, [it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include."[/SIZE][/FONT]
-[SIZE=-1]ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement[/SIZE]
Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."[/SIZE][/FONT] Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts") --not "safe air."

these are the same people after e-cig bans.... us pushing the e-cig into the spotlight will not make bans happen faster...they're already gunning for them....pressing them into the spotlight and educating and informing the public IS the way to stopping them... the anti campaigns start grass roots level within the community....so should we in dispelling the lies..

 

[ScottColbrt]

I'm definitely in two minds about this. On the one hand, the more we behave like smokers (ie going outside to smoke, etc) the more the idea that its no different from analogs will be reinforced. On the other hand you really don't want to tick people off either.

There has to be a balance between being able to vape where we want, yet being respectful (despite the fact the antismokers are anything but respectful back).

 

[Bovinia]

I'm definitely in two minds about this. On the one hand, the more we behave like smokers (ie going outside to smoke, etc) the more the idea that its no different from analogs will be reinforced. On the other hand you really don't want to tick people off either.

There has to be a balance between being able to vape where we want, yet being respectful (despite the fact the antismokers are anything but respectful back).

My personal opinion is..as long as I am not breaking the law and my vaping is causing no harm to others I will vape when and where I choose.

Respect is earned, and I couldn't care less about the DISrespectful antismoker. When I am asked questions I am more than happy to educate and direct people to this site. We are a new breed and I believe it is our responsibility to educate. No one is going to fight for our rights harder than we do.

 

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

...the more we behave like smokers (ie going outside to smoke, etc) the more the idea that its no different from analogs will be reinforced

That's a valid point--and it's what makes this such a difficult issue. Restricting our vaping to areas that are set aside for the specific purpose of confining toxic chemicals may be respectful and keep our profile low, but it's also a tacit statement that the vapor we exhale belongs in the same carcinogenic category as tobacco smoke.

 

[akingsley9000]

My personal opinion is..as long as I am not breaking the law and my vaping is causing no harm to others I will vape when and where I choose.

Respect is earned, and I couldn't care less about the DISrespectful antismoker. When I am asked questions I am more than happy to educate and direct people to this site. We are a new breed and I believe it is our responsibility to educate. No one is going to fight for our rights harder than we do.

I agree 110%!

 

[MacTX]

Two VERY good points have been made here the I believe really eliminate the concerns related to this. Too lazy to go back and see who wrote them, but here's what they said and my thoughts:

1) The more we behave like smokers, the more it's perceived as smoking. This is common sense. We relegate ourselves to the "ashtray" of the issue because, by going outside and behaving as we did when we smoked analogs, we create and validate the belief in their minds that it IS smoking. It is NOT smoking, and our behavior should indicate such.

2) The anti-smoking activists and government agencies are going after this anyway. Our placing of it on the forefront does not somehow "keep it in the shadows" or delay any ban or negativity. That's happening and will continue anyway. In response, we should be just as public.

 

[iWill]

Stealth vaping has worked in all sorts of places without a problem. I don't do it to show off, I do it to get a hit, and it works. But I am conscious of perceptions and sensitive to dogma so just don't rock the boat. I also don't feel like explaining myself, much of the time. So, just be cool and get along ... that's me. Whatever the case, it is SO much better than stinkies, easier, and awesome.

 

[QE2]

I don't have much to say, just that I'm disappointed to see how many vapers have thrown in the towel already.

 

[280 ZX]

Without smoke, smoking isn't happening. This senior citizen will vape where I want until it's flat-out illegal to do so, as confirmed by a fully appealed court case.

As far as the pristine lungs of the smoke-nazis... they'd better be able to prove that not one of them has ever passed gas in a store or restaurant. I totally object to being exposed to THAT by THEM.

And garlic breath. Alcohol breath. And nasty perfume. Or hairspray. Or how about b.o. on a nicotine patch. Or germs. Or the chemicals in asthma inhalers. I don't feel like putting up with the risks they bring into my environment.

Absurd, isn't it? If it ever comes to a court case, it will be just that ridiculous.

There is no such thing as a right to a pure environment. If that's what they want, it's simple - they can stay home in an oxygen tent. There is no reason for the rest of us to put up with their psychosis in our environment.

All of the objections to vaping will fail ultimately because there is no logic in it, nor any facts. As soon as it gets to a court case, it will fall apart... because it's nonsense.

 

[xg4bx]

Let me play devils advocate here: Are we really such babies that we can't go without our pacifier for an hour? An alcoholic can't walk around the mall sipping his bourbon even though it's absolutely harmless to me, there are still laws against public drinking. Is it REALLY that big a deal to not feed your addiction while you're walking through the foodstore? If it is I think there's more at play than just nicotine addiction.

I'm a libertarian, I wouldn't care if somebody was sitting in a movie theatre smoking a doobie. Personally I don't vape where I can't smoke and I can't drink. Like it our not, harmless or not, we are still blowing out obnoxious plumes of "smoke". It's just completely unnecessary for us to be pushing the envelope at this point in time. I think there are bigger issues to worry about right now than our own selfishness.

 

[HeatherC]

thats it... keep giving the FDA the ammo they need

 

[Drozd]

Let me play devils advocate here: Are we really such babies that we can't go without our pacifier for an hour? An alcoholic can't walk around the mall sipping his bourbon even though it's absolutely harmless to me, there are still laws against public drinking. Is it REALLY that big a deal to not feed your addiction while you're walking through the foodstore? If it is I think there's more at play than just nicotine addiction.

I'm a libertarian, I wouldn't care if somebody was sitting in a movie theatre smoking a doobie. Personally I don't vape where I can't smoke and I can't drink. Like it our not, harmless or not, we are still blowing out obnoxious plumes of "smoke". It's just completely unnecessary for us to be pushing the envelope at this point in time. I think there are bigger issues to worry about right now than our own selfishness.

So you're comparing drinking in public....which there are laws against
to vaping in public....which there are no laws against (except in NJ) and a few other places???

apples to oranges...

the analogy of whether people should wear perfume or cologne in public fits better

 

[Bovinia]

Let me play devils advocate here: Are we really such babies that we can't go without our pacifier for an hour? An alcoholic can't walk around the mall sipping his bourbon even though it's absolutely harmless to me, there are still laws against public drinking. Is it REALLY that big a deal to not feed your addiction while you're walking through the foodstore? If it is I think there's more at play than just nicotine addiction.

I'm a libertarian, I wouldn't care if somebody was sitting in a movie theatre smoking a doobie. Personally I don't vape where I can't smoke and I can't drink. Like it our not, harmless or not, we are still blowing out obnoxious plumes of "smoke". It's just completely unnecessary for us to be pushing the envelope at this point in time. I think there are bigger issues to worry about right now than our own selfishness.

With all due respect, I have no intentions of flaunting my PV in anyone's face, but I do refuse to be shunned and made to feel ashamed of vaping as I was with smoking. I am no rebel, I don't whip out my PV in crowded restaurants or the grocery store but I refuse to be *sent* to the smokers hell I have been for the last umpteen years. And I don't call this selfish, I call it using my rights. If we hide, we miss opportunities to educate the public. If we don't *push the envelope* the FDA will push us away completely. Nonsmokers who are educated and understand there isn't the second hand smoke issues could actually help our fight.

Your signature is a bit ironic in light of your post

 

[Phayah]

My husband is in the air force and he recently got a base-wide email stating that everyone using an e-cig must use it only where smoking is allowed.

I can see why people don't want it openly used wherever. It does look like smoking to uninformed people and we really don't know everything about the vapor yet.

I still feel like it's a little unfair to group vapers with smokers. I worked at Wal-Mart a long time ago and there was a "smoke room". It was about 1/4 the size of the regular break room and it was jam packed with chain-smoking fiends. If you looked through the window the entire room was filled with smoke. Going outside was strongly discouraged because they didn't want the customers to see the smokers.

I really don't see it getting much better for vapers any time soon. With all the germaphobia and anti-chemical our future looks a bit bleak right now.

 

[MacTX]

Phayah makes a very good point, and others too. The fact is that it "looks" like smoking, and we will be treated like smokers whether we like it or not. However, we should fight that every step of the way as far as I'm concerned.

If myself and one non-smoker/non-vaper are working out something, I would agree not to smoke inside or near where he/she may be/goes, and he/she could agree that I could vape inside or wherever. We would have no problem coming to such a compromise. However, we can't extrapolate that to a larger scenario because people seem to lose all grasp of common sense in large numbers.

 

[markmcs]

Picture this...you are a non-smoker in a restaurant and the person at the next table starts vaping and producing plumes of "smoke". That non-smoker will most likely not care that it's 'vapor' not 'smoke'. He or she will not want to see it or breathe it in, and trying to push the issue will only hurt our cause by creating unnecessary controversy for e-cigs in general. I love my e-cig, but vaping in non-smoking areas is a bad idea!! Many people will see it as disrespectful and offensive...and will see the 'vaper' as a troublemaker. We need to gain all the support we can right now, and annoying those around us is not the way to get it. It's much easier to go where smoking analogs is allowed, than to spend half the day explaining to strangers what e-cigs are about. The woman you annoy by vaping in the supermarket checkout line may be the wife or sister your congressman!!!! Now that's bad publicity!!! Let's use some common sense, guys.

 

[PowerofParanoia]

With all due respect, I have no intentions of flaunting my PV in anyone's face, but I do refuse to be shunned and made to feel ashamed of vaping as I was with smoking. I am no rebel, I don't whip out my PV in crowded restaurants or the grocery store but I refuse to be *sent* to the smokers hell I have been for the last umpteen years. And I don't call this selfish, I call it using my rights. If we hide, we miss opportunities to educate the public. If we don't *push the envelope* the FDA will push us away completely. Nonsmokers who are educated and understand there isn't the second hand smoke issues could actually help our fight.

Your signature is a bit ironic in light of your post

I have to agree with Bovinia. We have to be able to inform the masses of the use of PV's, which isn't going to happen when we're being camouflaged by the analogs surrounding us in the "smoking areas". Sure it is a bit silly to have the "need" to walk around in a small store or restaurant and vape, but with no negative effects to the environment around you with your "secondhand vapor", people shouldn't have to hide it. Some situations seem totally logical to be able to vape in public, such as sitting in the airport terminal waiting to board a flight, or walking around in a grocery store stocking up on food for the next month. It almost seems like the only logical way to inform the people around you, it just happens to be like walking a tightrope.

I'm still new to the whole vaping community, though, so I have yet to decide how I'm going to deal with the whole public vaping situation.
I figure I'll go around to my favorite stores and give the managers information on how to educate their employees and customers on vaping. That way, if anyone has an issue, I'll be able to explain to them the situation and if it still hasn't been resolved, we can speak to the manager and educate the person.

Seems like a lot of work, but I would imagine it would help in the long run, right?

 

[PowerofParanoia]

Picture this...you are a non-smoker in a restaurant and the person at the next table starts vaping and producing plumes of "smoke". That non-smoker will most likely not care that it's 'vapor' not 'smoke'. He or she will not want to see it or breathe it in, and trying to push the issue will only hurt our cause by creating unnecessary controversy for e-cigs in general. I love my e-cig, but vaping in non-smoking areas is a bad idea!! Many people will see it as disrespectful and offensive...and will see the 'vaper' as a troublemaker. We need to gain all the support we can right now, and annoying those around us is not the way to get it. It's much easier to go where smoking analogs is allowed, than to spend half the day explaining to strangers what e-cigs are about. The woman you annoy by vaping in the supermarket checkout line may be the wife or sister your congressman!!!! Now that's bad publicity!!! Let's use some common sense, guys.

That thought totally hadn't crossed my mind.
Seeing it that way makes me much more hesitant to vape in public.

However, what other alternative is there to educate the masses?
I haven't really seen anyone else offer up an alternative way to get people to understand what PV's are all about.