A store owner making a business decision does not have time to get to know you and find out what you are doing and what you are about. They are tasked with mitigating potential situations as soon as they see it to avoid litigation.
Wrong. In the absence of regulations to the contrary, there is no potential for litigation.
In most jurisdictions, no laws would have been broken and they are welcome to call the police or the inspector. I'll wait. If there were such laws, they would have either posted it, or it would be common knowledge, or they would inform me. At which time I would comply.
I'm not saying that it isn't obvious that the vapor is safer then cigs by a long shot, but by what scientific data are you basing your completely safe assertion on?
You missed my point entirely. You assert that perception is reality and should dictate your behavior. You assert that blowing smoke in a kids face is the same as vaping in the vicinity of someone because they perceive it to be a threat and their perception is reality.
Further, I never asserted that it was "completely safe". If someone insists on complete safety, I suggest they isolate themselves ala Howard Hughes.
I'm saying that civility and common sense dictates that you avoid confrontation, especially when dealing with establishments that you don't own.
What confrontation? If the establishment management asks me not to vape, I won't vape. If someone else asks me not to, I would attempt to explain what I'm doing. Then, I may or may not vape, depending on other factors. But I will not refrain from vaping merely because someone, not in a position to dictate one way or another, might perceive things in a way that is not in accordance with reality.
So if I find 7-11's dress code of having to wear shoes or a shirt unjustified, as it poses no risk, I should be allowed to opt out of their policy? Or because it doesn't expressly STATE that I can't spit on their floor, I should assume that it is inherently OK?
Again, you miss my point to draw absurd parallels.
First off, I didn't mention the validity of an objection in the context of an establishment's owner. I was referring to some random bystander. I would comply with their objection if it made some sort of sense. I would abstain from vaping if there was the potential of someone having an objection that made sense. Paranoia and the propensity to jump to conclusions out of ignorance is not a valid basis for a bystander to object to my vaping outside of their personal space.
Second, as to your example, regardless of what 7-11's dress code is based on, it is an existing code and I have no right to defy it. And for someone who supposedly advocates common sense, you seem awfully dense about the issue of spitting on the floor.
I've known people in dorms that chew and spit on their floors... Once again, there was no express rule stating they couldn't, and it's a victimless crime? (I guess?)
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? This is a total non-sequitor with no basis in my statement and deserves no further response.
No... Logically, that association doesn't work. We are talking about what comes out of your body and shares space with others rather than what goes in.
No, the issue is modifying behavior to accommodate the mistaken perceptions of others. Please re-read my original response. Slower this time.
Right. So a normal person doesn't need to be reminded. Likewise, nobody has a right to object to my chewing gum when their objection is based on their mistaken perception that I would spit on the floor.
I'm betting most establishments don't have an express rule on spitting on the ground either.
No, but your previous statements imply that lacking posted rules to the contrary, I would spit on the floor. That is absurd and insulting. Your previous post clearly implied that it would make sense to spit on the floor if there were no rules against it. That's why I asked the question.
1. Vapors who don't, will likely find themselves in extreme circumstances they never would have been in if they had just used some common sense.
2. That's your choice, but I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and take it to a few government establishments without asking. Why even bother to ask, if it's not on the books, it's open season, right?
You say this in response to this from me. I said:
"But vapers who continue to conflate the two by their actions should not be surprised when the general public also makes no distinction and they find themselves treated exactly like a smoker.
I will vape unless or until I am requested by someone who has the right to ask me not to. I will not refrain from it simply because some ill informed bystander might think I'm smoking."
Your first response (#1), if in response to my first statement above, tells me that you indeed do have a reading comprehension problem. It makes absolutely no sense whatever. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word "conflate". Please look it up.
Your #2 response tells me you think you live in a police state where nothing is allowed without express permission.
Out of courtesy, I would seek permission beforehand regardless of where I wish to vape. But you, OTOH, seem to think you live in a world where everything is prohibited unless it is expressly allowed. A SCOTUS justice once charaterized this mindset as one that believes we live in a society of prohibitions surrounded by islands of rights when, in fact, we live in a society of rights surrounded by islands of prohibitions.
If something is not rude, or inconsiderate, or unsafe, or expressly prohibited, a free person, using a modicum of situational common sense, has every reason to believe it is allowed until informed otherwise.
Right... So anything is ok, as long as someone doesn't tell you it's not. I never saw a no alcohol sign on the outside of Walmart, so next time I'm there, I think I'll booze it up on the produce isle.
Again, you're stretching to absurdity. Read my previous post, the one about using common sense. BTW, there are laws about drinking in public establishments. Just because you are unaware of them, don't assume that I, or others, are equally clueless. Also, I have already stated that if I wanted to engage in activities that were questionable, I would attempt to first find out if such activities were allowed. Public drinking, spitting and urinating in the produce aisle would not fall under the category of questionable activities even if I wanted to do them.
Common sense versus stated rules is the disconnect we are having here. We never ASSUME anything we do that is questionable or can be perceived as such is just fine with everyone. Common sense tells us that most people will perceive this act, when uneducated as assault (as far as you're concerned)... That's not willful ignorance, it's what people will perceive... "Smoke" coming from someone's mouth is smoke, unless they know for sure otherwise. You want to get away with it in public? Go buy a nebulizer and attach it to your back... You'll probably get some strange looks, but no one will question you.
Let them question me. I'll be glad to explain. It is not common sense to assume that people will go off the handle about something that, with a moment's observation, can easily be identified as not what they initially thought it was. This is borne out a million times every day.
I seriously doubt anyone so reactionary about an e-cig that they will erupt in a fit of indignation without bothering to find out what's going on will recognize a nebulizer either. So, I'd have to explain that too. Explaining an e-cig is easier. And, if necessary, I'll do it in medical terms.
Escorting someone out of a private establishment, even by means of force, is completely legal when a refusal to evacuate when asked to do so is ignored. What do you think security guards and bouncers are for?
Once again, you mischaracterize what I said. If a proprietor asked me to stop vaping, I'd stop. I never said I'd ignore an order to leave or that I'd ignore a no-vaping sign. In fact, I explicitly said I'd attempt to gain permission first. But, if I neglected to ask permission, and there were no posted or statutory regulations and I was forcibly ejected because I didn't ASSUME the presence of a non-existent prohibition, there would be a problem.
This is not at all the way bouncers and security guards operate.
Once again, dessert is not occupying my atmosphere, or being shoved down my throat. Now if you walked around the store puffing sugar in the air, you could be held liable for issues that would arise if someone was to have a diabetes attack. You'd probably be pretty defensive as well if it was your mother who had that attack.
Neither would I allow my vapor to intrude into your personal space. You don't breathe in my face, and I won't breathe in yours. There is no evidence that what emanates from my mouth across the room or several feet away is any more dangerous to you than your bad breath is to me.
In fact, some people have severe reactions to colognes and such. Do they have the right to insist that I leave the building? I've never heard one do that. Should there be regulations to prohibit the use of colognes and perfumes in public? That would be more reasonable than what you are advocating. I assert that anyone so chemically sensitive should avoid public areas, or keep their distance from others. I will not be wearing hypoallergenic aftershave just in case I come within 10 feet of such an individual.
How about a bathroom stall, discreetly? How about just take it around the corner? There's always more options then the middle of the produce isle in a grocery store, or the food court of a shopping mall.
Why should I let you force me into a bacteria laden bathroom? If I stay out of your personal space and you can't smell my vapor, then what's it to you? If you are so rabidly anti-smoking that you just can't stand anything that even looks like smoking, then that is your hang-up. You being a busybody is not a reason for me to banish myself to a bathroom stall. Besides, where I live, it's illegal to smoke in the bathroom of a non-smoking building too. So, all I'm accomplishing is subjugation myself to a bully or a busybody. I don't care to encourage them that way.
This one is. Facts in this case are based on perception.
No. Facts are based on facts. People who believe that facts are based on mere perception are psychotic.
I'd still like to know where this evidence of 100% safety on second hand inhalation is coming from?
I never claimed such. Exposing yourself to any public area is not 100% safe. Should you be able to dictate to me that I wear a respirator so you can be 100% safe? Should I just do it out of courtesy because you might perceive me to be unhealthy? I have my doubts about the safety of those stinking hot wings you ordered next to me at the bar. Should I insist you eat them in the bathroom?
I place a vapor machine in the corner of a store, plug it in, and give it a red light underneath it to look like a fire... The establishment I'm in should have no problem with this as it was perfectly safe and couldn't hurt anyone, right? Common sense is what's wrong with your stand.
Common sense would prohibit such a thing and it would be akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. You are merely grasping at straws now.
Ignorance of a person's race or something based on heredity, or something we cannot choose is a hell of a lot different then ignorance based on identical perception. Are you really playing on people's willful ignorance, or are you trying to take a stab and cause a fight with individuals who don't know the difference, but try to mitigate the circumstance as quickly as possible?
We could choose to mollify someone's perception by not being seen in public with someone who a certain segment of society disapproves of. That is a choice, and one that was taken by many people in a less tolerant society.
If I was trying to cause a problem via "identical perception", I'd use something that looked and/or smelled identical. Duh!
I question anyone's motives when taking stands like "I do what I want wherever I want unless it's in writing and I feel it's justified."
Again, your reading problem prevents you from understanding what my stand is. Either that or you are being deliberately obtuse.
I would refrain from an activity that was either expressly prohibited, or that a reasonable and prudent person would find objectionable. Notice I said reasonable and prudent. I didn't say uninformed, hysterical, paranoid or zealous.
It's commonplace and acceptable to ride a bike with a leather jacket. If you took out a toy gun and pointed it in their window, you might be met with a different reception... But there's no harm in that, right? After all, no one can get hurt, right?
Missed my point again. Your'e really good at that. A reasonable and prudent person would take that as a threat to their person. A hysterical coward would see a tattoed, bearded biker on a Harley as a threat. You would advocate I shave, remove my tatoos and ride a Honda Goldwing so as not to scare the old ladies. Otherwise, I might be "defying establishment" and looking for attention, or whatever nonsense.
Likewise, a person who jumps to unfounded conclusions merely by the presence of a smoky looking substance and without any other evidence of an actual cigarette, need not be accommodated.
Already covered, and there's no difference in what I said before as to what I'm saying now.
So, your comprehension problem not only applies to what I have written, it also extends to what you yourself have written. Interesting.
Or just act with a shred of common sense?
I have not written one thing that is contrary to common sense, only preemptive and unnecessary subservience, spinelessness and cowardice. I will not attempt to modify my behavior to suit the attitudes of the most uninformed, hysterical, hyper-sensitive, self righteous and indignant smoking nazis among us. If you consider acting that way to be "common sense", I suggest you grow a spine.
I noticed you didn't address this point, which I cannot repeat often enough:
Vapers who continue to conflate, by their actions, smoking and vaping should not be surprised when the general public also makes no distinction and they find themselves treated exactly like a smoker.
You advocate we treat our vaping the same way as we treated our smoking. Why should the general public act any differently?
