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

[akingsley9000]

I understand the thinking of not vaping where you can't smoke but I don't completely agree with it.

I think that it is only encouraging people to shun it (for lack of a better term). If people don't know what it is anyway and you continue to conceal it from the public, how are they going to know.

I'm all for doing it discretely in places where i know it would be an issue but typically i make no effort to hide it.

Once I was at SixFlags and we were walking though the park while my boyfirend and I were happily vaping away. Apparently, one of the kids that worked there had said a couple of times to us that we couldnt smoke in the park but neither of us heard him. Anyhow, he caught up to us and siad hey - you can't smoke in he... oh wait your not smoking, what is that?? We had a very nice conversation with him about it and continued on our way merrily vaping away

There was another time i was walking from my office to the train as usual vaping away. As I exhaled my vapor, I was walking past a couple of other women - I got the whole act, pretending to cough on the "smoke", comments about how smoking is sooooooo gross! I kinda laughed to myself and then decided that I needed to educate these women on what a PV was. Well they were very impressed with it and one of them asked for the information on where to get one for her dad.

This is just a couple examples but it happens all the time. People need to be exposed to PVs otherwise, the ignorance will continue and we will continue to be classified with the smokers and find ourselves cast back out into the cold rainy smoky corner...

 

[IMWylde]

I am thinking that under the radar is not the place to fly this issue. We need confrontations that translate to educations. If people don't see anything different then they don't ask questions. If they don't ask they don't learn.

 

[RedForeman]

What if you walked into the lobby of the ritz Carlton and started .........ing in public.

Maybe that's illegal to start with, but how about open carrying a handgun into the lobby of the Ritz. You have a firearm permit and there's not a "no guns" policy posted at the entrance.

You're certainly not violating any laws and within your rights to do so, but is that a really smart thing to do just because you can?

Unlike many of you, I'm new to vaping. I clearly see the benefits after smoking for 30 years. It's very cool to vape indoors and in the car with the windows up and not stink the place up. On the other hand, I'm not going out of my way to subject other people to my habit, regardless of how harmless you think vapor is. It's still visible and every time I hit the button and take a drag, I'm subjecting people near me to something they wouldn't be subjected to if I wasn't there vaping.

Vapor, like cigarette smoke, ashes, and butts, isn't magical fairy dust that just vanishes. It's just a lot less apparent and much cleaner than tobacco smoking and related litter. But I can smell the vape odor in my home office and in my car after only 4 days with e-cigs. It's a lot more pleasant than tobacco smoke, but it is there nonetheless. Since I believe it's harmless, I'll continue vaping in my own space and places generally acceptable for smoking (not just smoking areas, but outdoors not in a crowded area, walking across parking lot, etc). But I will not subject others to it just because I can.

 

[radicaljd]

Maybe that's illegal to start with, but how about open carrying a handgun into the lobby of the Ritz. You have a firearm permit and there's not a "no guns" policy posted at the entrance.

You're certainly not violating any laws and within your rights to do so, but is that a really smart thing to do just because you can?

Unlike many of you, I'm new to vaping. I clearly see the benefits after smoking for 30 years. It's very cool to vape indoors and in the car with the windows up and not stink the place up. On the other hand, I'm not going out of my way to subject other people to my habit, regardless of how harmless you think vapor is. It's still visible and every time I hit the button and take a drag, I'm subjecting people near me to something they wouldn't be subjected to if I wasn't there vaping.

Vapor, like cigarette smoke, ashes, and butts, isn't magical fairy dust that just vanishes. It's just a lot less apparent and much cleaner than tobacco smoking and related litter. But I can smell the vape odor in my home office and in my car after only 4 days with e-cigs. It's a lot more pleasant than tobacco smoke, but it is there nonetheless. Since I believe it's harmless, I'll continue vaping in my own space and places generally acceptable for smoking (not just smoking areas, but outdoors not in a crowded area, walking across parking lot, etc). But I will not subject others to it just because I can.

I have a concealed handgun license and carry my 9mm everywhere I go, except those places where the law specifically excludes handguns (e.g. hospitals, courthouses, sports pavilions, etc.).

In Texas, someone merely having a "policy" of not "allowing" handguns has no legal effect.

 

[RedForeman]

I have a concealed handgun license and carry my 9mm everywhere I go, except those places where the law specifically excludes handguns (e.g. hospitals, courthouses, sports pavilions, etc.).

In Texas, someone merely having a "policy" of not "allowing" handguns has no legal effect.

Well that's a little different. Concealed means nobody's the wiser unless you brandish. I'm talking about people that walk into Walmart with a .44 in a hip holster just because they can. I support their right to do so, but it's just dumb and unnecessary to potentially create an uproar just to make a point. Just like walking into Walmart blowing clouds of vapor.

 

[Nobodyatall]

Just like walking into Walmart blowing clouds of vapor.

Funny you should mention that, for I have done the same. Much to my amazement nobody seemed to notice or care. I even stood squarely in front and beside clerks. Nothing! Not a peep, hardly a look.

Out here there is some outfit advertizing on TV for e-cigs. They may be doing us a great favor in raising the awareness of the masses. A wonderful thing in my book. I wish them luck in finding a quality product and a sufficient clientele to carry on.

 

[lilsheba]

Well I have to say that I vape in plenty of places I can't smoke, if not all. I do it inside my apartment, at my desk at work...I've done it on the bus and the train, in the grocery store....when people have tried to bum cigs off me I tell them mine is electronic and I've gotten positive responses about it.

 

[uba egar320]

A pal of mine made a scene at a local restaurant not to long ago when asked not to use his ecig inside. I told him to be careful about doing this as it could damage the cause. He told me the story like he was proud of himself. He didn't attempt to let the owner know what he was using, just went straight to being defensive and rude. Guess he had a drink or two in him at the time, but that's no excuse.

 

[Pav]

My wife wanted to go to a comedy show, at a local movie theater, they have had a few comics, like a comedy club, in a theater, so it's crowded in a bit and vaping, should be easily noticed, I know the analog would set off alarms with in this crowded room, my wife was like PLEASE do not viper (IT is what she calls it)

I told her I have to , just what I need to do, she thought we would be booted, well nothing happened, I vaped the 2 hours in the show, rather a dark room, but still visible huge clouds of vapor exhaled, nothing not one person said, or even glared in my general direction..

One point I try to remember when determining where to vape is visibility. If I'm at a bar (which are non-smoking in MI) and sports are on and everyone is watching, I won't vape just for the simple fact that it can obscure the images people are trying to view. Just common courtesy really.

If i am at a resturant and the owner says he doesnt want vaping in his establishment then i wont vape...it might not be illegal but it is still his place of business and he has the final word.

I agree with this as well. Isn't it the property owners right to determine whatever actions the patrons take while on that property? I've been to plenty of places that allow drinks in one area and not another. Is that wrong for them to do that?

Having said all that, most places don't seem to have an issue with vaping. It just helps to use some common sense.

 

[IMWylde]

A pal of mine made a scene at a local restaurant not to long ago when asked not to use his ecig inside. I told him to be careful about doing this as it could damage the cause. He told me the story like he was proud of himself. He didn't attempt to let the owner know what he was using, just went straight to being defensive and rude. Guess he had a drink or two in him at the time, but that's no excuse.

Always thought that a place that allows you to drink has pretty much said "we dont care about your health" kind of hypocritical to then ask us not to smoke because its a health issue. Yeah I know I know there is no second hand alcohol risk, well at least until the drunk driver hits the school bus.

 

[uba egar320]

Always thought that a place that allows you to drink has pretty much said "we dont care about your health" kind of hypocritical to then ask us not to smoke because its a health issue. Yeah I know I know there is no second hand alcohol risk, well at least until the drunk driver hits the school bus.

I just don't really like confrontation anyways. Especially in front of a group of strangers like a crowd at a restaurant. I have stealth vaped in all kinds of places. But if someone told me don't do that here, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Their place, their rules. But man it's nice to sit down and have a cold beer someone and be able to vape away. It's like the days of old!

 

[LowThudd]

As far as the "Handgun" issue, since anyone knows that openly carrying a gun in public is not that great an idea(Uum, deadly weapon.Yes?), and MOST if not all establishments don't want visible weapons on their patrons. I'd say that common sense should prevail there. Here in L.A., it is legal to openly carry a gun(any type), however it cannot be loaded. And the police have the right to check the weapon to make sure it isn't loaded. So common sense prevails, in that it is obviously confrontational to carry a weapon(loaded or not), where you can be certain that the establishement owner will have a problem w/ it. I fail to see the similarity w/ vaping, as it is not a deadly weapon.

 

[RedForeman]

So common sense prevails, in that it is obviously confrontational to carry a weapon(loaded or not), where you can be certain that the establishement owner will have a problem w/ it.

It probably does make less sense in an anti-gun place like coastal California. But I didn't intend to start a gun debate. It is about how people respond to a perceived threat and how creating that threat is a bad idea and nothing good will come of it.

You nearly restated my point when you said the part quoted above. Common sense being the key. Others perceive a threat, valid or not, and the impression will be almost universally negative. To the eyes of the general public, your exhaled vapor is a threat and nothing you say will convince them. After all, you're just some random stranger walking by putting a cigarette-looking device to your mouth and subjecting them to whatever it is you're exhaling that looks like smoke. When they find out it might have nicotine in it, watch out!

So: to those of you that think you're role is to be "pioneers" and vape in places that are generally off-limits to smoking, go for it and good luck with that. For me, I prefer to keep my vaping out of the limelight so enough people won't get threatened and support a ban on something that keeps me off of tobacco.

 

[LowThudd]

The point is, people need to be informed of our 'habit' somehow. If they don't learn from us, or the various commercials on TV for ripoff PVs(yes, it does get the word out though), they will only know some rederic from the FDA or news spins. There is no reason to hide, as we are not doing anything wrong.

Also, your analogy doesn't work for me, I think I failed to explain that.

How about:

Open carry firearm=Openly Vaping?

Uuum, no. If you are in one of the areas that actually requires you to carry a firearm as deffence against bears maybe that works. But since less than 1% of the pop lives in those areas, it's a moot point. IMO Most of us live in cities(highest pop density), and it is very odd to say the least, for someone to be openly carrying a firearm. True, some do where it is legal, most carried firearm(legal) are persons w/ concealed carry permits. And there are strict regs as to where and when you can actually display, or draw the weapon. So, as you can see, firearm crrying is a highly regulated subject. Not even similar, IMO to openly vaping, as there aren't any regs as it is. Let's hope we can get the word out and keep it that way.

 

[Drozd]

One point I try to remember when determining where to vape is visibility. If I'm at a bar (which are non-smoking in MI) and sports are on and everyone is watching, I won't vape just for the simple fact that it can obscure the images people are trying to view. Just common courtesy really.



I agree with this as well. Isn't it the property owners right to determine whatever actions the patrons take while on that property? I've been to plenty of places that allow drinks in one area and not another. Is that wrong for them to do that?

Having said all that, most places don't seem to have an issue with vaping. It just helps to use some common sense.

it's an interesting take...expecially considering if you go to Royal Oak the smoking shop there is carrying a few e-cigs (including trust which is a detroit marketing company disposeable)... and the sales have picked up on them since the indoor ban in MI and the local bars nearby are all good with vaping in the bar..

Always thought that a place that allows you to drink has pretty much said "we dont care about your health" kind of hypocritical to then ask us not to smoke because its a health issue. Yeah I know I know there is no second hand alcohol risk, well at least until the drunk driver hits the school bus.

this is an interesting anology and it'll be interesting to see how the AWOL system plays out too... yep Alcohol WithOut Liquid...a vaporized alcohol delivery system

ORDER AWOL Alcohol Without Liquid Machine Order Page
Alcohol without liquid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LowThudd]

Originally Posted by IMWylde
Always thought that a place that allows you to drink has pretty much said "we dont care about your health" kind of hypocritical to then ask us not to smoke because its a health issue. Yeah I know I know there is no second hand alcohol risk, well at least until the drunk driver hits the school bus.

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.

 

[Drozd]

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.

ahh...but I don't agree with that and the risk of secaond hand smoke...it's a propaganda campaign... OSHA pretty much blew that out of the water when they tested it when they were pressed by ASH... that's why ASH dropped the lawsuit as far as OSHA and indoor air quality

some interesting read on that:
The Case Against Smoking Bans - Restaurant Air

and:
The Case Against Smoking Bans - OSHA

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[LowThudd]

Very interesting, it still doesn't address the right of the employee to work in a smoke free environment. This: Death Of Waitress Linked To Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Case Study Shows Probably a one in a million situation, but is the risk really worth it?

 

[Drozd]

Very interesting, it still doesn't address the right of the employee to work in a smoke free environment. This: Death Of Waitress Linked To Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Case Study Shows Probably a one in a million situation, but is the risk really worth it?

not to make light of the circumstances of her death but...
this happened in a state that was at the time considering an indoor smoking ban

and the project was funded by a known anti smoking agency

The project was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

the CDC is the push behind eradicating smoking and even the perception of smoking in a social acceptability standpoint...

Dr. Matthew McKenna. Dr. McKenna is the Director of the Office on Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He is a commissioned officer in the United States Public Health Service. He supervises more than 100 scientists and other personnel who are responsible for leading federal activities in tobac- tobacco control at the nations leading public health agency, the CDC.
Matthew McKenna: We at CDC are firmly committed to protecting our nation from tobacco use which is the number one preventable killer in this country. Behavior is responsible for over 400,000 premature deaths each year and every per- for every person who dies from smoking, 20 more suffer from at least one serious tobacco related illness. As a nation we can’t lose our momentum in the fight to end the tobacco use epidemic. We have to maintain our drive to protect all our loved ones of the number one preventable cause of death.
.... These products are promoted through innovative media that makes smoking appear to be attractive, sexy and maturing to use. These images have no other purpose than to hook new generations of smokers. ...
Over the last decades our nation has made tremendous progress in protecting our neighbors, family and friends from exposure to second hand smoke, reducing youth initiation and helping tobacco users quit successfully. E-cigarettes closely resemble a real cigarette. ..Therefore beyond potential harms to the user the use of these products could counter the impact from smoke free laws as well as other policies that have decreased the social acceptability of smoking behaviors.
E-cigarettes stand to reintroduce the appearance of smoking in other wise smoke free environments like malls, restaurants and even day cares. This could potentially impact use tobacco una- initiation in use of real cigarettes.
Now currently we don’t have evidence to support claims as you heard that e-cigarettes are safe for effective quit aid for tobacco users. It’s not clear what the misuse levels are that could lead to nicotine poisoning. But we do have a mountain of evidence demonstrating that the modeling of this behavior by peers, parents and other adults and even actors in the movies makes it more likely that exposed kids will pick up the habit.
As the nations prevention agency we need to protect our youth and the many generations to come from the seduction and influence of any form of tobacco use simulated or real. The CDC’s committed to working with FDA, our communities and our close partners to ensure that the current and future generations of kids do not become victims of the tobacco use epidemic.

she died of an acute asthma attack....anything in the bar could have contributed to that.... from a person wearing too much perfume to cooking (every bar I've ever been in the employee time clock is in back near the kitchen)...
and if her asthma was that bad where was her rescue inhaler...

I find it odd that if the bar was so bad that they're attributing it to ETS why there was no prior problems with it like when she went in there to appy or even work on previous days.... I find the linking of her death and ETS highly suspect at best

 

[RedForeman]

The point is, people need to be informed of our 'habit' somehow. If they don't learn from us, or the various commercials on TV for ripoff PVs(yes, it does get the word out though), they will only know some rederic from the FDA or news spins. There is no reason to hide, as we are not doing anything wrong.

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