I agree - no one is refusing us our civil rights. Hospitals that don't hire nicotine users aren't denying employment to anyone based on <b>something that we are unable to change. <b>
I am sorry but I absolutely disagree with your statement part in bold, for a whole lot of reasons. Just to name a few.
A civil right has nothing to do with something that you cannot change. It is a civil right to Bare arms in the United states. You can change that, you can give up your guns. But it is a guaranteed right. When someone in government says anything about taking them away. The courts step in why because it is a civil right in the US. An employer cannot tell you that they will not hire you because you own, or use a gun.
The right to free speech is a civil right, but we can change how we use it, I mean after all we could just keep our mouths shut, and no one can tell me they do not want to hire me or put me in jail, because I do say something they do not like. You can tell me to go to hell, and that is your right of free speech, but you could have just kept your mouth shut so could have changed that aspect. But if you don't your still protected.
The fact is that rights and freedoms are not limited to anyone item or freedom. The freedom of choice, most always apply that to abortion, but the text of the actual right, and the freedom that it gives reads like this.
It is a god given right, for any man or woman to choose for themselves, any action that, or any that is for you personally. No government or organisation shall have the right to tell any individual how they may use, care for, or treat the temple of their own body.
As I said before there is no second hand vaper, we know this from, the tests done in New Zealand, So this makes it a personal choice. The hospitals are Violating a civil right, the FDA wants to violate a civil right, the airplane company violated his civil rights, and does with any rules banning any legal substance. Rights that are laid out in the constitution and the bill of rights, and they want to do that by simply telling you no. Only congress has the right to fully ban anything honestly, or tell any organization that they have the right to do so. Yet constantly over and over again, the courts always say no you can't do this, it is illegal based on the grounds that it is a violation of civil rights to do so.
and to say a civil right only means things you can't change is wrong, because we already know that is not what it means. Now they can say it is for safety, but it is not because obviously no second hand vaper, so doesn't harm those around them. The small tiny piece that makes the vaperizer work, will not interfere with the planes instruments, because if they could be messed with that easy the damn thing would never get off the ground. So no safety issue there, and since I am sure that if a person using their PV and being left alone, would never just get up and start to scream and scare other passengers, because they would not need to argue about the fact the rule says no smoke, and well there is none. I do not think that anyone using a PV would not use one that is not recognizable as a pv on a plane, because of the fear of bombs. I mean seriously i would not wish to be mistaken as carrying one. So I would probably use a Pen style, they suck but at least they don't look like a pipe bomb.
So what and why is the exact reason for these rules in the first place? It can only boil down to the need to control the will and actions of others. While it may not seem like the right place to make a stand, because well it will be inconvenience to the others on the plane, that can be said for anything. But in truth I am sorry but i would rather inconvenience the whole of the universe, to stop my rights being taken from me, because if they get past me believe it or not you are in the line, and once I am gone they will get you at some point. Or I can stop it at me, which would you choose.
The battle for public opinion should be first.
