BTW - Where did our Self-Appointed Crusader for e-Cigarette use go?
Probably down at a his Local Wal-Mart or Denny's blowing Massive Clouds in the Hopes that someone will tell him to Stop.
Question for those who think we should not vape where we can not smoke...
- Thread starter DC2
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
BTW - Where did our Self-Appointed Crusader for e-Cigarette use go?
Probably down at a his Local Wal-Mart or Denny's blowing Massive Clouds in the Hopes that someone will tell him to Stop.
I honestly believe you can explain it. I believe whatever I would say, you have heard before. So, I would ask you to explain it, and then let me/us know where you disagree that it is helpful. Moreover, how you see it as hurtful. Helpful would be better explanation as that is what you say you cannot see.
Am glad to explain it though if you'd rather not.
(Facetiously) I just don't see why her going against the accepted norms was helpful to the African American community. Surely she could've seen that 50 years later things would change due to education. Instead there was much unrest and lots of people angry over her righteous decision to break a rule that everyone else had accepted as respectful and courtesy for all involved.
So, basically, he should "go argue with himself."?????
I'm not buying that one. You could at least provide some feedback since you asked the question.
I understand that that was Facetious. However, I don't understand the point you're trying to make with it.
I did outline the differences between that form of civil disobedience and the e-cig issue.
Good answer.
Can you see how some indoor venues might look equally absurd for a ban to apply? Like perhaps a well-ventilated, virtually empty mall indoor common area?
Tapped out
The position being debated is a harmful one. vaping on private property once you've been told to stop will annoy people no end. You think that helps us? You think thousands of people waving placards saying "Yeah, but often nobody notices when we ignore your rules" will influence anybody?
I can accept the legitimacy of the "vape first, ask questions later" position, as much as I disagree with it.
"Vape first, ask questions, ignore the answers" is political suicide.
You were the one who Asked if I was willing to see how to Help the Vaping Community.
Now you are asking Me to Explain things to you?
Last edited:
Yes. However, it still falls under "A" above...victim status. See?
It becomes civil disobedience. That usually has repercussions. It can provoke change.
However, in the case of e-cigs...it's complicated by the fact that your "right" to fill the air of others with stuff is not recognized...in a closed setting. :/
Don't change the subject. I am not debating the position. Is this civil discussion, or not?
Tapped out
I'm not changing the subject, and I didn't ever claim that 'our' side doesn't ever make ridiculous claims that deserve to be challenged robustly.
"I want to know if you are prepared to fight against the entire idea of equating vaping to smoking."
I am.
I was not sure I was outside of fighting on an impersonal legislative level but learned I am also in a more face-to-face personal one. Hubby and I were at the VA filling out Living Wills. It took around two hours in a tiny room with two social workers (need I say Nanny Staters?) when I reached my stress limit and needed to vape. I took out my 1000mah Ego C passthrough with EVOD attached... saber.. out of my purse in front of them and took two stealth puffs. Before I did, I held it up and said: "I know this is more than likely breaking the rules but this won't infect you." (I meant "affect" but it came out wrong as in freudian slip however it worked better I think) I did not wait for any sign of approval nor disapproval and just did it after that. Luckily, I didn't have to fight as they just continued on doing their thing as if I had done nothing but I certainly prepared myself to during the 10 minutes or so I mentally debated on should I or not.
I am.
I was not sure I was outside of fighting on an impersonal legislative level but learned I am also in a more face-to-face personal one. Hubby and I were at the VA filling out Living Wills. It took around two hours in a tiny room with two social workers (need I say Nanny Staters?) when I reached my stress limit and needed to vape. I took out my 1000mah Ego C passthrough with EVOD attached... saber.. out of my purse in front of them and took two stealth puffs. Before I did, I held it up and said: "I know this is more than likely breaking the rules but this won't infect you." (I meant "affect" but it came out wrong as in freudian slip
however it worked better I think) I did not wait for any sign of approval nor disapproval and just did it after that. Luckily, I didn't have to fight as they just continued on doing their thing as if I had done nothing but I certainly prepared myself to during the 10 minutes or so I mentally debated on should I or not.
Last edited:
Question: Are these debates really making each other see things any differently?
The only thing that I can see happening is a fairly new vaper being educated to what is happening in our little world, in regards to legislation.
I guess that would be the main point of these threads? I see the same people, with their same stances, not being swayed toward either side.
The only thing that I can see happening is a fairly new vaper being educated to what is happening in our little world, in regards to legislation.
I guess that would be the main point of these threads? I see the same people, with their same stances, not being swayed toward either side.
So, if you (the collective, vape-anwhere people "you") decide that you want to sit in an establishment, underneath the "No smoking or vaping" sign, and vape anyway, it's an act of rebellion. A proclamation of your opinion that you have a "right" to do it anyway. Civil disobedience. And that only happens if you think the rule violates your rights, placing you in victim status.
Or, you're looking to get kicked out, start a fight, or otherwise go against the establishment's rules.
I'm just saying that "Vape anywhere, even where banned" thing is an act of disobedience and people that do so must think they:
A) have the inherent right to vape anyway (e.g. victim of repressive rule)
B) don't expect any backlash and will "get away with it"
C) look'n for a fight/confrontation.
D) Just want to vape and have capability of ignoring cause->effect for actions (usually not a valid argument in adulthood).
Those are the only logical thought processes I can think of that a human would have for taking the action. Know of others?
So I'm assuming people believe they have the right. That they vape anyway. And deal with consequences if they arise.
My point was, that since it impacts the air of others, IDK if they (we) can claim that inherent right. The ANTZ can claim victim status too...on air quality basis.
This is all based on the premise that "You have a basic right, but your right ends where it impacts others"....e.g. "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." Basic law 101....I think.
Okay, just to be clear, I am possibly only person on this thread that vocally advocates for vape everywhere. If there are others, I'm not too sure of it, but of course would love to hear from them. I think those that come close will stop short of my position and go with, unless property owner has said not to.
My current reasoning, subject to change, is the (B) response you gave above. Unlike Ms. Parks, I can hide my public nuisance, and can get away with it. I have experienced this and thus far am batting 1.000.
I do not believe I have an inherent right to vape anywhere (including own home). But do believe that vaping is exercising sense of freedom, to do what I desire, and to engage in a behavior that I honestly believe does no harm, to others, via secondhand vapor.
I am prone to believe I could move into the (C) answer where I seek confrontation and thus go the route that Ms. Parks and others before her chose to go. I may dabble in this a little bit currently, but don't really see it as necessary because reality is, in my experience, non-vapers aren't haters for the most part. If I one day wake into a world where lots of people are into shaming vapers, as lots of people do currently shame smokers, I may take on a new tactic and new rationale for vaping in places where it is knowingly disallowed.
I further believe, and what I feel is applicable in OP of this thread, that a time could comes relatively soon, whereby vast majority of vapers may be engaging in disobedience by freely vaping outdoors even while there is proposed or legislated bans that restrict the activity.
And I honestly do believe the arguments currently constructed against indoor vaping do apply to arguments against outdoor vaping. I also think they apply to vaping in one's own home, on own property, but not finding any vaper in the vaping community that takes the position of - it is not okay to vape on your own property, so doesn't really need to be discussed at that level, even while it does arguably apply.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
