Question for those who think we should not vape where we can not smoke...

[generic mutant]

Look at post #7 in the following thread. And this is one of several. And many of the usual suspects advocate it all over this forum and "like" this so-called "thinking":

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/497528-e-cigs-public-places.html

Let's hope you will "retract" your previous post and not some how try to abrogate what is written in big, bold letters. Or you could, which will just support part of my previous post.

I think this post clarifies the meaning.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...497528-e-cigs-public-places.html#post11418284

Really I'd like a post saying, explicitly; "If a pub / bar allows vaping, it's still wrong to do it there" or something to that effect.

Good luck, see you soon!

 

[wv2win]

There are Inherent Problems with Other People's Data when making a Health Claim. There is also the Issue of what Data was used and what Data Was Not used.

I could dig up a bunch of Study Results that were Very Favorable to the Position or Claim I wanted to make. But what to I do if I come across a Study that Isn't Favorable? Or even Flat Out Disputes my Claim?

Is it Wrong to Not Include that Study's Data?

If a Study's Data hasn't been Independently Verified, is it Right to include it in my Analysis. And a Big One, is the Study Data I collect Relevant to the Claim I would like to make in the First Place?

Saying something is Harmless is a Pretty Bold Statement. Saying something is Harmless based on what Other People say/have said can be Problem.

Just like saying that Nicotine is Safe because some Study doesn't Definitively link it to some forms of Lung Cancer. Cool, I might not get that certain form of Lung Cancer.

But does that Also mean that I can't get Heart Dieses or have a Higher Risk of Stroke if I put Nicotine in my Body?



Amen Mutant.

There will never be a study or evidence that everyone will agree on. The bar you are setting is impossible to reach, 100% of the time for 100% of the population. Your answer to this high bar is smoking/vaping, same thing, thus, act like it is the same thing. A strong case could be made that combustion from gasoline engines is harming every living being on the planet and eliminating them from use would reduce illness and prolong life in "general". Should the bar be set so high to reduce harm by eliminating combustion from gasoline engines? A case could be made that the Holocaust never happen and hundreds of thousands believe this to be true. I believe these people are bigoted nut cases and/or seriously ignorant, sheep-like individuals. However, maybe I should re-evaluate my belief because no one can prove that evidence was not manufactured and/or exaggerated by the victors in 1945. Is there solid, irrefutable evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer? Millions believe that. It appears there is strong evidence to the contrary.

In some people's minds, the bar will always be too low and must always be pushed higher. They will never be willing to admit that any activity or event that they don't agree with is safe or reality.

 

[quiter]

Yeah .. that's the problem with living in a Democracy .. we actually elect people to represent the majority of what Society wants .. go figure ..

Actually the problem is with people who believe that we live in a Democracy. We don't live in a Democracy we live in a REPUBLIC that is supposed to be protect our rights. A Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Would you want to live in a country were the majority gets to tell you what to do just because they feel like it? Slavery could come back as long as 50.0001% of the people agreed.

Honestly, that is is the problem. People don't have a clue what our founding fathers actually did when they set up this country. People like yourself have no business at all complaining when the majority of people decide to ban vaping or doing anything at all no matter what. You support mob rule and you don't deserve the rights that you have because you don't even understand them let alone fight for them.

 

[Uncle Willie]

Actually the problem is with people who believe that we live in a Democracy. We don't live in a Democracy we live in a REPUBLIC that is supposed to be protect our rights. A Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Would you want to live in a country were the majority gets to tell you what to do just because they feel like it? Slavery could come back as long as 50.0001% of the people agreed.

Honestly, that is is the problem. People don't have a clue what our founding fathers actually did when they set up this country. People like yourself have no business at all complaining when the majority of people decide to ban vaping or doing anything at all no matter what. You support mob rule and you don't deserve the rights that you have because you don't even understand them let alone fight for them.

Sorry, but Mob Rule is what founded this Country .. I'm a bit of a History buff, so I'm happy to debate any and all Historical data you'd like to toss out .. although your finger pointing and general rhetoric pretty much says it all .. especially the part where you're telling me "People like yourself have no business at all complaining " .. people like myself, eh .. ?? As opposed to people like you .. a little hypocritically intolerant sounding ya think .. ??

Oh sorry, things should be done your way .. I understand now ..

 

[Orb Skewer]

 

[AegisPrime]

Ah! Simpler times

 

[BigDaddyQ]

Personally, I have no problems vaping anywhere that does not explicitly state that ecigs are not allowed as well. If it's a restaurant or bar and they ask me not to vape, I promptly settle my bill, ask to speak to a manager before I leave, and politely inform them they have lost me as a customer as long as their anti vaping policy continues. My company has recently included ecigs into their "smoke free" policy unless it's a prescribed inhaler. The first thing I did was type up a polite email protesting their decision but also politely stating I would comply until they hopefully review this new policy as well as making points as to how this affects efficiency and productivity if I have to stop what I'm doing to either leave the building and property to go vape as well as how relatively harmless using a vaporizer is. Unfortunately, whether I like it or not, if it's a choice to keep my job or vape, well, I'll have to vape at home and to and from. Not only can we no longer vape in the building, we can't even vape in the parking lot or anywhere on company property. I cannot even vape while driving my company van under this new policy. I'm very disheartened by the new policy. I even feel bad for the smokers because at least if I need to, I can chance stealth vaping in the restroom or something. The real cigar/cigarette smokers can't do that. Personally I blame all the health insurance regulations that have come about recently.

 

[p.opus]

Personally I blame all the health insurance regulations that have come about recently.

Thank the Affordable Health Care act. People are even being tested at their place of employment for nicotine use. It has become that bad. Thank God I'm weaning down so I'll be at zero nic prior to my next insurance registration period.

 

[DC2]

You're trying to bait other members of the community? Productive.

That's what you got out of that? Whatever.

 

[DC2]

The MHRA impact assessment says that the decision on whether to regulate e-cigarettes should be based on the harm that they do. Yet that very impact statement says that, “any risk is likely to be very small”, that there is, “an absence of empirical evidence” and “no direct clinical evidence”, that “the picture is unclear” and, my favourite quote states: “Unfortunately, we have no evidence”, of harm.

That last quote tells the whole story better than I ever could.

 

[DC2]

I think what I get out of these threads Every Time is that there is a Wider Range of Opinions on e-Cigarette use than many perceive at first Glance.

Maybe someone could come up with a Public Vaping Sentiment Scale...

The high-end of the scale being defined by the raging vaper blowing huge clouds while pushing his/her way through crowds of people in line at an indoor food court yelling "Vape or Die!!" while snot and drool run down the front of his shirt... and the low-end of the scale being the person who does not believe it is right to vape ANYWHERE that smoking is prohibited, with no exceptions, and asks his/her significant other if it's okay to vape in the bathroom as long as the window is open and the fan is on.

I wonder what the bell curve would look like, and what kind of situation would define the midpoint.

 

[AegisPrime]

Maybe someone could come up with a Public Vaping Sentiment Scale...

The high-end of the scale being defined by the raging vaper blowing huge clouds while pushing his/her way through crowds of people in line at an indoor food court yelling "Vape or Die!!" while snot and drool run down the front of his shirt... and the low-end of the scale being the person who does not believe it is right to vape ANYWHERE that smoking is prohibited, with no exceptions, and asks his/her significant other if it's okay to vape in the bathroom as long as the window is open and the fan is on.

I wonder what the bell curve would look like, and what kind of situation would define the midpoint.

I think both of those images are hilarious and I'd love to take part in that poll!

 

[quiter]

Sorry, but Mob Rule is what founded this Country .. I'm a bit of a History buff, so I'm happy to debate any and all Historical data you'd like to toss out .. although your finger pointing and general rhetoric pretty much says it all .. especially the part where you're telling me "People like yourself have no business at all complaining " .. people like myself, eh .. ?? As opposed to people like you .. a little hypocritically intolerant sounding ya think .. ??

Oh sorry, things should be done your way .. I understand now ..

Yes, people like yourself. You belive that the majority get to make the minority live by their rules so you deserve it when the majority tramples on your rights. It's simple. If you want to live by majority rule don't complain when the majority forces you to live by their rules.

 

[p.opus]

Sorry, but Mob Rule is what founded this Country .. I'm a bit of a History buff, so I'm happy to debate any and all Historical data you'd like to toss out .. although your finger pointing and general rhetoric pretty much says it all .. especially the part where you're telling me "People like yourself have no business at all complaining " .. people like myself, eh .. ?? As opposed to people like you .. a little hypocritically intolerant sounding ya think .. ??

Oh sorry, things should be done your way .. I understand now ..

1. The war of independence was not initiated on a simple majority. The passing of the Declaration of Independence was Unanimous. It almost failed because the South did not like the anti-slavery language in the first draft and the language was removed with great protest so that the motion would not be torpedoed by the southern colonies.

2. Our founding fathers were AGAINST a large centralized government. They had just fought one. That is why the Articles of Confederation came into being. The Articles were too "weak" to survive, so our current form of constitutional republic was instituted with a series of checks and balances. Never was our country based on "Mob Rule". That is why we have a house of representatives, where representation is based on population AND a senate where representation is equal for all states.

3. The Bill of Rights was developed to prevent our government from trampling over the individual rights of the people. Something our populace and elected officials have seem to have forgotten on both sides of the aisle. Two examples of this our the Affordable Health Care act which REQUIRES individuals to carry health insurance and the Defense of Marriage act which only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. Two attempts from different sides of the aisle trying to legislate their own form of "morality". We even lived in a period of time where "those who knew better than us" amended the constitution to make alcohol illegal. We see what a disaster that was.

I used to be a pretty staunch Republican, but now I'm pretty much a Libertarian. The Republican Party is just as bad as the Democratic party. Two political entities who's only interest is to force feed their dogma down the throats of their opposition.

 

[AttyPops]

Yeah Yeah Yeah. Important stuff, sure.

But....you guys fiddle while Rome burns.

Basically, even in our Republic, we're outnumbered. So it sucks. The politicians and courts....care just as much about ANTZ rights as yours. And they don't want PG/VG vapor in their air.

Not saying I agree with them. We can make logical arguments all we want. It's emotional. And vaping is not considered "necessary" for you being in a room. You can be there and not vape. That's the argument. You filling someone else's air is the argument against.

Cue the "perfume" "Air Freshener" arguments...

 

[zoiDman]

There will never be a study or evidence that everyone will agree on. The bar you are setting is impossible to reach, 100% of the time for 100% of the population. Your answer to this high bar is smoking/vaping, same thing, thus, act like it is the same thing. A strong case could be made that combustion from gasoline engines is harming every living being on the planet and eliminating them from use would reduce illness and prolong life in "general". Should the bar be set so high to reduce harm by eliminating combustion from gasoline engines? A case could be made that the Holocaust never happen and hundreds of thousands believe this to be true. I believe these people are bigoted nut cases and/or seriously ignorant, sheep-like individuals. However, maybe I should re-evaluate my belief because no one can prove that evidence was not manufactured and/or exaggerated by the victors in 1945. Is there solid, irrefutable evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer? Millions believe that. It appears there is strong evidence to the contrary.

In some people's minds, the bar will always be too low and must always be pushed higher. They will never be willing to admit that any activity or event that they don't agree with is safe or reality.

What are you talking about?

The Bar being Too High?

 

[DC2]

Basically, even in our Republic, we're outnumbered. So it sucks. The politicians and courts....care just as much about ANTZ rights as yours. And they don't want PG/VG vapor in their air.

I haven't ever admitted this on the forum before...
But I have almost zero hope that vaping will be allowed very many places indoors when all is said and done.

But I feel very strongly that we have to keep fighting to keep vaping from just arbitrarily being lumped in with existing smoking bans.
That is the point of this thread, and I'd like people to think about where such actions can lead.

I often wonder, would any police officer ever give anyone a ticket for vaping on the beach? In a public park?
A lot of police officers vape now, so what would they do?

But the one thing that really pisses me off is that when I go to a baseball game I have to leave the ENTIRE BALLPARK to vape.
Why? Because they just arbitrarily lumped vaping in with their smoking ban.

And what about those college students studying for exams? Stress relief? Yes please!
And if anybody could use the boost in memory, attention, and concentration it those poor college students.
.
How about people in retirement homes? Psychiatric hospitals? Will the list ever end, or just continue to grow?

 

[p.opus]

Yeah Yeah Yeah. Important stuff, sure.

But....you guys fiddle while Rome burns.

Basically, even in our Republic, we're outnumbered. So it sucks. The politicians and courts....care just as much about ANTZ rights as yours. And they don't want PG/VG vapor in their air.

Not saying I agree with them. We can make logical arguments all we want. It's emotional. And vaping is not considered "necessary" for you being in a room. You can be there and not vape. That's the argument. You filling someone else's air is the argument against.

Cue the "perfume" "Air Freshener" arguments...

If it were just that simple, I could almost be on board with that. Unfortunately, the ANTZ have never stopped at what I do publically, but rather what I do privately, in my own property.

I really don't understand how anyone can ban smoking, vaping, or anything while I am in my own house or in my own car, and yet it is being done.

The major source of frustration for many of this is that we tried "being nice" before.

As smokers, we really didn't put up a heck of a lot of resistance to smoking in public because we were on shaky moral ground. We figured that the ANTZ would eventually be satisfied and then leave us alone. But they haven't. The laws they are trying to pass right now border on lunacy, and I for one don't plan to take it lying down. You can't smoke in your own house if you share the wall with another person? Yes folks, it's on the books in California. No smoking IN YOUR OWN CONDO OR APARTMENT. No smoking in your own car if it's parked on a smoke free campus...Yes folks it's there too.

When I finally quit analogs and started vaping, I thought..."There, You won....I'm not smoking, I'm not ruining your property, I'm not giving your 6 year old cancer from 1/2 a mile a way, I don't smell like an ashtray......Are you satisfied??? Can you leave me alone now?"

The answer obviously is "no, they can not".

So I fight.

 

[Jman8]

Alright, made it all the way up to page 25 of this thread before I was compelled to post.

After reading all those posts, I'm still going to advocate for vape everywhere. Vape everywhere, openly, respectfully.

I do this myself, and there are a few reasons why I advocate for it. But the one I feel is most pertinent to this thread, given how I understand the essential point of OP, is that it is the most sensible line to draw in the sand, if you are truly, honestly, on the side of pro-vaping. This doesn't need to be an all or nothing thing. If you have some places you might vape, and some places you for sure will never ever vape, that doesn't mean (to me) that you are an anti-vaper. I would though see you as somewhere in between, in some gray area.

The anti-vaper, I believe, says there is no place that is reasonable for vaping. None. Any policy that restricts vaping anywhere is a good policy, from this perspective. Ideally, a comprehensive law will be passed, sooner than later, that bans vaping everywhere, and fines/punishment are steep for those who dare to disobey this law.

So, think of my advocacy for 'vape everywhere' as the logical antithesis to that position.

Neither position may be what 95% of the rest of the people could go along with, but given that there very likely are anti-vapers amongst us, I would hope there are some vapers who are pleased that there are at least some (extremely) pro-vapers amongst us as well.

Got another post, or two, in me for this thread, but feel this post needs to stand on its own.

 

[zoiDman]

I haven't ever admitted this on the forum before...
But I have almost zero hope that vaping will be allowed very many places indoors when all is said and done.

...

It's Hard to Say DC.

Vaping may go the way of Smoking. Or as time goes, it may become Completely Socially Excepted.

But either way, the Glass can be looked at as Half Full or Half Empty.

Are Indoor Bans the End of the World? Or as one Member Mentioned, a Good Way to Manage Ones "Habit".