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

Status
Not open for further replies.

AttyPops

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 8, 2010
8,708
134,359
Hc Svnt Dracones - USA EST
I totally agree with that DC2.

I find intolerance to be the greater of the ills in the issue. There were so many years I remember where even smoking was OK everywhere. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times......

I secretly hold out hope for vaping/non-vaping at least in pubs. Alas, my fears are similar to yours. Hope is dwindling. Yet, the outside bans (when away from entryways and crowds) should be blatantly unconstitutional. That doesn't mean much lately either. You should see what they've just done with Miranda Rights. This is a bit off topic though, but you can google for a youtube vid. Basically, not answering questions can be held against you now. Sad. Good thing I'm not an attorney, because I don't understand any of this. Makes no sense, even to "a moderate liberal".
 

p.opus

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,118
5,602
Coral Springs FL
What I don't understand, is that some of the places with the strictest anti-smoking laws (e.g. California, Washington...etc.) also have some of the strongest pushes to de-criminalize that other thing people smoke.

"Hey!!!! YOU!!!!! Don't vape in here!!!!!! I'm worried about my health.......Pass the [moderated]".

True Story...I was at a Rush Concert and within 30 minutes, you could tell people were "lighting it up". One was a group of people in the row in front of me. The guy next to me lights up a Marlboro, and one of the group in front whips back, with pipe in hand and yells at the guy next to me....YOU CAN'T SMOKE IN HERE!!!!!......

The guy next to me was speechless and all I could do was shrug my shoulders....

As Spock would say....That's highly illogical, Captain....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
Regarding decency, respect and vaping where it is "appropriate."

In many many posts on this thread and others just like it, I see many vapers agreeing with position that vaping in enclosed spaces is simply not right. Or it is disrespectful, indecent, a nuisance, and working against the entire vaping community. I, as a pro-vaper, have a very tough time understanding this, but not impossible.

Many of these same people will also say something along lines of, 'not okay to vape in this building, and is why I go outside.' Which on a vaping forum, given what we all know about vaping, is rarely, if ever challenged. But, IMO, it needs to be challenged given again what OP is getting at. And it needs to be challenged with either the same or very similar arguments put forth, by vapers, against indoor public vaping.

For to the non-vaper, and for sure to the anti-vaper, it is disrespectful, rude and a public nuisance to vape outdoors. You say it is perfectly safe, but you know it isn't and there are studies out that don't equate to 'perfectly safe.' But taking out safety from the equation, it is still something that to some, looks like smoking. But all vapers know it isn't smoking, so let's take that out of the equation. It is still disrespectful and is arguably a public nuisance to vape outdoors in a public space. Or a private space outdoors that is a place of business where fellow members of the public could congregate. People who don't share your knowledge on how long your vapor lingers outdoors, and what exactly is in the vapor. It simply looks bad, looks like an addict getting their fix, and is disrespectful.

Perhaps you asked those near you, but unless willing to ask all those all around you, even if not in your immediate sight, then you are engaging in something just to be selfish. To enjoy what you want, regardless of who may come into that space.

Now, of course, myself as the pro-vaper that advocates for vape everywhere, I don't believe all of what I just wrote, nor do I feel it ought to apply to indoor spaces. Yet, I do really really wish to make the point that if vaping indoors is inherently indecent and/or disrespectful, then so is vaping outdoors, regardless of whether property owner allows it.

I further believe that a vaper who vapes indoors, and no one is around is being more respectful / decent than a vaper who vapes outdoors where there are perhaps several people around. But when we make blanket statements such as 'never okay to vape in a hospital, restaurant or theater,' I'm thinking we overlook the idea that the vaper might be the only person in a particular location in those enclosed spaces. And if vapor is theoretically lingering all the way from one side of the hospital to the other side of the hospital, then a) that's some pretty powerful vapor and b) it would be equally unwise to use that vapor outdoors, anywhere, because of just how far it could, theoretically linger.

Bottom line: from the anti-vaper's viewpoint, wherever you vape, it is indecent and disrespectful. There is no 'reasonable' place to vape and there is no appropriate place. You are (selfishly) making up places that you personally deem as okay. If your fellow vapers happen to agree with you on the appropriate places, goodie for you. Now go ask the non-vapers and anti-vapers if they agree and then come back and let's have the reasonable discussion on where it is always respectful and always appropriate to be vaping.
 

AttyPops

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 8, 2010
8,708
134,359
Hc Svnt Dracones - USA EST
What I don't understand.....snip

Yeah, but it's ORGANIC! :lol: :facepalm:

Never made any sense to me either. Total irony. And totally carcinogenic too. I suppose I'd accept the TRUE MEDICAL justification (in a small % of cases)...but it's way beyond that. Crazy. Yet, it will stop funding a lot of illegal activity if legalized. So I suppose, if they can have tolerance, so should we be able to demand tolerance.
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
Just 2 more points from me, and I'll step of my soap box. Maybe even interact.

1 - Educating the non-vaper, IMO, can happen by vaping in enclosed public spaces. I further believe it has a far better chance of working then never vaping in public and hoping that, magically, vaping education will happen otherwise. IMO, vaping only on your own property / car is the ultimate in stealth vaping, and does nothing to help the vaping community in terms of setting an example to the general public about what respectful vaping looks like.

2 - When you get good at openly vaping, of the respectful kind, the chances of you being looked at and/or caught while vaping is slim. I realize not everyone will understand this or see how that is possible. But I will say what I said in another thread, which is I will vape in places that have told me, when I asked, to not vape in their location. I won't do this all the time, and I won't do it just to show them up. That is a small part of it, but not the main reason. Main reason is because I enjoy vaping, and I know I do it in a respectful manner. I am yet to get in even a tiny bit of trouble operating under this strategy that I have decided to vocalize on a vaping forum. I don't advocate that you vape everywhere that you've been told not to do it. That is not my message from my post 2 before this one on this thread. I choose to do that and perhaps there'll come a day when I no longer see wisdom in that. Currently I do. Far more importantly, I honestly truly believe I am not harming anyone by doing this, nor am I even seen in public vaping all that often, unless I choose to be seen. It really is that simple.
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
Hmmm. The problem is these people don't seem to exist.

We've had a few people saying they choose not to vape indoors in public, for example to avoid confrontation. That is their right, I presume you'd agree.

I don't think there's been anyone actually saying that vaping should be banned in all places smoking is (apart from those that mean that smoking should be much less restricted).

If you can't link to any posts, I'm sure you'll withdraw your post as unfounded, won't you?

Is this what you are asking for?

I totally support no eCigs in public places where smoking is banned
 

generic mutant

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 9, 2013
1,548
2,052
UK
It's Post #66.

I don't think it is...

Since this is the cancer eating at the heart of the pro-vape movement, you should probably be able to come up with a post that's quite a lot less ambiguous than that.

And says something like "If you are allowed to vape in a private business, it's still wrong to do it".
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
I don't think it is...

Since this is the cancer eating at the heart of the pro-vape movement, you should probably be able to come up with a post that's quite a lot less ambiguous than that.

And says something like "If you are allowed to vape in a private business, it's still wrong to do it".

I can find what you are asking for, which means you can find it as well.

If I am to find it for you though, I'm wondering what would make it worth my while as chances are you'll just dismiss it and/or poo poo it.

Cancer eating away at the pro-vaping movement equals vapers who agree that certain usage bans be based on what is allowed, or not allowed for smoking. That has already been shown, twice in this thread (to you) and is in essence what this thread is all about.
 

generic mutant

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 9, 2013
1,548
2,052
UK
I've never seen anyone explicitly say "even where a private business allows vaping, it's wrong". I've seen people say they don't do it, but that isn't the same thing.

I'd just really like people to drop the ridiculous assertion that "Unless I vape in places where it isn't allowed, the public won't be exposed to it so they won't know what it is, or they'll think it's the same as smoking, and they'll ban it". It would also be nice if some of the 'enemy within' rhetoric got dropped.

So yeah, humour me. I'd love to read a vaper saying that they think all non-smoking bars should be non-vaping too. Legally, or through individual choice of the vapers, despite many of the owners being fine with it.
 
Last edited:

wv2win

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Feb 10, 2009
11,879
9,045
GA by way of WV
...........................

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

How one manages their "habit" is not pertinent to the point of the issue. How one prohibition leads to another and then another is the pertinent point. But for those who view vaping as the same as smoking, there really is no line or prohibition that goes too far.
 
Last edited:

wv2win

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Feb 10, 2009
11,879
9,045
GA by way of WV
I don't think it is...

Since this is the cancer eating at the heart of the pro-vape movement, you should probably be able to come up with a post that's quite a lot less ambiguous than that.

And says something like "If you are allowed to vape in a private business, it's still wrong to do it".

Your understanding of the English language and everyone elses, is totally incongruent. You have been given 2 or 3 examples of people clearly stating that you should never vape where smoking is prohibited. Depending on your location, that could mean your own car or you own home. Since that is the "core" issue of this thread, you either don't understand that or you like to take "splitting hairs" to a new level of absurdity.
 
Last edited:

jpargana

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 5, 2010
777
2,537
55
Portugal
Vaping has come a long way in the past few years. Sure the newbies can grab a fake cig at the liquor store and vape and that vapor is nearly null. The problem I see happening is when you take out your RBA and blow a plume in public. All the uninformed public is going to see is "smoke" and be offended by that. In a few years I see e-cigs being banned everywhere cigs are, just cause of the carelessness of some vapors.
Vape wisely my friends...

You do know that the first e-cig bans started waaaay before there were many of us... careless or otherwise... right?

Those first bans were pushed by 'health' groups affiliated with BP. Even then, BP saw the potencial of the e-cig for what it was: a very real threat to their 'clean nicotine' monopoly. The lies and misinformation started at least around 2009/10. Most of the public had not even actually seen an e-cig by then. The same applies to most of those minions who were pushing for those bans (on behalf of their masters).

I believe I vape wisely, that is:
Inside, I will only vape with the owner's permission.
Outside (also considered a public place), I will vape anywere. There's no 'health danger' for anyone. If people can breathe car exhausts, they can breath second-hand vapour - harmless in comparison.
Of course, YMMV. :)


Yes, the public may be still uninformed - are we going to misinform that same public, by giving them the wrong notion that vaping equals smoking, and should be treated the same? That's not wise. Not wise at all. In fact, that is the kind of help ANTZ's would thank us for: The users, themselves, telling the public in an implicit manner that vaping is just another way of smoking.
 

holy_handgrenade

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
May 20, 2013
104
174
Phoenix, AZ, USA
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.

Do you know how to science? Metadata analysis of single case studies is how links are made to bad drugs (phen-phen much?) FDA approval requests make claims to health benefits that are purely sponsored by those involved and thus can be misleading (again, phen-phen comes to mind ;) )

I'm not sure that you a) understand what a study is and b) what it takes to get a study published. Studies examine a hypothesis, perform analysis, testing, or observation to prove or disprove a hypothesis. The experimentation methods and data gathering methods must be declared in the study so that anyone can attempt to duplicate the study. It's when that duplication happens if the data remains consistent that study gets elevated in the scientific realm closer to fact, further away from guessing. And yes studies happen all the time that include data that contradicts the hypothesis (most of the studies i've read about vaping). Thorough researchers will spot and include mention of studies and potential flaws in their process (proof is required with these sort of claims) and potential reasons for why that data came out the way it did and possible hints of further study.

Lack of any of this tends to get those in charge of publishing papers to throw the study into the round file. So many posts and threads have come out claiming to be intelligent, open minded, and wanting the science to work itself out. Yet no-one thus far, I think realizes the amount of work and incredible amount of data that is generated for a single study. While I wont stand by a claim that has only one study, i do have to respect the conclusions of that study - once we have 10 or more studies all corroborating each other, I tend to think this is a done deal.

I think part of the problem here is that too many bunk science studies have gotten published in the past decade or so that have been pushed to mainstream media; the whole autism is caused by vaccinations created a serious anti-vax movement that endangers public health and kids are now getting sick because of it, all because of one flawed, and provably fraudulent, study that got published. And of course other areas of science get a bad rap too and get a lot of pseudoscience wrapped in. Dont even get me started on the fact that virtually nobody knows what a theory is.


<edit> tl;dr Vaping is one of the few studies that I can actually take at face value. Smoking was provably causing harm as early as the 1890's but BT was paying big dolla billz to supress the science and would fund science that came out favorable. The PV/APV/Ejuice market doesnt have a BT type company to fund science or suppress the science - further, most of the studies I've read are undertaken to prove that vaping is harmful but come out showing that there's no evidence of harm. In light of the context of our hobby; each and every one of our studies we point to in support of vaping has so much more weight to me than a lot of other areas of health.

I appologize for the long winded rant as well ;)
</edit>
 
Last edited:

EddardinWinter

The Philosopher Who Rides
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 13, 2012
8,866
28,169
Richmond, Va
I've never seen anyone explicitly say "even where a private business allows vaping, it's wrong". I've seen people say they don't do it, but that isn't the same thing.

(Numbers added by me for clarity)

1) I'd just really like people to drop the ridiculous assertion that "Unless I vape in places where it isn't allowed, the public won't be exposed to it so they won't know what it is, or they'll think it's the same as smoking, and they'll ban it". 2) It would also be nice if some of the 'enemy within' rhetoric got dropped.

So yeah, humour me. I'd love to read a vaper saying that they think all non-smoking bars should be non-vaping too. Legally, or through individual choice of the vapers, despite many of the owners being fine with it.

1) What is wrong with that assertion? That doesn't mean YOU have to do or think the same thing. It just means I choose to do it. I can still respect your choice not to. Calling it 'ridiculous' is not a great way to tone down rhetoric, or to show respect for other perspectives.

2) I have to agree heartily with this, from both sides of this debate. I don't know how to affect this change.



Tapped out
 

AttyPops

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 8, 2010
8,708
134,359
Hc Svnt Dracones - USA EST
1) What is wrong with that assertion? That doesn't mean YOU have to do or think the same thing. It just means I choose to do it. I can still respect your choice not to. Calling it 'ridiculous' is not a great way to tone down rhetoric, or to show respect for other perspectives.

2) I have to agree heartily with this, from both sides of this debate. I don't know how to affect this change.



Tapped out

The only "Wrong" thing about it....is that it's civil disobedience...and you may suffer a fine or be asked to leave. The proverbial refusing to sit at the back of the bus in protest.

So if you truly feel your rights are violated, you can vape where it is banned and deal with repercussions. However, since you are impacting the air around you, I'm not sure you'd win the case that you are the victim of an unjust law/ban. Others around you can claim "victim" status as a result of your actions, regardless of harm, since PG/VG vapor is a proven irritant. (I think it harmless, but they don't ask me.)
 

generic mutant

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 9, 2013
1,548
2,052
UK
1) What is wrong with that assertion? That doesn't mean YOU have to do or think the same thing. It just means I choose to do it. I can still respect your choice not to. Calling it 'ridiculous' is not a great way to tone down rhetoric, or to show respect for other perspectives.

2) I have to agree heartily with this, from both sides of this debate. I don't know how to affect this change.



Tapped out

OK Edd, call me a victim of repeat provocation. I think you'll agree that I'm one of the ones that tries to have a civil debate.

The problem is it's demonstrably false. As long as mixed public places exist, and vapers have every intention of using them, nobody needs to break the rules so we can "be seen" or "distinguish ourselves from smokers".

Edit - Although I would add that I would consciously break rules about vaping outside on publicly owned land, because I think the idea of prohibiting that is ridiculous in normal circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread