RANT - no one is doing anything to help themselves. Heads in the sand!!

[bluecat]

Ignoring the county restriction for now, I did some research for the OTHER example I gave
Lights out: Duluth pulling plug on e-cigarettes « Watchdog.org
Ah... The wording can be found in the links to the call to action
CASAA: Call to Action: Duluth, MN E-Cigarette Usage Ban (UPDATED -- important meeting on September 5th!)

This dude gets it.. The fed, state and county officials can get a clue from this guy.

"Just one city council member voted against all three ordinances, arguing that Duluth should be concentrating on illegal substances rather than cracking down on legitimate businesses.

“What we should really be concerned about is the use of ...... and Ecstasy,” said Jay Fosle, Duluth City Council member. “We’re going against businesses that would bring more money onto our tax rolls.”"

 

[DC2]

I'm not sure if people are clear on one thing.

Whenever a lawmaker proposes legislation for "this or that", aren't they, in effect, putting out a public call for input, both for and against?

I see a lot of people blaming a number of individuals for being anti-vape, but aren't our politicians just following the process?

Politicians/lawmakers are faced with a new technology (and let's face it, it's a challenge) and what I would expect them to do, is give the authority for businesses to ban a particular new activity, until such time that it can be deemed safe. It then leaves the issue to the businesses to decide if they want to ban the activity or not.
*Or*
They could just ignore the issue, and let a higher authority make the call.

What I'd be concerned with, as a vaper, is who in my town suggested to my rep, that vaping should be up for consideration. Not trying to suggest starting a witch hunt, but there's usually someone behind a politician's actions; they don't normally (IMO) put out proposals for the sport of it.

Bottom line: don't be so quick to judge lawmakers; what they do is take an issue and "put it up for consideration". It's up to each of us to stay informed, and make our case.

The answer to your question is that, in general, it is the ANTZ and their cronies parading these legislative changes around the country.

In fact, they are all running the same playbook...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...new-questions-about-smoking.html#post10641191

You are correct that proposed legislation is somewhat of a call for public input.
And the problem is that these legislators are not hearing enough from those of US who have a stake in this.

And I guess that is really what this whole rant thread is about.
And for that reason I applaud this thread and the thread starter for trying to do something about it.

 

[bluecat]

The problem with that is that the smoking policy has gone way too far.
Leaving the entire stadium to smoke is absurd.

There used to be smoking areas in Petco Park, and they were off in a corner where it wouldn't bother anyone.
Why did they get rid of them and decide smokers had to leave the entire stadium?

It doesn't matter to me either way, since I stealth vape in Petco Park and have done so for well over 40 games.
I've never been noticed by anyone, and I've certainly never bothered anyone.

But I'm going to continue to work towards acceptance of vaping, because it is right and it is just.

I totally agree mate. Like I said it is better to do it with honey rather than vinegar (I used fire). The war against salt, tobacco, and other products deemed "unsafe" is awful.

I guess I can see from a business standpoint why they would just ban it all. It would cost time and money to weed out the cigs from vapers. Heck the salary for those guys would probably just be the same cost as a day supply of roids from jeters.

I don't mind people smoking or vaping in public. I do mind them chewing tobacco and spitting on the sidewalk, heck I can't stand people spitting on the sidewalk. I would rather have a face full of Boba's or a smoke rather that step in someone's spit.

 

[tinkrrrbell]

But that doesn't imply you can't vape on your own front porch, in your car, etc,,,,,,,,

Look, I agree, we need to fight for our rights,,,,,,,but I'm not convinced it's our RIGHT to vape in the work place, in malls, in public buildings, etc,,,,,,

on our own front porches, however,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I will fight to the death.

The issue I have is prohibition of legal activity on non-government property. They are not making vaping illegal, they're just telling tax payers what they can and cannot do on non-private property, i.e. businesses. I didn't approve of, and still don't approve of a business owner not being allowed to decide if they want smoking cigarettes to take place in their establishment. They should be able to restrict or not restrict as they see fit, and accept the consequences of their choices as to how it affects their business. It shouldn't be decided for them. Yes, it's "public" property because they are open to the public, but it's also a privately owned business. So, because the sheep-le get confused if you can "smoke" in one building and not another, we have to ban it all?

I'm just not into nanny-laws.

If I don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke OR vapor, I can take my business to the place down the street that restricts it because that's their private policy. If all the restaurants in my town allow smoking and/or vaping - guess what, I can cook at home. Just as well as I as a vapor can choose to NOT spend my money at places that don't allow me to vape.

 

[BigBen2k]

A business can ban an activity on their property without the need of political authority to do so ..

Very true. There's really no need for any local legislation; it only affects city property, on an overabundance of caution.

But we're in uncharted territory; there's very little data showing e-cigs are safe, but there's plenty of anecdotal evidence. So who's right?

If they're 100% safe, then why aren't we advocating the use around, or by, minors? (a mod may step in here, and blank out this line).
[the above is rhetorical]

 

[patkin]

I've read posts about nanny-state/soccer-mom/big government control on the thread. While I would normally agree with that viewpoint I want to add: Fox News... supposedly the conservative/republican media outlet (though I don't completely agree with that)... broadcasts ANTZ propaganda using their resident doctor playing the teen kid card. While, on their "The Five" program, Bob Beckle, the resident progressive democrat on the show, uses the ecig on camera and openly promotes its use to smokers. This is to say: The vaping issue does not have clearly defined political-affiliation/ideological boundaries just as going to war in Syria has been shown recently not to. For example, even the usual celebrity progressive/socialist players have remained silent on that. And, on the vaping issue, those celebrities have shown up on TV shows vaping and endorse it by doing commercials. While I have usually made myself heard with my vote, the vaping issue can't be handled that way solely. It requires local activism based on the issue at hand and not leaving it to the overall ideology of the politicians involved. Join CASAA. Read here too. And get into high gear locally to stop bans and other measures designed to stamp out vaping or remain at the mercy of the nut jobs.

 

[DC2]

If they're 100% safe, then why aren't we advocating the use around, or by, minors?

Complicated issue.

1) Some vapers believe in the idea that nicotine is bad
2) Some vapers believe that any kind of addiction is bad
3) Some vapers believe that nicotine by itself is very addictive
4) Some vapers believe that vaping might actually be a gateway to smoking
5) Some vapers haven't come to the conclusion that vaping is mostly harmless
6) Some vapers don't want to bolster the ANTZ "for the children" arguments
7) Some vapers are actually Nannys in disguise

I'm sure there are more reasons, all of which I think are wrong.
But I see where some vapers can lean that way.

Having said all that, nothing in life is 100% safe until there have been 3000 years of study.
So the "100% safe" argument is nothing but a distraction from the real issues.

 

[BigBen2k]

Exactly, so my point is, that by not advocating that, we may be leaving that "window of doubt" out there.

 

[DC2]

Exactly, so my point is, that by not advocating that, we may be leaving that "window of doubt" out there.

I totally agree. We need to come hard and come strong, with the science to back us.
But "for the children" is so popular these days in this world of decline that "precious gems" has become the rallying point for ignorance and lack of responsibility.

Personal responsibility is the key to all that is good.
Anything else is crap.

If someone is not willing to be responsible, it is not the job of government to dictate such.
It is up to us as a people to say what we will and will not stand for.

 

[soba1]

I have an idea.
Those of you who like to play around with you tube.
Grab a piece of kleenex then take a drag off of a cigarette
while holding the smoke and not inhaling, now pu the kleenex
close to your mouth and blow the smoke against it real hard
it will leave a residue. Next do the same with a vaporizer see
what it will leave, nothing.
A pic is worth a thousand words. Post with a title are cigarettes
more harmful than ecigarettes.

 

[Janet H]

I like to write my congressman regularly, news channels, journalists, etc. On the rare occasion I actually get a response it's apparent that, unless a gain in money or power are involved, they don't care.

Me too. Replies are canned responses most of the time. Nevertheless, it is registered as for/against whatever topic you've written about. I try to keep that in mind when I get a response that doesn't answer my question or really deals with a lot of what I've written. Sigh. Well, they do get a lot of mail of all types, but at least it shows it's an individual reaching out to them and not just a petition that people can mindlessly sign.

 

[Uma]

I think we need to do A Million Man march on DC to protect our rights to alternative tobacco use..

Maybe big handsome Harley dudes will give us a lift.

 

[Ken_A]

I have an idea.
Those of you who like to play around with you tube.
Grab a piece of kleenex then take a drag off of a cigarette
while holding the smoke and not inhaling, now pu the kleenex
close to your mouth and blow the smoke against it real hard
it will leave a residue. Next do the same with a vaporizer see
what it will leave, nothing.
A pic is worth a thousand words. Post with a title are cigarettes
more harmful than ecigarettes.

Heh, you mean like:
REAL Cigarettes VS E-Cigarettes Part 2 - YouTube
Real cigarette VS. E-cigarette - YouTube
demo - smoke versus vapor.mp4 - YouTube

 

[soba1]

Heh, you mean like:
REAL Cigarettes VS E-Cigarettes Part 2 - YouTube
Real cigarette VS. E-cigarette - YouTube
demo - smoke versus vapor.mp4 - YouTube

Yeah... we need more more
Thanks

 

[kittypie]

The ones who should be ashamed are the nanny media and the nanny politicians.

 

[rico942]

I have an idea.
Those of you who like to play around with you tube.
Grab a piece of kleenex then take a drag off of a cigarette
while holding the smoke and not inhaling, now pu the kleenex
close to your mouth and blow the smoke against it real hard
it will leave a residue. Next do the same with a vaporizer see
what it will leave, nothing.
A pic is worth a thousand words. Post with a title are cigarettes
more harmful than ecigarettes.

I plan to do something like this with the cabin filter from my car. I saved the old one that was stained brown and clogged with a year's worth of analog smoke residue. Next year I'll compare it to the new one I installed right after I started vaping ...

Should be an interesting comparison ...

 

[Uncle Willie]

The issue I have is prohibition of legal activity on non-government property. They are not making vaping illegal, they're just telling tax payers what they can and cannot do on non-private property, i.e. businesses. I didn't approve of, and still don't approve of a business owner not being allowed to decide if they want smoking cigarettes to take place in their establishment. They should be able to restrict or not restrict as they see fit, and accept the consequences of their choices as to how it affects their business. It shouldn't be decided for them. Yes, it's "public" property because they are open to the public, but it's also a privately owned business. So, because the sheep-le get confused if you can "smoke" in one building and not another, we have to ban it all?

I'm just not into nanny-laws.

If I don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke OR vapor, I can take my business to the place down the street that restricts it because that's their private policy. If all the restaurants in my town allow smoking and/or vaping - guess what, I can cook at home. Just as well as I as a vapor can choose to NOT spend my money at places that don't allow me to vape.

You are advocating allowing analog smoking in a case by case basis decided by the Business, yet you admit you would not frequent such an establishment .. ?? Or am I not understanding your post .. ??

 

[Ayla1984]

Unfortunately... There's nowhere near 10 million people on these forums. We're at almost 10,000,000 posts since Dec of 2007 (almost 6 years) , but there are currently only 21,403 "active members".

In a country of almost 350 million people, we are the minority, and may never be the majority in all honesty. While I love to fight for my rights as much as the next guy... As a full time (60+ hours a week) working citizen, it's hard to compete with whiny hipster soccer moms that don't work and have nothing better to do than to ....... with what everyone else does. By the time I get off work, anyone who is anybody is already at home eating dinner and planning how they can ....... up this country even more tomorrow.

As a middle class fully employed ex soccer mom here, I have to add that judging by other posts I've read, a lot of us seem to be trying to hide vaping like a dirty little secret. The best tool we all have is education on a little known subject. I never hid the fact that I smoked, and I don't hide the fact that I vape. I want them to ask, I want them to know what it has done for me. I want them to understand what smoking did to my health and what this has done to improve it. I work in healthcare and I never miss the chance to tell a Doc or an analog smoking nurse how this has changed my life, how I cut my dependency on asthma inhalers in half. We must all act as poster children for analog alternatives and get the word out.

 

[DC2]

You are advocating allowing analog smoking in a case by case basis decided by the Business, yet you admit you would not frequent such an establishment .. ?? Or am I not understanding your post .. ??

That seems like a reasonable stance, what am I missing?

I too would advocate that any business should have the right of self-determination on this topic.
And I would also advocate not doing business with anyone against vaping.

 

[Robino1]

The point trying to be made, let businesses decide which clientele they want to cater to. Let people decide who they prefer to do business with. Simple, let the people decide. Not the Government.