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

[soba1]

I write mine too. He smokes like a chimney though. I even mentioned in one that he should try one.. Probably a staffer now using a device.

Why don't u buy him an ego batt and evod and some juice.
Now that would be a hoot if he liked it jus sayin

 

[Vapo Marx]

The people need to quit choosing political sides, and realize it's "we the people" against them the government.

I generally identify as a liberal or Democrat but I will fight ANY politician or other interest that tries to take away my rights. Bottom line.

 

[CommaHolly]

I can't find you exact verbage either, but what is clear is that e-cigarettes are to be treated as a tobacco product. You cannot use them anywhere you cannot smoke a cigarette in Duluth, which is inside of any building that is not private property like your home, or in city parks or along the scenic waterfront areas. There is also some sort of stipulation that will prevent retailers from allowing people to test/sample e-liquid they have not yet purchased, but that seems pretty redundent to me since you already can't use e-cigarettes indoors.

If anyone knows exactly the wording, or can explain it better than I have, please chime in - I don't want to be giving out incorrect information. This is just my understanding of the ordinance.

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.

 

[redeyes24321]

I agree that we need to fight for our rights (and freedom) as vapors, but I also believe that realistically there isn't a whole lot any of us can do. First of all BT and BP has the FDA in their pocket, so short of being a multi-billionaire and throwing money at the FDA, there ain't a whole lot we can do. BT is going to tell the FDA what to do, regardless of any hard evidence. Secondly, we vapors are actually few and far between, so in a town of say 50,000, the voice of say 100 vapors isn't going to be heard. A good example is Obamacare. I don't want it, just like the MAJORITY, but the gov't is going to push it on us whether we like or not. Federal gov't thinks they know whats best for you and me, even if we tell them its actually the exact opposite of what we need. This is because its all an illusion to make you think they have your best interests in mind; they have their own agendas and we are all pawns.

 

[CommaHolly]

I generally identify as a liberal or Democrat but I will fight ANY politician or other interest that tries to take away my rights. Bottom line.

I agree 100%,,,,,,

I'm also a liberal democrat,,,,,,doesn't mean I agree with every word the Dems utter. I have a brain. And I know how to use it.

 

[redeyes24321]

So now were going to start talking politics???

 

[Uncle Willie]

So now were going to start talking politics???

The point of the 1st post was politics ..

 

[vjc0628]

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.

agreed

10char

 

[CommaHolly]

So now were going to start talking politics???

I saw politics quite a bit further back.

 

[Vapo Marx]

My fault for not reading to the end of the thread before replying. Forget that I mentioned it.

 

[Ken_A]

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!)

 

[soba1]

I generally identify as a liberal or Democrat but I will fight ANY politician or other interest that tries to take away my rights. Bottom line.

Nooooooooooooooo

My fault for not reading to the end of the thread before replying. Forget that I mentioned it.

It was in proper context imo and very aptly typed, stuck a chord with me

 

[DC2]

It definitely irks me hearing about E-cigs being completely banned. But what also irks me are the vapers who seem to feel humiliated about being sent to the smokers spot to vape,
when the main group of people that we need to do this "educating" of ecigs on, ARE the smokers. Instead many vapors seems to have this incessant need of wanting to educate non smokers all the time when they can give two sh**s about bans on ecigs.

I think people are forgetting the most powerful reason ecigs exist. To get smokers to stop smoking. Not this righteous need to be able to vape in every public spot possible...

You will have a easier time getting ecigs known to the world by gaining a large following. Vaping in smoking areas will pique more positive interests then vaping inside a grocery store. I'm sure of it.

I disagree.

Many people consider smokers and vapers to be "drug addicts" who will say or do anything to justify their addiction.
It is precisely the non-smokers that we need to win over if we are not going to wind up being shunned just like we were as smokers.

That means ALL of your family, ALL of your friends, and as many co-workers as you can educate.

 

[Ken_A]

Ok. Gotta be fair to both of my examples from the first post


Mineral County:
Cumberland Times News : Mineral commissioners taking smoking ban concerns to county Board of Health

Cumberland Times News : Time to clean up the air, but why ban electronic cigarettes?

Not much else I could find on that one though... Probably not newsworthy, and calling attention to "one minor incident" is just "scaremongering"

 

[BigBen2k]

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.

 

[vjc0628]

Ok. Gotta be fair to both of my examples from the first post


Mineral County:
Cumberland Times News : Mineral commissioners taking smoking ban concerns to county Board of Health

Cumberland Times News : Time to clean up the air, but why ban electronic cigarettes?

Not much else I could find on that one though... Probably not newsworthy, and calling attention to "one minor incident" is just "scaremongering"

I can agree with you on this in the example of eciggs being banned from eciggs stores just because its an excuse to inhale nicotine
While I understand banning in the malls and such because many people who don't know better may be concerned
But eciggs being banned from eciggs stores just because its an excuse to inhale nicotine Is crossing the line into a lore dangerous area
Of a overreaching gov

 

[Uncle Willie]

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.

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

 

[WCSR]

Not sure about Alberta, but in Ontario it's generally accepted. You shouldn't have any issues at all.

Thank you, kind sir. I've been to Ontario and BC a few times, and people seemed quite laid back about things. But I have never vaped there, so I just wasn't sure.

I generally identify as a liberal or Democrat but I will fight ANY politician or other interest that tries to take away my rights. Bottom line.

I agree 100%,,,,,,

I'm also a liberal democrat,,,,,,doesn't mean I agree with every word the Dems utter. I have a brain. And I know how to use it.

I applaud you two. I generally identify with the conservative crowd, but that doesn't mean I can't be a free thinker and choose my views accordingly. For America to get on a better plane for all of it's citizens, we all need to start thinking more for ourselves, and less for our party affiliations.

So now were going to start talking politics???

Talking politics is one thing, arguing them is another.

My fault for not reading to the end of the thread before replying. Forget that I mentioned it.

There was nothing disrespectful about your post. We all share a common interest here, and politics do play a part. Sometimes it's nice to know where your constituents stand...while knowing that we are on the same side on this particular issue.

 

[DC2]

"Target Field tweaked its “no smoking” policy this year to include e-cigarettes. Twins President Dave St. Peter said that “our staff found they created confusion and customer service challenges in the sense that it was very difficult to distinguish … between traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes.”" Time and money for the stadium.. easier to just ban them, understandable from a business stand point.

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.

 

[soba1]

It aint about the oparty its about we the people one nation under God with liberty and justice for all