Hangs head
I think I will just head to bed without dinner.
I think I will just head to bed without dinner.Dang!
Ya'all should chill.(OMG another OPINION!)
Right of entitlement?
- Thread starter NancyR
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
We are not asking for it to be MANDATED that it be allowed indoors, we are asking it to be left up to the property owners. EXCEPT hospitals, where it should be up to the doctors. There are patients whose doctors want them to be able to vape rather than take the stress of abstinence while hospitalized, and there are psychiatric patients to whom smoking or vaping gives relief from their symptoms.
There are a lot of adult venues that are starting to welcome vaping in their establishments -- why should there be a law about it? And the last time I went to a county meeting where they were banning vaping OUTDOORS.
I think we need to separate the vaping indoors issue from the smoking indoors issue. There are places where we should not vape indoors. There are many many more places where nobody should smoke indoors. So make them separate laws or regulations, don't let them glue them together.
Hangs head
(rimshot) (cymbal crash)
Just adding to my earlier post. With how I feel about vaping in public.
Not long after this me and a fellow supervisor went to FRIDAYS for lunch. I would never use my Vamo there because of the nature of the place. It's not Fridays responsibility to explain to people that they are not letting me smoke that I am vaping. If their corporate office decides to allow it I still would only do it selectively based on the people around me because it can bother them for other reason besides it looking like smoke.
I was at a small local pub the other night. I asked the owner and he said okay. There I vaped and greatly enjoyed my time. I did vape responsibly and did not make giant clouds or anything. I just sat and enjoyed not being blindly lumped with smoking.
There is a line between letting all smoking bans apply to vaping and respecting a property owners right to say "no". We do have a right to stand up for this distinction and not just say "well it might bother some people" and do nothing.
People do things that bother me all the time. They burn popcorn, cook food with too much cheap cheese in it, spray perfume, drive badly, talk on speaker phone and swear a lot. The minute you tax these things like tobacco or ban them to special popcorn burning cell phone areas, then you might have the right to use the same ideal to create laws for vaping.
As of now all the science that has been done responsibly supports that vaping is not more harmful then the above listed annoyances so it should be handled the same. Any place is welcome to say "no speaker phone", "no popcorn in the microwave" and all that. If you saw a proposal to make these law however it would never pass because it would be an infringement on our right. Why should we expect a lower standard for ourselves?
Not long after this me and a fellow supervisor went to FRIDAYS for lunch. I would never use my Vamo there because of the nature of the place. It's not Fridays responsibility to explain to people that they are not letting me smoke that I am vaping. If their corporate office decides to allow it I still would only do it selectively based on the people around me because it can bother them for other reason besides it looking like smoke.
I was at a small local pub the other night. I asked the owner and he said okay. There I vaped and greatly enjoyed my time. I did vape responsibly and did not make giant clouds or anything. I just sat and enjoyed not being blindly lumped with smoking.
There is a line between letting all smoking bans apply to vaping and respecting a property owners right to say "no". We do have a right to stand up for this distinction and not just say "well it might bother some people" and do nothing.
People do things that bother me all the time. They burn popcorn, cook food with too much cheap cheese in it, spray perfume, drive badly, talk on speaker phone and swear a lot. The minute you tax these things like tobacco or ban them to special popcorn burning cell phone areas, then you might have the right to use the same ideal to create laws for vaping.
As of now all the science that has been done responsibly supports that vaping is not more harmful then the above listed annoyances so it should be handled the same. Any place is welcome to say "no speaker phone", "no popcorn in the microwave" and all that. If you saw a proposal to make these law however it would never pass because it would be an infringement on our right. Why should we expect a lower standard for ourselves?
This is effectively incorrect. It has been absolutely proven that:
1. There is ZERO blood nicotine uptake from sitting in a small glass booth for 10 hours while several people vape in the room with you.
2. There is no second-hand carcinogen exposure, the first-hand exposure is extremely small.
3. Trivial but true: second-hand smoke is mostly first-hand smoke from a distance because I can light a cigarette then never touch it again before it goes out, and people will get a roomful of second-hand smoke. Even if I tried that with my PV, it has an 8-second cutoff.
So, what remains is things that we don't know are safe to inhale first-hand but DO know is bad but not horrible, and therefore legal, indoors: stage smoke in small quantities, food flavorings and glycerine in quantities that are in ANY restaurant that cooks indoors.
In fact, that IS hazardous, before smoking existed indoor cooking was THE major cause of lung disease, and it still is in a lot of the world. [Edit: not counting germs]
So I'm perfectly happy to see the hazards of indoor vaping banned as soon as they also ban:
-- all indoor cooking, especially in restaurants
-- steaming food at the table indoors, especially in restaurants
-- all stage smoke
-- hot coffee indoors
...because we HAVE 3 studies that, between them, absolutely proved that second-hand vapor is AT LEAST as safe as all of the things above, and drastically-safer than air fresheners.
Last edited:
The only people who make this statement are you and the guy with the monkey avatar. That's only two. The vast majority of us have either read the entire studies already done or the summaries or the experts like Dr Seigal of Boston University and thus know that exhaled vapor HAS NO HARMFUL SUBSTANCES TO HARM HUMAN BEINGS.
I would suggest actually doing a little research and reading so you will not be unsure about the safety of vaping for those in close proximity.
Last edited:
All I want to say is to respect others. If they don't want you to vape in their house then don't. If a restraunt does not allow vaping then don't go back. Just be polite and respect of others. Don't try to cram it down their mouth. If I go to a place that allowes vaping I always give a shout out for them. If they don't, (which happened today) then I won't go back and I'll let other vapers know about it. The ANTZ's don't need any more bad things to say about us. We need to be the example. Set the pace.
I agree with gthompson on this. Additionally, vaping will not be banned, but possibly regulated just as cigarettes are. Not a big deal to me as I have dealt with this as a smoker for many years. Big tobacco will be getting more involved once e-cigs gain more traction and they can make a buck off of it. Business Insider has already written two articles about e-cigs just recently and Citi is projecting strong growth.
I must be part of that minority that you speak of.
Yes it has been. You are either not well read or don't do research.
To name one is the study by Dr. Murray Laugesen. In the summary section of his study (which is too long to post completely here) he states:
"E-cigarettes are akin to a medicinal nicotine inhalator in safety, dose, and addiction potential."
Last edited:
This thread is a bit controversial but, it does not warrant some of the actions I seen take place in this thread. Please be courteous to others and discuss this topic in a civil manner.
If not, then this thread will be closed. Other actions may be needed depending on the situation.
If not, then this thread will be closed. Other actions may be needed depending on the situation.
Dang!
All she said was "Be polite and try not to mess with other people's air." She gave an opinion.
Although I'm not above an occasional (and respectful) stealth vape, for the most part I don't go around vaping where smoking isn't allowed.
Post 1 said it all. It really isn't a pro-government post. Or anti-government post. Or a PAC post. Or even a scientific post. It's a manners post.
Ya'all should chill.
If that was truly all she said, then this would have been an entirely different thread.
First she accused many vapers of being entitled to "vape everywhere, infringe on others rights, and sidestep laws and policies". Then, she proceeded to falsely claim that second hand vapor could be harmful to others which studies have shown it is in fact not. Next she seems to claim that the "scent" of the vapor (which is FOOD FLAVORING) could also be harmful to those with allergies. While this could potentially be true, it is no more harmful that walking through a grocery store with an in house bakery. Then she finished it off by apparently advocating for taxes and regulations and then told us there was nothing we could do about it.
Sorry but it does not sounds like "Be polite and try not to mess with other people's air." to me.
And you are not going to educate people by hiding in the smoking section and acting like the two are the same thing. You vape openly in most places but respectfully and be well prepared to educate others. Perception is reality. Acting like a smoker provides the perception that it is dangerous to others when it has been well proven it is not.
I did not advocate for anything, and just because you do not know anyone who has issues from what someone else is vaping, doesn't mean it doesn't happen!
According to this study Does e-cigarette consumption cause passive vaping? - Schripp - 2012 - Indoor Air - Wiley Online Library (scroll down to conclusions if you don't want to read the entire article) nicotine and other substances are released into the air. People will choose the studies that agree with their views. Look, I am a proud vaper that is thankful that it finally got me off analogs. I will be forever grateful for that. But, as other posters have mentioned I don't think it's prudent to be shoving it down other peoples throats right now. They just need time and education and they will come around.
Last edited:
Very well said sir. It's about a civil debate. Not something that the ANTZ can use against use. If you really care and want to help our vaping cause then I suggest you join CASAA and do something in a civil manner.
CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
By your logic anyone eating a Cinnabon cinnamon roll should also be put out in the "smoking" section due to the strong cinnamon scent. Can you not see the fallacy of that argument?
Your post and thought process contains mutually exclusive points...highlighted in different colors.
Besides, don't be so literal when she's just trying to convey a point.
I think the "vape anywhere" attitude is a bit offensive. In my opinion.
Also, studies are ......lacking. Encouraging, but lacking. Hardly enough replication and scientific "proof" to conclude that someone vaping up a storm in, say, a cubicle doesn't have any effect on others. That's the only point I read...she thinks it MAY. You even concede it.
I have sensitivities to some food flavorings. That's why I DIY my juice. The in-house bakery doesn't imbed their flavorings in PG and VG and blow it around with a fog machine.
How many posts have you read RIGHT HERE on ECF that claimed vapers are sensitive to either PG or VG?
Not that I think e-cigs are worse than, say, walking down a street where there's auto exhaust (they are probably safer!). And we should be aware of environmental stuff like laser printers and copiers too. That said, politeness is the name of the game.
If "Your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose" then "your right to fill the air with PG/VG fog ends at my lungs/mouth/nose". At least that's one view.
I'm not too concerned about low-volume vaping. But I'm polite about it.
P.S. She didn't ask to add taxes either. Please re-read.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
