Aye, as Trog mentioned earlier, anything 'smoking' related is inherently evil.. apparently.
This is good news.
- Thread starter eyespy
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You can't be arrested for 'disturbing the peace' over an issue like htis, unless the person vaping is in direct violation of the managers wishes- which, I was arguing that eyespy should represent the case with the points I mentioned before stating htat it IS perfectly legal, and if the owner wishes to ban them from their premissis, they are doing so out of bias and not law.- I weasn't advocating that we should all walk around flaunting our 'right' to esmoke in establishments without owners permission- I was stating that if the owner or manager allowed it hten the customers are in the wrong demanding that the vaperer quit vaping- If the product is legal, and not banned by law, then the customers can't file a 'disturbing hte peace' complaint- the fact is that eyespy had previous permission from manageress, and the manageress stopped permission because of erronious impressions by customers that esmoking 'might contain' something unhealthy, and that eyesmoke should represent the case to the manager stating that it is legal to vape in public and htere are no health concerns about hte vapor-
Obviously a manager can at their discretion allow or dissallow, and hte person vaping has no real case UNLESS they wish to pursue it further in court- Until there is an outright ban, these things are perfectly legal
Last edited:
Two issues here- almost 100% of the nicotine is absorbed in lungs, and 2- the reports coming out about ruyan juice indicate the vapor is harmless- 3 it takes a long time for people to get cancer from second hand smoke being spewed at htem all day long in enclosed environments, and hte crap coming out of real ciggs in second hand smoke is many times higher than in eciggs- infact eciggs don't carry any of the carcinogens that real ciggs do except for nicotine which again, is exhaled in such minute quantities that it's not a concern
Naz, the primary concern isn't worry over the dangers of the 2nd-hand vapor or legality. It's simply that an e-smoker should respect the wishes of another person if he or she would like said e-smoker not to use his or her e-cig inside and/or in their vicinity.
Some of us seem to think that we should be able to vape wherever we want simply because it is legal/hasn't been banned yet. The truth is, the feelings of those who are not vaping come first. We are the minority and should present ourselves lightly as not to dispose. Combating those who wish not to be in the presence of an e-smoker will just lead to e-smoking getting banned all that much quicker.
Is it really that difficult to just go outside or discontinue vaping in order to show respect for another person?
Some of us seem to think that we should be able to vape wherever we want simply because it is legal/hasn't been banned yet. The truth is, the feelings of those who are not vaping come first. We are the minority and should present ourselves lightly as not to dispose. Combating those who wish not to be in the presence of an e-smoker will just lead to e-smoking getting banned all that much quicker.
Is it really that difficult to just go outside or discontinue vaping in order to show respect for another person?
Show respect for others? How about showing respect to someone using somethign that is legal? Why is it always the 'smoker' that gets the crap end of the stick now that we're using products that are safer? Is it really so difficult for people to be courteous to someone who is exhaling an oderless chemical free water vapor?
If you'll go back and read my posts- you will see I am NOT advocating blowing billowing mounds of vapor in people's faces, and tyhat I DO vape discreetely, but there coems a point where people are being rude to US simply based on personal biases against smoking-
When I vape in public, I hold vapor until very little comes out- there is no odor, and if someone were to still complain, I would then assert myself up to a point as I really don't wish to accomodate those who could care less about my wishes.
Last edited:
Cheers, Naz. I wasn't sure how much of the stuff was absorbed, and I just assumed that if PG vapour was coming out of the mouth then the nicotine was being carried with it.
You know- this is hte real sticking point- The anti-crowd combatted us first, and we had no legal right to fight back because our real ciggs ARE hazzardous- but the anticrowd thought nothing of walking all over us while banning our products, and we just sat back and took it because we had no choice- however, now we have a product that has been determinedto be safe (ruyan liquid, and most likely most other juices as well), and what are we goign to do? sit back quietly while the antis walk all over us again tryign to get a product banned that is safe?
Again- I'm not advocating becoming an activist, but again, there coems a time when we will have to either take a stand, or sit by and watch as the antis make sure that a safe producrt is banned right before our eyes. Customers may not like us vaping, but the fact is that it's not hurting htem, and these same customers didn't care one iota that bars and resteraunts exiled smokers- they could have cared less about our feelings when the states stepped in and did away with smoking sections entirely despite hte fact that the sections were isolated from the non smokign sections. When do our feeligns on the matter coem into play? Apparently they don't? We're evil smokers after all, and don't deserve the same consideratiosn as the angelic antismokers apparently?
There is a report somewhere on htis site statign that 98 or 99. something percent of nic is absorbed- I think it was a report by Dr. Loi if I remember right?
Naz, i have to agree with you on the toleration point. As smokers, we are expected to tolerate every little whim of the non-smokers. We are somehow lesser people, even though i guarantee they all have bad, inappropriate habits as well.
This is just an example, not anything i care about, but you'll get it hopefully. Say i'm out at dinner. I'm vaping discreetly, and the table next to me has a big complaint. So i get rolled over as is typical of a smoker. Then they get their meal and start to pray loud enough for me to hear. Say i have a complaint about their praying loudly at the table. If i say anything i an the anti-christ(if they are christian). You see where i am going with this?
Keep in mind that this is just an example.
-Dusty-
This is just an example, not anything i care about, but you'll get it hopefully. Say i'm out at dinner. I'm vaping discreetly, and the table next to me has a big complaint. So i get rolled over as is typical of a smoker. Then they get their meal and start to pray loud enough for me to hear. Say i have a complaint about their praying loudly at the table. If i say anything i an the anti-christ(if they are christian). You see where i am going with this?
Keep in mind that this is just an example.
-Dusty-
Well I am a Christian, but I don't agree with praying aloud liek that in public myself as hte bible states that we are to pray in private unseen- I think people praying in public like that are doing so just to be seen and heard- (I'm not saying everyone does, as I'm sure htere are people who genuinely wish to connect with God and htank Him for hte bounty before a meal- but I think a great many people who pray loudly do so just to be seen and I simply don't agree with htat and neither does the bible).
I'm not normally a confrontational person in public, and I do vape very discretely, and will continue doing so only when I think noone will notice what I am doing, if people are close by, I'll wait itll they leave etc. and I would and do advize others who vape to keep it very discrete, but the fact is that this product can't remain discrete too much logner, and htere is going to be a time hwen it catches on and people start exherting hteir right to vape a legal product in public, and I just believe it's high time htat people start recognizing htat we evil smokers do have rights hwen it coems to a legal product, and start concidering our feeligns and wishes as well, the same as we have done for them for a very long time now.
The battle is coming, especially now that Target stores are carryign hte product, and the advertising is gaining ground etc. We'll have to know where we stand legally- while at hte same time wieghing the conciderations and biases of store owners and businessplaces- individual biases will be moot- it will be the business biases that we'll have to confront eventually, and I think it's coming soon.
I'm not normally a confrontational person in public, and I do vape very discretely, and will continue doing so only when I think noone will notice what I am doing, if people are close by, I'll wait itll they leave etc. and I would and do advize others who vape to keep it very discrete, but the fact is that this product can't remain discrete too much logner, and htere is going to be a time hwen it catches on and people start exherting hteir right to vape a legal product in public, and I just believe it's high time htat people start recognizing htat we evil smokers do have rights hwen it coems to a legal product, and start concidering our feeligns and wishes as well, the same as we have done for them for a very long time now.
The battle is coming, especially now that Target stores are carryign hte product, and the advertising is gaining ground etc. We'll have to know where we stand legally- while at hte same time wieghing the conciderations and biases of store owners and businessplaces- individual biases will be moot- it will be the business biases that we'll have to confront eventually, and I think it's coming soon.
What is legal to sell is not necessarily legal to use in all instances.
Long before smoking was banned by governments, some businesses opted to go smoke-free. The cigarette was, and remains, legal to sell. But it became illegal to use in smoke-free locations. Use it in a banned place and you're as liable for arrest as a trespasser after warning. Call it what you want -- discrimination comes to mind -- but where I live you can be banned from a restaurant for wearing a bathing suit not topped by a shirt. It's all discretionary. Owners rule. If a bar owner concludes e-smoking muddles the issue for real smokers, then he or she can ban it. Defy the owner and see what charges you face after the police are called to remove the disobedient miscreant with his funky vapor-producing tube.
You could buy a Janty for the cost of the bail money you'll post.
Fair? Not to the e-smoker. But the e-smoker doesn't rule.
I do not want to leave newbies with the mistaken impression that e-smoking is somehow legal in places where tobacco smoking is banned. That's not automatically the case, although I fervantly hope it becomes that way. I want to e-smoke after a dinner on the town, too. But I know better. If push comes to shove, we're the one shoved no matter how you might wish that weren't the case.
Now about that Colt 45 I legally bought and intend to strap to my hip as I go to the restaurant tonight ... you don't think patrons or the owner will mind, do you?
Long before smoking was banned by governments, some businesses opted to go smoke-free. The cigarette was, and remains, legal to sell. But it became illegal to use in smoke-free locations. Use it in a banned place and you're as liable for arrest as a trespasser after warning. Call it what you want -- discrimination comes to mind -- but where I live you can be banned from a restaurant for wearing a bathing suit not topped by a shirt. It's all discretionary. Owners rule. If a bar owner concludes e-smoking muddles the issue for real smokers, then he or she can ban it. Defy the owner and see what charges you face after the police are called to remove the disobedient miscreant with his funky vapor-producing tube.
You could buy a Janty for the cost of the bail money you'll post.
Fair? Not to the e-smoker. But the e-smoker doesn't rule.
I do not want to leave newbies with the mistaken impression that e-smoking is somehow legal in places where tobacco smoking is banned. That's not automatically the case, although I fervantly hope it becomes that way. I want to e-smoke after a dinner on the town, too. But I know better. If push comes to shove, we're the one shoved no matter how you might wish that weren't the case.
Now about that Colt 45 I legally bought and intend to strap to my hip as I go to the restaurant tonight ... you don't think patrons or the owner will mind, do you?
Last edited:
Well sir, in florida you have to have a CCP and carry it concealed. That is the law, not saying it is right though.
I love the fact that i can starp a gun to my hip and go bebopping around town.
I love the fact that i can starp a gun to my hip and go bebopping around town.
We're not quite at the point yet, but as much as I personally would like to keep the product discrete- just to avoid confrontations, I think that soon, the best approach ios going to be for ecig manufacturers to start petitioning resteraunts and airlines and businesses to create 'vaping sections' and to start asking major businesses like airlines to start educating people about hte Ecig explaining that it is much much safer than regular ciggs, and that the esmoking sections will be harmless (if this is really hte case, which I beleive recent reports indicate it to be).
We really can't avoid this, as Bars in Europe, News stations reports, Newspaper reports, magazine articles etc, are beginning to allow and report the product, and people are goign to become more aware that smokers now have what appears to be a much safer alternative to regular cigarettes, and htat the products don't present a health risk to bystanders apparently.
Awhile ago, I felt the right approach was to keep discrete and avoid confrontations, but it appears that we're not going to have that luxury much longer. Now that Ruyan has had their liquid tested, and found to be safer, I think we're goign to see them really pushing hteir product and makign hte public more aware that smokers now have a much healthier alternative to real ciggs. I think Big Tobacco will probably step in and try to muscle the ecig out, claiming htis that and hte other thing too, but hopefully esmoking will have gained enough medical clout and financial muscle to weather the storm- We'll be seeing this all over hte news soon I think.
We really can't avoid this, as Bars in Europe, News stations reports, Newspaper reports, magazine articles etc, are beginning to allow and report the product, and people are goign to become more aware that smokers now have what appears to be a much safer alternative to regular cigarettes, and htat the products don't present a health risk to bystanders apparently.
Awhile ago, I felt the right approach was to keep discrete and avoid confrontations, but it appears that we're not going to have that luxury much longer. Now that Ruyan has had their liquid tested, and found to be safer, I think we're goign to see them really pushing hteir product and makign hte public more aware that smokers now have a much healthier alternative to real ciggs. I think Big Tobacco will probably step in and try to muscle the ecig out, claiming htis that and hte other thing too, but hopefully esmoking will have gained enough medical clout and financial muscle to weather the storm- We'll be seeing this all over hte news soon I think.
this is UK stuff but no way will they ban anyone e smoking.. what they will do however to target the sellers..
i aint saying give in to every silly .... who tells u not to e smoke.. why should u respect their "rights" when they dont respect yours.. but a little common sense will do us more favors than open confrontation in public..
treat it like breaking wind.. he he he
trog
i aint saying give in to every silly .... who tells u not to e smoke.. why should u respect their "rights" when they dont respect yours.. but a little common sense will do us more favors than open confrontation in public..
treat it like breaking wind.. he he he
trog
Only in Miami is the law ignored. 
And I was being verrry facetious with that analogy. Legal to buy; not legal to do with as one pleases.
And I was being verrry facetious with that analogy. Legal to buy; not legal to do with as one pleases.It is legal until banned or outlawed. Cocain and opium and other drugs was legal to use in public before laws were passed to outlaw them, and many people did infact use them legally, even though everyone knew they were bad- Eciggs doesn't even fall into the negative realm of those drugs.
Again TB- I was NOT advocating using it places where individual owners have banned out of bias- Eyespy said he had previous permission, and I was advocating he represent his case statign that this IS a perfectly legal product, and that there is nothign in the vapor that will cause secondary harm, contrary to customer's objections and misperceptions.
Noone is stating to 'defy the owner' TB
And niether do I- but you've taken what I've said and misinterpreted what I was saying- I've not said to 'defy owners' who ban hte product in their establishements at htis point, but to use discretion, speak with owners, explain the legality etc, and then yes, honor their positions for now, but hte fact is that we do have a legal right to vape in public, but we need to use discretion, and the tiem is coming when the fight will escalate.
You have a legal right to wear it TB, and I don't beleive the owner can tell you otherwise IF the state of FL has declared it can be worn- Will you run into a stink because of it? Sure- perhaps, but the law is on your side IF it is legally allowed in public places. The reason all those people died in that resturaunt in Texas awhile ago was because it was not legal to wear a legally owned gun in public, but had it been, the maggot that calmly walked around murdering one patron after another would have only shot one or two people before getting his head airated by customers who legally wore their guns inside had hte law been in their favor.
Only in Miami is the law ignored.
I don't know what the law is in FL- but where I lie, if you have a permit to carry, you can walk into any store with a gun strapped to your side as long as it is in view (some have a permit to carry concealed), and the store can not demand that you leave.
I agree with the majority of what you say, Naz. You're a veteran e-smoker. You're not advocating anarchy. But we part ways on this:
We do not.
The legality of the product and its use in public has not been established. Prior to tests proving product safety, we could not make claims -- although many did -- that our e-devices were safe, or even safer than a real cigarette. Now we can say with assurance that is the case. We have the science, thanks to Dr. Laugesen's clinical trial.
Same for the legality. Only an agency like our FDA can establish that this product using a known addictive drug for recreational purposes (we certainly aren't legally classified as NRT) is legal to sell and use.
When they get around to considering 36mg Wicked liquid (and they will, because it's a powerful, addictive drug being sold), how do you think they'll rule? Based on past rulings for nicotine products, I'm not hopeful. But at least then we'll get some valid legal definitions for everyone to abide by. Only then can we say e-smoking is legal (or banned) in public places. Until then, it's owner discretion exclusively. There is no legal "right" to e-smoke.
We do not.
The legality of the product and its use in public has not been established. Prior to tests proving product safety, we could not make claims -- although many did -- that our e-devices were safe, or even safer than a real cigarette. Now we can say with assurance that is the case. We have the science, thanks to Dr. Laugesen's clinical trial.
Same for the legality. Only an agency like our FDA can establish that this product using a known addictive drug for recreational purposes (we certainly aren't legally classified as NRT) is legal to sell and use.
When they get around to considering 36mg Wicked liquid (and they will, because it's a powerful, addictive drug being sold), how do you think they'll rule? Based on past rulings for nicotine products, I'm not hopeful. But at least then we'll get some valid legal definitions for everyone to abide by. Only then can we say e-smoking is legal (or banned) in public places. Until then, it's owner discretion exclusively. There is no legal "right" to e-smoke.
Naz - I guess it's only OK to carry that gun as long as the proprietor has a smaller gun.
In the UK/Ire/EU things are different in a number of ways. First, carrying a gun in open view is a worse idea than hiding it - but neither is recommended; in restaurants it causes indigestion and breaks plates and in pubs it clears the place quicker than a drunk hen-party!
As to e-smoking 'freedoms' - we (in the royal sense) don't make things legal but instead declare certain things to be illegal. At this point, vaping is not illegal - but, like I'm not likely to take a licensed shotgun to the pub, I'll exercise judgment as to when I'll use my e-cig.
.In the UK/Ire/EU things are different in a number of ways. First, carrying a gun in open view is a worse idea than hiding it - but neither is recommended; in restaurants it causes indigestion and breaks plates and in pubs it clears the place quicker than a drunk hen-party!
As to e-smoking 'freedoms' - we (in the royal sense) don't make things legal but instead declare certain things to be illegal. At this point, vaping is not illegal - but, like I'm not likely to take a licensed shotgun to the pub, I'll exercise judgment as to when I'll use my e-cig.
That's it, Soot. E-smoking is not illegal by law; neither has it been given legal blessing by any agency. It's in legal limbo. The correct way to state this situation on Web sites that sell these things is "May be legal to use in areas where tobacco smoking is prohibited."
Not "might". Not "can be". "May" is the only correct word, as in "Mother, may I?" since "may" implies permission. And that's exactly our e-smoking situation.
I don't mean to imply that it's illegal to e-smoke in public. It's not. But the corollary is not true. Legalities are defined by laws and regulations, of which our new device has yet to be subjected.
Not "might". Not "can be". "May" is the only correct word, as in "Mother, may I?" since "may" implies permission. And that's exactly our e-smoking situation.
I don't mean to imply that it's illegal to e-smoke in public. It's not. But the corollary is not true. Legalities are defined by laws and regulations, of which our new device has yet to be subjected.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
