To all my ecf brothers and sisters.....please read.
- Thread starter WyattDerp
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I completely, 100% agree with Wyatt. It's not much different than stores and restaurants having a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" policy, at least in my eyes. No, of course we're not smoking, but vapor does give off a scent and for some it could seem unpleasant. I know there are some juices I vape that smell awful when exhaled. But that's besides the point anyway. I bet after a few years go by some restaurants will have a "vaping section", just like we used to have smoking sections. If that happens, great, but if not, I'm not going to turn my nose up at establishments I've always enjoyed just because I can't whip my PV out while there.
Your understanding of human nature, sociology and psychology must be different than all the university courses I took on those subjects. Marketplace establishments and the government do not ban something just on a whim. No one wants to be in an establishment with someone who has poor personal hygiene but you don't see any bans for people who smell bad.
Banning an activity applies a stigma to that activity and WILL be perceived as unsafe, especially an activity that resembles smoking. And once a ban is in place, it virtually is never lifted. So don't try to tell us that bans do not denote a negative connotation. And I worked in the corporate world for years at a high enough level to know that once a nationwide corporation bans something, other natiowide corporations take note and will start to follow suit. It is just easier to ban something that to research it and understand it.
So it has nothing to do with whether you personally feel the need to vape in Starbucks or not. It has everything to do with the perception that is applied to vaping when it is banned. And your position that we as vapers need to do nothing to promote vaping in a respectful manner, will definitely not lead to these "unknown studies" by unknown people that will save the day. If people who vape do not care if vaping is banned and are not willing to advocate for vaping rights and vaping studies, then why should anyone else?
Since you have only been vaping a few months, maybe you are unaware of the FDA study that was already done on vaping. It showed that only one sample out of 18 had any carcinogenetic substances in the liquid and the level found was the same level found in nicotine patches and gum and that it was "not deemed unsafe at this level". But what did the FDA report and do? They reported that carcinogentic substances were found in eliquid and promptly banned their importation or selling. From what you have posted, I would guess you would be fine with this total misrepresentation of the facts about vaping based on this study.
The salient point is, if we as vapers do not advocate for vaping, but instead do nothing as you suggest, then vaping can very easily be characterized as unsafe and banned everywhere.
Last edited:
Do you have any idea how close it was that vaping would be illegal and banned nationwide?
As you've mentioned more than once, perception is reality ..
And, as I've mentioned more than once on other threads, I live in a state that has banned all smoking in public places even within 15 feet of the building .. and, trust me, there are plenty of voluntary cig police more than happy to call the law if they "perceive" you are smoking ..
I'm all for standing up for civil rights, however, I'm not interested in becoming the "Rosa Parks" of the e-cig industry .. nor am I interested in giving a seminar on what it is each and every time someone confronts me or gives me the eye .. sorry ..
So, I treat my e-cig the same way as if it were an analog .. because, as you say .. perception is reality ..
I have never had any place tell me I can not vape in their establishment. They are well within their rights to say I cannot do it there.
And I am well within my rights to not to conduct business there.
And I am well within my rights to not to conduct business there.
Yes, of course I do, but that doesn't seem to have much to do with what this thread is addressing... not being able to vape wherever you may want to. Of course as a vaper I want to advocate vaping, but not at the level of taking on causes such as whether I'm allowed to vape inside a private property or not. We can just as easily spread awareness by vaping outside of these establishments, no? My in-laws won't let me vape inside their home and it pisses me off, but will I argue the whole point with them? No, because it is their home and their decision.
I understand not wanting to explain to "everyone" the difference between vaping and smoking. But you are basically stating that since it would be natural for the uninformed to assume it is as dangerous as smoking we should just continue to allow others to believe that, stigmatize us, ban us and agree with them that vaping is something that is dangerous and should be banned.
The only reason smoking has not been completely banned is because of the money it generates, the political power the tobacco lobby has and the negative effect it would have on the economy. The infact vaping industry does not have those type of protections. If you do not care if vaping is mischaracterized and banned then no one else should care either.
I disagree that it is "different". When a national corporation bans vaping, the domino effect can be quite significant. And it's not about "needing or having" to be able to vape everywhere. It's about not allowing a negative perception to be attached to vaping like it is for smoking.
But I do agree with you that you have to "pick" your battles. Arguing with your boss about vaping at the workplace if you know they are dead set against it, is not a wise idea. I'm not advocating hundreds of us picking the White House on behalf of vaping. I'm advocating not just "shrugging it off" as no big deal and never taking some respectful action to let the decision makerers know that their decision to ban vaping is disagreed with and why.
Last edited:
As the use of the e-cig grows .. let me predict that at some point, someone is going to see an e-cig user toke it up in public and decide they have the right to light an analog .. or, enough complaints will be made that states that have a ban in place will ammend it to include the e-cig ..
Now, I don't know the current smoking law in Georgia .. but a commonly used definition in states that have a ban is as follows ..
"Smoking. "Smoking" means inhaling or exhaling smoke from any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted tobacco or plant product. Smoking also includes carrying a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other lighted tobacco or plant product intended for inhalation."
Since we inhale / exhale what is technically a "lighted tobacco product" .. (heat ignites vapor) a case can be made that we are, in fact, breaking the law ..
And, as I mentioned, I personally don't want to be a test case in the legal system over such a trivial matter .. I admit I am still an addict, I don't recommend the use of an e-cig to anyone, nor an analog because quiting any and all forms of nico injestion is the safest and best thing for your health, period .. .. thus, I abide by the current State ban where I live, it's as simple as that ..
It seems to me that there are a few different viewpoints that lead to why some people believe that vaping should not be allowed, and that instead of of defining what those viewpoints are and talking about each one individually, the discussion bounces back and forth without really addressing the concerns these people have.
One of the things I keep seeing repeated over and over again is that some people will not vape where they would not smoke. This is a personal decision they have made, but by only vaping where it is acceptable to smoke, we are giving off the impression that vaping is as offensive as smoking is. I agree that there are some juices that have a pretty rank aftersmell, but that is no worse than a lot of the perfume or cologne that we are subjected to at every public place. Is it not discriminatory to segregate vapors and not perfume/cologne wearers?
Another thing I see is people saying that it has not been proven that vaping is completely safe to bystanders. It is also not proven harmful to bystanders either. There have been numerous studies done to show what is in the vapor that is being exhaled. Other than water vapor, there are trace amounts of unabsorbed nicotine. Higher levels of nicotine are injested by non-vapers all the time whenever they eat a salad, eat a pizza, drink a V8, etc. Just because those people are ignorant of how often they get nicotine, doesn't mean that it is our sole responsibility to "protect" them from it. Another thing to remember is that cell phones have not been proven to be completely safe to bystanders. Imagine if a coffee shop told their patrons that there was no cell phones allowed in their stores. That coffee shop would lose millions of customers to the competition.
But if it looks like a cigarette, then it must be a cigarette! This one is is just a weak excuse used by the people that know nothing at all about PVs. It's a knee-jerk reaction that should have no grounds whatsoever is any decisions made that would effect thousands of potential customers, and by extension, profits. Except for some of the generic minis sold, most PVs don't look like a cigarette except for it goes in the mouth. Why not say, if it looks like a straw, then it must be a straw? Because the people who are using this excuse is just trying to cause less informed people to take the anti-pv stance.
To be honest, I'm quite confused as to why business feel like they must make a policy about PVs in the first place. Do they make a policy about every new product that comes out on the market? Is there a long list of things you can and cannot do on the door of every establishment? Have they felt the need to make a policy on allowing mp3 players into their restaurant? Has anybody made a policy that dictates whether or not your car can have a GPS in it while it is being serviced at the shop? Has there been multiple studies done to show that a GPS is completely safe to be around? What possible damage to the brain can be caused by the electromagnetic fields around a GPS?
One of the things I keep seeing repeated over and over again is that some people will not vape where they would not smoke. This is a personal decision they have made, but by only vaping where it is acceptable to smoke, we are giving off the impression that vaping is as offensive as smoking is. I agree that there are some juices that have a pretty rank aftersmell, but that is no worse than a lot of the perfume or cologne that we are subjected to at every public place. Is it not discriminatory to segregate vapors and not perfume/cologne wearers?
Another thing I see is people saying that it has not been proven that vaping is completely safe to bystanders. It is also not proven harmful to bystanders either. There have been numerous studies done to show what is in the vapor that is being exhaled. Other than water vapor, there are trace amounts of unabsorbed nicotine. Higher levels of nicotine are injested by non-vapers all the time whenever they eat a salad, eat a pizza, drink a V8, etc. Just because those people are ignorant of how often they get nicotine, doesn't mean that it is our sole responsibility to "protect" them from it. Another thing to remember is that cell phones have not been proven to be completely safe to bystanders. Imagine if a coffee shop told their patrons that there was no cell phones allowed in their stores. That coffee shop would lose millions of customers to the competition.
But if it looks like a cigarette, then it must be a cigarette! This one is is just a weak excuse used by the people that know nothing at all about PVs. It's a knee-jerk reaction that should have no grounds whatsoever is any decisions made that would effect thousands of potential customers, and by extension, profits. Except for some of the generic minis sold, most PVs don't look like a cigarette except for it goes in the mouth. Why not say, if it looks like a straw, then it must be a straw? Because the people who are using this excuse is just trying to cause less informed people to take the anti-pv stance.
To be honest, I'm quite confused as to why business feel like they must make a policy about PVs in the first place. Do they make a policy about every new product that comes out on the market? Is there a long list of things you can and cannot do on the door of every establishment? Have they felt the need to make a policy on allowing mp3 players into their restaurant? Has anybody made a policy that dictates whether or not your car can have a GPS in it while it is being serviced at the shop? Has there been multiple studies done to show that a GPS is completely safe to be around? What possible damage to the brain can be caused by the electromagnetic fields around a GPS?
I believe you are completely confused on the law and the definition of "lighted tobacco product". Yes, currently vaping will be regulated under the federal tobacco regulation, but that in no way defines it as a "lighted tobacco product'. In fact the Virginia AG just came out with a ruling that vaping is NOT prohibited under the smoking regulations of their state and their regulations reads about the same as your state.
And if you see the ability and legal right to vape as being "trivial", then that is your opinion.
No, heat does NOT ignite the vapor. Heat is what CREATES the vapor from the liquid. There is no COMBUSTION.
It's statements like this that give fuel to other misinformation. Just by using the word "technically", other people might be inclined to take what you say as truth, even though it's a completely incorrect statement.
EXACTLY!!!! IMO this is the best point made on this thread so far. Good job.
You make me feel old. News flash: it wasn't all that long ago that smokers went to coffee shops in droves - and they could smoke. Remember, too, that smoking policies in the USA vary.
Why should we feel lucky that we can do something that's perfectly legal and doesn't negatively impact anyone around us? As someone has already pointed out, smoking was banned specifically because it DOES negatively impact others. Why do you insist on behaving as though smoking and vaping have anything in common aside from appearances? They are NOT the same thing and they should not be treated as though they are.
By the way, there are many vapers who never go to bars.
Not only is it perfectly reasonable to demand that our right to vape not be infringed upon by ignorant people, but I will remind you again that it used to be not only "remotely possible" but it was in fact "business as usual" to smoke in coffee shops.
I mean no offense, but I don't think you're as proud to be an ecig user as you'd like to think. Your writings are those of an apologist and an appeaser. That approach is doomed to fail.
A heating element ignites the liquid .. it's as simple as that .. how could it be any other way .. ?? Why not prove it to yourself by cutting down an atty, placing your finger on the coil and see how long you can stand it .. ?? The device uses heat to vaporize the liquid ..
"It's statements like this that give fuel to other misinformation." right
I'm not trying to add fuel to the fire but you are incorrect.
When you boil water you create vapor yet do not ignite the water. coffee makers make vapor but don't ignite the coffee (or the water).
NOTHING is perfectly safe.
The onus is not on vapers to prove anything - it's on anti-vaping entities to prove that it IS unsafe. You seem to be operating under a couple of misconceptions:
1. Vaping is probably bad for you and those around you.
2. Vaping is synonymous with smoking.
3. Vapers should follow the same rules that smokers must abide by.
Wrong question. What you should be asking yourself is, what difference does it make it someone vapes at a coffee shop, restaurant, Lowe's parking lot, etc.? WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE WITH YOU?? Is it because YOU think that vaping and smoking are the basically same thing?
It is trivial .. anyone that believes it's a major issue in this Country has no concept of what a major issue is ..
Humans like to defend things they do .. and many refuse to logically look at those things from the perspective of those that don't do it ..
I checked the Georgia law .. "Georgia bans smoking in restaurants where persons under 18 years of age may enter, but allows most anywhere else either to designate smoking areas indoors or allow smoking freely; local governments in Georgia can and have passed stricter smoking bans than the state." .. pretty liberal compared to my state .. talk to me when it's a total ban in public places and within 15 feet of said place ..
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
