To all my ecf brothers and sisters.....please read.
- Thread starter WyattDerp
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Did you smoke in front of them? Hiding what you are doing, will only peak their curiosity.
I smoked in front of my children and Grandchildren. I have one child that doesn't smoke, one that does....the Grandkids show no interest in smoking, other than to say it stinks, but they do like guessing what flavor I'm vaping. Do I think they will turn out to be smokers or start vaping? I have no idea. I do know that they see/will see others smoking or vaping. I will not hide my vaping, as I am not doing anything that I am ashamed of, nor am I doing anything illegal.
i work for starbucks and there was an internal memo about our policy on electronic cigarettes. probably wont be a press release or anything as I doubt there has been much research done into it from starbucks...yet =)
Are nicotine inhalers banned where smoking and PVs are banned? Is nicotine gum, or nicotine lozenges banned? One must eventually exhale after using a nicotine inhaler, what about the contents of that which is exhaled? If someone is chewing nicotine gum, or using a nicotine lozenge, unless they never open their mouths while chewing or using the lozenge, spittle will be expelled. A person chewing nicotine gum, or using a nicotine lozenge, who speaks, coughs, sneezes, etc., while using those products, are exposing others to nicotine that has not be absorbed by the user, plus any other chemicals used in those products.
It's a psychological argument. The act of vaping resembles smoking, there is no arguing that, because it's meant to. Nicotine inhalers are the closest FDA approved NRT thaat resembles smoking(as far as I know) and they have spent Billions on making people aware that it exists and that it's to help you quit.
"Hey, What's that thing?". "It's my nicorette inhaler, I'm trying to quit.". "Really? Well good for you.".
Now Mr PV here is doing the same thing with the simple addition of a visible cue
"Hey, What's that thing?". "It's my electronic cigarette, I'm trying to quit.". "Really? Doesn't look like it. Looks just like you're still smoking to me. Don't those things have antifreeze in them? Get it away from me.".
A few slipped words, a wink, or a nudge to the wrong (right?) people and all of a sudden the media attention goes crazy. We were targeted for destruction, because we broke the rules. We didn't pay our admission fee to the big boys club to get our FDA card stamped and now we are being made into lepers. I'm waiting for the report that says second hand vape is responsible for ozone depletion.
Having just caught up with the ovenight traffic in this thread I am going to issue a blanket caution.
This is subject is one that attracts strong opinions, so everyone needs to remember the standard applied in the OUTSIDE applies doubly here. Attack the post, not the poster.
This is subject is one that attracts strong opinions, so everyone needs to remember the standard applied in the OUTSIDE applies doubly here. Attack the post, not the poster.
Of course that's what will happen but it won't be a widespread panic. That's a bit melodramatic. It will simply be written into corporate and legal policies across the country if the perception that vaping = smoking is not changed.
The problem is that we have vapers who still consider themselves to be smokers, all evidence to the contrary.
That is why I refer to my Leo as a PV. It is my nicotine inhaler, one that I use even at the Veterans Administration Hospital. While using my PV, another Vet asked me about it, calling it a vaporizer. He was using the lozenges. Each Doctor that saw it, congratulated me for quitting smoking! My Neurologist, when he saw it and was told what it was, said "excellent". Not one Doctor frowned on me using my PV, not one Doctor tried to talk me into another method of nicotine intake, or any other method for quitting smoking!
While the other Vets had to go outside, and a good distance away from the hospital to smoke, in the horrid heat and humidity we have here in Missouri, I was in an air-conditioned hospital! Had I been forced to go out with the smokers, I would have been adversely affected, physically, by the weather conditions. Not one person complained, I wasn't chain vaping (like I do at home or in the car), and everyone that questioned me about my PV, was genuinely interested.
We really need to get away from calling them ecigs, as there is no tobacco in them, some use 0 nicotine, there is no combustion, there is no smoke, they do not leave behind ash, or butts, etc. The more people use them in public, the more the general public will get use to seeing them, the more they will be accepted.
I fully agree that those in the industry need to utilize the media, via commercials, billboards, etc., to advertise their products, so that it does not remain somewhat "cultish". Right now, it seems the industry is relying on us to get the information out to the public, and we are NOT getting paid for it!
Agreed... we are all on the same side, enjoying vaping, legally.
+1000000000
"Hey is that an electronic cigarette?"
"Yes! I have read some positive studies and"
"Wait a minute! Didn't Starbucks just ban those?"
Then you are forced to produce overwhelming evidence to convince one person. Meanwhile the announcement has convinced countless thousands. Game OVER.
This isn't about Starbucks or about health. It is about vaping being equated to smoking and being singled out without any actual proof. Add to that the possibility that <insert any large company name here> is being used as a tool to facilitate media events which reduce your opinion to zero. Then you have freedom of speech but nobody to listen. You have been silenced.
Another unintended result of allowing a coffee shop to make up one's mind may be that those who smoke may now completely ignore vaping/snus etc. and continue to smoke by equating vaping to smoking.
"Yeah, I know I have to quit. I've tried so many times though and now is such a stressful time. I tried those electronic ones but with all the bans and stuff, they are probably just as bad."
Furthermore, coffee shops had traditionally been linked with smoking. The fact that this particular chain has created this policy is far more important than a large discount store when it comes to equating vaping to smoking.
Nobody questioned the ability of an owner to have certain requirements/rules on their property or in their business. However, once again, this chain is not a single family home nor is it the dry cleaner around the corner. What they decide, very very sadly, has an effect on the broader population and this thread is proof of that. I didn't see any threads started about John's Super Clean Cleaners in a small town in Idaho nor was John's Super Clean Cleaners ever a place were smokers purposely congregated.
Oh well.......So much opposition to simply acknowledging a possibility........this isn't my battle. Oddly, it is those who don't get it that have the greatest battles ahead.
Casaa has been doing some fabulous work. Those interested can go to those threads.
Last edited:
Your posts get more unreasonable, more off point, more into fantasy the more you post. First, you spend over have this post "chiding" VapingRulz for challenging your condescending and sarcastic comments. You don't acknowledge that your comments are condescending nor do you explain with specifics how they are not. Then you state that because VR disagrees with you, as many others have, that there is a clique developing (a sinister plot) to gang up on you. That paranora is peeking out.
Next, when many of us have correctly pointed out the falacy of your position that "vaping MUST be proven incontrovertibly to be 100% safe" or else we must never vape around others - we provide examples of many other products used daily that are not 100% safe to prove you are wrong - you brush that off as not relevant. (but in reality, you brush it off, because you have no answer). And then you go even farther and state that VR is "not smart" because he provided good criteria that demonstartes that YOUR requirements for anointing vaping as "safe" is way BEYOND what is accepted as reasonable and needed in today's world.
Your position is exactly the same as ASH, the FDA and the all the pharmaceutical companies who are continuing to work hard to ban the use of personal vaporizers by anyone. Their position is that without 10+ year studies (the norm for medications) that prove that vaping is 100% safe, the use of personal vaporizers should be prohibited.
Your requirement is also unreasonable because you never once mentioned who would conduct these studies and how they would be paid for since it would cost 10's of millions of dollars to conduct studies of this magnatude. I guess it is just another part of the "fantasy" world where all risk is elimintated. In an industry as small as this one, unlike Big Pharm, that money does not exist.
No one is against "reasonable" studies on vaping that are cost effective. And many have already been done. But you again, brush those aside as not meeting your "100% safe" rule, that by the way is not required of any other product in the ENTIRE world.
In essense, you are presenting a "benchmark" that you know can not be met, which then supports your postion that vaping must be viewed as just as dangerous to others as smoking, until it is proven to be 100% safe with 10 - 20 year studies, which cannot be done and on, and on, and on. The end result of your position is: vaping = smoking - stay 100 yards away from others. And your denial that you don't mean this, is NOT in line with your requirement.
Based on your position, which is completely in line with ASH, ALA, AHA, Big Pharm and the FDA, you are either a "plant" on this forum, incredibly naive or simply someone who likes to read their own words and "stir the pot".
Last edited:
Last warning. This thread is becoming more of a troll-fest than a discussion. Knock it off or it gets locked.
Last edited:
Just to lighten things a bit... Where do I get my 'NOVA' (Nicotine Or Vaping Assessment) volunteer card? I've been called a rat, skunk, dirty dog, lone wolf, snake in the grass, stubborn mule... but never a guinea pig!
As someone posted earlier, it isn't about drinking coffee, or eating McDonalds or anything other than vaping. Bringing up other dangers in the world means nothing. What is the argument? That life is full of dangers? Of course, and I agree. But, I am talking about using a product, that even though has not been shown to be dangerous to others as of yet might hold a possibility of negative effects on some people. Thus, I don't think it's wrong for an establishment to ban the use of the electronic cigarette indoors when others will be frequenting the same area that do not wish to be subjected to the vapor, even if the probability of any danger is tiny. In my honest opinion, it's not right for anyone to subject someone else to something if they wish not to be subjected to it. Fighting the ban of use of e-cigs in Starbucks because you do not want the product to be compared with cigarettes, okay, sure. What if people wish not to be subjected to vapor or vaping because of the message that vaping might carry? Which could lead to, 'Hey, it's okay to use nicotine, as long as it's in an electronic cigarette.' Or maybe some people just don't want to be around it, period. Then what should they do, aside of ban it... make a vaping section? Doesn't that correlate with smoking cigarettes? Having to be put in a separate section to enjoy our vice??? So, what then? Forget anyone who gets offended by vapor, forget any possibility no matter how small that it might carry some negative repercussions to anyone else, forget anyone else who's opinion is different than yours, the vaper, because otherwise, we'll lose all of our rights as vapers and will no longer be able to vape inside businesses??? Sheesh! A little one-sided, and I'M the one thinking like the FDA, right?
If you would take a poll, with the contents being, "If you could no longer vape, for no specific reasoning, would you smoke cigarettes?" Surely you'd get some 'nos' but I guarantee you'd get a great deal of "yes". From those in this forum and outside of it. So, if vaping is absolutely nothing like smoking, then why do we not need to smoke when vaping and might need to smoke if we're not vaping? Do not get me wrong, I will agree that the contents of each product are VASTLY different and should in no way be compared as far as how dangerous each one is, but, we vape so we don't have to smoke. Without vaping, do we smoke? Doesn't that make them comparible in that sense?
I'll not comment on the entire post, because I am done playing these childish games with you. You've been warned, it seems, by the moderator to leave the troll-posts out of it. So, I will address the bold. If you get it, great, if not, I'm done with you as you do not seem to be reasonable where as even those who agree with you have been.
I ask that the results are 100% proven to be safe, partially safe, or not safe. You keep misunderstanding this and love to bring it back over and over. You're not reading my posts, you're just stirring the pot, as you put. I will say it once more, and hopefully you get it. I ask that the results are 100% proven to be safe, partially safe, or not safe. Not 100% safe... moving on...
You're putting words into my mouth again. You're still stirring the pot, so to speak. I said I want solid, 100% results on how safe it is or isn't. I didn't say I wanted vaping to be prohibited, never once did I say that. I said, I will not endorse my personal use nor will I use my pv in public indoor facilities, in front of people who do not wish to be around it, or is an establishment doesn't wish that I use it and all of a sudden, this means I am in with the FDA! This means that I am staying silent and thus I am only hurting the cause of vaping, clearly because of this, I am opposed to vaping!
I did not want the use of pv's to be prohibited, I wanted us as a whole to respect the rules and regulations of a private company. Whether or not you do, I don't care, I am allowed my opinion without having to be subjected to name calling and ridicule. Next...
I asked for links, you never gave them. The reasoning is, because no other unregulated product in the entire world as been this close to being correlated with smoking thus it needs to be carefully monitored, studied and tested. I ask not for a couple of studies, I am asking (keep in mind, asking is the key word here, careful not to twist words around, to stir the pot...) for years of consistent results from numerous studies. From where? You seem to think that no one is making any attempt to study these products and I guess that is because you believe because they are currently being correlated with smoking cigarettes? (I can so no logical reason otherwise.) You continue to mock me and tell me that this fantasy world I am living in, in which the studies I ask for will not magically appear out of no where. Well, of course not. I was not aware that you knew of every study being conducted about vaping at this point in time, all over the world. May I have a copy of that list?
New studies release, and the more controversial and known electronic cigarettes become, the more studies will appear. No? I wish to see consistent results from however many studies it takes to ensure that we know everything about this product. But then again, why does it matter what I think? Why do you, or anyone else, care so much why I won't vape in public indoor areas? Am I telling you to stop? Nope. Am I calling you names? Nope. Am I saying that because you'll not see any other perspective other than your own being correct, and if one comes along that you may not agree with, you do everything in your power to down and degrade that person, and make wild assumptions about someone being affiliated with the FDA in some aspects, that you're ignorant in some aspects? Well, yeah. Moving on...
Okay, so let me get this straight. Starbucks bans vaping, this is a HUGE loss for the fight against gaining acceptance of vaping. Because, if someone sees that their beloved Starbucks doesn't allow vaping, then it MUST be bad for you or it MUST be just like smoking? And then, what do we need to do to show those people that this is incorrect? Tell them, "No no, you've got it all wrong. Take a look at THESE STUDIES that completely show that vaping is 'x' amount safer etc, etc... "Yeah, that's great, but I've read studies from the FDA showing that it IS dangerous." "Oh, but I am not done yet, there is this one and this one and this one and this one and this one, all consistently showing the SAME results, which is 'x'. So, my unrealistic, benchmark, that apparently I have no desire to be met (I'm just typing for practice, I guess?), will never be realized and this ultimately PROVES that I believe that vaping = smoking? And of course, my denial is not in line with my requirement. Moving on...
See, I really don't understand how you can say something like that. You're not trying to help someone understand your point of view, you're looking for unreasible word trading, and no thanks. I'm not with the FDA, I work at Dominos, making barely enough to scrape by while trying to graduate college... I am not so naive as you would try label me, just because someone disagrees with you or thinks differently, doesn't make them naive. You want me to cave and allow you to insult my posistion on this subject, Lord knows why because I do not. You wish to make my comments invalid by linking them to comments similar to organizations that are generally disliked in this forum. You are not doing anything, if not stirring the pot, sir. And since you do not seem to have any reason left in you, I will now put you on ignore. I do not need drama on the ECF, I live a drama-free existence. You can move on to someone else and instigate a hollow argument with them, because I am done with you.
Moving on...
I never smoked in front of them, and I don't drink in front of them.
Neither are illegal, and I don't hide the fact that as an adult I have the choice to partake in either. My kids know I used to smoke and now I have an electronic cigarette (they like that). I don't really drink, I have a beer or two in the fridge (probably should throw them out, bleh) and the kids know what they are, what alcohol is, and what consumption can do, but I do not drink in front of them.
Smoking/vaping/alcoholand don't play a role in who I am as Dad.
Yeah Levitas, and how dare you have an opinion that isn't the same as the majority around here!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
