I find that amazing... how did you get away with this when they are toddlers? As I said, I couldn't get private bathroom time when my children were small, and now I'm going through it with Grandchildren. Toddlers have to be watched constantly, unless they are asleep, and some won't leave your side (I have a Grandson like that now).
To all my ecf brothers and sisters.....please read.
- Thread starter WyattDerp
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
My ex wife (non smoker) was with my two daytime when they were 7 and 3. Then after taking custody, for a year and a half me and the wee one hung out (I was still a non-smoker then) until he went into all day kindergarten. Met a girl (started smoking again after 10 years----dummy) and added 2 more (of hers) to the brood. So, I never had toddlers when I was a smoker.
I myself just cannot advocate this whole "stealth vape" thinking .. hey, if it's against the rules, it's against the rules .. OK, so I sound like a wimp I know ..
My "rights" as far as vaping is concerned IMO are that I am permitted to Vape in any place that I was permitted to smoke OR have obtained permission from the PTB to vape in their establishment/home. as an example I am allowed to vape at my desk at work and in the office of the owner when in a meeting or in any other area that is not visible to the customer. HOWEVER the person in the desk next to mine does not like the smell of blueberry vape, and so I still have the right to vape, but no longer do I have the right to vape blueberry. Period. End of argument. There is no vaping amendment to the constitution. There is no supreme court of vapor. If I want to fight it than I'll be back outside with the smokers, so I'll stick to banana, to which he is indifferent, and to cherry, which he admits to enjoying the smell of.
I see that you are from Canada, so I will excuse you for not being familier with the United States Constitution or the Bill of rights.
Very short answer, If it hasn't already been made illegal, you can.
Disagree? Say BAAAH
Summary of Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties
I respectfully suggest that you read this because nowhere is it written or even suggested that anything not illegal is therefor legal. You do have certain personal rights, and so does the man/woman/child standing next to you. Also remember that majority rules and smokers are now a minority, and vapers are an even smaller minority.
Really, so, addiction isn't something they both share and can be compared with one another? Because that's exactly what I was talking about, they're comparible because of the addiction, both physiological and psychological.
No doubt. But, given that this is the situation that we're in, how do you think we should handle this? The banning of using the electronic cigarette in Starbucks. What exactly do you believe needs to be done?
"The problem is that we have vapers who still consider themselves to be smokers, all evidence to the contrary. "
So, it is like smoking, but the problem is that we have vapers who still think they are smokers?
My faulty conclusion? On beer? Did I say something about beer? I thought we were discussion vaping
I am "familier" with your constitution. I would hasten a guess that on the other hand, you would not be so familiar with our Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.
I do not understand your "BAAAH" reference, could you please explain?
as i always say, use sources, but analyze and think critically about your sources. =)
Even when we know that electronic cigarettes produce just vapor (and therefore they do not pollute and produce second hand smoke) we should not assume that other people will like when we vape next to them... it is just a matter of respect for other people and businesses that have a defined policy.
I have no problem with following the rules, or being courteous to others regarding vaping.
What I do have a problem with is vaping being lumped in with smoking bans simply because it looks like smoking, or "might" be harmful. The vast majority of the data available indicates that vapor is not harmful, not to the user and especially not to bystanders. The basis of much of the "looks like smoking" is that vaping will encourage smoking. The message that we need to put out is that it will discourage smoking, because it provides a far, far better alternative to smoking.
Second-hand smoke, and even smoking itself, isn't a problem because of the nicotine, but because of the thousands of other harmful chemicals that are contained in cigarette smoke. Nicotine alone is not particularly addictive according to some studies, and certainly not at the residual level that might be present in exhaled vapor.
We may not have a "right" to vape (or smoke), but we do have a general right to do things that we enjoy doing.
What I do have a problem with is vaping being lumped in with smoking bans simply because it looks like smoking, or "might" be harmful. The vast majority of the data available indicates that vapor is not harmful, not to the user and especially not to bystanders. The basis of much of the "looks like smoking" is that vaping will encourage smoking. The message that we need to put out is that it will discourage smoking, because it provides a far, far better alternative to smoking.
Second-hand smoke, and even smoking itself, isn't a problem because of the nicotine, but because of the thousands of other harmful chemicals that are contained in cigarette smoke. Nicotine alone is not particularly addictive according to some studies, and certainly not at the residual level that might be present in exhaled vapor.
We may not have a "right" to vape (or smoke), but we do have a general right to do things that we enjoy doing.
I understand your thought process here, but when you have no other option available...ie., you have the nic addiction, did not bring gum, lozenges, etc. with you, have your VP nwith you, and something unexpected arises that causes you to be delayed in a non-smoking situation, such as being stuck on the ground, in an airplane (we were told, "indefinitely"), the thought of stealth vaping may cross your mind! After 40+ years of nicotine intake, after so many hours without it, I am NOT a nice person. No, I did not stealth vape, as we did take off within minutes, but if in such a situation again, I just may!
That doesn't seem like a right to me, only a workplace concession.
I agree with most of this, to an extent. I would like to request the study you spoke of that claimed that nicotine alone was not particularily addicitive, if you've access to it and do not mind.
My original response to this ban was that we should respect the rules and the fact that not everyone wants to be around the vapor, regardless of how dangerous it is. But, my personal standpoint on why I will not vape indoors in public is what caused a huge debate, so, I guess I should've just kept my opinion to myself around certain folk, but, my original point remains.
It was always about respect. Even though people may not admit it, some do not want to be around you vaping or your vapor, and you subjecting those people to it is, in my opinion, rude. Just sayin'
Last edited:
My Doctor calls me a nico addict .. all the info I have seems to indicate nico is addictive .. I consider myself an addict .. however, I am firmly convinced residual vaper from a PV is no more a problem than passing gas ..
I don't disagree .. however, I believe those that do stealth are taking a risk .. our industry is in it's infancy, with forces rallying against us as we speak .. we must attempt to stay within some boundary unless we want to risk additional problems in the future .. and I was a 40 year smoker as well ..
Total agreement from me and I found a link...
Nicotine Addiction
BUT, I do agree that nicotine, which from the studies of vaping that I have seen, is almost totally absent from the exhaled vapor. The biggest problem is that we are trying to prove a negative. I can PROVE that second hand smoke IS harmful, but it's a lot harder to prove that second hand vape ISN'T.
Last edited:
Here's one: Professor: Nicotine does not cause cigarette addiction | The State Press - An independent daily serving Arizona State University
The Wiki on Nicotine also has good information: Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (3rd paragraph under Psychoactive Effects).
Just Google "nicotine not addictive". There's a wealth of information out there, pro and con.
Thank you! I will read it now.
Edit: I don't think that it means that nicotine isn't addictive at all. I read the original article, but could not find a link to the study? Maybe I missed it?
The wikipedia, well, I never really trust wikipedia, but, it's a great way to get started! Since you specified a paragraph, I went there and found this, "Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties.[44] However, after coadministration with an MAOI, such as those found in tobacco, nicotine produces significant behavioral sensitization, a measure of addiction potential. This is similar in effect to amphetamine.[24]"
But, you have to use their sources to get to the nitty gritty, which was source number 44 there, and here that is, http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593.full Which is a study on how much more rats became addicited, or rather, how much more they self administered nicotine after being subjected to a MAOI, or Monoamine oxidase inhibitor. But, it is not 100% saying that nicotine by itself is not at all addiciting. No doubt not NEARLY as addiciting as nicotine used in a cigarette, which I have always agreed with that.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
