To all my ecf brothers and sisters.....please read.
- Thread starter WyattDerp
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You can edit this out, if you desire, you're just speaking your mind, however unreasonable it may be or not.
I am not going to report you, I am not looking for a pitiful battle. I am really just trying to understand your point and take on the situation. I don't believe you need to call names to get your point across. If you don't want to answer my questions, so be it. But, I recommend that you do not get involved with a discussion just to call names and back out when someone asks you a reasonable question.
FYI, you can only edit a post so many times
Yes, you are being offensive, by calling childish names. We're adults and this is an adult forum with adult conversations, we left childish name calling back in grade school, I hope. And yes, using an analogy to compare an inability to vape inside public areas to a segment of history entailing the mass genocide of millions of people can be called extreme.
I asked you a couple of simple questions, if you want to answer them, excellent. We can talk like adults. If you're looking for a battle, then I am sorry, I'll just put you on ignore and move on. Your choice.
" A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom." -Thomas Paine from 'Common sense' 1776
Smoking was wrong when it was in vogue. We did it everywhere....in the house around our kids, in church, at the office, you name it. We just did not know any better. It took many years to educate and convince the public to stop it. I predict the same fate in reverse for e-cigs. Vapeing's day will come, with caveats.
"Don't worry, be happy" - some dude in a song
Smoking was wrong when it was in vogue. We did it everywhere....in the house around our kids, in church, at the office, you name it. We just did not know any better. It took many years to educate and convince the public to stop it. I predict the same fate in reverse for e-cigs. Vapeing's day will come, with caveats.
"Don't worry, be happy" - some dude in a song
I'm not backing out of anything. What do you want other than to surrender your personal freedoms. I'm not sure I can help you.
KeysBum,
I'll buy ya a beer or two or... at No Name Pub when I get down to BPKFL Site 56 in a couple of weeks!
Oh, can we vape in there?
USAF, MSgt Ret
I'll buy ya a beer or two or... at No Name Pub when I get down to BPKFL Site 56 in a couple of weeks!
Oh, can we vape in there?
USAF, MSgt Ret
Okay, why do I need help?
I asked, and will ask again. What do you feel needs to be done, to preserve the 'freedom' to vape in indoor public buildings? What would you do, in fact, what do you do? Just walk in and vape though the establishment bans it? I am truly curious.
And I also ask, what about the rights of those who do not wish to be subjected to the vapor? Must they forfeit their own right to sit and enjoy a cup of coffee without having to be around your vapor? Does that even matter?
I live one mile from the Pub. I vape in there all the time. It's the Keys. No one give a ..... I'll PM my contact info
He was making a point, and as a Jew, I did not find it offensive at all. As I stated previously, Freedom ISN'T Free. It is not just about Starbucks, it is a matter personal freedoms. Do we allow Government to rule us? If a stand is not taken, that is exactly what will happen. I do not agree with an "in your face" approach, but at the same time we can not be sheep, to be lead where our handlers wish us to go. You work within the system to change the system. Send letters to Starbucks Corp Office with information concerning PVs. Show them the advantages, financially, of allowing vaping in their stores. They could host a national Vape Day at Starbucks! That's not sitting back and just accepting, it's fighting back in an intelligent, rational way.
As for the concentration camps, and death camps, most had no idea what was going to happen (though some may well have had a suspicion, but not to the extent it was to be), as the Nazis didn't want a panic amongst so many people. Most were told they were being relocated. Sadly, they were sheep, following what they were told to do.
You are assuming that all who vape, blown plumes of vapor at others. I've yet to read one post from a Vaper saying that he/she would even consider blowing their vapor at others. From what I've read, everyone seems very considerate of others, EXCEPT those that do not vape and wish it to be banned (not on ECF). Except for stronger juices, most vapor has little aroma, less then most perfumes worn. Many, if not most, people would not even know a person was vaping if they didn't see the vapor.
I vaped in an airplane, back in 2009. The only person that knew about it was the older lady sitting next to me. She told me she was allergic to cigarette smoke. I explained what my PV was, asked if she would mind, which she replied no. I was vaping McCormick's peppermint, and the woman enjoyed the light minty smell! I did not blow the vapor up, (fear that others may panic, thoughts of 9/11), but blew it down towards the back of the seat in front of me. The person in the seat in front of me had no idea that I was vaping, nor did anyone else.
All indoor food establishments have air-conditioning, and many have air filtration systems. Vapor has a short "life", unlike cigarette smoke that lingers. If, people were vaping around non-Vapers, in an enclosed area, without any ventillation, yes, it would be inconsiderate and should not be. In a restaurant, Starbucks, etc., that has ventillation, the vapor is too short lived to cause a problem, other than aroma from stronger juices.
Look at your own vapor after you exhale. It disipates rather quickly, it does not linger, like cigarette smoke. Go into a shower stall with your PV, chain vape and see how fast it disipates. If you know someone that still smokes, ask them to do the same thing....... the cigarette smoke will fill up the stall, the vapor won't.
Regardless if you were offended or not, I was, as it is quite offensive to compare the two. You're telling me, out of the millions of people sent to die, none of them had any idea? None of them were aware when they're family, friends and neighbors were being murdered? This is off subject, we can discuss this via PM if you'd like.
On subject again: I agree, those are appropriate steps to lifting any negative correlation with the ban. What it seems like to me is that most of the issue isn't about actually being able to vape in Starbucks, but rather that it might bring a dastardly image of vaping to the public eye. If Starbucks doesn't budge in their ban, what then? We do what we've continued to do, right? Inform, word of mouth. You're vaping, respectably, and someone asks and you inform. It spreads like wildfire, it already has. I personally don't find the ban of Starbucks to be that large of a negative impact against vaping, or our ability to vape. This might be seen as ignorant, or perhaps I don't know what I am talking about, so be it. It's going to take more than a ban from Starbucks to completely debunk vaping and it's going to take a whole lot more than convincing Starbucks that it's okay to vape, to lift any negative correlation with vaping to smoking (mostly).
And you're assuming that just because it dissapates quickly, that still it will not offend some people. Emperically, the vaping disappears, to someone who knows little about vaping, how do they know if the vapor is truly gone? Just because they see it gone?
Perhaps it isn't only the vapor that might offend, but the act of doing it in the first place? Who am I or you or anyone to say that this person shouldn't be offended by something like vaping? Vaping isn't a right given to us, for the most part, we're all vaping because we no longer wish to smoke cigarettes. These were our choices in life, smoking and vaping. We are no longer allowed to smoke around others publically, because it has been proven without a doubt to be dangerous to others. Vaping has not, but that does not give us the right to subject anyone to any element of it because they aren't choosing to vape, we are. They didn't choose to smoke, we did. It's about respect and giving everyone the ability to frequent whatever building without having to be subjected to something that they themselves did not have a choice in the matter.
If an establishment allows it, GREAT! Those who are offended can choose not to enter. But if it's not allowed, why not respect it? Because it might be a martyr to a greater cause, which is what? Our ability to vape in indoor public places? The appropriate measures, you have named and I agree. But, if you cannot win a battle against Starbucks, does that really mean you lost a battle for vaping?
Last edited:
Excellent response.
When we had our last Vape Meet here in the Atlanta area in April, I specifically asked the manager and several of the waitresses to take note of the vaper during our gathering because I wanted to ask them some questions after the event was over. There were about 50 of us who attended and it lasted about 5-6 hours. I asked them if the vapor was bothersome to them in any way, did it smell bad or was it over-powering. They all stated that there was not a bad smell, in fact they said they barely notice any smell at all. They all stated that it was not irratating or offensive in any way. They also stated that the vapor dissipated very quickly. Two of the waitresses did not smoke and one did smoke. That was with 50 vapers all vaping at the same time.
It's a unfortunate that some seem interested only in fear mongering.
... to spar with KeysBum and WAC_Vet.
Day-um dude, the Gettysburg Address was a lot shorter than your pontifications.
And soooo much more succinct!
... to spar with KeysBum and WAC_Vet.
Day-um dude, the Gettysburg Address was a lot shorter than your pontifications.
Why must it be like that? I am not trying to battle, I am trying to conversate. Everyone has their own opinions, and most of us feel strongly about them. There is nothing wrong with that at all! When it comes down to name calling, and being outright rude, then yes, that is where the line should be drawn.
Should I just shut up and not post how I feel because others don't agree with what I say? I would wager there are people reading that might agree with me, but do not wish to deal with the negative aspects of being on a different side of a particular opinion, which includes being insulted. They may not post because they may not feel that their opinions would be accepted or maybe they just don't feel like getting into the conversation.
You think I am trying to fight, I am just trying to talk.
... to spar with KeysBum and WAC_Vet.
Day-um dude, the Gettysburg Address was a lot shorter than your pontifications.
So well said. It's interesting the excuses and rationalizations some make when they finally realize they are so far out in "left field", that the game has been over for hours and they had no clue.
Do you know one meaning of sparring? "To contest in words". I never said 'fight'. Just goes to show...
DONG - Round two...
To me, e-cigarettes are just a substitute for cigarettes. I continue the same habits and usage of a PV as I did for cigarette smoking. I know there are those who feel we have a responsibility to spread the acceptance of e-cigs throughout the land and I respect your zealotry. In any movement there are firebrands who want to push the limits beyond what the rank and file are willing to do. Personally, I don’t feel it is my responsibility to make public PV usage an issue. Especially if it’s directed at me. I’m a senior. I go to the rec center and work out every day and then go to the senior center for the lunch they offer. Never would I consider vaping at the rec center or at the senior center. The overwhelming desire to have a nic fix never crosses my mind as I’m so used to not smoking at these places anyway.
In the end it all boils down to perception and what is the agenda. It appears that there are those who feel we are all expected to be advocates of e-cigarettes and promote their use. On the other hand there are those of us, myself included, who took up vaping as a substitute for smoking. We continue the same usage of the PV that we did when we were smoking cigarettes. It’s not like there is a divide. It’s more of an attitude. Those who want to actively advocate for and protest for more popular acceptance of e-cigs should further the cause, so to speak. Just remember that peaceful protest is just that. It’s somebody in your face with an agenda.
E-cigarettes are just a substitute for cigarettes. Let’s not forget that and keep trying to put lipstick on a pig. It will only come back to bite us in the end. That’s what I think about all this.
In the end it all boils down to perception and what is the agenda. It appears that there are those who feel we are all expected to be advocates of e-cigarettes and promote their use. On the other hand there are those of us, myself included, who took up vaping as a substitute for smoking. We continue the same usage of the PV that we did when we were smoking cigarettes. It’s not like there is a divide. It’s more of an attitude. Those who want to actively advocate for and protest for more popular acceptance of e-cigs should further the cause, so to speak. Just remember that peaceful protest is just that. It’s somebody in your face with an agenda.
E-cigarettes are just a substitute for cigarettes. Let’s not forget that and keep trying to put lipstick on a pig. It will only come back to bite us in the end. That’s what I think about all this.
No need for PMs, I've spoken with many survivors. I did not write "all", I wrote "most". Most were told they were being relocated to work camps. Never again... we will never again be led off like sheep to the slaughter. Yes, the comparison is extreme, but I believe he was trying to convey that we, Americans, can not allow ourselves to be led like sheep, like those in Germany.
Being led like sheep, is accepting the FDA's study of PVs without question, because it is an agency of our Government. That is what has been happening. Many of us feel a duty to dispel the myths, ease the fear that the FDA has created. At the present time, we are limited, but we are not without valid ammunition. I agree, if we do not make our stand, these bans will end up becoming Federal Law. Look how States have been creating Laws banning PVs.....it's a short step to Federal.
I personally do not go to Starbucks, but some apparently see it as an important "battle" in the war being waged against vaping. As it is a franchise, I would venture to say that it may well be an important battle to be waged. How much influence Starbucks has on the general public, I really don't know, but I do support trying to get them to remove the ban.
Common sense, the vapor is created from heat... heat that is hotter than the surrounding air. Water is heavier than air, so is PG. In the small amounts that are used in the "juice", after becoming a vapor, entering the body which is approximately 98, then exhaled, the PG and water that is released through exhalation, will disperse, and without the heat return to their liquid form. The New Zealand study used machines that do not absorb any of the mist, as our bodies do, they can only measure the mist that we inhale, not that which we exhale, so their results are higher.
This argument could be used for just about anything.... as previously stated by another poster concerning perfume. Should I be subjected to the smell of coffee in an elevator? We can not ban something, because "maybe" someone may object. To ban something, because it "looks like" something else, makes no sense. How is it disrespectful to vape, if the Vaper is not blowing plumes in the direction of another person? How is it disrespectful to vape, if he vapor is no where near another person? How is it disrespectful if the vapor has no noticeable odor?
I believe it depends on WHY Starbucks bans vaping. If they ban it due to the FDA study, or because they equate it to smoking, yes, it is a loss for vaping. If they ban it because they fear that people may fill their PVs, with juice that has nicotine in it, while in Starbucks, that is a different story. Nicotine is considered a poison, and not something that should be used around food.
I do not agree with some of what you've posted, but I will defend your right to voice your opinion!
No. The argument is that certain activities are being singled out and attacked despite the fact that they have not been proven to pose a danger while other activities that have been proven to pose a danger are allowed to continue. Furthermore, it is my contention that the vast majority of these harmful activities that are "controlled" but allowed to continue, line the pockets of certain groups and have created an incestuous relationship at the expense of the people participating in those activities.
This has been documented countless times in counteless industries and this is where vaping is headed. If you feel comfortable with high-level pharma executives being employed by the FDA or FDA regulators being employed by big pharma that is definitely your right.
Many states regulate it as beer. Ok. Many states but not all. Where have the states that DON'T regulate it as beer gone wrong? Please realize I don't even drink. This is a matter of principle; not beer.
All I am asking is for you to question why the ban is in place. Complete this sentence: PV bans exist because.............
How do you know he hasn't acted in this highly unnatural way in order to make a headline? Throwing pretzels at a flight attendant? You can't dream this stuff up!
Think back to all the people you have ever met and talked to throughout your life. Please count how many times you discussed throwing pretzels at a flight attendant.
For me, this has little to do with a coffee shop (that I avoid) and their decisions.
You have politely argued all this time in support of the ban only to ask me what do to now that it is in place? I know the dangers behind unjustified bans and decided to spend an inordinate amount of time to emphasize it.
Once you are in the position of wondering about how you got into a specific predicament, it is usually too late. Please re-read the previous sentence a few times.
I wish I was a nico addict. The patch and gum would have eliminated any and all cravings.
Obviously there is more to it.
A person has the flu and stands in line at aforementioned coffee shop. They cough and sneeze a few times while waiting. What right do they have to spread their virus that may land me in bed for a week? Are they banned?
The end result is that a topic that would otherwise be confined to the legal threads has gone mainstream and received far more views. Whether or not the end result was the intended outcome is not for me to judge. I participated with complete honesty.
EDIT: I too received a PM and will not engage in side conversations concerning topics addressed extensively in this thread. I cannot, in good conscience, support any type of ban (not just vaping related) without proper scientific evidence. I, once again, offer a link to what appears to be a proper, objective and scientific approach to complete the Indoor Vapor Air Quality Study
http://www.ivaqs.com/
It is my sincere hope there are many more such studies so as to advance our scientific understanding. This way we can all judge (and be judged) based on facts and not on opinion, conjecture, feelings, appearance and associations.
I look forward to the truth regardless of the findings !
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
