To all my ecf brothers and sisters.....please read.

[VapingRulz]

And what exactly do you think an electronic cigarete/e-cig/PV is? It's an electronic device that is intended to look and taste like its carcinogenic equivelant.

That's exactly my point.

And the analogy YOU provided twice now with regards to alcohol has only reinforced the link. We are swapping e-cigs for real ones just as your theoretical alcoholic has swapped nada-ritas for the alcoholic versions.

That's right.

Yes. Because your future as a public vaper, and perhaps a vaper at all is directly tied to the court of public opinion and in the current public view you are smoking.

Oh, you were doing so well...

My future as a public vaper should be tied to scientific evidence only - not to public opinion or a bug up anyone's .....

I agree...IF we are talking about the physical act of smoking than yes, scientifically you are correct, there is no smoke.

Hence it is not smoking.

But what we are talking about here is not the physical realities of smoking OR vaping. We are talking about the public view, the majority view, the only view that should matter to you if you ever expect any form of legitimacy.

This is where you are wrong. We are talking about science, educating the public, and standing up for our rights. As I've said numerous times, the onus is not on vapers to prove legitimacy. In the meantime, vapers and their supporters should vote with their wallets and boycott any business that prohibits vaping out of ignorance and/or convenience. They do not have any scientific evidence to back up their stance - and neither do you.

You might as well bring a baseball bat and bash in the head of a Starbucks manager because you can't vape there, because in the eyes of the people who will eventually make the decision for you regardless of whether you want them to or not, the scene you cause by insisting that you have some magical "right" to vape away wherever you are is doing MORE damage than that. At least if you beat the guy to death there's a chance nobody will remember the PV.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I do vape discreetly in Starbucks and have for a year and a half. I never knew that they objected. I suspect that most vaping customers don't know they have a non-vaping policy in place - they certainly don't advertise it. However, now that I know about their nonsensical, ignorant ban, I will not spend a dime at Starbucks - or Lowe's. I will also make my objections clear to both companies with a letter to corporate. If every vaper - and all of their family members, friends and supporters - did the same, we would likely see them pay closer attention. That's how capitalism works. They don't really care about vaping, or smoking, for that matter. They care about media attention and profits. Starbucks is already suffering in this economy; they can ill afford to lose more customers.

I don't live my life according to the whims and prejudices of others with an agenda that I disagree with, or an uneducated view that is not based on any scientific evidence.

 

[VapingRulz]

You seem to be quite passionate about this subject, but, being a complete extremist isn't going to solve anything.

It is the only way we're going to win.

I personally find it VERY offensive that you would use an analogy like, "well, the rules are I have to get on the train to Auschwitz, I've got to abide by the rules." to not being being able to vape in public buildings. Those people had no choice because there was probably a gun barrel pointed directly in their face when they were told to board the train. Really man, this is just sad.

As someone who majored in Holocaust Studies as an undergrad, I can tell you that you're wrong about that - but that's a discussion for another forum. What he's trying to tell you is that playing nice and by the rules doesn't work when the game is rigged. Appeasement doesn't work, either.

Also, how do you feel about others' rights? About those who do not wish to be around the vapor? Should they forfeit their right to enjoy coffee in an enviroment without vapor, or does that not matter?

Why do you keep asking this silly question? Why the assumption that anyone who doesn't vape has the right to dictate whether or not the air in a coffee shop smells like coffee - or blueberries?

 

[APD99]

Why do you keep asking this silly question? Why the assumption that anyone who doesn't vape has the right to dictate whether or not the air in a coffee shop smells like coffee - or blueberries?

Why do you constantly assert that somehow the right of the minority is more important than the right of the majority? If 4 people are in a public enclosed area than they all have the same rights, if one of them is a vaper and the other 3 tell him not to vape, than by your argument the correct answer is "Stuff it, My right to vape is more important than your right to not have to be near it.". I really hope you don't seriously believe that because it is most certainly not the case. And as far as not having to appease the public, this is where you are the most off base. Public opinion is EVERYTHING. It's what wins elections, it's what keeps companies in business, it's what passes laws, and it's what is going to make or break the PV industry. How many businesses in your area are closed down because the public opinion was that they weren't up to par? I can name at least 5 in mine. Scientific studies show that ......... is safer than alcohol, but which one is illegal? It's illegal because the PUBLIC believes that it's not safe. And as for being a sheep? I don't blindly follow the rules. I follow the rules while working to change them in the proper manner which is through explanation, education, and example, most certainly NOT by beating people over the head with your ideals. Confrontation closes minds, conversation opens them.

 

[ricks]

I firmly believe that the makers and creators of these e-cigs wanted these to be a safe and alternative way for us to continue our habit without the harmful effects of anologs. E-cigs were created to be used in public.

 

[imbt01]

I firmly believe that the makers and creators of these e-cigs wanted these to be a safe and alternative way for us to continue our habit without the harmful effects of anologs. E-cigs were created to be used in public.

Thanks Ricks......That's what I thought too. E-cigs, PV's, were made to be used in public without exposing anyone (including ourselves) to the harmful effects of anologs. I'm sad about this, because I've never wanted to offend anyone with my analog smoke, and now I have to go and hide in the bushes with my PV. With the opinions on this Forum that vaping is also infringing on other's 'rights', it truly won't be long before it will be illegal in ALL States. It is already illegal in some States.

 

[Uncle Willie]

I firmly believe that the makers and creators of these e-cigs wanted these to be a safe and alternative way for us to continue our habit without the harmful effects of anologs. E-cigs were created to be used in public.

We can now agree .. "In 2003, Chinese pharmacist, Hon Lik invented the electronic cigarette as a safer, and cleaner way to inhale nicotine after his father, a heavy smoker, passed away from lung cancer attributed to smoking tobacco cigarettes."

 

[WAC_Vet]

Interesting post, but you seem to forget that rights are not subjected to majority or minority. If that were so, then blacks and women would not have been afforded the right to vote! You are also confusing rights, with common courtesy....ie., manners. Is it proper for a person to vape while in a small enclosed area with non-vapers, against their wishes? With that, one has to look at the situation.... are they stuck on that elevator, and if so, for how long and how long until they begin moving again....is the elevator in proper working condition and the trip will be a normal time frame? If, the elevator is functioning properly, not stuck for an extended period of time, then it would be inconsiderate for a person to vape in such a situation. With that said, there may also be a situation where such an activity causes extreme high anxiety, and vaping is necessary as an anxiety controlling instrument.

As for those that seem to think that vaping is a smoking alternative.... It does begin, for many, as a smoking alternative, BUT there is a time that, that vaping no long is a smoking alternative, and smoking becomes a vaping alternative! From what I've been reading, through many posts, given a choice, a Vaper will choose their PV OVER an analog. Vaping takes on a character of it's own. It STARTS as a smoking alternative, but becomes a different activity, with many of us changing habits with it. I would NEVER have considered smoking raspberry cigarettes, yet I vape raspberry, coconut, bubblegum, flavors. I would never bring my Congo African Grey into my bedroom with me smoking, yet I bring him in here while I'm chain vaping. I've even eaten and vaped at the same time, because I find some flavors, make whatever I'm eating, taste better with an interesting flavor twist, and vice versa! Vaping is an activity of it's own, it is NOT smoking, but smoking is an alternative for vaping (though not as pleasurable).

 

[WAC_Vet]

We can now agree .. "In 2003, Chinese pharmacist, Hon Lik invented the electronic cigarette as a safer, and cleaner way to inhale nicotine after his father, a heavy smoker, passed away from lung cancer attributed to smoking tobacco cigarettes."

Yes, and a pharmacist created coca cola as a medicine, vibrators were originally a medical device, and the list continues. Hon Lik, an AWESOME inventer, did invent our lovely PVs as an alternative to smoking, but they have "morphed" into what we have today, an activity enjoyed around the world!

 

[Uncle Willie]

Quite obviously, this debate shows the division within our community .. however, a debate is always a good thing, but only really works well if all sides at least consider all the points .. and refrain from name calling and personal attacks .. (BTW .. @KeysBum .. I have the right to call myself a wimp .. you have no right to that nor the word "sheep" .. I spent a year in Vietnam in the late 1960's as a combat medic/Special Forces and was homeless for 2 years after returning to the World .. and even at my age, I'm far from a sheep .. the US Army taught me discipline and respect among other things, which I excercise as it relates to e-cig use in public.. )

I fully support the use of the tech at any and all places and I am convinced it is essentially harmless to the public at large .. however, I have no fantasy about the ability of any place that bans the use exercising their right to do so .. No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service ..

My vote is for you young folks out there to lead the charge .. myself, I believe change comes from working within the system ..

 

[APD99]

Interesting post, but you seem to forget that rights are not subjected to majority or minority. If that were so, then blacks and women would not have been afforded the right to vote! You are also confusing rights, with common courtesy....ie., manners. Is it proper for a person to vape while in a small enclosed area with non-vapers, against their wishes? With that, one has to look at the situation.... are they stuck on that elevator, and if so, for how long and how long until they begin moving again....is the elevator in proper working condition and the trip will be a normal time frame? If, the elevator is functioning properly, not stuck for an extended period of time, then it would be inconsiderate for a person to vape in such a situation. With that said, there may also be a situation where such an activity causes extreme high anxiety, and vaping is necessary as an anxiety controlling instrument.

As for those that seem to think that vaping is a smoking alternative.... It does begin, for many, as a smoking alternative, BUT there is a time that, that vaping no long is a smoking alternative, and smoking becomes a vaping alternative! From what I've been reading, through many posts, given a choice, a Vaper will choose their PV OVER an analog. Vaping takes on a character of it's own. It STARTS as a smoking alternative, but becomes a different activity, with many of us changing habits with it. I would NEVER have considered smoking raspberry cigarettes, yet I vape raspberry, coconut, bubblegum, flavors. I would never bring my Congo African Grey into my bedroom with me smoking, yet I bring him in here while I'm chain vaping. I've even eaten and vaped at the same time, because I find some flavors, make whatever I'm eating, taste better with an interesting flavor twist, and vice versa! Vaping is an activity of it's own, it is NOT smoking, but smoking is an alternative for vaping (though not as pleasurable).

Interesting that you should choose those words because if you recall blacks and women WERE NOT permitted to vote until they convinced the MAJORITY that they should be included.

 

[WAC_Vet]

Interesting that you should choose those words because if you recall blacks and women WERE NOT permitted to vote until they convinced the MAJORITY that they should be included.

Actually, it was the Constitution that gave Blacks the right to vote, the American people did not vote on that. Women were a different story. Our wonderful Constitution protects the minority from losing rights being voted away by the majority, as such cases are eventually brought before the SCOTUS, if relief is not found in the lower Courts. I LOVE this Country!!!

 

[APD99]

Actually, it was the Constitution that gave Blacks the right to vote, the American people did not vote on that. Women were a different story. Our wonderful Constitution protects the minority from losing rights being voted away by the majority, as such cases are eventually brought before the SCOTUS, if relief is not found in the lower Courts. I LOVE this Country!!!

I suggest you try telling that to the gay couple who wants to get married, and the constitution doesn't just magically spring forth new writing.

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Constitutional Amendments

So again it takes a MAJORITY to give or revoke rights, and anybody who thinks that the constitution can't take away needs to remember prohibition.

 

[WAC_Vet]

I suggest you try telling that to the gay couple who wants to get married, and the constitution doesn't just magically spring forth new writing.

This is an area that will eventually come before the SCOTUS, and rightfully so!

Constitutional Amendments

So again it takes a MAJORITY to give or revoke rights, and anybody who thinks that the constitution can't take away needs to remember prohibition.

The majority can not take rights away from a protective minority without due process! "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Vaping, like drinking Pepsi, is not a right, protected by the U.S Constitution. These are choices made, not a matter of life (though the possibility exists that may be argued), liberty or property... though it could be argued that they are part of the pursuit of happiness, but an argument using the Declaration of Independence, I would venture to say, would not hold up in Court.

 

[APD99]

This is an area that will eventually come before the SCOTUS, and rightfully so!

I agree and was simply using it as an example.

The majority can not take rights away from a protective minority without due process! "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Vaping, like drinking Pepsi, is not a right, protected by the U.S Constitution. These are choices made, not a matter of life (though the possibility exists that may be argued), liberty or property... though it could be argued that they are part of the pursuit of happiness, but an argument using the Declaration of Independence, I would venture to say, would not hold up in Court.

OK now I'm confused because that's what I've been saying this entire time.

...the scene you cause by insisting that you have some magical "right" to vape away wherever you are is doing MORE damage than that.

Vaping IS NOT a right and the people in this thread who are insisting that it is their right to vape wherever, whenever are just plain wrong. And due process could very well remove public vaping from existence by simply declaring it a harassment to others and making it a right of non-vapers (a.k.a. the majority of average citizens) to not be assaulted by your vapor. This is why I have been advocating from the start conversation over confrontation. I don't want to lose my PRIVILEGE to vape because public opinion feels that it infringes on their RIGHT to not be harassed.

 

[WAC_Vet]

OK now I'm confused because that's what I've been saying this entire time. Vaping IS NOT a right and the people in this thread who are insisting that it is their right to vape wherever, whenever are just plain wrong. And due process could very well remove public vaping from existence by simply declaring it a harassment to others and making it a right of non-vapers (a.k.a. the majority of average citizens) to not be assaulted by your vapor. This is why I have been advocating from the start conversation over confrontation. I don't want to lose my PRIVILEGE to vape because public opinion feels that it infringes on their RIGHT to not be harassed.

People do confuse RIGHTS with rights. Do I have the right to drink Pepsi? Yes. Does the Constitution guarantee me the RIGHT to drink Pepsi, no. I have the right to make the choice to drink Pepse, as oppose to Coke, because the Government is not "suppose" to have the power to enforce it's authority in what commercial product I chose. Let's not get Obama care, as that will just make this thread a political one, as oppose to one of intelligent debate concerning our desire to vape.

Cigarette smoking has been "proven" to be a public health concern, and with that our Government has the authority to regulate it's use, to a certain extent. Our Government will not totally ban their use, due to financial reasons. Vaping has not be "proven" to be a public health concern, though the FDA did make a feeble attempt at making it so. At the present time, our Government has not seen financial benefits from PVs (though I'm sure someone is trying to figure that one out). If, Vapers, sellers, and producers employ Lobbyests, smoozing with Politicians, we could see bans being lifted. Until there is unity and strength within our "interests", we will have to continue to address each ban, individually, and address them, we must!

 

[VapingRulz]

Why do you constantly assert that somehow the right of the minority is more important than the right of the majority?

That's a strange argument. It's not the non-vapers in the coffee shop who are objecting in the first place - it's the corporate talking heads and the local and state governmental entities. We're talking about law and/or policy here, not etiquette.

You don't have a very good grasp on the mechanics involved in public policy decision-making. It's not the pompous jerk sitting next to you who's causing the pv bans at this point in time - but it will be soon if we don't object vigorously now. There is no firm "public opinion" about ecigs yet because the vast majority of the general public has no idea what they are. And if you really believe that consumables in our society are made illegal for safety reasons, you really do need to rethink that. We have no shortage of very dangerous pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drugs, and foods that are widely available to the public in every 24-hour supermarket and drugstore in the land.

 

[VapingRulz]

So again it takes a MAJORITY to give or revoke rights, and anybody who thinks that the constitution can't take away needs to remember prohibition.

I really hope that you're not trying to argue that the majority of the population agreed with Prohibition because that would be incorrect.

Remember that it's those who make the most noise who effect change in America - not the majority. It has *never* been the majority.

 

[oldsoldier]

That's a strange argument. It's not the non-vapers in the coffee shop who are objecting in the first place - it's the corporate talking heads and the local and state governmental entities. We're talking about law and/or policy here, not etiquette.

Exactly, we are talking about the RIGHT of the property owner to determine what they deem acceptable use on their property. Which incidentally is supported by LAW.

The right you have to argue the point with the property owner only gets you so far if your actions are not supported by constitutional law. Since vaping is not a protected right you don't have the proverbial (legal) leg to stand upon. Convincing the property owner by voting with your feet and/or educating the property owner are viable options, as is legal assembly. Anything else is not only likely to have unwanted backlash, but may also result in legal action. Of course there are those that don't care and are willing to suffer the consequences, but I'd venture to say that most people don't fall into that category.

 

[VapingRulz]

Vaping IS NOT a right

Really? Says who? In what context? If it is banned by any one company or governmental entitity, it is no longer a right... in their respective domains only. Absent that ban, it is indeed a right.

I think we should be asking a different question. What gives any taxpayer-funded entity the right to ban vaping?

 

[Uncle Willie]

ever heard of "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" .. ??