To all my ecf brothers and sisters.....please read.
- Thread starter WyattDerp
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Actually I have seen a couple commercials for a couple different e-cigs. Problem is in one of them shows a guy vaping in a restaraunt and the waitress shakes her head no and points outside and the guy gives her a look and puts the end of it up against his hand a couple of times to show it's not a cigarette. I think that just gives some people the wrong idea that they should be able to vape anywhere, anytime they want.
Exactly, that what my original post was about. Except I meant people that would harass the waitress for not letting them use it anywhere.
Lmao. Or throw peanuts and pretzels at her and get arrested by the FBI.
Why are you completely misstating what the vast majority have been saying. Where did any of us post that we should get indignate, rant, rave, blow vaper in people's faces, etc, if an establishment bans vaping. In fact the vast majority of us have stressed being respectful of others. Not agreeing with a blanket ban and writing a letter to explain why you believe that is an unjustified position, is not being disrespectful. Deciding to do business elsewhere to show you disagree is not being disrespectful.
The thread is about whether vaping is to be portrayed as being the same as smoking or whether it is to be portrayed as a much safer alternative that does not have the "dangerous" second-hand characteristics as smoking. Many of us believe it is the latter and believe we should act accordingly but not in a rude or ignorant manner.
There is one particular poster in this thread who believes that until 20+ year studies are done, then vaping must be considered as dangerous as smoking and treated the same way. Many of us disagree with that position and have read enough current studies as well as listened to medical doctors (including our own) that support our position that there is little chance of harm to others from vapor. And just because we voice our disagreement, it does not mean we are trying, as he has insinuated, to "silence" him. That is just a distraction tactic used when one has a extreme position.
Last edited:
As I can tell. This thread is about what to do and how to act when and if vaping is 'prohibited' by a business. It was the first post. Some of the following replies have suggested that agreeing and abiding by such rules is an act of submission and admittance to the dangers of vaping being similar to those of smoking. That is notthe point.
We can all agree that vaping is a thousand times more healthy and less dangerous to ourselves and those around us.
As I read it. The original post was urging vapers to br respectful and considerate of the concerns (albeit ignorant) of others. And show tolerance for them where they show none for us. It is the age old adage of 'taking the high road'.
Like I have stated many times in this very thread. I have used in plenty of public places. And never been asked once to stop, or even had questions about my PV. So I'm obviously not saying that nobody should vape outside their property line.
I'm saying that going over the top ad using a forum such as ECF to lure others down a fruitless road of attack does not help anyone. Don't attack a business if they don't want vaping. Morn their ignorance.
And look at this fine gentleman on the airplane. He was asked not to use his PV. Well he decided that since it was not a law that he had the right to use it. Lol. Sure. Go ahead. Be an a hole. But turns out messing with a member of a flight crew while your flying ore multiple states happens to be a federal offense. He didn't really do anything that horrible. But he's in jail not for vaping, but because he's a jerk.
What would you do if the stewardess asked you to put away your PV? Seriously. What would you do? Are you a spineless conformist like me? Or a strong willed trail blazer that will earn justice for all of us?
Pick your battles. Vape at lowes. Vape at Starbucks. But if they ask you to stop, dont hate them for it. They honestly don't deserve it. They don't know anything about it. They aren't being mean. They just don't know. So just don't vape there. And don't shop there. But don't rally the troops man. It's not worth loosing your moral ground over.
Well, this is all moot for us Colonel. In NJ we can't vape anywhere inside. States that don't have regulations, you better fight it.
If Starbucks decided to ban ecigs (which according to a poster they haven't) because other people in the store didn't like them, fine. When they blanket ban them with cigarettes due to the harm of second hand smoke, I take issue with that. We're not talking about 'are they 100% safe', we're talking about the reason that cigarettes are banned.
If Starbucks decided to ban ecigs (which according to a poster they haven't) because other people in the store didn't like them, fine. When they blanket ban them with cigarettes due to the harm of second hand smoke, I take issue with that. We're not talking about 'are they 100% safe', we're talking about the reason that cigarettes are banned.
Yeah. I'm sure one of the reasons I'm so easy going on the topic is that I wasn't able to smoke inside for years anyway. It doesnt really bother me.
But it's still nicotine. It's considered a tobacco product. And a serious substance. Can't fault a dude at Starbucks for being lippy about it (even though it didn't happen).
I have an addiction. Now it's a less harmful one. Maybe even not harmful at all. But it's still an addiction. And I'll have to cope with the consequences. If that means I can't vape and shop at the same time. Oh well. I bought the ticket. So I'm riding the ride.
Wish it were easier. But it's not.
And I probably won't be vaping by the time the serious stuff goes down.
Lol. My life insurance is $90 a month because I'm still using nicotine (a tobacco derivative). Once I'm off nic, get this, $25 a month. Holy incentive. I asked the underwriter why vaping is considered a tobacco user. Answer....because they can't differentiate between cigarette nicotine and vape nicotine in blood tests. If that doesn't make you want to see more education about vaping, what does. Lol. Keep your coffee shop, I want my $65 a month savings in life insurance.
First, we all DO NOT agree, that vaping is less dangerous to ourselves and those around us. A stated requirement by one poster, that 20+ year studies are needed before we vape around others, does not portend agreement.
Second, characterizing ECF member(s) who support writing a letter to a business explaining their disagreement with a policy, is not "luring others down a fruitless road of attack". Using the word "attack" is quite a huge exaggeration.
Third, bringing up the example of one unruly and immature passager on an airplane who happened to also vape, has NOTHING to do with what the rest of us have been stating and is completely out of place. But what would we do, we would put our PV away and find an appropriate way to voice our disagreement, if we disagreed.
Fourth, stating that IF a person respectfully voices a disagreement with a policy or writes an informed, intelligent letter in disagreement with a policy they are "loosing one's moral ground" is absolutely absurd. I am sure glad the Founding Fathers did not have this persective.
Is it the same if you were using a patch or gum?
Off topic, but you might find this thread interesting regarding blood tests.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...3-blood-test-lab-results-nicotine-levels.html
Last edited:
That sounds like a serious need to ban perfume and peanuts, both proven to not be safe for everyone.
Ok. So one someone doesn't agree. Let him vape at home. Done deal. that's great for them. I'm fine with that.
The original post on this thread regards placing "bans" on establishments that won't let you vape. Not writing a letter. I repeat. Not writing a letter, but placing bans in them.
Please, before you reply again. Read at least the first couple pages of the thread. It's not about health or comparison to smoking. It's about getting hit with a slap and coming back with a bat. Gangsta.
And the guy in the plane? Lmao. It was a rave he went on due to not being allowed to vape (the point if this thread). And the fact...he was in the news. Your letter was not. He was on the news! Hundreds of thousands of people saw what his reaction was to a ban on vaping. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch.
This has reached the point of Diminishing return.
That's quite alright Colonel, I understand. Around here Jersey boys ain't cool either.
I make my own coffee. I'm country remember? But if I ever do stop at a quick mart for a cup of joe, I won't give a darn what their policy is because I'm in and out. The only folks I see hanging around long enough to have a smoke or vape ask me for a dollar when I walk by. I'm working. I'm so beat down by anti-smoking rules I guess my opinion about this whole thread is to do what you can get away with, educate folks who are open to it, and avoid upsetting the SmokeNazi schizo's.......
Now go tend to them kiddo's....they come first before crazy forum talk
That's quite alright Colonel, I understand. Around here Jersey boys ain't cool either.
I make my own coffee. I'm country remember? But if I ever do stop at a quick mart for a cup of joe, I won't give a darn what their policy is because I'm in and out. The only folks I see hanging around long enough to have a smoke or vape ask me for a dollar when I walk by. I'm working. I'm so beat down by anti-smoking rules I guess my opinion about this whole thread is to do what you can get away with, educate folks who are open to it, and avoid upsetting the SmokeNazi schizo's.......
Now go tend to them kiddo's....they come first before crazy forum talk
Yeah. Jersey boys stink (present company excluded). Lol
Lovely. Smoke nazi's. Exactly. Lmao. They don't smoke or vape, but it controls more of their life than mine. That's Devine retribution.
I've been reading some of the non-smoking laws. The more I read them, the more I'm convinced that the Government is infringing on the rights of business owners. If, a business wants to allow smoking in/on their premises, they should be allowed, especially if they own the building, BUT it should be stated that is is a smoking establishment, so that those that do not wish to patronize a smoking establishment aren't mislead. I am sure there are many business owners that do not want smoking in their establishment, and many that do.
If, I buy a building so that I can run a business in it, say a restaurant, and I'm a smoker. The Government should NOT have the authority to tell me that I can not smoke in my own building. I understand no smoking should be allowed around the food (I was a Food Inspector), but once the food reaches the customer, it become their food. If, I am eating at my establishment, and after the meal decide I wish to smoke, how can the Government tell me not to? The customers in my restaurant made a CHOICE to come into MY building, and if it is clearly posted that it is a smoking establishment, they made an informed decision.
Federal Regulation of Tobacco | Public Health Law Center
Now, to go a step further, vaping. If, no one challenges the laws, then you are settling for vaping to be equated with smoking. The laws CAN be challenged, but people need to be educated first. I'm considering taking out an ad in our local papers. I need time to figure out exactly how I wish to approach it, but at least it's doing something. We do not have a ban in the area I live, but I do know Springfield, Mo. does have one. I may even take an ad out in one of their newspapers!
If, I buy a building so that I can run a business in it, say a restaurant, and I'm a smoker. The Government should NOT have the authority to tell me that I can not smoke in my own building. I understand no smoking should be allowed around the food (I was a Food Inspector), but once the food reaches the customer, it become their food. If, I am eating at my establishment, and after the meal decide I wish to smoke, how can the Government tell me not to? The customers in my restaurant made a CHOICE to come into MY building, and if it is clearly posted that it is a smoking establishment, they made an informed decision.
Federal Regulation of Tobacco | Public Health Law Center
Now, to go a step further, vaping. If, no one challenges the laws, then you are settling for vaping to be equated with smoking. The laws CAN be challenged, but people need to be educated first. I'm considering taking out an ad in our local papers. I need time to figure out exactly how I wish to approach it, but at least it's doing something. We do not have a ban in the area I live, but I do know Springfield, Mo. does have one. I may even take an ad out in one of their newspapers!
I'm originally a Philly gal.... when someone asks if I'm from Jersey (my accent confuses these people), I simply ask them, if the Statue of Liberty faces New York, what part of the Statue of Liberty faces Jersey?..... nope, I'm not from Jersey!
Your underwriter wasn't entirely truthful. They can tell the difference between someone that smokes and someone that uses just nicotine, just not using continine testing since that tests for nicotine. CO testing would test for smoke. There is a thread, I believe under news where a person was buying life insurance and they weren't considered smokers as users of E Cigs.
I believe the company was American Income Life Insurance company, I think. Perhaps a search would find it.
Hmmm, now would a non-smoker, who lives in a house with a number of smokers, test positive for nicotine from the second-hand smoke?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
