I think such people are now starting to be the majority here.
And I've gone way past saddened.
'Vape' bans have little do do with public health
- Thread starter jtpjc
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
And I've gone way past saddened.
How does not being able to vape where one can not smoke drive people back to smoking, if they couldn't smoke there to begin with?
Yes.
Same? No. Similar? Yes.
I didn't know we were talking about banning vaping altogether. I thought it was about banning vaping in certain locations.
Also because some people might be bothered by it.
They could also go to places where people that use a lot of perfume go. Or other places where it's OK to cast potentially unwanted odors on others. Or rooms with fog machines. But those places aren't as plentiful.
IMO, allowing vaping in smoking areas doesn't equate vaping with smoking. It's just an area where typcially people don't care what others are doing (smells, clouds, etc.).
Banning vaping will drive people back to tobacco, as I said You are "confusing" the final statement I made with an earlier statement in the same post.
Maybe someday there will be vaping areas (where people can't smoke), but I don't expect establishments to spend the money on those places at this point - so it's off to the smoking area if someone needs to vape.
No. There is no element of passive smoking when vaping. Most vape is barely detectable to bystanders. It is not the same as smoking.
You actually think e-cigarettes will be banned? That's never going to happen, at least not in the US, but I see you are in the UK, so it is a possibility given their politics...
The UK have adopted a fairly "hands-off" approach to vaping at present. We will see what happens when 2016 comes around.
If you go by this forum, most vapers on here put out far more vapor than any cigarette could smoke... Even a BLU PLUS tank puts out more vapor than any cigarette could put out smoke...
Again, I didn't say it was. But it's an optional activity that can certainly be annoying. Most people can smell it. Many people are bothered visually (especially at theaters or someone sitting in front of you in the stands, for example).
I would not eat in a restaurant where vaping was allowed (and never ate in restaurants where smoking was allowed either - even though I was a smoker). I wouldn't go to a theater where vaping was allowed either and wouldn't want to watch a ball game where the person in front of me (or next to me) was vaping.
And I'm a vaper, I can imagine how it might bother non-vapers (the majority of the population). I don't like going to smoking areas (and usually don't, I just don't vape until I can do it somewhere else), but at least it can be an option.
But it is not smoke. There are no issues re "passive vaping". A forum search will show you that all current research says that this is not an issue. Smoke is very different.
The main reason that vapers should not be put in smoking areas is that they are not smokers. Why should they inhale tobacco fumes?
I agree with that, and that's why I don't go to smoking areas, but what's the other option???
Have businesses put in a second area just for vaping? Clearly you're not a business person.
The options are either to allow them to go to the smoking area or don't allow it at all. Take you pick.
Leaving aside the discussion about whether or not similar regulations are valid...
The problem is that they ARE generally making them the same.
And all of this can be accomplished by allowing businesses to make their own rules.
Especially when so many vapers feel that mandated regulations are okay with them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
