'Vape' bans have little do do with public health
- Thread starter jtpjc
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
i'd say for most people younger than 30-40 years old
they wouldn't see the difference as most are not old
enough to have experienced major health related
issues.
mike
over time social pressure will dictate proper vaping
etiquette. there is no need for for government involvement.
and as far as your fears are concerned;
Study Confirms That E-Cigarettes Generate Virtually No Toxins - Hit & Run : Reason.com
regards
mike
Last edited:
no,i say they can go find somewhere vape free.
its their turn to get kicked to the curb.
mike
its working fine so far in Saint Paul Minnesota.
over in Minneapolis during their meeting when
they passed their vaping ban they had business
owners supporting it. business owners whom
didn't allow vaping and were losing business
big time to establishments that allowed it.
mike
Last edited:
Wrong, business owners have broad discretion to prohibit virtually every kind of legal activity on their premises.
And it's up to us and our growing list of supporters to change that.
The idea that there is nothing we can ever do to change that is useless.
I'd almost be willing to guarantee that what we exhale is FAR safer than what the average person exhales.
At least what we are exhaling is killing germs and viruses.
But they don't have the authority to allow activities within their own businesses, in many cases...
To the OP: Vape bans have absolutely nothing to do with public 'health'. Those concerns have been successfully refuted through numerous studies.
The only real 'risk' to the public that might be caused by vaping is the simple fact that governments don't currently approve of it.
The only real 'risk' to the public that might be caused by vaping is the simple fact that governments don't currently approve of it.
That, and it looks like an activity which has been demonized...
Because the amount of places that people can smoke are near zero indoors. Thus, if you are forced to go outdoors if you want to use either smoking / vaping, and some are smoking, and you haven't made clear transition yet to vaping, then you'll likely want to smoke.
Then there's those who say they've made the transition (physically), but psychologically are seemingly days away from their next cigarette if they aren't allowed to vape as freely as they are today. So, if all vapers were vaping only where smoking was allowed, then things could get pretty interesting in that type of social setting. Vapers might think they'd win all possible arguments, but I reckon a good number of vapers who swear they are ex-smokers right now would revert to a couple of smokes here and there.
Then there's the flip side to all this which we seem to ignore, routinely. If I can vape wherever vaping is now allowed, I ought to be able to smoke there if one ought to vape only where smoking is allowed. Hence, if you believe this, and you are one that vapes in your house, I would expect to be able to smoke in your house if I visit. If not, then I would observe you are being inconsistent with your rhetoric.
Those smokers aren't ready to quit yet, or maybe even ever. It's their choice whether to smoke or vape outdoors.
My house, my rules. I never smoked inside my homes, but I do vape in my vape room. I don't like the smell of stale cigarettes, so wouldn't allow smoking in my vape room, just as I wouldn't allow someone to vape something which I thought smelled foul.
There are always exceptions. Early on New Years Day this year I was vaping away at an Indian hookah bar- in a shopping mall, virtually underneath a non smoking sign---
I disagree that most people can smell it. I believe I could vape in any place you can name, and even you, a vaper would have zero idea that I'm vaping.
IMO, the issue is that with smoking (anywhere), I could theoretically light up a smoke and wouldn't initially be found out, unless it were visible to someone. Yet, second part of that reality is that smoke (side stream or exhale) lingers for a very long time (read as days). Thus, if I were to say smoke in some hospital space where no one was present, and move along, I may not get caught, but surely someone that visits that space within a few hours will know that a cigarette was smoked there.
With vaping (everywhere), I can theoretically vape and not only would it not initially be found out, unless someone saw me, I believe it would likely never be discovered due to the nature of how fast vapor dissipates. Hence why I strongly believe that not even the most experienced vaper would know whether or not I vaped in a location unless they saw me doing it.
And I would vape in both these places, even if it were not allowed, and laugh at your position for thinking you know what you think you know, but are clueless to the fact that someone vaped in the restaurant you chose to eat and vaped in the theater you chose to visit.
I bring up these points because I think it is pertinent to the type of discussion being had. You making points that vaping is inherently bothersome for some people. I think that is questionable and is likely only true if the people who say they are bothered observe vaping in action. If they don't, I contend that they would never know. Perhaps if there were 5 or more vapers huddled together in a location would it be plausible for someone to know without observing, and only then if the vaping in that area were rather constant, and only if non-vaping people were somehow made to cross paths with that area, and only if it was a rather enclosed space. Have 5 vapers huddled together outdoors or in huge megastore, and I think people 15 feet away or more would have very little to no chance of smelling what was being vaped. If it were say 20 people or more huddled together, then it might change things.
But here in 2015, almost 10 years after existence of vaping as a social phenomenon, how often are vapers running into situations where there are 5 or more of us huddled together? In my experience, that has happened once, and I didn't even vape there, even while I had every opportunity to do so, nay was encouraged to do so.
I would say current reality is that in every place that vapers go, outside of vape shop/lounge, you will be hard pressed to find more than one other vaper. So, if you or anyone wants to dispute how noticeable exhaled vapor is within any location, I'm up for that for as long as you are willing to entertain such a discussion. You may see me concede on certain points and I'll be looking for you to concede on others. But reality will be that it could be disallowed and unless there are cameras on that location, then literally no one would ever know that vaping occurred in those forbidden locations, even among vapers.
So is vaping in the dozens of places where non-vapers will have zero clue that vaping occurred there. If we are being honest about options, I'd add this to the discussion or feel like I was overlooking most obvious option(s).
As I know you ask this later on, I'd like to explore the options.
If these two are, in reality the only options, then the business that truly thinks these options will work absolutely must install cameras and be on the look out (constantly) for people vaping in all nooks and crannies of that establishment. Otherwise, I would see zero issues with exploiting how utterly easy it would be to vape in a business that has forbidden it, but has no way of catching vapers who vape there anyways. With smoking, I think similar argument could be put forth, but because of how much smoke lingers, I think it would be more challenging to catch the vaper than the smoker. In fact, without cameras on site to try and catch people, I think it would be next to impossible.
Having vapers huddled together indoors is IMO a worse option than having them vaping in the establishment in separate locations. I wonder if vapers would agree to this. IMO, it is an obvious statement, but not sure if fellow vapers see it this way.
But assuming there is agreement on that last statement, then allowing vapers to vape in the establishment and discouraging them from huddling together would be another option. A small establishment could control this fairly easily, but admittedly might have a tough time if that establishment is busy (very crowded). In those situations, I would think social norms would work, but hard to say how it plays out for all locations and I know I could poke holes in this sort of arrangement playing devil's advocate. I do know that as one who advocates for vaping everywhere, with respect, that I would be extremely unlikely to vape in a small crowded indoor space. Which ought to tell someone who wishes to entertain a debate on this topic with me, something. But have at it, cause I recognize that those who are arguing against what I'm getting at are trying to establish that it is never okay to vape in a small indoor location. I disagree with this and am interested in the ensuing discussion.
In a medium size building, like a restaurant or movie theater, it is likely going to be disallowed, but could be set up as not forbidden. As in, if you need to vape, visit our bathroom and take a few puffs and come out and enjoy your visit. If you notice other vapers in there, please wait a few moments and then go in when you desire. Lots of restaurants have single person bathrooms and thus easy schmeasy to vape and not have anyone notice. Almost all medium sized establishments have places where very few people are and thus relatively easy to vape without anyone noticing. If place is crowded, then not so easy, but not impossible. Vaping with respect becomes a little harder to manage, but is not impossible. It is manageable and to the degree that it is deemed easier to disallow, then that just makes it easier, IMO, to exploit it for those who actually vape with respect/consideration to others.
In large establishments (like a megastore or hospital), it would be so super duper easy to find places where no one would ever notice, that I would love to discuss with anyone who would care to argue otherwise. I relish in such a debate. Hospitals are literally the easiest indoor place that I know of to vape. There are so many places in a hospital to vape that I know I can do it there and no one will ever find out, vaper or otherwise. Now, if a hospital had policy of 'vapers go here,' then I would think that is a bad policy if that place was indoors, unless ventilation there was adequate. If I knew the hospital had such a policy, I would likely just continue to vape in the way I know works in a hospital setting where zero people will be aware of my vaping there.
In essence, the other option(s) comes down to crowd control. If a vaper is vaping openly and with intention to blow fairly huge clouds in a indoor space, that has poor ventilation and seemingly doesn't care if their vapor ends up in the face of other people, I can see that as a problem. But of all the places I've visited indoors in the last, I dunno, 30 years, that type of situation is rather infrequent. And in all of those places, I think I could get away with vaping in some area where it was less crowded or the crowd was oblivious to what people are specifically doing at any given moment.
A business that has decided to forbid vaping in their location and doesn't care to discuss the policy (at all) has just invited me to vape in their location and have their experience be that no one will ever know I vaped there.
I like this post and agree that we can't have it both ways.
After all I've said in recent posts, I must admit that I would seek to vape inside a Starbucks because I think their policy deserves exploitation.
What DC2 was getting across, as I see it, is for society to choose among:
1 - no one, but government, decides where it is proper to vape in that jurisdiction
2 - no one but private business/home owners decide for their own establishments where it is proper to vape.
And DC2, like many others, is saying the 2nd one makes more sense. Given these two choices, I would strongly favor the 2nd one.
But, I'm going to have a tough time adhering to the 2nd one if the reason for disallowing is either not specified or is based on ANTZ propaganda.
Of the places I've asked if I can vape there, and the ones that said no, I've respected the ones that have provided what I would deem a considerate reply. And of those, it has maybe been 3 in my 4 years of vaping. All the rest were coming from position of, "I don't have to explain myself to you." True, you don't. I also don't have to seek your permission to vape here and get away with it. So, I see your disrespectful position and raise you a choice for civil disobedience of which you will never be the wiser.
The reason politically aware vapers want it to be left up to businesses, is because we currently live in a social reality where the anti-propaganda hasn't taken over vaping. With smoking it has. Scientific consensus could come out tomorrow and say, 'oops, we just discovered there is zero issues with secondhand smoking,' and the social reality would likely remain unchanged for a long time to come. Thus, public health doesn't matter once it is disallowed. It is deemed bothersome to a portion of public, and given their overriding perceptions around smoking, it really really does not matter what science, business, or government decides. Just like I may vape everywhere I please (with respect), they are going to disallow vaping/smoking everywhere they can (with disrespect).
I believe it is well known, among politically aware people, that government disallows public smoking (and in several jurisdictions vaping) because of anti-smoking propaganda pervading that government's practices and coffers. I honestly do not think anyone on ECF would dispute this or if they do would risk being outed for the ANTZ troll that they likely are. As it is visible that these same governments are moving in direction of anti-vaping, then it would be foolish to allow them to be decision makers on where one can freely vape. If left up to them, then the most zealous among them would try to pass policies where you cannot vape in your own home/car.
With private establishments deciding, the issue is less clear cut, but does stand a far better chance of favoring the vaping enthusiasts position. Makes for a lot more legwork that ANTZ has to do if they have to go to each and every business to get their position established for those businesses. Far easier to forbid vaping in every bar within a jurisdiction if local government takes over the issue and makes the decision for them.
But for as long as the position by anyone on this political topic is - we don't have to explain our policy to you, then I see it being something that will be exploited and would argue that it deserves to be exploited. If my last few posts have left anyone reading this with some idea that I don't desire such a debate, then please, let us continue.
Since vapor is less hazardous than exhaled breath or outside air, any restriction on vaping is absurd and discriminatory. And since ecigs are the cure for smoking, disparaging vaping is a crime against humanity.
Do not bend over for the zealot neopuritans! Vaping like breathing is your right and cannot be restricted under any conditions, locations, or situations. Vape everywhere as civil disobedience against genocidal anti-science laws.
Do not bend over for the zealot neopuritans! Vaping like breathing is your right and cannot be restricted under any conditions, locations, or situations. Vape everywhere as civil disobedience against genocidal anti-science laws.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
