Vaping in Public

[ckn71nm]

Be Yourself, Do what YOU believe is right, and NO APOLOGIES for how you live YOUR life. If someone doesnt like you, screw 'em. They are probably not worthy of being your friend.

I agree. It's get tricky when you reserve the right to do what you believe for yourself and by doing so take away the same right from others. I mean when someone believes that it is harmful (not me, we went over this, please), what right do you have to just ignore that?

 

[ckn71nm]

You make life harder for yourself by trying to avoid a confrontation, just whip out your unit and vape, and if someone moans then take it from there. I'm not going to adjust my whole life around other people and feel like I'm doing something wrong. If that was the case I'd just be another sheep in this world. Stop getting worked up with what other people are thinking about you and life will become a lot easier.

I do agree with you. There are many instances when I do exactly that. My dog is very well trained and of leash most of the time. I have a target block set up in the backyard and shoot my arrows in it. I don't always go the speed limit. The list is endless and everything on that list is by far more dangerous than vaping. I guess my line of thinking is that most people don't know as much about vaping and therefore are more scared of it than a speeding car. And something about that makes me not want to expose them to it. Guess my mind works in wired ways just like everyone else's.

 

[generic mutant]

I hear people say "I don't vape where smoking isn't permitted" all the time.

The convoluted, exacting phrase that you came up with? No, I have not hear that clearly stated...ever.

I don't vape where smoking isn't permitted

a) isn't an instruction to others
b) isn't a literal truth - nobody (as in NOBODY) thinks you shouldn't vape in places where vaping is expressly permitted.

"You think we should treat vaping like smoking" is a straw man, agreed?

Next time you see it, point it out.

If I see somebody who's acknowledged position is that they respect the right of owners / managers to set vaping policy being told "They're going to get vaping banned" I'll point out that that's unreasonable too.

I have no issue with people vaping their way, I have no issue with people not supporting CASAA, I agree there is inflammatory language used all the time. You just seem to turn a blind eye to it when the "vape where smoking is permitted" crowd starts using it. We have discussed this before, I am not changing my mind, and neither are you. Fine, I still think you are okay...you are even free to disagree with Kristin and to criticize her.


Here's the thing:

Do you wanna add up all that you have done for vaping and compare it to her accomplishments?

Has Kristin made some mistakes? Sure she has, she's human.

She also makes many good decisions to defend our rights, and does it with know-it-all Monday morning quarterbacks nit-picking her every decision and position. You wanna talk about how you know better, fine. That's your right and I will defend your right to express yourself. That said, I am not impressed by that sort of thing in the least.

You wanna impress me? SHOW me how you can do better.


PS - You did not straw man anything I could detect in that last post.

You don't think it's helpful, as a public advocate, to have your position statements criticised by people on your side of the fence?

You remember that thread where she was pretty much stating that there's some dispute about whether quitting smoking prevents cancer?

You think that's going to go over well if she says it in public? Did you see many other people taking her to task for it? Did you?

 

[ckn71nm]

I hear people say "I don't vape where smoking isn't permitted" all the time.

I personally don't think that this phrase means vaping is smoking at all. And I also don't think that the people saying it believe that. It's a description of an action not a comparison.

 

[EddardinWinter]

I don't vape where smoking isn't permitted

a) isn't an instruction to others
b) isn't a literal truth - nobody (as in NOBODY) thinks you shouldn't vape in places where vaping is expressly permitted.

"You think we should treat vaping like smoking" is a straw man, agreed?

I am not gonna say you are completely off-base, but it implies an equivalency that does not exist. Is the extension 100% fair? No. Is it a straw man? No.

Next time you see it, point it out.

If I see somebody who's acknowledged position is that they respect the right of owners / managers to set vaping policy being told "They're going to get vaping banned" I'll point out that that's unreasonable too.

Like I said, I am not gonna change your mind, nor will you change mine. I accept this difference between us and I still think you are a good guy. I am not gonna save the world today, or tomorrow. I try to be as fair with my language as I can be, and I try to address specific issues when I see them, like I did in this thread.

You don't think it's helpful, as a public advocate, to have your position statements criticised by people on your side of the fence?

You remember that thread where she was pretty much stating that there's some dispute about whether quitting smoking prevents cancer?

You think that's going to go over well if she says it in public? Did you see many other people taking her to task for it? Did you?

I ask that you bear her contributions in mind when you criticize. Do what you must, I said I will defend your right to say it. I don't find that sort of sniping to be impressive. Maybe that is just me.

No, I don't remember any such thing. I am not denying it, either. It is my impression that Kristin believes, like I believe, that the dangers of smoking, second-hand smoking, etc. are inflated. You don't believe it. It's fine, we disagree. I don't care enough to fight about it.

I have never heard her say such a thing publicly representing CASAA (she is different when she is acting at a function for CASAA than she is posting here, simply as Kristin). I have never seen it hurt CASAA, who broke records in membership and fundraising last year. I am not going to worry about it now. If it is a problem in the future, trust me, Kristin would step down in a second if she felt it was hurting CASAA.

GM, I know why you are doing what you are doing, and that you think it is helpful. I just think you sometimes get worked up over issues that won't matter. When you tie up Kristin (she plays her part, so it's not just on you) in a debate about second hand smoke for 20 posts, it doesn't help anyone, either. You think it does, and I disagree. I refuse to argue/debate about second hand smoke any more.

 

[AndriaD]

... In any case, you will see that you will soon be accused of "Godwinning the thread" and all sorts of other fun stuff.

I forgot to ask.. what does this even mean? I'm not familiar with the term... (if I'm going to be accused of it, I'd at least like to know what it is! )

Thx!
Andria

 

[generic mutant]

If someone wants to post that passive smoking isn't harmful, I'm going to bash their arguments to pieces.

If they feel that their time is being wasted, hopefully they'll stop posting that in future.

Simple enough.

Andria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[ckn71nm]

I forgot to ask.. what does this even mean? I'm not familiar with the term... (if I'm going to be accused of it, I'd at least like to know what it is! )

Thx!
Andria

From Wikipedia: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches. In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis."

 

[ckn71nm]

If someone wants to post that passive smoking isn't harmful, I'm going to bash their arguments to pieces.

If they feel that their time is being wasted, hopefully they'll stop posting that in future.

Simple enough.

Andria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Darn, you beat me to it.

 

[Robino1]

I forgot to ask.. what does this even mean? I'm not familiar with the term... (if I'm going to be accused of it, I'd at least like to know what it is! )

Thx!
Andria

From Urban Dictionary:

Godwin's Law
A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.
"Dude, shut up. Nobody cares what you think."

"Oh, so now you're trying to censor me? Go to hell, you damn Nazi!"

 

[EddardinWinter]

If someone wants to post that passive smoking isn't harmful, I'm going to bash their arguments to pieces.

If they feel that their time is being wasted, hopefully they'll stop posting that in future.

Simple enough.

Andria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Great, you are the champion of second-hand smoke health hazards. You keep bringing it up, even though the OP has asked for it to be dropped in this thread...

EDIT: GM, that is a straw man since the argument is that the health risk is exaggerated, not that it is non-existent.

 

[dylanlg2]

keonee, how the hell does your sig say 3581 cigarettes avoided in 90 days... thats like 360 cigarettes a day that you used to smoke.. 18 packs a day !?!?!? Holy crap man! Anyways, to stay relevant to the OP, I vape pretty much anywhere if I feel its okay, which I know sounds pretentious but I actually have a strict moral code and most of the time I don't feel its okay.. if im in a grocery store I may take a couple drags and blow out some serious cloudage but only on an empty isle and I dont chain vape.. I figure no one will ever even notice it when im on an empty isle.. same thing for a movie theatre, if im sitting in the back and theres barely anyone in the movie, I will chain vape if no one is around me at all.. and if someone asks me to stop I do, and I don't argue it.. unless they seemed to think I was smoking an actual cig, then I tell them its not a cig but I will gladly stop doing it.. thats the extent of the argument I make... I NEVER try to convince people that they aren't being disturbed.... when they are obviously disturbed by it.

 

[redhosmer]

I never vape where smoking is not allowed

 

[AndriaD]

If someone wants to post that passive smoking isn't harmful, I'm going to bash their arguments to pieces.

If they feel that their time is being wasted, hopefully they'll stop posting that in future.

Simple enough.

Andria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

About the Godwinning... ROFL!!

About the passive smoking... it took me a long time to believe it, being raised around a bunch of smokers as I was. But my son missing 20+ school days a year, with only one smoker in the house, was enough to convince me that 2nd hand smoke really is dangerous, especially to children. Once I started taking it outdoors, his attendance became nearly perfect -- so it's really inescapable, 2nd hand smoke is dangerous, most definitely to children, and to some extent even to adults (especially those with existing bronchial issues).

However, just a whiff of the smell of it, while probably offensive (they call it stinkweed for a good reason!), gives a lot of people (my ex-husband comes to mind) plenty of excuse to whine like infants. What bugs me is what I mentioned earlier, how some of those whiners douse themselves with all kinds of nasty-smelling stuff, and no one tells them "you can't reek in public." It's like, smokers are the only bad guys! Gimme a break!

Andria

 

[Ohms Lawbreaker]

From Urban Dictionary:

Godwin's Law
A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.
"Dude, shut up. Nobody cares what you think."

"Oh, so now you're trying to censor me? Go to hell, you damn Nazi!"

Thanks for posting, I never knew the name for that phenomenon but have seen it before. But I think it's okay to bring up Mel Brooks and post stills from The Producers just to show how ridiculous things can get. Brooks' treatment of the subject is hardly controversial and always hilarious. Not that you can never bring it up, but better avoid a Michael Richards moment, eh. In politics many reasonable people consider the "Hitler Moment" a conversation-ender because of gross over-exaggeration, no matter what side one is on.

 

[EddardinWinter]

OMG...sorry OP.

I have played a part in this abortion that has sidetracked your thread, perhaps hopelessly.

I now will attempt to cease posting in your thread, hoping that you can get it back on track.

 

[generic mutant]

Great, you are the champion of second-hand smoke health hazards. You keep bringing it up, even though the OP has asked for it to be dropped in this thread...

EDIT: GM, that is a straw man since the argument is that the health risk is exaggerated, not that it is non-existent.

I'm part of a group (a shadowy conspiracy, if you like) keeping the NUTZ honest.

It's the cross that I bear.


P.S. If you really want me to go and find posts saying "Passive smoking isn't harmful", not "the harm is exaggerated", I will. But we both know it'd be a waste of time, because this position is *regularly* posted here.

 

[ckn71nm]

OMG...sorry OP.

I have played a part in this abortion that has sidetracked your thread, perhaps hopelessly.

I now will attempt to cease posting in your thread, hoping that you can get it back on track.

So have I. I hope you won't stop posting here. Your and Generic's posts and discussion are very interesting and do in many ways contribute a lot to the original topic. No worries here.

 

[Rossum]

You will offend some people here, who are highly sensitive about terminology with "Smoke Nazis".

Amusing, because the first modern anti-smoking campaigns occurred in Nazi Germany.

Many of us use the term ANTZ (Anti-nicotine tobacco zealots) which also has disturbed some of these folks to the point that they have taken to calling us NUTZ. Personally, I embrace the term (but I still don't know what the acronym stands for).

Dang, 'cause I was curious what it stands for.

I wear my NUTZ membership as a badge of honor.

How do I join? Despite considering myself a former smoker now, I still defend the rights of smokers. To me, most the anti-smoking (and of course anti-vaping) laws are transgressions against the private property rights. Oh sure, there are a few places that are truly public property, but most places that such laws apply to are actually private property and it should be up to that property's owner to decide what behavior is allowed (or prohibited) on his property. That includes private businesses of all kinds. The the owner of a bar, restaurant, airline, or whatever should be free to allow or prohibit either smoking or vaping as he sees fit. Where does the government get the "authority" to prohibit it on private property? No one is forced to go there and patronize it. No one is forced to work there either. Don't like that the owner allows (or prohibits) it? Don't go there!

 

[AndriaD]

To me, most the anti-smoking (and of course anti-vaping) laws are transgressions against the private property rights. Oh sure, there are a few places that are truly public property, but most places that such laws apply to are actually private property and it should be up to that property's owner to decide what behavior is allowed (or prohibited) on his property. That includes private businesses of all kinds. The the owner of a bar, restaurant, airline, or whatever should be free to allow or prohibit either smoking or vaping as he sees fit. Where does the government get the "authority" to prohibit it on private property? No one is forced to go there and patronize it. No one is forced to work there either. Don't like that the owner allows (or prohibits) it? Don't go there!

Amen, amen, amen!

About 10 yrs ago, we lived in a rural county that was sufficiently distant from Atlanta that it wasn't considered "metro," and although at that time, Atlanta and metro environs had anti-smoking laws on the books, it wasn't yet a state law, and this rural county didn't have any laws about it -- but one particular restaurant suddenly implemented "no smoking, period" causing me to get into a huffy exchange with the manager, and informing him that I would henceforth be giving my dining-out dollars to the chinese restaurant down the street, which had a "smoking area".

Of course, a few years after that, the whole issue became moot, when GA suddenly turned into "Big Nanny" and forbade it in all public places where there were customers or employees under 18.

I really hate Big Nanny, always trying to protect us from ourselves.

Andria