Why are Governments trying to BAN e-cigs when they are actually helping people!?

[bcalvanese]

It was the only part I had an issue with

And no - it'll become a law because vapers allow it to become a law. There's already moves under way to prevent you from vaping responsibly where you think it's appropriate - stealth vaping, vaping only where smoking is permitted won't prevent that. All it's doing is telling the public that vapers are the same as smokers.

In the eyes of the public we "are" the same as smokers until it is proven otherwise. And we cannot prove it with rudeness and confrontation. We can only prove it with science and facts.

And people who think they can vape anywhere they want and be confrontational about it are part of the reason there are already moves underway to prevent us from vaping.

Open your eyes and look at the bigger picture.

 

[AegisPrime]

Do you really think Joe Public is going to form an opinion on vaping based on science and facts?

Do you think your average non-smoking citizen will care?

Their attitude towards vaping will be formed by - y'know - meeting vapers out in the world. And if the only place they ever see someone vaping is huddled with a bunch of smokers, what sort of opinion do you think they'll form?

I'm not suggesting that anyone be confrontational nor disrespectful - just that for vaping to be considered 'normal' we ourselves shouldn't behave like it's abnormal.

 

[EddardinWinter]

I would like to see and end to the practice of the continued citation of urban legend/myth of the ban-causing militant vaper. (aka BCMV)

I have repeatedly asked for documentation, pictures, video, etc. throughout this thread of this elusive creature. Many people who disdain public vaping are here taking the usual shots at the practice, and I respect that right to speak their minds and I respect their decisions. We all must make our own decision for ourselves of when to vape, and when not to. What I cannot stomach, is the repetition of this canard when there is zero documentation to substantiate this absurd fantasy. I interpret this myth creation of the BCMV as some sort of guilt/manipulation tactic with no basis in fact. I am not going to let it go unchallenged.

Someone prove me wrong, if you can...I am prepared to be proven wrong. It certainly won't be the first time!

The ban-causing militant vaper doesn't exist! The tooth fairy, the Unicorn, and the honest politician are the equivalent of the ban-causing militant vaper.

I read here many times a week about ban X because guy X was running around "blowing clouds of vapor in people's faces". I am not denying militant vapers exist. I am not denying bans happen. I challenge the causality between the two.

I am challenging the purveyors of this tale: give concrete evidence that a militant vapor X caused ban X.

Continuing to represent that as a factual sequence of events (without citations) will be challenged by me every time I see it. So give me some evidence, sir! Open my eyes, please.

 

[generic mutant]

Do you really think Joe Public is going to form an opinion on vaping based on science and facts?

Do you think your average non-smoking citizen will care?

Their attitude towards vaping will be formed by - y'know - meeting vapers out in the world. And if the only place they ever see someone vaping is huddled with a bunch of smokers, what sort of opinion do you think they'll form?

I'm not suggesting that anyone be confrontational nor disrespectful - just that for vaping to be considered 'normal' we ourselves shouldn't behave like it's abnormal.

There are plenty of environments - outside, many pubs and bars - where there's plenty of meeting non-vapers going on...

Doesn't have to be either "only consigned to smoking areas" or "anywhere and everywhere".

 

[AegisPrime]

Rapidly diminishing environments, GM.

And that tooth fairy can have my body parts any day

 

[generic mutant]

...Open my eyes, please.

Does this count, or are you talking specifically about legislative bans?

http://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_.../i_just_made_my_bar_vape_free_am_i_a_bad_guy/

 

[generic mutant]

Rapidly diminishing environments, GM.

And that tooth fairy can have my body parts any day

I guess the point many of the "only with permission" crowd are making is that those mixed areas exist now, and need to be protected - the right of business owners to make that decision is paramount, because if vapers don't respect it, laws will be enacted.

 

[AegisPrime]

I guess the point many of the "only with permission" crowd are making is that those mixed areas exist now, and need to be protected - the right of business owners to make that decision is paramount, because if vapers don't respect it, laws will be enacted.

Don't forget that in the US, smoking bans can be far more wide-reaching than they are here - beaches, parks etc. Generally in the UK if you're in an outdoor public place you can smoke (and vape) - in the US that's not necessarily true (someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the NYC ban means no vaping in Central Park?).

 

[generic mutant]

Yeah, I realise that - outdoor bans are normally bonkers (I can see a rule about being X feet from a door being OK, but they're normally implemented in an over the top way).

I'd ignore them too...

 

[bcalvanese]

Do you really think Joe Public is going to form an opinion on vaping based on science and facts?

Do you think your average non-smoking citizen will care?

Their attitude towards vaping will be formed by - y'know - meeting vapers out in the world. And if the only place they ever see someone vaping is huddled with a bunch of smokers, what sort of opinion do you think they'll form?

I'm not suggesting that anyone be confrontational nor disrespectful - just that for vaping to be considered 'normal' we ourselves shouldn't behave like it's abnormal.

I am trying to wrap my brain around what you are saying, but i just can't see it that way.

If studies prove that vaping is safe to the general public, then it will become acceptable in public places and the general public will know what it is and that it will not harm people. If studies prove that it is a safe alternative to smoking, it will be recommended by the medical community as a safe alternative for people who want to quit smoking.

My doctor already recommends it for me (in his opinion), if it is the only thing that is helping me quit smaoking.

People who are agressive enough to smoke in public places are most likely the same type of personality that will become confrontational when asked to not do it. And guess what... those are going to be the only people that the public sees, and they are going to be the one who give us a bad name before the studies are done. And guess what... it's going to take that much longer for it to be acceptable because of it.

 

[tj99959]

Why are Governments trying to BAN e-cigs when they are actually helping people!?

Because quite frankly they don't know what to do about e-cigs. They just feel the need to do something.

 

[generic mutant]

...
People who are agressive enough to smoke in public places are most likely the same type of personality that will become confrontational when asked to not do it. And guess what... those are going to be the only people that the public sees, and they are going to be the one who give us a bad name before the studies are done. And guess what... it's going to take that much longer for it to be acceptable because of it.

What do you mean by "in public places" here?

Do you object to vaping in businesses (e.g. bars) with the proprietor's permission? Or outside?

 

[AegisPrime]

If studies prove that vaping is safe to the general public, then it will become acceptable in public places and the general public will know what it is and that it will not harm people.

OK, my opinion is this: you will never see that study - even if it's true - the best you'll get is 'more research needs to be done into the long-term health effects of vaping, studies suggest it's much safer than smoking but the safest option for nicotine users (smokers or vapers) is to quit.'

Because vaping will never be declared 100% safe (because nothing is), that'll continue to be used as an excuse to group vapers with smokers (because vaping hasn't been 'proven' to be safe).

If studies prove that it is a safe alternative to smoking, it will be recommended by the medical community as a safe alternative for people who want to quit smoking.

It may be suggested as a smoking cessation aid but it will *never* be medically prescribed as a 'healthier' alternative - the advice will always be 'this is better for you than smoking but we recommend that you quit (nicotine)'.

My doctor already recommends it for me (in his opinion), if it is the only thing that is helping me quit smaoking.

And that's great - the world needs more enlightened doctors like that, but for every good one there seems to be one that considers vaping as bad as (or worse) than smoking.

People who are agressive enough to smoke in public places are most likely the same type of personality that will become confrontational when asked to not do it. And guess what... those are going to be the only people that the public sees, and they are going to be the one who give us a bad name before the studies are done. And guess what... it's going to take that much longer for it to be acceptable because of it.

Or maybe if they get asked not to vape they'll explain what they're doing, ask whether that's official policy or just someone reacting because they think they're smoking and because they don't want to cause any fuss, put the PV away.

Don't think that just because people are doing something unusual that they're being 'aggressive'.

 

[evan le'garde]

Reading all the articles and posts off well informed vapers, and having recently discovered Vaping for about 8months now, harmful of not is irrelevant now. It is still better than conventional Cigarettes and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. So why are governments so adamant that they are bad for us? It may seem like a conspiracy but i'd be interested to know how many cigarette companies actually lobby Political parties and influence policies?

If governments were bothered about our health they'd BAN cigarettes first, immediately followed by alcohol.

Personally E-cigarettes have helped me and alot of my friends stop smoking, and being free of cigarettes is an amazing feeling, and others should experience that.

I met a girl in the high street trying to get people to donate to "greenpeace". I stopped and spoke to her for sometime. She was really nice and her heart was in the right place. I agreed with everything she had to say on behalf of greenpeace. I had to make my point about what they do at sea though. I said "going into foreign waters to disrupt specific activities that greenpeace consider to be immoral is going to get you shot or worse by local government forces". It's not advisable is it. There are plenty of people trying to do good things but aren't necessarily good things from a different point of view.

Remember when there was a fuel shortage because of a strike by the truck drivers or something a few years ago, well you would remember if you were English. So, the government brought in military equipment to fill the breach. You can imagine army fuel tankers right ?. Thing is, the fittings for the army fuel truck's, hoses etc were a different size from the universal type used by the industry. So the whole thing was a total disaster.

Just 2 examples of what governments are capable of. They try to help but just always end up messing things up and making it worse. You could probably think of dozens if instances in history when governments just completely screwed everything up, but with the best intentions from the start. They are just one big constant disaster. You just can't rely on the government to do anything right.

I am beginning to think that no matter who the lobbyists are, whether they want to keep nicotine solutions on the market or not, the government will act like the parent that will just decide that all the lobbyists should stop squabbling, and the ones that are making the most noise will "go to bed without any tea" so to speak. It's just the supercilious nature of government towards those people they consider to be a nuisence. They do look down their noses at the general public, and those that lobby for continued use of nicotine solutions probably make things worse because the government think they're just a bunch of know- it- alls that don't shut up. And that kind of constant whining would more than likely made up their minds.

The government, made up of people like the aunt or uncle that you've always hated, old fashioned and set in their ways. But they will give you a darn good spanking if you don't stop whining !.

 

[bcalvanese]

What do you mean by "in public places" here?

Do you object to vaping in businesses (e.g. bars) with the proprietor's permission? Or outside?

I mean places like stores, malls, and places like that. Bars are probably ok with permission (and knowing not to offend anyone in the bar).

True there are no rules which is why we should be even more polite about it. We are the ones who are going to paint the picture of how people see us.

And rude agressive behavior probably will not paint a very good picture.

Thats all i'm saying, and this is only my opinion.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Does this count, or are you talking specifically about legislative bans?

http://www.reddit.com/r/electronic_.../i_just_made_my_bar_vape_free_am_i_a_bad_guy/

Legislative. I support this owner's right to choose what is best for his business!

 

[generic mutant]

Legislative. I support this owner's right to choose what is best for his business!

Except in that other thread, where you wavered a bit...

It's all right though - we all have our moments. Sometimes I think about lowering the taxes on my minions. It normally passes quite quickly...

 

[EddardinWinter]

Except in that other thread, where you wavered a bit...

It's all right though - we all have our moments. Sometimes I think about lowering the taxes on my minions. It normally passes quite quickly...

You misunderstood me, and I didn't have time to clarify prior to you and your Statist cronies getting the thread shut down by The Man.

 

[The Ministry]

£.

I don't vape where ciggies are banned, rightly or wrongly. I figure I'll not push my luck.

As for banning them, it's back to £. Pure and simple.

I get the "it's not regulated" argument to a certain degree, depending on where you buy your juice, but it's all a bit flimsy in my opinion. They don't like lost revenue, the lost "control" if you like, and if people enjoy something, they hate that too (nod to the EU Bureaucrats).

It angers me, it really does. But I'm just an average Jo trying not to cost the NHS a fortune, trying to improve my life, and an average Jo that has failed miserably cold turkey and using NRT's, but what do I know...

 

[LDS714]

I agree, but unfortonately they are part of this forum too, and there are no rules in place to prevent them from being here, so we have to include them in "us".

And, since they are the ones out in public being confrontational, guess what all of "us" are going to look like in the eyes of the general public?

I recently posted a thread requesting a couple rules be put into place to keep these types of behavior from getting out of control, but my thread was not only ridiculed by many and closed, but every trace of it has been deleted.

I'm still going to post my opinions on things, but it seems pretty useless to get upset over any of this stuff anymore if nothing is going to get done about it.

JMHO.

Yeah, those guys are almost as bad as the ones who have to lump people into neatly titled little groups.