I have learned a great deal from everyone that has contributed to this thread and I am grateful to all of the participants for giving us so much of their time. It's my daily read now, this thread lol.
-
Need help from former MFS (MyFreedomSmokes) customers
Has any found a supplier or company that has tobacco e-juice like or very similar to MFS Turbosmog, Tall Paul, or Red Luck?
View thread
Why can't they just leave us alone?
- Thread starter AngelsBreath
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- vamo
- Status
I should like very much to hear a rational argument for the banning of smoking in a private business. If the owner wishes to permit smoking, it is his right to do so, period. If you argue to the contrary, you do not fully believe in property rights. Please spare me the argument of compelled workers. Working in a gun range is more risky than working in an office doing paperwork, shall we ban gun ranges, too? How about working in a steel mill versus working for a real estate firm? If you take the job it is your decision after you weigh the risks.
There is no moral reason for a government to compel an individual to prohibit a LEGAL activity on his premises. If smoking is as dangerous as the ANTZ tell us, it should be illegal. Regardless of risk level, under no circumstances is there a "moral" basis for a ban of legal substances or activities. It is never the role of the state to ban legal activities in private places. A state cannot manage all risks.
A state which disrespects the property rights of its citizens is no longer a republic. It is something else, something less. Support all the smoking bans you want, folks. Me, I stand on the rights of individuals to be free and make their own decisions. Sometimes those decisions are bad, sometimes people die. A small price to pay for freedom.
"Live Free or Die"
General John Stark
EDIT: I certainly DO support the rights of individuals to ban smoking on their property!
There is no moral reason for a government to compel an individual to prohibit a LEGAL activity on his premises. If smoking is as dangerous as the ANTZ tell us, it should be illegal. Regardless of risk level, under no circumstances is there a "moral" basis for a ban of legal substances or activities. It is never the role of the state to ban legal activities in private places. A state cannot manage all risks.
A state which disrespects the property rights of its citizens is no longer a republic. It is something else, something less. Support all the smoking bans you want, folks. Me, I stand on the rights of individuals to be free and make their own decisions. Sometimes those decisions are bad, sometimes people die. A small price to pay for freedom.
"Live Free or Die"
General John Stark
EDIT: I certainly DO support the rights of individuals to ban smoking on their property!
Last edited:
You can't provide absolute protection from getting shot on a gun range, because you can't remove the guns. But you can be negligent, and presumably you support laws that prevent negligent businesses operating. Does a gun range not have a legal and moral obligation to take reasonable precautions to protect its employees (and customers, if that's the right word)?
Which brings us back to the science question, really... Is it a reasonable precaution to say "You have to smoke outside"?
Which brings us back to the science question, really... Is it a reasonable precaution to say "You have to smoke outside"?
Generic Mutant sir, I think you are missing Ms.Kristin's point. It's not that second hand smoke is totally harmless, but that it's effects have been greatly exaggerated and this information has been exploited to vilify smokers and get laws and taxes passed with little or no scientific credibility.
This same method is being used against vaping and vapers to get laws passed that will put us in the same social stigma as we were as smokers, and make it very hard to protect ourselves from unfair regulation and taxation.
The popular social opinion and the scientific facts are contrary in both cases, when have you last seen anybody who talks about second hand smoke in anything but a fully negative light be taken seriously?
This same method is being used against vaping and vapers to get laws passed that will put us in the same social stigma as we were as smokers, and make it very hard to protect ourselves from unfair regulation and taxation.
The popular social opinion and the scientific facts are contrary in both cases, when have you last seen anybody who talks about second hand smoke in anything but a fully negative light be taken seriously?
I suspect that might be a local thing - I know when I've travelled in North America people have treated me a lot more like I have the plague for smoking... Don't get me wrong, you get that in Europe too, but not to the same extent. I think if you tried to enact laws to ban smoking outside here, people would tell you you needed to see a doctor...
Many more people smoke (or at least used to) in Europe than America. I know when I was 12 I went to Eastern Europe and there were more smokers than non, almost. Taking a 33 hr train ride, I met a lot of young Western Europeans who were on their 1 year travels before starting University, and nearly every one of them smoked.
Here, it's much more puritanical, if I can speak in generalities.
OK--just for the record, I read every post on this thread and would like to clear up at least my (small) contribution to it.
I caught the 1st couple of pages originally when SS started it. Then last night, caught the last two pages. I've made my peace with my part of this conversation. I didn't mean to hijak, SS.
I have been a long time member of several forums whose PURPOSE was debate. Primarily religious, some political. So when I read the last two pages it tickled my debate bone (and some of the posts rubbed me the wrong way) and I had to jump in.
After some thought and reading through the thread, I believe that I overstepped. I didn't come to ECF for debate, I came to learn and meet other people who are going through (or have gone through) the same life-changing experience. I came here for comeraderie. As much as I absolutely love down-and dirty debating, I don't think it's the right place to do it, for me.
If there is a spot for that kind of back-and-forth then I will go there. Consider my debating here done.
Sorry SexySod for taking your thread a bit off topic, but I felt it needed saying, if not for you all then for myself.
I caught the 1st couple of pages originally when SS started it. Then last night, caught the last two pages. I've made my peace with my part of this conversation. I didn't mean to hijak, SS.
I have been a long time member of several forums whose PURPOSE was debate. Primarily religious, some political. So when I read the last two pages it tickled my debate bone (and some of the posts rubbed me the wrong way) and I had to jump in.
After some thought and reading through the thread, I believe that I overstepped. I didn't come to ECF for debate, I came to learn and meet other people who are going through (or have gone through) the same life-changing experience. I came here for comeraderie. As much as I absolutely love down-and dirty debating, I don't think it's the right place to do it, for me.
If there is a spot for that kind of back-and-forth then I will go there. Consider my debating here done.
Sorry SexySod for taking your thread a bit off topic, but I felt it needed saying, if not for you all then for myself.
Yeah, I feel the same. That's why I used the ignore feature. My blood pressure was getting dangerously high.
I could go on a rant trying to explain my thoughts on the OP's topic, but it would be one of those TLDR things.
Anyhow I do feel it, the USA seems to be a country in which they repeat how great the freedom is when in fact many citizens want the government to solve all their problems. Some people feel like they have a right to impress upon others their values, their morals, their beliefs and expect others to live by it. In Hawaii we call those folks "Hai maka maka", often those who are stuck up and believing that they know better than the rest through preaching change that's only inline with their goals. They don't care about the change affecting others as long as they're happy.
Here's something about me. I'm not a smoker (analog), couldn't do it because of the smoke. I'm a vaper, very happy one on a light nic juice (8mg). I still mimic the routine of smokers by moving away just_in_case someone may have a problem with the vapor like across the street. I still hear on occasion how the wind carried the vapor bits around the cars, from behind the trees, across the road and made it to their faces. I tell them I'm not God, I don't control the wind, I put effort into moving away reasonably so that people aren't affected. I did my part by moving away from people, the least you could do is move more away from me, that way it'd be a fair deal. Then of course I get the "why should I have to move to be able to breath"?
Some people are asses, it's just how it is. Some lawmakers have nothing better to do than come up with something new to ban. In their minds banning = having control over a situation. Rather than have faith that people can take care of themselves, they have to institute hard rules that is often unenforceable and steps on many of our freedoms.
Next thing you know they're going to cut down on smiling in public because some people may end up getting offended.
Anyhow I do feel it, the USA seems to be a country in which they repeat how great the freedom is when in fact many citizens want the government to solve all their problems. Some people feel like they have a right to impress upon others their values, their morals, their beliefs and expect others to live by it. In Hawaii we call those folks "Hai maka maka", often those who are stuck up and believing that they know better than the rest through preaching change that's only inline with their goals. They don't care about the change affecting others as long as they're happy.
Here's something about me. I'm not a smoker (analog), couldn't do it because of the smoke. I'm a vaper, very happy one on a light nic juice (8mg). I still mimic the routine of smokers by moving away just_in_case someone may have a problem with the vapor like across the street. I still hear on occasion how the wind carried the vapor bits around the cars, from behind the trees, across the road and made it to their faces. I tell them I'm not God, I don't control the wind, I put effort into moving away reasonably so that people aren't affected. I did my part by moving away from people, the least you could do is move more away from me, that way it'd be a fair deal. Then of course I get the "why should I have to move to be able to breath"?
Some people are asses, it's just how it is. Some lawmakers have nothing better to do than come up with something new to ban. In their minds banning = having control over a situation. Rather than have faith that people can take care of themselves, they have to institute hard rules that is often unenforceable and steps on many of our freedoms.
Next thing you know they're going to cut down on smiling in public because some people may end up getting offended.
I am not understanding it either. I quit drinking, I don't do "other stuff" I work, I am kind to people who are on the job, I drive carefully, my house is clean, I love animals. My only vices are caffeine and vaping! I am not a criminal! I should not be treated like one! Vaping is the inhalation of heated liquid! Should they ban humidifiers and fog machines? How about scented oil burners? I would be more concerned about the grease being heated in the deep fryers at Mc Donald's, or worse, the grill cleaner chemicals they pour on their hot grills to get the grease off! Employees have to inhale that stuff! How about perfume and body sprays? How about the testers being blasted into the air with no regard to allergies? Our elected officials have bigger fish to fry! Oh yeah, they have to inhale that grease too!
A gun range, no matter what policies are in place, is a dangerous place. Accidents happen, and with guns, the cost of the accident can be very high.
No, it is not. What is 'negligent' about using a legal product for its intended use? What is moral about a state trampling the rights of individual property owners? This is not a science question.
They won't leave us alone because most people do exactly what "genetic mutant" has been doing in this thread. They see the ANTZ lies and propaganda in the media and see published biased ANTZ studies that they have no understanding of; so they assume the ANTZ lies about tobacco, nicotine and SHS are true based sometimes mearly on the titles of studies they haven't read, studies that don't even prove what they claim to prove; or headlines written by journalists who didn't bother to read and understand the studies, either. They also have no clue how the ANTZ control acedemia and which studies get the green light and which either never do because they set out to prove something that doesn't fit the ANTZ agenda or get done and never see the light of day. Not to mention all of the researchers who have lost funding and careers because they dare speak out against the status quo.
So people go on believing that tobacco and nicotine and those who sell and use it are evil. Therefore, evil must be defeated and they will never leave us alone so long as we continue to choose to remain ignorant and believe and support it ourselves.
Yeah, I read a couple of the links that were provided against SHS. Dug a little deeper in one of them and one of the citations was how to get the best data to support your cause. It spoke of if you remove such and such you will get a better this or that and make the percentages greater. Most of these were the bottom line findings, if you dig into the pieces that are cited, most of them I couldn't understand. They seem to take studies done by many others and hand picked to prove out what the agenda is for the person(s) publishing the bottom line. 
Shouldn't be that hard to live by simple rules like: Don't do to others what you don't want done to you?!
But it feels so good to know you're so much better then "those" people.
If all this was a Simple Issue and we all lived in a Happy, Magical Land filled with Unicorns and Rainbows and the only factors were Good and Evil/Right and Wrong, this would be true.
But unfortunately, we don’t. We live in a Very Complex World governed by leaders who are all inspiring to be Reelected and maintain their Control.
And to get Reelected it takes Votes. And Votes takes Money. And much of the Money comes from the Business Sector.
If an Elected Office is ever given a Choice on where to stand on a issue, their First consideration is how will it Affect my campaign contributions? Then how will Affect my voter base? Whether something is Right or Wrong, or good for the People comes way down the list.
It ain’t Right. But Sadly it Is what it Is.
So did we really expect our State and Federal Officials to go Against the wishes of their Financial Overlords? And in turn, do something that might Upset a larger voting base than the Small Percentage of Vapers who Vote?
The Bans and the Regulations had to happen. It was the Only way to Tax e-Liquids. And it satisfied the Money Givers, Big Business. I am enough of a Realist to know this.
The ANTZ in all this are mere Pawns on the Chess Boards. Where many see them as having some Power, they really Don’t have any. They are just push around by a Larger Hand. And in the end, they won’t even achieve their goal of removing e-Cigarettes from the Market.
---
Just a Note: I am not defending anyone in this thread with this Post. These are My Views Only. Much of what I have read recently I find Repugnant and Ill-informed.
That said, I don’t like seeing people called out by name because their views are outside the mainstream views of many here on the ECF.
If the People had proper information on what is going on, right or wrong WOULD be the highest political consideration.
But in a country where the People are spoon-fed information purposely designed to control their thoughts...
Right and Wrong becomes an almost meaningless concept.
Our media has somehow been perverted.
But I'm not exactly clear on how that happened.
A combination of near monopoly and the changing laws about what "news" is. News no longer has to be true or fair like it used to be. It is now, legally, considered entertainment.
News used to be considered a public service and part of the price a station had to pay to be allowed to operate. Plus, stations had to give opposing views equal time. That law is no longer in effect!
I feel given enough Time and Information the general public will come to embrace e-Cigarettes for what they are, Viable Harm Reduction. And just like we have seen issues like Smoking Pot or Gay Marriage become more and more Openly Excepted over the years, so will e-Cigarettes.
Unfortunately, the e-Cigarette landscape is going to Drastically change during this time of Information and Acceptance. An we don't have a Couple of Years to wait for the General Public to catch on.
E-Cigarettes and e-Liquids aren’t going to be Banned. Far from it. Lorilard/Blu and other similar companies are nicely positioning themselves for a Heavily Taxed and Regulated Market. All you need to do is look around to see the Change happening right now.
But to think that Political views will change, No, No they won’t.
Unless the Big Money is removed from the Political Cycle, elected officials will Always bow down to their Financial Cronies to ensure an Uninterrupted flow of Campaign Contributions. Money runs the Show. Not Right or Wrong.
- Status
Similar threads
