Why do vapers expect to be treated differently than smokers?

[Big Screen D]

Smoking initially became restricted under the premise that 2nd hand smoke is harmful to others. Incrementally, through social engineering by government and media, smoking restrictions have become such that even when there is no danger to others, IE outdoors at parks etc. it is now also banned in places to simply placate others feelings rather than health. I still remember no smoking sections at restaurants. Now there is no smoking outside restaurants. Give an inch, and they take a mile syndrome.

I choose to not play the can not offend anyone game of political correctness. Now I don't go out of my way to vape in someones face, but I also don't try to hide my vaping which invariably leads someone to think what I am doing is wrong.

 

[cerver7]

I vape where I can smoke and stealth vape in places I can get away with it. I try my best to be political.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I think the whole smoking ban falls into 3 rationales:

1. Second hand smoke has been "proven" to cause harm to others; (assuming we accept the proof, which I do)
2. First hand smoke has been "proven" to injure the smoker;
3. Lots of self righteous people like to tell others what's best for them, enjoy playing victim of others, and generally feel superior when they can chastise some perceived wrong.

Rationales 1 and 2 clearly do not apply to vaping (at least any more than, say, nicotine gum). I recall an NIH study finding no nicotine or anything else harmful in second hand vape so the ignorant who run in fear from second hand vapors are paranoid.

Rationale 3 will govern us until the political correctness movement wanes. Given the level of indoctrination in our schools to a culture of never really doing anything lest we offend some group, likewise programmed to play victim, rationale 3 will only get stronger. I think the pushback has got to be, unless we are really doing something objectively offensive (like vaping something that smells bad), to just go ahead and vape. If laws are proposed to restrict vaping, we need to oppose them. Vaping is not smoking. It does not cause injury to others. If a restaurant, say, bans vaping, that's their business decision, but there is no justification for the government to get involved.

When we allow the government to ban things on the justification that some people just don't like it, we have embarked down the slippery slope of losing our freedom to do lots of things that there will always be some people who say they don't like it and don't want others doing it.

 

[Knight Errant]

We are in the 'setting precedents' phase. If we allow the 'norm' to be lumping us out with the smokers, regardless of the facts, then that is the mindset that will prevail. Precedents become prejudices and once they calcify, they are hard to overcome.

Be courteous, be friendly, and yet stand up for your right to not let people push you around. Offer education and facts. Back up facts with references (I carry material with me 24/7).

Generally, people only have the power over you you that you allow them to have.

That said: if I vape in a movie, store, bar, or a restaurant, I do slow my pace and I often minimize my exhale vapor. I'm not intentionally causing 'an issue,' I am merely exercising my freedom responsibly.

 

[tj99959]

Just remember that our rights end where another persons rights begin is all. It's just common courtesy.

 

[djsvapour]

I haven't read everything, but I vape with the expectation I had when I smoked. Not inside public places, not with non-smokers, not in illegal situations, etc. just the same. Can't go wrong then.

 

[mare ze dotes]

A lot of opinions have been stated, I can say that I never seen vaping as an,"get out of jail free" card. Just because vaping is not as bad as cigarette smoke does not mean it is not anoying wafting by someone around you who does not vape/smoke. respect for your fellow neighbor, ya know?

 

[Talyon]

No comment as this question has been asked and answered repeatedly, dead horse.....

No foul intended to the OP for expressing his opinion.

 

[Ta2ooz]

While I choose not to vape around my kids or even in the house,it's my choice at least until it is proven to be safe by the scientific community,I look at it as I looked at smoking, it is nice to be able to retreat to a quiet place and enjoy a .... or a vape or whatever. I look at it as, a coffee break from whatever I happen to be dealing with at the time, I find it a good way to stop and collect my thoughts. So I doubt I will stop stepping out for a vape to the smoking area, not to mention that's where most of my work friends hang out anyway. Just my 2cents

 

[grandmato5]

When we allow the government to ban things on the justification that some people just don't like it, we have embarked down the slippery slope of losing our freedom to do lots of things that there will always be some people who say they don't like it and don't want others doing it.

Sadly this IS where we are now.

This past year I've experienced on several different occasions people starting out with a smile on their face telling me that using my electronic cigarette isnt allowed. Mind you, this isnt inside a restaurant or enclosed small space with a large amount of people present but either outside or very large inside open space without many people around me. This has happened where there were originally NO SMOKING rules in effect that were changed to NO TOBACCO rules so they could, in their minds include vaping within their rules. I've asked politely what their objection to my vaping is and they have all given me the reason of second hand smoke or whatever I call that stuff coming out of my ecig containing nicotine that's a big danger. I have smiled and said, while I disagree with them it really doesnt apply to me and now that I know what their rational is I now know there is no reason I can't continue to vape (as I smile and continue vaping as we are talking. I've watched as their smug smiles have changed to scowls as they tell me I CAN NOT CONTINUE to USE MY Electronic cigarette to which I smile and reply, I have NO tobacco or nicotine in my electronic cigarette Thats when they get angry and tell me the honest truth is that they don't want to see anything that resembles a cigarette.

For an awful lot of people out there its not really about the danger, but rather the simple fact they don't want to see anyone doing anything that resembles smoking to them.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Just remember that our rights end where another persons rights begin is all. It's just common courtesy.

I don't intend to be argumentative, but I do want to understand where you are coming from and also force you to think (and I'll likely learn something too). The other person's right you speak of, what, exactly, is that right and how might I violate it by vaping?

 

[kdubbie]

My two cents ...

I totally agree that that second-hand vapor cannot in any sense, be lumped in with second hand smoke. But the simple fact is, the vast majority of people don't know what vaping is...They see a cloud of vapor exhaled from your mouth and instantly think cigarettes, and then think BAD BAD BAD, basically they are of the mindset "Don't bother me with facts when my mind is made up ... ".

I've actually posted my experience with a non-smoker here

I also believe that even if everyone was educated about the harmlessness of second-hand vapor, I still think there are those so close-minded, they would still complain and try and enforce a ban.

Really I think there is a big question mark about how vaping is going to be accepted in the community once more people are educated. That being said, I'm all for educating people as much as possible, just to get the conversation rolling.

Thanks

 

[Hippieangst]

We're the same in the respect of consuming nicotine by inhaling and exhaling (smoke or vapor). Much of the motion is the same as well. But, it's those labels of nicotine and e-cigarette that has us lumped up with cigarette smokers. I live in GA where most of the clean-air legislation has lumped vapers with smokers.

I can understand not vaping in many public places: restaurants, medical offices, government buildings, schools, etc. However, I don't think we need to be held to the same strict rules as smokers like being 25-50 feet away from doors or windows, and not vaping around non-vapers is just being respectful. There is this common mentality that because initial reports say it's safe then we can do it anywhere.

Do we pass gas in public at will because it's non-toxic (enter bad jokes here)? Most of us do not because it's rude. Do we just start helping ourselves to things in the kitchen when at a friend's house? Most folks ask for permission first because it's polite. Do folks walk down a busy sidewalk while shouting profanities just because of free speech? Most folks do not because of social conventions. Yes, it's a highly, highly possible that this is a safer alternative to smoking. So, to answer your question, we should be different from smokers because we are engaged with an alternative.

You also bring up an interesting point about our rights under attack. It's not about the where and when we can vape; it's about our accessibility to materials and about fighting off FDA regulations that could seriously jeopardize the industry (taxes, regulations, legislation) and squash independent business.

 

[kippaxkid]

some people class vapours as bad as smokers they do my head in.

 

[Markitup]

CAUTION: Long rant ahead! I've given more thought to this topic than I'd care to admit, in my many years as a smoker. I have to add that I am also a nurse (a high percentage of whom smoke) and a professor of psych nursing, thus behavior is a topic I know a bit about. I am old enough to recall the days when people commonly smoked in their offices, and even remember a physician who was notorious for having a cig dangling from his mouth as he was stitching people up in a local hospital ER (this was only in the late 70's, not so long ago as one might suspect.) I live in the north woods of Michigan, and though I consider myself a liberal, have a bit of a "Don't Tread On Me" attitude when it comes to personal liberties (I like to shoot skeet in my back yard.) The reason for all this background, is that I view smoking bans with very mixed feelings, and now that I'm a 3 month non-smoker/vaper, this gets added to the equation. Personally, I have long felt that the "science" of second hand smoke information is sketchy at best. While I can readily understand the potential for harm of high concentrations of second hand smoke in a closed environment, expanding that risk to include wafts of smoke in an outdoor environment seems neither logical, nor would I suspect, are there any sound scientific studies to verify this danger. I live in an area where the air is remarkably clean, and everytime I have lived in, or more recently visited a city, I am appalled by the air quality. Further, given the amount of auto exhaust and industrial pollution present in our cities, where the majority of people live, I find it truly amazing that people will complain about second hand smoke! The only sense I can make of this is that people are helpless, or feel helpless, to address real problems, so they get a sense of control over taking steps against perceived problems which are on a scale they can address. Thus the ire towards smokers. Does it fix the all too real problem of poor air quality which the vast majority of Americans live with? Not in the least. Does it give them someone to point a finger at, to feel that they are trying to make things better? Unfortunately, yes. I believe that all of the devisivness in this country is a form of lateral violence. We feel helpless to fix real problems, so we lash out at those around us to maintain a sense of control. I think it is inevitable that ecigs are going to be lumped in with real cigs for this reason. The ire towards smokers is not based on logic or facts, but is a knee-jerk reaction of people in need of a scapegoat.

 

[markent]

I have vhanged my mind on this subject at least ten times reading this thread, I am relatively new to vaping, one month in nowans expect to be confronted by having to justify my behaviour to some one taking offence. I live in france where legislation has just been passed to treat vaping the same as smoking in public places, ban it. I don't really object to the fact of having to vape outdoors, but am pretty offended by the rationale. This legislation has been passed on idealogical rather than scientific or reasonable grounds, and leaves vapors treated as pariahs whose dirty habitnwill be bad for others. This coupled with attempts by UK and european government bodies to bring vaping under medical classification is simply an idealogical attack on any thing that is a bit smokingish, funded by those who would other profit from out addiction to cigarettes. We need to stand up and be counted, if not the decision making is left to the ignorant and ultimatley that will cost lives

 

[mkbilbo]

Basically because smoking restrictions exist to reduce or prevent harm to others. The idea in general is the state (using the word in the broadest terms) has no business restricting the behavior of citizens without showing that the behavior harms other citizens. It is, actually, the fundamental basis of "rights". If my behavior doesn't harm anyone, the governments have no business controlling it. As they said in civics class, "Your right to swing your arms ends at my nose".

It is, actually, incumbent on governments to prove vaping harms others before they restrict it. Restricting the behavior of free citizens because something "looks like" something else is incoherent. And dangerous really if you think about it. Where does that end? Somebody "looks like" a criminal so let's throw them in jail just to be safe? Yeah, yeah, "slippery slope" arguments are tricky but, well, we have had in our history exactly that kind of behavior going on. Most recently with a spate of "looks like a terrorist" (which makes no sense really but that doesn't stop some).

But I do think there is a balance in there. Pissing people off isn't usually productive. I behave essentially the same as when I smoked. Like put the PV away as I go in the store. I don't have time to educated every single person in the grocery and for everybody that I might get a chance to talk to, tons will say nothing but just think, "what a twerp" because they'll think it's "smoking".

That is, while I don't believe in being a door mat, I also think we need more friends and allies, not more enemies. We got enough enemies in the rabid ANTZ ...... and they're difficult enough to deal with as it is...

 

[vape-addict]

because its about control..the nanny state..trying to control every aspect of our lives

 

[Caridwen]

No comment as this question has been asked and answered repeatedly, dead horse.....

No foul intended to the OP for expressing his opinion.

This is the new members section. There probably hasn't been a post here or a question asked that wasn't asked before. When you were new I'm sure you asked questions others had asked too.

But we encourage people to post and ask questions and be treated with the civility and respect I'm sure you were shown.

 

[Hippieangst]

CAUTION: Long rant ahead! I've given more thought to this topic than I'd care to admit, in my many years as a smoker. I have to add that I am also a nurse (a high percentage of whom smoke) and a professor of psych nursing, thus behavior is a topic I know a bit about. I am old enough to recall the days when people commonly smoked in their offices, and even remember a physician who was notorious for having a cig dangling from his mouth as he was stitching people up in a local hospital ER (this was only in the late 70's, not so long ago as one might suspect.) I live in the north woods of Michigan, and though I consider myself a liberal, have a bit of a "Don't Tread On Me" attitude when it comes to personal liberties (I like to shoot skeet in my back yard.) The reason for all this background, is that I view smoking bans with very mixed feelings, and now that I'm a 3 month non-smoker/vaper, this gets added to the equation. Personally, I have long felt that the "science" of second hand smoke information is sketchy at best. While I can readily understand the potential for harm of high concentrations of second hand smoke in a closed environment, expanding that risk to include wafts of smoke in an outdoor environment seems neither logical, nor would I suspect, are there any sound scientific studies to verify this danger. I live in an area where the air is remarkably clean, and everytime I have lived in, or more recently visited a city, I am appalled by the air quality. Further, given the amount of auto exhaust and industrial pollution present in our cities, where the majority of people live, I find it truly amazing that people will complain about second hand smoke! The only sense I can make of this is that people are helpless, or feel helpless, to address real problems, so they get a sense of control over taking steps against perceived problems which are on a scale they can address. Thus the ire towards smokers. Does it fix the all too real problem of poor air quality which the vast majority of Americans live with? Not in the least. Does it give them someone to point a finger at, to feel that they are trying to make things better? Unfortunately, yes. I believe that all of the devisivness in this country is a form of lateral violence. We feel helpless to fix real problems, so we lash out at those around us to maintain a sense of control. I think it is inevitable that ecigs are going to be lumped in with real cigs for this reason. The ire towards smokers is not based on logic or facts, but is a knee-jerk reaction of people in need of a scapegoat.

You bring up a valid, valid point of air quality well BEYOND the likes of a little cigarette smoke here and there (I'm speaking comparatively here). Other countries have it much, much worse. Cans of "fresh air" were being sold in China as a political / environmental statement. Check out the article here. So, I guess that maybe we, as Americans, are lucky enough to ..... about things like second-hand smoke or we're being petty. Either way, it could be worse.