Why Vapers are getting a BAD NAME.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Coelli

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 5, 2014
1,389
3,077
Los Angeles, CA
LOL, no, they really don't.
My sister called the ACLU with the thought that kids have a right to a public education and she was shot down.

That's weird, because the ACLU states the opposite on their website.

https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rig...s-all-children-have-right-public-education-re

"WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Education (DOE) today issued important guidance reminding school districts nationwide of their obligation under federal law to provide equal educational opportunities to all children residing in their districts, regardless of their race, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, or the immigration status of their parents and guardians. "
 

LDS714

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 27, 2013
1,562
3,212
65
Nashville, TN, USA
No science behind this, just some Mom logic. But Doctors want kids on bottle or breast longer and longer, which means they aren't exposed to different oils, foods, and preservatives etc until they're almost toddlers some even longer. I was on cut up table food by 6 months (baby foods and cereal months before that), and against doctor's orders so were my own kids. My friends with younger kids seem to have kids with more widespread allergies, and worse allergies than I have seen among people with kids raised the same time as my own. The longer you go without exposure to something the better chance of an allergic reaction. My sister in law never allowed animals around her kids. Guess who has 4 kids allergic to cats and dogs by the time they were old enough to hang out at friends houses?

I think you may be on to something...
 

Coelli

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 5, 2014
1,389
3,077
Los Angeles, CA
No science behind this, just some Mom logic. But Doctors want kids on bottle or breast longer and longer, which means they aren't exposed to different oils, foods, and preservatives etc until they're almost toddlers some even longer. I was on cut up table food by 6 months (baby foods and cereal months before that), and against doctor's orders so were my own kids. My friends with younger kids seem to have kids with more widespread allergies, and worse allergies than I have seen among people with kids raised the same time as my own. The longer you go without exposure to something the better chance of an allergic reaction. My sister in law never allowed animals around her kids. Guess who has 4 kids allergic to cats and dogs by the time they were old enough to hang out at friends houses?

Well, in all fairness as far as breastfeeding goes the kid is exposed to pretty much everything the mom eats. One of my kids was so sensitive to dairy and soy that I had to cut both out of my diet for the first 7 months. If I ate it, he had massive gastrointestinal issues (right down to blood in his diapers). The proteins were passed through breastmilk. He grew out of it and at almost 14 has no allergies to anything.

The peanut allergy is interesting in that it's so prevalent now, even though the guideline is to not expose them to it before 1 year to help reduce the chance of an allergic reaction by an immune system that's still developing. I find the vaccine theory interesting and hope they do more research on that angle. Most allergies aren't that bad - maybe a rash or something - but anaphylactic shock is just downright frightening. You can go from exposure to dead very quickly. That's why I'm on board with peanut bans at schools - it's just way too much risk compared to a little inconvenience.
 

Jay-dub

Moved On
Oct 10, 2013
934
1,607
Kansas City, MO
I'm choosing not to look at this in black and white. I find it too simplistic and naive. If you get a neighbor who does whatever they want on their property, and it drags down property value - that's their right? You have no right to protect the value of your home? What about when devalued property starts to effect tax revenue and infrastructure becomes neglected - still the right of the land owner to do with their property what thy will? What if the loss of tax revenue reaches a point that the school district, and your child, suffers diminished resources and potential - still the right of that property owner to do with their property what they choose? I'm sure if you're ideologically inclined gubment = bad. No one here is that ideological... right?
 
Last edited:

CalamityJess

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Well, in all fairness as far as breastfeeding goes the kid is exposed to pretty much everything the mom eats. One of my kids was so sensitive to dairy and soy that I had to cut both out of my diet for the first 7 months. If I ate it, he had massive gastrointestinal issues (right down to blood in his diapers). The proteins were passed through breastmilk. He grew out of it and at almost 14 has no allergies to anything.

The peanut allergy is interesting in that it's so prevalent now, even though the guideline is to not expose them to it before 1 year to help reduce the chance of an allergic reaction by an immune system that's still developing. I find the vaccine theory interesting and hope they do more research on that angle. Most allergies aren't that bad - maybe a rash or something - but anaphylactic shock is just downright frightening. You can go from exposure to dead very quickly. That's why I'm on board with peanut bans at schools - it's just way too much risk compared to a little inconvenience.

Yeah it's a hard spot, you either have to remove peanuts from the equation in the cafeteria, or isolate (and by doing so ostracize) the kid that already has to worry about a killer reaction. Neither is fair to either party. In a word (or 2) it sucks.
 

Jay-dub

Moved On
Oct 10, 2013
934
1,607
Kansas City, MO
LOL, no, they really don't.
My sister called the ACLU with the thought that kids have a right to a public education and she was shot down.

I think your sister should have called the school district first. She could have found what criteria were necessary to enroll. Proof of residency is to establish which district your child should attend. Along with an academic record (if already attended school) and a record of inoculations. Calling the ACLU is something that should be done after having it out with the school district and the State Board of Education for whatever reason. If you meet the requirements for enrollment, a clear reason of denial must be given. (No proof of residency, needs shots, needs physical etc...) The ACLU was probably just trying to get her off the line because her story offers nothing to go on without further diligence on her part.
 

Myk

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 1, 2009
4,889
10,658
IL, USA
That's weird, because the ACLU states the opposite on their website.

https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rig...s-all-children-have-right-public-education-re

"WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Education (DOE) today issued important guidance reminding school districts nationwide of their obligation under federal law to provide equal educational opportunities to all children residing in their districts, regardless of their race, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, or the immigration status of their parents and guardians. "

Did you read the article or just the headline?

It says nothing about providing for special needs, it's mostly about race, nationality and home status.
Also the headline states rights but the rest mentions "obligation". The government has more than an "obligation" to not take away someone's rights.
What this tells me is the ACLU is once again picking and choosing what rights they fight for and what they call a right (sorry I was a member of the local and quit because of this).
My sister's issue was more along the lines of providing for special needs not whether illegal aliens should get to go to school.



I'm choosing not to look at this in black and white. I find it too simplistic and naive. If you get a neighbor who does whatever they want on their property, and it drags down property value - that's their right? You have no right to protect the value of your home? What about when devalued property starts to effect tax revenue and infrastructure becomes neglected - still the right of the land owner to do with their property what thy will? What if the loss of tax revenue reaches a point that the school district, and your child, suffers diminished resources and potential - still the right of that property owner to do with their property what they choose? I'm sure if you're ideologically inclined gubment = bad. No one here is that ideological... right?

What happened to that good ol' boy thing where it's my property my rules?



I think your sister should have called the school district first. She could have found what criteria were necessary to enroll. Proof of residency is to establish which district your child should attend. Along with an academic record (if already attended school) and a record of inoculations. Calling the ACLU is something that should be done after having it out with the school district and the State Board of Education for whatever reason. If you meet the requirements for enrollment, a clear reason of denial must be given. (No proof of residency, needs shots, needs physical etc...) The ACLU was probably just trying to get her off the line because her story offers nothing to go on without further diligence on her part.

That has nothing to do with why my sister called and she called because the school refused to teach my niece in a way she could learn (dyslexia).
 

Coelli

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 5, 2014
1,389
3,077
Los Angeles, CA
Did you read the article or just the headline?

You seem to have missed this part: "obligation under federal law to provide equal educational opportunities to all children residing in their districts"

As for disabilities:
20 U.S. Code Chapter 33 - EDUCATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES | LII / Legal Information Institute
Protecting Students With Disabilities
A Guide to Disability Rights Laws

These links are very easy to find.

My niece (12) is severely physically and cognitively disabled and goes to public school, complete with a 1:1 aide after she fell pushing her wheelchair and broke her front teeth out. At this point I'm pretty familiar with what the public schools are required to provide for her to enable her to attend. I have another friend with an autistic son who also goes to public school. It is sometimes a fight, but in the end, the state is mandated (as all states are) to provide an education for them.

However, all of these (and your sister's case) are about providing special services, which is not the same as asking people not to bring peanut butter to school. What a hardship for everyone else! Unbelievable.
 

LDS714

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 27, 2013
1,562
3,212
65
Nashville, TN, USA
I'm choosing not to look at this in black and white. I find it too simplistic and naive. If you get a neighbor who does whatever they want on their property, and it drags down property value - that's their right? You have no right to protect the value of your home? What about when devalued property starts to effect tax revenue and infrastructure becomes neglected - still the right of the land owner to do with their property what thy will? What if the loss of tax revenue reaches a point that the school district, and your child, suffers diminished resources and potential - still the right of that property owner to do with their property what they choose? I'm sure if you're ideologically inclined gubment = bad. No one here is that ideological... right?
You're not gonna like this, but yeah - it should still be the right of the land owner to do with their property what they please. But more and more people are being indoctrinated to your viewpoint.
 

Myk

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 1, 2009
4,889
10,658
IL, USA
You seem to have missed this part: "obligation under federal law to provide equal educational opportunities to all children residing in their districts"

As for disabilities:
20 U.S. Code Chapter 33 - EDUCATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES | LII / Legal Information Institute
Protecting Students With Disabilities
A Guide to Disability Rights Laws

These links are very easy to find.

My niece (12) is severely physically and cognitively disabled and goes to public school, complete with a 1:1 aide after she fell pushing her wheelchair and broke her front teeth out. At this point I'm pretty familiar with what the public schools are required to provide for her to enable her to attend. I have another friend with an autistic son who also goes to public school. It is sometimes a fight, but in the end, the state is mandated (as all states are) to provide an education for them.

However, all of these (and your sister's case) are about providing special services, which is not the same as asking people not to bring peanut butter to school. What a hardship for everyone else! Unbelievable.

You seem to have a problem understanding the meaning of "right". Government does not have an "obligation" to provide "rights". Government is forbidden from infringing on rights (which they seem to have forgotten about).

Taking my money for kids I did not have to provide an education for people who had kids when they couldn't afford to educate them is not a right. It is government buying votes with my money. Don't confuse that and rights.

I'll give you that equal protection in spite of disabilities is a right, the ACLU should've jumped on my sister's case, especially since it wouldn't cause undue hardship on the school to have taught my niece. But public school is not a "right". The government also has laws about driving but nobody has ever said driving is a right.

You want the peanut kids to have an equal education provided by your neighbor's money? In my imaginary public school they can go be in a separate room because that is the only way I can be assured of removing the threat of peanuts from them when in public.

What's unbelievable is you thinking you have a "right" to my money. No wonder the government thinks it can tell people what to do on their own property.
I can't have a retail business because someone can't stay out of my store, they have to force me to not smoke in my store even though they aren't a customer.
 

Anjaffm

Dragon Lady
ECF Veteran
Sep 12, 2013
2,468
8,639
Germany
Government does not have an "obligation" to provide "rights". Government is forbidden from infringing on rights (which they seem to have forgotten about).

Absolutely.

Government providing - and taking away - "rights" was common practice in the Eastern Bloc.
Which is the main reason why the Eastern Bloc has crumbled.

The only other country at this moment where Government grants - and takes away - "rights" is North Korea.

..............
And before anybody accuses me of not knowing what I am talking about with regard to the Eastern Bloc:

I am from Germany. The Eastern Bloc crumbled when I was 30 years old.
My own country was divided - until I was 30 years old. I saw the "death zone" at the border. The barbed wire fences. I saw the watch towers and the guards with machine guns. I read of persons who were shot to death while attempting to leave the GDR (Communist East Germany) - shot to death for the crime of "Flight from the Republic". Or just shot. Fatally wounded. And left there to die.
Because the Government of the GDR did NOT grant its citizens the "right" to leave the country.

That is what happens if the Government grants "rights" - or takes them away.
 
Last edited:

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,254
USA midwest
You're not gonna like this, but yeah - it should still be the right of the land owner to do with their property what they please.

It's funny, I am neither a liberal or a conservative, which is why I abhor labels, because in general I find so many people in the world today to be thoroughly spoiled and obstinate.

I have never been wealthy enough to insulate myself from every aspect of society or other people; so I never expected that there wouldn't be a certain amount of give-and-take in life.

I gotta say, I agree with you LDS. We have this going on all the time out where i am. Somebody moved out to the middle of nowhere here, onto about 1000 acres, and decided to have certain activities like concerts. Others come here buy up 200 acres and then decide to put ATV trails up. Then, the neighbors "react" and start pressing their political buddies in town to make new ordinances against whatever their neighbors are trying to do.

It's so absurd. A big long endless game.

There are 10 acres next to mine that somebody in TX owns, but the land sits vacant. There are 45 acres adjoining the back of me that are also vacant. There is a 2,000 acre cattle farm across from me, which is somewhat "safe". But.... I am fully AWARE that they may eventually be purchased and that someone may eventually build something on them. If the cattle farmer dies, maybe his kids willl divide up the land and people will build homesteads on the parcels.

However, I purposely chose to buy land where the deed has no restrictions. I did not want to own something and have others telling me what I can and can't do on my own property. And the libertarian side of me wants to allow others to live that way, too.

I also realize i can't "control" everything that happens around me, and my expectation has never been a perfect life. Things change, you are always wrestling with something new, nothing remains the same.

If somebody builds a chicken house next to me, and i'm downwind, and it's not illegal, then I will probably just move. To me, that is being a practical person. You don't like something, you don't stay in it. Ditto, crummy bosses and jobs. Get your .... up and find something else.

But------I also understand that because I can't own my very own island, there are other people in the world to contend with, I am not the center of the universe, so my needs, my wants, my lifestyle are not the be-all end-all and I am not Master of the Universe. I am used to cutting people some slack, and trying to work out compromises. And, I keep trying to develop more patience because I think it is a virtue.

In life, there are 2 winners, IMHO, and that is 1) flexible people and 2) resourceful people. If you can't be those things then you are in for a world of hurt, misery, and disappointment. And, a lot of fighting.

I learned about flexibilitiy from living among many pine trees that are 50+ feet tall and can fall over on me at any time, but they are very strong, even in the wind, because they are FLEXIBLE. Water is the most resourcerful substance, it will go over, around, below, above, and can wear away a huge boulder in time, drip drip drip.

I guess you can see now that I really can't support any kind of extreme. Nothing is black and white to me. We all live by our wits, and have to constantly adjust our footing. If your feet are in cement, you are rendered immobile, and that's the very worst place to be. Those are the trees that, in straight winds, simple come up out of the ground, roots up, and fall on your house. That is because they have no flexibility.

I learn everything from my dogs and nature. :)

And by the way.....Junkyard dogs may be loud and scary, but have a very limited lifespan, and little power. They are usually miserable which is why they bark so much, prisoners of their own misery, and then, there is always somebody who will just come along and shoot them LOL (that is a metaphor by the way, so please take it as such).
 
Last edited:

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
I agree with everything you just said Racehorse.
And you said it well.

Except for one thing...

The compromisers need to understand that the junkyard dogs are what makes the other side compromise.
If there is no demonstrated position of strength, then there is only a position of weakness for the compromisers to work from.

And when you work from a position of weakness, you get steamrolled.
At least that's my take on this whole conversation.

I advocate using EVERY angle.

Strong when need be...
Offer compromise when it makes sense...

I won't rule out anything that is needed when it is needed.
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,254
USA midwest
I agree with everything you just said Racehorse.
And you said it well.

Except for one thing...

The compromisers need to understand that the junkyard dogs are what makes the other side compromise.
If there is no demonstrated position of strength, then there is only a position of weakness for the compromisers to work from.

Compromise is an art, and the very best at it walk away with pretty much everything they want. That's because they already know what bones they're going to throw their opponent, and make it look like they gave them something. ;)

ah grasshopper, what is perceived as strength, and what is real strength. Not always what it *appears*?

The quiet, small drip drip drip of a water droplet is powerful, wears away a boulder in time. Tsunamis on the other hand can be strong but quite destructive in their wrath.

Junkyard dogs are the most "frustrated" beings I have ever been around. I've worked with them in rescue. That is why they aren't used by LEO or Search and Rescue. Can't depend on them, iffy psychology, bundles of frustration and zero confidence. Confident dogs do not act like junkyard dogs.....

The composed doberman or german shepard waiting at the ready, now THAT is one to be feared.

Ditto, thoroughbreds who kick down the paddock walls in the saddling area rarely win out on the track once the real race begins. I look for the horse with the most composure, head down, ready to go. I make money that way. While I listen to people saying "oh, that one is fiery, he's rarin' to go!" but they invariably don't cash any tickets.

Just my zen observations. Observing body language and energy is very revealing if you get a chance to be in a room with an opponent.
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,254
USA midwest
Maybe I'm optimisitc, I see vaping in it's relative infancy as being stomped on, misunderstood, mysterious and harrassed.

All this willl be turned around eventually, though it will look like many lost campaigns in the early stages. Truth, research will win out, but it takes time. It's not smoking, it's not tobacco, it will take some proof and some time for the majority to see this, and then it will be the ANTZ who will look absurd.

There are a number of things that have gone that way, really. Every year, there will be more vapers. It's not going away.

"Victory belongs to the most persevering."
What is Perseverance?
Perseverance is commitment, hard work, patience, endurance.
Perseverance is being able to bear difficulties calmly.
Perseverance is trying again and again.


I have never seen it described as violence, anger, complaining. Nor fearfulness, paranoia, or blaming. Ask a martial arts expert like a Bruce Lee. Or the guys who climbed Mt. Everest. They know all about concentrating energy in the most efficient way to achieve a goal.
 
Last edited:

LDS714

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 27, 2013
1,562
3,212
65
Nashville, TN, USA
Maybe I'm optimisitc, I see vaping in it's relative infancy as being stomped on, misunderstood, mysterious and harrassed.

All this willl be turned around eventually, though it will look like many lost campaigns in the early stages. Truth, research will win out, but it takes time. It's not smoking, it's not tobacco, it will take some proof and some time for the majority to see this, and then it will be the ANTZ who will look absurd.

There are a number of things that have gone that way, really. Every year, there will be more vapers. It's not going away.
Hopefully.

But I come from a time when anyone smoked anywhere.

Look at the number of people, even on this forum that have the attitude, "if I can't smoke somewhere I shouldn't be able to vape there." Why? Because not smoking in certain places is "normal" to them, it's just the way it's always been. Enough complacency and not vaping in public will just be the way it's always been...

One of the main reasons is "it looks like smoking." We're being profiled. Something that's illegal when done to any other class of people.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
Ditto, thoroughbreds who kick down the paddock walls in the saddling area rarely win out on the track once the real race begins. I look for the horse with the most composure, head down, ready to go. I make money that way. While I listen to people saying "oh, that one is fiery, he's rarin' to go!" but they invariably don't cash any tickets.
That's funny, because I used to do that...
And I don't recall ever cashing any of those tickets either.
:laugh:
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,618
1
84,741
So-Cal
...

I advocate using EVERY angle.

Strong when need be...
Offer compromise when it makes sense...

I won't rule out anything that is needed when it is needed.

You mentioned the Possible use of Compromises.

What are some of the Compromises You would deem Expectable to achieve what Goals?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread