Suggesting that vaping is always inherently rude/disrespectful in public (indoor) places is going to the extreme.
Why Vapers are getting a BAD NAME.
- Thread starter LEDBETTER122
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Suggesting that vaping is always inherently rude/disrespectful in public (indoor) places is going to the extreme.
It's not about confrontation in the antagonistic way you seem to imply. It's about people seeing and meeting vapers in real life, experiencing what vaping actually is. That gives opportunities to discuss vaping with people who would never seek out information on it by themselves. No one here has advocated a position of "vape wherever you want and don't give a rat's behind about anybody else". Vaping where it isn't explicitly prohibited, and being considerate about it - is what's been said. Vaping is not dangerous to those around you (there are studies, and logic dictates that anything you could inhale second hand is in trace amounts), and the rest amounts to nothing more than possibly taking offense to the smell (nowhere near as strong as perfumes, body odors etc) or the look of it. I'm annoyed by some people's appearance, and plenty of people are annoyed by my appearance. Does that mean that I or they should try to dress differently? No. Do I have the right to complain to people if their breath smells of garlic, or cigarettes, or ask them to leave the room if I don't like the perfume they're wearing? If I feel that strongly about it I should be the one that leaves. Vaping is really not different from that.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
So no one wants to answer my question??
If Vaping in public and billowing clouds is rude and disrespectful:
What about not billowing clouds? Still rude and disrespectful?
What about using a Nicorette Inhaler? Still rude and disrespectful?
The reason I think this is being ignored is because the anti-public vaping crew knows what their answer is, and they don't like the implications.
Truth is, this is not about the "perceived toxins" i'm exhaling, this not about protecting children, this is about your ability to detect via cloud that I'm vaping. You justifiy your being offended by using arguments about children and perceived toxins, but the truth is, you don't want to see the cloud.
And for that I say......Mind your own business. I do not wish to live in a politically correct society where my personal freedoms are sacrificed on the alter of not offending someone. I do not wish someone else to dictate, what I eat, what I drink, what if any God I choose or not choose to worship. My public officials are elected to serve ME, not the other way around.
Tolerance is a two way street. It means that even though I disapprove of your behavior, I defend your right to do it as long as it doesn't harm me. I find it pretty disingenuous to have a vaper on one hand tell me how intolerant I am, and in the same sentence try to dictate that my behavior fall in line with what HE or SHE feels is acceptable behavior.
If Vaping in public and billowing clouds is rude and disrespectful:
What about not billowing clouds? Still rude and disrespectful?
What about using a Nicorette Inhaler? Still rude and disrespectful?
The reason I think this is being ignored is because the anti-public vaping crew knows what their answer is, and they don't like the implications.
Truth is, this is not about the "perceived toxins" i'm exhaling, this not about protecting children, this is about your ability to detect via cloud that I'm vaping. You justifiy your being offended by using arguments about children and perceived toxins, but the truth is, you don't want to see the cloud.
And for that I say......Mind your own business. I do not wish to live in a politically correct society where my personal freedoms are sacrificed on the alter of not offending someone. I do not wish someone else to dictate, what I eat, what I drink, what if any God I choose or not choose to worship. My public officials are elected to serve ME, not the other way around.
Tolerance is a two way street. It means that even though I disapprove of your behavior, I defend your right to do it as long as it doesn't harm me. I find it pretty disingenuous to have a vaper on one hand tell me how intolerant I am, and in the same sentence try to dictate that my behavior fall in line with what HE or SHE feels is acceptable behavior.
Joined CASAA, written up pieces intended to be given to legislatures, written directly to state and national politicians. Feels like barely anything, and hope to do more.
I still think none of this compares to demonstrating it in public as words only go so far.
Which is case of these threads. I think if we all were in one big mall and having this discussion, we could use examples. The anti-vaping indoor people would demonstrate just how rude it is to go up, blow a really huge cloud right in the face of someone. And we might then sit and debate that. I think it would be a short discussion. Then the pro-vaping indoor people would demonstrate how there are many places where one could vape and it is either not noticed by other mall goers or is not blowing clouds anywhere near people, nor are the clouds lingering. After those examples are given, I'd love to have that discussion with anyone, but especially fellow vapers who participate in these threads and seem to be coming strictly from the 'don't blow huge clouds in people's faces' pov.
IMO, it is as if fellow vapers cannot conceive of vaping in public and it not being rude. Thus showing them / us, might be better than going round and round and round talking about it as the mental picture some have on this topic, is likely way off base from the actual experience of what it means to vape indoors, in an enclosed space, and be respectful.
Oh yeah, I've done that too. Forgot to mention the blog thing. I have a vaping blog. Also going to write pieces on the VATB blog that was posted here on ECF.
Depends on what you mean by confrontation. I would say demonstrating the activity in public, even if it is in places that disallow it. That's where you're getting the confrontation thing from, but it wouldn't be confrontational as you / anyone wouldn't have to know. Like I came up with idea of having say 10 vapers show up in a place, walk thru it separately and vape openly / respectfully. Then poll people on the way out and ask if they were aware of people vaping there. I'm thinking a poll would show that very few people had any idea that it occurred. Yet, if all 10 congregated in one location as a demonstration, and flyers were handed out and such, I'm thinking people would know that was occurring. That sort of demonstration has a place/purpose, but I truly believe vaping is the type of activity that when vapers are out and about, vast majority of people would have no idea that the vaper was vaping in their presence. A mall and all big stores would be great examples of this. Other spots, not so much. If I'm waiting in line at say the post office and vaping, I think people would notice. I'd be a bit more self conscious of doing it there, and probably wouldn't. If I did, I'd go with idea of doing it openly as if it is natural thing to do. If I was thinking stealth was better strategy, I'd just step outside or go to post office bathroom. Do post offices even have bathrooms? LOL.
I don't want to dwell on the breathing thing anymore as my arguments are clearly laid out and I don't think we are going anywhere with that. Let's just say that we disagree on the logics. However, I do wanna comment on the music part.
There is a difference when you voluntarily go to a club or concert when you knows full well ahead that there'll be loud music. You deliberately and voluntarily subject yourself to that element. This is very different from when I am on the train and you just pump out your music from your MP3 player. It's just rude no matter how you look at it.
There is a difference when you voluntarily go to a club or concert when you knows full well ahead that there'll be loud music. You deliberately and voluntarily subject yourself to that element. This is very different from when I am on the train and you just pump out your music from your MP3 player. It's just rude no matter how you look at it.
It's comparable -- even the so called "normal volume" (now this another can of worms -- just what is normal, what is too loud) is best not use the speakers in public. Look, it's difficult to argue what is "normal level and what is "excessive level" in these examples. I am only asking people to exercise reasonable, common courtesy. The key words here are "reasonable" and "common". Like I expect my next door neighbor to NOT mow the lawn 7AM on Sunday morning. It's common courtesy, I shouldn't have to measure the decibel to make my case. We all know when is OK and when it becomes inconsiderate.
I think everyone has a right to do as they please until it infringes on another person's right to do as they please.
I don't think you have a right to send a cloud of vapor into my face.
This is exactly what will get vaping banned and there is just no reason for it.
I don't think you have a right to send a cloud of vapor into my face.
This is exactly what will get vaping banned and there is just no reason for it.
Right. That cloud proves that we are breathing air that was very recently in someone else's nasty, humid lungs. Just because we know what fish do in water doesn't mean we need a visible reminder.
Wouldn't be rude to me if someone pumped out music from their MP3 player and it as music I liked. So, not 'just rude no matter how you look at it.' As music is omni-directional, it is hard to compare it to vaping. And as music does linger, also hard to compare it to vaping.
The music thing would be almost a decent comparison in say an arena like place, and I'm thinking large sporting event. If someone brought their mp3 player and played music so they for sure could hear it, but it wasn't obnoxiously loud, then I could see it not being rude in certain locations, i.e. on the concourse, in a bathroom, in a designated area, and perhaps other places. Possibly even in the stands if they chose to go to a location where very few people were sitting. And chances are very good in that environment that I could sit about 60 feet from them and I would have no idea that someone brought an mp3 player with them, to a public place, and played it without using headphones.
So, unless you are using the blaring loud music hypothetical person, I think it could be a decent comparison in certain situations and not be rude. But if I'm on a bus with someone and they are playing a mix of Zeppelin, Beatles, Bo Diddley and Outkast, I'd probably ask them to turn it up a little, if they wouldn't mind.
I dont mean to sound as if ALL vapers on the pro-confrontation side do so in the antagonistic way. If Ive given out that impression, I apologize. But at the same time, I have seen plenty of members who take the antagonistic approach with the attitude of vape wherever you want and don't give a rat's behind about anybody else." (Oh, I dont have the time to pull posts as examples, so you just have to take my words for it when I say Ive seen this attitude in some vapers, if you dont, oh, well, nothing I can do.)
Everything you disagree with is not arguing for the sake of argument.
Because you're NOT disagreeing with opinion. You are disagreeing with FACT and stating an opinion contrary to fact.
If you don't know of the tests (which I'm pretty sure have been posted in this thread) you are ignorant of the facts.
SHS was of no concern outside of people who would have a problem with most pollutants. Why would vaping be a concern?
I would rather ask you what you have done if you avoid letting people who might be against vaping see it? They're not going to a vaping blog or watching vaping videos.
It's not public vaping that's going to kill vaping.
It's vapers who are so brainwashed by the propaganda that they agree with it.
Who is doing more damage, me saying, "They're wrong, watch." or you saying, "They're right, it should be banned, I'll even ban myself before you have the chance."
I don't think anyone here is promoting walking up to someone and blowing a cloud in someones face. I think we all agree that is rude. The same way as if I ate some garlic, and walked up to you and exhaled in your face giving you a garlic blast.
But surely it would be out of order for you to confront me, if you hated garlic, and you caught a whiff of garlic that happened to whaff into your "personal space" because I was eating spaghetti in the booth next to you.
I fall back to the scenario posed by the OP. The OP was ACROSS the room. The OP noticed the vaper exhaling a cloud. The OP interjected themselves into situation by confronting the vapor.
Vaping in public does not mean going up to some stranger and blowing a sub ohm cloud right into their grill. Anyone who exhaled directly into my face for no reason vaper or not, would be guilty of rude and disrespectful behavior.
However, what some people are saying here, is that If I am sitting in a Restaurant, enjoying a cup of coffee and a vape at my table, they have the right to confront me or stop me from doing it because they happened to notice some vape coming from my mouth from across the room.
It's a not the same thing....Let's be clear....
What's funny is the only time I've had a desire to blow a cloud of smoke in someone's face was with an anti-smoker displaying an attitude like yours because they could see me smoking.
Frankly I've never run into anyone like that over vaping except on this VAPING FORUM. You can bet if I ever see it the voltage is getting turned up. I'll even go out and buy a fog machine and start pumping it everywhere I go.
You want to act like me existing is "in your face" you'll get some "in your face" to complain about.
Here you go again. You take my argument and apply it to every situation possible. Well, different situations have different set of decorum that is socially acceptable and unacceptable for the same behavior. Take for example in an arena during a sporting event, like you say. Sure in that environment it would be acceptable. Sure, when I am tailgating, not only that there are loud music, there are plenty of BBQ smokes, therell people throwing football around, there will be loud screaming, laughing and singing and dancing and whatnot. But thats OK for that environment, its socially acceptable. But you wouldnt think of doing the same things during a PTA meeting would you?
No, I probably wouldn't. Yet, I would be very okay with it being on same premises (indoors) and away from the meeting, only because there is the noise from other people's mouths that I'd want to hear as well.
In that same PTA meeting, assuming the room is decent size (like 30 x 32), I could see vaping in the back and it being not rude to anyone in that space. I also think it would be possible to vape right in front of people and it not be rude, but admittedly, that would be dancing on a line that some here just assume not even approach. I'd at least think about it.
I agree with what you say here to a point. That point is the social engineering by the ANTZ that made smoking unacceptable and the propaganda/lies from the ANTZ that is causing vaping to be lumped in with smoking.
No. I've not argue the extreme like you have, e.g. with the radiation therapy cancer treatment: Appeal to Extremes
Here is the problem, there is no room for discuss with you b/c you deem the things you believe in as "facts" as if you are talking about the sun rises from the East. We can't debate the subject b/c you have already made up your mind, like I say, there's be no room for discussion. If they are considered "facts" already, this subject will not be controversial to begin with. The facts that there are plenty of supports on both sides of the aisle means that the subject matter has not been settled -- unlike the case of gravity which is truly "a fact". Extremists always believe that they have all the facts and there is no need to debate them anymore and everyone who disagrees with their "facts" are just ignorant and antagonistic -- I see that history has not taught us anything in this regard.
(BTW, I have read the studies everybody has posted in this forum and then some.)
Last edited:
But why is it that you always think it is about the so called ANTZ? Here I am, as an ex-smoker, current vaper, I don't hate nicotine, I don't demonize smokers, vapers, whatever. I just disagree with your concept of socially acceptable behaviors and degree of courtesy each of us should afford the other. That's all. No ANTZ anything here.
You (or someone else) says we shouldn't vape around cancer patients even though the SCIENCE says ecigs produce 10x less nicotine in the air than cigarettes (an ANTZ study so it's probably even less, our early study says no nicotine but I doubt that). The SCIENCE says SHS is NOT harmful. So there's no medical reason not to vape around cancer patients. Any of those cancer patients still smoking may even benefit from seeing someone using an ecig.
I would agree if there was a substantial amount of nicotine exhaled it shouldn't be done around cancer patients, that's science. But the fact is if I'm in that room for hours I will need nicotine for my disease for at least the first infusion and probably more like 3 of them. So their health is more important than mine because I'm a lowly ex-smoker? If that's the case and you want to believe the ANTZ they're all ex-smokers because they have cancer and don't deserve anything more than I do.
The point about radiation treatment is if someone is getting radiation they're more of a threat than an ecig is, which is next to nothing. You wanted to claim it was absolutely nothing so I gave an example a friend of my sister's had that says otherwise. A friend of mine had radiation and also got the letter to fly, I don't think her chemo was like that though.
I didn't deem diddly. Scientists and their peers did. Maybe you should try reading some studies sometime.
You're mind is obviously made up too. The problem is you're not basing it on facts.
The reason the subject is still controversial is because of lies about those facts. Or maybe you believe you're vaping anti-freeze. Maybe you believe you are vaping massive amounts of carcinogens. Actually the way you and the other anti-vaper-vapers are acting you probably do believe that crap because you were told to believe it.
You wouldn't even have to be told not to believe it if you would actually look at the studies instead of listening to what you are told to believe.
Your ad hominem of calling the science "extremist" because it doesn't say what you want to believe proves where you've got your information. You're the one who can't be talked to until you stop treating the ANTZ word as the word of a god.
I look at all the science because I would like to know. I will admit I've learned to look at some of it with skepticism because of who does it and their tendency to lie about what they find and claim inconsequential amounts are magically dangerous.
How do you figure it's not ANTZ social engineering? 70 years or so ago you could be a non-smoker and you'd have cigarettes at your house for guests. Even if you didn't do that you'd have ashtrays for your guests, now people go outside to smoke even in their own homes.
Now you not only think smoking should be done outside because of a study that was lied about but you think vaping should be done outside. You think that because of social engineering not because something is "socially acceptable".
Not me. I quoted your reply to that person, that’s all.
I didn’t say that and I don’t know what the so-called ANTZ have said b/c I am not one of them and I have no connection to any of them.
Yes, you did. When you agree with something unequivocally that means you have accept their opinions as facts and therefore you deem their conclusions as fact … at least you’ve done so by proxy.
Have not. You will never find a post of mine in which I've said vaping and/or SHV is harmful. Never. What I have said and continue to say is that more studies are needed before we can finally say within a reasonable certainty ... after all vaping is still a new phenomenon.
Again, if you automatically insist that every disagreement is based on lies and disinformation, then there is no room for discussion -- just like when you make the suggestion here:
Since when have I ever said I believe that? Actually, I still have to see a single person in this forum who have said that!
You see, you simply automatically label anyone who disagree with you as ANTZ or followers of ANTZ or stupid persons who have been brainwashed by ANTZ.
I resent that characterization and name calling. Fine, you are free to disagree with me, but don’t categorize as a anti-this or anti-that or attack me as a person.
This is the thing with any scientific proof – it’s very difficult, much, much more difficult than you'd think. Even studies done by world renowned scientists in the most prestigious institutions get criticized and disputed all the times! It is not until many, many, many well scrutinized and repeated studies have been done on a subject before the scientific community will reach a consensus and declare something a fact. I don’t see the amount and level of studies on vaping and/or SHV have reached this point YET. That’s all I am saying. NOT saying that vaping and SHV is harmful. More studies, that all ... I think I am being reasonable instead of being extreme.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
