Why Vapers are getting a BAD NAME.

[zoiDman]

Oh.
Can't resist jumping in again now, eh?
Well, have fun. I received the reply that I requested. That is good enough for me. *sweet smile*

No Anja... I'm done with You.

 

[Anjaffm]

No Anja... I'm done with You.

Oh yes, I can believe that. *very sweet smile*

And I should say that our exchange was quite satisfactory.

...

"One last question for the "don't vape where you can't smoke" crowd here. What do you tell the vaper in San Rafael? That he can't vape in his home because of the smoking ban there? Seriously?!!!??? Or do you tell him it's time for a little bit of civil disobedience even though that might undermine your entire position....?"

I would tell that San Rafael Vaper that until they can Show Me where it says that they Can Not use an e-Cigarette in their Common Walled Dwelling, that this Ordinance Does Not Apply to Them. So vape On.

...

Quite satisfactory indeed.

 

[Jman8]

No Problem.

The Word I was Looking for was "Addiction".

It isn't brought up here much. But I wonder how much Addiction to Using an e-Cigarette plays in Some People "Vape Everywhere" view

I would say it plays into it, but would say it would be challenging to determine that when observed in public. Perhaps impossible based on quick observation.

As I've gone cold turkey for 8 years, the addiction thing seems relative. I currently smoke, but at level of moderation I have only very rarely (extremely rarely) ever heard of in a smoker. Yet, someone that sees me smoking somewhere in public would I bet assume I am regular smoker who can't kick the habit. IMO, as one who knows exactly what it is like to be cold turkey, I know I have broken the addiction to smoking, but that doesn't jive with even fellow vapers, much less with people who might see me out and about, and have no idea what my use is. For them, none of this matters, even a little bit. If I was to go into indoor public place, and say can I have a cigarette here, plus let them know I intend to be a regular visitor, I'm guessing it wouldn't matter if I was spending a lot of time/money in that location, nor if I smoked my one cigarette a week in their location, all that would matter is that it was done once. With politics of smoking today, that is way way way way too much smoking in an indoor location. Heaven forbid. People can die from SHS, don't cha know?

So, same goes for vaping, minus the whole harm aspect, except from the zealot spin where SHS and SHV are equal to each other, and need to be treated as equal to each other. Wouldn't matter to the zealot if it has nicotine in the vapor. Wouldn't matter if you did it once in indoor location where no one was within 5 meters of you. Just that you did it, is what would matter. Even if you did it outdoors, with no one within 5 meters, all that would matter is that you did it, and none of the other factors would need to be discussed. You did it, end of discussion. Vaping is rude wherever you do it.

In my experience, vaping is not as addictive as smoking, and doesn't carry with it the same level of craving(s). It has habit forming qualities to it, but the addictive quality a la DSM criteria is simply minor compared to most other addictions, some of which are legal (i.e. sugar). I find that if I wander into the mental territory of do I need to vape in indoor public locations, I am also wandering into territory of do I need to vape at all? Both answers to that essentially same question are no, I don't need to. Yet, I enjoy it, and desire the use of this item that is not all that addictive, is relatively harmless, and is enjoyable.

 

[p.opus]

I think you are Kinda making a Big Leap when you go From what people say about Vaping in Public to Vaping Inside their Own Home.

I also think that you are Putting Words in their Mouths that might Not be True. That would be, as another members says, "Misrepresenting their Views".

I really don't have an "axe to grind" with anyone. And it wasn't my intention to call anyone out, and as a result, I've deleted the names in the post. Personal attacks help no one.

My point is that the argument that you should only vape where you can smoke, or you shouldn't vape where you can't smoke is too simplistic.

We all know it's not that easy. We also know that public vapers are not the cause of all this anti e-cig legislation.

Unfortunately everyday we lose a bit of ground. I was actually kind of excited last October, but a lot has changed. Towns are instituting blanket bans on e-cigs where smoking is not allowed. They aren't even taking a common sense approach to the matter. And there is no reason to believe that a town like San Rafael would create the toughest anti-smoking legislation in the United States and then suddenly be progressive in terms of e-cig usage.

It's not going down like that. I hate to say it, but we will be lucky if we can even order our vaping supplies online by the end of the year. I personally don't want to have to hike to my local "head shop and vapor store" and be so limited in my selection. All of the best things I found in vaping, I got online. My local stores barely know what a protank is, and only one I've been to recognized my MVP... Most of them are selling CE4's and ego starter kits with generic juice from China.

Instead of burying our heads in the sand and hoping the bad people will go away, we really need to start challenging some of these bans in the court system. They are hurting business owners, they are hurting ex smokers, and all because of a concentrated movement to eliminate vaping entirely.

Every successful municipal ban that goes unchallenged leads to dozens of more city councils putting it up on their docket. We won't have the freedom to go to a vape convention like I will be going to in Tampa this weekend because no business owner will be allowed to host one.

And it really doesn't matter what the average joe thinks. I used to think pure "education" was the answer. Most people I know don't have a problem with my vaping. But none of them care enough to overturn an existing ban because..."It doesn't apply to me...."

When smoking was banned in the 80's on airplane trips less than 2 hours. Most smokers saw the logic of that argument. We understood that a confined space with limited ventilation was not the "best place" to smoke. By 1998 that ban was extended to all domestic flights regardless of length. Shortly thereafter it was banned on all flights international or domestic.

Never in my wildest dreams, did I think that acquiescing to something as trival as smoking on a plane would lead to a law that would make it illegal to smoke in my own home if it shared a wall with a neighbor.

We've all been down this road before. We know where it leads. The constitutionality of these vaping bans has to be challenged and challenged immediately.

We can't count on non-vapers to do it.....

 

[zoiDman]

I really don't have an "axe to grind" with anyone. And it wasn't my intention to call anyone out, and as a result, I've deleted the names in the post. Personal attacks help no one.

My point is that the argument that you should only vape where you can smoke, or you shouldn't vape where you can't smoke is too simplistic.

....

I Never thought you were Calling Anyone Out. I have read Many of your Posts and know that you are Very Passionate about e-Cigarettes.

I just didn't want someone Feeling like they were being put on the Spot. And that their Views on Vaping in Public were the Same as the Extreme Views of Smoking Cigarettes in a Common Walled Dwelling that some San Refael Elected Officials have.

 

[Anjaffm]

I just didn't want someone Feeling like they were being put on the Spot.

Now that's a first, coming from this source.
But then, there is always room for improvement. For anybody.
Such new sentiments may be greatly appreciated.

 

[Jay-dub]

I really don't have an "axe to grind" with anyone. And it wasn't my intention to call anyone out, and as a result, I've deleted the names in the post. Personal attacks help no one.

My point is that the argument that you should only vape where you can smoke, or you shouldn't vape where you can't smoke is too simplistic.

We all know it's not that easy. We also know that public vapers are not the cause of all this anti e-cig legislation.

Unfortunately everyday we lose a bit of ground. I was actually kind of excited last October, but a lot has changed. Towns are instituting blanket bans on e-cigs where smoking is not allowed. They aren't even taking a common sense approach to the matter. And there is no reason to believe that a town like San Rafael would create the toughest anti-smoking legislation in the United States and then suddenly be progressive in terms of e-cig usage.

It's not going down like that. I hate to say it, but we will be lucky if we can even order our vaping supplies online by the end of the year. I personally don't want to have to hike to my local "head shop and vapor store" and be so limited in my selection. All of the best things I found in vaping, I got online. My local stores barely know what a protank is, and only one I've been to recognized my MVP... Most of them are selling CE4's and ego starter kits with generic juice from China.

Instead of burying our heads in the sand and hoping the bad people will go away, we really need to start challenging some of these bans in the court system. They are hurting business owners, they are hurting ex smokers, and all because of a concentrated movement to eliminate vaping entirely.

Every successful municipal ban that goes unchallenged leads to dozens of more city councils putting it up on their docket. We won't have the freedom to go to a vape convention like I will be going to in Tampa this weekend because no business owner will be allowed to host one.

And it really doesn't matter what the average joe thinks. I used to think pure "education" was the answer. Most people I know don't have a problem with my vaping. But none of them care enough to overturn an existing ban because..."It doesn't apply to me...."

When smoking was banned in the 80's on airplane trips less than 2 hours. Most smokers saw the logic of that argument. We understood that a confined space with limited ventilation was not the "best place" to smoke. By 1998 that ban was extended to all domestic flights regardless of length. Shortly thereafter it was banned on all flights international or domestic.

Never in my wildest dreams, did I think that acquiescing to something as trival as smoking on a plane would lead to a law that would make it illegal to smoke in my own home if it shared a wall with a neighbor.

We've all been down this road before. We know where it leads. The constitutionality of these vaping bans has to be challenged and challenged immediately.

We can't count on non-vapers to do it.....

Where are the links to the lobbyists? I see threats by state listed on a daily basis, yet I never see a link for us to put our money where our mouths are - except to send it to ECF or CASAA. The only way the industry I'm in has been able to avoid heavy-handed legislation has been through a lobbyist. So, we're expected to write and complain to politicians and the media but not direct resources to a lobby?


PS. I was about to like your post right upon reading your first sentence but when I got to it I was too confused to do so. "I really don't have an "axe to grind" with anyone. And it wasn't my intention to call anyone out, and as a result, I've deleted the names in the post. Personal attacks help no one." is for damn sure! Unfortunately, one of the main instigators of this very behavior is somehow in agreement with you. So, I'm not sure if your statement is code or not. Like I said...confused.

 

[Jman8]

I think you are Kinda making a Big Leap when you go From what people say about Vaping in Public to Vaping Inside their Own Home.

How is it a big leap if the rule is:
1 - Ask before Vaping on Private Property or where Smoking is Not Allowed
2 - if you can't smoke there, don't vape there. Period.

Do you not think there are people walking this planet right now who would LOVE to see vaping banned in all the places (all of them) where smoking is banned? And that these people are going about things regardless of what vapers feel is reasonable considerations, i.e. it's my own property, it's outdoors, it's nowhere near other people?

IMO, this is hitting the nail on the head, and to claim "big leap" is running away from what your logic is leading to if you think posting "don't vape where you can't smoke" as something that is worthy of getting behind on a vaping discussion forum. And by "you" - I do mean every vaper/member on this forum that posts that sort of criteria for where it is permissible to vape, in their opinion.

Hence the ANTZ insinuation.

If San Rafael remains the only place to have that sort of ban in place, then it is easy to isolate the (unreasonable) rationale to that one place. But if that grows to be a dozen cities or more, then I can see exact same vapers who might argue now for "if they can't enforce it, what's the problem with vaping there?" - to people who suddenly are saying respect this ban for it is the wishes of the people there. Akin to someone who might post:

Respect the Will of Business Owners if they Tell you Can Not Vape in their Place of Business.
Respect Indoor Bans on e-Cigarette Use in Public Buildings and or the Work Force.

My current logic in response to these sort of statements is vape everywhere AND how are these places going to enforce a ban if they don't see it, don't catch you, don't notice the vaper vaping in these locations? I vaped about 7 times in a department store today. Didn't care to ask, cause knew I'd do it respectfully each and every time I took a puff. About 3 of those times were out in the open, with no one within 5 meters of me when I did. Feeling very confident that no one noticed. 4 of the times were in dressing room where I'm thinking some sort of store camera was on me but was only time I felt a bit self conscious in what I was up to even while I was in space where no one was around me, and am in a little room where door is locked, so no one could just walk in on me.

Point is though, I didn't get caught nor met with complaints. So, as I've said about 20 times on ECF, I'm still batting 1.000 in my indoor public vaping practice (2 years running). Thus, my vape everywhere stance is still solidly in place. And I wanna make clear to all others reading this that you can vape openly indoors in public, and not get caught, if you a) do it like you belong there and b) keep your wits about you meaning that you don't necessarily do it with lots of people around.

How are they going to enforce an indoor ban if they can't or don't catch you doing it?

 

[zoiDman]

...

Do you not think there are people walking this planet right now who would LOVE to see vaping banned in all the places (all of them) where smoking is banned? And that these people are going about things regardless of what vapers feel is reasonable considerations, i.e. it's my own property, it's outdoors, it's nowhere near other people?

...

Of course there is. Always have been. Always will be.

I just don't see how the Vape Everywhere Attitude does anything but to Help them in their Cause.

If I walk into someplace and Ask if I can Vape and are Told Yes, then there's No Problem. If I'm Told No and I don't Vape, No Problem. If I am Unsure or there is No One to Ask and I Don't Vape, and there is No Problem either.

This is What I do.

And if People see this as such a Big Evil, so be it. You can't make Everyone Happy.

It just seem like it It's much of an Issue.

 

[Jay-dub]

How is it a big leap if the rule is:
1 - Ask before Vaping on Private Property or where Smoking is Not Allowed
2 - if you can't smoke there, don't vape there. Period.

Do you not think there are people walking this planet right now who would LOVE to see vaping banned in all the places (all of them) where smoking is banned? And that these people are going about things regardless of what vapers feel is reasonable considerations, i.e. it's my own property, it's outdoors, it's nowhere near other people?

IMO, this is hitting the nail on the head, and to claim "big leap" is running away from what your logic is leading to if you think posting "don't vape where you can't smoke" as something that is worthy of getting behind on a vaping discussion forum. And by "you" - I do mean every vaper/member on this forum that posts that sort of criteria for where it is permissible to vape, in their opinion.

Hence the ANTZ insinuation.

If San Rafael remains the only place to have that sort of ban in place, then it is easy to isolate the (unreasonable) rationale to that one place. But if that grows to be a dozen cities or more, then I can see exact same vapers who might argue now for "if they can't enforce it, what's the problem with vaping there?" - to people who suddenly are saying respect this ban for it is the wishes of the people there. Akin to someone who might post:

Respect the Will of Business Owners if they Tell you Can Not Vape in their Place of Business.
Respect Indoor Bans on e-Cigarette Use in Public Buildings and or the Work Force.

My current logic in response to these sort of statements is vape everywhere AND how are these places going to enforce a ban if they don't see it, don't catch you, don't notice the vaper vaping in these locations? I vaped about 7 times in a department store today. Didn't care to ask, cause knew I'd do it respectfully each and every time I took a puff. About 3 of those times were out in the open, with no one within 5 meters of me when I did. Feeling very confident that no one noticed. 4 of the times were in dressing room where I'm thinking some sort of store camera was on me but was only time I felt a bit self conscious in what I was up to even while I was in space where no one was around me, and am in a little room where door is locked, so no one could just walk in on me.

Point is though, I didn't get caught nor met with complaints. So, as I've said about 20 times on ECF, I'm still batting 1.000 in my indoor public vaping practice (2 years running). Thus, my vape everywhere stance is still solidly in place. And I wanna make clear to all others reading this that you can vape openly indoors in public, and not get caught, if you a) do it like you belong there and b) keep your wits about you meaning that you don't necessarily do it with lots of people around.

How are they going to enforce an indoor ban if they can't or don't catch you doing it?

I know that your above such an insinuation. So, I'm sure I'm missing something. You must be defending someone else's name calling. But you've always seemed too much of a free-thinker to excuse such out-of-the-box tactics. Still, I can't believe the extent to which some in this community are willing to go to discredit another simply over having a different viewpoint. It's poison.

 

[p.opus]

Where are the links to the lobbyists? I see threats by state listed on a daily basis, yet I never see a link for us to put our money where our mouths are - except to send it to ECF or CASAA. The only way the industry I'm in has been able to avoid heavy-handed legislation has been through a lobbyist. So, we're expected to write and complain to politicians and the media but not direct resources to a lobby?


PS. I was about to like your post right upon reading your first sentence but when I got to it I was too confused to do so. "I really don't have an "axe to grind" with anyone. And it wasn't my intention to call anyone out, and as a result, I've deleted the names in the post. Personal attacks help no one." is for damn sure! Unfortunately, one of the main instigators of this very behavior is somehow in agreement with you. So, I'm not sure if your statement is code or not. Like I said...confused.

The problem is there are no lobbyists. The industry is not organized enough to have any. The chinese don't care, once e-cigs are banned, they'll start selling something else. Big Tobacco actually is for most of the legislation because they want to corner the market of a billion dollar industry that they were a day late and a dollar short getting into.

I think it's up to grass roots movements and individual constitutional challenges. But to be honest with you, I don't know what is required to challenge a law constitutionally. Any lawyers wanna chime in? Luckily I live in Florida which is amazingly still very vape friendly, but I can't count on that lasting.

As far as your last point. No code.....I personally feel that personal attacks simply harden someones position and serves no useful purpose. I can appreciate some peoples passion, however. The heat we are beginning to feel here is nothing compared to our compatriots in Europe. For example, In Sweden e-cigs are allowed but only with 0mg nic juice. The battle there is raging on as it is just beginning here.

People over there are fighting for the very existance of vaping while we complain here how Fasttech takes too long, or how someone is out of Bobba's Bounty.

So some of their comments may be rough around the edges, but I think the heart is in the right place. I may not agree with everything Anjaffm says or how she says it....But to quote one of my favorite movies....

"I want her on that wall, I need her on that wall".

 

[zoiDman]

The problem is there are no lobbyists. The industry is not organized enough to have any. The chinese don't care, once e-cigs are banned, they'll start selling something else. Big Tobacco actually is for most of the legislation because they want to corner the market of a billion dollar industry that they were a day late and a dollar short getting into.

...

When you say "Banned", you are referring to e-Cigarette use in Non-Smoking areas, Right?

 

[Jman8]

Of course there is. Always have been. Always will be.

I just don't see how the Vape Everywhere Attitude does anything but to Help them in their Cause.

If I walk into someplace and Ask if I can Vape and are Told Yes, then there's No Problem. If I'm Told No and I don't Vape, No Problem. If I am Unsure or there is No One to Ask and I Don't Vape, and there is No Problem either.

This is What I do.

And if People see this as such a Big Evil, so be it. You can't make Everyone Happy.

It seems there is still a discussion to be had here as I strongly disagree with the "help them in their cause" thing that you left unexplained. Perhaps it is just a matter of opinion, but as I read into what other posts on this thread are saying about smoking bans, I see it as segment of vaping community would roll over on certain vaping bans and think that there's no way down the road that bans will be put into place that say you can't vape outdoors or can't vape in your apartment rental. Without realizing that by rolling over on earlier bans, then it appears (to them) as if you made it seem like they had a leg to stand on, and that you agree that vaping is inherently disrespectful, but are then showing up like a whiner later, cause you are a heavy addict who can't stop vaping, even while that would be the best thing for everyone (according to them).

I would also note at least 2 posts on this thread (maybe as many as 12) that have noted how vaping indoors in place where some here would say it is simply not okay in that location, led to changed attitudes by the people in charge of that space. Had vaper said that day, "no way am I taking my gear with me to that place," those minds wouldn't have been changed that day. Talking to people (alone) isn't going to do it. If you think so, then go to a place tomorrow that you are not sure of their policy, and don't bring any vape gear, and try to have the reasonable discussion that you think has best chance of convincing them what eCig vapor is, and how it could work in their place. Report back here how that goes for you.

I think the mental picture of "vape everywhere" is disconnected from the reality of how it is implemented by one, like me, who practices it. I'm thinking some people, even while my walls of text may clearly say otherwise, presume that by 'vape everywhere,' I must mean to do it in people's faces, and mean to blow huge clouds all over the place, and hopefully that will be enough to change people's minds when they see THAT.

I could say:
vape openly with respect
vape openly with respect
vape openly with respect
(repeat another 50 times)
along with vape everywhere

and seemingly some will read that as, Jman thinks we should blow vapor in everyone's face and vape in front of people that said 'we don't allow that here' and Jman thinks that's how minds will be changed.

IMO, the "blowing clouds in people's faces" insinuation is akin to the ANTZ insinuation as I truly believe both have a degree of accuracy to them, but are intended to say (really) - you are taking things too far.

How "vape openly with respect" is taking things too far, I may never understand. If place says no, then ask why. How is that disrespectful? Get into a discussion about. How is this disrespectful? Educate and don't just roll over on the idea that they say it looks like smoking, or is just like smoking and we don't allow smoking here. I think they can say that (have said it in my experience) but that ought to be changed, and if need be demonstrated in what is hopefully a very reasonable discourse. But if one side gets to point of, "answer is no, because I said so, discussion is over" then please help me understand how that is sign of respect? I'll still continue to be respectful in face of that statement, but will also vape in that establishment and make darn sure that person does not see me doing it. Again, I'm batting 1.000 so kinda sorta challenging to see how I'm causing a problem while magically not getting into any trouble in so doing.

Would you like me to spell out again how I see the "don't vape where you can't smoke" side of the equation is helping the cause of "ban vaping everywhere in public (indoors and outdoors)?"

 

[p.opus]

When you say "Banned", you are referring to e-Cigarette use in Non-Smoking areas, Right?

No I mean banned.

Protovapor is a small Hawaii startup that is making some incredible mods based on the DNA 20/30 chipset. The proposed Hawaii legislation threatens their existence since a ban on internet sales would destroy their business.

The growth of vaping has stemmed from the availability of these products on the internet. In Florida, one of the more friendly vape states, most vape stores are head shops with e-cigs an after thought.

Proposed legislation regarding e-juice will decimate e-juice manufacturers as there are few "big" juice companies that would be able to meet FDA standards. Most e-juice created in such clean rooms is done so in China.

With domestically available e-juice curtailed, then the demand for mods will also plummet. And big tobacco and their cig-alikes will be the only game in town, and I doubt they are interested in providing the vaper with stainless steel rebuildable attys, high powered mods, dual coil cartos and designer e-juice.

This doesn't even begin to take into account the 80% tax that states are just itching to put on our goods. Many people switched to vaping because it saves money. How many people will vape when it's MORE expensive to vape???

Sure, I can stockpile, get a mech mod, some PG, Kanthal, wick and flavors, but then again....how much of a pain is that? That's a future I really don't want to live in.

I've broken my addiction to cigs and am nearly nic free. I don't see myself going back, but what of the others behind us?

Pippin: It's so quiet.
Gandalf: It's the deep breath before the plunge.
Pippin: I don't want to be in a battle. But waiting on the edge of one I can't escape is even worse.

 

[DC2]

Not Suggesting. Stating.

There have been Many Threads here on the ECF where people talk about a Greater Dependency to e-Cigarettes than to Analogs.

A Healthier Choice, No Question. But More Dependent for Many People.

How Long have you been Vaping? Do you Vape more times and spend More Time vaping than you when you Smoked?

Hmmmmmm...

I can imagine there might be a small percentage that could grow a nicotine addiction by switching to vaping.
But the vast majority of evidence I have seen is very much to the contrary.

What percentage would you say might grow their nicotine addiction?
And what percentage would you say might lessen it?

I'm going to say 5% for the former, and around 65% for the latter.

 

[DC2]

So what? Who cares if I can't get to from the Cab to the Curb without a hit.....Big Deal....

Tom's an ...... every morning before he has his first cup of coffee and routinely goes to grab another cup. Jeannie is sitting in her cubicle munching down Godiva's like they're going out of style. Bob routinely chews on his pencils, Marty has his headphones on and can't last 5 minutes without having his Beats on, and when he answers you he acts like you're deaf because his headphones are still on. Barbara can't spend 5 minutes without checking Facebook. And Julie is texting everytime you see her even while eating lunch with her. All of these people are engaging in what could be considered "rude" or "addictive" behavior. And none of these people call any of the others out on it. It is "just what they do"

Yet I take a puff from my PV and the whole kit and kaboodle, Tom, Jeannie, Bob, Matry, Barbara and Julie look at me as if I just killed a puppy.

The anti-vaping crowd is against any movement towards "normalizing" vaping. It doesn't matter that more and more studies are pointing to it being a harmless behavior (especially to the "non-vaper"). It doesn't matter if I am using 0 mg nic juice or not.

My goal is to get vaping normalized. There is no scientific reason why it should not be normalized. I do not think that one should vape everywhere and in every situation. Decorum should be applied.

However, I DO know that if I treat vaping like smoking and ONLY vape in areas where I can smoke, then I be will constantly losing areas to vape due to the continued anti-smoking legislation that continues to roll along unchallenged. I am also re-enforcing the mistaken assumption amongst non smokers and non vapers that vaping is as equally hazardous as smoking.

And, judging by the responses that some people have put forth here, then my right to vape in my home are forfeit in San Rafael California, even though none of the criteria for that ban apply to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/23/san-rafael-smoking-ban_n_4326768.html

One last question for the "don't vape where you can't smoke" crowd here. What do you tell the vaper in San Rafael? That he can't vape in his home because of the smoking ban there? Seriously?!!!??? Or do you tell him it's time for a little bit of civil disobedience even though that might undermine your entire position....?

This is the first post on this entire forum that I can't find a single word to disagree with.

There isn't one thing you said here that isn't spot on.
And I'll be danged if I can understand why your post doesn't have 50 likes.


Thank you for saving me the time and effort of formulating my own thoughts and posting them.

 

[DC2]

Pass anything you want. If it can't be Enforced, it is Meaningless.

I'm going to have to disagree strongly with that.

Things like this set precedents.
Things like this desensitize the general public.
Things like this reinforce the efforts to spread the fear.

Things like this slowly chip away...
Which is what THEY have been doing for the last few decades.

 

[zoiDman]

No I mean banned.

Protovapor is a small Hawaii startup that is making some incredible mods based on the DNA 20/30 chipset. The proposed Hawaii legislation threatens their existence since a ban on internet sales would destroy their business.

The growth of vaping has stemmed from the availability of these products on the internet. In Florida, one of the more friendly vape states, most vape stores are head shops with e-cigs an after thought.

Proposed legislation regarding e-juice will decimate e-juice manufacturers as there are few "big" juice companies that would be able to meet FDA standards. Most e-juice created in such clean rooms is done so in China.

With domestically available e-juice curtailed, then the demand for mods will also plummet. And big tobacco and their cig-alikes will be the only game in town, and I doubt they are interested in providing the vaper with stainless steel rebuildable attys, high powered mods, dual coil cartos and designer e-juice.

This doesn't even begin to take into account the 80% tax that states are just itching to put on our goods. Many people switched to vaping because it saves money. How many people will vape when it's MORE expensive to vape???

Sure, I can stockpile, get a mech mod, some PG, Kanthal, wick and flavors, but then again....how much of a pain is that? That's a future I really don't want to live in.

I've broken my addiction to cigs and am nearly nic free. I don't see myself going back, but what of the others behind us?

Pippin: It's so quiet.
Gandalf: It's the deep breath before the plunge.
Pippin: I don't want to be in a battle. But waiting on the edge of one I can't escape is even worse.

Unfortunately p.opus, much of what you have listed is going to Happen if people use an e-Cigarette in Non-Smoking Areas or if they Don't.

Taxes are Inevitable. Period. End of Report.

And it seems that you Have to Regulate something Before you can Tax it. And I don't think Anybody sees the FDA just turning a Blind Eye on e-Cigarettes. So Regulations are pretty much a Given Also.

So what does it get down to. Use and Sales.

Maybe Sales should be where the Grassroots Effort should be Putting ALL of it's Resources?

 

[zoiDman]

Hmmmmmm...

I can imagine there might be a small percentage that could grow a nicotine addiction by switching to vaping.
But the vast majority of evidence I have seen is very much to the contrary.

What percentage would you say might grow their nicotine addiction?
And what percentage would you say might lessen it?

I'm going to say 5% for the former, and around 65% for the latter.

I'm not going to go down the Nicotine Is/Isn't Addictive Rabbit Hole.

That is why I posted this...

No Problem.

The Word I was Looking for was "Addiction".

It isn't brought up here much. But I wonder how much Addiction to Using an e-Cigarette plays in Some People "Vape Everywhere" view?

And before the Obligatory replies pour in that "Nicotine Isn't Addictive" or some Silly Comparison of Nicotine to things like Coffee/Caffeine, I said "Addiction to Using an e-Cigarette".

 

[DC2]

I would say it plays into it, but would say it would be challenging to determine that when observed in public. Perhaps impossible based on quick observation.

As I've gone cold turkey for 8 years, the addiction thing seems relative. I currently smoke, but at level of moderation I have only very rarely (extremely rarely) ever heard of in a smoker. Yet, someone that sees me smoking somewhere in public would I bet assume I am regular smoker who can't kick the habit. IMO, as one who knows exactly what it is like to be cold turkey, I know I have broken the addiction to smoking, but that doesn't jive with even fellow vapers, much less with people who might see me out and about, and have no idea what my use is. For them, none of this matters, even a little bit. If I was to go into indoor public place, and say can I have a cigarette here, plus let them know I intend to be a regular visitor, I'm guessing it wouldn't matter if I was spending a lot of time/money in that location, nor if I smoked my one cigarette a week in their location, all that would matter is that it was done once. With politics of smoking today, that is way way way way too much smoking in an indoor location. Heaven forbid. People can die from SHS, don't cha know?

So, same goes for vaping, minus the whole harm aspect, except from the zealot spin where SHS and SHV are equal to each other, and need to be treated as equal to each other. Wouldn't matter to the zealot if it has nicotine in the vapor. Wouldn't matter if you did it once in indoor location where no one was within 5 meters of you. Just that you did it, is what would matter. Even if you did it outdoors, with no one within 5 meters, all that would matter is that you did it, and none of the other factors would need to be discussed. You did it, end of discussion. Vaping is rude wherever you do it.

In my experience, vaping is not as addictive as smoking, and doesn't carry with it the same level of craving(s). It has habit forming qualities to it, but the addictive quality a la DSM criteria is simply minor compared to most other addictions, some of which are legal (i.e. sugar). I find that if I wander into the mental territory of do I need to vape in indoor public locations, I am also wandering into territory of do I need to vape at all? Both answers to that essentially same question are no, I don't need to. Yet, I enjoy it, and desire the use of this item that is not all that addictive, is relatively harmless, and is enjoyable.

Damn it, now I have two favorite posts on this forum!