Are Vapers self righteous?

[Dan Dan the vaping man]

I've never understood why a cabbie, or anyone else for that matter, needs tipping in the first place.

Well I'm not to good with traveling so if the driver is nice and a little chatty it normally helps, but its never pounds of tip just pences lol

I can't be to generous, I have to save for vape stuff

 

[Fleabag]

The problem is that most organisations don't quite know why they're banning it - So you're up against a brick wall of lies and misinformation when you dare to ask why.

We know why cigs are banned, we understand that some companies don't like food & drink to be consumed (mess/spillage etc), some rules are underpinned by law (public order offences etc) but no-one has a valid reason for banning e-cigs. It's not illegal, messy, offensive or pose a risk to anyone

 

[sabre]

Aimed at me??!!

Oops, Sorry! but it is my favourite gripe!

 

[AndyC1971]

Oops, Sorry! but it is my favourite gripe!

No problems, all is good. I think that was the first time I had ever said it

 

[VaperCaper]

The problem is that most organisations don't quite know why they're banning it - So you're up against a brick wall of lies and misinformation when you dare to ask why.

We know why cigs are banned, we understand that some companies don't like food & drink to be consumed (mess/spillage etc), some rules are underpinned by law (public order offences etc) but no-one has a valid reason for banning e-cigs. It's not illegal, messy, offensive or pose a risk to anyone

Well technically vaping might pose a risk to non vapers - there is still a lot of science to be done about vaping so noone can say definitively if t poses any health risks or not though so far the weight of evidence suggests little to no risk, that's not to say no risk though.

Vaping is being banned from some places of work an from some public areas, and usually the reason is 'because the vapour looks like smoke, and smoking is already banned' It's of course blatantly obvious shortly after the vapour reaches your nose that it's not smoke, apart from the fact that vapour tends to sink and smoke tends to rise, bt it IS important to realise that individual businesses have the right to prohibit anything they like.

If people come to my house then they are smoking outside. When I was a smoker I smoked outside, simply cos I prefer to live in a house that didn't smell like stale cigarettes. If I'm in someone elses house I'll ask before I break out the vape, and I still have a bunch of friends who smoke rather than vape despite knowing I'll supply them with any kind of vape gear at cost.

You don't need a valid reason to stop someone from doing something (outside of things protected by law) on your own private property, and if your own property happens to be a pub/taxi cab/workplace then that's life.

 

[Fleabag]

but we generally live in a society where common sense and reasonableness are expected. If you own a business, you might be legally entitled to ban pretty much anything providing it doesn't directly or indirectly disadvantage someone with a protected characteristic (i.e. you can't legally ban turbans, because you're indirectly banning Sikhs).

I can't prove that my lemon tea isn't posing a risk to someone sitting near me, but we have no reason to suspect it is. In fact, there are numerous allergies around that are far more likely to be affected by things we DON'T ban - I know people allergic to peanuts and some perfumes, but we don't issue a blanket ban on these items, despite the fact that there's much greater chance of them affecting someone than e-cig vapour.

There are mixed messages anyway - they want to ban it to prevent the normalisation of smoking and because people won't be able to tell an e-cif from a stinky - yet at the same time the government is trying to send out the message that this is going to become a medicine. The one thing going for us is that we could argue discrimination if we're told we can't use a medicinal product in public.

 

[VaperCaper]

Myristica fragrans

despite the fact that there's much greater chance of them affecting someone than e-cig vapour.

Some people are allergic to anything. In most cases though an allergic reaction to something doesn't involve serious medical consequences, most allergies are inconvenient at best.

There are mixed messages anyway - they want to ban it to prevent the normalisation of smoking

The 'normalisation of smoking' argument is bullshit, and even the people peddling such arguments know it is really. Some people want to ban e-cigs I think because of a puritanical knee jerk reaction to smoking who rationalise that nicotine must be banned because it's deadly poisonous and 'bad for you'[tm] Mostly such people are known as ANTZ. Whatever you do don't point out to them how poisonous oxalic acid (rhubarb) is, or how poisonous Myristica fragrans is (Nutmeg) they might explode. The least said about caffeine the better.

How poisonous something is is a function of dose. Everything, including dihydrogen monoxide (water) can be poisonous given the correct dose. Arguments to ban vaping on a national level based on it's toxicity are bad and should be shot down in flaming flames.
We just need I think to be careful about not restricting business owners the right to ban things should they choose. However stupid their reasoning if a pub chain wants to ban vaping then it's perfectly entitled to, they'll just lose a lot of business.

I still think despite being an ex-smoker that pubs should be allowed to apply for a 'smoking licence' and that about 20% of pubs should be permitted to allow their patrons to smoke on their premises. If using a drug is legal then like minded individuals ought to be allowed to do so indoors with other consenting adults.

 

[Fleabag]

I absolutely agree about the smoking ban - I defend a non-smoker's right to have the option of being in a smoke-free environment, but it's possible to provide an indoor smoking environment that no-one has to enter (whilst the smoke is in the atmosphere) unless they choose to.

The ban was cracking a walnut with a sledghammer.

Banning e-cigs on poor reasoning has greater implications, though. I work for a mental health organisation that (wrongly) believes it's generic NHS policy to ban e-cigs - so have followed suit, not just for employees, but also for service users. Their decision will have a far-reaching impact on the physical wellbeing of a vulnerable group of people who are about 3.5 times more likely to smoke than the general population. They could decide to support service users to improve their physical health. they chose not to. Their actions WILL damage the health of the people they are commissioned to support.

 

[VaperCaper]

Their actions WILL damage the health of the people they are commissioned to support.

That's the saddest thing about banning vaping - to date all the science says vaping is mostly harmless, there might be issues with some of the flavours used, there might be long term health issues we won't know about for another 6 or 7 years+ at a stretch there might be passive vaping health issues but these are probably way less damaging than breathing city air and are definitely much less harmful than tobacco smoke.

There's no good reason to ban vaping on health grounds and when a ban might send more people in your care to smoking the definitely much more harmful tobacco, you have to wonder what the legislators are smoking.

 

[Fleabag]

quite! - for years the message has continually been to promote a healthy/healthier lifestyle - we aren't permitted to smoke with them (a rule most service users consider patronising), we don't provide biscuits, any food-related activities are around healthy options, we promote physical activity - and now we insist that they go outside and smoke!!!