Become a Patron!

Anti-smokers can’t handle the truth about e-cigarettes

Giraut

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
The guy is barking up the wrong tree: the problem with passive smoking isn't that it may or may not be harmful to non-smokers (he's wrong on that too: it is. I know that first-hand. But I digress...) The problem is that people who smoke indoors impose their nasty stench on other people.

It's not a health issue, it's a politeness issue. I have exactly the same beef with people who reek of perfume and stink up the room I happen to be in. I don't have a problem with seeing people smoking - or seeing them dressed indecently, for that matter - because I have the choice of looking elsewhere if it bothers me. But people who impose their smell on me (tobacco, perfume or other) bother the living daylight out of me because I can't choose to stop breathing.
 

5150sick

Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
That is correct.

But in the late 80's to mid 90's public health wasn't going to make anti-smoking laws because "people who smoke indoors impose their nasty stench on other people" because approx 1/4 of their citizens had been smoking indoors for as long as they have been alive.

So they fudge the science a little on second hand smoke.

Scientists who mentioned the discrepancies got shut down and if the kept at it they got shunned from public health.

Second hand smoke is more of a problem to someone who lives with a smoker and places like bingo halls have good ventilation systems.

But the fact that second hand smoke has never been linked to lung cancer remains.

The fact that we are so used to public health lying and/or bending science to fit their agenda that the science on vaping doesn't really matter.

Right now they are using the exact same tricks they used to ban smoking OUTDOORS where there is no health risk.

This guys point is people are so willing to believe anything and everything public health tells them that vapers don't really have a chance.

It was never about health.

it was about control.

They see that control slipping away because vaping allows us to have our cake and eat it too. - 5150
 

Discobob

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
I just got a taste of people freaking out myself, just took a trip to riodoso NM and somebody had called the cops on me while I was by my car vaping. I guess Colorado plates are targets in these small towns. Officer asked what I was smoking, showed him and he went about his way.

I wasn't mad but cmon, people are so frickin touchy these days. I'm starting to notice the no smoking OR electronic cigarettes allowed signs.

I get not being able to smoke inside but ignorance and lack of knowing what we're doing I feel will be a battle for a while...
 

UncleRJ

Will write reviews for Beer!
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
ECF Refugee
Reviewer
Moderator
While I nearly always vape in public, I also try not to be noticeable or "Stand Out".

But if I can be asked to leave because of my vaping (has not happened---Yet) I should be able to ask managment to get rid of people wearing above a quart of perfume (normally the cheap assed stuff) or having BO issues.
 

MD_Boater

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
But people who impose their smell on me (tobacco, perfume or other) bother the living daylight out of me because I can't choose to stop breathing.
You can always chose not to be there. It is a two party issue. It is not polite to walk into a room, and tell others how to behave. Stench or not.

I'm not trying to bust your chops or anything, but to me it is just as impolite to tell someone doing an activity that they can't do it because you just happen to be there, or want to be there.
 

Giraut

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
You can always chose not to be there. It is a two party issue.

Oh yeah? Tell that to the secretary at my office: she puts on half a gallon of Chanel No.5 every morning. Can I choose not to be there? Hell no. I'm supposed to come to work every morning and stay put for 8 hours. (Incidentally, that goddamn bimbo gets to make everybody sick with heavy scents all day long at the office with perfect impunity, but HR gives me shit if I want to blow odorless clouds of glycerin in the same setting. How fair is that eh?)

Or if I do my groceries: I'm waiting in line, and some filthy old hobo arrives and starts waiting in line behind me, reeking of stale sweat and dirty clothes. What am I gonna do? Drop all my groceries and go (re)do my shopping some place else? Of course I won't do that: it'd be a lot more costly and time-consuming than enduring dirty grandpa for 10 minutes.

Or if I'm on the bus: will I go talk to the driver to have him stop the bus, drop me off, so I can catch the next one? Of course I won't do that either.

It is NOT a two-party issue. Some people choose to assault your nose with their smell, and more often than not, there isn't anything reasonable you can do about it.
 

cherrycakes

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
You can always chose not to be there. It is a two party issue. It is not polite to walk into a room, and tell others how to behave. Stench or not.

I'm not trying to bust your chops or anything, but to me it is just as impolite to tell someone doing an activity that they can't do it because you just happen to be there, or want to be there.
Excuse me when I'm in a doctors office I cannot choose to not be there. They even post signs saying do not wear perfume people have allergies and yet all these old people douse themselves in cologne anyway.
 

cherrycakes

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Also it has been illegal to smoke indoors for like 30 years and yet we have people lighting up inside our building. Old people :(
 

cherrycakes

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
The guy is barking up the wrong tree: the problem with passive smoking isn't that it may or may not be harmful to non-smokers (he's wrong on that too: it is. I know that first-hand. But I digress...) The problem is that people who smoke indoors impose their nasty stench on other people.

It's not a health issue, it's a politeness issue. I have exactly the same beef with people who reek of perfume and stink up the room I happen to be in. I don't have a problem with seeing people smoking - or seeing them dressed indecently, for that matter - because I have the choice of looking elsewhere if it bothers me. But people who impose their smell on me (tobacco, perfume or other) bother the living daylight out of me because I can't choose to stop breathing.
In some cases it is a health issue. people have allergies. they're not going to die but it may give them a headache for the rest of the day or they may not be able to breathe.
I have no problem with people not being able to smoke in public buildings however if you are outside in my opinion it's fair game.

And if I can't vape indoors you shouldn't be able to wear 10 gallons of Cologne indoors
 

cherrycakes

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
I just got a taste of people freaking out myself, just took a trip to riodoso NM and somebody had called the cops on me while I was by my car vaping. I guess Colorado plates are targets in these small towns. Officer asked what I was smoking, showed him and he went about his way.

I wasn't mad but cmon, people are so frickin touchy these days. I'm starting to notice the no smoking OR electronic cigarettes allowed signs.

I get not being able to smoke inside but ignorance and lack of knowing what we're doing I feel will be a battle for a while...
Starbucks won't let you smoke within 500 feet of their property, which is ridiculous. E cigarettes included. which is why I no longer go to starbucks
 

cherrycakes

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
At malls I cannot go near beauty counters because they all smell like perfume. people will spray me with perfume even when I tell them no I'm allergic.


So yes I can avoid the mall counters, however if somebody comes into my store where I work wearing perfume all I can do is leave the room.
 

cherrycakes

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
On the subject they are proposing a ban on smoking in a car with a child under 14. It's only a matter of time before they say the same thing about vaping. The Nanny government is going too far
 

5150sick

Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
Excuse me when I'm in a doctors office I cannot choose to not be there. They even post signs saying do not wear perfume people have allergies and yet all these old people douse themselves in cologne anyway.

When I was hospitalized down here is Florida when my hip replacement got infected.
I was in and out of the hospital frequently and had 12 surgeries in a 2 year period.
So if i had to guess i would say i was in the hospital for 90 days over the 2 year period.
I had a nurse tell me stories about when a woman would show up to get surgery and she had perfume on they would politely tell her that they will not be performing the surgery today and next timer make sure you read the rules about perfume..
You had to scrub yourself with a special antibiotic soap that was prescribed.
You had to shower right before you got into the car to go to get the surgery.
They didn't like you to use deodorant.
 

cherrycakes

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Yeah you're not supposed to use lotion, any jewelry, cosmetics, etc.
I always forget.
 
Last edited:

Giraut

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
On the subject they are proposing a ban on smoking in a car with a child under 14. It's only a matter of time before they say the same thing about vaping. The Nanny government is going too far

It's not so clear cut. There are two very good reasons why the government should get involved:

1/ There is a strong body of scientific evidence linking what you experience as a child with what you like as an adult. For instance, if your kids eat too often at McDonald's, they have a strong chance of subconsciously equating junk food with good times, and favoring that type of food as an adult. Likewise, I'm almost certain I started smoking as a child because I somehow remembered the smell of cold tobacco floating around my dad all the time. Had I not been exposed to the smell, I don't think I'd have picked up the habit.

Most people don't know that, or don't realize that. So if the government wants to prevent them from harming the future adults that are their children against their will, I think it's an intelligent and visionary thing to do. That's what governments should do - act in the best interest of the population, especially the section of the population that is vulnerable and can't necessarily make informed decisions, such as kids. As a matter of fact, I'd love to see them tax the hell out of junk food and sugary drinks, for the same reason.

2/ As long as the government pays for health care, they have a right to oversee how you take care of your health - or how you harm the health of other people they pay health care for. This may not be a very strong argument in the US, where health care is all but a joke, but here in Europe where I Iive now, health care is real and it really works for the benefit of citizens. As long as the state agrees to treat lung cancers for free, they have a right to force people to quit adopting behaviors that lead to lung cancers.

And it's not like you can opt out of the health care system and decide your health is strictly your business either: the health care system is mutualized, therefore everybody pays for the risk of disease incurred by everybody else. By definition, if too many people opt out of a mutualized system, it eventually collapses.

The only way out of the health care system is to elect politicians who want to tear it apart. It's a societal choice. However, people vote for the exact opposite time and time again. So as a society, since people choose to have the system, they choose to let the system interfere with what they can or cannot do too. That comes with the package.
 
Last edited:

MD_Boater

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Excuse me when I'm in a doctors office I cannot choose to not be there. They even post signs saying do not wear perfume people have allergies and yet all these old people douse themselves in cologne anyway.
There are just some places where any person with common sense won't vape. A doctor's office is one of them (waiting room, that is - I have vaped while waiting in the closed door examination room while I was alone, and I will do so again). I wouldn't do it in an elementary school - unless I was alone in an area with no kids around.

A person with allergies needs to take care not to put themselves in an environment that would expose them to whatever it is that aggravates their condition. The vast majority of people do not have allergies, and they shouldn't be expected to stop partaking in activities that they enjoy just because someone with an allergy may be in the area. If you have a peanut allergy, don't go ta a peanut farm. If you have asthma, don't sit on a jersey wall near a highway. I have no problem with either, so I am not going to stop going around peanuts or highways. I'm certainly not thinking about folks with allergies when I do so...
 

MD_Boater

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
It's not so clear cut. There are two very good reasons why the government should get involved:

1/ There is a strong body of scientific evidence linking what you experience as a child with what you like as an adult. For instance, if your kids eat too often at McDonald's, they have a strong chance of subconsciously equating junk food with good times, and favoring that type of food as an adult. Likewise, I'm almost certain I started smoking as a child because I somehow remembered the smell of cold tobacco floating around my dad all the time. Had I not been exposed to the smell, I don't think I'd have picked up the habit.

Most people don't know that, or don't realize that. So if the government wants to prevent them from harming the future adults that are their children against their will, I think it's an intelligent and visionary thing to do. That's what governments should do - act in the best interest of the population, especially the section of the population that is vulnerable and can't necessarily make informed decisions, such as kids. As a matter of fact, I'd love to see them tax the hell out of junk food and sugary drinks, for the same reason.

2/ As long as the government pays for health care, they have a right to oversee how you take care of your health - or how you harm the health of other people they pay health care for. This may not be a very strong argument in the US, where health care is all but a joke, but here in Europe where Iive now, health care is real and it really works for the benefit of citizens. As long as the state agrees to treat lung cancers for free, they have a right to force people to quit adopting behaviors that lead to lung cancers.

And it's not like you can opt out of the health care system and decide your health is strictly your business either: the health care system is mutualized, therefore everybody pays for the risk of disease incurred by everybody else. By definition, if too many people opt out of a mutualized system, it eventually collapses.

The only way out of the health care system is to elect politicians who want to tear it apart. It's a societal choice. However, people vote for the exact opposite time and time again. So as a society, since people choose to have the system, they choose to let the system interfere with what they can or cannot do too. That comes with the package.
You just built a very strong case for the government keeping their hands off of our health care. Thank you.
 

Giraut

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
You just built a very strong case for the government keeping their hands off of our health care. Thank you.

If you knew what a properly functioning health care system is and what it can do for you, you would never say that. Hint: it's not to be found in the US. Had I still been in the US when I got meningitis, I might have survived, but I'd be broke and living in the street today. Thank god there are other countries that are less stupid and more caring that Uncle Sam...
 

MD_Boater

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Interesting. I'm 50 years old. I never had an issue obtaining, or paying for health care. The rumors about the alleged issues with health care system in the US were greatly exaggerated by the politicians pushing for a single payer system. I know someone that survived viral meningitis, and they had no issues with treatment, or payment. Again, there were many untrue things said about the way healthcare in the US was, and it was never as badly broken as the world was lead to believe. There was a solution in need of a problem, so the politicians exaggerated (greatly) the facts to get the outcome that they wanted.

The real issue with healthcare in the US was (and still is, because Barrycare did not address it) the lecherous behavior of lawyers constantly driving up the cost of malpractice insurance.

Uncaring - no. Anyone could get treatment, even if they couldn't pay for it. The hospitals and doctors had no recourse that would put people on the streets. That is, and always was, a complete falsehood.
 

Giraut

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Anyone in the US can get basic treatment, yes. If you want the best treatments however, you'd better be rich and pay up. It's not a politician's lie either: I had a colleague who needed a specialized treatment after a back injury, and Bluecross / Blueshield refused to cover the cost because they considered it an unnecessary luxury. As a result, he got basic care and now has 3 fused lower vertebraes.

In Europe, they always propose you the best, and it's as good as free. Period.

(Oh and by the way, viral meningitis isn't too hard to survive. I contracted meningococcal meningitis. It's not exactly the same beast...)
 

MD_Boater

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
I'm not going to argue with you about it. I live near 2 of the Johns Hopkins hospitals, and my personal physician is a JH physician. I've never had an issue obtaining, or paying for health care. Quality? I always see many Canadians and Europeans at JH to get procedures done because it is one of the best hospitals in the world, and they tell me about 3 to 5 year waiting lists, and governments trying to treat them the least expensive way.

I'm glad to hear that you have had such good luck, but my family's experiences do not match your perceptions of our reality.
 

freemind

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Anyone in the US can get basic treatment, yes. If you want the best treatments however, you'd better be rich and pay up. It's not a politician's lie either: I had a colleague who needed a specialized treatment after a back injury, and Bluecross / Blueshield refused to cover the cost because they considered it an unnecessary luxury. As a result, he got basic care and now has 3 fused lower vertebraes.

In Europe, they always propose you the best, and it's as good as free. Period.

(Oh and by the way, viral meningitis isn't too hard to survive. I contracted meningococcal meningitis. It's not exactly the same beast...)

NOTHING is free. I hope you realize that. Much like the Aussies I have talked to, folks think it is somehow free, or low cost. It just isn't. Taxes pay for it. And it becomes a hoopla monster, of all the people required to have a system on such a scale. It cost more for the healthcare you get from government, than through private insurers.

And what "right" exists, that says I should have to give you medical care for free? Were I a doctor or a owner of a hospital, I would be extremely offended by that. That's like telling the grocery store they have to feed you for "free" and let you have whatever you want.

What caused our situation to begin with was government. Not private providers or health care facilities. Asking for more of what caused the problem isn't the answer, it actually insanity.

I also do not agree that malpractice suits should be limited or eliminated. When a doctor or a facility is CARELESS they should be responsible for their actions. However, dumb ass lawsuits should be quickly tossed. People suffering real injuries should not be "capped" by some stupid law.
 

MD_Boater

Silver Contributor
Member For 4 Years
I also do not agree that malpractice suits should be limited or eliminated. When a doctor or a facility is CARELESS they should be responsible for their actions. However, dumb ass lawsuits should be quickly tossed. People suffering real injuries should not be "capped" by some stupid law.
Exactly! It is right and proper to sue doctors when they are incompetent or careless, but many lawsuits with no merit result in huge awards, which drives up the physician's insurance rates, and therefore the costs for the rest of us. There should be a mechanism in place to prevent the frivolous ones from resulting in large awards. True malpractice deserves real compensation...
 

VU Sponsors

Top