Should electronic cigarettes be covered under smoking bans? (religion, market, suspect)

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Just when I thought you and I were starting to make some progress, now, I don't think so. Let's go through your post....

Originally Posted by mkpunk

You should but let's remember that with smokers, there is
a known negative externality that affects non-users directly. That being
second-hand smoke. And while unlike say driving impaired (through drinking or
other drugs) there isn't a potential immediate effect (except for say a
cigarette burn or a forest fire starting) The effects can be costly over a
prolonged period for the carcinogens.

Right, so if people are worried about the affects to their health from second hand smoke, or vape, they should not enter a business that allows people to smoke or vape, nor should they apply for work at such places... It's a really simple concept; Avoid things you feel are harmful to you.

They do. However is it really appetizing to have a meal while someone on the
other side of the restaurant is puffing on the cigarette?

No it isn't, and that is why I will make the choice not to eat at a restaurant that allows people to smoke. What I will not do is demand the restaurant ban smoking, nor will I support the any law that makes them do so. I simply will not spend my money at restaurants that allow it.

However make it known so I chose to boycott (not with signs, just buy not taking
part in your business) your bar or restaurant. If I know a location is "smoker
friendly" with no non-smoking section, I cannot eat there.

And that is fair. That is the entire essence of my argument. Instead of using the force of law to enact smoking bans and infringe on the rights of business owners, just simply do not spend your money at businesses that allow vaping/smoking. Instead, spend your money at businesses that best represent your interests. In your case, businesses that do not allow smoking/vaping.

The only place I've ever gone "knowingly" are casinos because somehow unlike
bars, resturaunts and sports arenas, they don't have smoking sections

That is why I support signage. If a place wants to allow smoking, place a large sign at the entrance indicating such. If a business does not allow smoking/vaping, they should put a sign indicating that as well. If you don't want to be exposed to smoke/vape, don't enter. Doesn't that sound like the fairest way to handle the situation, instead of outright banning e-cigs or traditional cigs? Put signs up and let the public decide for themselves where to spend their money.

But I shouldn't have to. If I paid for a ticket (like I did for the hockey
game) I should expect clean air and it shouldn't be affected by the guy in front
of me vaping

And here is where you lost me.....
Why do you think you should have been able to expect vape-free air? What you should have done, was found out if the place allowed people to vape in the arena before you bought the ticket. It is your responsibility to find that out before you go. Now, IF the arena banned the use of e-cigs, then I would say you could expect clean, vape-free air. However, if you looked in to it and saw that e-cigs were not banned and that people were allowed to use them, you should fully expect to encounter someone using an e-cig. If you find out the arena allows it, and you still buy the ticket and go, it's on you.
That makes sense doesn't it?

Who shouldn't they be obligated to do so?

Because it's their business, if they don't want to appeal to non-smokers/vapers, why should they have to?

For smoking as I mentioned, there is a health issue

Only for those who have accepted the risk. If I don't want to be around second hand smoke and I walk in to a place that has people smoking inside, I'm going to leave. If I stay, then I have accepted the risk to my health. Again, this is where signage comes in to play.

It's like if you run a tattoo parlor and do not protect users by not
cleaning needles

If a tattoo parlor doesn't want to clean their needles, that is fine with me, so long as any potential customers are thoroughly warned before getting a tattoo. Something tells me that parlor wouldn't be in business very long because most people would choose not to go to a place that uses dirty needles. { another example of the Free Market at work }

or allowing drunk drivers to drive home;

That analogy doesn't compare. Everyone has to use the roadways, and everyone has a right to be on the road. Therefor, drunk drivers should be kept off it.

you are endangering patrons and others by inaction

No, you aren't. Not with the smoking/vaping issue. Patrons are choosing to put themselves in harms way if they stay in a bar that allows smoking. They are accepting the risk.

. Also using the "if people like jelly donuts, I'm going to sell jelly
donuts; so I don't see why I can't as a business owner have smoking (or vaping)
sections" argument is a bit of differences because of the negative externalities
I've talked about.

They aren't really that different. Both are examples of businesses appealing to a specific demographic and meeting a demand. As for the negative externalites, as I've said numerous times, only people who have accepted the risk will be exposed to them.

So long as the demand isn't illegal or causes health issues to to users and
others, sure.

Allowing smoking/vaping does not cause health issues to anyone who doesn't accept the risk. Don't want the vaping to negatively affect your health? The solution is simple. Don't go to places that allow it. Same with smoking.
It amazes me how such a simple conept eludes so many.

[sanspeur]

I wonder if I could mix a bit of hash oil in the e-juice??? That might be fun.

[mkpunk]

We did make progress until you let your clouded thought of "if the free market wants X, give them X and anyone who hates X wont patron us so **** them" guide every response you send. There needs to be balance and if not, government needs to step in for the public good. That is what happened with the secondhand smoke coming from smoking sections. You keep pointing to as long as it don't hurt people, the free market should dictate it, guess what, smoking sections DID HURT customers. Second-hand smoke gives INCREASED chances of lung cancer to non-smokers. There is not a hard number but it's not like you smoke in a filled bar and the smoke only effects you unlike the double pub burger with french fries, cheese, you ordered. The point is, the actions of one should not infringe on the right to live of others. Until you realize that these bans are for public good and HELPING business because more people are going than not because of cigarette and even e-cigarette free because they don't have to worry about themselves, dates, kids, ect. getting cancer.

The arena I had this happen was Jobbing.com Arena. A post a page or two ago MENTIONED, they were vape free (albeit not as promoted in arena.) However I DID find on the website it is illegal so me "expecting clean air" isn't as far-fetched as you think it is.

Smoke-Free Environment
Smoking is not permitted in Jobing.com Arena at any time; however, there are designated smoking areas conveniently located on the Gate 2 and Gate 6 patios of the Main Concourse. E-cigarette use is also not permitted inside Jobing.com Arena. Users are asked to used the smoking areas on the Gate 2 and Gate 6 patios of the Main Concourse.

So it wasn't me buying a ticket and finding out the arena allows it by smelling the smells (like say in a casino.)

As for your last part, cigarette smoking was perfectly acceptable in college buildings up through the mid 90's. Guess what, I wouldn't be able to goto college with people smoking. So should someone forgo education because of smoking? What about supermarkets where I would need to go in your ideal world of free market saying Arizona should listen to needs of others. I'm sorry my right to "clean air" weights just as much, if not more than the right of someone who needs to light up at that exact moment and cannot wait until they enter the parking lot.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Prove it!

I think it should be proven to, so that anyone who takes them up knows what they are getting in to before they start using them. Other than that, no one has to prove anything to you. Even if they are dangerous, as long as they are not being used in places you have a right to be, like your home, post offices, transit, etc, you have no say, and neither should the government.

I can't believe that if something other than water is put in them, that that
isn't also vaporized and emitted too! If the vapor has a scent of any kind, then
it can't be just water vapor, water vapor on its own doesn't have any scent.

This is probably the one thing you and I will agree on....

As to the poster saying I thought someone would put rat poison in them, uh
no, I never actually said that.

I freely admit you didn't actually say rat poison, but that is the kind of nonsense you were getting at.

. But it is valid to assume that someone,
somewhere will put something less than healthy into theirs and it will wind up
in the atmosphere just like secondhand smoke

.
Just like it's valid to assume someone, somewhere will buy acid and throw it in someones face { that actually has happened } but the chances are so remote that it doesn't warrant new legislation on acid sales or use. The same goes for the potential of people putting dangerous chemicals in their e-cigs.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if someone figured out how to over-voltage one or
otherwise increase the heat so they could stuff tobacco into it and use the
electric elements to light that so it only looks like an e-cig.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Just stop before you lose all credibility.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88

I freely admit you didn't actually say rat poison, but that is the kind of nonsense you were getting at.

No it wasn't, and you know it! Rat poison would pretty much kill the primary use right there, or at least hospitalize them in short order. Just because something's dangerous, doesn't mean it's instantly dangerous (just like secondhand tobacco smoke, imagine that).

Just like it's valid to assume someone, somewhere will buy acid and throw it in someones face { that actually has happened } but the chances are so remote that it doesn't warrant new legislation on acid sales or use. The same goes for the potential of people putting dangerous chemicals in their e-cigs.

Why are the chances of someone putting something other than just water vapor and your food-safe stuff and thus causing damage by proxy, just as remote as someone throwing acid? People used to do that all the time, they were called cigarettes.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Just stop before you lose all credibility.

You obviously think everyone is a perfect little angel who won't experiment, won't increase potency of certain things, and won't do anything that the instruction manual doesn't say to do. Well let me introduce you to the real world, where people are tricky, conniving, cunning, and smart, all too often, too smart for their own good. If I had an e-cig, I know I could easily rig one of those things to do just that and serve as a disguised tobacco pipe, it's not hard, and I guarantee you it won't be long until someone else figures out how to do just that.

[sanspeur]

Don't be ridiculous...The reason people switch to vaping is to get off tobacco....You are attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Hyperthetic]

They need to replace that radiator fluid with Kentucky alcohol.

The possibilities are endless!

[Hyperthetic]

They could be, like, inhalers for asthmatics.

[Hyperthetic]

Health freaks could vape vitamin B12.

It would be, like, reverse emphysema.

It would knock out homofrickenencysteine, man!

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

We did make progress until you let your clouded thought
of "if the free market wants X, give them X and anyone who hates X wont patron
us so **** them

LOL, I'm sorry if the sound logic and fairness of my arguments offend you. That doesn't make them any less sound and reasonable.

guide every response you send

They guide every response I send because you are obviously having difficulty grasping the fairly infantile concept of avoiding things you do not like or are afraid will cause you harm.

There needs to be balance and if not, government needs to step in for
the public good

I disagree. As a business owner, if I want to run a business that caters only to smokers, that is my affair, and neither you, or the governments. If you do not want to be a part of that business, that is your prerogative, that is your right. Stay out. The same applies if you want to run a business that either caters to non smokers or have a balanced approach between smokers/vapers and non, that is your affair, and I have no right to demand you do otherwise. If I don't like it, I'll stay out of your business.

Since you are so gungho on this balanced approach thing, let's say there is a business that wants to be completely smoke/vape free.... should they be required to accommodate a smoker that wants to smoke? It goes both ways, right? No. A business that wants to be smoke/vape free has every right to do so.

I will say however, that I would support laws mandating smoking sections before I would support laws mandating a total ban on smoking/vaping, only because that would be the lesser of the two evils. Both infringe on property rights.

That is what happened with the secondhand smoke coming from smoking
sections. You keep pointing to as long as it don't hurt people, the free market
should dictate it, guess what, smoking sections DID HURT customers. Second-hand
smoke gives INCREASED chances of lung cancer to non-smokers

Why is this so hard for you to understand. As a customer, if I am worried about the effects of second hand smoke to my health, I am not going to go to places where smoking is allowed. If I do, and the smoke/vape has an adverse affect on my health, that is my fault. I've had this debate hundreds of times, but never have I ran across someone who couldn't grasp this very simple concept.

There is not a hard number but it's not like you smoke in a filled bar
and the smoke only effects you unlike the double pub burger with french fries,
cheese, you ordered. The point is, the actions of one should not infringe on the
right to live of others.

If I'm in a bar and I am vaping/smoking, my actions do not affect you UNLESS YOU ALLOW THEM TO BY STAYING IN THAT BAR.... for the hundredth time.

Until you realize that these bans are for public good and HELPING business
because more people are going than not because of cigarette and even e-cigarette
free because they don't have to worry about themselves, dates, kids, ect.
getting cancer.

Many businesses would disagree. There are countless stories and reports of businisses reporting losses and even closures because of the implementation of smoking bans. Vaping bans will probably have the same effect.

The arena I had this happen was Jobbing.com Arena. A post a page or two ago
MENTIONED, they were vape free (albeit not as promoted in arena.) However I DID
find on the website it is illegal so me "expecting clean air" isn't as
far-fetched as you think it is
So it wasn't me buying a ticket and finding out the arena allows it by
smelling the smells (like say in a casino.)

If that is the case then I would certainly agree you should have been able to expect clean, vape/smoke free air. If I were you I would have asked someone from the staff to ask the vaper to stop per the rules. If they refused, I would have demanded a refund on my ticket.

As for your last part, cigarette smoking was perfectly acceptable in college
buildings up through the mid 90's. Guess what, I wouldn't be able to goto
college with people smoking. So should someone forgo education because of
smoking?

As pretty much all my posts have eluded to, if the college was privately owned, they should have the choice to either allow it or not. I would guess most would ban it on their own, without the government stepping in. the same will be true of e-cigs.... As far as the living quarters on campus, that's another story. You are paying to live there and it is your home. You should be able to expect a smoke free environment in your own home.
If it is a publicly funded college, that is partially funded by tax dollars, that's another story. In that case, the public should have a say in the form of a vote, just like all other public buildings such as post offices, etc.

What about supermarkets where I would need to go

As I said before, even before smoking bans became the norm, smoking was pretty much banned in most stores. What makes you think e-cigs will be any different? The supermarket in my area has a ban on them. See, stores want to appeal to all demographics of people, not just one specific one. They want everybody to come in, and the majority of people do not smoke, it makes good business sense to ban smoking/vaping in stores. In other words, that is a problem that will take care of itself.

. I'm sorry my right to "clean air" weights just as much, if not more than the
right of someone who needs to light up at that exact moment and cannot wait
until they enter the parking lot.

Once again, this has nothing to do with a smokers vapers right to to smoke or vape whenever or wherever they want. It's about the property rights of business owners.

. You have tried patiently to defeat my logic, but you are unable to do so, so you may as well just admit that your argument boils down to what all you peoples argument boils down to eventually, which is, you think your rights trump all others.... You do not want the responsibility of having to make choices that are best for your health, you want to be able to go anywhere at anytime and have it be smoke/vape free and everyone else will just have to get over it and conform, right?