Thanks for the civics lesson tho.

I think your logic is backwards. Where i live the government has decided that we have the right to a smoke free indoor environment. If a poker room chooses to be in business then they must abide by that rule. Im not trying to state that i have a basic right to play poker, thats a separate issue governed by the economy as it should be. So i guess the proper sentence would be "If a poker room in my area chooses to operate then i have the right for it to be smoke free." Does that not feel like splitting hairs again?

Your 2nd point is a fallacy. You are stating that just because something isn't being done means that its not their job. If I'm at work not working then does that mean im not obligated to work anymore. Because a govt fails in an area are they no longer obligated to succeed

Governments give us the 'privilege' to use roads and parks??
"privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
"education is a right, not a privilege""

Your argument is invalid. I can explain why but i hope i dont need to.

even if vaping is allowed at your poker room your still going to have the right to a smokefree environment indoors

Very true

I dont have much of a problem with ecig. But i mean they are fairly new. Very experimental and alit of unknowns. Banningv them should be common practice.

lul... wat?

I'm guessing they meant: until it is proven safe it should be banned.

Chewing tobacco (from this laypersons view) probably has less of a potential for secondhand damages but I can't tell you me how happy I was when we banned it.

I might be a little extreme though: I think gum should be banned too. For me its just my uniform pants that get ruined because gross people put it under the table. For players it might be their favorite pair of jeans. And it's the room on the hook not the nasty person who did it.

Off topic: to remove chewing gum you can smear a dab of peanut butter on it -- work it in and then let it sit a little while. the gum should slide right off. use Dawn dishwashing liquid to remove the peanut butter residue.

Yeah, I figured that's what they meant. It just seems that banned until proven safe seems like a horrible philosophy to have. Do you not agree? Guilty until proven innocent anyone? In that case, we would basically be dismissing all of our freedoms from the get go. Banning things that are minor annoyances rather than real threats seems pretty absurd to me. If you are going to ban chewing gum, what's next? Banning loud breathing? Banning long hair? Where do you draw the line?

Im on board after seeing that dudes broken neck they should be banned on planes as well before anyone gets any ideas.

Yeah cause this tactic usually works with smokers..not, the reality is you ll have to argue with 7 jag offs a day with them trying to explain why the e-cig isnt harmful to you. Im not so worried about the smell as I am the combustability factor and yeah even if the chances are less than 1% as a non smoking bystander the risk isnt worth it especially since its not my choice

Finally an F -ing hero among us, nothing wrong with stink shaming.

whats another intrusion or two

First of all, slippery slope! Everybody take a shot!

This is one of the most reasonable policies I can imagine for a private establishment to have Top ten at least.

The presumption of innocence applies to people by the government, not to chewing tobacco and e-cigs by a casino.

http://www.androidauthority.com/bust...explode-42582/

So the list of banned things starts at infinity and goes down from there? Can I enter your establishment with opened toed shoes/high heels? How about the new cell phone battery attachment I just bought? My new model of phone? Hats? Hoodies that zip up all the way? Spiked belts? What's the deal? Do you have security at the entance searching for banned objects?

Uh no, they ban something once they learn of it if they are unsure of its risks and then unban it later if they want. 100% totally standard across private establishments in the US.

Are you being intentionally incredulous or do you not understand that these things are banned at some establishments? "Sir, you need to remove the hoodie." Done. Super easy to anyone who doesn't go out of his way to find conflicts in his life. It's a casino looking out for the security and comfort of their guests, which they have a right to do.

Oh, so the list doesn't start at infinity but is actually based on some perceived threat? That is different from the policy that I was speaking of where EVERYTHING is banned until it has been proven safe, basically meaning that all new products are banned until so sort of research has been done to prove it's safety, which would be absurd IMO.

Many bans, in general, don't accomplish anything except to create resistance to the natural flow of things, especially if the ban is on or relates to something that it is not easy for people to understand. Drugs are banned in the United States (illegal ones, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, MDMA, LSD, etc...) , but I'm fairly certain that can be acquired pretty easily in almost every city, all the cities I've been to at least. Such "bans" also open the door for violent and lucrative black markets. As far as I'm concerned, the ban on drugs only serves as an excuse for a group of people to commit violent/imposing acts against other groups or individuals (police/DEA raiding, arresting, fineing, etc..). Their efforts would be much better served by approaching the situation differently IMO. I might also argue that someone who looks to avoid conflict in their life would side largely on the "very few things should be banned" camp, rather than the latter.

Also, FWIW if I went into some establishment and they request that I take my hoodie off, I probably wouldn't do so without an explanation. If I wasn't provided with a valid reason, I probably wouldn't return to that establishment unless it was absolutely necessary.

That sounds like a good plan. If enough people did what you do, it'd be smooth sailing for everyone involved.

yes

I have read most of what has been posted in the last 5 pages, and my business is the e-cigarette industry. I make my own juice, and use all the "dangerous" mechanical mods that the media has made out to be pipe bombs just waiting to explode. 90% of the E-cigs you see people using in the cardroom are regulated (meaning the battery is smart and knows when it is too weak or too strong to hit), only advanced vapers tend to use mechanical mods. If you see someone blowing a massive cloud, it is most likely a mechanical mod or high wattage regulated mod.

I go outside to vape because I know blowing clouds around people isn't appealing. I do feel there is a lot of fear and misinformation about them. How many houses have burned down due to lit cigarettes? Don't you want people who vape to stay at the table and play instead of leaving to puff away? There are four ingredients in E-liquid - vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol (used in a TON of foods), heavily diluted nicotine, and natural/artificial flavoring. The flavoring was designed for use in food. Its basically vaping food products, and maybe treat it the same way as eating at the table? Think about how bad the breath is of the OMC next to you - that bacteria is going in your nostrils.

Nobody wants to listen to a vaper explain how he's "basically vaping food products" or how it's not as bad as an OMC's breath. Many of us think that smoking food and having bad hygiene should also be banned.

This is not how you win approval.

Listen, what you and other vapers fail to grasp is that losing a few vapers, especially if they tend toward the more vocal of you, is a positive consequence to many of us. That makes it is an image problem for you if you want to be able to vape in a card room, regardless of how right you think your stance is. Your negative image did not spring up overnight.

Look no further than the pro-vaping posts in this thread. You should be telling other vapers not to speak for you, show some awareness both of our concerns and of the damage they do to your cause.

Personally I would rather have someone vape while sitting next to me than to leave to smoke a cigarette and then come back and sit next to be. They generally smell terrible, and sometimes it's so strong that I imagine it is a health hazard to me as well.

Nothing worse than sitting next to someone who smokes unfilitered cigarettes.

So when you inhale the nicotine, are you removing 100% of the nicotine from the volume of gas you've inhaled? When you exhale, everything you didn't absorb is still in that volume of gas.

When we breathe in air, we only absorb about 20-25% or so of the O2 that we bring in.

You can sit there and say "It's just water" but it's not. There is always the argument that bans should be on a per-business basis and I can probably get behind that, but as it is, I shouldn't have to be subjected to your drugs.

And of course, there are the issues with misinformation being put out there by organizations that are looking to profit from the sales of the product. Look how long cigarettes were considered safe. I've looked into it quite a bit on my own for my own safety as someone who frequents a poker room pretty much daily. I am always a bit skeptical of all the vocal users saying "grow up, it's just water vapor" having zero concern for others around them just because the industry told them it's safe. We can't even get people to agree about greenhouse gases, so sorry if I'm not immediately on board without some good published peer-reviewed research from independent groups.

By the way, the propylene glycol found in food, etc, isn't in vapor form when you normally ingest it...and you're ingesting it when it's in food, not inhaling it. When you're vaping, it's in vapor form because it's been elevated to a higher energy state. I grabbed this recently from one of DOW Chemical's informational guides. From Page 36 from the pdf about proylene glycol in vapor form:


I'm not saying this is the only evidence we need. It's not. It's just one thing I found when researching on my own with my limited tools. I put weight into cautions given out by companies that produce a product, sell it, and say "Hey, be careful".

It just bothers me that people do things that can potentially harm others around them and then blame the people around them and then feel like they are somehow the victims being persecuted by the public trying to tell them what not to do. Terrible analogy incoming, but like people that don't wear seatbelts just to stick it to the man because they don't want people telling them what to do. Normally I'm down for people to do whatever negative thing they want to do to themselves. Want to risk dying in a collision where you have almost zero chance of even getting hurt if you had your seatbelt on? That's fine with me. But the one time you are in a 30 mph fender bender and that should be the end of it, only because you got tossed around the cab of your car or got knocked out, you lose control of your car and it drives itself into oncoming traffic...that's a problem. Now your stupidity that I'm normally fine with is affecting other people.



Anyway, maybe it's perfectly safe. Maybe it will be shown that vaping has many positive long lasting effects for human health. That would be awesome...but until then, why can't we just wait for evidence to come in?