“Ontario bans vaping in places where smoking tobacco is prohibited”

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/ontario-bans-vaping-in-places-where-smoking-tobacco-is-prohibited-1.2811521

I have two ecigs. One is an old one, even though it is refillable, and can be chucked. But I am not a vaper at all. Why, then, should I be interested in what is happening in Ontario? Well, I’m not really that interested, but, if I was that way inclined, I could post comments on that newspaper article and quite enjoy it. The comments need not be true or have any scientific backing, but I could do it. For example, I could say, “A very recent study has revealed that some people who had lung cancer have seen a reduction in the size of the tumour by taking up vaping. But the study was quite small, so more research is needed”. It would be an outright lie, of course, but so what? I would only be making such comments to produce a reaction along the lines of hysterical demands for links to the study. I could reply, “I’ll give you the link when you give me a link to a study which shows vapour harm”.

What has provoked my interest has been the comments on that newspaper article. Here is one:

Excellent news, common sense and a good decision which I applaud. After so many years inhaling secondhand smoke and finally getting to the point of general acceptance that that is unsociable and unhealthy, to set the clock back and allow smoking of other products than tobacco would have been awful and retrograde. I do not want to breath anything other than clean air. No to air pollution!”
That comment is pretty typical of many. It sums up the ignorance of so many people. Almost every word indicates ignorance:
1. There is no ‘common sense’ involved at all.
2. Vaping is not ‘smoking’ and therefore cannot be awful and retrograde, nor does it set any clocks back.
3. The air that we breath is never ‘clean’. In a crowded place, where lots of people are breathing in and out, there is lots of formaldehyde in the air. “There is no safe level of formaldehyde!”
There are lots of comments of that nature. Here’s another:
Good. Humans need to stop wanting to shove sticks in their mouths and smoking. It offers ZERO health benefits, so all you do is burn money. Ban them all.”
There are lots of very similar examples.
I refuse to believe that the commenters are Health Zealots just making trouble. Those commenters really mean what they say. It seems to me that they have much confusion in their minds, and I do not understand why. I have just lit a cig and have sucked on it. If I was a vaper, I would be sucking on the ecig. If I enjoyed lollipops, I would suck on them. Many adults like to use a straw to draw alcoholic beverages into their mouths. They suck on the straws. Babies suck on their mothers’ nipples.You can suck an orange. You often have to suck spaghetti into your mouth. Even sipping is very much like sucking – when you sip on a drink, you suck the liquid into your mouth. Vapers suck the vapour into their mouths and enjoy the taste. It is a simple matter of choice whether or not a vaper inhales the vapour or just hold it in his mouth before blowing it out of his mouth. You can make that choice with smoke and with vapour, but you cannot make it with liquids. Your body would rebel against it and eject the liquid.
The more of the comments that I read, the more convinced that I became that there is a subspecies of humanity which is imperious. I don’t know what percentage of humans are so inclined since, as far as I know, there have been no studies of that tendency. Also, as far as I am aware, there have been no studies of whether or not such imperious people tend to enter politics. One can understand how such people could be ambitious, but, in trade and industry, they would have to be successful and create profit. In the public sector, no such inhibitions exist. The ‘success’ of a law is judged by the lack of riots in the streets. Because there were no riots in the streets about the smoking ban, it was ‘a great success’.
Such ‘successes’ are very brittle. They have a tendency to break asunder when put under sufficient pressure, and the pressure need not be great. The only way that they can survive is by mounting more and more ‘successes’. Once they stop……then the ‘successes’ rot away into ‘failures’.
===
The enjoyment of smoking tobacco is esoteric (meaning special and unusual).  Once upon a time, it was ubiquitous, but many smokers were just following fashion. Now, only those people who actually enjoy smoking do so. Thus we see, once again, the cruelty of those who demand laws which persecute smokers, especially those who advocate massive taxation. They are like the commenters on that Canadian article. They do not understand.
Advertisements

9 Responses to ““Ontario bans vaping in places where smoking tobacco is prohibited””

  1. Roberto Says:

    Enervating (but interesting) to read the commentaries that you quote from these anal constipated characters that applaud the ban of vaping in Ontario. If this is how they feel about the almost odorless e-cig vapor, they would certainly get viral against the odor full smoke that us dirty tobacco smokers smoke. Likely they would also applaud placing us in perpetual quarantine.

    I wonder, why is it that this type of pricks are so abundant (and so vocal) in countries that were former British colonies (USA, Canada, Australia)? Perhaps it has to do with a cultural repulsion to odor in English speaking countries (which is probably less extreme in England). In other cultures, for example France, Germany, Spain or Latin America, even those who detest tobacco are not so extreme.

    When these anal types in Ontario say “clean air” they really mean “odor-less air”, but in their supine ignorance and prejudice these idiots miss the point: lack of odor doesn’t mean lack of toxicity, as most air pollutants (even toxic ones like nitrogen oxides) are odor-less. Conversely, many substances full of odor (even foul odor) are completely harmless.

    In the last 20 years smoking has become unpopular in the USA and Canada. When I travel there I have been several times confronted when smoking outdoors by pricks of this type telling me “… you have no right to force me breathing your poison”. I have always reacted politely and agreed to turn off my cigar. Next time this happens to me I will tell them to move away if it bothers them or simply to f.. off (curiously, this never happened to me in England). We smokers need to be more assertive. After all, there is no scientific basis for SHS damage in open outdoors, so outdoor bans are violations of our human rights.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Enjoy your tobacco ! If anyone challenges me they will politely be told to ‘fuck off’.

    • Roberto Says:

      I’ll certainly enjoy it and will follow your advice on the next rude anti-smoking prick confronting me.

      • junican Says:

        I have only once experienced a hand-waving cougher. I was in the pub and went to go out of the pub (meaning into the porch) for a cig. In the porch, blocking the exit, were a man and a woman waiting for a taxi. I could not easily pass them, but I did not want to actually go outside, so I lit up while standing behind them. The woman started. “But you are blocking the porch up”, I said. “In any case”, I said, “How do you know that I am not a very violent person who might attack you for insulting me?” They ‘fucked off’.

  3. garyk30 Says:

    If SHS/ETS were so full of dangerous chemicals as to pose a health hazard in the open air, I am certain that the various govt agencies in charge of making sure that our air is clean would have banned it.

    The USA EPA is happy to apply restraining regulations; but, has no regulations concerning SHS/ETS.

    Therefore, tell the fuckwit sensitive busybodies to fuck-off!! 🙂

    • garyk30 Says:

      The Ontario ban was started by the Ministry of Health; not by, the Ministry of Clean Air.

      One would think, in a sane world, Health would have consulted the clean air people.

      • junican Says:

        In a sane world, children would be taught in school how to distinguish between truth, propaganda and advertising mumbo-jumbo. They are not, which speaks volumes.

  4. Yvonne Says:

    Good to read some sensible blogging even if it is about e-cigarettes rather than smoking.:
    http://scottgronmark.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/e-cigarettes-are-improving-our-health.html

    • junican Says:

      Read it. Clear and precise and almost correct. The only fault is the acceptance of junk science about smoking. It would have been OK had it qualified the statements about smoking harm. Having said that, I suppose that vapers have to play the game by turning the junk science about SHS against the opponents of ecigs. Well, good luck with that.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: