The day before I fly is the day I huff down all my tanks and clean them.
This also means that is the day you are most likely to see long rambling blog entries that meander around in a disjointed manner and incorporating abrupt changes in consciousness like an addled fainting goat. I'm typing and huffing, stopping to clean a Mini Naut, huffing and typing, checking my mail (my replacement Raspberry Pinto is coming today), etc...
So lets go for a ramble.
----
The Oxford Dictionary Word of The Year for 2014 is "Vape". (links should open in a new window). The 6/7 week former smoker in me thinks that's pretty cool. The dad in me would like to note that the 2013 word of the year was "Selfie" and thinks I should write a long letter about the downfall of the human species through the rapid devolution of our general focus from things of import to things of tabloid worthiness.
Still; "Vape" is word of the year, that's pretty cool. I'm associated with something cool. Wow. The kids in high school said that would never happen.
----
I was up until midnight last night watching the live video feed of Bloomington Minnesota's Council meeting. They had an amendment up that would include vaporizers in the current legislation around smoking. Banned usage in public spaces, including city parks, buildings, and vape shops; of which there are two in Bloomington. This would mean no sampling, no troubleshooting of devices, and no demonstration of operation within the shop to educate new customers. All of that would require the store staff and customer to exit the shop and remove themselves from the premises by 25 ft. before using any device.
So I sat through an hour of discussion on right hand turn lanes for one of the roads, followed by about two hours on signage as it pertains to city ordinance and The Mall of America, and a 10 minute intermission where they played the same electronic elevator tune on an infinite loop.
I then listened to testimony and questions;
The testimony was pretty much standard fare from both sides.
Pro-Amendment brought up the standard "We don't know if it's safe" argument. The "Think of the Children Argument" and one even brought up K. Farsalinos' study where Diacetyl was found in a bunch of liquids (I've been waiting for that little nugget to pop up).
Anti-Amendment responded with the "Harm reduction" argument, The "Cessation of tobacco use argument" and pointed out that there is more Diacetyl in tobacco cigarettes. They also made it clear that they were willing to give up on everything else, if they could continue to use their own products on their own age restricted shops. So that their customers could try products, be educated in their safe use, have their issues with those products resolved, and perhaps keep coming to their shops instead of driving 30 minutes down the road where there is no ordinance preventing those actions from occurring outside at -20 in the dead of winter. One of those vendors had applied for and received a permit from this very council last year to put in a 100,000 dollar expansion to their premises specifically to accommodate sampling and vaping in the shop.
Of the questions, one from a councillor sticks out in my mind, paraphrased here "So what's to stop someone with bad intent from say putting bleach in these open systems?" This was answered by noting that there is no financial benefit to do so given the cost of manufacture of liquids, the availability of components, and margin of profit on liquid manufacture. The councillor then reiterated his question a few more times without really clarifying his intent leaving the respondent to guess as to what he was looking for; illicit drug use? that's a different type of vaporizer all together. Finally it came to (again I paraphrase) "What's to stop someone from loading something bad into a vaporizer and walking into the Mall of America vaping and dispersing that bad substance?"
That's right. E-Cigarettes; Weapon of Mass Distraction. Tools of Terror.
I knew at that moment; The vapers of Bloomington were hopelessly buggered. I didn't need to hear councils uneducated comments on Big Tobaccos domination and stranglehold of the e-cigarette industry. I didn't hardly pay attention when the one councillor brought up a lawsuit against the FDA preventing the classification of vaporizers as cessation products and intimated that it was the vapers fault they were in this predicament. Nor was I shocked when she incorrectly stated that the plaintiff in that suit was "Big Tobacco".
Hopelessly, and absolutely, buggered.
There was a motion to apply a specific exemption for the two existing vape shops to allow product use for two years. It was seconded; and then summarily squashed.
The amendment was passed as presented with a unanimous vote.
Why do I care? Why do I watch?
Because Municipal and State/Provincial governments when put in a position where they "feel" the need to regulate something "for the good of the public" like to compete with each other.
"We have before us the most comprehensive and toughest anti-(whatever) legislation in ALL the land" is the proud cry heard every time.
Then the neighboring municipal or state/provincial government goes about creating "their" most comprehensive and toughest anti-(whatever) legislation in ALL the land.
I watch so that I can see how the process goes, so that I can learn. Some day it's going to be MY municipal government, or MY provincial government. Looking to continue to "Denormalize" me as a vaper in the same manner they "Denormalized" me as a smoker...
Someone might be watching ME in a live video stream, scratching my nose and nodding off as I wait to have my say right after the right hand turn issue and signage ordinance.
----
Which brings us to "Denormalization" the opposite of "Renormalization" which is the fear brought forth by those who say vaping will revitalize the smoking industry.
Ask any convert to vaping if they would willingly go back to smoking. Record the answer for future reference.
Denormalization as applied to the currently legal activity of smoking, if we look at it closely isn't so much "denormalization" as it is "dehumanization" or at it's worst "Demonization".
Having to go into an age restricted liquor shop to buy a bottle is denormalization, having to go into an age restricted bar to have a social drink in a public setting is denormalization. Preventing smoking in playgrounds, schools, civic buildings etc. is denormalization. Limiting advertising and media portrayals is denormalization.
We wish to prevent others from taking on a legal yet potentially hazardous endeavor so we limit its view so that our most impressionable have limited cues that may lead them to take up the habit.
Telling a 70+ year old man he must stand outside at -40 in front of the senior citizens home next to a provincial highway, for a habit he's had longer than you've been alive, is dehumanization. You are no longer focusing on the act of smoking, you are focusing on punishing the smoker, for what is still, like it or not, a legal act. Providing a bench is not acceptable for the removal of heat and protection from the weather.
You are not worthy of our comforts because we do not approve of your actions, regardless of their legality. We deny you these things in hopes you will give up your addictions and that others may be discouraged from taking them up. (That last line is often added to any act of dehumanization as the justification for treating one human being in a lesser manner than another).
Convincing one portion of society that another portion of society is "Bad", "Dangerous", or "A public hazard to all they come in contact with" as they perform a legal act moves us to the last category; Demonization, not only are we ignoring the action that we are concerned with and focusing on the legal user, we are actively trying to convince others that the harm is NOT associated with the act or "Thing" (tobacco for example) in question but that the harm is in fact attributed to the user.
This becomes more evident when the argument for demonization is attributed to other acts due to their resemblance of the original "vile" act. We have no proof that it's NOT hurting us and it looks like the evil we fight, therefore it IS the evil we fight.
Similar arguments have been used at various times in history by groups of humans against other groups of humans, it's considered crass to bring them up in this type of discussion because "We aren't doing that!"
Really? A septuagenarian on a sidewalk at - 40 in a housecoat beside a highway or in front of a hospital is no different than someone segregated because of skin tone or racial heritage during time of war either through policy or fear. Particularly if society has been conditioned, and especially if the septuagenarian has been conditioned to believe he deserves to be there.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete