CTA: Thank you, Haven, Signatures

[diche]

Three ways you can help vaping survive this week:

1. It looks like there won't be a ban on vaping in public places in England ( www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Legal/Legislation/No-ban-on-e-cigarettes-in-English-pubs-after-Wales-reveals-plan ). Write to the Department of Health to thank them for this fantastic decision.
Why not include in your message why ecigs work for you?
Use this form: www.info.doh.gov.uk/contactus.nsf/memo?openform

2. Haven Holidays need to know why this sign is so so wrong -
 

 you could tweet (@haven), contact them via facebook ( www.facebook.com/havenholidays ) or use their live chat  ( www.haven.com/support/contact-us.aspx ). Or, dare we suggest it, all three?

3. The Lib Dem "Stop Welsh Labour's e-cigs ban" needs a lot more signatures - Get 3 friends or family members to sign it: www.welshlibdems.wales/ecigs


vapersinpower.co.uk/call-to-action

[Greg]

I thought the majority agreed that a ban indoors was overkill but the proprietor should be free to decide for themselves whether ecigs should be permitted or not on their premises.

If that's the case then the sign is fine.

[jessica]

The Haven sign is claiming to inform us with the "(ecigarettes still contain nicotine)" when in fact it is spreading disinformation by implying that nicotine is harmful to bystanders - otherwise why would the nicotine content be a reason to take it outside? It's also judgemental and belittles ecig users with the assumption that vapers are pretending to smoke. Why not put up a sign which simply says "No Vaping" or "No Ecigs"?
(There's also an apostrophe crime, if you want to get really pedantic)

[Greg]

Jun 19, 2015 22:31:01 GMT jessica said:

The Haven sign is claiming to inform us with the "(ecigarettes still contain nicotine)" when in fact it is spreading disinformation by implying that nicotine is harmful to bystanders - otherwise why would the nicotine content be a reason to take it outside? It's also judgemental and belittles ecig users with the assumption that vapers are pretending to smoke. Why not put up a sign which simply says "No Vaping" or "No Ecigs"?
(There's also an apostrophe crime, if you want to get really pedantic)

Because two signs cost twice as much as one and it's a business after all.
It's not a capers right to Cape anywhere they choose to, respect for others is not to hard a concept for me to grasp.
It's seems some are as biased for as others are against, for me neither is a particularly attractive trait.
The people who put the sign up are probably ignorant but maybe some of their customers complained due a recent bunch of cloud chasers, sure that's an assumption too.
If a buisness chooses to not allow capping indoors then that's their right, I either accept it or go elsewhere, what you can't do tell them to take their sign down because you don't agree with it.

[letsavit]

Contacting haven and got distracted and asked for her phone number....



What was I suppose to again....

[jessica]

Jun 19, 2015 23:05:07 GMT Greg said:

Jun 19, 2015 22:31:01 GMT jessica said:

The Haven sign is claiming to inform us with the "(ecigarettes still contain nicotine)" when in fact it is spreading disinformation by implying that nicotine is harmful to bystanders - otherwise why would the nicotine content be a reason to take it outside? It's also judgemental and belittles ecig users with the assumption that vapers are pretending to smoke. Why not put up a sign which simply says "No Vaping" or "No Ecigs"?
(There's also an apostrophe crime, if you want to get really pedantic)

Because two signs cost twice as much as one and it's a business after all.
It's not a capers right to Cape anywhere they choose to, respect for others is not to hard a concept for me to grasp.
It's seems some are as biased for as others are against, for me neither is a particularly attractive trait.
The people who put the sign up are probably ignorant but maybe some of their customers complained due a recent bunch of cloud chasers, sure that's an assumption too.
If a buisness chooses to not allow capping indoors then that's their right, I either accept it or go elsewhere, what you can't do tell them to take their sign down because you don't agree with it.

I don't see where we disagree.  I haven't said they shouldn't forbid vaping on their premises, I've just objected to the wording of their sign.  They don't need to produce two signs, just one would do - one which simply said "No Vaping" or "No Ecigs".

[sydsut]

It's also a blatant lie, as not all e-cigarettes contain nicotine !!

[enagee]

I vap nic free, so the sign is wrong full stop

[thatguy]

The ban is wrong in the same way the smking ban was. It takes away from peoples freedom. But who can account for political thinking.

I can't vape at the back of the school I work in where no kids go, but need to go to the main entrance to the school grounds where kids are passing non stop. The reason for this.....my vaping normalise smoking to the kids. WTF!!!! Vape in front of noone is bad, vape in front of all the kids is good? Is it any wonder I refer to all politicians from council jobbies up to the PM as a bunch of retarded pesticles!!!