E cigarette ban unfair?

[ComUtoR]

Nope, I would not class myself as a smoker as I'm not smoking, I'm vaping. There is no smoke in an e-cig, just liquid vapour.

Vaper/Smoker A rose by any other name is ....

You are still doing everything, and more, that you do with a cigarette. The only thing that has changed is they have added flavor and removed the more dangerous carcinogens and chemicals.

I think in fairness, would you rather me smoke harsh cancerous chemicals and pass these onto other people as second hand smoke? Or would you rather have me vapourise liquid which emits harmless vapour.

It's NOT harmless and no I wouldn't like to see you "smoking" They have done an incredible job of convincing people that its just "vapour" and they are no longer a "smoker" Not forgetting that part of the reasons why they initially had smoke and a light on the end it because it was marketed to the smokers and they were not convinced. They simulate a cigarette. It is still a way to feed what is essentially a nicotine habit.

Now that e-cigarettes and vapes exist I think there is a strong case for tobacco products to be removed from the shelves in their entirety.

Are Vapes/Ecigs still duty free ?

 

[jon91]

Perhaps so, though I doubt if the complete make up of even the highest quality vapour is known in detail.

It's pretty easy actually, most good e-liquid makers send random samples off for analysis by GC-MS.

 

[Pinza-C55]

I think it is because there have been objections that the health risks of second-hand vape are unknown. Remember, that potential health risks liability of second-hand smoke were the one of the main reasons for banning smoking in public places, rather than the smell.

I don't believe there are any risks (from vaping), but there just isn't evidence either way.

Vape is steam. To be impartial they would need to ban steaming cups of tea as well.
I use an e-cig but I am sensitive to other people. If I am in a pub I am unfamiliar with I ask the landlord whether it is OK to vape.
Contrast that with people chowing down on smelly burgers on a train.
Public Health England has determined that the health profile of a vaper is the same as that of a non smoker.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...armful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review

 

[jon91]

Are Vapes/Ecigs still duty free ?

Nope, and to my knowledge they never have been.

 

[TheNewNo2]

I, as a non-smoker, do not understand the logic here.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/here-go-again-police-state-10467566?

I find this development one of the most useful to non-smokers that one could have imagined. I cannot imagine why they are banned. I never smell anything from an e-sig user, whereas one is stunk out by smokers who have just stubbed one out before boarding.

As other people have said, it's about avoiding confrontations by making the rules simple. Smoking is banned - it doesn't matter what sort of device you use, it's banned. The only smokers allowed on the railway are steam locomotives, because it's very easy to tell whether someone is a human or 50 tons of iron.

As the OP I am most interested in this comment. I have never smelled a thing from vapers, in pub gardens, for example.

Well yes, that's because you're in a garden, the smoke doesn't stay around.

Lame escuse, I know there are some thick people out there but surely not that thick to think smoking a real fag is allowed

But the same people who complain about the smell of vape are the same people who go home and light smelly candles and oils and sit in the bath for an hour inhaling it

Perhaps they are, but what they do on their own time, to their own bodies, is their own choice. That is the whole point here - vaping or smoking on the railway, you're forcing others to endure your habit. Unless you find these people are setting up bubble baths on the 1015 to King's Cross, I don't think it's very relevant.

I think in fairness, would you rather me smoke harsh cancerous chemicals and pass these onto other people as second hand smoke? Or would you rather have me vapourise liquid which emits harmless vapour.

I am perfectly happy for you to smoke as many "harsh cancerous chemicals" as you desire. If you wish to kill yourself by that method, I don't have a problem with it. But you have no right whatsoever to make other people breathe those fumes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am perfectly happy for you to smoke as many "harsh cancerous chemicals" as you desire. If you wish to kill yourself by that method, I don't have a problem with it. But you have no right whatsoever to make other people breathe those fumes.

That makes the assumption that e-cigs do actually contain any harsh cancerous chemicals. I'm sure research is proceeding at the moment to establish this.

It is permitted to consume recreational drugs on the railway, indeed, the railway actually sells them in some cases. What, you might say? Well, first of all you have alcohol (controversial) - but less controversially you have caffeine. It is a recreational drug. It is perfectly legal. It is not recognised to cause any health problems (indeed, some studies have found benefits), and it is on sale in near enough every railway station or train in the country that happens to have any kind of catering facility to anyone, whether under or over 18, who happens to wish to purchase it, and can always be consumed in said stations and trains.

Now, what if nicotine (on its own, without all the rubbish found in traditional cigarette smoke) is found to be the same?

I suppose there is still the second-hand vape issue (my coffee doesn't cause you to consume caffeine, and it only really impinges on you if I spill it) - but I'm not clear why there is a need for some (not the poster to whom I reply) to mount a crusade against it if it is indeed found to be harmless, or not any more than the same people should arguably campaign against the sale and consumption, probably by over 50% of passengers, of tea and coffee on railway premises.

 

[HowardGWR]

It seems to me that either vaping only exudes steam, or it doesn't. If that is all it does, I can't see why anyone should object. I would rather (if it is just steam) that someone sat near me was vaping than eating those smelly products that our friends who use Leeds station concourse (see other thread) are discussing.

Why some here are discussing what vapers do to themselves is beyond me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems to me that either vaping only exudes steam, or it doesn't. If that is all it does, I can't see why anyone should object. I would rather (if it is just steam) that someone sat near me was vaping than eating those smelly products that our friends who use Leeds station concourse (see other thread) are discussing.

It contains various things, including possibly nicotine. But if nicotine alone isn't carcinogenic (and as I say studies are going on), I'd rather breathe that than someone's greasy Burger King fumes. Yet vaping is increasingly prohibited on trains, while eating Burger King is permitted. While many employers ban vaping at one's desk, but permit the eating of smelly food.

 

[najaB]

It contains various things, including possibly nicotine...

Well it will definitely contain some nicotine as there's no way it can all be absorbed in the lungs. The issue is around what else it contains - since there is no control over formulations the better ones will contain water, scent and very little else, the cheaper ones can contain almost anything that is capable of being vaporised.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well it will definitely contain some nicotine as there's no way it can all be absorbed in the lungs.

Not all liquids contain nicotine. Some (like herbal cigarettes) do not.

The issue is around what else it contains - since there is no control over formulations the better ones will contain water, scent and very little else, the cheaper ones can contain almost anything that is capable of being vaporised.

This perhaps requires some legal regulation.

 

[Paul180]

As a smoker an ex smoker for nearly three years I think it is fair like when I did smoke I did not smoke on the station after the ban came in and before that I managed to cope when I was flying ect and I have managed to give up by 100% will power alone.

 

[cuccir]

The research is quite clear that for the consumer, e-cigarettes are much healthier than smoking. A 2015 report for Public Health England is pretty clear on the matter:

While vaping may not be 100% safe, most of the chemicals causing
smoking-related disease are absent and the chemicals that are present pose limited danger. It had previously been estimated that EC are around 95% safer than smoking. This appears to remain a reasonable estimate... Encouraging smokers who cannot or do not want to stop smoking to switch to EC could be adopted as one of the key strategies to reduce smoking related disease and death.

The authors are pretty scathing about media reports about the harm of passive vaping. The key published study is from Balbe et. al., whose work is summarized as saying that

Partners of vapers had mean cotinine concentrations of 0.19 ng/ml in saliva and 1.75 ng/ml in urine, which is about 1,000 times less than the concentrations seen in smokers and similar to levels generated by eating a tomato

However, Balbe et. al. are also clear that:

Our results show that
non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.

So passive vaping does exist, but as with direct vaping at concentrations much lower than smoking.

 

[anme]

Good. It's unpleasant getting a faceful of "vape" that's been inside someone's lungs.

I hate to tell you this, but most of the air you breathe has been in someone else's lungs.

Also those people who walk round obnoxiously with a vape like it's a fashion accessory.. what is that all about

Live and let live I say. It's much less offensive that what comes out of the back of a car.

 

[The Ham]

As the OP I am most interested in this comment. I have never smelled a thing from vapers, in pub gardens, for example. Believe you me, I would run a mile from any smoker. I hold my breath when passing one in the street. If one is sat near a real smoker in a railway carriage who has recently extinguished a fag, the stink from them, even after they board, having extinguished their fag, is nauseating.

Are there vapers and stinky-vapers ? My understanding is that only water vapour that emanates from their mouths. How can it smell?

(my bold)

It can't just be water vapor as many of them contain other stuff including nicotine.

Given the above it is a good thing that they are banned/going to be banned from train and stations as I don't want to be in an enclosed space where someone has been releasing an addictive substance. Nor do I want to expose my children to that.

I personally treat users of e-cigarettes the same way as I do normal smokers, I steer around them as much as possible and try to hold my breath when passing close to them. Yes many do not smell, but just because something doesn't smell doesn't mean that it is bad for you.

 

[anme]

I personally treat users of e-cigarettes the same way as I do normal smokers, I steer around them as much as possible and try to hold my breath when passing close to them. Yes many do not smell, but just because something doesn't smell doesn't mean that it is bad for you.

What is your opinion of car drivers?

 

[6Gman]

My objection to e-vapour on station platforms is that it spoils me enjoying the smell of the Pacer revving up alongside.

 

[kevconnor]

The research is quite clear that for the consumer, e-cigarettes are much healthier than smoking. A 2015 report for Public Health England is pretty clear on the matter

Whilst cuccir has done a good job of summising the report I did also note two other parts of the report which are of interest.

Colard et al., 2015 describe a model for estimating environmental workplace exposure. The model predicts much lower nicotine exposure from vaping than from smoking, at levels negligible in health terms.

Which seems to suggest that even in enclosed spaces it is safe.

Goniewicz and Lee 2014 found that nicotine from EC vapour gets deposited on surfaces, but at very low levels [81]. This poses no concerns regarding exposure to bystanders. At the highest concentration recorded (550 μg/m2), an infant would need to lick over 30 square metres of exposed surface to obtain 1mg of nicotine.

I don't know about anyone else but I would never envisage the need or desire to lick any part of a pacer for fear of what else may be contracted.

 

[najaB]

Which seems to suggest that even in enclosed spaces it is safe.

As far as nicotine is concerned, yes. Other chemicals, not so much.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

My objection to e-vapour on station platforms is that it spoils me enjoying the smell of the Pacer revving up alongside.

Reminds me of a guy who used to bag "steam" on Steam on the Met in the 1980's - and would sniff his plastic bag contents.

 

[Pinza-C55]

It's a bizarre feature of modern life that some people want to believe that vaping is dangerous despite evidence to the contrary; it reminds me somewhat of 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

 

[najaB]

It's a bizarre feature of modern life that some people want to believe that vaping is dangerous despite evidence to the contrary...

The issue is, as I pointed out above, that there is no control over what goes into the vaping fluid. I don't doubt that most are safe, but it has been shown in lab tests that some are not.

 

[kevconnor]

The issue is, as I pointed out above, that there is no control over what goes into the vaping fluid. I don't doubt that most are safe, but it has been shown in lab tests that some are not.

I should firstly preface this with I have no axe to grind here, I am quite anti smoking, though have never smoked myself and have no desire to. Neither have I ever tried any e-cigarettes. The PHE report noted before goes onto explore the idea of poisons from e-cigarettes and again found:

The clinical outcomes of exposures to e-liquids, as detailed in the NPIS report, were predominantly either ‘no toxicity’ or ‘mild toxicity’. There were two reported cases of ‘moderate toxicity’ and one ‘severe’ case that required treatment in an intensive care unit.

I agree that direct legislation is behind the curve in this respect however there is already a whole host of legislation which are there to limit the use of any chemicals which are toxic or carcinogenic. Any products for which there are fears that there may be any unsafe products being used there is already reasonable grounds for trading standards to be able to take action against the manufacturer.

 

[najaB]

I agree that direct legislation is behind the curve in this respect however there is already a whole host of legislation which are there to limit the use of any chemicals which are toxic or carcinogenic. Any products for which there are fears that there may be any unsafe products being used there is already reasonable grounds for trading standards to be able to take action against the manufacturer.

And I'm sure that the big names in the industry pay strict attention to that legislation. However, it is an unregulated industry and we've already had one poster in this thread mentioning the cheap, 'black-market' liquids that are out there. When one brand of refill costs £8 and another costs £2 it does raise doubts that the composition is the same.

I don't doubt the evidence which has shown that vaping with decent quality liquid is safer than smoking, but I still don't want someone sitting next to me on a train (or any enclosed space) vaping away since I have no way of knowing what liquid they are using.

 

[Johncleesefan]

I'm response to the title of the thread, I don't think its unfair, people who are quiting/swapping fags for them never seem to object as they had the smoking law governing where they could and couldn't spark up. Its the douchebag hipsters who have them as a fashion accessory constantly glued to their lips that have a problem. The railway is doing them a favour by allowing them a break from it

 

[Pinza-C55]

And I'm sure that the big names in the industry pay strict attention to that legislation. However, it is an unregulated industry and we've already had one poster in this thread mentioning the cheap, 'black-market' liquids that are out there. When one brand of refill costs £8 and another costs £2 it does raise doubts that the composition is the same.

I don't doubt the evidence which has shown that vaping with decent quality liquid is safer than smoking, but I still don't want someone sitting next to me on a train (or any enclosed space) vaping away since I have no way of knowing what liquid they are using.

Do you drive a car ?

 

[Starmill]

Do you drive a car ?

Quite how's that relevant? Particularly as we are discussing times one is using a train - an enclosed but public space.

 

[LUKAnorthwest]

(my bold)


Given the above it is a good thing that they are banned/going to be banned from train and stations as I don't want to be in an enclosed space where someone has been releasing an addictive substance. Nor do I want to expose my children to that.

best stay clear of the poppyseed buns and bagels then, we don't want you to get addicted to heroin! lol

i suppose the issue at hand is many people are unaware of the effects of nicotine, yes it is addictive, but your not going to start craving a cigarette just because your inhaling some elses smoke/steam/vapour whatever you want to call it. do you use the hand sanitiser in hospitals and get cravings to buy a bottle of vodka just because you can smell the alcohol evaporating? no? didn't think so.

nicotine is a harmless chemical when used in small quantities, you need to ingest at least 75mg of nicotine in one sitting to induce an overdose, when we compare that to vaping then the levels are as low as the amounts found in food. have a look at this article and see what foods contain nicotine.

also doctors prescribe NRT (nicotine replacement therapies) which provide high levels of nicotine, just thought i would point that out as a few people in this thread seem to be pointing the finger at the wrong substance.

please don't badger me as i feel has been happening over the past 24 hours on this site. these are my opinions and i want them challenged yes but i don't feel telling me off for my opinions is whats needed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My objection to e-vapour on station platforms is that it spoils me enjoying the smell of the Pacer revving up alongside.

we need a like button on this site pronto!

 

[Bletchleyite]

i suppose the issue at hand is many people are unaware of the effects of nicotine, yes it is addictive, but your not going to start craving a cigarette just because your inhaling some elses smoke/steam/vapour whatever you want to call it. do you use the hand sanitiser in hospitals and get cravings to buy a bottle of vodka just because you can smell the alcohol evaporating? no? didn't think so.

This is a fair point, but equally I respect the idea that as vaping can be done passively it makes sense for it to be done with others not present or outside, as whatever the chemical it isn't fair for others not to be able to choose not to breathe it.

 

[LUKAnorthwest]

This is a fair point, but equally I respect the idea that as vaping can be done passively it makes sense for it to be done with others not present or outside, as whatever the chemical it isn't fair for others not to be able to choose not to breathe it.

that is why i use the designated or established smoking areas, or if I'm on an open platform i will vape away from people. it bugs the hell out of me when i have to go through peoples smoke. so i do understand how annoying it can be to experience someone else smoke/vape.

my point was that the poster i was referring to was in some way insinuating that he would somehow get addicted to smoking through being subjected to passive smoking. as he used the term 'addictive substance'

sorry if i misinterpreted what you said neil, its too early in the morning lol

 

[TheNewNo2]

It seems to me that either vaping only exudes steam, or it doesn't. If that is all it does, I can't see why anyone should object.

Ah, but what if you're carrying an important letter and the gum of the envelope keeps unsealing...