No. What's that got to do with anything?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
E cigarette ban unfair?
- Thread starter HowardGWR
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Thank you.
I still don't see the relevance? :?
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Simply, there are two issues with 'Vaping'. One is the agreed lack of knowledge on what is in SOME of the fluids used. It really doesn't matter how many responsible users plead that their 'oil' is clean and pure and made only of unicorn tears, the fact is that there are plenty of places flogging dirt cheap stuff that is rough as you like and could contain anything. Smoking is seen by many as an essential, even those who can't afford it, and there are plenty who would rather buy the cheapest filthiest fags they can find and to hell with the consequences, rather than give up. There is absolutely no reason to think 'vaping' is any different. This is backed up by the plethora of very dodgy looking 'vaping shops' nestled in amongst cheap off licences and kebab joints in some decidedly iffy areas - bear in mind that there are a great many independent shops who will happily sell you a fake bottle of spirits made of potentially lethal chemicals, and you can appreciate the concerns that exist over second rate vaping fluids.
The other issue is the ludicrous 'fashion' aspect. A plastic cigarette with a blue light on the end of it looks stupid, and it's safe to assume a user is only doing it to give up - fair play. However, the vaping industry has now begun to ensnare people who didn't even smoke previously, and who are fooled into thinking they can partake of this 'cool' craze without any risks. Some of the enormous steaming contraptions my colleagues carry around with them all day are frankly absurd, but clearly some think they're rather trendy, along with the revolting flavoured vapours they put in them - please explain to me the appeal of sucking in custard flavoured steam?! Whilst some will continue to argue their little steamboxes are harmless, kids will start using them, undoubtedly buying the cheap nasty rubbish and exposing themselves to the untested potential health issues that go with them.
So yes, ban them.
The other issue is the ludicrous 'fashion' aspect. A plastic cigarette with a blue light on the end of it looks stupid, and it's safe to assume a user is only doing it to give up - fair play. However, the vaping industry has now begun to ensnare people who didn't even smoke previously, and who are fooled into thinking they can partake of this 'cool' craze without any risks. Some of the enormous steaming contraptions my colleagues carry around with them all day are frankly absurd, but clearly some think they're rather trendy, along with the revolting flavoured vapours they put in them - please explain to me the appeal of sucking in custard flavoured steam?! Whilst some will continue to argue their little steamboxes are harmless, kids will start using them, undoubtedly buying the cheap nasty rubbish and exposing themselves to the untested potential health issues that go with them.
So yes, ban them.
Last edited:
Minilad
Established Member
Well said that man
DarloRich
Veteran Member
insert Facebook a like thumbs up icon here!
I can assure you it's much safer to share an enclosed space with twenty tobacco chain smokers than a single running car engine.
Maybe so, but it's also safer to vape than it is to wrestle a pack of wolves while wearing Lady Gaga's meat dress. And that's just as irrelevant.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,691
What has that got to do with banning e-cigs ?
If you check back, you'll see this is a strand of the discussion about the hypocrisy of car drivers complaining about e-cigarettes.
(BTW, I am in favour of banning the use of e-cigarettes on public transport, unless there are separated "vaping carriages")
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Vaping in a public space exposes bystanders to a possible but probably very small health risk, although it might be a little unpleasant according to some.
Driving a car exposes bystanders to a significant health risk, both through air pollution and physical injury. It's also very unpleasant for bystanders.
I hope politicians will prioritise their response to each activity accordingly.
Last edited:
Which would be relevant if we were discussing a policy that would have people stop vaping and start driving cars instead. But we aren't. In the context of this discussion all that matters is the relative health (or other) effects of allowing vaping vs not allowing it.
I'm a 'vaper' and used it as a tool to quit smoking - successfully, where traditional nicotine replacement therapy had failed me before.
I actually agree with banning e-cig use on trains. It's not just 'steam' or 'water vapour' that is produced, to think so is ridiculous as all of the liquids contain at a very minimum some form of glycerin, nicotine and in most cases some form of flavouring as well. If these ingredients were not also expressed in the vapour cloud then the users wouldn't be able to taste the liquid or receive the nicotine.
There has been no definitive, controlled trial on the long term effects of their use. It's generally agreed they are probably much safer than conventional cigarettes, but not definitely - and it's another thing entirely to call them 'completely harmless'.
While it remains the case that the precise effects of use (and second hand inhalation) are unknown with certainty, I don't think it's fair for others to be exposed to it in a confined space from which they have limited options to move away (and why should they have to?).
I actually agree with banning e-cig use on trains. It's not just 'steam' or 'water vapour' that is produced, to think so is ridiculous as all of the liquids contain at a very minimum some form of glycerin, nicotine and in most cases some form of flavouring as well. If these ingredients were not also expressed in the vapour cloud then the users wouldn't be able to taste the liquid or receive the nicotine.
There has been no definitive, controlled trial on the long term effects of their use. It's generally agreed they are probably much safer than conventional cigarettes, but not definitely - and it's another thing entirely to call them 'completely harmless'.
While it remains the case that the precise effects of use (and second hand inhalation) are unknown with certainty, I don't think it's fair for others to be exposed to it in a confined space from which they have limited options to move away (and why should they have to?).
A strand that I never participated in (and which didn't appear until around post #43 anyway).
nuts & bolts
Member
So we have i-clouds and now e-clouds?☁️
kevconnor
Member
I will freely admit it isn't something I had given much consideration to previously but your post got me thinking, and reading, on the relative risks.
I did a not very scientific search on Google Scholar for any articles on this. the results seem to be somewhat mixed. One report available here suggests there are 'No significant risks' however conversely there is also another report whose summary is available here (you will need academic access to be able to read the full article) found:
In short a lot of not very nice particles are found in the environment after vaping. The best summary is that by Bestwestern that we simply do not know enough added to the fact that governments haven't been quick enough to get to grips with regulating their use and content. In the absence of which there is bound to be a haphazard approach to regulation of use.
I don't know many people who would sit in an enclosed space with a car, also I treat cars the same way as I do smokers. Which is to keep away from them as much as possible and not breathing in the fumes as much as I'm able. However I'm lucky to live somewhere with few busy roads.
Although I drive the majority of my travel is done by a combination cycling and train.
Butts
Veteran Member
Vaping is for wimps.....
There is no substitute for a Benson and Hedges King Size Gold Cigarette, manufactured (for a short while at least until it's pending closure) at the JTI factory in Ballymena in Northern Ireland.
Purchased in Luxembourg for £3.65 a packet (a real steal against £9 plus in the UK) the nectar of the gods !!
Are there no other smokers on here ? We seem as popular as Conservative Voters on RailUK Forums.
Repeal all anti-smoking legislation forthwith
There is no substitute for a Benson and Hedges King Size Gold Cigarette, manufactured (for a short while at least until it's pending closure) at the JTI factory in Ballymena in Northern Ireland.
Purchased in Luxembourg for £3.65 a packet (a real steal against £9 plus in the UK) the nectar of the gods !!
Are there no other smokers on here ? We seem as popular as Conservative Voters on RailUK Forums.
Repeal all anti-smoking legislation forthwith
Vaping is for wimps.....
Yeah, real men enjoy the smooth, refreshing taste of cancer. From the only legal products that kill you when used as intended by the manufacturer.
My opposition to vaping is not just based on safety. There's no evidence that the vapours cause harm, although let's be clear that vaping has not been proven safe. Tobacco used to be considered in the same way - at one time, there was no evidence of harm, so we got adverts like this:
[youtube]gCMzjJjuxQI[/youtube]
E-Cigarettes may have the potential be safe, but they're currently not subject to any significant regulation. There's evidence that at least some vapour products in the USA contain carcinogens, which does cause concerns.[1] Furthermore, there is preliminary evidence to support risk associated with passive exposure to e-cigarette vapours.[2] However, the evidence of harm isn't strong at the moment. Frankly, adverts like this are simply making fallacious statements:
[youtube]dUNrffJm8wU[/youtube]
This is because statements like "no risk of lung cancer or harm from passive smoke" are wrong and misleading - there is no evidence of risk, true, but they cannot say that there is no risk.
The biggest concerns I have about e-cigarettes is the marketing. First of all, they are often marketed to consumers as an alternative to tobacco products which can help you quit. Frankly, there is currently no evidence supporting this. There are some studies demonstrating short term benefits (up to one month) in using e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids, but longer term studies have failed to show any such benefit. [3] There's still work to be done in this field, and whilst e-cigarettes may have a role in smoking cessation, their use alone currently has no evidence of long term success. At the end of the day, the products continue to have nicotine in them, so without a plan to reduce your nicotine consumption, you're still addicted.
More concerning, e-cigarette manufacturers are often owned, and are being purchased by and are receiving investments from, tobacco companies.[4] They don't seem like natural allies - the products should be in direct competition if we believe the marketing.
And the reality is that vaping is being used to make the act of smoking appear more socially acceptable. Advertising demonstrating the use of e-cigarettes is growing, and I find it concerning to see adverts like this on the television in the 21st century.
[youtube]8i_pspVcWPY[/youtube]
Then look at this one (not safe for work).
[youtube]8N5aiVog-jQ[/youtube]
The aim of this advert is to make the product appear glamorous. Looking at the adverts, it's hard to believe the claims that they're not marketing their products to non-smokers. True, they are all aimed primarily at smokers, but the glamour exuded by the products is similar to that from the original smoking adverts in the 60s, and I find it hard to believe that they're not targeting non-smokers as well. Often, the reference to existing smokers is somewhat covert (most notable in that last advert).
And here's why I'm really concerned. I don't trust tobacco companies. At all. It seems likely to me that they are using e-cigarettes to 1) retain smokers who are trying to quit. There's no evidence of long term success, so chances are they'll go back to smoking their usual brand of cigarettes. And even if they don't, they're still hooked on your vapour product. More concerningly, I think that 2) companies are targeting non-smokers and young smokers with their products, which could act as a gateway to real tobacco products. A recent study in JAMA Pediatrics (sic) does demonstrate that teenagers who use vapour products are more likely to progress to tobacco use than non-vaping peers.[5] Whilst it's hard to say that those teens wouldn't have started smoking anyway, it is a concerning that these products are being used by young people.
My position overall would be that vaping should be treated cautiously, and any suggestions that they offer any health benefits should be treated with scepticism until proven otherwise.
The biggest reason I support regulating e-cigarettes in the same manner as tobacco products is that they are clearly being used by the tobacco industry to reverse decades of work in the field of smoking cessation. The various regulations banning tobacco sale, display, advertising and use have done a good job to remove that glamour and acceptability surrounding tobacco. Sadly, e-cigarettes threaten this progress. Their use in enclosed public places, including trains, should be restricted in the same way as cigarettes and tobacco products because it promotes the image that smoking is socially acceptable.
References
[1]Tobacco Companies Sued Over Cancer-Causing Substances in E-Cigarettes
[2]E-cigarette vapour could damage healthy of non-smokers, (subscription or ATHENS required to access)
[3]Studies suggest E-cigarettes don't aid long-term smoking cessation
[4]Big Tobacco light up e-cigarettes (subscription or ATHENS required to access)
[5]Progression to Traditional Cigarette Smoking After Electronic Cigarette Use Among US Adolescents and Young Adults
From a health point of view, I don't think there is enough known about vaping to say one way or other.
Given people have had to get used to not smoking on trains up to the invention of these devices, I don't see why smokers should have any issue with abstinence. It's going backwards if we allow it, and who knows if there may turn out to be an issue (even if a small one).
From a practical POV I think it also makes it difficult to enforce the smoking ban if you have puffs of "smoke" everywhere, as it will be more difficult to tell at a distance whether people are smoking or not (which is possibly the primary reason for banning it).
I would also say that obviously this vapour has been in someone's mouth, lungs, then mouth and nostrils, and then being dispersed all around them in fine droplets. It may or may not be full of harmful chemicals, but it has been inside your body. Keep it to yourself and don't be so gross as to effectively gob and snot all over your fellow passengers. I don't want your smoke, I don't want your "vapour" and I certainly don't want your rasping "smoker's cough" or endless (self-inflicted) colds.
Given people have had to get used to not smoking on trains up to the invention of these devices, I don't see why smokers should have any issue with abstinence. It's going backwards if we allow it, and who knows if there may turn out to be an issue (even if a small one).
From a practical POV I think it also makes it difficult to enforce the smoking ban if you have puffs of "smoke" everywhere, as it will be more difficult to tell at a distance whether people are smoking or not (which is possibly the primary reason for banning it).
I would also say that obviously this vapour has been in someone's mouth, lungs, then mouth and nostrils, and then being dispersed all around them in fine droplets. It may or may not be full of harmful chemicals, but it has been inside your body. Keep it to yourself and don't be so gross as to effectively gob and snot all over your fellow passengers. I don't want your smoke, I don't want your "vapour" and I certainly don't want your rasping "smoker's cough" or endless (self-inflicted) colds.
Last edited:
To be fair, quite a lot of the air we breathe has been in other peoples' airways, and indeed other animals' airways. On exhalation, it's released into the environment in droplet form. That's true whether or not we add smoke or vapour to the mixture.
Butts
Veteran Member
Is this statement absolute balderdash ?
Can you qualify it by adding may after that ?
Or are you privy to information not available to the rest of us ?
Last edited:
I don't need to add the word "may". In fact, it would be wrong to add the word "may". There is excellent evidence that smoking kills, and there is no doubt that that statement is correct. It is scientific fact. I won't bore you or insult your intelligence by going into the details here, particularly since this is completely off topic and we've already had this discussion many times before!
Not every smoker will ultimately die from a smoking related illness (although, as I've said before, I can cite smoking as a contributing factor in every one of the ten leading causes of mortality in the UK in both males and females). A smoker could get hit by a bus and thus wouldn't die from a smoking related illness. That does not change the fact that smoking tobacco does kill.
Not every smoker will ultimately die from a smoking related illness (although, as I've said before, I can cite smoking as a contributing factor in every one of the ten leading causes of mortality in the UK in both males and females). A smoker could get hit by a bus and thus wouldn't die from a smoking related illness. That does not change the fact that smoking tobacco does kill.
Butts
Veteran Member
No one is disputing the fact that tobacco can and does kill people through Lung Cancer and various other diseases, however it does not have that effect on all users. So to to state that it will kill all users is factually incorrect.
Perhaps money should be spent on research examining why the half of people it kills are susceptible and why the other half are not. There must be some scientific reason for this disparity.
Speaking seriously about vaping is a diffilcult concept for a real smoker. However if it is helping people give up then I feel it should be encouraged. Whether this extends to allowing it in areas formerly permitting real smoking is open to debate.
It may turn out to be a fad , and if not I can see the Chancellor looming in the background with yet another "special tax".
Quiet agree @Butts and appreciate your correction and sticking to facts. I cite Helmut Schmidt and Winston Churchill as examples of folk who don't get taken by the weed. As OP, I repeat that I don't see the point of people being concerned about vapers' health. We are only talking of nuisance to others here and nothing has been presented to make me think there is any serious danger to others by vaping, although I have not experienced any effect from flavoured vapes - that could be a nuisnace, if others smell it. A vapers' section on trains could perhaps be a way forward, or just allow it in the vestibule.
Wivenswold
Established Member
A lot more people would consider the safer option of vaping if there were social benefits as well as health ones. I keep considering the switch to vaping and I'd have probably switched sooner if I could do it in every pub and on the train home.
Anyway, as I pointed out to Abellio management a year or so ago. There's no case law involving a person vaping in a No Smoking area yet in which case I reckon passengers should defy the "ban". Let see whether the High Court thinks it's a fair situation.
Anyway, as I pointed out to Abellio management a year or so ago. There's no case law involving a person vaping in a No Smoking area yet in which case I reckon passengers should defy the "ban". Let see whether the High Court thinks it's a fair situation.
ExRes
Established Member
Firstly I will admit to being an ex-smoker which, in my experience, means I'm not allowed to comment on smoking matters ..........
There may well be nothing, yet, that proves vaping is bad for the vaper or the innocents who are being vaped, but neither is there any proof that it isn't harmful
As for "vapers' section on trains", do you seriously think that could/would work ?, I think the morning commute might put a very quick stop to that idea
"just allow it in the vestibule", no, no, no, no, people are NOT going to walk through clouds of anything every time they get on and off
221129
Established Member
I seem to recall the Railway bylaws cover it somewhere.
This might do it:
Railway Byelaws said:
Firstly I will admit to being an ex-smoker which, in my experience, means I'm not allowed to comment on smoking matters ..........
There may well be nothing, yet, that proves vaping is bad for the vaper or the innocents who are being vaped, but neither is there any proof that it isn't harmful
As for "vapers' section on trains", do you seriously think that could/would work ?, I think the morning commute might put a very quick stop to that idea
"just allow it in the vestibule", no, no, no, no, people are NOT going to walk through clouds of anything every time they get on and off
Surely with all the press, comments on here and for many, personal experience of rail travel in recent times, there just isn't enough space on trains to have various little zones for passengers to indulge in their addiction. Some of the comments on here are trying to justify e-cigarettes as a benefit to the majority of people as the practice is less objectionable than being near tobacco smokers. That's a cynical argument, effectively saying don't complain as I could be doing something worse! Well, the activity of forcing other people to accept health risks from the pollution arising from a habit of a few, has now been largely eradicated. Smoking is banned in enclosed spaces and some others by law, and the rules are generally obeyed, so those who decide that the law doesn't apply to them can be dealt with. If there was a test case, and the 'no smoking' rules were deemed by a court to not include e-cigarettes, I imagine that TOCs would have new labels printed and applied in place everywhere within a week, otherwise there would be a torrent of complaints (and possible worse trouble) from those who objected to the smell and were concerned about their health.
- Status