Should Vaping, e-smoking, be allowed in public?

[brett1985]

I accept the carcinogens from bbq,cars and alike but not smoking or vaps in a public space enclosed or otherwise.

 

just out of interest, what carcinogens are in vapour?

[Richie10]

If I played the trumpet, albeit badly and followed you around I am sure it would be annoying, no matter how much fun I was having...at your expense. As said, consideration and impact on others.

 

That would be called noise pollution or disturbing the peace which is an offence, smoking is not an offence yet.

[Zapp]

You might want to change the title of the thread, or the question in your poll, as they potentially contradict one another. People might read the title without reading the vote question and skew the results.

[Olliesims]

Smoking will never be a offence the amount of tax they get per day through the sale of cigarettes will run into the billions

[onatangent]

it is not a criminal offense but is offensive. Only a matter of time til its banned properly, good. My dad gave up and when he did smoke never did it indoors, upwind, in a car etc and accepted it did affect others and acted accordingly to not impose his hobby/crutch/addiction on others.

[kdubya]

this just about sums it up for me

 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-08-18/vaping-may-be-hazardous-to-your-health

[onatangent]

 

just out of interest, what carcinogens are in vapour?

you tell me, I assume all the nicotine is absorbed and it is a perfect solution? Get a patch on, chew gum or something more acceptable. Then spit the gum out on the street the same as dumping fag ends. E vap at least is less likely to contribute to littering.

Edited September 8, 2014 by onatangent

[brett1985]

just some info for you, this has been taken from CASAA'S testing report, CASAA being the consumer advocates for smoke free alternatives association.

 

it debunks several myths and concerns.

 

There are many myths and misconceptions about electronic cigarettes. Let's separate fact from fiction.

Myth #1

‐ Electronic cigarettes are a threat to children/teens.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:

Legislators and anti

‐smoking groups assume that children will be drawn to the “electronic gadgets,” the

fruit/candy flavors and ease of access on the internet & mall kiosks.

Why it’s a wrong:

First, they aren’t easy to purchase on the internet. A credit card or bank account is required. So, unless the

child steals a parent’s credit card and then hides the card statement later on, the risk of being discovered is

high. The majority of kiosk vendors have already implemented a policy of forbidding sales to minors. The

opportunity for minors to purchase electronic cigarettes at those kiosks is no better than purchasing tobacco

cigarettes at a gas station – probably less.

Second, the least expensive electronic cigarette starter kits run between $35

‐ $50 (plus shipping) online and

$90

‐ $150 at mall kiosks. This price point is considerable for the average adult, let alone a child. Children

would be more likely to spend that money on music, clothes or video games than an electronic cigarette –

especially when they can easily get a $7 pack of cigarettes at the corner store or from friends. Electronic

cigarettes also require the additional purchases of accessories and replacement parts. A single battery costs

over $10. Heating elements, which require frequent replacement, cost over $8 each.

Third, anecdotal accounts indicate that children/teens view electronic cigarettes as a way for adults to quit

smoking. They lack the “danger factor,” which reduces appeal. Additionally, surveys of electronic cigarette

owners show that the average consumer is overwhelmingly between 30

‐50 years old and a smoker1, indicating

that even young adults do not find them particularly appealing.

Myth #2

‐ Sweet flavors and flashy packaging are intended to specifically attract young people.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:

The assumption by critics that the slick advertisements and fruity flavors only appeal to children and their lack

of knowledge of the target consumer and the intended purpose of the product.

Why it’s wrong:

These products are not intended to be a treatment for nicotine addiction. They are intended to be a way for

current smokers to “smoke” without the dangerous toxins and carcinogens. Retailers need to differentiate

themselves from stop

‐smoking aids, to convince long‐time smokers that the electronic cigarette is just as

appealing as the tobacco cigarette they currently use.

Just as with marketing cars, televisions, cell phones, alcohol and other adult products, advertisers attempt to

make the devices appeal to adults with a “coolness factor.” Studies show that "smokers are more likely than

the general population to be risk

‐taking, extroverted, defiant, and impulsive"7 ‐ very similar to teen

demographics

‐ so the misconception is understandable, but misguided. Often overlooked by critics in these

ads are the claims about the ability to “smoke anywhere” and have a safer/healthier option to smoking – a

clear indication that they are targeting current smokers and smokers concerned about their health and not

new/young smokers.

Regarding sweet flavors, the tobacco

‐flavored liquid does not have a pleasant taste for many smokers, as it is

difficult to replicate the tobacco smoke taste. Adults, who make up the majority of electronic cigarette

consumers, specifically requested alternative flavors that would work well with the liquid base – which were

mostly sweeter fruit and candy flavors. About 50% of adult electronic cigarette owners polled (over the age of

26)

1 report that they primarily use these non‐tobacco flavors and attribute them with the ability to keep them

from returning to tobacco cigarettes. They also testify that the sweeter flavors make tobacco cigarettes taste

particularly foul and further reduce their chances of returning to smoking cigarettes.

Myth #3

‐ Electronic Cigarettes all contain anti‐freeze.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:

In 2009, the FDA released a press statement claiming that they tested electronic cigarettes and found

diethylene glycol, an ingredient in anti freeze.

2

Why it’s wrong:

Independent labs extensively tested other electronic cigarettes and found no evidence of diethylene glycol,

the toxic component of anti

‐freeze claimed to have been found in the brands the FDA tested.3

To further the confusion, electronic cigarette liquid is made of propylene glycol, an ingredient recognized as

safe for human consumption by the FDA. While propylene glycol is sometimes used in anti

‐freeze, it is an

additive intended to make it LESS harmful if accidentally swallowed.

The FDA tested just 18 cartridges, from only two companies. Out of those 18, just one tested positive for

“about 1% diethylene glycol.”

4 Because so many other tests failed to find diethylene glycol, many experts

conclude that the single sample may have been contaminated in some other way. By no means is it considered

a standard ingredient in electronic cigarettes.

If electronic cigarettes did contain anti

‐freeze, there would be news reports about the thousands of electronic

cigarette owners suffering from diethylene glycol poisoning and that is not the case. To date, after five years

on the market worldwide, there have been no such reports.

Myth #4

‐ Electronic cigarettes are just as deadly and carcinogenic as tobacco cigarettes.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:

The FDA stated they found trace amounts of carcinogens in the nicotine cartridges and the media and health

organizations used that statement to claim that electronic cigarettes are just as dangerous as tobacco

cigarettes.

2

Why it’s wrong:

The FDA found trace amounts of “tobacco

‐specific nitrosamines” in the samples they tested, which can cause

cancer under certain conditions and in sufficient amounts.

4 The FDA allows certain levels of nitrosamines in

consumable products. For example, tests show that other nicotine products, such as nicotine gum and

nicotine patches, also contain the same tobacco

‐specific nitrosamines. The FDA did not release any

information on the levels they found, however, the scientific definition of “trace amount” means amounts that

are “detectable,” but too small to even accurately measure.

An independent study by Dr. Murray Laugesen showed that, on average, the electronic cigarette contained

8.18ng nitrosamines per 1g of liquid. 8 ng in 1g = eight parts

per trillion, an extremely tiny amount. By

comparision, nicotine gum tested at 2ng, the nicotine patch tested at 8ng and Marlborough cigarettes tested

at a staggering 11,190ng. That translates to electronic cigarettes containing 1,200 times LESS of these cancercausing

nitrosamines than tobacco cigarettes and about the same as the FDA

‐approved nicotine patch.3

Myth #5

‐ Electronic cigarettes may be more addictive than regular cigarettes.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:

The infamous FDA testing showed that the levels of nicotine found in the cartridges varied from the advertised

amount. Also, traces of nicotine were found in cartridges labeled as “no nicotine.” Critics claim that means

electronic cigarette users may be inhaling too much nicotine and causing them to become even more

addicted.

Why it’s wrong:

Two independent tests, the one by Dr. Laugesen and one by Dr. Thomas Eissenberg at Virginia Commonwealth

University

5, showed that electronic cigarette vapor does not deliver nicotine as “efficiently” as tobacco smoke

and actually delivers nicotine in lower amounts than tobacco smoke.

Additionally, smokers tend to “self

‐regulate” their intake, as seen by how many cigarettes a smoker uses in a

day. When the need for nicotine is met, the smoker – or in this case, the electronic cigarette user – no longer

has a craving and ceases consumption. The fundamental behavior of nicotine addiction just doesn’t support

the claims of increasing the addiction in that manner.

Myth #6 – Second

‐hand “vapor” is a threat to bystanders.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:

Anti

‐smoking groups claim the toxins and carcinogens in electronic cigarettes (as well as addictive nicotine)

can be accidentally inhaled by bystanders, just like second

‐hand tobacco smoke.

Why it’s wrong:

As shown previously, electronic cigarettes already contain a tiny, barely detectable fraction of the carcinogens

found in tobacco cigarettes. They also have been shown not to contain any of the toxins in the amounts found

in tobacco cigarettes and that they deliver very little nicotine in the vapor. So, given that the vapor already

proves little, if any, danger to the actual user, any danger to bystanders by the exhaled vapor would be

negligible.

Additionally, tobacco cigarettes create “side stream smoke,” which is the smoke that comes directly from the

end of a lit cigarette and the smoke lingers in the air and travels a fair distance from the smoker.

Electronic cigarette vapor does not behave in the same manner as tobacco smoke. There is no vapor produced

from the device, until the user activates it by inhaling, so no “side stream vapor” is created and the vapor

dissipates very quickly. In the event that a bystander would pass through the vapor, since it doesn’t contain

the irritating toxins of tobacco smoke, it would likely be barely detectable beyond the faint scent of the flavor

and only for a fleeting moment.

Myth #7

‐ Electronic cigarettes are a “gateway” to tobacco smoking.

FALSE.

Where is comes from:

Critics theorize that more non

‐smokers will be willing to try electronic cigarettes, due to their attractive flavors

and attractive styling.

Why it’s wrong:

People start smoking for different reasons. Studies show that children and young adults are more influenced

by their peers, parents and stress levels than advertizing or flavors.

6 The most popular tobacco flavors among

youth are Camel, Marlborough and Newport – fruit and candy flavors only made up 2% of sales when they

were legal – and rarely do people cite the flavor as a reason they started smoking.

Considering that the electronic cigarette is perceived as a health concession for adults, the high start

‐up costs

and the easy accessibility of tobacco cigarettes, electronic cigarettes are unlikely to appeal to new smokers in

significant numbers.

Additionally, given the fact that current users claim that electronic cigarettes make tobacco smoke taste

considerably foul, in the unlikely event that a new smoker chooses electronic cigarettes over tobacco

cigarettes, the chance they will find tobacco smoking appealing is even less.

Taking into account that electronic cigarettes have been shown to be both less toxic and less carcinogenic

than tobacco cigarettes, if new smokers actually do choose electronic cigarettes over tobacco cigarettes, it

would actually benefit their health and safety and that of those around them.

Myth #8

‐ If electronic cigarettes were no longer available for smokers, those smokers would simply quit

smoking or use traditional stop

‐smoking aids.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:

Wishful thinking.

Why it's wrong:

According to the 998 poll participants, only 18% responded that they would use traditional NRTs or attempt to

quit cold turkey. Nearly 20% said they would switch to other tobacco alternatives, such as snus or snuff; and a

whopping 61% indicated they would most likely resume smoking cigarettes.

1

[Richie10]

Well, I guess we should ban drinking next, antisocial behaviour, broken glass in the streets, bad breath. Causes cancer of the mouth, stomach and colon.

Lets ban drink and pubs.

[SHOOTEMUP]

Shooting doesn't give you cancer, only lead poisoning

 

So Where is your poof that vapour is harmful??

[Olliesims]

 

So Where is your poof that vapour is harmful??

Errrm I don't think there is actually any proof that it is harmful at the moment

[Richie10]

Shooting doesn't give you cancer, only lead poisoning

 

Gun smoke isn't carcingenic? I will think you find it is.

[SHOOTEMUP]

 

Did you ever think what the exhaust from the bus will do to your daughter? So burning fossil fuels is fine but burning a few dried leaves is going to massively affect other people?

Don't get your thought process.

And what about the smoke from log burners that pollute the environment? you cant say that vapour from e cigs is more harmful than that so lets ban log burners too after all I don't want to smell like someones dirty fireplace and you dont have to have a log burner do you??

[onatangent]

No proof either way. Read the links and statements which was interesting. Better to air on the side of caution I would have thought than assume its ok purely because it is available to purchase. Even if there was nothing poisonous as a passive vapper, does it make it right for someone to impose themselves on you?

[onatangent]

Best go shooting with a respirator on then. I must do the same so no one gets offended when they vap around me or smoke. Alot better way to be and can live a long and happy life, me and my s10. I agree with exhaust emissions to, would love an affordable alternative. Issue free hydrogen cell transport to all. There is an alternative for everything, at a cost be it monetary, environmental sacrifice etc etc.

[Olliesims]

😴

[SHOOTEMUP]

You always get the odd person who believe's if they don't do it, no one else has the right to do it

 

Yes I agree bit like the freedom to shoot and own firearms which are dangerous but oh that's different is it! WHY?? be careful when you want to remove someone else`s freedom particularly when lets face it doesn't really effect you but it probably makes some people feel big to have such an opinion, but wait until their freedom is questioned and these weak little people raise hell.

[onatangent]

We have a freedom to shoot and possess firearms? Really? Explains all the legislation then. I agree like you say, take a little bit here and there and then we have nothing. It will happen anyway so might as well start with smokers and vappers, bothers me most, then buses and so on.

Edited September 8, 2014 by onatangent

[Olliesims]

 

Yes I agree bit like the freedom to shoot and own firearms which are dangerous but oh that's different is it! WHY?? be careful when you want to remove someone else`s freedom particularly when lets face it doesn't really effect you but it probably makes some people feel big to have such an opinion, but wait until their freedom is questioned and these weak little people raise hell.

Agreed!

We have a freedom to shoot and possess firearms? Really? Explains all the legislation then. I agree like you say, take a little bit here and there and then we have nothing. It will happen anyway so might as well start with smokers and vappers, bothers me most, then buses and so on.

Great and you think they will ban smoking and lose those billions a day in tax? I think not

[hedd-wyn]

This was being discussed the other day on Radio Wales, nteresting article.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29061169

[onatangent]

All mere speculation. Tax revenue compared to nhs burden. Shop keepers lively hoods etc etc. All relative and beyond us to apportion the importance and weight.

[figgy]

I don't for one minute Beleive that you can't second hand breath in vapor from these pens, I have a few times when passing the smoking area at work. No different from second hand smoke they are both airborne when exhaled.

 

Figgy

[Richie10]

All mere speculation. Tax revenue compared to nhs burden. Shop keepers lively hoods etc etc. All relative and beyond us to apportion the importance and weight.

 

So if we are talking about burden then we should look at alcohol, fatty foods, migration etc.

I bet you are one of the people that would be happy to sit back and let the government look after you and tell you what you can and can't do.

Don't worry there are plenty of people like you.

[bullet boy]

No is my answer.Thats my opinion.

[Olliesims]

No is my answer.Thats my opinion.

I see you have returned

Edited September 8, 2014 by Olliesims