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

[Fisherman Mike]

When we exhale we sometimes breath out more water vapour than an e cigarette...perhaps we should just stop people congregating in public places and breathing..... make them stay indoors.

 

The worlds gone mad.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

When we exhale we sometimes breath out more water vapour than an e cigarette...perhaps we should just stop people congregating in public places and breathing..... make them stay indoors.

 

The worlds gone mad.

 

 

You first!

[kdubya]

 

 

You first!

what going mad?

 

KW

Edited September 8, 2014 by kdubya

[TIGHTCHOKE]

what going mad?

 

KW

 

No, he's been mad for years, I want him to hold his breath!

[aris]

Someones right to smoke or vape end at my nose. Neither have any place in a public area.

[wraivi]

Someones right to smoke or vape end at my nose. Neither have any place in a public area.

I packed in smoking 2 years ago, using a variety of e liquids in a vaping unit.

Eventually I was vaping the nicotine free e liquid, in a variety of flavours, just enjoyed going thru the motions.

Just thought it was worth pointing out that not all vapers are using nicotine.

 

Also a bit narrow minded about people's rights to smoke or vape in public, due to the emissions potentially entering your nose.

Our industry and vehicle emissions pose a greater threat!

[Scully]

As an ex-smoker I'm totally indifferent. Going past and in and out of pubs in finer weather when all the smokers are sat outside, passing people on the street, or stood in doorways getting their fix, and all of it in public places; (and it's not vapour, but smoke) none of it bothers me. It's their choice. I wont let a mate smoke in my car, but that's my choice.

There are much more dangerous legal substances that have a much greater impact on us and society in general than exhaling vapour. If those in positions of authority have our health as their main priorities at heart, there are other places they could start but they're not vote winners.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Scully

[aris]

Why does everyone go on about vehicle emissions. Vehicles at least have a purpose and add to the economy as a whole. The world would be stagnant without transportation. You cannot say the same about cigarettes.

[peck]

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

agree 1005 with this. if i could not get e liquid i would try my hardest to not have a cigarette but would more than likely fail. and be back on the fags.

[Mungler]

its still smoking, if it was a tool to stop smoking then perhaps but its not is it? its another seemingly more fashionable way to smoke and used to break the rules such as smoking in public places or buildings so my view treat it the same as a cancer stick.

 

KW

 

 

 

I stopped smoking tobacco Jan 2013 using an e-cig, I packed the e-cig in September 2013 and that's me done.

 

I thought the e-cig was an amazing tool to break the habit of smoking, but I am coming at this as an ex-smoker. I can see that there is a generation who don't want to smoke tobacco but now aspire to smoke an e-cig.

 

Saying that if, it keeps them off tobacco it should still be encouraged.

[johnphilip]

Why does everyone go on about vehicle emissions. Vehicles at least have a purpose and add to the economy as a whole. The world would be stagnant without transportation. You cannot say the same about cigarettes.

i think you will find people are paying more tax on cigarettes than fuel.also it may have been a better world without modern transportation.

[brett1985]

 

 

 

I stopped smoking tobacco Jan 2013 using an e-cig, I packed the e-cig in September 2013 and that's me done.

 

I thought the e-cig was an amazing tool to break the habit of smoking, but I am coming at this as an ex-smoker. I can see that there is a generation who don't want to smoke tobacco but now aspire to smoke an e-cig.

 

Saying that if, it keeps them off tobacco it should still be encouraged.

 

and there we have it.

 

totally agree with this 100%

[timmyra608]

 

Nothing worse than an ex-smoker. Ban everything because you don't like it.

I don't like having to breath in car fumes which are a bigger issue than burning some dried leaves but I don't try and ban it.

 

You were in an outdoor concert, so move. People don't like shooting and they want it banned, how are you any different?

I agree 100% with you. Ex-smokers are the worst complainers, he didn't mind how it affected other people when he was smoking

[overandunder2012]

everyone moans on here about this and that being banned personally i think i liked it better in the days when everyone didnt whine and ban everything. lets face it if its at all fun somebody will scream ban it

[onatangent]

But I will, you don't care about me and I don't care about you. Seems to be the approach here legal or not, who cares its only people.

[brett1985]

guys, come on now.

 

agree to disagree or something. this site seems to be descending into finger pointing and arguments on every thread at the moment.

 

its really not woth getting so wound up over, is it?

[hedd-wyn]

But I will, you don't care about me and I don't care about you. Seems to be the approach here legal or not, who cares its only people.

Well, I care about you both regardless of your views.

[onatangent]

Well, I care about you both regardless of your views.

thank you for caring. I'm out now, cast my vote, said my bit be it right, wrong or the general consensus. Spent 7 hours researching unlawful acts that are committed daily yesterday and evapping becomes insignificant by comparison. My opinion hasn't changed but I need to focus my energy elsewhere I feel.

[Twistedsanity]

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

I wish people would check where the information they quote comes from:

"The original CASAA 13-member board was elected by members of the electronic cigarette and smokeless tobacco community."

Not really biased towards selling you e-cigs in any way then I suppose?

Whatever way you paint it the fact is that nicotine is extremley toxic and addictive and makes a fab insecticide, I wonder if anybody would be happy for me to walk about spraying atomised insecticide around?

[Richie10]

I wish people would check where the information they quote comes from:

"The original CASAA 13-member board was elected by members of the electronic cigarette and smokeless tobacco community."

Not really biased towards selling you e-cigs in any way then I suppose?

Whatever way you paint it the fact is that nicotine is extremley toxic and addictive and makes a fab insecticide, I wonder if anybody would be happy for me to walk about spraying atomised insecticide around?

 

They do, on planes.

[aris]

i think you will find people are paying more tax on cigarettes than fuel.also it may have been a better world without modern transportation.

 

Taxes do not add to the economy.

[brett1985]

I wish people would check where the information they quote comes from:

"The original CASAA 13-member board was elected by members of the electronic cigarette and smokeless tobacco community."

Not really biased towards selling you e-cigs in any way then I suppose?

Whatever way you paint it the fact is that nicotine is extremley toxic and addictive and makes a fab insecticide, I wonder if anybody would be happy for me to walk about spraying atomised insecticide around?

I did check where it came from....

 

it came from their website.

 

 

 

 

PURE nicotine is toxic, no doubt about it. i make sure i dont leave the e-juice bottles lying around at home as even the amounts in that can be fatal.

 

however,

 

the amounts inhaled via a good quality vaping machine are no more than than that of a cigarette. infact, some have even gone as far as to suggest that its less harmfull than drinking coffee all day. there have been lots of test from various industries on these that all seem to come up with that conclusion. too many to make me think that they are some how all in it together.

 

nicotine in its purest form is a mild stimulant when being absorbed in the levels we are talking about from a e-cig. not much different to coffee, but still highly addictive.

 

i use mine as a replacement for cigarettes, as quite frankly, i enjoyed smoking.

 

i still go outside to smoke while out in public (i.e. work, pubs etc..) but its nice to be able to sit in my house or car and vape, and not have to worry about the smell and staining of the headlining. oh, and the ash getting everywhere!

 

it would seem that vaping isnt everyones cup of tea, and some are still concerned about second hand vapour etc.

myself, im just happy that i can continue enjoying what i do with a greatly reduced risk compared to smoking cigarettes.

Edited September 9, 2014 by brett1985

[STOTTO]

everyone moans on here about this and that being banned personally i think i liked it better in the days when everyone didnt whine and ban everything. lets face it if its at all fun somebody will scream ban it

 

Ok, hands up reformed smoker, haven’t smoked a cigarette for 38 years so very ex and I can tell you now, wouldn’t have admitted at the time though, that it is a dirty stinking habit that is one of the worst things that you can self-inflict upon yourself and onto anyone else in the general vicinity. Pretty much like any other semi-illicit pleasure you can enjoy, however I would not ban it, the thing to remember is that you will never avoid what is going to kill you in the end so ‘Name your Poison’.

 

I will confess that I would kick up quit a fuss if someone else named mine it for me. It may seem strange but I do find it quite offensive coming into contact with second-hand cigarette smoke outside in the open air much more so than inside in a more confined space where there is a lot more smoke per cubic foot of air.

 

I come from an age where smoking was the norm and nearly all the bans were read before a wedding so not too many objections to smoking in public but plenty for the new proliferation of modern bans on personal freedoms.

 

A very well done to those others that have managed to ‘Kick the Habit’ it is in fact an addiction so is very difficult to stop, I remember. E-cigarette not sure on those but seems a little bit like, ‘Dumb and Dumber’, all old ‘Hard Core’ around here.

 

Regards

[onatangent]

 

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.

Sorry I offended you and had to have my reply removed as a result to this comment.

[overandunder2012]

 

Ok, hands up reformed smoker, haven’t smoked a cigarette for 38 years so very ex and I can tell you now, wouldn’t have admitted at the time though, that it is a dirty stinking habit that is one of the worst things that you can self-inflict upon yourself and onto anyone else in the general vicinity. Pretty much like any other semi-illicit pleasure you can enjoy, however I would not ban it, the thing to remember is that you will never avoid what is going to kill you in the end so ‘Name your Poison’.

 

I will confess that I would kick up quit a fuss if someone else named mine it for me. It may seem strange but I do find it quite offensive coming into contact with second-hand cigarette smoke outside in the open air much more so than inside in a more confined space where there is a lot more smoke per cubic foot of air.

 

I come from an age where smoking was the norm and nearly all the bans were read before a wedding so not too many objections to smoking in public but plenty for the new proliferation of modern bans on personal freedoms.

 

A very well done to those others that have managed to ‘Kick the Habit’ it is in fact an addiction so is very difficult to stop, I remember. E-cigarette not sure on those but seems a little bit like, ‘Dumb and Dumber’, all old ‘Hard Core’ around here.

 

Regards

fair enough mate wasnt having a dig at you just at people in general i just feel anything that could be thought of as enjoyable is either taxed to death or banned these days