I saw the news report where people appeared to be blowing big clouds of smoke (even if it actually wasn't). I'd never seen that type before, but agree that they should be banned. I'm not keen on seeing people sucking away on the ones that barely have any emissions, but that's only because it's slightly disturbing to see adults sucking a dummy.
I guarantee there will be things you do that I don't like. Shall we ban those too? And if not, why not?
Are they banning them, or just banning their use in public places?
In Public Places, even cancer Research is not backing this. However ASH will be as their largest and only significant sponsor Pfizer is very anti e-cigs as they make nicotine replacements and e-cigs are harming their sales, also the government loses tax revenue if more people switch to vaping than real tobacco, about 82.5% taxes on every pack.
Meanwhile very little is done about diesel which is far more harmful to people and causes many lung diseases and childhood asthma , or the general state of air pollution.
In Public Places, even cancer Research is not backing this. However ASH will be as their largest and only significant sponsor Pfizer is very anti e-cigs as they make nicotine replacements and e-cigs are harming their sales, also the government loses tax revenue if more people switch to vaping than real tobacco, about 82.5% taxes on every pack.
Wonderful post yet you totally failed to give a valid reason for just deciding off the top of your head to force your opinion on others with a ban?
Do you see why people don't like ill-informed people coming out with knee-jerk reactions and then many more just trotting along with them?
Okay then - I object to it because blowing great clouds of smoke-like vapour is invasive.
From a personal point of view I'd also prefer cigarette smoking banned outside pubs and well as inside. The main reason is the foul stench that they create outside, bring back in with them, both on their breath and on their clothing.
Do we actually know what toxins are in ecigs? I have heard they contain formaldehyde which is a known carcinogenic.
Apparently formaldehyde can be formed when e-liquid is heated to a much higher temperature than that used in electronic cigarettes (600C vs 200-260C), therefore it is not present in everyday use of e-cigarettes.
Because we simply must continue this assault on smoking/vaping for the children whilst completely ignoring alcohol, sugar and fat of which the latter two are a serious and current risk to children's health.
I am not aware of any peer-reviewed research that shows the health risks of using e-cigs are anything but minimal. There is, however, research that shows there are no significant health risks associated with e-cigs:
why is the liquid necessary? i don`t need liquid to vapourise herb.
I think our understanding of the word "vapour" differs. If you can tell me what it means to you it might make "i don`t need liquid to vapourise herb." easier to understand.
Just banning the use in enclosed places which I think is fair enough. They can still use them outside and in their own homes.
Why do you think that it is FAIR to impose a ban for NO VALID REASON.
It so worrying in this country how some just fall in line and think that taking away other's freedom is all OK and don't even have to have a valid reason.
Okay then - I object to it because blowing great clouds of smoke-like vapour is invasive.
From a personal point of view I'd also prefer cigarette smoking banned outside pubs and well as inside. The main reason is the foul stench that they create outside, bring back in with them, both on their breath and on their clothing.
And I find your stance invasive and offensive. What shall we do about that?
What protection from control freaks do we have?
I think our understanding of the word "vapour" differs. If you can tell me what it means to you it might make "i don`t need liquid to vapourise herb." easier to understand.
i`m now investigating that, i`ll come back if i understand anything.
thank you, sounds very complicated in comparison all i need is a vaporiser, stash and an energy source.
I know nothing abut 'herb' but I'd guess the active ingredients are already at such a low concentration that they don't need to be diluted any further.
I am not aware of any peer-reviewed research that shows the health risks of using e-cigs are anything but minimal. There is, however, research that shows there are no significant health risks associated with e-cigs:
I know nothing abut 'herb' but I'd guess the active ingredients are already at such a low concentration that they don't need to be diluted any further.
yes i`d imagine, i was thinking of it for creating vapour rather than dilution.
Okay then - I object to it because blowing great clouds of smoke-like vapour is invasive.
From a personal point of view I'd also prefer cigarette smoking banned outside pubs and well as inside. The main reason is the foul stench that they create outside, bring back in with them, both on their breath and on their clothing.
Meanwhile you'll be smug in the knowledge you can legally stand at the bar with your stinking alcohol breath and with your clothes reeking from the traffic fumes you've brought in with you. All this so you can eat your garlic laden Chicken Kiev dinner without having to accept that other thing give off odours as well.
As a non smoker and hater of **** smells and smoke I really don't understand the thinking here.
Yes they make the person using them look ridiculous, but I'm really not bothered by water vapour. Why not ban kettles as well
Bottom line is they've stopped thousands from smoking.
They haven't, they've made smoking more popular
I don't want to eat where vapour , of whatever kind, is wafting in my face
I saw the news report where people appeared to be blowing big clouds of smoke (even if it actually wasn't). I'd never seen that type before, but agree that they should be banned. I'm not keen on seeing people sucking away on the ones that barely have any emissions, but that's only because it's slightly disturbing to see adults sucking a dummy.
The "big clouds of smoke (even if it actually wasn't)" people were blowing are a minority of vapers known as "cloud-chasers" This is attained by using devices with a very low resistance (< 1Ω) and a higher wattage, the e-liquid used is usually with a higher relative vegetable glycerin content. There are always people who will push the boundaries in any field, think of computer hobbyists who overclock everything in their rig or boy-racers who pimp their cars.
I have given up smoking after 54 years of using "stinkies", I have been vaping exclusively for seven months now without the slightest yearning for my old habit and even I wouldn't like to sit next to a couple of those "extremists".
Also, on probably the same TV news item (Sky News), the interviewer compared sitting next to a vaper with a strong flavoured scent to someone wearing a strong perfume or after-shave. Surely these could be the next targets if the same argument is applied
Comments
I guarantee there will be things you do that I don't like. Shall we ban those too? And if not, why not?
In Public Places, even cancer Research is not backing this. However ASH will be as their largest and only significant sponsor Pfizer is very anti e-cigs as they make nicotine replacements and e-cigs are harming their sales, also the government loses tax revenue if more people switch to vaping than real tobacco, about 82.5% taxes on every pack.
Meanwhile very little is done about diesel which is far more harmful to people and causes many lung diseases and childhood asthma , or the general state of air pollution.
Actually, according to the BBC infographic ASH is against the ban.
Edited to add link
I must say that does surprise me
From a personal point of view I'd also prefer cigarette smoking banned outside pubs and well as inside. The main reason is the foul stench that they create outside, bring back in with them, both on their breath and on their clothing.
simply not the case
no one really knows yet
Why is it fair though? None of the reasons for banning smoking with cigarettes in public spaces are valid when it comes to e-cigs.
anyone?
Apparently formaldehyde can be formed when e-liquid is heated to a much higher temperature than that used in electronic cigarettes (600C vs 200-260C), therefore it is not present in everyday use of e-cigarettes.
Source
Edited for clarity
I am not aware of any peer-reviewed research that shows the health risks of using e-cigs are anything but minimal. There is, however, research that shows there are no significant health risks associated with e-cigs:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110871/
The liquid is there to dilute the nicotine and flavours down to a suitable level, and the vapour produced acts as a carrier for them.
I think our understanding of the word "vapour" differs. If you can tell me what it means to you it might make "i don`t need liquid to vapourise herb." easier to understand.
thank you, sounds very complicated in comparison all i need is a vaporiser, stash and an energy source.
Why do you think that it is FAIR to impose a ban for NO VALID REASON.
It so worrying in this country how some just fall in line and think that taking away other's freedom is all OK and don't even have to have a valid reason.
And I find your stance invasive and offensive. What shall we do about that?
What protection from control freaks do we have?
i`m now investigating that, i`ll come back if i understand anything.
I know nothing abut 'herb' but I'd guess the active ingredients are already at such a low concentration that they don't need to be diluted any further.
But still we'll ban them abusing children as the key emotional blackmail. In fact anything for us control freaks to get just our way again.
[rolleyes]
yes i`d imagine, i was thinking of it for creating vapour rather than dilution.
Meanwhile you'll be smug in the knowledge you can legally stand at the bar with your stinking alcohol breath and with your clothes reeking from the traffic fumes you've brought in with you. All this so you can eat your garlic laden Chicken Kiev dinner without having to accept that other thing give off odours as well.
They haven't, they've made smoking more popular
I don't want to eat where vapour , of whatever kind, is wafting in my face
The "big clouds of smoke (even if it actually wasn't)" people were blowing are a minority of vapers known as "cloud-chasers" This is attained by using devices with a very low resistance (< 1Ω) and a higher wattage, the e-liquid used is usually with a higher relative vegetable glycerin content. There are always people who will push the boundaries in any field, think of computer hobbyists who overclock everything in their rig or boy-racers who pimp their cars.
I have given up smoking after 54 years of using "stinkies", I have been vaping exclusively for seven months now without the slightest yearning for my old habit and even I wouldn't like to sit next to a couple of those "extremists".
Also, on probably the same TV news item (Sky News), the interviewer compared sitting next to a vaper with a strong flavoured scent to someone wearing a strong perfume or after-shave. Surely these could be the next targets if the same argument is applied
Have they?
Is that why smoking is at its lowest level since records began in the 40s?