Should e-cigarettes be banned from public places?

[Mr_White]

Seems pretty pointless going outside if some of you had your way.

 

[bainbridge]

Why don't vapers just stick on a nicotine patch if they like nicotine so much and dispense with all the faffing around?

 

[Minstadave]

Worse, they contribute a monumental amount of tax.

Smoking related ill health puts a massive burden on the NHS though, so it's less simple than you suggest.

 

[Redz]

If you wouldn't fart there, don't vape there.

 

[Ahleckz]

I almost guarantee she won't be, they usually sell them on board.

Can I carry an electronic cigarette, nicotine inhaler or nicotine solution in my hand baggage?

The use of a ‘stop smoking’ aid is not permitted if it could in any way give the impression to other passengers that smoking is allowed on board. This means that you can’t use any device that emits vapour, has a power source, or produces a light.

http://virginatlantic.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/488/kw/smoking

 

[bennydragonboy]

No, that's a stupid idea. I do see where you are coming from, but banning them would not help, trust me.

 

[Twirlywoos]

So that is Germany (I think) and now Italy that has legalized them in Public places.

http://www.gazzettadelsud.it/news/e...lectronic-cigarette-use-in-public-places.html

 

[InertProtocol]

Why don't vapers just stick on a nicotine patch if they like nicotine so much and dispense with all the faffing around?

They don't really work.

Ex-smokers like myself sort of miss the action too if you know what i mean. It's good to be able to still get your fix, with the actions that simulate smoking.

 

[Theophany]

Smoking related ill health puts a massive burden on the NHS though, so it's less simple than you suggest.

Based on the fact that smokers are in steep decline and tax on cigarettes is perpetually on the increase, I'm not inclined to agree that we're a net burden anymore. Maybe 40 years ago, but not anymore.

 

[InertProtocol]

Based on the fact that smokers are in steep decline and tax on cigarettes is perpetually on the increase, I'm not inclined to agree that we're a net burden anymore. Maybe 40 years ago, but not anymore.

Kind of agree, probably not as much as a burden but the lasting effects of years of smoking will still be inevitable for some.

 

[Theophany]

Kind of agree, probably not as much as a burden but the lasting effects of years of smoking will still be inevitable for some.

True, but once they pop their clogs we're golden.

Or in more socially acceptable parlance, how do we measure the lasting expense of smoking on the NHS? It's generally accepted that a couple of years of abstinence can reverse the negative effects of smoking, so when we have GPs telling us that in order to make us quit, they can't very well go back and say "well, actually, you smoked for 20 years and even though you gave up 40 years ago, this cancer is probably due to your smoking."

 

[deuse]

I don't know how the are taxed but would the NHS be better or worse off if smokers started vaping instead?

Worse, they contribute a monumental amount of tax.

True.
Now I'm waiting for some government bloke to say "hold on it's bad for insert word" and then tax it

 

[Pestilence]

Why don't vapers just stick on a nicotine patch if they like nicotine so much and dispense with all the faffing around?

The user experience isn't comparable in any way, and many smokers find it too difficult to break from the "hand to mouth" physical aspect when it comes to patches. Hence the extremely low success rates with traditional medicinal NRTs. Plus, why would I want to use patches when I can puff on mentholated citrus fruits? Tastes lovely.

In terms of the question posed in the OP, my belief is that no, e-cigs should not be banned in public places. Rather than jumping on the wagon that their appearance will re-normalise smoking, perhaps society should be focusing more on a "good on you" approach to those who have made the switch. After all, vapour isn't physically offensive in the same way that traditional cigarette smoke is, and has already been proven in multiple studies to bear no threat whatsoever to others nearby (or the user, for that matter).

After all, wasn't the smoking ban publicised as having been brought into place to protect the health of non-smokers in the workplace from the dangers of passive smoke inhalation? Yes, it was. What we're seeing now, with this "anti-normalisation" campaign, is a complete disregard for those origins. The danger is removed, but it still looks like smoking and people are getting their nicotine fix amongst others. Somehow, that's a crime that can't be tolerated. Why is that? The answer is that as the smoking ban has taken hold over the years, anti-nicotine puritans (all the while cradling their much-needed coffee, no doubt) have taken the reins in steering public opinion towards demonising, ostracising, and generally putting down those addicted to nicotine -- a stimulant that in itself is perfectly legal, and harmless when used correctly.

So by attacking e-cigs, stating that they make people want to smoke, these puritans reveal their single driving agenda: Social Conditioning. That's something that I just can't abide by, when the activity in question is doing nobody any harm whatsoever, and any offence derived is done so by only a minority individuals in any given circumstance. Sure, there are norms of etiquette to be abided by in many situations -- such as restaurants -- but in general terms such as in a bar the ONLY argument against their use is "I don't like how it looks".

Sorry, but I don't like how your face looks. Fact is, that's my problem and something that I just have to deal with, considering your face isn't doing me any harm by just being there.

They've gone from self-appointed protectors of health, to completely abandoning the health approach (in fact, turning right around AGAINST it if it were to come to the ridiculing and haranguing of e-cig users in the same way that smokers currently face as a way to further their agenda). Where is the logic in that? It's clear to see that it's no longer about health. They don't like the look of you, and they want to make damn sure that they convince everyone else not to like the look of you either.

The "it convinces smokers to try and get away with it" argument is also nonsense. When did we fall to the level of banning everything in case someone tries something illegal? Smoking indoors is illegal. It has been for long enough for the general populace to know full well that it is. If someone is vaping, then they should be left to it. It isn't difficult to tell the difference -- a cursory glance and a sniff at the air can tell in an instant -- and if someone gets smart and lights up a ciggie then they're out the door on their arse. Simple as. It's a sad reflection of the general intelligence in our society when that argument is used as a proposed legitimate reason to stop an activity than harms no-one, and ultimately benefits as a whole by keeping that (ex) smoker off of cigarettes. It's hyperbole, used to create a mental image of one vaper kicking off the entirety of a room lighting up cigarettes and causing a riot. It just won't happen, and anyone who genuinely believes it will needs to get their head out of the Daily Mail and stop being so damned scared every minute of the day.

We should be making sure vapers are welcomed in bars and clubs, with clear signage and reminders that "vaping is welcome -- smoking is not". That alone would increase awareness and provide a massive public health boon.

But no, the antis would rather infect the populace with negative attitudes, try to sweep a health revolution under the rug and crush it flat, assuring millions of deaths for the years to come and all for one reason -- they don't like the fact that you enjoy recreational use of a perfectly legal substance. Your face doesn't fit. Health doesn't even come into it.

And it's disgraceful that people buy into that.

 

[413x]

Had to Google what one was

Long as you can tell the difference between one and a real one obviously I don't see the problem except for the people responsible for the establishment having a hard time checking for e vs real

Should be up to the establishment

But I am not the sort to be suckered in by trends. Which is why I am an outcast

 

[CosmicClown]

The user experience isn't comparable in any way, and many smokers find it too difficult to break from the "hand to mouth" physical aspect when it comes to patches. Hence the extremely low success rates with traditional medicinal NRTs. Plus, why would I want to use patches when I can puff on mentholated citrus fruits? Tastes lovely.

In terms of the question posed in the OP, my belief is that no, e-cigs should not be banned in public places. Rather than jumping on the wagon that their appearance will re-normalise smoking, perhaps society should be focusing more on a "good on you" approach to those who have made the switch. After all, vapour isn't physically offensive in the same way that traditional cigarette smoke is, and has already been proven in multiple studies to bear no threat whatsoever to others nearby (or the user, for that matter).

After all, wasn't the smoking ban publicised as having been brought into place to protect the health of non-smokers in the workplace from the dangers of passive smoke inhalation? Yes, it was. What we're seeing now, with this "anti-normalisation" campaign, is a complete disregard for those origins. The danger is removed, but it still looks like smoking and people are getting their nicotine fix amongst others. Somehow, that's a crime that can't be tolerated. Why is that? The answer is that as the smoking ban has taken hold over the years, anti-nicotine puritans (all the while cradling their much-needed coffee, no doubt) have taken the reigns in steering public opinion towards demonising, ostracising, and generally putting down those addicted to nicotine -- a stimulant that in itself is perfectly legal, and harmless when used correctly.

So by attacking e-cigs, stating that they make people want to smoke, these puritans reveal their single driving agenda: Social Conditioning. That's something that I just can't abide by, when the activity in question is doing nobody any harm whatsoever, and any offence derived is done so by only a minority individuals in any given circumstance. Sure, there are norms of etiquette to be abided by in many situations -- such as restaurants -- but in general terms such as in a bar the ONLY argument against their use is "I don't like how it looks".

Sorry, but I don't like how your face looks. Fact is, that's my problem and something that I just have to deal with, considering your face isn't doing me any harm by just being there.

They've gone from self-appointed protectors of health, to completely abandoning the health approach (in fact, turning right around AGAINST it if it were to come to the ridiculing and haranguing of e-cig users in the same way that smokers currently face as a way to further their agenda). Where is the logic in that? It's clear to see that it's no longer about health. They don't like the look of you, and they want to make damn sure that they convince everyone else not to like the look of you either.

The "it convinces smokers to try and get away with it" argument is also nonsense. When did we fall to the level of banning everything in case someone tries something illegal? Smoking indoors is illegal. It has been for long enough for the general populace to know full well that it is. If someone is vaping, then they should be left to it. It isn't difficult to tell the difference -- a cursory glance and a sniff at the air can tell in an instant -- and if someone gets smart and lights up a ciggie then they're out the door on their arse. Simple as. It's a sad reflection of the general intelligence in our society when that argument is used as a proposed legitimate reason to stop an activity than harms no-one, and ultimately benefits as a whole by keeping that (ex) smoker off of cigarettes. It's hyperbole, used to create a mental image of one vaper kicking off the entirety of a room lighting up cigarettes and causing a riot. It just won't happen, and anyone who genuinely believes it will needs to get their head out of the Daily Mail and stop being so damned scared every minute of the day.

We should be making sure vapers are welcomed in bars and clubs, with clear signage and reminders that "vaping is welcome -- smoking is not". That alone would increase awareness and provide a massive public health boon.

But no, the antis would rather infect the populace with negative attitudes, try to sweep a health revolution under the rug and crush it flat, assuring millions of deaths for the years to come and all for one reason -- they don't like the fact that you enjoy recreational use of a perfectly legal substance. Your face doesn't fit. Health doesn't even come into it.

And it's disgraceful that people buy into that.

Brilliant, I'd buy you a beer if you lived close.

 

[Fait]

The user experience isn't comparable in any way, and many smokers find it too difficult to break from the "hand to mouth" physical aspect when it comes to patches. Hence the extremely low success rates with traditional medicinal NRTs. Plus, why would I want to use patches when I can puff on mentholated citrus fruits? Tastes lovely.

In terms of the question posed in the OP, my belief is that no, e-cigs should not be banned in public places. Rather than jumping on the wagon that their appearance will re-normalise smoking, perhaps society should be focusing more on a "good on you" approach to those who have made the switch. After all, vapour isn't physically offensive in the same way that traditional cigarette smoke is, and has already been proven in multiple studies to bear no threat whatsoever to others nearby (or the user, for that matter).

After all, wasn't the smoking ban publicised as having been brought into place to protect the health of non-smokers in the workplace from the dangers of passive smoke inhalation? Yes, it was. What we're seeing now, with this "anti-normalisation" campaign, is a complete disregard for those origins. The danger is removed, but it still looks like smoking and people are getting their nicotine fix amongst others. Somehow, that's a crime that can't be tolerated. Why is that? The answer is that as the smoking ban has taken hold over the years, anti-nicotine puritans (all the while cradling their much-needed coffee, no doubt) have taken the reigns in steering public opinion towards demonising, ostracising, and generally putting down those addicted to nicotine -- a stimulant that in itself is perfectly legal, and harmless when used correctly.

So by attacking e-cigs, stating that they make people want to smoke, these puritans reveal their single driving agenda: Social Conditioning. That's something that I just can't abide by, when the activity in question is doing nobody any harm whatsoever, and any offence derived is done so by only a minority individuals in any given circumstance. Sure, there are norms of etiquette to be abided by in many situations -- such as restaurants -- but in general terms such as in a bar the ONLY argument against their use is "I don't like how it looks".

Sorry, but I don't like how your face looks. Fact is, that's my problem and something that I just have to deal with, considering your face isn't doing me any harm by just being there.

They've gone from self-appointed protectors of health, to completely abandoning the health approach (in fact, turning right around AGAINST it if it were to come to the ridiculing and haranguing of e-cig users in the same way that smokers currently face as a way to further their agenda). Where is the logic in that? It's clear to see that it's no longer about health. They don't like the look of you, and they want to make damn sure that they convince everyone else not to like the look of you either.

The "it convinces smokers to try and get away with it" argument is also nonsense. When did we fall to the level of banning everything in case someone tries something illegal? Smoking indoors is illegal. It has been for long enough for the general populace to know full well that it is. If someone is vaping, then they should be left to it. It isn't difficult to tell the difference -- a cursory glance and a sniff at the air can tell in an instant -- and if someone gets smart and lights up a ciggie then they're out the door on their arse. Simple as. It's a sad reflection of the general intelligence in our society when that argument is used as a proposed legitimate reason to stop an activity than harms no-one, and ultimately benefits as a whole by keeping that (ex) smoker off of cigarettes. It's hyperbole, used to create a mental image of one vaper kicking off the entirety of a room lighting up cigarettes and causing a riot. It just won't happen, and anyone who genuinely believes it will needs to get their head out of the Daily Mail and stop being so damned scared every minute of the day.

We should be making sure vapers are welcomed in bars and clubs, with clear signage and reminders that "vaping is welcome -- smoking is not". That alone would increase awareness and provide a massive public health boon.

But no, the antis would rather infect the populace with negative attitudes, try to sweep a health revolution under the rug and crush it flat, assuring millions of deaths for the years to come and all for one reason -- they don't like the fact that you enjoy recreational use of a perfectly legal substance. Your face doesn't fit. Health doesn't even come into it.

And it's disgraceful that people buy into that.

Loved this.

 

[Twirlywoos]

Pestilence did you watch the TPD voting last month when the EU parliament were voting to categorize them as medicines? (Which btw was overthrown)

There was an extremely funny yet valid point that was made:

"Religion is responsible for thousands of deaths throughout history, so should we ban the Bible or Quran?"

lol

I'd link to a Blog which debunks all these myths thrown around by anti-vaping lobbyists but it has too many swear words which is frowned upon here unfortunately. It's a very good read.

 

[estebanrey]

The user experience isn't comparable in any way, and many smokers find it too difficult to break from the "hand to mouth" physical aspect when it comes to patches. Hence the extremely low success rates with traditional medicinal NRTs. Plus, why would I want to use patches when I can puff on mentholated citrus fruits? Tastes lovely.

In terms of the question posed in the OP, my belief is that no, e-cigs should not be banned in public places. Rather than jumping on the wagon that their appearance will re-normalise smoking, perhaps society should be focusing more on a "good on you" approach to those who have made the switch. After all, vapour isn't physically offensive in the same way that traditional cigarette smoke is, and has already been proven in multiple studies to bear no threat whatsoever to others nearby (or the user, for that matter).

After all, wasn't the smoking ban publicised as having been brought into place to protect the health of non-smokers in the workplace from the dangers of passive smoke inhalation? Yes, it was. What we're seeing now, with this "anti-normalisation" campaign, is a complete disregard for those origins. The danger is removed, but it still looks like smoking and people are getting their nicotine fix amongst others. Somehow, that's a crime that can't be tolerated. Why is that? The answer is that as the smoking ban has taken hold over the years, anti-nicotine puritans (all the while cradling their much-needed coffee, no doubt) have taken the reigns in steering public opinion towards demonising, ostracising, and generally putting down those addicted to nicotine -- a stimulant that in itself is perfectly legal, and harmless when used correctly.

So by attacking e-cigs, stating that they make people want to smoke, these puritans reveal their single driving agenda: Social Conditioning. That's something that I just can't abide by, when the activity in question is doing nobody any harm whatsoever, and any offence derived is done so by only a minority individuals in any given circumstance. Sure, there are norms of etiquette to be abided by in many situations -- such as restaurants -- but in general terms such as in a bar the ONLY argument against their use is "I don't like how it looks".

Sorry, but I don't like how your face looks. Fact is, that's my problem and something that I just have to deal with, considering your face isn't doing me any harm by just being there.

They've gone from self-appointed protectors of health, to completely abandoning the health approach (in fact, turning right around AGAINST it if it were to come to the ridiculing and haranguing of e-cig users in the same way that smokers currently face as a way to further their agenda). Where is the logic in that? It's clear to see that it's no longer about health. They don't like the look of you, and they want to make damn sure that they convince everyone else not to like the look of you either.

The "it convinces smokers to try and get away with it" argument is also nonsense. When did we fall to the level of banning everything in case someone tries something illegal? Smoking indoors is illegal. It has been for long enough for the general populace to know full well that it is. If someone is vaping, then they should be left to it. It isn't difficult to tell the difference -- a cursory glance and a sniff at the air can tell in an instant -- and if someone gets smart and lights up a ciggie then they're out the door on their arse. Simple as. It's a sad reflection of the general intelligence in our society when that argument is used as a proposed legitimate reason to stop an activity than harms no-one, and ultimately benefits as a whole by keeping that (ex) smoker off of cigarettes. It's hyperbole, used to create a mental image of one vaper kicking off the entirety of a room lighting up cigarettes and causing a riot. It just won't happen, and anyone who genuinely believes it will needs to get their head out of the Daily Mail and stop being so damned scared every minute of the day.

We should be making sure vapers are welcomed in bars and clubs, with clear signage and reminders that "vaping is welcome -- smoking is not". That alone would increase awareness and provide a massive public health boon.

But no, the antis would rather infect the populace with negative attitudes, try to sweep a health revolution under the rug and crush it flat, assuring millions of deaths for the years to come and all for one reason -- they don't like the fact that you enjoy recreational use of a perfectly legal substance. Your face doesn't fit. Health doesn't even come into it.

And it's disgraceful that people buy into that.

Post of the year

 

[Theophany]

The user experience isn't comparable in any way, and many smokers find it too difficult to break from the "hand to mouth" physical aspect when it comes to patches. Hence the extremely low success rates with traditional medicinal NRTs. Plus, why would I want to use patches when I can puff on mentholated citrus fruits? Tastes lovely.

In terms of the question posed in the OP, my belief is that no, e-cigs should not be banned in public places. Rather than jumping on the wagon that their appearance will re-normalise smoking, perhaps society should be focusing more on a "good on you" approach to those who have made the switch. After all, vapour isn't physically offensive in the same way that traditional cigarette smoke is, and has already been proven in multiple studies to bear no threat whatsoever to others nearby (or the user, for that matter).

After all, wasn't the smoking ban publicised as having been brought into place to protect the health of non-smokers in the workplace from the dangers of passive smoke inhalation? Yes, it was. What we're seeing now, with this "anti-normalisation" campaign, is a complete disregard for those origins. The danger is removed, but it still looks like smoking and people are getting their nicotine fix amongst others. Somehow, that's a crime that can't be tolerated. Why is that? The answer is that as the smoking ban has taken hold over the years, anti-nicotine puritans (all the while cradling their much-needed coffee, no doubt) have taken the reigns in steering public opinion towards demonising, ostracising, and generally putting down those addicted to nicotine -- a stimulant that in itself is perfectly legal, and harmless when used correctly.

So by attacking e-cigs, stating that they make people want to smoke, these puritans reveal their single driving agenda: Social Conditioning. That's something that I just can't abide by, when the activity in question is doing nobody any harm whatsoever, and any offence derived is done so by only a minority individuals in any given circumstance. Sure, there are norms of etiquette to be abided by in many situations -- such as restaurants -- but in general terms such as in a bar the ONLY argument against their use is "I don't like how it looks".

Sorry, but I don't like how your face looks. Fact is, that's my problem and something that I just have to deal with, considering your face isn't doing me any harm by just being there.

They've gone from self-appointed protectors of health, to completely abandoning the health approach (in fact, turning right around AGAINST it if it were to come to the ridiculing and haranguing of e-cig users in the same way that smokers currently face as a way to further their agenda). Where is the logic in that? It's clear to see that it's no longer about health. They don't like the look of you, and they want to make damn sure that they convince everyone else not to like the look of you either.

The "it convinces smokers to try and get away with it" argument is also nonsense. When did we fall to the level of banning everything in case someone tries something illegal? Smoking indoors is illegal. It has been for long enough for the general populace to know full well that it is. If someone is vaping, then they should be left to it. It isn't difficult to tell the difference -- a cursory glance and a sniff at the air can tell in an instant -- and if someone gets smart and lights up a ciggie then they're out the door on their arse. Simple as. It's a sad reflection of the general intelligence in our society when that argument is used as a proposed legitimate reason to stop an activity than harms no-one, and ultimately benefits as a whole by keeping that (ex) smoker off of cigarettes. It's hyperbole, used to create a mental image of one vaper kicking off the entirety of a room lighting up cigarettes and causing a riot. It just won't happen, and anyone who genuinely believes it will needs to get their head out of the Daily Mail and stop being so damned scared every minute of the day.

We should be making sure vapers are welcomed in bars and clubs, with clear signage and reminders that "vaping is welcome -- smoking is not". That alone would increase awareness and provide a massive public health boon.

But no, the antis would rather infect the populace with negative attitudes, try to sweep a health revolution under the rug and crush it flat, assuring millions of deaths for the years to come and all for one reason -- they don't like the fact that you enjoy recreational use of a perfectly legal substance. Your face doesn't fit. Health doesn't even come into it.

And it's disgraceful that people buy into that.

This is simply brilliant. I wish I could post to this level of quality.

For the first time ever, the response '/thread' is wholly appropriate and accurate.

 

[Devrij]

This is simply brilliant. I wish I could post to this level of quality.

For the first time ever, the response '/thread' is wholly appropriate and accurate.