vaping in public

dePeatrick

ComputerKing wrote: »

Its the fact that 'vaping' still produces harmful gases but ye want to change the rules when they shouldn't be changed.

There are so few harmful gases and such small quantities compared to smoking that vaping is being embraced by smokers like myself that have smoked for 4decades and failed to quit them.

Have you ever smoked?

artyeva

ComputerKing wrote: »

Its the fact that 'vaping' still produces harmful gases but ye want to change the rules when they shouldn't be changed.

no idea where you're getting that from but please do share.

scientists at the cutting edge of e-cig research haven't found that to be the case...

Cavehill Red

ComputerKing wrote: »

Its the fact that 'vaping' still produces harmful gases but ye want to change the rules when they shouldn't be changed.

That's not a fact. That's just some empty vapid hot air you've emitted.
Not unlike my vaping, in fact.

ComputerKing

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That's not a fact. That's just some empty vapid hot air you've emitted.
Not unlike my vaping, in fact.

Heren from one of the studies I was linked to on here. Stating the gases produced are less harmful but not harmless.

tommy2bad

ComputerKing wrote: »

Its the fact that 'vaping' still produces harmful gases but ye want to change the rules when they shouldn't be changed.

Two mistakes and one correct idea.
1 their is not enough 'harm' in the vapor to justify not vaping unless you remove air freshners, BBQ and toast from everywhere as well. Yes the vapor contains some residual stuff but so little that it wouldn't make any difference to anyone.

2 We don't want to change any rules, vaping is not banned or illegal, it's you that wants to change the rules.

1 the rules shouldn't be changed, we agree

grindle

ComputerKing wrote: »

Its the fact that 'vaping' still produces harmful gasesye want to change the rules when they shouldn't be changed.

It doesn't produce any quantifiable amount of harmful gas that can harm anyone second-hand, not unless you get trapped in a 4ft x 4ft lift with over 1000 vapers and they vape non-stop for hours.
You'll all have been crushed and suffocated due to a lack of oxygen and space by then. PHEW! Thanks be to jaysus the vapour didn't kill you

ComputerKing wrote: »

ye want to change the rules when they shouldn't be changed.

What rules do we want to change? If "they" want to introduce nonsense rules against vaping they can, but until they have rules against it there aren't any rules.

Honest to fuck, the biggest health boon worldwide since penicillin, the potential to triple the amount of lives saved compared to any possible cure for AIDS and we have these Daily Mail harpies constantly bleating with their hands over their ears.

ComputerKing wrote: »

Heren from one of the studies I was linked to on here. Stating the gases produced are less harmful but not harmless.

"by far less harmful" ≠ harmful. It means "As far as we know it is far less harmful, but we don't know how harmful it is."

Luckily for those dumb researchers you know how harmful it is! So tell us.

Or just read this, maybe learn something? If you can't be bothered readin that, I'll just leave this here...


And please note the last point is talking about the amounts vapers are exposing themselves to, not the amounts other people are exposed to.

Cavehill Red

ComputerKing wrote: »

Heren from one of the studies I was linked to on here. Stating the gases produced are less harmful but not harmless.

My breath contains trace vapour, in such tiny amounts as to be incapable of harming others.
Your breath contains large amounts of carbon dioxide, which could KILL PEOPLE in sufficient amount.
For the sake of the safety of the public, it's time laws were passed to stop you breathing, don't you agree?

meoklmrk91

I don't vape anywhere I wouldn't smoke, if I was in a pub for a quiet one I might ask but since that has never happened u do know yet. I will generally head into the smoking area on a night out cause that's where the craic is anyway.

It might be harmless, it might not but I'm not going to inflict it on unsuspecting people, it's not fair. The same way I wouldn't play my music loud enough on public transport so that other people can hear it even though I'm wearing headphones (lets not talk about it) because I am a considerate person and I don't feel the need to inflict my habits on anyone else.

csi vegas

ComputerKing wrote: »

Heren from one of the studies I was linked to on here. Stating the gases produced are less harmful but not harmless.

You were part of a study? It looks like a bit of DIY typing on Word to me

ComputerKing

csi vegas wrote: »

You were part of a study? It looks like a bit of DIY typing on Word to me

Here is a link to the study. That I typed up in word and then uploaded it to the internet for it to he then linked to me on the first page of this thread.

http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf

ComputerKing

Also about the rules being changed I should have been clearer I think that 'vaping' is the same as smoking and so they should follow the same rules. But that also they should be both banned in public places.

artyeva

ComputerKing wrote: »

Also about the rules being changed I should have been clearer I think that 'vaping' is the same as smoking and so they should follow the same rules. But that also they should be both banned in public places.

ehhhh what?

sorry now, but.... no. they're not the same. one involves burning tobacco, paper, all sorts of chemicals and the risk of cancer and heart disease. the other one involves vapourising a liquid nicotine solution devoid of that nastiness. one emits smoke, the other emits a vapour. one is a risk to bystanders, the other is not. one is likely to kill off 50% of it's users, the other does not.

how on earth do you think they're the same?

tommy2bad

ComputerKing wrote: »

Also about the rules being changed I should have been clearer I think that 'vaping' is the same as smoking and so they should follow the same rules. But that also they should be both banned in public places.

Makes no difference what you think, vapor isn't smoke. Vaping isn't smoking.
Smoking is baned in enclosed public places because of the evidence that environmental smoke from tobacco was a danger to public health. I didn't say that, it's what they actually said to justify the ban.
Unless you can provide equivalent evidence that vapor has the same health effect STFU!
From the study you linked too yourself, did you read it?

The above experiment,within the limits of the ob-
served parameters,has underlined that e-smoking
does not produce detectable amounts of toxic and car-
cinogenic substances in the air of an enclosed space.

ComputerKing

They both pose a health risk to the smoker and the people around them. Also they should both be denormalised as just because 'vaping' is somewhat healthier well will then just have generations of 'vapers' rather than smokers to deal with that is why they should both follow the same rules and be banned in public places.

dePeatrick

It is just being disingenuous referring to vaping as "smoking" you are either trolling or do not understand the difference.

So far there is almost zero take up of vaping with non-smokers, this is probably the first time that people who cannot quit nicotene any other way can consume nicotene relatively safely and if there are no new people taking up vaping, as in first time nicotene users then the tobacco companies are in big trouble. These are the people you should be keeping an eye on, not the vapers......

If tobacco companies continue to lose smokers to vaping they will and are entering the market and try and make vaping attractive to a new generation of people.

I celebrate vaping, it has removed my smokers cough, improved my stamina, skin, sense of taste and smell and I am not as likely to die from a smoke related disease....why knock it?

grindle

ComputerKing wrote: »

They both pose a health risk to the smoker and the people around them.

It's a tiny possible but improbable health risk to the vaper and not a health risk to the people around them.
Walking in public spaces and touching anything others have touched is a much bigger health risk - it's generally how we catch the flu. Influenza has been proven to kill people too, unlike your bugbear.

ComputerKing wrote: »

Also they should both be denormalised as just because 'vaping' is somewhat healthier well will then just have generations of 'vapers' rather than smokers to deal with that is why they should both follow the same rules and be banned in public places.

Deal with why? Why do they need to be dealt with? What's your problem with people doing what they want and causing less harm to you than the last statistically-risky door you opened?

ComputerKing

Because we will have the same problem in years time where 'vaping' is being taken up by new smokers and we will still have nicotine addicts. So instead we should denormalise the two of them. The only way to do this is to have them both follow the same rules and ban them in public places.

grindle

ComputerKing wrote: »

we will still have nicotine addicts.

We have caffeine addicts!

The rate of addiction to caffeine and nicotine is around 30% of the population for both.

Are you going to get pissy about caffeine despite recommending a coffee machine as a gift to some poor unsuspecting young couple?

Why didn't you try to denormalise caffeine addiction when you had the chance? You're one sick puppy, allowing people to become addicts to a relatively harmless drug.

Vaperus

Yeah we should do the same with all the Caffeine addicts as well

tommy2bad

ComputerKing wrote: »

Because we will have the same problem in years time where 'vaping' is being taken up by new smokers and we will still have nicotine addicts. So instead we should denormalise the two of them. The only way to do this is to have them both follow the same rules and ban them in public places.

You see this is where your going wrong. Nicotine addiction is not the problem, the problem is the risk of cancer, stroke and lung diseases from smoking. Nicotine addiction itself isn't a health risk, it isn't even a problem as it doesn't affect normal living.
Unless you consider a diction to caffeine a problem! Addiction to alcohol is a problem, addiction to sugar can be a problem, addiction to heroin is a problem.
But nicotine and caffeine while addictive (bout the same activeness btw) cause no health risks or behavioral problems.
I don't think we should promote either btw but as far as ecigs are concerned we should give them the advantage over smoking because of the health gains to be ahh gained by people switching to vaping.

ComputerKing

I have no problem with ye 'vaping' it's the way ye think it's OK to do in shops and cinemas etc that pisses me off. Also I drink coffee as are a lot of my friends but I'm not so addicted to coffee that I have cravings so bad that I need to drink coffee during my weekly shop or I will go crazy or when walking around a shopping centre.

grindle

You drink coffee? Are you sure you don't 'drink' coffee? Or even better, "drink" coffee?

Chances are people aren't that craven, they just go "Oh, might as well have a drag." much the same as I'd walk past a nice café and think "Oh, I'd quite like a coffee pick-me-up right now." *walks into café, notices slovenly computer nerd gargling coffee and picking muffin out of his navel whilst arguing with hedonist addicts*

tommy2bad

ComputerKing wrote: »

I have no problem with ye 'vaping' it's the way ye think it's OK to do in shops and cinemas etc that pisses me off. Also I drink coffee as are a lot of my friends but I'm not so addicted to coffee that I have cravings so bad that I need to drink coffee during my weekly shop or I will go crazy or when walking around a shopping centre.

That's because it is OK, it a form of relaxation nothing more. If I'm working I don't vape anymore than I sip cups of cofey. When I'm sitting down (with a cup of cofey) I like to vape, or watching TV or driving (don't drip n drive folks) With your arm around your sweet one, In your Oldsmobile, Barrellin' down the boulevard,... Oh no I'v turned into Tom Waits :eek:

was.deevey

If tobacco companies continue to lose smokers to vaping they will and are entering the market and try and make vaping attractive to a new generation of people.

I celebrate vaping, it has removed my smokers cough, improved my stamina, skin, sense of taste and smell and I am not as likely to die from a smoke related disease....why knock it?

I celebrate vaping, in the same way as I'd celebrate getting over any other kind of addiction. That hoever doesn't mean breaking out my alternative in every shopping mall, coffee shop, restaurant or kids play school because its not harmful to the health.

Yes I'm healthier due to it and sure I vape where I used to smoke, that includes inside bars (if allowed), outdoors pretty much anywhere, in peoples houses (even cigarette free ones arent a problem most of the time).

However I don't believe this "celebration" should be glorified as the holy grail and the habit passed onto a whole new generation of non-nicotine addicts who may have a chance at not even knowing what tobacco is (I make an effort not to vape in front of small kids).

One of the other posters hit the nail on the head and drew a comparison to playing your headphones too loud on a crowded bus - sure you can do it, its not illegal, you'll probably piss off a few people but common courtesy says you probably shouldn't.

dePeatrick

was.deevey wrote: »

However I don't believe this "celebration" should be glorified as the holy grail and the habit passed onto a whole new generation of non-nicotine addicts who may have a chance at not even knowing what tobacco is (I make an effort not to vape in front of small kids).

One of the other posters hit the nail on the head and drew a comparison to playing your headphones too loud on a crowded bus - sure you can do it, its not illegal, you'll probably piss off a few people but common courtesy says you probably shouldn't.

I don't see vaping being taken up by non-smokers unless there is some serious marketing behind it. This should not happen but will happen unless government come out strong against it. Not convinced that government will do this tbh....

Fratton Fred

Vaperus wrote: »

Yeah we should do the same with all the Caffeine addicts as well

I'm fecked then, my two favourite possessions are my ITaste/T3s and my nespresso machine!

Vaperus

Yep you should lock yourself in your house and not come out unless you leave both behind

dePeatrick

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm fecked then, my two favourite possessions are my ITaste/T3s and my nespresso machine!

Sh*t, me too.....:p

Ionised

dePeatrick wrote: »

Sh*t, me too.....:p

Vaperus is treading a thin line threatening my Nespresso. He needs regulating as a medical device to keep us all safe :-)

dePeatrick

Ionised wrote: »

Vaperus is treading a thin line threatening my Nespresso. He needs regulating as a medical device to keep us all safe :-)

It' all this "normalisation" of coffee that bothers me, before you know it there will be cafés selling it and people walking around in public swilling take-away coffees......I mean....think of the children.....;)