Ireland to ban E cigerettes for under 18s

Thecageyone

Man, I wish e-cig's were cool when I was 12! Instead of the cig's!

But yeah, I thought they were already 18+ and I don't know of any shops that would sell to younger.

rui1000

the poor teens will have to smoke cigarettes instead... or visit the ecig dealer

Orion

Samba wrote: »

That sounds like a bunch of shady cowboys operating a stand, not a company (I'd be surprised if they were paying tax!). There's always going to be a few bad apples in any emerging market that's unregulated.

I'd report them to the management of the shopping centre.

You'll find that all reputable e-cig companies in Ireland enforce a strict policy of over 18 only.

The stall in Manor Mills is Healthiersmoker. If you've witnessed the staff there doing that then report it to their head office. I would be amazed if they would condone that behaviour. I bought some juice there today and all bottles have 18+ on the label.

Samba

Orion wrote: »

The stall in Manor Mills is Healthiersmoker. If you've witnessed the staff there doing that then report it to their head office. I would be amazed if they would condone that behaviour. I bought some juice there today and all bottles have 18+ on the label.

I'd also be astounded knowing that now, obviously a legit company paying tax. The way Gary described it I had images of Dell and Rodney running a stand in the shopping centre.

If what you said is true Gary, i'd make a formal complaint to both.

ardle1

OK YEAH, ban them for under 18s, but if you know off any under 18s who smoke tobacco cigarettes... offer them an e-cig if you really care!!! and get them off the filthy,smelly, numerous disease causing, cancer killing cigarettes NOW:mad:

eeloe

I've never sold an item to someone under 18.

I've had a few disgruntled heads when I asked them for ID and they couldn't produce.

I know a number if parents tho, who mad the decision to buy them for their kids, as a means to quit, if the parent wants to buy them and supply the minor, it isn't my place to say they are making the correct decision or not.

robbie02

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This helps to weaken the argument for too much regulation.

That is a very good point.

tommy2bad

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Username is apt I'll give you that much.

Why do you think there bringing in the law brains.

I doubt anyone in government even gave a thought to this law before someone from the media rang them up to ask if they were thinking of a similar law to the one being proposed in the UK.
funny how their was no mention of this law before it hit the UK media.

I see a problem with this legislation (yes I need to see it before I'm sure but ykwim).
When one of the ecigs gets a medical licence and at least one of them will, how will this law apply? At the moment nrt is legal and available to anyone over 12. If some kid get a medical ecig and uses it in public will they be accosted by some confused guard? Will they need to carry a prescription with them?
Or will they solve this problem by banning all ecig use from public view?
I don't give a damn one way or the other if kids can buy ecigs, I don't see a problem, in fact it would be better if ecigs were made available to anyone over 16 while cigarettes were kept to 18. Then at least kids tempted towards smoking could get something that had a safer health profile before they got hooked on smoking.
As it is the ban on sales of smokes to under 18 dosn't work, what makes them think this will be any more effective.

Samba

tommy2bad wrote: »

I see a problem with this legislation (yes I need to see it before I'm sure but ykwim).
When one of the ecigs gets a medical licence and at least one of them will, how will this law apply? At the moment nrt is legal and available to anyone over 12. If some kid get a medical ecig and uses it in public will they be accosted by some confused guard? Will they need to carry a prescription with them?
Or will they solve this problem by banning all ecig use from public view?
I don't give a damn one way or the other if kids can buy ecigs, I don't see a problem, in fact it would be better if ecigs were made available to anyone over 16 while cigarettes were kept to 18. Then at least kids tempted towards smoking could get something that had a safer health profile before they got hooked on smoking.
As it is the ban on sales of smokes to under 18 dosn't work, what makes them think this will be any more effective.

Good points, and it raises a wider concern of how tobacco policy is continually borrowed and applied to e-cigs at every opportunity. I'm not totally sold on the idea of over 16 for a few reasons, personally I'd see provisions for access to underage smokers as a better route. Like you said though, very difficult to do.

The word "e-cigarette" is putting a world of hurt on our personal vaporizers

tommy2bad

Samba wrote: »

Good points, and it raises a wider concern of how tobacco policy is continually borrowed and applied to e-cigs at every opportunity. I'm not totally sold on the idea of over 16 for a few reasons, personally I'd see provisions for access to underage smokers as a better route. Like you said though, very difficult to do.

The word "e-cigarette" is putting a world of hurt on our personal vaporizers

Lets face it, their are two things against us, vested interests and a health lobby that has forgotten why it exists.
The vested interests will box us in to two options, med regs or tobacco regs, this maintains the status quo for them. You would assume that the health lobby would welcome the chance to out tobacco tobacco but instead they oppose anything that looks like smoking. Probably because they are so long campaigning against smoking that they have lost sight of the fact that it the health affects of smoking that they are supposed to be trying to stop, not the smoking behaviour.
Yes, their is a point in their objections as far as the big tobacco co.s are concerned, they want vaping to replace lost customers and as slowly as possible, better yet if they can use ecigs as subliminal adds for their main product and ecigs as a step on from smoking. The frustrating thing is that the health lobby is effectively creating the product that they most object too, the cigalike ecig. I suspect this is because they are getting their information from the vested interests who rightly see this as the best option for both of them. At this stage they realize that eliminating ecigs is a lost cause.
Simple solution; ecigs legal for anyone of any age and nicotine liquid only to 18 and over. If cigalikes are sold they must be to 18's and over only. This removes confusion and allows for a medical ecig to be available to under 18's. Yes I am presupposing that any medically approved ecig will look sufficiently unlike a cig (probably available in baby blue, blush pink and that grey pharma stuff is so fond of) that it being used by some 15 year old wont be confused and will be obviously with a prescription.
Lets not loose sight of the goal of tobacco control; to reduce smoking prevalence not eliminate smoking behaviour. Theirs a dividend to be gained for both vapers and their opponents if this is handled right. Too restrictive will lose that and too laissez faire will do the same.

richardw001

Nicotine is addictive - so I would agree that Nicotine based products should be banned for under 18's. Just to be clear that's Nicotine e-liquid or devices inherently containing Nicotine I'm referring to.

What they appear to be banning shows the level of ignorance

An e-cig doesn't have to contain nicotine.

Perhaps they should also ban drinking glasses as well for under 18's (as they are known to contain alcohol) !

Whether vaping and the use of Nicotine is harmful or not is also yet to be shown. The tragic thing is that I would reckon a kid who is looking to buy an e-cig in the first place (and will not be able to) - will more than likely try and end up smoking.
Rather than posturing and talking about bans - they should be getting the finger out and doing some proper research.

tommy2bad

richardw001 wrote: »

Nicotine is addictive - so I would agree that Nicotine based products should be banned for under 18's. Just to be clear that's Nicotine e-liquid or devices inherently containing Nicotine I'm referring to.

What they appear to be banning shows the level of ignorance

An e-cig doesn't have to contain nicotine.

Perhaps they should also ban drinking glasses as well for under 18's (as they are known to contain alcohol) !

Whether vaping and the use of Nicotine is harmful or not is also yet to be shown. The tragic thing is that I would reckon a kid who is looking to buy an e-cig in the first place (and will not be able to) - will more than likely try and end up smoking.
Rather than posturing and talking about bans - they should be getting the finger out and doing some proper research.

This ban in't based on nicotine but instead it's to prevent the re normalization of smoking and to stop kids getting into the habit of smoking behaviour. Plot. Lost.
The harmfulness of nicotine is well known, it's slightly addictive and on it's own about the same as caffeine. This is not conjecture, it proven fact. The risk from tobacco is slightly higher but not so high that it would cause a public health burden like smoking.
Smoke is the cause of the health affects, doesn't matter if its smoke from tobacco, open fires, or herbal cigarettes, which btw didn't have the restrictions that tobacco ones did. I remember them being sold in pharmacies!

Years of nicotine demonisation has resulted in a confusion as to what causes the harm.

drunkmonkey

tommy2bad wrote: »

I doubt anyone in government even gave a thought to this law before someone from the media rang them up to ask if they were thinking of a similar law to the one being proposed in the UK.
funny how their was no mention of this law before it hit the UK media.

I see a problem with this legislation (yes I need to see it before I'm sure but ykwim).
When one of the ecigs gets a medical licence and at least one of them will, how will this law apply? At the moment nrt is legal and available to anyone over 12. If some kid get a medical ecig and uses it in public will they be accosted by some confused guard? Will they need to carry a prescription with them?
Or will they solve this problem by banning all ecig use from public view?
I don't give a damn one way or the other if kids can buy ecigs, I don't see a problem, in fact it would be better if ecigs were made available to anyone over 16 while cigarettes were kept to 18. Then at least kids tempted towards smoking could get something that had a safer health profile before they got hooked on smoking.
As it is the ban on sales of smokes to under 18 dosn't work, what makes them think this will be any more effective.

Maybe we should do the same with morphine, anyone thinking of taking up heroin could just get started on that instead.
Nicotine is a dirty f'n drug, it's serves no purpose and anyone who's off it understands that. Offering any alternative besides a defined path to breaking the addiction is cods wallop.
E-cigs are highly additive, they should be banned in my book as hardly anyone that goes on them can give them up, the long therm vapers in this forum are testament to that. My own brother can't shake them.

drunkmonkey

tommy2bad wrote: »

The harmfulness of nicotine is well known, it's slightly addictive

Tell that to the people pulling their teeth out trying to give it up in the "Giving up Smoking forum".

Days 298

Vendors selling with tempting advertising..

These guys advertising gives ecigs a bad reputation. Its an alternative to smoking not an erotic/sexy habit to pick up as they seem to imply like old cigarette advertising. Had to laugh when I saw their stall in the local shopping center used by 100's of kids every day at lunch. Sooner they ban on advertising the better. Will they ban 0% nicotine for minors too?

Penny Tration

Days298, are you saying the staff there sold ecigs/filters to children? If so, would you mind if i pm you?

wingnut32

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Maybe we should do the same with morphine, anyone thinking of taking up heroin could just get started on that instead.
Nicotine is a dirty f'n drug, it's serves no purpose and anyone who's off it understands that. Offering any alternative besides a defined path to breaking the addiction is cods wallop.
E-cigs are highly additive, they should be banned in my book as hardly anyone that goes on them can give them up, the long therm vapers in this forum are testament to that. My own brother can't shake them.

Just make sure its a strawberry flavour and Im in

Days 298

green_screen wrote: »

Days298, are you saying the staff there sold ecigs/filters to children? If so, would you mind if i pm you?

No I am not. Im saying the advertising portrays ecigs in the wrong way and was clearly visible and advertised with U18's around. Shouldn't happen in my opinion. They still are addicting drugs, they shouldn't have appealing advertising to none smokers and that may encourage minors to give it a go.

Orion

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Tell that to the people pulling their teeth out trying to give it up in the "Giving up Smoking forum".

Agreed. I went cold turkey and stayed off them two years. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. And I ended up succumbing to the addiction again even after that period. Have a look at my quitlog in the GuS forum to get an idea of how hard it was for me if you've never tried cold turkey yourself.

grindle

Orion wrote: »

Agreed. I went cold turkey and stayed off them two years. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. And I ended up succumbing to the addiction again even after that period. Have a look at my quitlog in the GuS forum to get an idea of how hard it was for me if you've never tried cold turkey yourself.

Now you've started vaping you'll eventually get to see why drunkmonkey's shamefully uneducated statement and your agreement with it is wrong. Nicotine surrounded by all those other luscious chemicals is incredibly addictive, just nicotine on it's own much less so, genuinely.
I've gone full days without vaping and haven't had crankiness or step-on-somebody's-throat cravings.
I did miss the fidget and the stimulation the same way I miss coffee if I go without it in the morning, but I felt no need to have a cigarette or anything. I just thought "Damn. Oh well." and got my fix with an extra coffee.

richardw001

I wonder when someone looks back on these discussions in a decade or two - what will they think in hindsight ?

Just to put this in context according to the blog below there's been approximately an 8% reduction in tobacco consumption in Europe in the past year

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/regulation-of-vaping-could-kill-people.aspx

Based on whats at stake here (the possibility at least to reduce smoking and save lives) I find it unbelievable that firstly the Irish Government isn't investing some of the huge tobacco revenue they get into proper research. And secondly they are considering (any) legislation based on the information they currently have that is published.

Personally from what I can see there's nothing to suggest that nicotine is any better or worse than say caffeine

Some of you might find the links below of interest as well

http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/11/1719.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8614291?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21220188?dopt=Abstract

It's the closest approximation of longer term nicotine use that I could find anyway (bear in mind though that if you were talking about something like a pharma nicotene inhaler or gum) - that possibly contain a lot more additives than conventional vaping.
Anyway I've taken the view that even long term nicotine use via vaping is preferable/safer than smoking.

Just based on the available stats - my reading is that even if in 20 years time the "Give up smoking" is a "Give up vaping forum" - there will be a lot more of us alive statistically.

These are all my own views/interpretations btw - and apologies in advance if the following happens:
I lead someone to vaping because of them AND it does turn out (against all the evidence I've seen) to be the cause of their demise. Its free choice though though in the end of the day and at least for the moment people can make their own personal decision on it.

On the other hand - hypothetically speaking if I was just a non-vaper or indeed the minister for health - I would not be trying to advocate a removal of choice/ban on something that may well save thousands or hundred of thousand of lives over the next couple of decades. At least without some scientific or statistical justification.

EGriff

drunkmonkey wrote: »

E-cigs are highly additive, they should be banned in my book as hardly anyone that goes on them can give them up, the long therm vapers in this forum are testament to that. My own brother can't shake them.

What a pile of bullsh1t. Would you rather your brother went back on cigarettes? Smoking kills one in two smokers according to the ads. Everyone on here using e-cigs was already addicted to nicotine before they started.

artyeva

drunkmonkey wrote: »

E-cigs are highly additive, they should be banned in my book as hardly anyone that goes on them can give them up

there's a coffee and tea forum on boards - are you over there telling them that too?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

My own brother can't shake them.

the nicotine comes out easier if he inhales on it rather than shaking it

but seriously - so what? would you rather he smoked?

tommy2bad

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Tell that to the people pulling their teeth out trying to give it up in the "Giving up Smoking forum".

I would but them fools have a bee in their bonnet about ecigs.
See they think their addicted to nicotine and in a way they are, the difference is when you burn nicotine with the other chemicals in cigarettes you get nicotine salts. This is what's called freebase nicotine. It can be taken up by the receptors in the brain faster and in greater quantities. Thus what smokers are addicted to is not the same nicotine as vaping. Probably one of the reasons that vaping doesn't work for everyone. And NRT, which btw is designed not to be addictive, i.e. designed to fail.

This of course leads to an ethical dellima, if vaping is harmless (I suspect long term this is what will be found) Then to improve to take up of ecig among committed smokers should we allow the addition of the chemicals that produce nicotine salts? This would improve the effectiveness of ecigs and thus improve the health of current smokers? Conversely it would make ecigs more addictive to non smokers and you could see an increase in uptake among new users.

Cost benefit, I suppose, if smoking rates drop enough with the ecigs we have then not worth the risk, but if it is what's needed to reduce the human misery from smoking then it might be worth considering.

Ionised

drunkmonkey wrote: »

E-cigs are highly additive, they should be banned in my book as hardly anyone that goes on them can give them up, the long therm vapers in this forum are testament to that. My own brother can't shake them.

Do you have evidence that 'hardly anyone' stops using ecig?
Do you use ecigs so you have first hand knowledge of their addictive properties?

I was a smoker for 30 years. Using ecigs has extended my life and will reduce my use of the medical services so for me any minor downsides are acceptable.

I do support a ban for under 18 use but not regulation that seeks to limit their use.

Only my opinions and experience being voiced.

There is one downside for me... I have had to up my pension contributions as I will be living longer than planned!

Days 298

EGriff wrote: »

What a pile of bullsh1t. Would you rather your brother went back on cigarettes? Smoking kills one in two smokers according to the ads. Everyone on here using e-cigs was already addicted to nicotine before they started.

Someone I knew smoked the occasional box. Maybe 1 a year if lucky. Now she puffs the ecig like a chimney. They are an alternative to smoking but there are definitely people who decided to pick up one and give it a go as they are advertised as the healthy fag and are now hooked to nicotine full time. Not that its a big a deal as smoking a box a day but still I think most would rather not be hooked.

Ban them no but stop them being advertised using the words such as healthy yes.

robbie02

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Maybe we should do the same with morphine, anyone thinking of taking up heroin could just get started on that instead.
Nicotine is a dirty f'n drug, it's serves no purpose and anyone who's off it understands that. Offering any alternative besides a defined path to breaking the addiction is cods wallop.
E-cigs are highly additive, they should be banned in my book as hardly anyone that goes on them can give them up, the long therm vapers in this forum are testament to that. My own brother can't shake them.

In the words of Withnail...what absolute twaddle!

Orion

Let's not feed the troll robbie02.

drunkmonkey: I agreed with one thing you said - that doesn't give you free rein to make ridiculous posts like comparing vaping to shooting heroin. It's probably best if you leave this thread alone now.

robbie02

I wont say another word about that ; )