e cigs banned from use on CIE trains!

masonchat

mitosis wrote: »

I think you have misunderstood my question. If you have not needed a cigarette on the train for the past ten years, why, just because you can, do you need one now? That's what I don't understand.

That is a fair point, but just because people suffered through before or like many bought a patch for a long trip or bought nicotine gum for a long trip, why shouldnt we be able to vape if its not hurting anyone.

Really it is mind boggling how we were allowed to SMOKE absolutely everywhere for so long, many many years after we all knew they killed people, but this public panic over vaping is just petty , i can understand restaurants and the like , its not a big concern of mine really im much more concerned with the incoming regs and probably rising costs and the effects that will have on existing smokers making the switch

Traumadoc

Saw a guy vaping on a trolley of a hospital corridor, not sure how I feel about it.

Suppose it would be like someone taking a swig from a hip flask.

tommy2bad

mitosis wrote: »

I think you have misunderstood my question. If you have not needed a cigarette on the train for the past ten years, why, just because you can, do you need one now? That's what I don't understand.

Because you can, and train journeys can be long, for those of us down the country up to 3 hours. If you were told no drinking minerals as it normalises alcoholism and no drinking Coffey as it normalises drug addiction and no eating because it normalises obsessety, would you feel it was justified? after all think of the children that might see you and think it was normal to eat or drink?
You are missing the point, why not have a vape on a train? It's not harming anyone, it's not unpleasant for anyone and it's not adding to the cleaning bill for the train company. If cie want to proscribe some things like vaping or white socks or insist on wearing a jacket and tie then that's their business. But I don't buy the complaints thing or the makes enforcing the ban hard thing. It's not like they just banned from enclosed spaces, this is a ban on all property. Exactly the same as the smoking ban and I have trouble squaring this with the stated aim of the smoking ban, to protect people from environmental tobacco smoke based on evidence of harm. This is just based on impressions.

mitosis

tommy2bad wrote: »

Because you can, and train journeys can be long, for those of us down the country up to 3 hours. If you were told no drinking minerals as it normalises alcoholism and no drinking Coffey as it normalises drug addiction and no eating because it normalises obsessety, would you feel it was justified? after all think of the children that might see you and think it was normal to eat or drink?
You are missing the point, why not have a vape on a train? It's not harming anyone, it's not unpleasant for anyone and it's not adding to the cleaning bill for the train company. If cie want to proscribe some things like vaping or white socks or insist on wearing a jacket and tie then that's their business. But I don't buy the complaints thing or the makes enforcing the ban hard thing. It's not like they just banned from enclosed spaces, this is a ban on all property. Exactly the same as the smoking ban and I have trouble squaring this with the stated aim of the smoking ban, to protect people from environmental tobacco smoke based on evidence of harm. This is just based on impressions.

I can't be, I was the one making the point.

But I now understand your position: "Because I can"

Brilliant!

tommy2bad

mitosis wrote: »

I can't be, I was the one making the point.

But I now understand your position: "Because I can"

Brilliant!

Ahh so I was missing your point, I thought you were responding to why the ban was objectionable.
And yes because you can, why do anything other than from need? If we only did things because we had to what fun would life be. ?

rubadub

masonchat wrote: »

Really it is mind boggling how we were allowed to SMOKE absolutely everywhere for so long, many many years after we all knew they killed people, but this public panic over vaping is just petty

It should be mind boggling how its still even legal, when other arguably less dangerous recreational drugs than tobacco were pretty much banned overnight.

The usual line about how alcohol & tobacco are still legal is that they are too deeply ingrained in society, and that if they were discovered today they would most certainly be illegal. So if they had been nipped in the bud early they would not have built up a user base and industry based around it. This user base & industry is also seen as "respectable", sure mammy, the local sergeant both drink & smoke.

This is from 2004 regarding just the smoking ban

The Irish Cigarette Machine Operators Association said that today marked the association's 'darkest day' because of the announcement.

ICMOA spokesman, Gerry Lawlor said: 'All of our members are small business people and this ban, announced today, will have a devastating effect on our lives.'

There was very little sympathy when the head shop drugs were banned completely, not just a simple restriction. Mammy & the local sergeant don't use those drugs though.

tommy2bad wrote: »

People need to grow up. Is that ageist?

I don't think its ageist, looking on google I cannot find a single discussion where anybody though "grow up" was ageist, there are loads of hits about "man up" being a sexist term, just as I expected on both counts.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh god, if you think they are discrete because of a fear of a ban your more confused than I am

They are not worried about a ban, they know it may be an upsetting or unsettling sight to other passengers, I said a negative reaction, I never mentioned a ban.

Though here is a recent case

http://www.jdrf.org.uk/news/latest-news/pub-allegedly-bans-patron-with-type-1-diabetes-for-injecting-insulin-openly

06 March 2014
A pub has allegedly banned a patron for injecting insulin in front of other customers.

The incident reportedly took place when 46-year-old Neil Sampson was with friends at O’Donoghues pub in Marlow, Buckinghamshire, last week. Neil, who lives with type 1 diabetes, was allegedly taken aside by the landlady and asked to leave after injecting insulin through his clothing.

The claim was reported this week in the Maidenhead Advertiser. In response to the claim the landlady’s husband, John Ashton, said to the paper: “He is a regular customer and he has been told on many occasions not to do it in public.”

He added: “We would hope people do it discreetly.”

Not that surprising by the sounds of things.

tommy2bad wrote: »

And that was my point, anecdotes don't make evidence.

Fair enough, it was a rhetorical point, it seems such a blatantly obvious knock on effect that I was not expecting anybody to remotely challenge it. If smoking tobacco outdoors was made illegal I would similarly expect a fall in cannabis smokers outside pubs, for the exact same reasons -but I suppose you would doubt that too, as it would be hard to give irrefutable evidence or get figures.

tommy2bad wrote: »

If you were told no drinking minerals as it normalises alcoholism .

If you were drinking minerals that were poured into a beer can you probably would have objections, for similar reasons some would object to vaping on a train.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Exactly the same as the smoking ban and I have trouble squaring this with the stated aim of the smoking ban, to protect people from environmental tobacco smoke based on evidence of harm.

Have you got any official statement about the aim of the smoking ban? you seem to be making out like they made an official statement that it only had 1 single aim. I see this in lots of threads, its not just you, just like many threads now seem to think this ban is solely about the idea that vaping may be harmful. But I see no statements saying its the sole reason.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0218/46463-smoking/

The Irish Medical Organisation has also welcomed the ban. IMO President Dr Joe Barry said the ban would discourage young people from starting smoking and encourage smokers to stop.

^^There's another 2 reasons which I would have took for granted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Rationale

The rationale for smoking bans posits that smoking is optional, whereas breathing is not. Therefore, proponents say, smoking bans exist to protect breathing people from the effects of second-hand smoke, which include an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema, and other diseases.[2][3] Laws implementing bans on indoor smoking have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with some legislators citing scientific evidence that shows tobacco smoking is harmful to the smokers themselves and to those inhaling second-hand smoke.
In addition, such laws may reduce health care costs,[4] improve work productivity, and lower the overall cost of labour in the community thus protected, making that workforce more attractive for employers. In the US state of Indiana, the economic development agency included in its 2006 plan for acceleration of economic growth encouragement for cities and towns to adopt local smoking bans as a means of promoting job growth in communities.
Additional rationales for smoking restrictions include reduced risk of fire in areas with explosive hazards; cleanliness in places where food, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, or precision instruments and machinery are produced; decreased legal liability; potentially reduced energy use via decreased ventilation needs; reduced quantities of litter; healthier environments; and giving smokers incentive to quit.[5]
The World Health Organization considers smoking bans to have an influence to reduce demand for tobacco by creating an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult and to help shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. Along with tax measures, cessation measures, and education, smoking bans are viewed by public health experts as an important element in reducing smoking rates and promoting positive health outcomes. When effectively implemented they are seen as an important element of policy to support behaviour change in favour of a healthy lifestyle.[6]
Banning smoking in public places has helped to cut premature births by 10 percent, according to new research from the United States and Europe.[

tommy2bad

Awww I'm not doing the quote thing, it's getting too confusing .
You are right smoking and drinking are still legal because of what's referred to as legacy issues, i.e. we're stuck with them. As to other things being legal, well most of them were legal at one time and were made illegal for various reasons. Some real and some pure bullspit. None of them based on resembling something else or we don't like the look of them. All had some evidence of harm or potential harm. We don't pass laws against sending the wrong message. We must prove a harm to someone before we make it a crime
If i were drinking alcohol pored into a mineral can then it would be ok? Actually it would 'cos no one would be the wiser.
As to the reasons for the ban, what they said at the time was that it was to protect others from smoke, no other reason was given, all the rest were just hopeful by products. None of which were achieved btw. Law is a serious business, criminalising people for simple reasons of dislike is not the way to write law. If you want to make someone a criminal you better have a good reason supported by evidence. That's a standard we should cling to for dear life. If on the other hand you feel arbitrary criminalisation is OK, head for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, I think you'll like their system better.
Anyway we are not discussing smoking. So the smoking ban is irrelevant, doesn't apply and should not apply unless you are going to use it to justify banning everything that resembles smoking (any oral inhalation like the nicorette inhaler) or reminds people of smoking (no more sucking on biros) or upsets people because they think someone somewhere might be smoking. smelling of smoke to be included yes even bbq's.
All of which misses the point completely which is to reduce smoking prevalence. Sweden demonstrate that having an alternative to smoking is the best way to achieve this, I fail to understand the urge to fight tooth and nail against this now that an alternative is available which is acceptable to smoker, causes no offence to non smokers, which it doesn't as shown by all the polls carries out so far. Not that the health police will ask anyone outside of their little circle jerk which seems to be in the business of not protecting public health but maintaining some version of moral purity. Abstinence is the only policy.

ardle1

Still lots off 'haters' posting here, any of you able to come up with a reasonable answer/argument to the reason e-cigs are banned on CIE Trains!! well huh huh..................... Anyone!?!? also while we'r at it, any non e-cig users absolutely delighted, ecstatic, even over the moon, that finally maybe e-cigs will dramatically lower the amount of cigarette related deaths in the World...... Like seriously if e-cigs even save one poor soul from cancer or some other filthy disease caused by tobacco cigarettes, wouldn't it be worth it..

dePeatrick

ardle1 wrote: »

Still lots off 'haters' posting here, any of you able to come up with a reasonable answer/argument to the reason e-cigs are banned on CIE Trains!! well huh huh..................... Anyone!?!? also while we'r at it, any non e-cig users absolutely delighted, ecstatic, even over the moon, that finally maybe e-cigs will dramatically lower the amount of cigarette related deaths in the World...... Like seriously if e-cigs even save one poor soul from cancer or some other filthy disease caused by tobacco cigarettes, wouldn't it be worth it..

I sometimes wonder if there is something else underlying people's behaviour when they appear to dislike other people getting pleasure from something....could be old-fashioned bedgrugery.....or maybe this:

Milgram Experiment

ardle1

I love this part off the summary/conclusion....

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority

dePeatrick

ardle1 wrote: »

I love this part off the summary/conclusion....

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority

Isn't human "nature" truly extraordinary, the Stanford Experiment is kinda an extension of that idea, the actual pictures and more info is on the official site here.

I often think that this aspect of human nature should be taught to kids from a young age but then again......I don't think it encouraged to be an independent thinker in today's society.....in fact actively discouraged tbh...

ardle1

Absolutely, human nature should be taught to kids from a young age..
And by the reckoning off these experiments, and in our particular issue/thread, these people who I keep referring to as haters(kinda jokingly and with no offence)are actually slightly weak and easily coerced.....

bur

So the smokers who have given up smoking still can't go a few hours without needing a drag. Genuinely embarrassed for these people, like babies sucking on their soothers 24/7.

dePeatrick

bur wrote: »

So the smokers who have given up smoking still can't go a few hours without needing a drag. Genuinely embarrassed for these people, like babies sucking on their soothers 24/7.

I like nicotine, I also have a passion for coffee and I absolutely love a nice whiskey as a treat......I also like fish...and....

Sorry, ....got a bit lost listing the things I like there, there really is so much to like in this world.......but continue on with that hating, let it all out you poor auld cratur ya.....you must have a tough time at some stage in life......sorry to see this.......

tommy2bad

bur wrote: »

So the smokers who have given up smoking still can't go a few hours without needing a drag. Genuinely embarrassed for these people, like babies sucking on their soothers 24/7.

And the 'haters' cant resist the soother gag, genuinely embarrassed for them, like sheep reusing the same old insult over and over. What's the problem? cant think of anything original?

dePeatrick

tommy2bad wrote: »

And the 'haters' cant resist the soother gag, genuinely embarrassed for them, like sheep reusing the same old insult over and over. What's the problem? cant think of anything original?

I know one very well and it is a complete blind spot, have talked to them about it and they just lose all logic....and they are no purists as regards what they smoke either. I am getting there with them but I am six months now pointing out very gently how wrong they are......

Still do not understand it though......

rubadub

tommy2bad wrote: »

As to the reasons for the ban, what they said at the time was that it was to protect others from smoke, no other reason was given, all the rest were just hopeful by products.

I can't find any official statement which said this was the sole reason, I never got the impression it was the sole reason. I most certainly did not get the impression that this rail ban was solely due to potential direct physical harm.

People seem to be inventing their own stories about these bans, inferring things and putting words in peoples mouths.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/02/us-britain-ecigarettes-idUSBREA311AJ20140402

Wed Apr 2, 2014
Wales could become the first part of the United Kingdom to ban electronic cigarettes in enclosed public spaces due to fears their use could "re-normalize" smoking conventional cigarettes.

Welsh Health Minister Mark Drakeford said the rapid spread of e-cigarettes could undermine the health benefits of banning the smoking of conventional cigarettes in public in 2007.

The proposal comes amid a fierce debate over the health impact of e-cigarettes which do not contain tobacco or produce smoke but use heat to vaporize flavored, liquid nicotine.

Proponents argue they can help people to quit smoking but a rising number of countries like Singapore and Brazil have banned e-cigarettes and U.S. cities including New York and Los Angeles, blocked their use in many public places.

Drakeford said he was concerned that the use of e-cigarettes would boost the number of smokers.

"E-cigarettes contain nicotine, which is highly addictive, and I want to minimize the risk of a new generation becoming addicted to this drug," Drakeford said in a statement as he launched a raft of proposals to improve public health in Wales.

OldNotWIse

In light of recent news stories and the perspective they provide, I cant summon the rage to be angry over something like this, but it strikes me as ridiculous nanny state bullsh1te.

tommy2bad

rubadub wrote: »

I can't find any official statement which said this was the sole reason, I never got the impression it was the sole reason. I most certainly did not get the impression that this rail ban was solely due to potential direct physical harm.

Sorry, we seem to be at cross purposes again. I said that the original smoking ban was justified by the claim of harm to non smokers from what was called environmental tobacco smoke. We had the anti smoking groups chiming in about encouraging quitting and denormalizing smoking (though they didn't have the word denormalization back then, that's a new addition to their vocabulary) No government passed the smoking ban based on encouraging quitting because to criminalise something a victim must be shown.
I think the mission creep of anti smoking groups influenced this Irish rail decision not explicit expectation of harm, this is a ban on something because we don't like it. Claiming that it makes enforcement of the smoking ban harder is just guff.
[QUOTE=rubadub;89836011
People seem to be inventing their own stories about these bans, inferring things and putting words in peoples mouths.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/02/us-britain-ecigarettes-idUSBREA311AJ20140402[/QUOTE]

rubadub

tommy2bad wrote: »

I said that the original smoking ban was justified by the claim of harm to non smokers from what was called environmental tobacco smoke.

I cannot find any statement or press release saying this was the sole reason.

People are ignorning the comments Irish rail made and making up their own version.

tommy2bad wrote: »

No government passed the smoking ban based on encouraging quitting because to criminalise something a victim must be shown

I don't expect any country to have said they are banning smoking for the sole reason of encouraging quitting either.

Here is the netherlands government statement
http://www.government.nl/issues/health-issues/smoking

Anti-smoking policy
The aim of the anti-smoking policy is to:

reduce the number of smokers in the Netherlands;
help people who want to give up smoking;
protect non-smokers from tobacco smoke;
prevent young people from taking up smoking.
Under the Tobacco Act, the government may introduce rules to curb tobacco use.

Michael D Not Higgins

dePeatrick wrote: »

Isn't human "nature" truly extraordinary, the Stanford Experiment is kinda an extension of that idea, the actual pictures and more info is on the official site here.

I often think that this aspect of human nature should be taught to kids from a young age but then again......I don't think it encouraged to be an independent thinker in today's society.....in fact actively discouraged tbh...

tommy2bad

rubadub wrote: »

I cannot find any statement or press release saying this was the sole reason.

People are ignorning the comments Irish rail made and making up their own version.

I don't expect any country to have said they are banning smoking for the sole reason of encouraging quitting either.

Here is the netherlands government statement
http://www.government.nl/issues/health-issues/smoking

Again rubadub when did I say it was the sole reason, I said it was the sole justification for making it a criminal offence to smoke in an enclosed public space. My point is when it comes to making an act a criminal act the onus is to prove a harm and provide a victim. This was done in the case of smoking. (which I supported btw) Extending this to something which has no victim or evidence of harm is a step too far. I'm not talking about Irish Rail here. I'm talking about the government doing this. My disagreement with Irish Rail is that they didn't extend a courtesy to ecigs by providing a vaping carriage and the fact that they quoted some spurious bullsh1t about enforcing the existing smoking ban.
Irish Rail and any other business have a perfect right to ban stuff if they want.

RossFixxxed

There's an atricle in today's metro about a bar maid being burned by an exploding e-cigarette. I forsee more bans. Whatever the reason for it, if someone glued 25 batteries together and attached it to the mains, they'll use this nonetheless.

Going Forward

Wouldn't I love to have the neck to make something from a pen or suchlike, which might Resemble an electronic cigarette.

Just a replica you'll understand, but my, what pleasure I would have, puffing away, making beautiful clouds of invisible air, blissfully oblivious to my neighbour's health concerns about breathing in my stale breath.

Could begin the end of public transport. Think about the germs, the germs.


We should really began a push for face masks to be worn in public for many reasons!!!!

Going Forward

Wouldn't I love to have the neck to make something from a pen or suchlike, which might Resemble an electronic cigarette.

Just a replica you'll understand, but my, what pleasure I would have, puffing away, making beautiful clouds of invisible air, blissfully oblivious to my neighbour's health concerns about breathing in my stale breath.

Could begin the end of public transport. Think about the germs, the germs.


We should really began a push for face masks to be worn in public for many reasons!!!!

rubadub

tommy2bad wrote: »

Again rubadub when did I say it was the sole reason, I said it was the sole justification for making it a criminal offence to smoke in an enclosed public space.

OK then, I don't think they really have to give any justification for any law, especially laws involving recreational drugs.

You had said this

tommy2bad wrote: »

As to the reasons for the ban, what they said at the time was that it was to protect others from smoke, no other reason was given, all the rest were just hopeful by products.

Which made me think you may have read some government statement at the time saying the only reason for the ban was the danger of passive smoking -and that you did think it was just one reason.

ardle1 wrote: »

a reasonable answer/argument to the reason e-cigs are banned on CIE Trains!! well huh huh..................... Anyone!?!?

I thought all the irish rail statements were reasonable enough comments, I was certainly not shocked by any of them, knowing what bans have gone before them. I am not sure which of the many comments they made most upset people?

Going Forward wrote: »

Wouldn't I love to have the neck to make something from a pen or suchlike, which might Resemble an electronic cigarette.

You would probably be asked to stop. Candy cigarettes are banned here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_cigarette

there was a toy syringe taken off the market too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippy_Sippy

If people started using/abusing solvents like glue on trains I would expect it to be banned too, even if just doing it at mild threshold doses, and even though it could be legal and have minimal smell. Dunno why some people are acting all surprised at the backlash against people publicly using/abusing recreational drugs, coffee is about the only recreational drug which seems widely accepted, though some would not like the thought of kids taking caffeine in the form of cola.

dePeatrick

Going Forward wrote: »

Wouldn't I love to have the neck to make something from a pen or suchlike, which might Resemble an electronic cigarette.

Just a replica you'll understand, but my, what pleasure I would have, puffing away, making beautiful clouds of invisible air, blissfully oblivious to my neighbour's health concerns about breathing in my stale breath.

Could begin the end of public transport. Think about the germs, the germs.


We should really began a push for face masks to be worn in public for many reasons!!!!

I,m wondering if I could get a battery and a cartridge into one of these....

tommy2bad

rubadub
OK then, I don't think they really have to give any justification for any law, especially laws involving recreational drugs.

Dunno why some people are acting all surprised at the backlash against people publicly using/abusing recreational drugs, coffee is about the only recreational drug which seems widely accepted, though some would not like the thought of kids taking caffeine in the form of cola.

Just these two points, first yes they do have to justify a law whether it involves recreational drugs or recreational driving or anything. Do you really think laws should be arbitrary?
We are not surprised, well I'm not, like me mammy used to say I'm disappointed.

Ionised

dePeatrick wrote: »

I,m wondering if I could get a battery and a cartridge into one of these....

Coffee just came shooting out of my nose