e cigs banned from use on CIE trains!

Going Forward

Nicotine inhaler

The inhaler (sometimes called an inhalator) is made up of a mouth piece and cartridges which contain nicotine. When you inhale, the nicotine and menthol vapour is sucked into your body. This is absorbed into the blood through the lining of your mouth and throat. The mouthpiece is like a pen and replaces smoking with the hand and mouth action. It will suit you if you miss the routine of smoking and the puffing sensation. Your GP, pharmacist or stop smoking advisor will be able to advise you if the nicotine inhaler is suitable for you and explain how to use it correctly.

That's from the HSE's own website, Quit.ie.

Sounds VERY like smoking. For some reason this is accepted in all regards as being an acceptable and successful smoking cessation aid, but vaping is not.

Anyone tease this out for me so I can understand their logic????

Or have they stopped prescribing them in accordance with their blanket "Visible" usage of nicotine ban?

tommy2bad

rubadub wrote: »

What did CIE state to make you say that?

Exactly, its weird this is not being mentioned more, dunno if people are feigning ignorance or truly are that ignorant.

I smoke, if I was giving up I would not like to see vapourisers being used everywhere. I gave up before for a while, before the workplace smoking ban, and it was very hard to stay off them, esp. in a pub. I would have a similar view of vaping.

They way people are going on you'd swear there are no other nicotine delivery methods out there, should be thankful its legal at all.

I have never once seen someone inject insulin in public. I doubt injection of methadone would go down well on trains, even if it is legal.

Just looking up that point

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/insulin/injecting-insulin-in-public.html


I expect some will fear it will lead to an increase in use of cannabis vapourisers too, just like I found the smoking ban lead to an increase in cannabis smoking outside pubs, due to the easy of blending in.

So much wrong with your notion of what people should and shouldn't do I duno where to begin.
First off as far as your lack of will power is concerned, Man Up and stop blaming others for your weakness.
Don't worry we are grateful that the powers that be let us stop smoking and even have the generosity to offer some useless gum or patches at exorbitant prices to stave off the cravings we drug addicts need so bad. NOT.
Then theirs the notion that this is a medicine. BRRRR wrong. Its a recreational activity similar to drinking Coffey or coke. Its not a medicine, it doesn't treat or alleviate any symptom or ailment OK? Oh and methadone is administered orally just FYI.
Do you object to people using inhalers? or just nicotine inhalers? What about the white NRT one? No? why?
Ever been around a herb vaporiser? Thrust me ecigs are not going to increase the use of dry herb vaporisers, the tell tail odour is still their, no one will be fooled. And the smoking ban increased the use of weed? Oh for the love of God! No it didn't, it just put you in the company of users as now you all had to congregate in the one place.

*mod snip - no need for personal abuse

tommy2bad

Going Forward wrote: »

Nicotine inhaler

The inhaler (sometimes called an inhalator) is made up of a mouth piece and cartridges which contain nicotine. When you inhale, the nicotine and menthol vapour is sucked into your body. This is absorbed into the blood through the lining of your mouth and throat. The mouthpiece is like a pen and replaces smoking with the hand and mouth action. It will suit you if you miss the routine of smoking and the puffing sensation. Your GP, pharmacist or stop smoking advisor will be able to advise you if the nicotine inhaler is suitable for you and explain how to use it correctly.

That's from the HSE's own website, Quit.ie.

Sounds VERY like smoking. For some reason this is accepted in all regards as being an acceptable and successful smoking cessation aid, but vaping is not.

Anyone tease this out for me so I can understand their logic????

Or have they stopped prescribing them in accordance with their blanket "Visible" usage of nicotine ban?

No visible vapor, thats the thing they object to.! A pavlovian response to anything that looks like smoke. No logic or reason other than instinctual repugnance.

ardle1

BTW... Anyone against the use off or for the ban off E-cigs, and with all the information we have to date.... Well take a good look in the mirror and accept that you would get monetary income from the 'regulation' off said product, or you are a 'hater'! meaning you are against other peoples love off said product,and for no apparent reason..... Sad for ya :cool:

ardle1

amdublin wrote: »

I agree with this.

I don't want second hand smoke. And I don't want second hand vape.

I don't care what the fek is in it. And I don't care how safe you "say" it is.

Cause your a hater..... 'Sad for ya' :cool:

rubadub

Going Forward wrote: »

but vaping is not.

Anyone tease this out for me so I can understand their logic????

Visible vapour, I thought this is blatantly obvious. I am still convinced most are feigning ignorance about the whole thing.

tommy2bad wrote: »

First off as far as your lack of will power is concerned, Man Up and stop blaming others for your weakness.

Jesus, charming sexist comment there :rolleyes:. Loads of people I know mentioned how the smoking ban in pub helped them get off it. "out of sight, out of mind", helps many people kick habits.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Don't worry we are grateful that the powers that be let us stop smoking and even have the generosity to offer some useless gum or patches at exorbitant prices to stave off the cravings we drug addicts need so bad. NOT.

Loads of people cannot use their preferred recreational drug at all. People are acting all surprised at these bans yet the banning of recreational drugs is the norm. Head in the sand stuff, ridiculous.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Then theirs the notion that this is a medicine. BRRRR wrong. Its a recreational activity similar to drinking Coffey or coke.

Not sure why you are making that point. I never said it was being used medicinally, even though it can be used as that way. My point was people can inject insulin discretely, but some go around vaping in such an open fashion that it resulted in complaints and bans, ruining it for everyone.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Its not a medicine, it doesn't treat or alleviate any symptom or ailment OK?

ignorance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Medical_uses

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh and methadone is administered orally just FYI.

ignorance, it can be injected, try reading my post again to figure out the point I am making.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Do you object to people using inhalers? or just nicotine inhalers?

ehh, I never said I objected to nictoine inhalers. The only thing I said remotely like that was

I smoke, if I was giving up I would not like to see vapourisers being used everywhere.

If I was giving up chocolate I would not like to see people all around me eating bars, I would not call that objecting to it.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ever been around a herb vaporiser? Thrust me ecigs are not going to increase the use of dry herb vaporisers, the tell tail odour is still their, no one will be fooled

I have used them, and think they will be more common now. The odour is quite different to hash or weed smoke, I am wondering if you ever used one. I have seen lads who smoked cannabis for 20+ years comment on the odd smell from them, very surprised at the unusual pine smell.

tommy2bad wrote: »

And the smoking ban increased the use of weed? Oh for the love of God!

I have certainly seen an increase outside pubs, have heard loads of people saying it, ask any bouncer.


*mod snip - no need for personal abuse

Going Forward

Some rather interesting points in this thread.

First, I don't want to breathe anyone 's anything TBH, their secondhand breath, vape or farts.

There's a great display of poor manners on display here, why should any vaper, myself included feel that they have the right to blow their exhalations in some one elses face??

A bit of vaping etiquette might not go astray instead of smugly sitting their expecting to be admired for their ability to blow clouds of what looks like smoke.

The HSE was wrong footed by CIE, who took the lead.

The HSE should be asked to defend nicotine inhalers which mimic smoking if they are so concerned, as should CIE.

CIE should have permitted e cigs outdoors and in private compartments such as toilets whilst it waited for some other medical reason to prohibit them.

Why not? No ash, smoke, cigarette butts, no evidence of smoking or vaping in short.

I forgot to mention the obvious: Fear!
Vaping is a little too subculture still, a little too left field.

DirtyBollox

Diverting slightly but rubadub but how in the name of god is

First off as far as your lack of will power is concerned, Man Up and stop blaming others for your weakness.

a sexist comment?

Please explain your theory behind this as this is the most confusing part of this whole thread.

mewso

Can the children please stop hurling personal abuse at each other and argue the points. I don't know which is worse sometimes. Being the first to abuse a poster or being the one who responds in kind. Pathetic.

tommy2bad

rubadub wrote: »

Visible vapour, I thought this is blatantly obvious. I am still convinced most are feigning ignorance about the whole thing.

I agree, visible vapor is the problem, but it not the given reason, I would prefer if they honestly said we don't like the look of it, it's a nasty chav habit.
Jesus, charming sexist comment there :rolleyes:. Loads of people I know mentioned how the smoking ban in pub helped them get off it. "out of sight, out of mind", helps many people kick habits.
Ahem, no not sexist, nice try playing the sexist card though.
Loads of people cannot use their preferred recreational drug at all. People are acting all surprised at these bans yet the banning of recreational drugs is the norm. Head in the sand stuff, ridiculous.
Again not a drug, a mild stimulant which is a natural dietary supplement

Not sure why you are making that point. I never said it was being used medicinally, even though it can be used as that way. My point was people can inject insulin discretely, but some go around vaping in such an open fashion that it resulted in complaints and bans, ruining it for everyone.
??? What? I cant see the relevance at all unless you want people to be more discrete drinking cofey then your point is moot. Sauce for goose and ganders.

ignorance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Medical_uses
So what? we are talking about vaping not medicinal maintenance.
ignorance, it can be injected, try reading my post again to figure out the point I am making.
The most common route of administration at a methadone clinic is in a racemic oral solution thats from wiki so add salt as desired.

ehh, I never said I objected to nictoine inhalers. The only thing I said remotely like that was

If I was giving up chocolate I would not like to see people all around me eating bars, I would not call that objecting to it.
But you used it as a suporting argument for a ban, how is that not an objection?
I have used them, and think they will be more common now. The odour is quite different to hash or weed smoke, I am wondering if you ever used one. I have seen lads who smoked cannabis for 20+ years comment on the odd smell from them, very surprised at the unusual pine smell.
Used and still use, though I'm looking into tinctures.
I have certainly seen an increase outside pubs, have heard loads of people saying it, ask any bouncer.
Heard loads of people, yeah real good evidence their :rolleyes:

*mod snip - no need for personal abuse

Duno what all the cards are about, were still friends right?:D

P_1

I wonder if it might be worthwhile in developing some vapourless liquids or liquids that give out a clear vapour seeing as most folk's problem is with the vapour.

grindle

Like this?

PG+Water+Deep Inhale=Oddball-knickers untwisting.

Next time I see a bain-marie I'm gonna go ape and fail to give up cigarettes - I mean, steam, amirite?!? Imahavtosmooooke!

masonchat

DirtyBollox wrote: »

Diverting slightly but rubadub but how in the name of god is a sexist comment?

Please explain your theory behind this as this is the most confusing part of this whole thread.

Im assuming because he said to MAN UP and not to PERSON UP it has become a bloody mad world we live in for sure

masonchat

grindle wrote: »

Like this?

PG+Water+Deep Inhale=Oddball-knickers untwisting.

Next time I see a bain-marie I'm gonna go ape and fail to give up cigarettes - I mean, steam, amirite?!? Imahavtosmooooke!

MUhahahahahah he must go weak at the knees when ever he boils the kettle, and he must have foooked the tv out the window years ago that peter barlow is always with a cig in one hand and a coffee in the other

mitosis

JH_raheny wrote: »

that's just stupid, will the witch hunt on smokers ever stop, even after quitting we have to take this crap.
What about fat smelly people, if I have to sit next to them and find it uncomfortable, can I get them banned from using public transport ?

You have managed without being permitted to smoke on trains etc for ten years now. Why the sudden need now? And why is reductio ad absurdum the first "defence"?

tommy2bad

mitosis wrote: »

You have managed without being permitted to smoke on trains etc for ten years now. Why the sudden need now? And why is reductio ad absurdum the first "defence"?

This is simple, because no one is smoking! The ban is based on nothing more than because we can and we don't like the look of it.
Which is fair enough as long as they admit it but claiming that their entire staff need to go to specsavers (other opticians are available) and that it offends other passengesr is patent nonsense since the ban on smoking was not enforced because of other passengers objections.
Would it have been better to reserve some carriages for vaping or non vaping?
I think it would for the simple reason that anything that advantages vaping over smoking is going to encourage smokers to switch, similar with advertising and taxation. If we treat vaping as smoking then in effect what we are doing is protecting tobacco from competition.
As the argument is based on the public health benefit of not smoking over smoking anything that impedes people switching is 'a bad thing'.
Or they could have asked people what they thought, simple facebook poll or one on their website would give them some idea of the strength of feeling on this. Instead they took a dictatorial response which is to the detriment of public health and dose them no favours in the PR stakes.
Oh and I'm not alone in this line of thinking ASH UK have stated In the UK smokefree legislation exists to protect the public from the demonstrable harms
of secondhand smoke. ASH does not consider it appropriate for electronic cigarettes to be subject to this legislation.
http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_715.pdf

rubadub

DirtyBollox wrote: »

Diverting slightly but rubadub but how in the name of god is a sexist comment?
Please explain your theory behind this as this is the most confusing part of this whole thread.

wow -there's a great website called google that you can look up things you're all confused about something, there are loads of pages about it being sexist.

masonchat wrote: »

Im assuming because he said to MAN UP and not to PERSON UP it has become a bloody mad world we live in for sure

"Person up" would lose the intent. Its not like saying police officer, instead of policeman/policewoman. The term "man up" is similar in its meaning, and offensiveness as saying "stop acting like a woman". Saying "stop acting like a person", would not make sense, it loses its intent to be sneering/looking down at "weak minded women".

P_1 wrote: »

I wonder if it might be worthwhile in developing some vapourless liquids or liquids that give out a clear vapour seeing as most folk's problem is with the vapour.

They are already out, but I think the horse has bolted now, I expect they will be banned. Its similar to how other bans may have come about, a guy goes onto a train and takes the piss out of the lack of a ban on eating, spills food everywhere and stinks up the place. Passengers & cleaners complain about this and it gets all food gets banned across the board. If people had been quietly eating a bar and taking the litter with them the complaint would not have been made. If people had stuck to very discrete vaping no complaint would be made.

People may have seen vapour and seen it being inhaled by themselves or others and not liked this, I know people who have said this about real smoke. So now if people do use ones with invisible vapour people will still be saying its the same as before, just invisible, nothing has really changed.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Again not a drug, a mild stimulant which is a natural dietary supplementD

Stimulants are drugs. You must have some odd definition of drug, I have not seen anyone else deny that nicotine is a drug. In the medical community its recognised as the most addictive drug known, including heroin, meth or crack.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I cant see the relevance at all unless you want people to be more discrete drinking cofey then your point is moot

If people started spilling coffee all over the place, like in a library or something, then you could expect to see it banned there. People brought it on themselves, I don't think it would have taken much foresight to think their might be complaints.

tommy2bad wrote: »

So what? we are talking about vaping not medicinal maintenance.t

You said this

it doesn't treat or alleviate any symptom or ailment OK?

You were wrong, OK?:rolleyes:

tommy2bad wrote: »

The most common route of administration at a methadone clinic is in a racemic oral solutiont

I never said injection was the most common, or even remotely common.

Again I will ask you to read my original post and try and figure out the point

I doubt injection of methadone would go down well on trains

I could have just as easily said I doubt injection of saline solution would go down well on trains (also legal). The discrete insulin users obviously do have the cop on and foresight to predict a negative reaction.

tommy2bad wrote: »

But you used it as a suporting argument for a ban, how is that not an objection?

I do not support the ban, just like I would not support a ban on chocolate.

All I said was

I smoke, if I was giving up I would not like to see vapourisers being used everywhere.

If I was giving up chocolate I would not like to see people all around me eating bars

I would not want them banned or be openly complaining/objecting or think I have rights to stop people. I would just personally not particularly want a reminder and temptation.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Heard loads of people, yeah real good evidence their

Yeah, its as good as your evidence of their being no change in cannabis smoking habits outside pubs.

masonchat

I agree that it most likely is a few fools vaping in peoples faces and filling carriages with vapor that has dammed the vaping community and i can kind of understand that, and also we forget how ill informed most of the public is regarding weather or not the vapor is harmful or not .

In regards to the man up comment being sexist , yes i understand the term person up loses the meaning, i was being sarcastic, all this political correctness REALLY has gone way to far it is just ridiculous , i guess man up is not sexist though if it were said to a man as neither would saying woman up to a woman, then it would just be bullying i suppose or offensive boohoo that man said i wasnt a real man :rolleyes:

Just to add, when a goverment is talking about legalising wacky backy (to tax it i guess) and trying to outlaw the best invention to mankinds health since god knows when , well need anyone really say anymore

tommy2bad

rubadub wrote: »

wow -there's a great website called google that you can look up things you're all confused about something, there are loads of pages about it being sexist.

"Person up" would lose the intent. Its not like saying police officer, instead of policeman/policewoman. The term "man up" is similar in its meaning, and offensiveness as saying "stop acting like a woman". Saying "stop acting like a person", would not make sense, it loses its intent to be sneering/looking down at "weak minded women".
So? just because some one some where takes an attitude that doesn't make it sexist. People need to grow up. Is that ageist?

They are already out, but I think the horse has bolted now, I expect they will be banned. Its similar to how other bans may have come about, a guy goes onto a train and takes the piss out of the lack of a ban on eating, spills food everywhere and stinks up the place. Passengers & cleaners complain about this and it gets all food gets banned across the board. If people had been quietly eating a bar and taking the litter with them the complaint would not have been made. If people had stuck to very discrete vaping no complaint would be made.
Odly I have no objection to the ban, I only object to the given reason for the ban. Tell the truth and shame the devil.
People may have seen vapour and seen it being inhaled by themselves or others and not liked this, I know people who have said this about real smoke. So now if people do use ones with invisible vapour people will still be saying its the same as before, just invisible, nothing has really changed.
And people will look like fools, actually I doubt anyone would raise the same objection if theirs no visible vapor because it would mean banning the official nicotine inhaler.

Stimulants are drugs. You must have some odd definition of drug, I have not seen anyone else deny that nicotine is a drug. In the medical community its recognised as the most addictive drug known, including heroin, meth or crack.
Ahem actually their not, unless you are trying to confuse the issue by switching terms. As we are talking about a substance in common use that's the frameing for the terms, like caffeine nicotine is not a drug unless it used as a drug like in NRT when it becomes a drug by function. Also the 'recognised by the medical community as the most addictive drug' is also false. Their is no evidence of nicotine being addictive let alone the most addictive drug. That assumption comes from a speech by a tobacco controller who engaged in exaggeration. The fact that it grew legs without any evidence shows how easily lied to the medical community is.
If people started spilling coffee all over the place, like in a library or something, then you could expect to see it banned there. People brought it on themselves, I don't think it would have taken much foresight to think their might be complaints.
I agree, I knew that vaping would be treated as smoking from the start. That doesn't make it right though.

You said this


You were wrong, OK?:rolleyes:
Wrong about what? I'm lost and confused now?
I never said injection was the most common, or even remotely common.

Again I will ask you to read my original post and try and figure out the point
I could have just as easily said I doubt injection of saline solution would go down well on trains (also legal). The discrete insulin users obviously do have the cop on and foresight to predict a negative reaction.
Oh god, if you think they are discrete because of a fear of a ban your more confused than I am
I do not support the ban, just like I would not support a ban on chocolate.

All I said was



I would not want them banned or be openly complaining/objecting or think I have rights to stop people. I would just personally not particularly want a reminder and temptation.
So what's the relevance to this discussion? Make your point clearly?

Yeah, its as good as your evidence of their being no change in cannabis smoking habits outside pubs.

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

I think we are more in agreement than anything else. Their is a mood of fear and repellence against smoking, vapers should have known this and been more respectful of the zeitgeist. It would have been more effective to use ecigs discreetly and explain what they were to anyone asking. Unfortunately theirs an element that seized on ecigs to shock people the way we did with sweet cigarettes when we were kids, sucking on one till some auld wan scolded us then eat the thing and run off laughing. Fun when your 9 but not exactly adult behaviour.

mitosis

tommy2bad wrote: »

This is simple, because no one is smoking! The ban is based on nothing more than because we can and we don't like the look of it.
Which is fair enough as long as they admit it but claiming that their entire staff need to go to specsavers (other opticians are available) and that it offends other passengesr is patent nonsense since the ban on smoking was not enforced because of other passengers objections.
Would it have been better to reserve some carriages for vaping or non vaping?
I think it would for the simple reason that anything that advantages vaping over smoking is going to encourage smokers to switch, similar with advertising and taxation. If we treat vaping as smoking then in effect what we are doing is protecting tobacco from competition.
As the argument is based on the public health benefit of not smoking over smoking anything that impedes people switching is 'a bad thing'.
Or they could have asked people what they thought, simple facebook poll or one on their website would give them some idea of the strength of feeling on this. Instead they took a dictatorial response which is to the detriment of public health and dose them no favours in the PR stakes.
Oh and I'm not alone in this line of thinking ASH UK have stated In the UK smokefree legislation exists to protect the public from the demonstrable harms
of secondhand smoke. ASH does not consider it appropriate for electronic cigarettes to be subject to this legislation.
http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_715.pdf

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.

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