e cigs banned from use on CIE trains!

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