e cigs banned from use on CIE trains!

Going Forward

Morning Ireland today, sorry don't have a link.

Alcohol still being served!

dePeatrick

“We had a lot of feedback from passengers who didn’t like people ‘vaping’ or using e-cigarettes beside them. They weren’t happy with the smell with what was coming out of them.

http://www.dublinpeople.com/article.php?id=3380&l=100

Just so ridiculous......."in case it is harmful" one could make an awfully long list of things that could be covered by that....

I do expect it to be banned in public buildings as well......muppets....

Tzardine

I agree with this. It can be horrible sometimes sitting next to someone puffing away on an e-cig. My sister uses them and there are some pretty smelly flavors she has used.

I would imagine that sat beside somebody using one for 3 hours on a train could be a pain the the backside.

As can sat beside somebody drinking for the same period.

I would be all for having quiet carriages like Germany / Switzerland where people can be expected not to use them and normal carriages where perhaps you can.

Does CIE have any such carriages on long routes ?

dePeatrick

Tzardine wrote: »

I agree with this. It can be horrible sometimes sitting next to someone puffing away on an e-cig. My sister uses them and there are some pretty smelly flavors she has used.

I would imagine that sat beside somebody using one for 3 hours on a train could be a pain the the backside.

As can sat beside somebody drinking for the same period.

I would be all for having quiet carriages like Germany / Switzerland where people can be expected not to use them and normal carriages where perhaps you can.

Does CIE have any such carriages on long routes ?

Well....you are not alone:

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-e-cigarettes-1355583-Mar2014/

Seems almost 1/3 of people agree with you according to the poll in theJournal.ie
Personally I think it's time for the guillotine, but then I'm easygoing

JH_raheny

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 ?

Orion

http://www.thejournal.ie/e-cigarettes-banned-from-dart-and-train-1355640-Mar2014/

Going Forward

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 ?

Fat smelly people wearing leaking headphones!

Nice.

Orion

How exactly is this going to be enforced? They can't stop drunks on the train harassing other commuters.

Ban smelly egg sandwiches first then worry about things that don't actually smell.

Caveat_

Yeah, it's going to be a hard one to police. As in, impossible.

Stuxnet

Ahhh Jayzus Joe, is there no end to the persecution....

VEN

Caveat_ wrote: »

Yeah, it's going to be a hard one to police. As in, impossible.

impossible, in to the toilets, stand between carriages, not much smell, if at all when using correct equipment and your liquid aint burning.

nice try but sorry, it wont work. we can still enjoy.

as for smelly people, drunks, anti-social behaviour, let them on, they deserve it now after this!

banning e-cigs ha what a joke.

rubadub

dePeatrick wrote: »

Well....you are not alone:

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-e-cigarettes-1355583-Mar2014/

Seems almost 1/3 of people agree with you according to the poll in theJournal.ie

That poll is ridiculously biased! as though there is only one reason you would want them banned.

Caveat_ wrote: »

Yeah, it's going to be a hard one to police. As in, impossible.

Just like the previous smoking ban? It gives a clear indication it is not to be done, so I expect most will follow it, there are numerous other nicotine delivery devices which have been around for decades. This is nearly like banning wine, and allowing other drinks to still to be had.

JH_raheny wrote: »

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 ?

How do you propose they enforce this? Smelly people have been ejected from places before. In the UK a guy was kicked out of a public library.

Orion wrote: »

Ban smelly egg sandwiches first then worry about things that don't actually smell.

all food is banned on the luas.

popzmaster

rubadub wrote: »

all food is banned on the luas.

The LUAS isn't a CIE train

MayoSalmon

Going Forward wrote: »

Morning Ireland today, sorry don't have a link.

Alcohol still being served!

Of course we're Irish:pac:

amdublin

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.

rubadub

popzmaster wrote: »

The LUAS isn't a CIE train

I know, I am just pointing out that suggesting banning food is not such a bizarre thing, its already in effect on some transport systems. People are going on like "this is mad, what next, food?!?! as if"

Many are asking for backup to the ban, asking for studies, as though a company HAS to prove it is harmful before banning it, loads of things are banned which are not physically harmful.

VEN

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.

and of course you don't want drunken behaviour or smelly farty people next to you but hey... the train must go on... enjoy!

Sam Quentin

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.

But you'll walk down the street inhaling exhaust fumes, smog and God knows what else.. All off which are a Million times worst than Vapour..... Your just a hater, you see people Happy with Vaping, and you hate them!! so fcuking sad, SERIOUSLY .... I say down with haters and begrudgers. I'd say one dance floor full off fog/smoke would kill all on the dance floor, the way CIE is talking!! Bloody ridiculous at this stage....

AirBiscuit

Vaping in your seat is a bit selfish alright, but I'd have no objection to people doing it in the room between carriages

jakdublin

I broke that story after being told by a security guard to put my device away on my way to the Ireland soccer game last week. I was at the barrier in Tara Street and nowhere near the train, platform or anybody else for that matter. I was sure he was wrong but when I checked with the press office they said they'd just introduced the ban and it includes all covered areas as well as the train. I've no real issue with inside trains as if you've any manners you'll stealth vape anyway. I always ignore restrictions anyway and stealth vape on planes and cinema all the time. If nobody notices, nobody cares.

Orion

Can I smoke on the train?
NO. Smoking is prohibited on all trains, offices and enclosed station areas. Iarnród Éireann treats replacement devices such as e-cigarettes in an identical manner to traditional cigarettes and they cannot be used onboard trains, within offices or in enclosed station areas.

http://www.irishrail.ie/contact-us/faqs?i=4254

What absolute nonsense. I'm going to send in my own complaint to them about this. Not that I expect anything - even a reply. But I'm going to do it anyway.

dePeatrick

Now that you say it, I am going to do the same, again am sure it will be worthless but still......:)

Newuser12345

Dublin Airport and Aviva Stadium latest to issue bans.

I have been off cigarettes for 20 weeks and use the e-cig everywhere, flights, hotels, office

For me though its a case of "discretion being the better part of valour" and its a quick inhale and a negligible exhale

tommy2bad

Anyone think these bans are orchestrated? I smell a contact and recommend bans campaign from somewhere, it can't be coincidence that no one uttered a word until now just after the dust settled on the TPD.
Or I could be getting paranoid and it all down to the sudden increase of use and consequent visibility but if that's all then why the rush to ban them?
Oh and isn't the AVIVA an outdoor venue? so that makes the ban even more odd, I doubt anyone complained other than Tobacco free Ireland.

dePeatrick

I think it is just coincidence tbh...There is a love of banning things here and has been for a long time...first to ban plastic bags, smoking in Pubs, coal in Cities....and that's just off the top of my head.

Particularly if there is an element of enjoyment about them. "Down with that sort of thing....think of the kids mentality" that is all to prevalent in Ireland.

Great power in conditioning people to knee jerk reactions.....and knee jerk votes in the ballot box

tommy2bad

dePeatrick wrote: »

I think it is just coincidence tbh...There is a love of banning things here and has been for a long time...first to ban plastic bags, smoking in Pubs, coal in Cities....and that's just off the top of my head.

Particularly if there is an element of enjoyment about them. "Down with that sort of thing....think of the kids mentality" that is all to prevalent in Ireland.

Great power in conditioning people to knee jerk reactions.....and knee jerk votes in the ballot box

Hmm and your point is? All the examples cited were the result of long lobbying efforts and well orchestrated campaigns.

dePeatrick

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hmm and your point is? All the examples cited were the result of long lobbying efforts and well orchestrated campaigns.

I lean towards thinking that as long as someone gets paid to complain, then complaints we shall have, look in all seriousness what will they do about eliquid being sold over the Internet? Absolutely nothing apart from making sounds about it, these lobbies that do, and I agree that they do, just get oxygen from taking their complaints seriously.

Best ignore them and carry on.......the world is changing and one small part if it that has changed, I can order my mods and fluids from Fastech in China...and there is SFA anyone can do about it....this is new but it is also about to become the norm.

No surprise that politicians are way behind the curve........just don't give them the idea that they have any real significance as regards things like this, they don't.

accaguest

dePeatrick wrote: »

Best ignore them and carry on.......the world is changing and one small part if it that has changed, I can order my mods and fluids from Fastech in China...and there is SFA anyone can do about it....this is new but it is also about to become the norm.

No surprise that politicians are way behind the curve........just don't give them the idea that they have any real significance as regards things like this, they don't.

I'm not sure I agree with this personally Patrick. I haven't read enough but intuitively it seems wrong to me.

The internet was constantly touted as this great liberator that was going to break down walls and could never be contained etc but I'm cynical about that myself. From the failure of the long tail to materialise to the data mining that seems to be where all the big money is heading I'm not sure there's that much maneuverability and freedom. Also customs bodies, import taxes, shipping rules are all outside the consumer's control and can quickly limit your choices.

Politicians have no traditional real power anymore alright. That's gone, corporatism and interntionalism have taken significant policy changes out of their hands. But on small issues like the above, that's where pols really go to work. It's all they can control and they'll work hard to whip up a frenzy to make it seem like they're accomplishing big things. While you may be able to get around this, you might have to break a law to do so. Were you buying your smokes on the black market? You could have, indeed you could argue that the fundamentals of EU participation should have entitled you to be allowed to purchase cigarettes from Spain etc. But did you? I didn't.

And also the elephant in the room is the long-term consequences of buying cheap goods from China. We're going to pay for this eventually, history tells us this. The idea that I can buy 50 pre-made coils for $2 shipped and that that is the true cost just does not hold up imo.

Finglas Incubus

HSE follow suit, no real surprise:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hse-plans-blanket-ban-on-ecigarettes-30140255.html

The memo said the decision may be reviewed at a later stage if new evidence emerges on the value of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid and their health related impacts

.

The lack of real, quantifiable scientific research is making it difficult for bodies to split vaping out from smoking insofar as the health impact is concerned. I look forward to the day when this void is filled.

tommy2bad

Finglas Incubus wrote: »

HSE follow suit, no real surprise:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hse-plans-blanket-ban-on-ecigarettes-30140255.html

.

The lack of real, quantifiable scientific research is making it difficult for bodies to split vaping out from smoking insofar as the health impact is concerned. I look forward to the day when this void is filled.

Their is no lack of real scientific research, this is about denormalisation of smoking. They want anything that looks like smoking to be included because it encourages smoking behaviour.
What the bit you quoted means is once their produced by Glatsophizerjohnson we will allow them. And they will be produced by some or other pharma co because theirs a market and the antis need a product they can point at and say "why don't you use a proven and safe product like....." The trouble is it wont be an ecig as it will not produce visible vapor and it will be in a blue plastic thing or looks like a tampon.

rubadub

Sam Quentin wrote: »

I'd say one dance floor full off fog/smoke would kill all on the dance floor, the way CIE is talking!! Bloody ridiculous at this stage....

What did CIE state to make you say that?

tommy2bad wrote: »

this is about denormalisation of smoking. They want anything that looks like smoking to be included because it encourages smoking behaviour

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

The subject of injecting in public divides opinion - usually from people without diabetes. Although seeing someone inject in public is rare, a large number of us do inject in public.

The key is in making sure we are discreet and ensuring that we minimise any risk of danger to ourselves or others.

Whilst we are talking about insulin, the same general rules can apply to other injectable medications such as incretin mimetics (including Byetta and Victoza).

Is injecting in public a problem for others?

People on the Diabetes Forum generally state that injecting in a public place is usually not a problem and that only occasionally will it prompt a reaction in others.

It’s worth being aware that some people around you may have a phobia of needles so it’s best to be as discreet as you can, especially around people you don’t know well.

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.

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.