Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Irish Rail bans e-cigarettes

1356789

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 Fratton Fred


    BizzyC wrote: »
    Who carried out the study?
    Where was it published?
    Do the results have the backing of the medical community?

    Have you not heard of google?

    There are hundreds of reports from hundreds of institutes. I can point you in the direction of some, but you need to make up your own mind.

    It is clearly not as bad as passive smoking, but it still exists. Put it in to context though, you are probably putting your lungs at as much risk from walking along a car congested urban street as you are sitting in a room with someone vaping.

    I personally wouldn't vape in a train though, because I use a device that produces large amounts of strong smelling vapour.


  • Registered Users Posts: 673 pundy


    anyway, they'll probably be banned, then outlawed and it's all because the big pharma want us to get cancer, so they can bleed us dry of our money.
    same goes for the government - they want our tax money for cigs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭ SpaceTime


    P_1 wrote: »
    Does nicotine cause the illnesses that are known risks for smokers? Nope, that would be the tar, carbon monoxide and countless other chemicals that are burned in an attempt to extract nicotine from tobacco leaves.

    At the risk of repeating myself, nicotine is a mild stimulant , quite similar to caffeine in its effect on the body.

    I agree that they're probably A LOT safer than inhaling smoke and certainly a lot less noxious to bystanders.

    However, I think with any thing that's going to be delivered into your lungs as a drug basically you need to have proper testing and approval and consumer protection.

    I also don't like how this is being marketed either. While they are targeting smokers, they could equally be targeting people who've never smoked before. At the end of the day, it's an addictive substance and we regulate everything else in that area i.e. the alcoholic beverages industry and cigarettes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 673 pundy


    BizzyC wrote: »
    Ok let me rephrase that, show me a food that puts a stimulant drug into the air and I'll back it's banning.

    Or, show me an e-cigarette that actually releases nothing but a smell and I'll support it's use.


    yes there is nicotine in the vapour. is the nicotine dangerous or harmful? NO!!!

    so your argument doesnt mean anything, as you are stating that you dont want anything harmful in the vapour - THERE ISNT.

    nicotine vapour is not dangerous!

    nicotine patches are more dangerous - as you can POSSIBLY overdose if you apply hundreds of them all at the same time.

    STOP BEING SO IRISH


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭ P_1


    pundy wrote: »
    anyway, they'll probably be banned, then outlawed and it's all because the big pharma want us to get cancer, so they can bleed us dry of our money.
    same goes for the government - they want our tax money for cigs.

    this country is such a joke.

    I wouldn't go that far but the fact remains that 3 fairly powerful lobbies stand to lose out on a lot of money as vaping becomes more popular.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,260 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Dravokivich


    P_1 wrote: »
    I wouldn't go that far but the fact remains that 3 fairly powerful lobbies stand to lose out on a lot of money as vaping becomes more popular.

    TBH, I don't get why they don't look to expand into vaping. They need to compete, not concede.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,995 ✭✭✭ BizzyC


    P_1 wrote: »
    Does nicotine cause the illnesses that are known risks for smokers? Nope, that would be the tar, carbon monoxide and countless other chemicals that are burned in an attempt to extract nicotine from tobacco leaves.

    At the risk of repeating myself, nicotine is a mild stimulant , quite similar to caffeine in its effect on the body.

    People should have input into what stimulants are introduced to their systems no?
    If I'm drinking coffee is it ok for me to force everyone around me to have a mouthfull too?

    If you decide to introduce the stimulant to your system, that's fine with me, but don't do it in a way that forces others to partake.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 Tiddlypeeps


    BizzyC wrote: »
    That is a fantastic point.
    I don't think I've ever come across such a well put and intelligent argument towards banning of food.
    It's quite possible that people actually get fat by inhaling the air surrounding their meals as opposed to eating the meal itself....

    Tests have shown that the vapour from ecigs does contain nicotine.
    Just because it's better than 2nd hand tobacco smoke doesn't mean it should get a green light.

    Show me a food that puts a chemical in the air supply and I will gladly stand by a ban on eating it in public too.

    You are making the proposal that something should be banned, the onus is on you to provide evidence that it is harmful not the other way around.

    Perfume is a chemical. We have all stood next to someone on public transport that seems to have thought it was a good idea to wear half a bottle. This is not banned. You ever get the smell of coffee on a train when sitting next to someone drinking it? That's a chemical too. As is the smell from the previously mentioned curry chips. The word chemical used here is meaningless, everything is a chemical.

    Assuming that e-cig vapour is harmful because cigarette smoke is harmful is as bad as assuming drinking water must be harmful because drinking metholated spirits is harmful. They both look the same in a glass so it stands to reason right?!.... No it doesn't and it's exactly whats wrong with the government today. Knee jerk reactions to people complaining about things they have no idea about and no interest in learning more about.

    I'm all for more studies, and if one puts a good argument forward that suggests they are harmful then I'm all for legislation dealing with it. But at the moment there have been studies and the general consensus so far by the medical community is that they are not harmful.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭ P_1


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I agree that they're probably A LOT safer than inhaling smoke and certainly a lot less noxious to bystanders.

    However, I think with any thing that's going to be delivered into your lungs as a drug basically you need to have proper testing and approval and consumer protection.

    I also don't like how this is being marketed either. While they are targeting smokers, they could equally be targeting people who've never smoked before. At the end of the day, it's an addictive substance and we regulate everything else in that area i.e. the alcoholic beverages industry and cigarettes.

    Which they already have under food standards.

    I agree that some of the marketing does leave a bit of a bad taste in the mouth mind.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭ P_1


    BizzyC wrote: »
    People should have input into what stimulants are introduced to their systems no?
    If I'm drinking coffee is it ok for me to force everyone around me to have a mouthfull too?

    If you decide to introduce the stimulant to your system, that's fine with me, but don't do it in a way that forces others to partake.

    I'd wager that you would imbibe more nicotine from a forkful of mashed spud than you would from somebody else vaping in your presence though.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭ SpaceTime


    P_1 wrote: »
    Which they already have under food standards.

    I agree that some of the marketing does leave a bit of a bad taste in the mouth mind.

    You don't consume food by inhalation though which is where their approval of a food is completely irrelevant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭ on the river


    there is nothing wrong with these e cigarettes. people should be allowed to smoke them on the train.

    thet are not dangerous and will help to calm people on trains with their agressive nature


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭ P_1


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    You don't consume food by inhalation though which is where their approval of a food is completely irrelevant.

    Tell me, what does one do when they swallow in that case?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 Tiddlypeeps


    BizzyC wrote: »
    People should have input into what stimulants are introduced to their systems no?
    If I'm drinking coffee is it ok for me to force everyone around me to have a mouthfull too?

    If you decide to introduce the stimulant to your system, that's fine with me, but don't do it in a way that forces others to partake.

    Can you categorically prove there is no caffeine in the smell the people around you are getting from your coffee?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭ SpaceTime


    P_1 wrote: »
    Tell me, what does one do when they swallow in that case?

    That's called eating i.e. food goes from your mouth to your digestive system, not your lungs.

    If ever inhale a potato you will find out the difference and I would suggest having a resuscitation team on stand by!

    In terms of regulation, inhaled products would probably fall into the class of a drug delivery system i.e. like inhalers for asthma etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭ EyeSight


    pundy wrote: »
    same goes for those stinking fatso's who open up their crisps or sandwiches in front of people on the train or bus. it's disgusting.

    It is. But by your logic it will only serve to get both banned. No un-ban e-cigs

    Believe me, if i had the power, the rules on public transport would be extremely strict :P


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,995 ✭✭✭ BizzyC


    P_1 wrote: »
    I'd wager that you would imbibe more nicotine from a forkful of mashed spud than you would from somebody else vaping in your presence though.

    If that's is in fact true, then you may have a point.

    I would be under the assumption though that the nicotine used for vaping was much more concentrated then what is naturally present in foods.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭ on the river


    P_1 wrote: »
    Tell me, what does one do when they swallow in that case?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭ Thoie


    Now look what you've done - I bet someone was vaping somewhere in Maynooth.

    http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/25-kids-in-hospital-after-inhaling-chemicals-at-swimming-pool-624807.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭ SpaceTime


    While I don't think it's likely to be outright banned, you can be certain that it will be regulated by the FDA in the US and by the various regulation agencies in the EU.

    It'll probably be classified as a drug/medicine rather than a food.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭ on the river


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    That's called eating i.e. food goes from your mouth to your digestive system, not your lungs.

    If ever inhale a potato you will find out the difference and I would suggest having a resuscitation team on stand by!

    In terms of regulation, inhaled products would probably fall into the class of a drug delivery system i.e. like inhalers for asthma etc.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,873 ✭✭✭ strobe


    BizzyC wrote: »
    Ok let me rephrase that, show me a food that puts a stimulant drug into the air and I'll back it's banning.

    http://chesterfoodanddrink.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Crazy-Cow-Coffee.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭ SpaceTime


    strobe wrote: »

    Until you start misting concentrated espressos and snorting them up your nose, it's still not quite the same thing.

    Although... I can see it taking off!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,995 ✭✭✭ BizzyC


    Can you categorically prove there is no caffeine in the smell the people around you are getting from your coffee?

    Coffee, no caffeine is airborne.
    Interestingly, studies have shown that to coffee drinkers the smell alone can trigger a stimulant effect in the brain, without the presence of the stimulant.

    Caffeine vapour, yes it is.
    If I was sitting next to you using a caffeine inhaler, then you could make the exact same argument.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,185 ✭✭✭✭ rubadub


    Why ban these but allow fast food?
    If enough complain it would probably would be banned, if its not banned already.

    Eating & drinking is banned on the luas, I can't find irish rail info.

    http://news.ie.msn.com/ireland/e-cigarettes-banned-from-dart-and-train-services
    Jane Cregan from Irish Rail said the decision to ban the e-cigarettes was made because,

    Passengers were not comfortable about being in an enclosed space with people smoking and they didn’t want to inhale other people’s vapour.

    Cregan said “We’ve worked hard to eradicate smoking on our services and we didn’t want a situation where there was confusion about what cigarettes could and couldn’t be smoked.

    “It’s hard for staff to police, we didn’t want any ambiguity in relation to smoking. We will now have clarity from that point of view. All cigarettes are now banned.

    Reaction

    Cregan said the reaction so far has been mostly positive.

    The majority of people are in favour of the outright ban and think it’s a good idea.

    “They don’t want to inhale vapour and as it stands it’s certainly unclear what comes out of these devices but we’re not involved in health promotion, that’s not why we banned them.

    We made the decision to ban e-cigarettes because passengers didn’t want them being smoked beside them and it was also very difficult to police.

    “Our counterparts in the UK and Europe have also banned electronic cigarettes”.

    There are several other nicotine delivery devices if people are really stuck. They should count themselves very lucky that they can even get to use their recreational drug of choice in their own home, many can't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 Tiddlypeeps


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Until you start misting concentrated espressos and snorting them up your nose, it's still not quite the same thing.

    Although... I can see it taking off!

    Can you show me something that states how much caffein ends up in the air from a cup of coffee vs how much nicotine ends up in the air from an e-cig?

    Stating they are not the same thing is meaningless, show some actual numbers if you want to be taken seriously (I'd be genuinely curious to see this). Otherwise it just boils down to you saying it's bad because I say it's bad.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,770 ✭✭✭ KungPao


    These bans are ridiculous. They smell of nothing and are most likely no more toxic (first and second hand) than a whiff of car fumes on the street.

    I bought an e-cig and had a couple of long-haul flights in December, and was disappointed to hear the announcement that E-cigs aren't allowed on Air France flights, so just had a few pulls in the jacks (ooh err) , and under my blanket during the night - noone was the wiser and it didn't affect anybody.

    A good lung full of a passengers ass gas is probably worse for you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 Tiddlypeeps


    BizzyC wrote: »
    Coffee, no caffeine is airborne.
    Interestingly, studies have shown that to coffee drinkers the smell alone can trigger a stimulant effect in the brain, without the presence of the stimulant.

    Caffeine vapour, yes it is.
    If I was sitting next to you using a caffeine inhaler, then you could make the exact same argument.

    No offence but I can just as easily claim lots of caffeine is airborne. It's meaningless without something to back it up. Doesn't need to be a full on study, anything at all would be better than nothing.

    Since you say the smell of coffee is itself a stimulant, even assuming no caffeine, then this still ticks your box of "banning all airborne chemicals that are stimulants".


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,330 readytosnap


    Considering the price they charge for a ticket I'd expect to be able to snort coke off a hookers ass while listening to death metal, and get away with it.

    whilst sitting on the floor as there are no seats


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭ P_1


    Jane Cregan from Irish Rail said the decision to ban the e-cigarettes was made because,

    Passengers were not comfortable about being in an enclosed space with people smoking and they didn’t want to inhale other people’s vapour.

    Cregan said “We’ve worked hard to eradicate smoking on our services and we didn’t want a situation where there was confusion about what cigarettes could and couldn’t be smoked.

    “It’s hard for staff to police, we didn’t want any ambiguity in relation to smoking. We will now have clarity from that point of view. All cigarettes are now banned.

    Reaction

    Cregan said the reaction so far has been mostly positive.

    The majority of people are in favour of the outright ban and think it’s a good idea.

    “They don’t want to inhale vapour and as it stands it’s certainly unclear what comes out of these devices but we’re not involved in health promotion, that’s not why we banned them.

    We made the decision to ban e-cigarettes because passengers didn’t want them being smoked beside them and it was also very difficult to police.

    “Our counterparts in the UK and Europe have also banned electronic cigarettes”.

    Good grief, you don't smoke, you vape. The clue's in the name.

    This is what a cigarette looks like:
    http://www.educateforlife.org/cigarette.jpeg
    You smoke with it.

    This is what a battery and a clearo look like:
    http://www.thaievape.com/attachments/f48/586d1363858001-review-evic-thai-e-vape-blackevic2.jpg
    You vape with it.


Advertisement