***ALERT!! BAN eCigs IN May**Time to SPEAK UP Vapers

Redzer4

HEY ALL,
You probably have heard by now the government are planning to ban ecigs everywhere cigarettes are currently banned.
Who is COMING with us to march on the DAIL? Speak your mind! Highlight the benefits! KEEP OUR RIGHTS, HAVE A VOICE.
Let s get together VAPERS!

Engine No.9

I actually don't have am issue with this. Non smokers and non vapers are entitled to not have to put up with our clouds. And some of them do stink in fairness. If I now have to go outside for a vape, so what. I do so on my own anyway, for the most part. Unless I'm in a vape friendly premises. Most pubs around me are vape friendly.

dePeatrick

I'm not surprised either, have long ago given up on forward intelligent thinking coming from an Irish government combined with the love of bringing in Bans.....

Let's not forget that there are for the first time figures emerging that show a parallel between the reduction in smoking and the increase in vaping, this will increase exponentially every year and the government will lose taxes.

Engine No.9

It's somewhat of a catch 22 argument though. Reilly insists Ireland is gonna be smoke free by 2025. What's gonna replace that lost tax??? Tax on e-cigarettes, plain and simple. They're never gonna be illegalised as they'll be the gateway to new tax revenue that's been lost by the migration towards them. It's just going to get ALOT more expensive to vape in the future if you want to support irish industry at the same time.

dePeatrick

pajopearl wrote: »

It's somewhat of a catch 22 argument though. Reilly insists Ireland is gonna be smoke free by 2025. What's gonna replace that lost tax??? Tax on e-cigarettes, plain and simple. They're never gonna be illegalised as they'll be the gateway to new tax revenue that's been lost by the migration towards them. It's just going to get ALOT more expensive to vape in the future if you want to support irish industry at the same time.

Aw now....Where do you think Reilly will be in 2025, they can't keep promises they made before being elected let alone any they make now, it is merely a sound byte to distract from the real problems he is facing.

I agree about the tax but am more concerned that the Pharma companies will somehow have a grab for it. The Internet is changing how we shop and the future of Irish vendors is in B&M Stores. People will always like to buy from a real person and ask for advice and there is nothing like looking at a device before buying and is worth paying a reasonable amount more for this.

Online buying will continue from abroad for small quantities though and this will account for approx half of all sales IMO. Crunch the figures and you see that government will lose taxes because of Internet buying, expect the next assault on that!

Engine No.9

Absolutely, and I don't think it's too far of a stretch to think that in some effort to enforce the ban on Internet sales the government will take some company like Fasttech to court to ensure that they don't export here in the future.

No matter. The UKs stance on it is a little different. While alot more stringent, the press release their MHRA states that while ecigs will be regulated as medicines from 2016 on, they will be available as over the counter items.

I don't see the new FDA regs being particularly troublesome either. Some are speculating that it'll stifle innovation etc.... Mods will NEVER gall under the ecig umbrella in the future as there is easily scope to fit a 510 threaded torch head on them and ship them with "Not intended for use with electronic cigarette" labels.

The scare mongering over the last few days, while initially may have had cause for concern, has been nothing but laughable.

accaguest

pajopearl wrote: »

I actually don't have am issue with this. Non smokers and non vapers are entitled to not have to put up with our clouds. And some of them do stink in fairness. If I now have to go outside for a vape, so what. I do so on my own anyway, for the most part. Unless I'm in a vape friendly premises. Most pubs around me are vape friendly.

Yeah, I don't mind either for the most part it's just that they're not like cigarettes for me in that I need to be at it for a while to get the effect. I much prefer to be tipping away at it than putting aside 5 minutes to go at it full welly. Just have to adapt I suppose.

They should just allow them in pubs though. It's a fcking pub for god's sake, one of the last legal highs allowed, it's not a restaurant. If you're big enough to go in to imbibe some alcohol you're big enough to deal with vaping/a vaping section. Honestly, fast food/sugar/alcohol are surely bigger concerns, a little fairness would be nice.

I hate living in this part of the world. We're on our arse :mad:

visual

We are plagued with election campaign in full swing. Time to let your thoughts be known

Engine No.9

visual wrote: »

We are plagued with election campaign in full swing. Time to let your thoughts be known

EFVI.eu people. Sign it. And threaten to withhold votes from your MEP unless they support it also.

tommy2bad

pajopearl wrote: »

I actually don't have am issue with this. Non smokers and non vapers are entitled to not have to put up with our clouds. And some of them do stink in fairness. If I now have to go outside for a vape, so what. I do so on my own anyway, for the most part. Unless I'm in a vape friendly premises. Most pubs around me are vape friendly.

First of all the government have given no indication that they intend including vaping in the smoking ban. Though this is the desired outcome of the WHO and as signatories of the FTC we will be bound to implement it once the WHO add this to the FTC.

We do need to let our opinions be heard now, once included in smoking bans their will be no more vape friendly pubs, as their is 0 evidence of any harm to others from vapor, their is no justification for a ban, if some places want to ban them, that's their business, they can ban white socks or bow ties if they want.
pajopearl may think it's ok for the government to pass legislation based on nothing more than other peoples prejudices, he seems OK with taxes too, good for him. I am not, the end result of moves like this is to discourage smokers from switching from smoking.
If we are serious about reducing the harm from tobacco smoking then alternatives must be encouraged and promoted. A simple campaign to remove rather than foster fear of vapor would go a long way towards increasing switching.
I doubt we can make any difference as the WHO has set it face against any form of harm reduction but if we just shrug and let it happen, we are just a guilty as the WHO and just as culpable in the deaths of the smokers who are discouraged from switching.

Redzer4

I agree Tommy2bad....isn't it meant to be a democracy....?? I have heard so many stories of people switching to ecigs their blood pressure is way down etc etc...
If it is to be banned wherever smoking is banned.....what does that say about positive mentality. In Germany and Austria one can still smoke in certain areas of a bar, as long as no food is being served. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this.....it's just a more liberal way to live in a society.

As for the tax implications, yes there coming no doubts but I certainly hope that by people voicing up we don't have to go to a pharmacy and get our juice etc from there and have big pharma having yet again it's tallons firmly gripped around our necks.

So what do we do? efvi is great but surely us Irish should be doing our bit on our turf-right?

Figgywurmack Limerick

To be honest if your a vaper and you insist on vaping inside forcing others to inhale your vapour then yout no better than smoker who lights up inside. (regardless of the health effects or the lack thereof). If other people dont want to inhale your vapour because they dont know the effects your have no right to make them. Just my humble opinion

tommy2bad

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

To be honest if your a vaper and you insist on vaping inside forcing others to inhale your vapour then yout no better than smoker who lights up inside. (regardless of the health effects or the lack thereof). If other people dont want to inhale your vapour because they dont know the effects your have no right to make them. Just my humble opinion

Deal with it! Whos forcing anyone to inhale anything? Oh yeah the anti smoking buisy bodies who want to force vapers out into the second hand smoke from some kind of 'my rights trump everyone else' attitude.
All vapers want is that the decision to allow or disallow vaping indoors be left to the people who own the place, not a decision for government or anyone else to make. That way everyone knows where they stand and are happy.
Are you as forceful about perfume 'cos I hate that stuff and farts and BO but hey what can I do no one put the effort into junk science to get it banned for me.
Keep you not so humble opinion!

Engine No.9

tommy2bad wrote: »

Deal with it! Whos forcing anyone to inhale anything? Oh yeah the anti smoking buisy bodies who want to force vapers out into the second hand smoke from some kind of 'my rights trump everyone else' attitude.
All vapers want is that the decision to allow or disallow vaping indoors be left to the people who own the place, not a decision for government or anyone else to make. That way everyone knows where they stand and are happy.
Are you as forceful about perfume 'cos I hate that stuff and farts and BO but hey what can I do no one put the effort into junk science to get it banned for me.
Keep you not so humble opinion!

And therein lies the attitude that's gonna kill it for everyone. I'm eternally grateful that this is a minority.

tommy2bad

pajopearl wrote: »

And therein lies the attitude that's gonna kill it for everyone. I'm eternally grateful that this is a minority.

No, it's the 'vapers are as bad as smokers' attitude that'll kill it for everyone.
First off what the hell is bad about smokers? All of used to be smokers, in a lot of ways we still are. Secondly, the whole we shouldn't make anyone inhale our vapor, who's making anyone do anything? As I said all the making people do is coming from the other side.
It's time we stood up and stopped apologising for what we do. If a premises wants to ban vaping, that's their business, they won't be getting mine. If they want to allow it, that's their business too.
I have never had anyone object or complain about vapor apart from some drunk fool smoking a cigarette. It's not offending anyone who isn't looking to be offended.
LOL if you think the objections are from ordinary joe and janes, this is an orchestrated campaign from the WHO and the pharma driven anti smoking industry. With some chiming in from the ready to be offended and terminally scared.

Figgywurmack Limerick

tommy2bad wrote: »

No, it's the 'vapers are as bad as smokers' attitude that'll kill it for everyone.
First off what the hell is bad about smokers? All of used to be smokers, in a lot of ways we still are. Secondly, the whole we shouldn't make anyone inhale our vapor, who's making anyone do anything? As I said all the making people do is coming from the other side.
It's time we stood up and stopped apologising for what we do. If a premises wants to ban vaping, that's their business, they won't be getting mine. If they want to allow it, that's their business too.
I have never had anyone object or complain about vapor apart from some drunk fool smoking a cigarette. It's not offending anyone who isn't looking to be offended.
LOL if you think the objections are from ordinary joe and janes, this is an orchestrated campaign from the WHO and the pharma driven anti smoking industry. With some chiming in from the ready to be offended and terminally scared.

If you vape in a shop or a bar then yes you are forcing someone else to inhale it or else leave which they shouldnt have to do on account of your actions. Your earlier arguments about BO and perfume are nonsensical. BO and perfume we know havs no bad health effects. The jury is still out on vaping as the long term studies have not been done (doctors actually prescribed cigarettes for decades before they realised they were harmful).

The people who will kill vaping are people like you who blow vapour in peoples face just to make a statement that your a vaper. also its kinda stupid agressively arguing that theres no ill health effects, when nobody can even know that because the long term studies arent there. Look its pretty obvious that theres no telling you but you are the epitome of hated vapers and you do a great deal of harm to our cause with your blind, agressive arguing of facts that dont exist and conspiracy theories.

grindle

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

Your earlier arguments about BO and perfume are nonsensical. BO and perfume we know havs no bad health effects.

Strong smells can trigger asthma attacks. Asthma can trigger a fairly immediate death.

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

The jury is still out on vaping as the long term studies have not been done (doctors actually prescribed cigarettes for decades before they realised they were harmful).

Long-term data is needed, yep, yep...but the bracketed is one of the most bizarre recurring statements I see aaaaaaallthefuuuuuuckinnnnngtiiiime with regard to vaping.
You're a chemist who believes chemical analysis hasn't advanced in 50 years?
It's strange, almost like making a parallel between drinking tap water with a bit of fluoride in it and drinking swamp water out of ignorance.
We know much more now than we knew then. Don't we?
The jury on vaping isn't out relative to cigarettes, and comments like that are the kind of manipulative yeah-but-maybe-what-ifs that we've heard the FDA/WHO yammering on with. Nonsensically.
Prove the harm, don't just suppose or wish it into existence.

Figgywurmack Limerick

Chemical analysis has advanced but chemical analysis is NOT the study of how chemicals react in the body. Biochemistry is basically still in its infancy nobody is even fully sure how paracetamol works!

You know nothing about chemistry or biochemistry your just spouting conspiracy theories, and insane analogies. The one main point i had that theres no long term studies u just brushed it off because u had nothing to say.

Its not about harm its about people having the right to not have to inhale your vapour.
Look your on a vaping forum arguing the case for vapers and yet everyone here is still agaisnt your attitude, It takes a special person to pull that one off. your fighting for vaping but actually hurting it.

grindle

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

You know nothing about chemistry or biochemistry your just spouting conspiracy theories, and insane analogies. The one main point i had that theres no long term studies u just brushed it off because u had nothing to say.

Insane analogy? It's the truth. You're the one with the red herring:

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

(doctors actually prescribed cigarettes for decades before they realised they were harmful).

Why try to infer or equivalate?
Not sure what conspiracy theory you think I spouted, your imagination seems to be running away.
...and...

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

Its not about harm its about people having the right to not have to inhale your vapour.
Look your on a vaping forum arguing the case for vapers and yet everyone here is still agaisnt your attitude, It takes a special person to pull that one off. your fighting for vaping but actually hurting it.

...against my attitude? I think people should get to go to places that suit their needs or wants, needs or wants chosen by the business' proprietor within the sometimes unfortunate bounds of legality.
Implementing a sweeping ban with no concrete negative evidence is blissfully retarded and should be what's railed against. That's a fairly simple example of logic, reasoning objectively.
If a business says "Yay" and there's no reason not to allow it, allow it.
If they say "Nay" allow that too. Both sides win (except the whingers on both sides who want their extreme pandered to).

Shinobollo

Reckon it's time to ban kettles so. I'm sick and tired of going into other peoples homes and being forced to inhale their vapour just because they think it'd be nice to boil some water for a cuppa.
That's why it's beer, wine and spirits only in ours (none of that namby pamby fizzy pop either).

Had to have the taps disconnected so that the kids wouldn't be tempted to brew up for their mates.
They just wouldn't listen when I told them that they could only boil water in the back garden - and then only when they were certain that all doors and windows were closed and sealed tight and the neighbours dog was indoors.

Just as well with the water charges coming in though. Imagine all that money going up in vapour - oops Freudian slip there - meant Smoke of course.

Figgywurmack Limerick

grindle wrote: »

Insane analogy? It's the truth. You're the one with the red herring:

Why try to infer or equivalate?
Not sure what conspiracy theory you think I spouted, your imagination seems to be running away.
...and...

...against my attitude? I think people should get to go to places that suit their needs or wants, needs or wants chosen by the business' proprietor within the sometimes unfortunate bounds of legality.
Implementing a sweeping ban with no concrete negative evidence is blissfully retarded and should be what's railed against. That's a fairly simple example of logic, reasoning objectively.
If a business says "Yay" and there's no reason not to allow it, allow it.
If they say "Nay" allow that too. Both sides win (except the whingers on both sides who want their extreme pandered to).

My apologies i mixed you up with tommy2bad the original guy i was messaging with. didnt realise you just jumped in

tommy2bad

Figgywurmack Limerick wrote: »

Chemical analysis has advanced but chemical analysis is NOT the study of how chemicals react in the body. Biochemistry is basically still in its infancy nobody is even fully sure how paracetamol works!

You know nothing about chemistry or biochemistry your just spouting conspiracy theories, and insane analogies. The one main point i had that theres no long term studies u just brushed it off because u had nothing to say.

Its not about harm its about people having the right to not have to inhale your vapour.
Look your on a vaping forum arguing the case for vapers and yet everyone here is still agaisnt your attitude, It takes a special person to pull that one off. your fighting for vaping but actually hurting it.

Ah well seeing as it me your railing against!
Chemical analysis is exactly how we predict how chemicals will work in the body. What your thinking of is epidemiology, the study of things as used by people. OK theirs no epidemiological studies of vapor yet, a small few and those are promising but I'll admit no long term results. So? What do we do, I would suggest holding off on bans untill we have some evidence of harm. You seem to favour banning stuff until evidence of a negative, no harm.
Conspiracy theories ? What the hell are you talking about? I never mentioned the illuminati once! What I did point out was that the impetus for bans and restrictions was being driven by the WHO's framework for tobacco control, which it is go read it for yourself, specifically the current proposals.
Ahem what right to not inhale my vapor? I know of no such right because none exists. No more than a right to not inhale glade air freshener or Chanel No 5. It's about courtesy not rights. You choose to express that courtesy by removing yourself, I choose to express it by asking the simple question " anyone mind?" before vaping.
Again if your bothered to answer, how an I ruining it for everyone? I'm not the one seeking bans, I'v never had anyone object or outside of a Joe Duffy show express anything other than puzzlement at the prospect of banning vaping. How is this my fault?
What are you afraid will happen if I vape publicly that wont happen anyway?

Figgywurmack Limerick

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ah well seeing as it me your railing against!
Chemical analysis is exactly how we predict how chemicals will work in the body. What your thinking of is epidemiology, the study of things as used by people. OK theirs no epidemiological studies of vapor yet, a small few and those are promising but I'll admit no long term results. So? What do we do, I would suggest holding off on bans untill we have some evidence of harm. You seem to favour banning stuff until evidence of a negative, no harm.
Conspiracy theories ? What the hell are you talking about? I never mentioned the illuminati once! What I did point out was that the impetus for bans and restrictions was being driven by the WHO's framework for tobacco control, which it is go read it for yourself, specifically the current proposals.
Ahem what right to not inhale my vapor? I know of no such right because none exists. No more than a right to not inhale glade air freshener or Chanel No 5. It's about courtesy not rights. You choose to express that courtesy by removing yourself, I choose to express it by asking the simple question " anyone mind?" before vaping.
Again if your bothered to answer, how an I ruining it for everyone? I'm not the one seeking bans, I'v never had anyone object or outside of a Joe Duffy show express anything other than puzzlement at the prospect of banning vaping. How is this my fault?
What are you afraid will happen if I vape publicly that wont happen anyway?

Whoah im not rallying against anyone lets be clear here this is not an argument just a topical discussion. Look its just 2 opinions im not in favour of banning at all but i wouldnt mind if they banned smoking them inside in return for not regulating and taxing like cigarettes. While people are scared of them they are open to attack by media and in turn politicians and could be registered as medical devices or some other ridiculous thing.

I prefer to vape away quietly and not give them a reason to do anything. I understand wanting to stand up for vaping and i do too. If/when the time comes ill be rallying behind our rights with you.

But until then i just want things to stay the way they are if they banned them indoors and forgot about them that would be fantastic in my opinion instead of them doing something insane like a blanket ban.

Just for the record I AM a chemical analyst and it is not the study of chemicals in the body it is about identification and quantification using analytical techniques and procedures.

Definition: Analytical chemistry is the study of the separation, identification, and quantification of the chemical components of natural and artificial materials.

Again all in good spirits not attacking anyone