Well done Kirsty Williams.

jousting with chairs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/wales-27381047

StaticNoise

Fingers crossed we see a progressive party here for the next general election, but I wouldn't hold my breath, to be honest.

On a side note, I don't particularly have a problem with the concept of vaping in public spaces. I, by choice, don't like vaping on public transport, and I will step out of most premises to do it. Not only does it show a level of respect to those who are not as educated around you, and to the premises themselves, but it's a good way to get a conversation flowing about vaping and suggest it as an alternative to real smokers.

If a business were vaping friendly, that's fantastic, but I wouldn't be banging my chest if they weren't. Fair play to the Lib Dems for being different to the others.

jousting with chairs

I'm the same.

I just don't like the way they are going about trying to get people to view them tobacco products so they can hit them with the same tax and protect the tobacco and pharma companies.

It's certainly not our health they are worried about when applying all these restrictions.

P_1

StaticNoise wrote: »

Fingers crossed we see a progressive party here for the next general election, but I wouldn't hold my breath, to be honest.

On a side note, I don't particularly have a problem with the concept of vaping in public spaces. I, by choice, don't like vaping on public transport, and I will step out of most premises to do it. Not only does it show a level of respect to those who are not as educated around you, and to the premises themselves, but it's a good way to get a conversation flowing about vaping and suggest it as an alternative to real smokers.

If a business were vaping friendly, that's fantastic, but I wouldn't be banging my chest if they weren't. Fair play to the Lib Dems for being different to the others.

Exactly, if a company want's to ban it on their premises then I'm fine with it (so long as they don't use the 'it makes enforcing the smoking ban tougher' cop out excuse) but the state has no right in forcing the decision on them.

StaticNoise

Boom. This is exactly it.

That said, I can (realistically) see the Government launching onto the inclusion of vaping and other "nicotine-passed vapour emitting devices or substances" being targeted onto the Smoking Ban. It will cause a major shǐtstorm for the events industry (and their love for smoke machines) but it’s the only way that it can be dealt with.

Samba

What a refreshing change to see some reasoned debate on the issue. +1 on everything StaticNoise said.

tommy2bad

I said 2 years ago vaping would be included in smoking bans, I don't like it but the tobacco control lobby is so strong now it get what it wants. Piff to the idea of showing respect for ignoramuses, they don't like it they can go google it. I don't buy the whole offended, scaring the women and horses argument. If a place want to ban it they can if they allow it that up to them. I seriously object to health departments or governments telling people what they can or cant do.
And by the same token if people want to vape outside with the smokers they are totally free to do so, second hand smoke is bull anyway. However for public health Nazi to insist that non smokers place themselves in a second-hand smoke environment after telling us how dangerous it was, smacks of bullying. It makes it plain that what they wanted was to live in a world designed to suit their desires.

accaguest

tommy2bad wrote: »

...second hand smoke is bull anyway...

I'd lean towards this as well tbh. Maybe not bull, but overstated. I remember Roy Castle's death and how everybody just accepted it was definitely second hand smoke that did it and it seemed odd even then. I don't know, I'm sure there's a lot of research out there, and I'm sure it is harmful, but the dangers of tobacco may have been over emphasised a bit in recent times, a perfectly natural reaction to letting them get away with so much for so long.

I don't want to stick up for cigarettes but for example on a vaping discussion on Primetime a while back some doctor, head of something or other, said "...it doesn't matter if you smoke one cigarette a day, or 70." Surely that can't be right? I know your body can be misleading, and things can be counter intuitive, but that just seems like overblown ignorance. I've smoked 70 in a day and had one on others and it's definitely different. Would he say the same about any other drug/health impactor in the world. Quantity doesn't matter? Piff indeed.

grindle

accaguest wrote: »

I'd lean towards this as well tbh. Maybe not bull, but overstated. I remember Roy Castle's death and how everybody just accepted it was definitely second hand smoke that did it and it seemed odd even then. I don't know, I'm sure there's a lot of research out there, and I'm sure it is harmful, but the dangers of tobacco may have been over emphasised a bit in recent times, a perfectly natural reaction to letting them get away with so much for so long.

The way it's been presented is pretty much bull, but it's still unpleasant either way.
As much as I love Dr. Siegel's constant blogging on behalf of ecigs, it was through studies by himself and his cohorts back in the day that decided SHS was an immense danger to the public - the baseline figure that these studies had in common was that the likelihood of dying from SHS was an extra 3 per 100,000 people. I know any extra person dying is terrible, but 3 per 100,000 is the definition of a statistical anomaly that could've had many other factors affecting those individual people's lives. SHS was the label they had in common that was being searched for.
But still, SHS is gross and I can do without it.

accaguest wrote: »

I don't want to stick up for cigarettes but for example on a vaping discussion on Primetime a while back some doctor, head of something or other, said "...it doesn't matter if you smoke one cigarette a day, or 70." Surely that can't be right? I know your body can be misleading, and things can be counter intuitive, but that just seems like overblown ignorance. I've smoked 70 in a day and had one on others and it's definitely different. Would he say the same about any other drug/health impactor in the world. Quantity doesn't matter? Piff indeed.

Dr. Siegel's blog is torture to search through but he made the same point as yourself on a couple of occasions - reducing the amount of cigarettes smoked reduces the risks hugely, to the point where he argues that governments have it all wrong re: nic levels - if they want less cigarettes smoked they should be increasing cigarette nicotine levels, not reducing it. If people can't keep their "high" where they want it they'll smoke more to get there.
Precisely like my vape-habit: high nic + high power = less juice vaped.

accaguest

^^Thanks, I'll look up Doc Siegel, never heard of him.

But when I'm sober as I keep reading his name as Dr. Sigelei.

grindle

accaguest wrote: »

^^Thanks, I'll look up Doc Siegel, never heard of him.

But when I'm sober as I keep reading his name as Dr. Sigelei.

Best blog (for us) on the internet.

He's a natural contrarian. He helped the battle against tobacco in a huge way but went too far with minimal data in the 90s - I'm glad he did because denormalising actual smoking is a good thing, but still, with hindsight being what it is he was dancing too close to where Stan Glantz is now (he name-checks him a lot because he was Stan Glantz's protege despite being vastly more qualified than Glantz - regularly cuts Glantz down to size nowadays) and they couldn't have seen what was about to take over for the better.
He's kind of making amends nowadays, if not admitting that his past figures and their consequences are a little over-hyped.
Himself and Farsalinos should be all over each other, I hope they speak or have spoken with eachother, be sad if they didn't.
A panel of FDA/CDC/THR "advocates" vs those two on a panel would be the ecig equivalent of watching Christopher Hitchens annihilate a Scientologist or a Mormon. Pathetically simple.

tommy2bad

Indeed Grindle, but this is never going to be about science or facts. It's about social pressure. Tobacco control see social pressure as their last tool in the box having imposed bans and taxes.
We might think if we produce the evidence that vaping cures cancer they would say ok but the fact is at this stage it's not relevant. The argument is about renormalization and their right, vaping renormalizes smoking behavour. It's the behavour they object to, not the health consequences. Somehow public health which has done a good job on education and vaccination and sanitation now thinks it has a remit to try to prevent non communicable diseases. They have inserted themselves into the space vacated by religion, telling us how to live a good life. We vapers are heretics to them, not quite sinners as we don't smoke but in error about what doctrine should be.

DubTony

tommy2bad wrote: »

They have inserted themselves into the space vacated by religion, telling us how to live a good life. We vapers are heretics to them, not quite sinners as we don't smoke but in error about what doctrine should be.

And therein lies the biggest problem for us (not just vapers, but everyone). Public health officials have the effective backing of governments in a way the church hasn't had for about 4 decades.

Governments didn't force us to go to mass, but they can use the threat of fines or prison to try to force us to do anything they say ... dont drive without a seat belt; don't ride a motorbike without a helmet; don't use hallucinogenic drugs; don't buy/sell alcohol before 10:30 etc.

These are control measures to "protect" us from ourselves. They have effectively become a part of who we are and each "protection" comes with an eventual dogma attached.

So, coming soon from a politician near you. Don't smoke in your car. Don't eat foods that make you fat. Buy health insurance whether you want to or not. Don't smoke in your own home. You must wear a helmet while cycling etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. It'll only take a couple of years for the finger pointing to become normal.

[/rant]

accaguest

grindle wrote: »

Precisely like my vape-habit: high nic + high power = less juice vaped.

I think I'm coming around to this as well. I dropped my nic level and consumption went way up to a silly level. Bought some premade juice at twice the nic level and the amount halved. Going to bite the bullet and move back up.

DubTony wrote: »

These are control measures to "protect" us from ourselves. They have effectively become a part of who we are and each "protection" comes with an eventual dogma attached.

In fairness though, it's a balance and a bit of a mess all round. There's a fairly prevalent blame culture and sense of entitlement among citizens now that wasn't there in previous times. If this protection isn't there, there ends up being an army of 'victims' in tow with the legal profession looking for 'justice', usually in the form of cash money.

Samba

tommy2bad wrote: »

Piff to the idea of showing respect for ignoramuses, they don't like it they can go google it. I don't buy the whole offended, scaring the women and horses argument.

I've read all your posts on the thread and by and large I agree with you. But it's a fallacy to expect the general public to be well clued in with the real facts about vaping. You're setting the bar a little too high there.

I generally don't vape indoors (unless I know the bar owner is pro vaping) because I just don't want to have to put up with all the ignoramuses and their dumbass assertions and questions, I'm sick and tired of trying to educate people who just don't want to believe the real facts. Rather they prefer to parrot and argue their position based on what they read in the Daily Mail or what Dr. James Reilly had to say about e-cigs and sure if they say it, it has to be true... e-cigs are bad, mmkay.

I just want to vape in peace and quiet and I get this by vaping inconspicuously. Personally speaking it's not about respect. However, in small confined spaces like on the Luas it does become more about respect. But only in the same sense that I wouldn't eat a packet of cheese and onion crips. I've got some pungent juices in my supplies.

tommy2bad

Samba wrote: »

I've read all your posts on the thread and by and large I agree with you. But it's a fallacy to expect the general public to be well clued in with the real facts about vaping. You're setting the bar a little too high there.

I generally don't vape indoors (unless I know the bar owner is pro vaping) because I just don't want to have to put up with all the ignoramuses and their dumbass assertions and questions, I'm sick and tired of trying to educate people who just don't want to believe the real facts. Rather they prefer to parrot and argue their position based on what they read in the Daily Mail or what Dr. James Reilly had to say about e-cigs and sure if they say it, it has to be true... e-cigs are bad, mmkay.

I just want to vape in peace and quiet and I get this by vaping inconspicuously. Personally speaking it's not about respect. However, in small confined spaces like on the Luas it does become more about respect. But only in the same sense that I wouldn't eat a packet of cheese and onion crips. I've got some pungent juices in my supplies.

I agree with you, I'm just reacting to the notion that appeasement will work. It won't. Nothing we do voluntary will stop the anti vaping people. They have made up their minds and won't stop until vaping and smoking are considered the same thing in law and public perception.

Watching VVTV last night their was a lot of positivity going round, talk of public health coming round to our side and stuff like that. The problem is that this is not being driven by health, it being driven by campaigners who are against smokers, not smoking or smoking related illness, just smokers. We are the problem as far as they are concerned.
This fight is lost, we are not going to win ever. Just enjoy winding the bastards up while we can.

I was reading a blog where the blogger insisted with a good argument that a product that delivers nicotine is a tobacco product no matter where the nicotine is sourced. His thinking was that we use the term tobacco product for nicotine containing products intended as recreational products. It's not tobacco if it intended use is quiting even though the nic in NRT is from tobacco leaves.
Theirs a set of rules for smoking and a set of definitions that assume smoking means inhaling the particulate from burning leaves of tobacco but the fact is for some people on both side of this debate, smoking means inhaling anything containing nicotine for reasons other than quitting inhaling nicotine.
One side wants a separation of actual particulates of smoke from droplets of vaper and the other dose not. Their are even some on the vaping side that don't want a separation in hopes of renormalizing tobacco use. Their thinking being that the idea of no safe level has done so much harm if we can undo that notion we could do some good in reducing the health toll from actual smoking by switching users from smoke to chew, snus, ecigs.
Actually the general public are well clued in apart from the ones looking to be offended. How many people have thought ecigs were a bad thing? Daily Mail readers don't count, there not real people.:P

Samba

tommy2bad wrote: »

Actually the general public are well clued in apart from the ones looking to be offended. How many people have thought ecigs were a bad thing? Daily Mail readers don't count, there not real people.:P

Ha ha, they shouldn't, but unfortunately they do count.

Just open up any thread on AH, or articles on thejournal.ie, broadsheet.ie I'd say the balance is around 50/50 (but slowly shifting in our favour) between sense and ignorance.

I find it's often smokers that come out with the most ridiculous statements. Perhaps they're just trying to justify staying on cigarettes, who knows but yeah there's still an obscene level of ignorance surrounding e-cigs imho. I've given up arguing the case because I can't recall the last time I walked away from such a discussion feeling anything other than frustrated and bemused.