WHO calls for ban on smoking e-cigarettes indoors

robbie02

here we go again..

http://www.thejournal.ie/world-health-organisation-indoor-ban-e-cigarettes-tobacco-1639022-Aug2014/

tommy2bad

Heres the link to the document so you can read it for yourselves, get some 50mg nic to calm the temper.
http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_10-en.pdf

masonchat

And the american heart association have come out and said e-cigs less harmfull than smoking but share WHO concerns about normalising smoking and recommend that e-cigs be taxed enough to dissuade kids but should stay cheaper than cigs,

que e-cigs becoming as dear as fags currently are and the government increasing the tax on fags even further, i fear the days of an affordable vape are numbered

P_1

Well that makes for some frustrating reading. In addition to seeking a ban on indoor use they're also seeking a ban on flavouring

masonchat

I have enough batteries/mods/tanks to last me years id say and 4.5liters of liquid , im down to 3mg nic , think i will make an effort to get to 0 nic and will try to quit altogether , if god himself came down and said vaping is safe the nanny state dummies will still be shouting it normalises smoking .

and you can only stock up for so long its just delaying the enevitable no way im going back on the cigs or paying tax for ecigs they can go to hell

moonboy52

I can live with minors not being allowed to buy e-cigs and even not allowing minors to buy 0mg juice. I have no issue either with banning vaping indoors.
Even a little tax would be fine but obviously would rather pay no tax

But as adults we should be allowed to make our own choices, so i hope reason wins out in the end.

masonchat

Moonboy reason is the very last thing that will win out, i totally agree on the first 3 points , but not on the tax and especially since i dont see it being a LITTLE tax but more in line with current tax on cigs i could be totally wrong of course.

moonboy52

Tax at current tobacco levels would not certainly not be acceptable.

The worldwide tobacco lobby must be throwing money around at present, to get lawmakers to do their bidding.

masonchat

yeah big tobacco and big pharma will be high fiving each other if that happens, im finding it very stressfull , im trying to keep the old man going on them as well and thats a bigger concern than keeping myself going

tommy2bad

It is a step on from when they sought an outright ban, not a big step but at least the WHO is now whare the rest of tobaco control was 18 months ago. I don't count Glantz et al as tobacco control, the're moral crusaders, I'm thinking of ASH and other smoking groups.
What is worrying is this insistence on indoor bans, flavor bans and restrictions on claims of success as quit aids. Yes claims should be supportable but this insistence on clinical tests while real world figures contradict the clinical results is silly.
Bans on indoor use is based on 'levels above background' what ever that is, odd because their is no increase in levels above background that can be measured without a 12 million pound mass spectrometer and then only in specific conditions. It's also bulsh1t because this increase is of no concern to anyone as shown by several tests.
Bans on flavors is also stupid, it serves no purpose at all if ecigs are banned from under 18's then who are they protecting?
I suspect that the WHO enclosed in their echo chamber think the campaign for a tobacco free world is going swimmingly and should reach it's completion in another 50 years, they don't want to have to rejig the Framework again to accommodate this new upstart. After all it took a long hard struggle to get the framework to where it is today (still haven't gotten the US to sign up but the yanks hate to sign anything)
I suspect this is more about keeping their method of tobacco control relevant more than any real evidence of risk from ecigs.

the_syco

tommy2bad wrote: »

I suspect that the WHO enclosed in their echo chamber think the campaign for a tobacco free world is going swimmingly and should reach it's completion in another 50 years, they don't want to have to rejig the Framework again to accommodate this new upstart. After all it took a long hard struggle to get the framework to where it is today (still haven't gotten the US to sign up but the yanks hate to sign anything)
I suspect this is more about keeping their method of tobacco control relevant more than any real evidence of risk from ecigs.

If the ecigs get banned, I'll probably go back onto the smokes

Have they gotten China to sign up? I ask as they produce about 42% of the tobacco leaf.

But it's stupid. Ban the e-cig, not the tobacco. It seems WHO are saying that some companies are using harmful ingredients in their e-cigs, but completely ignore what's in cigarettes.

Off topic question; why do cigarette packets not list all of their ingredients?

Big Nasty

Who?























:pac:

jousting with chairs

Big Nasty wrote: »

Who?























:pac:

World Health Organisation.

Going Forward

Theres just been an interview on Newstalk with a doctor from the WHO.

Its worth listening to. Much of the same old statements and an uniformed deferential journalist with no counter point questions.

If I were still a smoker listening to this, I would be making an uninformed decision to remain a smoker purely based on the scaremongering of the WHO and not entertain switching to electronic cigarettes.

Is this what they actually want????

tommy2bad

I thought it odd that the who guy said their were no acceptable levels for the chemicals from ecigs. This is obviously a lie as their are actual legal limits and recommendations on all chemicals and air quality. I wonder why the reporter let this slip by without question. Also the piece on MI seemed to consist of 'this is what the WHO said', next story.

visual

There are those who wish to live their life on their own terms and there are those who need medical help because they believe everyone should live life according to theirs

the_syco

Going Forward wrote: »

Is this what they actually want????

Yup. They want the entire world smoke free in 50 years. They want to stomp out e-cigs with the 50 year thing in mind. Seems they want the smokers dead in 50 years, than to stop people smoking in 50 years?

Going Forward

tommy2bad wrote: »

I thought it odd that the who guy said their were no acceptable levels for the chemicals from ecigs. This is obviously a lie as their are actual legal limits and recommendations on all chemicals and air quality. I wonder why the reporter let this slip by without question. Also the piece on MI seemed to consist of 'this is what the WHO said', next story.

This doctor also repeatedly called the exhaled vapour "smoke".

This was crazy stuff, I know it's probably splitting hairs for those genuinely ignorant of E cigs, but surely some journalist on Newstalk or RTE uses the bloody things??

tommy2bad

Calling it smoke was deliberate, he knew the difference but wanted to rais the scare level and add to the confusion of smoke vaper in peoples minds.
Yesterday the WHO not only released the report but went on the offensive on twitter with over 100 tweets about the dangers of vaping, nicotine( while extolling nrt?).This was not meerly a report as to their findings but a concerted campaign against ecigs. The who and their pharma backers are scared of ecigs and want them gone for a mixture of ideological and financial reasons.

Going Forward

tommy2bad wrote: »

Calling it smoke was deliberate, he knew the difference but wanted to rais the scare level and add to the confusion of smoke vaper in peoples minds.
Yesterday the WHO not only released the report but went on the offensive on twitter with over 100 tweets about the dangers of vaping, nicotine( while extolling nrt?).This was not meerly a report as to their findings but a concerted campaign against ecigs. The who and their pharma backers are scared of ecigs and want them gone for a mixture of ideological and financial reasons.

Interesting reading, you are correct :
www.who.int/tobacco/communications/highlights/note_nrt_therapy/en/

ArmaniJeanss

WHO still had homosexuality on their list of curable mental disorders up to the 1990s, they are a fairly terrible organisation.
Not entirely relevant to e-cigs as such, but a useful rejoinder in the 'WHO said it, therefore it must be true' e-cig debates.

the_syco

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yesterday the WHO not only released the report but went on the offensive on twitter with over 100 tweets about the dangers of vaping, nicotine( while extolling nrt?).

AFAIK, there's nicotine in potatoes...

tommy2bad

the_syco wrote: »

AFAIK, there's nicotine in potatoes...

In all veg or fruit from the nightshade family of which tobacco is only one. Tomatoes, aubergine and humble spuds all have nicotine. In fact every living human will test positive for nicotine. Without it we couldn't metabolize niacin a necessary vitamin. BTW niacin or Vitamin B3 is so called because it's original name was nicotinic acid, this was changed due to the association with nicotine which has been demonized since forever because of it connection with tobacco.

marco_polo

Wow Kim Jong Un would be proud of some of the tweets from WHO account.

I'd be the first to conceed that the jury is still it to some degree, (but I'll take my chances over proven harmful analogues), but the level of misinformation is absolutley staggering an pretty pathetic from a supposedly prestigious global scientific body.

Going Forward

In contrast to the WHO "report", this briefing from ASH is surprisingly well balanced, given where they're coming from:

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_715.pdf

For example:

The fact that many electronic cigarettes look similar to conventional cigarettes has been said to risk
confusion as to their use in enclosed public places, such as on public transport. 31,32 However, given
that the most distinctive feature of cigarette smoking is the smell of the smoke, which travels rapidly,
and that this is absent from electronic cigarette use, it is not clear how any such confusion would be
sustained.
Furthermore, the absence of risk from “secondhand” inhalation of vapour from electronic cigarettes
has been described as an “often unconsidered advantage” of electronic cigarettes. 33 As an alternative
to smoking, electronic cigarettes are preferable in situations where secondhand smoke poses serious
health risks to others, such as in vehicles or in the home.

tommy2bad

And the WHO's response to criticism of it document?
An attempt to protect it image by refuting the criticism? some explanation as to why it's taking such an extreme stance?
None of the above, instead it trys to bully the critics with legal threats.
http://antithrlies.com/2014/08/28/who-responds-to-criticism-over-e-cigarettes-with-attempted-censorship/

jonski

Download the logo from there and post/tweet it everywhere

Neil_Sedaka

Right, that's it! I'm going back on the smokes and I'm never eating tomatoes, aubergines or spuds again :mad:

Happy now WHO and ASH? Oh, and I'm never buying either of your albums again

P_1

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/stubbing-out-ecigarettes-will-condemn-smokers-to-death-30545658.html

A relatively balanced piece in the Indo, what is the world coming to?

tommy2bad

P_1 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/stubbing-out-ecigarettes-will-condemn-smokers-to-death-30545658.html

A relatively balanced piece in the Indo, what is the world coming to?

End Times, I'm telling ye end times.
Good article and typical of most reactions to the WHO document. I think they left it a bit late on this, if they had grasped the threat ecigs are earlier thy could have done something but even they now realize that that ship has sailed.
Best they can do now is try to limit their appeal to smokers and non smokers. Note how they don't call for an outright ban which if their concerns are real would be justified, instead they settle for restricting ecigs to replicas of traditional cigarettes while at the same time admitting that ecigs are far less harmful. Odd contradictory thinking and resort to rhetorical language rather than a report of the findings of studies and conclusion drawn.

Snake

In fairness I love using the ecig indoors but if people are upset by it then it shouldn't be allowed... And whether anyone wants to hear it or not it's the same as someone lighting a fag beside you...we can't pick and choose what's okay just because we know it's safer, it might be safer but it doesn't make it any less annoying for some people and they shouldn't have to tolerate it, nor should we have to tolerate smoking beside us... I was on the bus a while back and a lad sitting behind me decided he'd give me a lecture on why I shouldn't use my ecig and how I'm breaking the law and he might report me... Now that's just being a wanker but if he had said listen mate would you mind not using that I don't like it, i wouldn't have a problem. It's just annoying that they're making them out to be completely poisoning when it's not the case. None the less if a place doesn't allow smoking, ecigarettes shouldn't be excluded. It's just not fair, tbh.

Tom Cruises Left Nut

http://news.sky.com/story/1330462/report-e-cigarettes-could-save-thousands

tommy2bad

Snake wrote: »

In fairness I love using the ecig indoors but if people are upset by it then it shouldn't be allowed... And whether anyone wants to hear it or not it's the same as someone lighting a fag beside you...we can't pick and choose what's okay just because we know it's safer, it might be safer but it doesn't make it any less annoying for some people and they shouldn't have to tolerate it, nor should we have to tolerate smoking beside us... I was on the bus a while back and a lad sitting behind me decided he'd give me a lecture on why I shouldn't use my ecig and how I'm breaking the law and he might report me... Now that's just being a wanker but if he had said listen mate would you mind not using that I don't like it, i wouldn't have a problem. It's just annoying that they're making them out to be completely poisoning when it's not the case. None the less if a place doesn't allow smoking, ecigarettes shouldn't be excluded. It's just not fair, tbh.

I have to compleetly disagree here.
Several reasons, first including ecig in smoking bans isn't a matter of fair, it's about equivalence. If we support a smoking ban based on the 'proven' harm of shs then the same proof is needed to justify including ecigs. This is not forthcoming so bans are just spite based on don't like the look of it.
Secondly, the fact that some people don't like it is irrelevant outside the group your in, It's public space, lots of things I don't like are going to happen their, should I have the right to stop people doing stuff based on my prejudices?
In company, asking or stopping if objected to is one thing but do we need legislation to enforce this?
Theirs also the point about encouraging smokers to switch by offering advantages that smoking hasn't got, price differential and opportunity to use them. At the end of the day this is about reducing smoking prevalence for public health so that's the path they should take. It's also about personal liberty and unless it's a proven health risk to others then it's should not be banned.

Samba

Snake wrote: »

In fairness I love using the ecig indoors but if people are upset by it then it shouldn't be allowed...

A bit of a whataboutery I'll admit, but public flatulence upsets me. Should it too also not be allowed?

Snake

Samba wrote: »

A bit of a whataboutery I'll admit, but public flatulence upsets me. Should it too also not be allowed?

Completely different. You're being extremely onesided with this. For people who never smoked they shouldn't have to be sat beside you while you vape. I wouldn't force someone to and if you're attitude is thus, that's why they're planning to bring in a law against it. Some of you lads here are great to chat to but make a mention of banning them indoors you turn like rabid wolves. You're being fairly childish, in fairness. No one was allowed smoke for years and everyone got on grand why should it be allowed now with electronic cigarettes. Id hate to see them banned from indoor use but if it happens it happens. Most places already don't allow it.

DirtyBollox

For the first few months i would have fought long and hard about this but one day i saw my mate vaping in a supermarket. Now when i vaped in the supermarket i either stealth vaped or else i blew the vapour straight up. He just blew it straight out and screw anyone around him. So because of that i say do it. Or at the very least say it is up to the establishment to display signs saying "vaping welcome" or "vaping banned" and allow them to enforce it as they see fit.

This wont happen so blanket ban and force them outside. I dont mind at all.

JH_raheny

Snake wrote: »

Completely different. You're being extremely onesided with this. For people who never smoked they shouldn't have to be sat beside you while you vape. I wouldn't force someone to and if you're attitude is thus, that's why they're planning to bring in a law against it. Some of you lads here are great to chat to but make a mention of banning them indoors you turn like rabid wolves. You're being fairly childish, in fairness. No one was allowed smoke for years and everyone got on grand why should it be allowed now with electronic cigarettes. Id hate to see them banned from indoor use but if it happens it happens. Most places already don't allow it.

I think it is you being onesided, treating vaping the same as smoking is completely stupid as it is 2 completely different things, your argument that someone who never smoked should not have to sit next to someone who vape is the same as saying that someone who never used deoderant should not have to sit next to someone who does, the whole witch hunt on smokers was mainly to protect other people from the alleged harm of second hand smoke but there is nothing to suggest that vape does harm anybody sitting next to you as it does not contain any of the cancer causing things tobacco does, the ever so tiny bit of nicotine they could MAYBE be subject to is so incredible small that there's ten times more in several of their daily food products.
All the anti vape crap is scare mongering mainly from the people with financial interest in either ciggies or other products such as patches/gum/spray/tablets, they're ****ting themselves because of the success rate people have quitting by vaping rather than using THEIR products only to have loads of people fail and go and buy more of THEIR **** to try one more time, guess I could just say it is all down to MONEY

Snake

JH_raheny wrote: »

I think it is you being onesided, treating vaping the same as smoking is completely stupid as it is 2 completely different things, your argument that someone who never smoked should not have to sit next to someone who vape is the same as saying that someone who never used deoderant should not have to sit next to someone who does, the whole witch hunt on smokers was mainly to protect other people from the alleged harm of second hand smoke but there is nothing to suggest that vape does harm anybody sitting next to you as it does not contain any of the cancer causing things tobacco does, the ever so tiny bit of nicotine they could MAYBE be subject to is so incredible small that there's ten times more in several of their daily food products.
All the anti vape crap is scare mongering mainly from the people with financial interest in either ciggies or other products such as patches/gum/spray/tablets, they're ****ting themselves because of the success rate people have quitting by vaping rather than using THEIR products only to have loads of people fail and go and buy more of THEIR **** to try one more time, guess I could just say it is all down to MONEY

I didn't treat it like smoking... If it was the same as smoking why would I vape? It's much less harmless doesn't smell and is cheaper. But that doesn't mean its fair to use them inside if the masses aren't happy with it

JH_raheny

Snake wrote: »

I didn't treat it like smoking... If it was the same as smoking why would I vape? It's much less harmless doesn't smell and is cheaper. But that doesn't mean its fair to use them inside if the masses aren't happy with it

that's the problem, the masses don't seem to have a problem with it, it is the few that does, the few that have a financial interest in other nicotine products

Snake

JH_raheny wrote: »

that's the problem, the masses don't seem to have a problem with it, it is the few that does, the few that have a financial interest in other nicotine products

Like I said I've been asked by a few people to stop using it because they don't like it, i can't imagine they hold a share in the tobacco industry. Given that most don't like them because of bull**** radio shows and newspaper articles

masonchat

Can you imagine 50 hardcore vapers in a small bar , oyu wouldnt be able to find the fire exit , to be fair i have no problem with not allowing their use in enclosed public spaces

JH_raheny

masonchat wrote: »

Can you imagine 50 hardcore vapers in a small bar , oyu wouldnt be able to find the fire exit , to be fair i have no problem with not allowing their use in enclosed public spaces

a bar is the perfect place to allow people to vape if you want people to quit smoking and I somehow doubt you would get 50 vapers in a small bar at the same time anyway and even if you did then the vape doesn't hang around the same way smoke used to do, I'm also sure most vapers would be more than happy to adhere to some sort of vaping guide lines if it really was a problem.

masonchat

Ah the vapor does hang around , especially if you have multipe users, i can fog a room up myself and ive seen it hang around at night in low light you will see it plainly, and guidelines just wond not work.

We are all currently used to not smoking in bars and the likes i dont see why its such a big deal to not vape there either, i do when i can , but have no problem not doing so if required.

I know you could be arguing weather or not its fair all year long thats just my view

Samba

Snake wrote: »

Completely different. You're being extremely onesided with this. For people who never smoked they shouldn't have to be sat beside you while you vape. I wouldn't force someone to and if you're attitude is thus, that's why they're planning to bring in a law against it. Some of you lads here are great to chat to but make a mention of banning them indoors you turn like rabid wolves. You're being fairly childish, in fairness. No one was allowed smoke for years and everyone got on grand why should it be allowed now with electronic cigarettes. Id hate to see them banned from indoor use but if it happens it happens. Most places already don't allow it.

You've jumped the gun there and made a number of inaccurate conclusions based on one sentence/question I typed.

I'm not being one sided and in fact if you go over my posts in regards to this topic you'll quickly see i hold a very balanced view on the subject. I was merely playing devil's advocate with your reasoning and logic, if some people don't like it, it should be banned. It's a bit of a logical fallacy if it can't be backed up with any scientific basis to justify a perceived health concern.

Here's a better example, what if someone were to vape pure VG with 0mg nicotine, would you argue that your logic is still sound?

Because people are ignorant that it's the exact same chemical compound you find in fog machines in concerts, or at the likes of Quaser/Laser Tag, it too should be banned?

For the record, I don't openly vape in public, I stealth vape more or less everywhere I go, mainly because I'm tired of all the ignorant assumptions and dumbass questions I'm regularly asked.

I understand you might feel like some posters are being a little overly aggressive challenging your position on this, but I'm merely attempting to open constructive dialogue which illuminates both sides of the coin, in a non-aggressive manner.

My personal view is that there shouldn't be a blanket ban on indoor vaping, however, businesses and private establishments should be free to make this choice for themselves, enforcing a blanket ban is rather draconian imho.

tommy2bad

I have never seen anywhere with a ban on vaping other than gov or semi state places. I doubt the anti's will settle for owners having the final say because it won't be the choice they would make. The anti's will fight for legal bans so they get their way rather than letting it find it's own level. Thats why we must fight back.

jonski

masonchat wrote: »

Ah the vapor does hang around , especially if you have multipe users, i can fog a room up myself and ive seen it hang around at night in low light you will see it plainly, and guidelines just wond not work.

Our last poker night had 4 of us vaping from 7 in the evening until 3 in the morning in an average to small kitchen with no vapour lingering to the point of the one non smoker and non vapour'er ( we need a word for this ) commenting how surprised he was .

JH_raheny

jonski wrote: »

Our last poker night had 4 of us vaping from 7 in the evening until 3 in the morning in an average to small kitchen with no vapour lingering to the point of the one non smoker and non vapour'er ( we need a word for this ) commenting how surprised he was .

That was my point, in a pub it would be non - existing

masonchat

jonski wrote: »

Our last poker night had 4 of us vaping from 7 in the evening until 3 in the morning in an average to small kitchen with no vapour lingering to the point of the one non smoker and non vapour'er ( we need a word for this ) commenting how surprised he was .

I just came back from my dads he vapes and i vape , now i did have my magma clone but my mother a SMOKER had to open the window , room was more or less fogged up for the night and would be to a slightly lesser extent if i was using my protank.

I guess it would vary very much depend on number of vapers what devices they use what frequency they vape size of room ventilation , i know my vapor hangs around anyway when im chain vaping, maybe you are getting dodgy vg

Samba

masonchat wrote: »

I just came back from my dads he vapes and i vape , now i did have my magma clone but my mother a SMOKER had to open the window , room was more or less fogged up for the night and would be to a slightly lesser extent if i was using my protank.

I guess it would vary very much depend on number of vapers what devices they use what frequency they vape size of room ventilation , i know my vapor hangs around anyway when im chain vaping, maybe you are getting dodgy vg

You're right, but I honestly don't see how this has any relevance, if a private owner of an establishment wants to cater to a specific market (that fogs up the premises) then that should be their choice, if they're worried about it being an issue for other customers then they can choose to ban them.

I don't really see the fog as much of a problem but rather the pungent flavours that can stink up a room, but again this is no different than having to put up with perfume, flatulence or body odour.

J Mysterio

Personally, if i was in the pub, I would go to the smokers area to vape.

Samba

J Mysterio wrote: »

Personally, if i was in the pub, I would go to the smokers area to vape.

I do the same unless I'm in bar that's vaper friendly because I won't get hassled, but I can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke anymore.