nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Irish Rail bans e-cigarettes

Gongoozler

Ive seen a page on the journal asking whether or not e-cigarettes should be banned in the workplace, according to the poll results (currently 51%) the majority are against this.

Irish Rail have banned them from their train and DART services because of people complaining of the smell.

What do you think AH? My first reaction is to say well that's ridiculous, they barely smell of anything, but there's literally thousands of flavours you can get for these things that aren't cigarette smoke.

Plus there's an awful lot of things on public transport that are more offensive, smell wise.

Phone / boards touch won't let me insert the url, sorry.

Find more posts tagged with

nanny state

jobsworths

Quick Links

Comments

Tiddlypeeps

It's a bit silly to ban them because of smell alone but at the same time they are perfectly entitled to do so, just as some public transport choose to ban eating food or listening to loud music etc.

A lot of people are very concerned about second hand smoke so when they see the vapour from e-cigs they associate it with the same thing, so Irish rail are probably getting lots of complaints from people convinced they are going to get lung cancer from their daily commute. It's likely just easier to ban them than to try and convince those people that it's not very likely.

Fratton Fred

cruizer101 wrote: »

Well thats it I'm not sure and I don't believe everything I read, there is a lot of money at stake here so there will most likely be promotional material from both sides of the argument which needs to be verified. As I said I do think there needs to be research and possibly legislation, I'm not calling for blanket bans but surely no one can disagree with them being looked into .

Absolutely, which is why the world vaping organisation has been set up and why it is trying to be consumer led rather than industry controlled.

Ask yourself though, who is going to lose out most from e-cigs.

Big pharma companies make billions from nicorettes, nicotinel etc and they have a much lower success rate than e-cigs.

Then, of course there's the tens of billions spent on drugs each year treating lung cancer.

3rdDegree

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

personally think irish rail tickets are dirt cheap. you should check out the prices of trains in the uk, central europe, japan etc....

You sure know how to ruin a good joke

Thoie

Yay! I presume they're banning hoors soaked in cheap perfume too? They're not? Boo.

P_1

Uriel. wrote: »

From a management point of view, I'd imagine these things are tough to call.

Most e-cigs I've come across, have little or no smells, as someone else said it's like steam from a kettle or something.
But I away in November and sat close to someone with an e-cig and it was very potent. What happens when you get 20 or 30 people vaping away with all kinds of scents in enclosed space. Might not be entirely comfortable.

Also, Irish rail might feel it will be difficult to police "real" smokers if, say you have a situation where there's a number of people vaping away with devices that look like a cigarette from a distance and a cloud of smoke/vape. Could cause some awkward and difficult situations arising for Irish Rail staff

Agreed on the often foul smelling food. Is food and drink technically not allowed either? It isn't on Dublin Bus as far as I know, though it is not enforced usually.

I'd counter that by asking what happens when you get 20-30 people having sprayed themselves with all sorts of perfume/aftershave/eau de toilette scents in an enclosed space?

I'll grant you a point about cigalikes alright but quite a lot of vapers tend to use devices that resemble an insulin pen rather then a cigarette.

Out of interest, I wonder if this ban will include products like Niquotin Quick Mist?

Vito Corleone

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

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.

Price of tickets is quite cheap compared to other countries actually.

cruizer101

Samba wrote: »

I have to ask, are you Kathleen O'Meara!?
The evidence, which you say doesn't exist -
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ie/2014/01/new-study-of-passive-vaping-shows.html

TBH I don't know who Kathleen O Meara is.

Thanks for the link, had a read and that is what I am looking for, actual evidence.

On the bit you quoted me my problem is more with how it is reported, if there is evidence, as you have now shown me, why isn't that reported, sloppy journalism annoys me.

Samba wrote: »

It's a little more difficult to hoodwink the entire international scientific community nowadays.

I'm not saying its not, my point is any new product, especially one being inhaled needs proper research and regulation.

Samba wrote: »

Nicotine absorption rates for the user are significantly lower than when smoking, what do you think they are for passive vapour?

Fair enough, I'll admit I havn't looked into this in depth, if this is the case I am fine with it.

Samba wrote: »

You've made a lot of claims that you read x, y and z, care to actually back them up with something, other than your ill-informed opinion?

I originally stated, 'I read somewhere...' maybe I should have qualified it better by stating that this was a random comment on a website and I did not believe it but I do think research needs to be done to show this is not the case, you have already pointed me in that direction and so that is fair enough.

Samba wrote: »

That sounds just like something Kathleen O'Meara would sya. While I agree more studies need to be done and regulation is required, not what's currently on the table from the EU.

Again I'm not sure who Kathleen O Meara is or what her agenda is. You seem to think I am against e-cigs and I regret if I have come across that way. I am not against them, however I would like to see appropriate regulations regarding them, and I think anyone who is using them would be mad not to agree, if there isn't appropriate regulation who is to say what manufacturers may put in them in order to reduce costs or for other reasons.

Two of my brothers have moved from real to e-cigs and I think it is great. Far healthier, no stink of smoke from them, cheaper and all the other advantages. But it doesn't stop me thinking that there should be research and regulation into the e vapor liquid and it constituents.

pundy

cruizer101 wrote: »

My problem with how this is being reported is that all articles that I read on it state: There is no evidence that the devices cause any harm to anybody standing close to them

But there is also no evidence that they don't cause harm.

For years there was no evidence that smoking normal cigarettes caused any harm, if anything they were advertised as being good for your health.

Also just because they may no contain all the tar and other potentially harmful parts of cigarette smoke doesn't meant I want to be inhaling your nicotene from them.

I have also read that certain liquids contain various other components that are carcinogenic.

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions or decisions yet but there definitely does need to be some research into these and possibly legislation regarding them also

this attitude is the exact thing that is wrong with this country.

Maximus Alexander

Banjo String wrote: »

They smell?

So do curry chips, smoked herrings, rank smelly people.

What will they ban Next?

I'm afraid floors are being banned soon.

RollieFingers

Do people really crave a smoke that much that they'd have one on the Dart or a train? I'm a smoker myself and the thought of lighting up on a carriage isn't very appealing!

P_1

cruizer101 wrote: »

My problem with how this is being reported is that all articles that I read on it state: There is no evidence that the devices cause any harm to anybody standing close to them

But there is also no evidence that they don't cause harm.

For years there was no evidence that smoking normal cigarettes caused any harm, if anything they were advertised as being good for your health.

Also just because they may no contain all the tar and other potentially harmful parts of cigarette smoke doesn't meant I want to be inhaling your nicotene from them.

I have also read that certain liquids contain various other components that are carcinogenic.

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions or decisions yet but there definitely does need to be some research into these and possibly legislation regarding them also

The vast majority of ingredients in e-juice have already passed food quality tests and chances are you'd eat them as part of your daily diet.

Most passive smoking tends to be caused by the smoker holding the cigarette between puffs, with e-cigs you don't get that problem.

Nicotine is a mild stimulant, roughly comparable to caffeine. The vast majority of health issues caused by smoking are down to the tar and other chemicals released by inhaling burning leaves. Also incidentally, if you're fond of eating potatoes and tomatoes, you are consuming nicotine.

Fratton Fred

P_1 wrote: »

The vast majority of ingredients in e-juice have already passed food quality tests and chances are you'd eat them as part of your daily diet..

I bought some vanilla food flavouring in Lidl and the ingredients were vanilla flavour, propylene glycol and vegetable glycerine.

It was pretty much ready to vape!

Bandana boy

pundy

E-Cigarettes are NOT a danger to anybody. in any way.

P_1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I bought some vanilla food flavouring in Lidl and the ingredients were vanilla flavour, propylene glycol and vegetable glycerine.

It was pretty much ready to vape!

Might be missing something mind (unless 0 nic does it for you of course)

cometogether

Why ban these but allow fast food?

pundy

cometogether wrote: »

Why ban these but allow fast food?

because the people who come up with these rules are fat glutens who can't help but chomp into that disgusting onion sambo on the train or open a packet of crisps and sputter and munch in front of you.

ArmaniJeanss

cruizer101 wrote: »

Two of my brothers have moved from real to e-cigs and I think it is great. Far healthier, no stink of smoke from them, cheaper and all the other advantages. But it doesn't stop me thinking that there should be research and regulation into the e vapor liquid and it constituents.

The fear of e-cig users is that this research and regulation will ultimately lead to a slippery slope of increased taxes, excise duties, limitation of imports, expensive retail licences, medicinal branding etc all leading to massive upward pressure on prices.
Whilst your points are generally valid I think the fears of the e-cig community are genuine as well.

e.g., personally I'm an ex-smoker who uses niquitin products and the way these are legislated and sold in Ireland (as opposed to even the UK) is a fairly sick example of how Irish consumers gets absolutely robbed blind when the pharmaceutical industry gets involved.

Samba

cruizer101 wrote: »

TBH I don't know who Kathleen O Meara is.

Thanks for the link, had a read and that is what I am looking for, actual evidence.

On the bit you quoted me my problem is more with how it is reported, if there is evidence, as you have now shown me, why isn't that reported, sloppy journalism annoys me.

She's the spokesperson for the Irish Cancer Society, one week she was on T.V claiming they could be just as harmful as cigarettes, only a few weeks later she was on prime time debating e-cigs, it's amazing how she changed her tune on prime time to - "undoubtedly better than cigarettes".

Excuse my snipey post but I'm just so so tired of all the sloppy statements and articles coming from people who have a lot of sway over public perception. It would appear most are happy to pick up on whatever story/facts other rags are publishing. There are quite a number of studies out there already and more and more are being conducted.

Right now there's a huge study being conducted by Dr. Farsalinos on eliquids, I totally agree with you though, we do need more data, the more we have the better.

cruizer101 wrote: »

I am not against them, however I would like to see appropriate regulations regarding them, and I think anyone who is using them would be mad not to agree, if there isn't appropriate regulation who is to say what manufacturers may put in them in order to reduce costs or for other reasons.

We have regulation that was just recently voted through, unfortunately it falls short on everything you would expect from regulation that addresses health concerns.

I've quoted this from the e-cig forum as it sums up my point...

tommy2bad wrote: »

However it dose raise a good point, why didn't the ecig regs in the tpd address the real concerns like which flavours are worrisome and what grade of propellant is safe? Why no requirement for a mention of allergic reactions on labels?
Oh yeah, because they didn't care about health, they care about restrictions to protect existing markets.

None of this was addressed with their so called 'regulation' the problem with e-cigs is you have a bunch of people trying to regulate a market and product that they don't fully understand.

They've introduced regulation, but it looks like they could get sued back to the stone age with it, once one State adopts it.

You have the EU banging on about ecigs normalising smoking, yet they seem hell bent on banning all devices except those that look like cigarettes!?

BizzyC

why do smokers always harp on about fatty foods as some sort of protection.

while a guy tucking in to curry chips on a train is pretty inconsiderate, apart from the smell, it makes no other impact to me or my journey.

2nd hand smoke impacts the health of people around them

the vapour from e-cigs has not been tested.
until someone can state categorically that there are no adverse affects from 2nd hand exposure to the vapour, I'll be pro any ban that treats them the same as cigarettes.

Fratton Fred

BizzyC wrote: »

the vapour from e-cigs has not been tested.
until someone can state categorically that there are no adverse affects from 2nd hand exposure to the vapour, I'll be pro any ban that treats them the same as cigarettes.

It has been tested, numerous times.

BizzyC

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It has been tested, numerous times.

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

EyeSight

You can't go a few minutes or hours without a puff?

Lu Tze

BizzyC wrote: »

why do smokers always harp on about fatty foods as some sort of protection.

while a guy tucking in to curry chips on a train is pretty inconsiderate, apart from the smell, it makes no other impact to me or my journey.

2nd hand smoke impacts the health of people around them

the vapour from e-cigs has not been tested.
until someone can state categorically that there are no adverse affects from 2nd hand exposure to the vapour, I'll be pro any ban that treats them the same as cigarettes.

Please link to all the peer review papers which categorically state that the fumes from curry chips have no adverse affects from 2nd hand exposure

BizzyC

Lu Tze wrote: »

Please link to all the peer review papers which categorically state that the fumes from curry chips have no adverse affects from 2nd hand exposure

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.

pundy

EyeSight wrote: »

You can't go a few minutes or hours without a puff?

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.

strobe

BizzyC wrote: »

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.

That would be every food... its how olfaction works.

SpaceTime

I was stuck beside someone using one recently and they do produce a lot of vapour sometimes and it is quite annoying.

I don't know what's in the vapour, and I don't really fancy being 'vapped' any more than I would be keen on having someone spraying anything else into the air in my proximity.

The health effects are completely unestablished either way, so it makes sense to air on the side of caution.

At the end of the day, it's like someone using an inhaler constantly in proximity to you. You're going to get a dose of the drug.

More research needs to be done before anyone can consider them entirely safe.

P_1

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.

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.

BizzyC

strobe wrote: »

That would be every food... its how olfaction works.

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.