Irish Rail bans e-cigarettes

Fratton Fred · 11-03-2014 1:48pm

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 · 11-03-2014 1:50pm

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 · 11-03-2014 1:52pm

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

Lu Tze · 11-03-2014 1:53pm

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 · 11-03-2014 2:02pm

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 · 11-03-2014 2:05pm

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 · 11-03-2014 2:12pm

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 · 11-03-2014 2:15pm

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 · 11-03-2014 2:16pm

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 · 11-03-2014 2:16pm

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.

Fratton Fred · 11-03-2014 2:16pm

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.

pundy · 11-03-2014 2:16pm

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.

SpaceTime · 11-03-2014 2:18pm

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.

pundy · 11-03-2014 2:18pm

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

P_1 · 11-03-2014 2:18pm

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.

Dravokivich · 11-03-2014 2:22pm

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.

BizzyC · 11-03-2014 2:22pm

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.

Tiddlypeeps · 11-03-2014 2:22pm

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.

P_1 · 11-03-2014 2:23pm

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.

P_1 · 11-03-2014 2:24pm

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.

SpaceTime · 11-03-2014 2:24pm

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.

on the river · 11-03-2014 2:26pm

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

P_1 · 11-03-2014 2:26pm

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?

Tiddlypeeps · 11-03-2014 2:28pm

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?

SpaceTime · 11-03-2014 2:28pm

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.

EyeSight · 11-03-2014 2:28pm

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

BizzyC · 11-03-2014 2:29pm

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.

on the river · 11-03-2014 2:29pm

P_1 wrote: »

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwJlZnu05Cw

Thoie · 11-03-2014 2:31pm

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

SpaceTime · 11-03-2014 2:31pm

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.

on the river · 11-03-2014 2:32pm

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnaZEGie2Xk

strobe · 11-03-2014 2:33pm

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

SpaceTime · 11-03-2014 2:36pm

strobe wrote: »

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

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!

BizzyC · 11-03-2014 2:38pm

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

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.

rubadub · 11-03-2014 2:39pm

cometogether wrote: »

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.

Tiddlypeeps · 11-03-2014 2:39pm

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.

KungPao · 11-03-2014 2:41pm

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.

Tiddlypeeps · 11-03-2014 2:42pm

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".

readytosnap · 11-03-2014 2:46pm

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.

whilst sitting on the floor as there are no seats

P_1 · 11-03-2014 2:53pm

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.

RoboRat · 11-03-2014 2:55pm

More danger from inhaling methane gas from all the farts and toilets on the train than from e-cigs, suppose we should ban that too.

I don't get why employers would ban it in the workplace, if someone can take a few puffs at their desk surely its more productive than having to go to the smoking area and then back again?

BizzyC · 11-03-2014 2:56pm

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

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".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826604.700-is-a-sniff-of-coffee-as-good-as-a-sip.html

It's a placebo affect, but it will trigger the brain in some ways.

But there is a difference.
To a non-coffee drinker it's just a smell, nothing more.

With nicotine vapour it's a stimulant to everyone who breathes it in, regardless of whether they are a smoker or not.

If it thought that coffee introduced caffeine to the air that could be shared by children, then I would stop drinking coffee in those environments.

And before someone else chimes in about food on trains, I agree. Food and drink should not be allowed on trains.
And in relation to fatty foods and fast food, they should be taxed more heavily to pay for the increase health costs they cause like tobacco and alcohol are.

P_1 · 11-03-2014 3:01pm

BizzyC wrote: »

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826604.700-is-a-sniff-of-coffee-as-good-as-a-sip.html

It's a placebo affect, but it will trigger the brain in some ways.

But there is a difference.
To a non-coffee drinker it's just a smell, nothing more.

With nicotine vapour it's a stimulant to everyone who breathes it in, regardless of whether they are a smoker or not.

If it thought that coffee introduced caffeine to the air that could be shared by children, then I would stop drinking coffee in those environments.

And before someone else chimes in about food on trains, I agree. Food and drink should not be allowed on trains.
And in relation to fatty foods and fast food, they should be taxed more heavily to pay for the increase health costs they cause like tobacco and alcohol are.

I think you're making a massive leap in logic there. Rather than smelling the nicotine you'd be smelling the flavour (exact same principle as somebody sitting beside you with a steaming mug of coffee in front of them)

Cienciano · 11-03-2014 3:05pm

If Luas, Irish Rail and Dublin Bus really wanted to do us a favour they'd ban the playing of music through mobile phone speakers.

Gongoozler · 11-03-2014 3:05pm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212141948.htm

So there are varying levels of nicotine in the liquid. But here's one study that suggests while using these is significantly better for the people around you, there is still some nicotine being released into the air.

Hmmm. And apparently nicotine itself is a contributor towards cancer.

Chorcai · 11-03-2014 3:16pm

I went to and from Cork over the weekend. On the way down there was no body next to me (2 seats), there were people sitting behind and in front of me so I blew the vapor towards the ground, the trip back up there was someone sitting in front of me (4 seats with table), I asked if he minded if I used it which he said work away, at Limerick Jt the train fill up and the other two seats were take so I didn't bother using it. Nobody from Irish Rail said nothing to me.

Clandestine · 11-03-2014 3:17pm

Its a private company at the end of the day. I don't like the idea, but they have to consider customer complaints.

BizzyC · 11-03-2014 3:21pm

P_1 wrote: »

I think you're making a massive leap in logic there. Rather than smelling the nicotine you'd be smelling the flavour (exact same principle as somebody sitting beside you with a steaming mug of coffee in front of them)

I'm not stating any problem at all with the smell.
On that level I see no difference between the guy eating curry chips and the e-cig.

The only issue I have is the presence of nicotine in the air that other people have to inhale.

Samba · 11-03-2014 3:23pm

Gongoozler wrote: »

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212141948.htm

So there are varying levels of nicotine in the liquid. But here's one study that suggests while using these is significantly better for the people around you, there is still some nicotine being released into the air.

Hmmm. And apparently nicotine itself is a contributor towards cancer.

I've read studies to that effect but as far as humans are concerned, there is no conclusive data to support this.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750028.html

http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_62.php

EFFECTS OF CHRONIC OR REPEATED EXPOSURE: Nicotine is a teratogen (capable of causing birth defects). Other developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity risks are unknown. The information about nicotine as a carcinogen is inconclusive.

Nicotine promotes metastasis in animals with implanted tumors, speculated to be a result of enhanced angiogenesis (Heeschen et al., 2001; Cooke, 2007). Nicotine has been demonstrated to affect cellular signal transduction in several critical pathways that involve inhibition of apoptosis and stimulation of cellular proliferation (West et al., 2003; Dasgupta et al., 2006). These studies concerning inhibition of apoptosis, stimulation of angiogenesis and cellular proliferation by nicotine have been done in animals. Relevant human data are not available. The generally negative results in animal carcinogenicity tests lead to the conclusion that nicotine itself is not a significant direct, cause of cancer in people who use tobacco products, although nicotine could possibly promote cancer once initiated.

pundy · 11-03-2014 3:32pm

BizzyC wrote: »

I'm not stating any problem at all with the smell.
On that level I see no difference between the guy eating curry chips and the e-cig.

The only issue I have is the presence of nicotine in the air that other people have to inhale.

but you dont actually have an issue with that. let's be real here. you just want to look like you do.

Irish Rail bans e-cigarettes

Comments