Irish Rail bans e-cigarettes

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.

gordongekko · 11-03-2014 3:48pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Propelyne Glycol, vegetable glycerine, nicotine and flavouring.

PG is the base most liquid drugs come in. VG can be bought off the shelf and people put it on baby's gums when they're teething.

I've never seen a baby vape it.

Rough Sleeper · 11-03-2014 3:49pm

BizzyC wrote: »

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.

Well the thing is that e-cigarettes do not produce smoke, they produce vapour. Vapourisation occurs around the mid-200 degree mark; combustion at a much higher temperature. Combustion tends to alter the chemical structure of a lot of compounds and leave more toxic ones in their place. Generally, any burning material is harmful to some degree if sufficient quantities are present. Our olfactory systems recognise this - cooking food smells good, burning food smells noxious.

E-cigarette contain a very small amount of fairly benign, known components, that are vapourised rather than combusted, in comparison to the plethora of chemicals that are produced by burning tobacco. There aren't really any unknown unknowns here and there isn't much reason to assume that the vapour from e-cigarettes is harmful.

RossFixxxed · 11-03-2014 3:52pm

I'm a smoker, and I do vape from time to time.

Here's my issue: I have been told by many vendors nicotine itself is completely harmless.... except it isn't. No doubt vaping is far better than cigarettes, but completely harmless is incorrect. Cigarette compaines used to say they are 100% safe back in the day too.

Look I'm not saying vaping is bad, but you cannot say it is toally harmless, there are no long term studies yet. The chemistry in this seems easy PG/VG, water, nicotine, but it's so unregulated you don't know if you have a clean liquid or Micko's bathtub lead based brew.

We need more information, unbiased information. Not what I'm spouting, and not what the vendors are spouting either. Maybe it is as harmless as a cup of coffee, maybe it's only 48.22157678% healthier than smoking... But with so many liquids and manufacturers it makes me uneasy.

Knob Longman · 11-03-2014 3:57pm

Its Ireland, just ban everything.

foggy_lad · 11-03-2014 3:58pm

E-cigarettes only really took off when the head shops and all their illegal stock were shut down, there is no regulation and no evidence that they do no harm long term. There is also no controls over who can purchase these e-cigarette machines so children can get very familiar with cigarettes at a very young age!

They should be treated the same as cigarettes and banned in all workplaces and public buildings.

grizzly · 11-03-2014 4:03pm

Another example of political correctness gone mad!!!

© Stewart Lee

BizzyC · 11-03-2014 4:08pm

pundy wrote: »

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

Grow up mate.
Making childish statements like that just makes anything you have to say on the subject look like total tripe.

You keep stating that nicotine is not harmful, multiple people have disagreed with that.
Some of those people have had links to article etc.
What's your counter?

Have you got anything to say against these points, or are you content in acting like a hardman behind a keyboard having a go at the people making points instead of discussing the points themselves?

Stinicker · 11-03-2014 4:12pm

Why should smokers be accommodated for their disgusting filthy habit, it is obvious they have lower intelligence than normal people otherwise they wouldn't be slowly poisoning themselves to death. They are obnoxious and think they can spread their poison to other people as if they have the right to do it. Smoking is darwinism at work.

Samba · 11-03-2014 4:13pm

foggy_lad wrote: »

E-cigarettes only really took off when the head shops and all their illegal stock were shut down

I shouldn't bite...

Sorry, what exactly are you getting at on this point? E-cigs have absolutely nothing to do with head shops, it's nothing more than a coincidence that their popularity exploded around the same time.

RollieFingers · 11-03-2014 4:23pm

Stinicker wrote: »

Why should smokers be accommodated for their disgusting filthy habit, it is obvious they have lower intelligence than normal people otherwise they wouldn't be slowly poisoning themselves to death. They are obnoxious and think they can spread their poison to other people as if they have the right to do it. Smoking is darwinism at work.

Bit of a sweeping generalisation there! All smokers are obnoxious?

end of the road · 11-03-2014 4:27pm

Gongoozler wrote: »

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

a couple of anti-smoking terrorists, should have been told to f//k off, irish rail are just doing this to try cover over the real issues and distract the public from the fact that irish rail management are doing a **** job of running the railway and always have done, time for irish rail management to focus on running the railway like their payed to, same with the alcohol restrictions on certain long distance trains, only there because they have taken all the conductors off these services

Fratton Fred · 11-03-2014 4:29pm

foggy_lad wrote: »

E-cigarettes only really took off when the head shops and all their illegal stock were shut down, there is no regulation and no evidence that they do no harm long term. There is also no controls over who can purchase these e-cigarette machines so children can get very familiar with cigarettes at a very young age!

They should be treated the same as cigarettes and banned in all workplaces and public buildings.

For me, vaping took off because I discovered an alternative to smoking after numerous failed attempts at giving up.

You won't find anyone saying they're harmless, because the truth is we don't know yet. But the general consensus from the medical world is that they are less harmful than smoking by several orders of magnitude.

The industry has been self regulating up until now, but Ireland and the UK have both brought in legislation to ban the sale to under 18s. No one has a problem with that.

Most vapers also want better regulation, so we know we are getting what we expect. All the liquid I buy is made in a lab in Nottingham to FDA standards, but they adhere to those standards voluntarily. In my opinion, it should be mandatory.

There is a colossal amount of ignorance around though. I often get smokers telling me I'm kidding myself, I haven't really given up. Maybe I am, but I'm not kidding myself when I run 10k, which I couldn't do as a smoker, or when I see the £150 per month extra cash I have each month (and that's allowing for a newfound obsession with shiney New vaping gear).

Penny Tration · 11-03-2014 4:29pm

Stinicker wrote: »

Why should smokers be accommodated for their disgusting filthy habit, it is obvious they have lower intelligence than normal people otherwise they wouldn't be slowly poisoning themselves to death. They are obnoxious and think they can spread their poison to other people as if they have the right to do it. Smoking is darwinism at work.

Except vaping isn't the same as smoking.

Fratton Fred · 11-03-2014 4:31pm

Stinicker wrote: »

Why should smokers be accommodated for their disgusting filthy habit, it is obvious they have lower intelligence than normal people otherwise they wouldn't be slowly poisoning themselves to death. They are obnoxious and think they can spread their poison to other people as if they have the right to do it. Smoking is darwinism at work.

You seem a bit confused. This thread isn't about smoking.

ColeTrain · 11-03-2014 4:35pm

foggy_lad wrote: »

They should be treated the same as cigarettes and banned in all workplaces and public buildings.

no they shouldn't, stop talking ****e

end of the road · 11-03-2014 4:46pm

Clandestine wrote: »

Its a private company at the end of the day.

no its not, not at the start or end of the day

Clandestine wrote: »

they have to consider customer complaints.

oh? one would be forgiven if they thought otherwise, considering commuter trains running on long distance services dispite complaints or short trains on the dart at peak times dispite lots and lots of complaints, this was done as a publicity stunt probably because a couple of d4 heads complained because they had to travel with the great unwashed because the merk broke down

ChicagoJoe · 11-03-2014 4:51pm

Totally agree with Irish rail, whether it's tobacco smoke or e cigarettes it's till annoying as f**k

pundy · 11-03-2014 5:34pm

BizzyC wrote: »

Grow up mate.
Making childish statements like that just makes anything you have to say on the subject look like total tripe.

You keep stating that nicotine is not harmful, multiple people have disagreed with that.
Some of those people have had links to article etc.
What's your counter?

Have you got anything to say against these points, or are you content in acting like a hardman behind a keyboard having a go at the people making points instead of discussing the points themselves?

funny, that's exactly what YOU have done - you've been asked to back up every one of your points with links and you haven't provided a single one.

my point is, it doesnt affect you personally, even if i was to blow the vapour (which has no relation to SMOKE at all) in your face.

it's attitudes like yours that have this country ruined.

the vapour from an e-cigarette is NOT dangerous. end of the story.

sure, it says it pretty loud and clear in the Irish Rail statement - they have no interest in the fact that they are not dangerous, they are banning it for the reason that it's too hard to police (presumably because a lot of e-cigs look like the real thing).

anyway, get off your high horse, the world doesnt revolve around you or your silly opinions.

pundy · 11-03-2014 5:37pm

Stinicker wrote: »

Why should smokers be accommodated for their disgusting filthy habit, it is obvious they have lower intelligence than normal people otherwise they wouldn't be slowly poisoning themselves to death. They are obnoxious and think they can spread their poison to other people as if they have the right to do it. Smoking is darwinism at work.

we're all dying of something. how does that affect intelligence?

with attitudes like yours and BizzieC's, is it any wonder people smoke themselves to death?
get me off this fvcking doom rock... too many fvckin "mammies" thinking they can look after the rest of the country with their moans.

RossFixxxed · 11-03-2014 5:39pm

pundy wrote: »

the vapour from an e-cigarette is NOT dangerous. end of the story.

That's an issue for me to be honest. As I said I'm not anti-vaping at all, and it does SEEM better, far better than smoking but we don't really know long term what it will do.

I agree second hand vapour is probably totally harmless, but for the vapers themselves I'm not convinced that all the liquids out there are harmless. And lets be honest nicotine isn't harmless. It's not nearly as harmful as all the rubbish in cigarettes, but it isn't 100% harmless either.

We need balance here, not shouting and blaming and balck and white statements.

Is smoking safe: hell no.
Is vaping safe: we have NO idea.
Is vaping better than smoking: more than likely but to be confirmed.

And as I said some liquids may be very safe, but with no control any gobdaw can brew his own version that may be VERY nasty indeed. The vaping equivalent of Soap Bar.

People are confusing vaping with smoking too much here also. This isn't about cigarettes, it's about PVs and such. The fact is they may NOT be good at all, and the chimistry is more complicated than the frighteningly over simplistic stuff spouted by both sides of the argument.

my point is, it doesnt affect you personally, even if i was to blow the vapour (which has no relation to SMOKE at all) in your face.

Well obviously it does. PV allergy alone would see to that, but to be honest common courtesy would dictate don't blow it in someone's face that is the height of ignorance, and I assume you meant it in a less literal way.

I'm quite pro-vaping but if we go off all aggressive and claim with NO long term evidence it's toally harmless then how could anyone trust us on that? We need neutral people investigating not saying you'll blow it in someone's face.

Irish Rail bans e-cigarettes

Comments