Irish Rail bans e-cigarettes

kippy · 11-03-2014 5:40pm

Too right they should be banned in certain places.
There are idiots out there who will use them in environments where its downright rude to use them and some of them have a strong smell off them.
The only solution is to ban them in certain instances.
No harm. They generally arent good for those who use them and the effects on those that dont use them but are nearby arent well enough documented.

saxon1 · 11-03-2014 5:43pm

As far as I know they are banned in some UK pubs as they could be an incentive to start lighting up real cigarettes but I can't see how they have any more power than just asking you to to stop smoking it as it is not surely covered by any legislation the smoking ban would surely be a different legislation

BizzyC · 11-03-2014 5:52pm

pundy wrote: »

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.

Go back to post #93, I provided a link when asked about the comparison to caffeine.
Others have posted links in relation to affects of nicotine, I don't need to copy and paste their links.

"I have this country ruined" please explain how...
That's one of the dumbest and most laughable things I've ever heard.

I'm not on any high horse, I'm waiting for you to present something resembling a discussion and not some laughable reaction like you keep putting up here.

Blowing vapour in my face would increase the levels of nicotine in my system. So it would affect me.
You keep saying it's harmless, others have posted links to articles that say different.
What are you basing your opinion on?

post #71 p_1 suggested that the level of nicotine is below that which is present naturally in some food.
I conceded that his argument had merit in that case, and that my objection was based on an assumption that the vapour would be more concentrated.
I'd be interested to see the numbers, if the levels of nicotine are really that low, I'd be willing to change my opinion.

Unlike you I'm here to discuss the matter and debate different views.
I'm not here to have a go at people without paying any attention to what they've been saying.

pundy · 11-03-2014 5:55pm

BizzyC wrote: »

Go back to post #93, I provided a link when asked about the comparison to caffeine.
Others have posted links in relation to affects of nicotine, I don't need to copy and paste their links.

"I have this country ruined" please explain how...
That's one of the dumbest and most laughable things I've ever heard.

I'm not on any high horse, I'm waiting for you to present something resembling a discussion and not some laughable reaction like you keep putting up here.

Blowing vapour in my face would increase the levels of nicotine in my system. So it would affect me.
You keep saying it's harmless, others have posted links to articles that say different.
What are you basing your opinion on?

post #71 p_1 suggested that the level of nicotine is below that which is present naturally in some food.
I conceded that his argument had merit in that case, and that my objection was based on an assumption that the vapour would be more concentrated.
I'd be interested to see the numbers, if the levels of nicotine are really that low, I'd be willing to change my opinion.

Unlike you I'm here to discuss the matter and debate different views.
I'm not here to have a go at people without paying any attention to what they've been saying.

im not taking the bait.

go on away with ye.

CatLou · 11-03-2014 6:00pm

I was a very casual smoker but I've recently (aprox. 1 month) decided to start vaping, so I bought a pretty e-cig and a couple of liquids to try it out, one of them is nicotine free and the others are low nicotine. I don't feel really addicted to nicotine, it's more the puffing and holding a cigarette/e cig while I'm talking or waiting for someone that does it for me. It's a silly habit.

Anyway, I understand the ban from public transports such as trains and planes. I wouldn't like to have vapor coming onto me while I'm stuck in a small closed compartment. Sure, you can't smell it mostly but you can see it and feel it brush over you.
I hate having to stand next to people listening to loud music on their earphones, or eating smelly food or taking off their shoes, sure it must feel good for them but it's not nice to everybody else around them.

We should think of others too, even if it's not an immediate health threat, it's still a nuisance. Best if everybody can just have a peaceful day.

I once saw a guy asking if he could vape inside the cinema... wasn't it obvious that his vapor was going to be in front of the movie for a lot of people!?

I'm an otherwise very happy vaper

BizzyC · 11-03-2014 6:02pm

pundy wrote: »

im not taking the bait.

go on away with ye.

The bait??

FFS, I'm done.

You're obviously just a smoker who wants nothing more than to have a go at people who have views you don't like.

At every point I tried to clarify my views and asked you to present some sort of argument, you've done nothing but made childish little quips and personal comments.

People like you are why no one is willing to listen.

The ignore function is great, I think I'll make use of it now...

P_1 · 11-03-2014 6:10pm

Ok so each puff on a PV uses up roughly .05ml of e-liduid. This e-liquid usually contains between 10-20mg of nicotine per ml. So that would imply that a vaper inhales .5-1 mg of nicotine per puff and I'd guess that about 80% of that nicotine remains in the vaper's system, so you're probably looking at .1-.2mg of nicotine being released into the air after each puff.

Now according to http://www.livestrong.com/article/293186-list-of-foods-that-contain-nicotine/

Eggplant contains a nicotine concentration of .1mg per gram.
Green tomatoes contain a nicotine concentration of .04mg per gram.
Cauliflower contains a nicotine concentration of .015mg per gram.
Potatoes contain a nicotine concentration of .007mg per gram

So arguably you'd be exposing yourself to more nicotine through eating veg than by 'passive vaping'

kippy · 11-03-2014 6:12pm

P_1 wrote: »

Ok so each puff on a PV uses up roughly .05ml of e-liduid. This e-liquid usually contains between 10-20mg of nicotine per ml. So that would imply that a vaper inhales .5-1 mg of nicotine per puff and I'd guess that about 80% of that nicotine remains in the vaper's system, so you're probably looking at .1-.2mg of nicotine being released into the air after each puff.

Now according to http://www.livestrong.com/article/293186-list-of-foods-that-contain-nicotine/

Eggplant contains a nicotine concentration of .1mg per gram.
Green tomatoes contain a nicotine concentration of .04mg per gram.
Cauliflower contains a nicotine concentration of .015mg per gram.
Potatoes contain a nicotine concentration of .007mg per gram

So arguably you'd be exposing yourself to more nicotine through eating veg than by 'passive vaping'

Irrellevant if you ask me.

P_1 · 11-03-2014 6:19pm

kippy wrote: »

Irrellevant if you ask me.

How so? It seems that one of the main concerns about vaping is people passively absorbing nicotine. I provided some examples of where the level of this perceived threat is negligible at best.

stevenmu · 11-03-2014 6:28pm

The really funny thing here is that the e-cigarette vapour is far less harmful than the diesel fumes produced by the train itself, which contains all kinds of nasty chemicals and carcinogens.

dr.bollocko · 11-03-2014 6:29pm

stevenmu wrote: »

The really funny thing here is that the e-cigarette vapour is far less harmful than the diesel fumes produced by the train itself, which contains all kinds of nasty chemicals and carcinogens.

You can't use a rational argument in a thread like this goddammit. Takes all the fun out of it.

kowloon · 11-03-2014 6:39pm

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

If they're going to start banning things that smell could they not start with stinky sandwiches? Or people who seem to have a casual approach to personal hygiene?

Tuna sandwiches. They sting the nostrils.

H3llR4iser · 11-03-2014 6:48pm

Until there is absolute certainty that the e-cigarettes are "harmless", they should simply be subject to the very same limitations of normal cigarettes. The odds that, in 20 years time, we'll be looking at the "e-cigarettes are completely harmless/healthy!" arguments of today with a grin and a "we were such fools" attitude are there and real.

History should be telling:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-insane-trends-from-vintage-cigarette-ads/

Some of the ads went as far as claiming smoking prevents obesity and that cigarettes act as a protection for the throat.

As for whatever comes out of e-cigarettes, regardless of what it contains it has consistency and can be felt, even just by contact; It DOES have a smell, regardless of what the ads say, and it's just the user that can't smell it (the same way smokers of cigarettes can't really detect the tobacco smell on themselves).

The smoke (yes it's smoke, as in "visible suspension of particles or vapour in the air") is well visible, sometimes quite dense in appearance (guess it depends on the cartridge) and tends to linger around quite a bit, again possibly depending on cartridge content and quality. Also, many people find it irritating for the eyes and nose; Pretending to be able to use an e-cigarette in a public confined space is simply a exercise in selfishness and extremely poor manners, end of. You won't die if you have to wait an hour or two to have a "puff", just like it didn't kill you to wait for a normal cigarette.

11-03-2014 6:50pm

Gongoozler wrote: »

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.

I don't like the idea of e-cigs especially their design/lack of regulation.

BizzyC · 11-03-2014 7:06pm

P_1 wrote: »

Ok so each puff on a PV uses up roughly .05ml of e-liduid. This e-liquid usually contains between 10-20mg of nicotine per ml. So that would imply that a vaper inhales .5-1 mg of nicotine per puff and I'd guess that about 80% of that nicotine remains in the vaper's system, so you're probably looking at .1-.2mg of nicotine being released into the air after each puff.

Now according to http://www.livestrong.com/article/293186-list-of-foods-that-contain-nicotine/

Eggplant contains a nicotine concentration of .1mg per gram.
Green tomatoes contain a nicotine concentration of .04mg per gram.
Cauliflower contains a nicotine concentration of .015mg per gram.
Potatoes contain a nicotine concentration of .007mg per gram

So arguably you'd be exposing yourself to more nicotine through eating veg than by 'passive vaping'

Interesting stuff.
There must be a difference relating to inhalation vs digestion, otherwise people would be addicted to eggplant, but I'll concede that the impact of nicotine is probably going to be negligable at those levels.

olliesgirl55 · 11-03-2014 7:26pm

I wanted to quit smoking and e-cigs are the only route I can go besides cold turkey. Personally I think they are a great invention for those of us who desperately want to quit tobacco. Nicotine is a drug and it is addictive however it is not as harmful as all the other ingredients in the cigarette. Nicotine becomes a poison if it is ingested in pure form as far as I know.

I have read up on some studies and so far they show to be much safer than cigarettes and in one study they found people who used e-cigs as apposed to another method were more successful in quitting smoking. The study found that subjects who used e-cigs suffered no adverse health effects. The study concluded that more research needs to be done.

I personally don't have a problem with banning e-cigs on the trains. I do have a problem with the governments trying to regulate them because I believe the only reason why they would be doing that is to raise revenue for themselves.
Almost everybody I know who uses e-cigs is a tobacco user or former tobacco user and you don't get the same hit with an e-cig as you do with a cigarette so I don't see teenagers being enticed into using them.

That being said I really do believe that they should be restricted to people over 18. I also don't think caffeine should be given to children under 18 too because that is a stimulant also.

Just my 2 cents

rubadub · 11-03-2014 7:34pm

RoboRat wrote: »

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?

Many will only allow them smoke on their lunchbreaks, as it would be unfair to give them additional breaks. Many employers will ban eating at the desk for similar reasons. Again, there are numerous other nictoine delivery devices around for decades which can be used far more discretely. Do people think lots would vote against the use of nicotine patches on trains?

stevenmu wrote: »

The really funny thing here is that the e-cigarette vapour is far less harmful than the diesel fumes produced by the train itself, which contains all kinds of nasty chemicals and carcinogens.

I find it funny/odd that people seem to think they have to back up a ban with some study. Back when smoking was legal in pubs I could have legally burnt garden waste down the local, if I went shouting about backing up complaints with studies I would have been thrown in the nut house. Do people ask for studies for proof about how food is harmful, its banned on the luas.

The same shite came up with the smoking ban, arguing for proof about passive smoking being harmful. I smoke, and I couldn't care less about potential health implications. I did not need a study to verify that I coughed, had sore eyes, burnt limbs from knocking into smokers and had stinky clothes after a night out.

Some would want it banned to denormalise it and encourage other more discreet methods of such recreational drug use/abuse that young kids will not notice and be tempted to try. It is recognised as the most addictive substance known, more than meth, crack or heroin. Even though nicotine has potentially got some benefits most would not want their kids to start on it at all.

darkpagandeath · 11-03-2014 7:44pm

BizzyC wrote: »

The bait??

FFS, I'm done.

You're obviously just a smoker who wants nothing more than to have a go at people who have views you don't like.

At every point I tried to clarify my views and asked you to present some sort of argument, you've done nothing but made childish little quips and personal comments.

People like you are why no one is willing to listen.

The ignore function is great, I think I'll make use of it now...

You mean like the militant anti smokers confusing vaping with smoking.

1. Nicotine is a poison in a concentrated form (but so are a lot of things)

2. Cancer, by being alive you have a 1 in 3 chance of getting it.

3. Smell... don't make me laugh that's a smoke screen, Trotted out to ban something they don't like. My children will see it as smoking and take up smoking....

4. Prove it's not harmful. That's a load of boll*x to be frank. You cannot prove something is 100% safe the world just does not work that way. So here is an idea how about the anti side prove there is any significant effect to anyone around.

list of everyday food that contain Nicotine.

Tomato

Potato

Eggplant

Teas

Peppers and Capsicums.

Cauliflower

So i ask the anti side who are saying no level of nicotine is safe what will you do with those items.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-03-2014 7:57pm

cruizer101 wrote: »

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

The whole point of eciggies is that they contain nicotine, the stuff is so lethal that by comparison anything else in the mix is just diluting it.

https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/nicotine/nicotine_data_sheet2.shtml

Danger! May be fatal if swallowed. May be fatal if absorbed through
the skin. Hygroscopic. This substance has caused adverse
reproductive and fetal effects in animals. May cause central nervous
system depression. Poison! May cause cardiac disturbances. May cause
digestive tract irritation with nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Target Organs: Central nervous system, respiratory system, muscles.

0.5 mg/m3 TWA 5
mg/m3 IDLH

Follow the OSHA respirator regulations found in 29CFR
1910.134 or European Standard EN 149. Always use a
NIOSH or European Standard EN 149 approved respirato
when necessary.

BizzyC · 11-03-2014 8:35pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You mean like the militant anti smokers confusing vaping with smoking.

1. Nicotine is a poison in a concentrated form (but so are a lot of things)

2. Cancer, by being alive you have a 1 in 3 chance of getting it.

3. Smell... don't make me laugh that's a smoke screen, Trotted out to ban something they don't like. My children will see it as smoking and take up smoking....

4. Prove it's not harmful. That's a load of boll*x to be frank. You cannot prove something is 100% safe the world just does not work that way. So here is an idea how about the anti side prove there is any significant effect to anyone around.

list of everyday food that contain Nicotine.

Tomato

Potato

Eggplant

Teas

Peppers and Capsicums.

Cauliflower

So i ask the anti side who are saying no level of nicotine is safe what will you do with those items.

Again, try reading more than one post.
I'm not "militant", I've stated more than once that the smell was not something that I was concerned with, and finally I've already conceded to P_1, in a post just a few before yours, that the level of nicotine in 2nd hand vape is probably going to have negligible effects given the level present versus foodstuffs....

kippy · 11-03-2014 8:37pm

olliesgirl55 wrote: »

I wanted to quit smoking and e-cigs are the only route I can go besides cold turkey. Personally I think they are a great invention for those of us who desperately want to quit tobacco. Nicotine is a drug and it is addictive however it is not as harmful as all the other ingredients in the cigarette. Nicotine becomes a poison if it is ingested in pure form as far as I know.

I have read up on some studies and so far they show to be much safer than cigarettes and in one study they found people who used e-cigs as apposed to another method were more successful in quitting smoking. The study found that subjects who used e-cigs suffered no adverse health effects. The study concluded that more research needs to be done.

I personally don't have a problem with banning e-cigs on the trains. I do have a problem with the governments trying to regulate them because I believe the only reason why they would be doing that is to raise revenue for themselves.
Almost everybody I know who uses e-cigs is a tobacco user or former tobacco user and you don't get the same hit with an e-cig as you do with a cigarette so I don't see teenagers being enticed into using them.

That being said I really do believe that they should be restricted to people over 18. I also don't think caffeine should be given to children under 18 too because that is a stimulant also.

Just my 2 cents

Think about it though......its daft.....the concept. You are just replacing one habit or addiction with another. E cigs are now also becoming an option for younger people who would never have thought of smoking normal cigs and thays in no way good as a lot of them think they are safe.

kippy · 11-03-2014 8:47pm

P_1 wrote: »

How so? It seems that one of the main concerns about vaping is people passively absorbing nicotine. I provided some examples of where the level of this perceived threat is negligible at best.

Its not my maon concern.

P_1 · 11-03-2014 8:51pm

BizzyC wrote: »

Interesting stuff.
There must be a difference relating to inhalation vs digestion, otherwise people would be addicted to eggplant, but I'll concede that the impact of nicotine is probably going to be negligable at those levels.

True I'd imagine there might be something in it alright. Having said that the popularity of the likes of snus and chewing tobacco in Scandanavia might rule out there being much of a difference between inhalation and digestion. I'd say it's probably down to force of habit more than anything else.

Penny Tration · 11-03-2014 8:52pm

kippy wrote: »

Think about it though......its daft.....the concept. You are just replacing one habit or addiction with another. E cigs are now also becoming an option for younger people who would never have thought of smoking normal cigs and thays in no way good as a lot of them think they are safe.

Actually, most vendors (myself included) ask people for ID. I asked 3 people for ID today, all of whom duly produced it. One or two brands are unscrupulous with selling to children, but the vast majority are militant in checking ID.

stevenmu · 11-03-2014 8:54pm

rubadub wrote: »

I find it funny/odd that people seem to think they have to back up a ban with some study.

I don't find that odd at all. I think it's perfectly reasonable that we should only ban things which are demonstrably harmful. Otherwise we are basically just banning things because "I don't know what that is, but I don't like the look of it so it must be bad for you".

In the case of e-cigarettes in particular, while the studies to date haven't been exhaustive, there have been quite a few and none of them have found any harmful effects so far. Granted we thought tobacco had no harmful effects for decades (though it turns out big tobacco had some say in that), but we have become much better at looking for them since.

darkpagandeath · 11-03-2014 8:56pm

BizzyC wrote: »

Again, try reading more than one post.
I'm not "militant", I've stated more than once that the smell was not something that I was concerned with, and finally I've already conceded to P_1, in a post just a few before yours, that the level of nicotine in 2nd hand vape is probably going to have negligible effects given the level present versus foodstuffs....

I see probably, that's an opinion do you have a peer reviewed paper to back up this opinion ? Or is it the usual it must be bad even though the people saying this generally have no clue. My point about the foodstuffs was that the anti sides whole argument is that no level of nicotine is acceptable. Yet they will go ahead feeding their kids potatoes and cauliflower.

olliesgirl55 · 11-03-2014 9:19pm

kippy wrote: »

Think about it though......its daft.....the concept. You are just replacing one habit or addiction with another. E cigs are now also becoming an option for younger people who would never have thought of smoking normal cigs and thays in no way good as a lot of them think they are safe.

I think of it as a step down from tobacco hopefully I will come off the e-cigs entirely in the future and I am not switching addictions though am I because I am addicted to nicotine.
I can't use the patch, chantix gave me nightmares and nicorete inhaler doesn't do menthol in ireland so I am left with e-cigs for the time being.

I haven't seen any kids with the e-cigs but I have seen many with real cigarettes. I did state in my post the sale of e-cigs should be restricted to those over 18 although I have to say nearly all the people I see in the e-cig shops are older people like myself who want to give up smoking.

Hilly Bill · 11-03-2014 9:22pm

Gongoozler wrote: »

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.

It good that they are banned, why should someone breath in fumes that has come out of the mouth of someone else.

Doublelime · 11-03-2014 9:23pm

They should be banned imo, because of you want to smoke just get off at the next station and smoke outside.

P_1 · 11-03-2014 9:24pm

Doublelime wrote: »

They should be banned imo, because of you want to smoke just get off at the next station and smoke outside.

For the umpteenth time, smoking and vaping are two totally distinct things

Irish Rail bans e-cigarettes

Comments