Irish Rail bans e-cigarettes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Grindle = the Wibbs of the vaping forum.

I'm going to bookmark that post and fap to it daily.

Anyway, Wibbs is diplomatic. I am...*sobs*...not. WHY ARE YOU BEING MEAN TO WIBBS???

Also, regarding the OP: I don't mind this ban, it was predictable.
I'll still stealth-vape much like I do in pubs that've told me not to vape.
No-one around me will know but they'll be looking around suspiciously, wondering which knave would dare vape Skittle-juice in their presence.

If people had sense, and paid attention to the effect they were having on those around them, there wouldn't need to be talk of banning things.

Besides, I thought those things were a tool to get people off smoking altogether, not a permanent replacement?

"It's hard to police. People will start smoking if they see people vaping."

Absolute bollocks. I work in security for the dayjob and we have people in vaping every day (most do it on the quiet because they don't want to draw attention to themselves so you barely notice). When they first came out you got an initial, "Whoa, are they smoking?" shock, then took a millisecond to look at them and saw they clearly weren't. Nowadays nobody even blinks when they see someone's vapour. If it was an actual cigarette, you'd smell it the second they lit up.

I work in DJing/events in bars as well as security. While I'm in the DJ box I'll vape away and I've never, in two and a half years, heard once of someone seeing me and thinking it was okay to smoke as a result. They'd be run out of the place with pitchforks as soon as someone got a whiff.

"We don't know if they're as harmful as cigarettes yet."

Yes we do, they're not. It's not even a science question, it's a maths one: e-cigarettes = cigarettes minus everything in cigarettes that give you cancer. That's less harmful.

Every other argument down this avenue is based on faulty logic. One of the most idiotic posts that I've ever seen was in this thread saying, "We don't know that they're not harmful yet." That's like saying "We can't prove that aliens don't exist, so we better blow up the moon as a precaution in case they set up a base there." It's conspiracy theory logic. "Prove the US government WEREN'T responsible for 9/11." No, you conclusively prove that they were or STFU with your over-active imagination.

You can't prove a negative. And the millions being spent trying to prove these are in some way bothersome are coming back inconclusive.

If they are, one day, proven to be harmful then you deal with it then. Until then it's just nosy idiots getting thick about anything with the word 'cigarette' in it because their self-loathing compels them to lash out at people over matters that don't concern them. Talk to Joe, lads.

"Why would Irish Rail ban them if they aren't harmful?"

Simple.

I used to run a club night that got quite popular, quite quickly. Unfortunately the manager in the venue was a bit ****e at his job. So while he liked the bar takings my night brought in, he didn't have the cop on to just let me carry on doing what was working as attendance picked up.

When you DJ, there'll always be one fool who gets thick that their terrible song request didn't get played. Or some minger who can't handle their beer doesn't pull, and somehow it's the DJ's fault their night (spent guzzling a depressant and exposing themselves to a lot of insecurities they thought they had buried away deeply) wasn't amazing.

So we'd get the odd complaint from these types despite the increasing business the night was doing. Bored and presumably wanting to look like he was doing his job, the manager asked me to stop doing what was working because of these 1-2 complaints, despite the fact they were having no affect on numbers whatsoever (funnily these people probably came back week-after-week, trust me it happens). It never occurred to him that maybe the exact thing they were complaining about was also part of the reason more people came, only the latter wouldn't call up to say that would they? You'd just see they were coming back.

Bad managers respond to customer complaints without looking at the big picture, despite these complaints being a minority opinion.

The reality here is that Irish Rail run a mile from any debate on the merit of their decision, they don't want to be drawn into the health discussion, yet this state-funded joke of a company (that needs to be sold off and privatised ASAP so they can start delivering standards again with the fear of being put out of a job for poor performance) wants to have their say anyway. So they pander to the loud minority who moan so it saves them having to pick up the phone and do their job again.

This decision doesn't really affect me. It was handy to be able to vape on trains, but I'll live without doing it for 20-30 minute journeys (and if it's longer to the point it does I'll just do it in the bathroom where it'll still affect precisely zero people).

But what bothers me is that Irish Rail took a dangerous stance that supports the anti e-cig mythology. And why? Because they're too lazy to deal with complaints. It almost makes me want to ring up every day and complain about e-cigs being banned, just to force them to have to pick up the phone and do exactly what they didn't want to to begin with.

I've seen used needles on trains .. and heard of a few incidents where staff were injured by needles in bins - on trains and in the toilets at stations. That is a bigger fear for me than any vaping. I've warned my kid to never stick his hands down the side of seats etc while on a train .... feckin durty junkies.

leggo wrote: »

"this state-funded joke of a company (that needs to be sold off and privatised ASAP so they can start delivering standards again with the fear of being put out of a job for poor performance)

not going to happen, they will shut and rip up the lot before it will and no private company is going to be interested (apart from dart) and no i'm not having my railway shut because irish rail is sold off and nobody is interested, give me the trains and money and i'l run it, sorry, back to the e-cigs now, i agree with you, and i think that shight manager you mentioned should be taken out and flogged and should be banned from managing anything

Surely all this plain packaging and no ads etc is based on the premise of trying to de-normalise smoking, removing it from the everyday so that less people get pulled into it.

E-cigs are just another way are getting it normalised again. Do we want that?

It is in effect drug taking. People have mentioned druggies etc but that is illegal, still goes on, but not in the way it would. Nicotine is a drug, and are people really saying that it is normal to go about their daily business taking a hit?

What are the long term effects of nicotine use?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Surely all this plain packaging and no ads etc is based on the premise of trying to de-normalise smoking, removing it from the everyday so that less people get pulled into it.

E-cigs are just another way are getting it normalised again. Do we want that?

It is in effect drug taking. People have mentioned druggies etc but that is illegal, still goes on, but not in the way it would. Nicotine is a drug, and are people really saying that it is normal to go about their daily business taking a hit?

What are the long term effects of nicotine use?

Not really. People see e-cigs as the antithesis to smoking. It's seen as a sign you're quitting. Nicotine's effects are as harmful as caffeine, its lone purpose in the toxic cocktail of a cigarette is to get you addicted. It's the other stuff that does the damage.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Surely all this plain packaging and no ads etc is based on the premise of trying to de-normalise smoking, removing it from the everyday so that less people get pulled into it.

no, strangely not, governments don't want people to give up because it brings in revenue, what this is about though from what i can see is governments wanting to be seen to be doing something about the problem (and shut the anti-smoking terrorists up) so they bring in things like plain packaging

Leroy42 wrote: »

E-cigs are just another way are getting it normalised again.

no its not

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do we want that?

couldn't care a less to be honest, rather e-cigs then smokes, but if people choose to smoke its their life.

stevenmu wrote: »

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".

My point is that many things & behaviours are banned which are not demonstrably harmful, so there should be no real surprise about this ban.

grindle wrote: »

Personally speaking and judging from anecdotal commentary around the world's vaping forums, nicotine is far less addictive outside of a cigarette.

I expect many people (customers on the train) might think (without any study to back up their belief) that a child who starts vaping for a bit of fun might be more likely progress to real cigarettes. So the business probably values these customers opinions.

I can fully understand why they would want the ban, even if there was proof it was 100% harmless. If cannabis was legalized and proven 100% harmless I would see people not wanting people using vapourisers in their business/service, as some customers might object -so in the long run they figure it is probably more profitable to have the ban.

I can't find the post now, but some poster said something like "I gave up smoking and vaping was my only option", dunno if they had some physical problem with the numerous other nicotine devices out there, gum, lozenges, patches, tablets...

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if its part of quitting then having to go without on the train is actually good then!

Nicotine, as I understand it is additive, so why would anybody willingly agree to buy a company's product knowing that it is addictive?

By all means people can spend their money on whatever THEY wish, not sure it is a good idea to let new products into the market which we already know are addictive. Keeping E-cigs off trains etc means they will stay out of the mainstream so somebody taking them up will use them only sparingly

Believe it or not, I and other e-cig smokers have actually managed so far to get by in life without having some gruff **** from Irish Rail who can't even be bothered to research their decisions making life choices for me.