Irish Rail bans e-cigarettes

pundy · 12-03-2014 12:23pm

Lets just ban Ar5eholes being allowed to spout out their sh!te opinions on matters in which they havent a clue.

RossFixxxed · 12-03-2014 12:25pm

P_1 wrote: »

Ingredients found in exhaled vapour.

Nicotine - I think I've already explained how negligible an amount is exhaled.
Flavouring - Passes the same standards that food flavourings does. You'd have as much to fear from somebody exhaling after taking a bite from a muffin.
PG and VG - Commonly found in bottled water. Do you fear for your health after somebody exhales after taking a sip of Ballygowan?

In theory! However, there are other additives in the flavouring some of which are dangerous, some of which are absolutely fine. The point remains that if the muffin is regulated and held to standards, e liquid could be brewed in a lead bath tub at the moment.

Also inhaling microwave popcorn flavouring (in some buttery e-liquids) damages lungs, so if a manufacturer uses it in their liquid then you're in a spot of bother potentially.

Again, not saying it actually is very bad, but in some cases it may be. I don't like blanket statements like yours in relation to something we don't know enough about.

Edit the chemical is called: diacetyl. Chances are that e-liquid isn't full of it, but maybe I'm a scam artist and throw it in there. Like the horrible cases of methanol poisoning that happen in places. There's simply no rules or regulation here so you need to be safe as you can.

P_1 · 12-03-2014 2:41pm

RossFixxxed wrote: »

In theory! However, there are other additives in the flavouring some of which are dangerous, some of which are absolutely fine. The point remains that if the muffin is regulated and held to standards, e liquid could be brewed in a lead bath tub at the moment.

Also inhaling microwave popcorn flavouring (in some buttery e-liquids) damages lungs, so if a manufacturer uses it in their liquid then you're in a spot of bother potentially.

Again, not saying it actually is very bad, but in some cases it may be. I don't like blanket statements like yours in relation to something we don't know enough about.

Edit the chemical is called: diacetyl. Chances are that e-liquid isn't full of it, but maybe I'm a scam artist and throw it in there. Like the horrible cases of methanol poisoning that happen in places. There's simply no rules or regulation here so you need to be safe as you can.

Fair point and I was being a bit flippant. The thing is that most vapers (myself included) are in favour of regulation. However what most vapers are not in favour of is introducing new prohibitively expensive regulations when we already have perfectly fine regulation systems in place with food regulations and the CE regulations.

grindle · 12-03-2014 4:21pm

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.

Here you go. It's an analytical study of all the major studies as of last summer. He was asked to be as strict as he deemed necessary so he used the standards set by the Netherlands for workplace PELs. In most cases they've exceeded what the EU requires.
Choice quote:

Even when compared to workplace standards for involuntary exposures, and using several conservative (erring
on the side of caution) assumptions, the exposures from using e-cigarettes fall well below the threshold for
concern for compounds with known toxicity. That is, even ignoring the benefits of e-cigarette use and the fact
that the exposure is actively chosen, and even comparing to the levels that are considered unacceptable to
people who are not benefiting from the exposure and do not want it, the exposures would not generate concern
or call for remedial action.

BizzyC wrote: »

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.

http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf
http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/10/ntr.ntt203.short?rss=1

The amount was so low as to be undetectable in the first study (unfortunately funded by a company with ecig interests), the amount detected in the second study (from an institute with no ecig affiliation, actually quite skeptical of them) was (let's use the max reading here to appease the ignorant and the zealots) 6.23 µg/m3 or 0.00623mg/m3.
Take note of that figure.

BizzyC wrote: »

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

Really? So the dose of cocaine found on a banknote has you rolling for more, does it? It's all about the dosage and the dosage of nicotine in second-hand vapour comes nowhere near enough to affect you or anybody else. Again, note the above figure.

BizzyC wrote: »

Blowing vapour in my face would increase the levels of nicotine in my system. So it would affect me.

It wouldn't, read above.

BizzyC wrote: »

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.

Blah blah blah, above.

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.

P_1's figures are actually off by a good bit here.

Aubergine contains 100ng or 0.0001mg of nicotine per gram (1000 times less than what P_1 wrote). The average aubergine = 300g in weight, therefore the average aubergine contains .03mg nicotine.
Five vapers in a room for a few hours produced 0.00623mg/m3 at maximum. We need 24 vapers to equal that aubergine amount per m3.
The permissible exposure limit for nicotine is the same for the US and the EU, 0.5mg/m3 (I'm hoping you can already see how low the emitted second hand vapour looks in comparison - it's 80 times less in case you were wondering).
Since Roswell Park's study is predictably hidden behind a paywall, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say the vapers were in a much larger room than the Clearstream study (which found no measurable amounts of nicotine in second-hand vapour from five vapers sat in a 60m3 room for five hours). Let's really skew it in the favour of the zealots and double the volume of the room. 120m3.

The average train carriage would have a volume inside of over 150m3 (3.5mx22mx2m = 154m3). We'll skew that in the favour of zealots again by saying the volume is 120m3 as miniaturising the carriage will increase the concentration of nicotine inside and thus helpfully increase the potential discomfort of our zealot.
Rounds it off nicely with our kind move for Roswell Park, too! Makes calculating easy.
So...if 5 vapers in one train carriage creates 0.00623mg/m3, and we need 80 times that amount of vapers to reach the PEL...
Ooh, look! You'd need to fill that one carriage with 400 vapers to reach the PEL. Or 5000 aubergines.
And that's with figures highly skewed in favour of zealots, it's likely the figure would be double that or more.

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.

Not at those levels. Also, the majority of nicotine from ecigs gets absorbed through the mucosae of your mouth and nose - vapour particles are ~10 times larger than smoke particles which means they can't reach into the depths of your lungs as smoke can.
This is why ecigs are around 30-40% as efficient at delivering nicotine per dose as compared to cigarettes (this was measured via cotinine levels of users).

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.

Not serving a supposed 50/50 chance of cancer to yourself whilst still enjoying a drug in a form with no proven deleterious health effect is daft. Mmm.

mardybumbum wrote: »

The fact that you believe that it is up to the anti vapers to prove that there is no harm to 3rd parties is ridiculous and doesn't deserve a response.
Thankfully, most sensible adults would be of the position that where there is uncertainty as to the safety of a certain practice, then it should of course be up to those who partake in the practise to allay the fears of those who are concerned.

A lot of talk of evidence on this thread. Anybody mind linking to some scientific literature.

Science works by proving something to be as true as we can fathom, not by not-proving it. i.e. There has to be an effect to be measured. Meaning any effects have to be found, as opposed to your notion that we have to prove nothingness happens and you're not happy until that comes to fruition. As it stands science hasn't found any negatives, therefore they're all above board in principle.
More than above board, because a potential six million people a year won't die from cigarettes if ecigs replace them.

kippy wrote: »

You've got to ask yourself why you vape if the nicotine content is "negligable". If you are getting nothing from it why not just use a piece of plastic with no vapour?

I've seen people vape who are trying to give up the fags vaping through a serious amount of liquid in a week, which was meant to last for a month......is he better off vaping through this amount than going cold turkey?

The content isn't negligible to a vaper, the second-hand vapour content is, extremely so.

If someone said that a 30ml bottle was supposed to last a month, they're lying. If the person vaping is vaping more often than they smoke it's likely they're not being satisfied and need to up their dosage.
I started low-ish and was vaping like a 20-a-day smoker would (I used to smoke 5-10).
Upped my nic and got better devices and more than halved my liquid use.

Statistically the guy you know who's vaping is better off because cold turkey is the number one method prone to failure and re-uptake of cigarettes.

RossFixxxed wrote: »

In theory! However, there are other additives in the flavouring some of which are dangerous, some of which are absolutely fine. The point remains that if the muffin is regulated and held to standards, e liquid could be brewed in a lead bath tub at the moment.

Also inhaling microwave popcorn flavouring (in some buttery e-liquids) damages lungs, so if a manufacturer uses it in their liquid then you're in a spot of bother potentially.

Again, not saying it actually is very bad, but in some cases it may be. I don't like blanket statements like yours in relation to something we don't know enough about.

Edit the chemical is called: diacetyl. Chances are that e-liquid isn't full of it, but maybe I'm a scam artist and throw it in there. Like the horrible cases of methanol poisoning that happen in places. There's simply no rules or regulation here so you need to be safe as you can.

I agree that we need and want to know more about the ingredients but the current food safety regulations which do apply to eliquid makes brewing in a lead bath tub quite illegal. This is the FSAI's job at the moment, if they're not enforcing it you should canvass them to.

rubadub wrote: »

It is recognised as the most addictive substance known, more than meth, crack or heroin.

It might be recognised as such by people who think nicotine is a cigarette, but it's not.
Any research or (more likely) opinion piece saying that is conflating cigarettes with nicotine as cigs are the primary delivery device for nicotine, but with cigs harbouring a cocktail of MAOIs, depressants and additives designed to increase the uptake of alkaloids there isn't a comparison.
Personally speaking and judging from anecdotal commentary around the world's vaping forums, nicotine is far less addictive outside of a cigarette.
There is an ongoing study by Prof. Jean-Françios Etter at the moment which will bring us closer to understanding how true this is.

TL;DR, and by god it needs it: Poppycock.

Wibbs · 12-03-2014 4:53pm

Brilliant post grindle. Actual facts and studies rather than Maud Flanders armwaving opinions masquerading as facts. Jesus, be careful there Sir, this is unusual in such discussions.

kippy · 12-03-2014 4:53pm

grindle wrote: »

Here you go. It's an analytical study of all the major studies as of last summer. He was asked to be as strict as he deemed necessary so he used the standards set by the Netherlands for workplace PELs. In most cases they've exceeded what the EU requires.
Choice quote:

http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf
http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/10/ntr.ntt203.short?rss=1

The amount was so low as to be undetectable in the first study (unfortunately funded by a company with ecig interests), the amount detected in the second study (from an institute with no ecig affiliation, actually quite skeptical of them) was (let's use the max reading here to appease the ignorant and the zealots) 6.23 µg/m3 or 0.00623mg/m3.
Take note of that figure.

Really? So the dose of cocaine found on a banknote has you rolling for more, does it? It's all about the dosage and the dosage of nicotine in second-hand vapour comes nowhere near enough to affect you or anybody else. Again, note the above figure.

It wouldn't, read above.

Blah blah blah, above.

P_1's figures are actually off by a good bit here.

Aubergine contains 100ng or 0.0001mg of nicotine per gram (1000 times less than what P_1 wrote). The average aubergine = 300g in weight, therefore the average aubergine contains .03mg nicotine.
Five vapers in a room for a few hours produced 0.00623mg/m3 at maximum. We need 24 vapers to equal that aubergine amount per m3.
The permissible exposure limit for nicotine is the same for the US and the EU, 0.5mg/m3 (I'm hoping you can already see how low the emitted second hand vapour looks in comparison - it's 80 times less in case you were wondering).
Since Roswell Park's study is predictably hidden behind a paywall, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say the vapers were in a much larger room than the Clearstream study (which found no measurable amounts of nicotine in second-hand vapour from five vapers sat in a 60m3 room for five hours). Let's really skew it in the favour of the zealots and double the volume of the room. 120m3.

The average train carriage would have a volume inside of over 150m3 (3.5mx22mx2m = 154m3). We'll skew that in the favour of zealots again by saying the volume is 120m3 as miniaturising the carriage will increase the concentration of nicotine inside and thus helpfully increase the potential discomfort of our zealot.
Rounds it off nicely with our kind move for Roswell Park, too! Makes calculating easy.
So...if 5 vapers in one train carriage creates 0.00623mg/m3, and we need 80 times that amount of vapers to reach the PEL...
Ooh, look! You'd need to fill that one carriage with 400 vapers to reach the PEL. Or 5000 aubergines.
And that's with figures highly skewed in favour of zealots, it's likely the figure would be double that or more.

Not at those levels. Also, the majority of nicotine from ecigs gets absorbed through the mucosae of your mouth and nose - vapour particles are ~10 times larger than smoke particles which means they can't reach into the depths of your lungs as smoke can.
This is why ecigs are around 30-40% as efficient at delivering nicotine per dose as compared to cigarettes (this was measured via cotinine levels of users).

Not serving a supposed 50/50 chance of cancer to yourself whilst still enjoying a drug in a form with no proven deleterious health effect is daft. Mmm.

Science works by proving something to be as true as we can fathom, not by not-proving it. i.e. There has to be an effect to be measured. Meaning any effects have to be found, as opposed to your notion that we have to prove nothingness happens and you're not happy until that comes to fruition. As it stands science hasn't found any negatives, therefore they're all above board in principle.
More than above board, because a potential six million people a year won't die from cigarettes if ecigs replace them.

The content isn't negligible to a vaper, the second-hand vapour content is, extremely so.

If someone said that a 30ml bottle was supposed to last a month, they're lying. If the person vaping is vaping more often than they smoke it's likely they're not being satisfied and need to up their dosage.
I started low-ish and was vaping like a 20-a-day smoker would (I used to smoke 5-10).
Upped my nic and got better devices and more than halved my liquid use.

Statistically the guy you know who's vaping is better off because cold turkey is the number one method prone to failure and re-uptake of cigarettes.

I agree that we need and want to know more about the ingredients but the current food safety regulations which do apply to eliquid makes brewing in a lead bath tub quite illegal. This is the FSAI's job at the moment, if they're not enforcing it you should canvass them to.

It might be recognised as such by people who think nicotine is a cigarette, but it's not.
Any research or (more likely) opinion piece saying that is conflating cigarettes with nicotine as cigs are the primary delivery device for nicotine, but with cigs harbouring a cocktail of MAOIs, depressants and additives designed to increase the uptake of alkaloids there isn't a comparison.
Personally speaking and judging from anecdotal commentary around the world's vaping forums, nicotine is far less addictive outside of a cigarette.
There is an ongoing study by Prof. Jean-Françios Etter at the moment which will bring us closer to understanding how true this is.

TL;DR, and by god it needs it: Poppycock.

Long post so thanks for the insight.
Why dont you just give em up altogether?

RossFixxxed · 12-03-2014 4:54pm

@P_1 @grindle I do actually agree with you, but things do need to change a bit. Both in people's attitudes and in terms of regulation / safety.

grindle knows my tumultous relationship with vaping, so I may seem anti vaping, but I'm not. I just don't think, at this stage, that claims that it is 100% safe are ill advised and that a moderate, investigative approach should be employed by BOTH sides of the argument!

I know you 2 aren't saying that, don't get me wrong. But we can't wade in with:

It's toally safe, 100%, nothing is lets be fair, and always further research is to be advised.
It's toally evil and wrong and it's smoking and you'll all die.

I'm barely talking about vaping, it's the TYPES of arguments, FROM SOME PEOPLE, that are a bit alarming.

Also grindle your logic and facts and stuides have no place here, tears, drama and random unifnormed moaning speaks louder than your facts ever could! :P

I agree that we need and want to know more about the ingredients but the current food safety regulations which do apply to eliquid makes brewing in a lead bath tub quite illegal. This is the FSAI's job at the moment, if they're not enforcing it you should canvass them to.

Yep, absolutely I agree. I'd be concerned though, in the early days that a 'horse meat' type situation could be dangerous, as with any area of business the cowboys could ruin it.

Wibbs · 12-03-2014 5:05pm

kippy wrote: »

Long post so thanks for the insight.
Why dont you just give em up altogether?

I know this ma come as a shock to the hairshirt and mungbeans crew, but it's a mildly enjoyable buzz. I personally find nicotine aids in concentration and memory retention. There are many studies out there backing this up. Here's one and from a give up the ciggies site. Nicotine therapy has also shown promise in ADHD type symptoms, with fewer side effects compared to drugs like Ritilin. Maybe I have adult ADHD? Who knows, but I do know when I was off nicotine entirely for nigh on a year my brain was quite foggy and my memory went to hell. The vaping restored that. Plus nicotine has some other benefits. EG Ulcerative colitis is extremely rare in current smokers. Oddly the lung condition sarcoidosis is also less common in smokers, again down to the nicotine. It may have other effects on schizophrenia and parkinsons too.

SmurfX · 12-03-2014 5:16pm

whiskeyman wrote: »

My mates workplace has banned them, so all the people who use them (people trying to give up smoking) are forced to go out to the smoking hut with all the smokers!
Talk about temptation!

Not your workplaces problem. Society doesn't have to toss people a bone to help them overcome their own addiction.

grindle · 12-03-2014 5:35pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus, be careful there Sir, this is unusual in such discussions.

Most un-AH-like indeed, I'll have to have a drink and cause a ruckus later.

kippy wrote: »

Why dont you just give em up altogether?

Same reason I don't give up coffee - I like the drug and think it's delicious?
Having said that I have had to curtail my coffee drinking because I get all woozy and fluttery if I have a second cup. Go-go-gadget panic attack!

RossFixxxed wrote: »

grindle knows my tumultous relationship with vaping, so I may seem anti vaping, but I'm not. I just don't think, at this stage, that claims that it is 100% safe are ill advised and that a moderate, investigative approach should be employed by BOTH sides of the argument!

I know you 2 aren't saying that, don't get me wrong. But we can't wade in with:

It's toally safe, 100%, nothing is lets be fair, and always further research is to be advised.
It's toally evil and wrong and it's smoking and you'll all die.

I'm barely talking about vaping, it's the TYPES of arguments, FROM SOME PEOPLE, that are a bit alarming.

Nothing's 100% safe. I'm okay with 99.9% safe.
Flavours are the vaper's personal bug-bear - funny that much of this thread focused on nicotine rather than those but I suppose it's an easy scapegoat that's been manufactured through the years.
It will be so many decades before the possible effects of inhaling all the chemicals that constitute a flavouring are known, but as life expectancy creeps up I shudder to think how the zealots will view it as a negative barring loss of tax, profit and a new drain on the welfare system.
Our kids will all be working 'til they're 90 by then, it'll be grand I suppose.

Or flavourless juice is always an option? Many do it already.

RossFixxxed wrote: »

I'd be concerned though, in the early days that a 'horse meat' type situation could be dangerous, as with any area of business the cowboys could ruin it.

I see where you're coming from, but remain more skeptical of amoral multi-billion dollar companies with an axe to grind and proven to have pernicious dollar-motives... Big Tobacco already sold us death and lied, the other has it's benefits but they're not doing it for goodwill. They've been found guilty of knowingly causing deaths in the past and it won't stop. Collateral damage?
Just look at MSD with Vioxx or Pfizer's Champix.
And bear in mind that the horse-meat situation was caused by a big company for big companies. Artisans rarely cut costs whereas it's half the job of a big business to do that.

As everything grows in the future I'd expect a few institutes to be in operation doing what Dr. Farsalinos is doing but on a massive scale - test all liquids, test the vapour produced at varying degrees of heat.
That can be the tax we pay, if that happened and the cost was incorporated into the price of eliquid I'd be delighted.

Fratton Fred · 12-03-2014 5:38pm

Grindle = the Wibbs of the vaping forum.

P_1 · 12-03-2014 5:42pm

Grindle, excellent post and feck am I embarrassed at my mathematical blunder!

grindle · 12-03-2014 5:58pm

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.

Spanish Eyes · 12-03-2014 6:19pm

Have a vape in the jacks.

If these e cigs are so un smelly, who would know?

Easy peasy, and no one is bothered.

Buses and planes, not so easy!

dr.bollocko · 12-03-2014 6:36pm

Well to save grindle's keyboard, lets just direct any further discussion back to his post.

12-03-2014 7:13pm

Stealth vaping is where its at OP.

Just go into the bathroom and vape away. Same in Work, hospitals or wherever, vape till yer hearts content and go back and face the World/Begrudgers will a little grin on your face

I vaped away in Hospital, no one smelled anything.

mathepac · 13-03-2014 8:41am

Gongoozler wrote: »

... Irish Rail have banned them from their train and DART services ...

Great news. Thanks

Arthur Beesley · 13-03-2014 8:47am

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?

Define 'casual approach to personal hygiene'. Does showering once a week count?

bnt · 13-03-2014 9:39am

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?

P_1 · 13-03-2014 11:01am

bnt wrote: »

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?

Well it tends to depend on who you ask on that score. Some people use them as a tool to help them to stop consuming nicotine others view them as a way of consuming nicotine that is less damaging then inhaling burning leaves.

I agree with you about some people having no cop on about how they use them in crowded spaces though.

leggo · 13-03-2014 11:56am

"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.

RollieFingers · 13-03-2014 12:03pm

Why would people wanna smoke or vape on a DART anyways? Surely they could wait for the thirty minutes to an hour their commute takes?

SoapMcTavish · 13-03-2014 12:22pm

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.

Ostrom · 13-03-2014 1:37pm

dr.bollocko wrote: »

It ain't smoke, it's vapour.

And no. There is barely any perceptible smell from them at all.

The scented varieties smell disgusting - that manky, cheesy toilet duckish smell you get from lidl air fresheners. Also like the combination smell you get walking through the cosmetics section of a big department store.

end of the road · 13-03-2014 1:38pm

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

P_1 · 13-03-2014 1:39pm

Ostrom wrote: »

The scented varieties smell disgusting - that manky, cheesy toilet duckish smell you get from lidl air fresheners. Also like the combination smell you get walking through the cosmetics section of a big department store.

Would the vast variety of perfumes and P&G products that people spray on themselves not be a bigger contribution to that smell though?

Leroy42 · 13-03-2014 1:51pm

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?

RossFixxxed · 13-03-2014 1:55pm

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?

What are the long term effects: I honestly don't know and would be very curious.

It is a drug: yeah but so is caffeine, alcohol etc too. They are psychoactive drugs. You have to take them one by one, you can't lump caffeine and methamphetamine together obviously. So I would be interested in the effects myself, but trying to lump it with illegal drugs is quite silly.

(The inverse is also silly without any evidence too).

Personally I hate nicotine, I loath the stuff and I want it gone from my life. It causes me anxiety that only nicotine can solve. It's a crappy, awful chemical but then I know people who feel that about caffeine.

I don't drink and I don't like alcohol AT ALL for me. However, that doesn't mean I would blanket ban them either.

TL;DR: I'm torn on the issue but nicotine not the same as crack not the same as caffeine not the same as blah blah blah.

leggo · 13-03-2014 1:58pm

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 · 13-03-2014 2:05pm

leggo wrote: »

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.

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

end of the road · 13-03-2014 2:07pm

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.

Rubberchikken · 13-03-2014 2:10pm

agree fully with irishrail.
but then i hate smoking, absolutely disgusting and utterly unnecessary for anyone to do.
why people start in the first place is beyond me.

ban those ecigs everywhere i say.

Fratton Fred · 13-03-2014 2:32pm

Rubberchikken wrote: »

agree fully with irishrail.
but then i hate smoking, absolutely disgusting and utterly unnecessary for anyone to do.
why people start in the first place is beyond me.

ban those ecigs everywhere i say.

Careful up there

P_1 · 13-03-2014 2:41pm

Rubberchikken wrote: »

agree fully with irishrail.
but then i hate smoking, absolutely disgusting and utterly unnecessary for anyone to do.
why people start in the first place is beyond me.

ban those ecigs everywhere i say.

ONE MORE TIME...

Smoking involves burning tobacco leaves and inhaling the smoke caused. As a result smoke is released from both the smoker exhaling and the cigarette being burned between puffs. This smoke releases a vast array of nasty chemicals and a minute amount of nicotine into the atmosphere.

Vaping involves heating a liquid mix of nicotine, flavouring, PG and VG and inhaling the vapour caused. As a result some vapour is released from the vaper exhaling. This vapour releases a minute amount of nicotine and ingridients commonly found in food and drink into the atmosphere.

rubadub · 13-03-2014 3:18pm

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...

RossFixxxed · 13-03-2014 3:25pm

rubadub wrote: »

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...

Sigh. I'm a dope sorry rubadub I misread. I was saying vaping is as valid as patches etc, but on the train specifically why not use them? I actually agree on that point. Sorry for previous confusion.

Personally as a smoker and ex vaper: I'd prefer the train/bus to be vape free. I just could do without it. A seperate comprtment would be fine for vaping imho. I don't want to be surrounded by plumes of vapour and the nauseating feeling it gives me. Mind you I'd say the same for booze, B.O etc so my argument has no weight other than my own feelings.

MonstaMash · 13-03-2014 3:27pm

I found the nicotine patches useless...couldn't get a drag out of them at all

stevenmu · 13-03-2014 5:41pm

rubadub wrote: »

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

Oh, I see what you mean now. Yeah lots of stuff does get banned without solid justifiable reasons.

leggo · 13-03-2014 8:03pm

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.

padd b1975 · 13-03-2014 8:39pm

Rubberchikken wrote: »

agree fully with irishrail.
but then i hate smoking, absolutely disgusting and utterly unnecessary for anyone to do.
why people start in the first place is beyond me.

ban those ecigs everywhere i say.

+1.

I cannot understand why anyone under the age of 30 could be so unaware of the health dangers of smoking (not to mention the antisocial stigma of the last 10 years) that they still make a conscious decision to start.

grindle · 13-03-2014 10:06pm

padd b1975 wrote: »

I cannot understand why anyone under the age of 30 could be so unaware of the health dangers of smoking (not to mention the antisocial stigma of the last 10 years) that they still make a conscious decision to start.

With youths there's peer pressure and not-giving-a-fuck syndrome.

Judging from posts on the vaping sub quite a large amount of us got addicted through smoking joints.

Calibos · 14-03-2014 10:14am

Rubberchikken wrote: »

agree fully with irishrail.
but then i hate smoking, absolutely disgusting and utterly unnecessary for anyone to do.
why people start in the first place is beyond me.

ban those ecigs everywhere i say.

Said while stinking out my place of work with his morning coffee while talking about the 6 bottles of lovely new wine he just picked up in Lidl and laughing about the guards nearly catching him take a piss down a little lane the other night on the way home from the pub.....

Nidgeweasel · 14-03-2014 11:20am

First world problems. No trains to smoke on even if you wanted to in Donegal.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 14-03-2014 11:23am

grindle wrote: »

Judging from posts on the vaping sub quite a large amount of us got addicted through smoking joints.

i swore blind for years I wasn't addicted to cigarettes, it wasn't until I moved abroad and wasn't able to get weed for a couple of weeks that I was forced to admit to myself, all the while smoking those lovely lovely canadian cigarettes

seriously, canadian cigarettes are lovely.

grindle · 14-03-2014 3:26pm

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

seriously, canadian cigarettes are lovely.

They WERE lovely you mean.
People expressing concern about weed possibly making an appearance in ecigs is funny too - it'll negate any possibility of addiction to nicotine and produce docile people, what's not to like?

Saw your name on the Vaping sub recently, are you coming back to us?
At the very least you could update the random thread. You can't just start something like that and abandon it like you've abandoned us.

Keyzer · 14-03-2014 4:50pm

Calibos wrote: »

Said while stinking out my place of work with his morning coffee while talking about the 6 bottles of lovely new wine he just picked up in Lidl and laughing about the guards nearly catching him take a piss down a little lane the other night on the way home from the pub.....

Curious...

MonstaMash · 14-03-2014 5:04pm

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

i swore blind for years I wasn't addicted to cigarettes, it wasn't until I moved abroad and wasn't able to get weed for a couple of weeks that I was forced to admit to myself, all the while smoking those lovely lovely canadian cigarettes

seriously, canadian cigarettes are lovely.

You were in Canada & you couldn't score some weed Digby

The home of BC bud & you were budless...that's fookn of the hook, I feel for you

TheDoc · 14-03-2014 5:57pm

I'd love to know if there was a high volume of complaints or was this fixing a problem before it came to pass?

Consdering rush hour trains are like sardine cans, and you get the bang of ****ing woefully smelling people, perfumes and colognes, in your face, for about a 40 minute journey, I dont think smell was the issue.

To be honest doesn't really bother me. I drive, and I got the kick up the arse to learn from spending my teens on buses and trains to schools and colleges. There is alot more problems in the public transport system them e-cigs.

dj jarvis · 14-03-2014 6:12pm

Red Crow wrote: »

Some people don't want vapour exhaled in their faces thanks that smells of coffee or caramel thanks.

people dont blow it in others faces FFS

get a real argument will you :rolleyes:

MonstaMash · 14-03-2014 6:15pm

dj jarvis wrote: »

people dont blow it in others faces FFS

get a real argument will you :rolleyes:

Irish Rail bans e-cigarettes

Comments