Vaping on Primetime

nuttyboy79 · 10-09-2015 11:33PM #1

Very fair and well balanced item on vaping on Primetime tonight

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/prime-time/2015/0910/

nkav86 · 10-09-2015 11:39PM

Thought the same, a lot of people seem pleased, finally some good press getting out there

Trond · 11-09-2015 09:46AM

Maybe the tide is turning at long last!

KillerShamrock · 11-09-2015 09:50AM

Starts around the 25 min mark so people dont have to flick or sit through the rest of primetime

bikeresearcher · 11-09-2015 09:53AM

Don't know. Very early days. The market it as I understand it isn't very regulated plus there's a big difference between vaping for instance and an e-cig which may complicate things further. They may have significantly different effects on the lungs.

Didihno · 11-09-2015 10:36AM

bikeresearcher wrote: »

Don't know. Very early days. The market it as I understand it isn't very regulated plus there's a big difference between vaping for instance and an e-cig which may complicate things further. They may have significantly different effects on the lungs.

See, and no offence, but its this kind of ignorance that is just not helping.
An e-cig, is a vaporiser of eliquid. It has many shapes and sizes. But they all do the same thing.
Calling it an electronic cigarette was the biggest mistake from the outset. The word cigarette should be nowhere near Vaping.

I understand why they did it, in the early days, it was to attract smokers to make the change. Nowadays though, as much as we 'Vapers' try to change the situation, we meet folks like you, who of course simply call our devices 'e-cigs'.
I'm not having a go at you personally, and my use of the word 'ignorance' was simply the proper term for the lack of information possessed.
Every time the word e-cig is used in the media, I think thats one step closer to the political establishment having an easy ride while they try to classify our devices as Tobacco products. Because, tax money.

tommy2bad · 12-09-2015 10:38AM

bikeresearcher wrote: »

Don't know. Very early days. The market it as I understand it isn't very regulated plus there's a big difference between vaping for instance and an e-cig which may complicate things further. They may have significantly different effects on the lungs.

Have you watched the program? What exactly don't you know? The long term effects, if the tide is turning, ?
For the purpose of this discussion we are talking about e cigs, the use of which is called vaping. Technical e cigs are vaporizer, as didihno said commonly called e cigs for historic reasons. Yes their are other vaporizer but we are not allowed discuss them on this board.
As you understand it, the market is not well regulated, hard to answer that as I'm not sure what you mean, ecigs are subject to around 20 different regulations, up to and including wee regs. What their not regulated as I'd medicines but then again, their not medicines.
Really, do some research, you will find lots of information on the effects of vapor from e cigs, some more reliable than others. You won't find much on dry herb vaporizer though you will find that both are considered far less harmful than smoking.

The prime time piece was good as far as general media goes, it could have been more explicit as to the possible effects the TPD will have but at least we got one Irish doctor to support vaping. That's a start, if the tide is to turn it will need far more.

jonski · 12-09-2015 10:52AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

The prime time piece was good as far as general media goes, it could have been more explicit as to the possible effects the TPD will have but at least we got one Irish doctor to support vaping. That's a start, if the tide is to turn it will need far more.

The journalist that did the piece commented in the vaping group on FB and said it was supposed to be longer but it had to be cut down on the night because of the refugee crisis report .

macker33 · 13-09-2015 02:32PM

Its interesting what was said near the end where they said there is nothing illegal about smoking them indoors.
Its worth knowing the law because a lot of premises dont seem too clear on the issue.

Soundman · 13-09-2015 10:04PM

macker33 wrote: »

Its interesting what was said near the end where they said there is nothing illegal about smoking them indoors.
Its worth knowing the law because a lot of premises dont seem too clear on the issue.

While it is not officially illegal to vape indoors, it is permitted for a premises owner/manager to prohibit the use of them in their establishment. Nothing illegal about that.

Didihno · 14-09-2015 12:06PM

Soundman wrote: »

While it is not officially illegal to vape indoors, it is permitted for a premises owner/manager to prohibit the use of them in their establishment. Nothing illegal about that.

Of course, and its perfectly fine if a pub or other establishment chooses to not allow vaping. I totally understand this, even if I suspect its mostly due to ignorance and believing media misrepresentation.
I will of course, vote with my wallet for the most part.
Plenty of vaping friendly pubs around, and they'll get my hard earned instead.
Restaurants are a different matter, I don't personally vape in a pure restaurant, I think its just bad manners.

macker33 · 23-09-2015 04:35AM

Still, i think its best to vape innocently until told you are told guilty.
Its wrong to automatically assume vaping isnt ok.

Penny Tration · 23-09-2015 10:53AM

macker33 wrote: »

Still, i think its best to vape innocently until told you are told guilty.
Its wrong to automatically assume vaping isnt ok.

That's pretty much the worst thing you could do.

The right thing to do is ask if you can vape indoors.

jakdublin · 23-09-2015 11:27PM

Penny Tration wrote: »

The right thing to do is ask if you can vape indoors.

I don't agree. It's giving credence to the hysteria. Reminds me of the mass protests against mobile phone masts back in the day. There's no basis for a ban at all really.

For me, it's as 'normal' to vape as it is to wear a nicotine patch or chew gum. It's not harming me, it's helping me not smoke, and it definitely has no effect on anybody around me.

I accept it's ignorant to be billowing out clouds of vapour anywhere, that's just bad manners, but if I'm vaping a non-fragrant juice discreetly I always assume it's allowed on the basis that there's no logical reason why it would cause any inconvenience to anybody.

I've only ever been asked not to vape twice in three years. Once on a bus by a Garda and once in a cafe in Berlin. In both cases they couldn't explain why I couldn't vape other than it wasn't allowed. I also continued to vape even more discreetly both times, just because I could and knew they wouldn't notice. &#55357;&#56835;
Bans are total nonsense but I accept there's a few dicks who irritate non-vapers by blowing attention-seeking huge clouds. It's still harmless vapour at the end of the day though.

WillyFXP · 02-10-2015 09:22PM

jakdublin wrote: »

and it definitely has no effect on anybody around me.

It's still harmless vapour at the end of the day though.

Seriously? You actually believe this????

nuttyboy79 · 02-10-2015 11:13PM

WillyFXP wrote: »

Seriously? You actually believe this????

http://vaperanks.com/big-tobacco-study-claims-e-cigarette-vapor-is-as-harmless-to-human-airway-tissue-as-plain-air/

Yes he is serious there's about as much harm in e-cigarette vapour as there is in eating a tomato.

jonski · 02-10-2015 11:19PM

I'd sooner stand behind someone vaping than stand behind a VW Passat

WillyFXP · 03-10-2015 12:23AM

nuttyboy79 wrote: »

http://vaperanks.com/big-tobacco-study-claims-e-cigarette-vapor-is-as-harmless-to-human-airway-tissue-as-plain-air/

Yes he is serious there's about as much harm in e-cigarette vapour as there is in eating a tomato.

Sure fukc it so, it's all there in black and white, must be true.
Do you have any links to ACTUAL REAL RESEARCH carried out long term independently outside of the vaping or tobacco industry on REAL subjects, as opposed to a robot inhaling smoke and vapour (type of liquid, nicotine content, other additives etc being published) into artificial airways for six poxy hours?
Of course vaping is harmful ffs, it's just less harmful than smoking. As to how much less harmful, no one knows, because no definitive research has yet been published to actually show us.

JWRyan · 03-10-2015 01:02AM

WillyFXP wrote: »

Sure fukc it so, it's all there in black and white, must be true.
Do you have any links to ACTUAL REAL RESEARCH carried out long term independently outside of the vaping or tobacco industry on REAL subjects, as opposed to a robot inhaling smoke and vapour (type of liquid, nicotine content, other additives etc being published) into artificial airways for six poxy hours?
Of course vaping is harmful ffs, it's just less harmful than smoking. As to how much less harmful, no one knows, because no definitive research has yet been published to actually show us.

Sure let's just ignore Public Health England. Sure what do they know?

8mm · 03-10-2015 02:00AM

Lots of quality research has been done on the bulk ingredients of e-liquid; nicotine, propylene glycol and vegetable glycerol.

Independent research:

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/

grindle · 03-10-2015 09:01AM

WillyFXP wrote: »

Do you have any links to ACTUAL REAL RESEARCH carried out long term independently outside of the vaping or tobacco industry on REAL subjects?

Why are you asking us this question when you should be asking yourself? If you think it's harmful then prove it. It is likely to be very very slightly harmful to the actual vaper - nicotine raises blood pressure just like caffeine , that's not great.

But harmful to others around the vaper? You're definitely going to have to back that up.

Reams of research have been done on ecigs so far, never mind the research done on the main ingredients (PG/VG/Nicotine) for the past few decades & the amounts of those chemicals exhaled by a vaper are certainly not harmful to bystanders.

WillyFXP · 03-10-2015 09:16AM

I'm still waiting to see any long term research on the effects of vaping, none of the links or organisations mentioned have done any, that's my whole point, no one knows the long term effects of vaping. Yes there is research on the effects of nicotine and the ingredients of e-liquid (and nicotine does a LOT more harm than just raising BP), but as I keep trying to get across, no research on the combined products being vapourised and inhaled on a long term basis.

grindle · 03-10-2015 09:46AM

WillyFXP wrote: »

...nicotine does a LOT more harm than just raising BP...

Go on?

WillyFXP wrote: »

...no research on the combined products being vapourised and inhaled on a long term basis.

There will be, and all early signs are good. People sometimes like to say "Well, look at what we didn't know about cigarettes in the 50s! The same is probably true for ecigs!!!" as if science hasn't advanced faster than their prejudices or ability to retain knowledge over the past 60 years

Maybe you're a believer in preventive medicine or something in which case you're never going to see the point in harm reduction and it's fruitless debating the topic because nobody can be perfect, or perfect as you see it.

As it stands from the chemical analysis of the output of ecigs, ecig exhalations are far below the EU's PELs for any chemical they contain. AKA safe for bystanders.

Long term effects for vapers? Unknown but predictable.

Long term effects for bystanders? According to the EUs limits (which err on the side of caution quite aggressively) and what large swathes of scientists consider best practise, nil.

Short term effects for bystanders? Sometimes a bad smell might be smelled, but usually nice ones. Nephophobics might be terrified.

WillyFXP · 03-10-2015 09:59AM

I'm not denying that there are massive benefits to vaping over smoking, I never said or insinuated their weren't. My point is that it was claimed that vaping is totally harmless, it's not. Question, if it's harmless, you would have no problem with your children vaping?

grindle · 03-10-2015 10:21AM

WillyFXP wrote: »

I'm not denying that there are massive benefits to vaping over smoking, I never said or insinuated there weren't. My point is that it was claimed that vaping is totally harmless, it's not. Question, if it's harmless, you would have no problem with your children vaping?

Well, I don't think it's harmless, just harmless to bystanders according to our current high standards. EU standards for clean air in the workplace are very high.

I don't have kids, but if they already smoke they should definitely give up and if they can't give up cold turkey they should vape.

If they were to take up vaping without having ever smoked I'd think of it the same as if I had a precocious teen who took to drinking coffee (although coffee will be worse for the teen's mood swings).
If I knew they were just looking for flavour I'd happily make them some 0-nic liquid, as it's undoubtedly safer/healthier than gorging on Refreshers or Starbursts.
Sugar addiction, diabetes and heart disease are definite common problems, I'd worry about those first.

WillyFXP · 03-10-2015 10:36AM

grindle wrote: »

Well, I don't think it's harmless,

Thank you, that was my point in the first place.

grindle wrote: »

diabetes and heart disease are definite common problems,

And can be exacerbated by nicotine (just to expand on your previous question)

I am PRO vaping. I stopped smoking the day I started vaping, and I wouldn't have been able to do it any other way (I tried, a lot). I just don't think that vaping should be made out to be harmless when it clearly isn't. I am also against the upcoming so called regulation of the industry, as I don't think that the research has been done to appropriately support the proposed changes.

nuttyboy79 · 03-10-2015 10:49AM

WillyFXP wrote: »

Thank you, that was my point in the first place.

And can be exacerbated by nicotine (just to expand on your previous question)

I am PRO vaping. I stopped smoking the day I started vaping, and I wouldn't have been able to do it any other way (I tried, a lot). I just don't think that vaping should be made out to be harmless when it clearly isn't. I am also against the upcoming so called regulation of the industry, as I don't think that the research has been done to appropriately support the proposed changes.

Nobody said vaping is harmless, it's not. It's 95% safer then smoking. What is harmless is 2nd hand vapour. You've been shown research that backs it up and you've dismissed it. Nicotine in massive quantities is lethal, almost everything is. However the quantities used in e-liquid nicotine is as harmful as caffeine

grindle · 03-10-2015 10:55AM

WillyFXP wrote: »

Well, I don't think it's harmless

Thank you, that was my point in the first place.

It seems like you were taking his statement out of context then. As far as bystanders are concerned it is harmless vapour, that's what he was speaking in relation to.

WillyFXP wrote: »

diabetes and heart disease are definite common problems

And can be exacerbated by nicotine (just to expand on your previous question)

Of course the heart disease can be exacerbated. Anything that constricts vessels will exacerbate it. Not sure about the diabetes though.

WillyFXP · 03-10-2015 11:19AM

nuttyboy79 wrote: »

Nobody said vaping is harmless, it's not. It's 95% safer then smoking. What is harmless is 2nd hand vapour. You've been shown research that backs it up and you've dismissed it. Nicotine in massive quantities is lethal, almost everything is. However the quantities used in e-liquid nicotine is as harmful as caffeine

I've also read research that contradicts this. The point is, there is no definitive answer, as there has not been enough independent non biased research done. It has not been proved that second hand vapour is harmless, neither has it been proved the level of risk it actually poses. BUT, second hand vapour still contains all of the harmful elements the primary user exposes themselves to, so, in effect, cannot be classed as "harmless".

tommy2bad · 05-10-2015 10:58AM

WillyFXP wrote: »

I've also read research that contradicts this. The point is, there is no definitive answer, as there has not been enough independent non biased research done. It has not been proved that second hand vapour is harmless, neither has it been proved the level of risk it actually poses. BUT, second hand vapour still contains all of the harmful elements the primary user exposes themselves to, so, in effect, cannot be classed as "harmless".

Your going to have to define harm and harmless before I can properly answer this.
Lets take coffee for example, most people think of coffee as harmless, it gives a slight buzz but other than that bbl one has died of had their life shortened by the normal consumption of coffee. On the other hand it contains caffeine which acts as a stimulant, alters mood and raises blood pressure. The aerosol produced when coffee is made spreads in the air and exposes other non drinkers to the same risk though at a reduced rate. Is coffee " safe"? Can it be classed as harmless? Can you point out the harm of coffee apart from the theoretical risks if listed?

WillyFXP · 05-10-2015 10:47PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Your going to have to define harm and harmless before I can properly answer this.
Lets take coffee for example, most people think of coffee as harmless, it gives a slight buzz but other than that bbl one has died of had their life shortened by the normal consumption of coffee. On the other hand it contains caffeine which acts as a stimulant, alters mood and raises blood pressure. The aerosol produced when coffee is made spreads in the air and exposes other non drinkers to the same risk though at a reduced rate. Is coffee " safe"? Can it be classed as harmless? Can you point out the harm of coffee apart from the theoretical risks if listed?

No point in trying to make a sensible discussion if it's constantly being met with overly defensive retorts. There is no comparison with a cloud of eliquid vapor and the amount of aerosol produced making a cup of coffee.

Vaping on Primetime

Comments