Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

European Ban on E-Cigs?

24567…14

Comments

  • #32
    artyeva
    Registered Users Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭artyeva


    the tobacco companies in ireland - well one anyway - seems to be planning on gearing up the 'astroturf' to voice their displeasure about the menthol/slim cigarette ban. in a way i still think personal testimony, sending ''them'' the research that's already out there, and hammering home the point that the ecigs they think we use aren't the ecigs we actually use is the way to go. tommy's right though, it's down to a PR campaign. maybe we need an irish version of farsalinos? or fly him in for a working holiday?! i'd love to see paul kehoe trying to use all his scientific knowledge in a debate with dr farsalinos :rolleyes:


  • #33
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    grindle wrote: »
    No more than they should be drinking a pint or texting on their phone or watching Netflix. That would be common sense coming into action.

    Vaping can be seen as aping smoking all they want, their bias should have no say in what is or isn't acceptable.
    When society has to ask these questions or presume that someone will try to hinder what makes sense, you know something's gone very badly wrong.

    Yes i agree but to the ignorant, vaping very much looks like drinking water from a vodka bottle.

    This won't be easily overcome.


  • #34
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    grindle wrote: »
    No more than they should be drinking a pint or texting on their phone or watching Netflix. That would be common sense coming into action.

    Vaping can be seen as aping smoking all they want, their bias should have no say in what is or isn't acceptable.
    When society has to ask these questions or presume that someone will try to hinder what makes sense, you know something's gone very badly wrong.

    Yes i agree but to the ignorant, to borrow someone elses analogy, vaping very much looks like drinking water from a vodka bottle.

    This won't be easily overcome.


  • #35
    Mr. Chrome
    Registered Users Posts: 1,096 ✭✭✭Mr. Chrome


    Slightly off topic but can someone clear something up for me. I have read and always believed that there is no harm from 2nd or 3rd hand vapour.
    But if you inhale vapour with nicotine in it and you exhale vapour.....how can 100% of the nicotine be absorbed by your body. Surly there must be some nicotine in what you exhale.
    I know we are talking about tiny and probably harmless amounts, but still....
    I never smoked around my kid but I constantly vape around her.
    Can someone put my mind at ease?


  • #36
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Mr. Chrome wrote: »
    Slightly off topic but can someone clear something up for me. I have read and always believed that there is no harm from 2nd or 3rd hand vapour.
    But if you inhale vapour with nicotine in it and you exhale vapour.....how can 100% of the nicotine be absorbed by your body. Surly there must be some nicotine in what you exhale.
    I know we are talking about tiny and probably harmless amounts, but still....
    I never smoked around my kid but I constantly vape around her.
    Can someone put my mind at ease?

    OK this is as I understand it. Secondhand vapor has so little left in it that it poses no danger to passive vapers. First hand vapor has so little in it that it poses little danger to the user based on acceptable environmental levels. Thats not even taking into account the fact that a vaper is doing so voluntarily.
    All this is based on what we know, unknowns are the effects of long term inhalation of PG, theirs no data so no conclusion or indication is available. As far as long term secondhand vapor inhalation is concerned the amounts are so small that we shouldn't be concerned.
    The other consideration is the example you are setting, smokers children are more likely to smoke and I doubt that it because their already slightly addicted to nicotine. Or it could be that the example your setting will give the kid the option of vaping should they be tempted to smoke. Who knows?
    Parental guilt, no getting away from it, then grankids show up and back on the guilt merry go round again.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    artyeva
    Registered Users Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭artyeva


    Mr. Chrome wrote: »
    Slightly off topic but can someone clear something up for me. I have read and always believed that there is no harm from 2nd or 3rd hand vapour.
    But if you inhale vapour with nicotine in it and you exhale vapour.....how can 100% of the nicotine be absorbed by your body. Surly there must be some nicotine in what you exhale.
    I know we are talking about tiny and probably harmless amounts, but still....
    I never smoked around my kid but I constantly vape around her.
    Can someone put my mind at ease?

    pages 5 and 6 of this study talk about exhaled nic levels. there's a table on page 5 with the actual figure. how does that work? magic :eek:


  • #38
    grindle
    Registered Users Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭grindle


    artyeva wrote: »
    how does that work? magic :eek:

    When smoking the cig still burns when not inhaled = measurable (and very small) amounts of nic in the room's air.

    When vaping everything is being inhaled = immeasurably small amounts of nic in the room's air.

    For reference, the amount of nicotine found in the air after the cigarettes was about 10% more than is in the average aubergine. Not a problem.


  • #39
    redkid
    Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭redkid


    rock whore wrote: »
    You know the way if there is a tobacco related story on the news, RTE are guaranteed to have an interview with an ASH representative. Or when there is a retail story you inevitably see your man Jewell from the Consumer Association. It would probably help the cause, at least on a national level, if there were a go-to person or union rep for vaping & e-cigs.

    That group ECITA that Grindle mentioned seem to have their heads screwed on but they are a British organisation and represent the industry rather than those who use the products.

    "Tonight on Six-One, James Reilly says something bad about e-cigs, joining us in the studio is X from the National Vapers Association" kind of thing


    I know what you me and to me that sounds like you putting yourself forward to get it going ;)


  • #40
    redkid
    Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭redkid


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I do have a problem with public area bans, it sends out the message that vaping is wrong and disapproved of. It has no basis in law or science. It's counterproductive if encouraging people to stop smoking is the aim, imagine banning NRT! It an example of this creeping homogenization of public space as if it belonged to the state and not the people. I could go on but I'd start to sound like a grumpy old man again.
    I suggest we have a talk about forming a users representation group at Vapefest this year if it e-cig are not already dead and buried by then.

    Good idea


  • #41
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    We need a TD on board. Obviously the sellers on here can't disclose their customers names etc, but maybe they keep an eye out for a vaping TD?

    Or, maybe we could find a TD that smokes and convert them?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    rock whore
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭rock whore


    redkid wrote: »
    I know what you me and to me that sounds like you putting yourself forward to get it going ;)

    Would be happy to help coordinate such a thing. Might be worth laying some ground work prior to Vapefest so there would be something to present to non-boardsies too.


  • #43
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    rock whore wrote: »
    Would be happy to help coordinate such a thing. Might be worth laying some ground work prior to Vapefest so there would be something to present to non-boardsies too.

    Best of luck to you.
    Great to see people actually doing something instead of just talking about it!


  • #44
    rock whore
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭rock whore


    http://www.ecigwizard.com/blog/vicky-ford-mep

    Good to see someone being constructive.

    As others have said, winning over individuals with influence could be really helpful :)


  • #45
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Is there any way an independent test could be carried out, say with an Institute of Technology etc.

    It cannot cost that much surely?

    There must be students or lecturers interested in this??


  • #46
    artyeva
    Registered Users Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭artyeva


    Going Forward wrote: »
    Is there any way an independent test could be carried out, say with an Institute of Technology etc.

    It cannot cost that much surely?

    There must be students or lecturers interested in this??

    independant test on what exactly?


  • #47
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    artyeva wrote: »
    independant test on what exactly?
    ??

    The components of vapour.
    What juice is made from.
    If burning/boiling it with a red hot element changes the structure radically of vg, pg etc.

    Basic stuff really.


  • #48
    grindle
    Registered Users Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭grindle


    Whether the test was funded by an ecig company or by a friend of the pharmaceuticals, all studies have come back in favour of ecigs. The forewords and conclusions of the anti-ecig sides were negative but their numbers told a story of levels considered safe for the workplace in the countries that have the harshest workplace safety laws.
    Maybe an independent study would be welcome but I don't think any such thing exists, there are always going to be degrees of separation from one side or the other. Since we have the anti's studies in our favour as well we're really relying on politicians with no qualifications on the subject to tell us whether we can do it or not.


  • #49
    Occam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Occam


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Those who vote for a ban should then be publicised as such, and vilified for wholeheartedly promoting the agenda of big tobacco.

    While the risks of E-Cigs are unproven and pretty speculative right now, there is no doubt that the agenda of big tobacco is PRO e-Cigs. They are all either well embedded in the market, or developing products. By your logic, everyone on this thread is promoting the agenda of big tobacco :rolleyes:


  • #50
    songbot
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭songbot


    is it possibe, though, as i was asking in my original post to maybe try and get a big petition together as they have done in england and just get our voices out there to start with. i believe that our government don't know (and possibly don't care) that there are a large amount of vapers in ireland and the number is growing. maybe if they realise how many of us there are they might actually consider our side of the story.

    i am not as knowlegeable as the rest of you, am new to all of this. i know nothing about lobby groups or politics. all i know is that i haven't been smoking for the last 7 months because of my e-cig and i know other people in the same position and i want someone to just take notice of the fact that it has changed peoples lives. but not just with one letter from me to a politician, with a coordinated effort that involves numbers of people so that maybe they will take notice.

    i just don't know what the hell to actually do!! you know what i mean? i don't know anyone in the irish vapers association, i've been just doing all this on my own. am like a little island who cant see all the other little islands that are actually quite nearby!


  • #51
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Occam wrote: »
    While the risks of E-Cigs are unproven and pretty speculative right now, there is no doubt that the agenda of big tobacco is PRO e-Cigs. They are all either well embedded in the market, or developing products. By your logic, everyone on this thread is promoting the agenda of big tobacco :rolleyes:

    Not exactly pro e-cig, BT is not against e-cigs but as far as they are concerned unless it their e-cig then they are against it.
    All the big tobacco companies so far have bought into or are producing a cig alike and favor medical regulation, online sales bans and public use bans. This strategy gives them a monopoly on the market and reduces the competition with their primary product. So yes politicians clamoring for medical regulation and bans are not just playing into the hands of big tobacco but actually trying to get tobacco companies policies into law.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Occam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Occam


    grindle wrote: »
    Whether the test was funded by an ecig company or by a friend of the pharmaceuticals, all studies have come back in favour of ecigs

    I find it very, very hard to believe this.

    How you defining in favour of ecigs ? Better than smoking?


  • #53
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Occam wrote: »
    I find it very, very hard to believe this.

    How you defining in favour of ecigs ? Better than smoking?

    Not just better but 99 to 99.9 times better than smoking. Most tests on the vapor have found less contaminants than in NRT. The exceptions have been where the ecig was heated far beyond what it would be in normal use.
    Here's a link to a study of the tests and studies done so far. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/casaa-new-study-confirms-that-chemicals-in-electronic-cigarettes-pose-minimal-health-risk-218843731.html


  • #54
    Occam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Occam


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Not just better but 99 to 99.9 times better than smoking.

    Just because a research paper shows there are less carcinogens in an e-cigarette than a tobacco cigarette, does not mean that that paper is pro e-cig.

    Using the word all in this context is also inviting trouble.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    All the big tobacco companies so far have bought into or are producing a cig alike and favor medical regulation, online sales bans and public use bans.

    This is definitely incorrect. Blu cigarettes for example have an online store and their whole marketing strategy is that you can take your freedom back and smoke anywhere, even in public.

    Edit : Big tobacco would also be horrified by the proposed medical regulation, especially the restrictions on retail that would involve. Blu are distributed from 100,000+ outlets right now in the U.S. , and I can't see them giving that up easily !


  • #55
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Occam wrote: »
    Just because a research paper shows there are less carcinogens in an e-cigarette than a tobacco cigarette, does not mean that that paper is pro e-cig.

    Using the word all in this context is also inviting trouble.



    This is definitely incorrect. Blu cigarettes for example have an online store and their whole marketing strategy is that you can take your freedom back and smoke anywhere, even in public.

    Strangely Lorillard welcomed the MHRA announcement of medical regulation then. Just to be clear tobacco companies are working two jurisdictions. In the US they oppose medical regs and are working twords tobacco regulation as they have the market infrastructure in place to take advantage of that, in the EU they are supporting medical regs as they can afford to meet the requirements unlike the smaller ecig companies.
    You seem to think that tobacco companies are on the side of ecigs, they are not, they are on the side of tobacco companies.

    Edit; The big tobacco companies are not as interested in the EU market as they are concentrating on the US at the moment. Possibly because the medical regs is dead in the water their and also because their chosen format, cigalikes is more popular their. I think we wont see the big tobacco players here untill the dust settles on the regulation framework they will have to work in.


  • #56
    grindle
    Registered Users Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭grindle


    Occam wrote: »
    Just because a research paper shows there are less carcinogens in an e-cigarette than a tobacco cigarette, does not mean that that paper is pro e-cig.

    Using the word all in this context is also inviting trouble.

    I didn't say all papers are pro ecig, I said that even the studies published that have been trying to tarnish ecigs have (if you read beyond the biased abstract) given figures that are below workplace safety levels.
    The FDA report that was being used to bash ecigs for a couple of years based on TSNAs being found ("therefore the FDA cannot recommend the use of ecigs blahblahblah") showed that the levels of TSNAs found were equivalent to the amount in traditional NRT. They left that out of the foreword knowing full well that <1% of people/journalists would bother to read past it.

    There has been no study that has found them dangerous (yet?) by the numbers. Not even one. Therefore by the numbers all studies show ecigs as much safer than normal cigs. That's how I mean all studies are in favour. The writers can lie, numbers don't.


  • #57
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Even more reason to have an Irish study to give to Minister Reilly.

    Irish research in other areas most notably food safety has been acknowledged to be world class recently.

    Even if funded by pro vaping enthusiasts it would have to be accepted if produced by a respected Irish institution.


  • #58
    artyeva
    Registered Users Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭artyeva


    Going Forward wrote: »
    Even more reason to have an Irish study to give to Minister Reilly.

    Irish research in other areas most notably food safety has been acknowledged to be world class recently.

    Even if funded by pro vaping enthusiasts it would have to be accepted if produced by a respected Irish institution.

    the kind of research you're talking about is already out there. the problem is that who exactly is going to fund an irish university... to test what exactly? who's going to pre-emt [sp??] the kinds of parameters any future health committee members will think they need to capture everything? who sets those parameters? how many different commercially available brands of ingredients do you test? what brands? how many different manufacturers of PG, VG, flavouring, colouring, EM and other additives even are there?

    rhetorical questions here btw.

    have you sent your local representatives research like that recent casaa study, the clearstream study from italy, the michael siegal cessation study, the njoy rebuttle of the 2009 FDA report, the ECITA/legal rebuttle of medicinal classification? what do they say when you do?

    i'm not saying that what's out there is going to be enough for o'reily's advisors and health dept ''officials'' - what i'm saying is there's things we can do in the interim that are useful.


  • #59
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    The thing is tobacco controle is driven by the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This plan to reduce smoking prevalence was adopted in 2003 before ecigs were part of the mainstream options. Theirs no allowance for them in the framework and the WHO view ecigs as an attempt to circumvent it.
    Any studies are being dismissed by the who and Governments are signed up to the framework take all their policy on tobacco control within the terms of the framework.
    Whats worse is that success in tobacco control is measured by how well a country implements this framework not by the reduction in smoking. Ireland scores highly at 4 having brought in the smoking ban and the minimum pack size rules but has seen an increase in smoking. Sweden wont singe up to the ban on snus. It scores a low 18 out of 23 Eu signatories. Sweden has the lowest adult smoking rate and the lowest smoking related illness rate in the developed world.
    http://www.who.int/fctc/en/


  • #60
    Occam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Occam


    grindle wrote: »
    all studies have come back in favour of ecigs. .

    I know you may think I am being pedantic, but if you are going to discuss scientific research, you need to be very careful of the language you use.

    While I understand what you are trying to say, you should have qualified the above statement,with the phrase " over tobacco smoking". It totally changes the meaning of what you are saying. You may think it is implied, but its not.
    grindle wrote: »
    There has been no study that has found them dangerous (yet?) by the numbers. Not even one.

    Again I'm unsure if there is some hidden qualifier to this in your mind, but what you are claiming is just not correct. Look up the Gratziou paper. Just because a study is of poor quality, low sample size, or doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you get to pretend it doesn't exist.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    in the EU they are supporting medical regs as they can afford to meet the requirements unlike the smaller ecig companies.

    They are not supporting medical regulation, anywhere. Their actions speak louder than words.

    In any case the issue for e-Cig companies is not the costs involved, its the reduction in market size that restrictions on retail would cause.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    You seem to think that tobacco companies are on the side of ecigs, they are not, they are on the side of tobacco companies.

    eCigs are the future of the tobacco companies, that is why they are investing so heavily in them, and that is why they are pro e-Cig.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Edit; The big tobacco companies are not as interested in the EU market .... think we wont see the big tobacco players here untill the dust settles on the regulation framework they will have to work in.

    They are already here, British American Tobacco entered the UK e-Cig market last month as Vype, and will hope to expand from there. They will very likely also continue to acquire existing eCig suppliers.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Occam wrote: »
    I know you may think I am being pedantic, but if you are going to discuss scientific research, you need to be very careful of the language you use.
    Yes your being pedantic.
    While I understand what you are trying to say, you should have qualified the above statement,with the phrase " over tobacco smoking". It totally changes the meaning of what you are saying. You may think it is implied, but its not.



    Again I'm unsure if there is some hidden qualifier to this in your mind, but what you are claiming is just not correct. Look up the Gratziou paper. Just because a study is of poor quality, low sample size, or doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you get to pretend it doesn't exist.
    Gratziou paper has been criticized not just for it small size but for the fact that the conclusion published are not supported by the data contained in the study.


    They are not supporting medical regulation, anywhere. Their actions speak louder than words.
    No, they are and have released press releases welcoming regulation. This from the Vype site "Where a medicinal framework is proposed, such as for e-cigarettes in the UK, these products should still be sold over-the-counter through general retailers such as supermarkets, newsagents and grocery stores – just as regular painkillers and cough medicines are already sold in the UK.'

    In any case the issue for e-Cig companies is not the costs involved, its the reduction in market size that restrictions on retail would cause.

    Again no, it's the cost http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxeq8OjMxAY
    3.48 min. in
    eCigs are the future of the tobacco companies, that is why they are investing so heavily in them, and that is why they are pro e-Cig.

    Yes they are the future for tobacco one way or the other.

    They are already here, British American Tobacco entered the UK e-Cig market last month as Vype, and will hope to expand from there. They will very likely also continue to acquire existing eCig suppliers.

    BAT know that the Vype has no chance of a medical licence, vype is just a toe in the water for them.


    This post contains several opertunities for pedants everywhare, knock your selves out!


Advertisement