back to article UK government's war on e-cigs is over

The government has said that the persecution of the users of e-cigarette technology should stop. The Department of Health today outlined a Five Year Tobacco Control plan for England with the goal that the proportion of the population who smoke tobacco products should fall to 12 per cent by 2022, down from 15.5 per cent today. …

Re: Jesus, NO! @ Steven "check my post history on this subject.........

I cannot upvote you enough

4
1
Holmes

Re: Jesus, NO!

To what I ask? Helping themselves to what? Is there VAT collected on "luxury" cars? Alcohol? Cigars? Petrol?? And so if there is money to be made, then make it? Yes. That's capitalism. Surely you are not suggesting a complete and total ban on everything?

The article wasn't a death knell. It was a delicious poke at the prudes who seek to set themselves up as better. And let us not forget, this is the Register. You know the one? Biting the hand that feeds IT...

5
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: We already know.

Sorry, the studies havent stood up to scrutiny

and

As part of MHRA testing, eliquids must be free of diacetyl and aldehydes

seem to be inconsistent statements. Why ban them if the studies have been discredited? Also, of course, how many of the fancier liquids sold online & in vape shops have been MHRA tested?

2
4
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

"Or perhaps you have an unusual smoke detector that goes off from the steam when you boil a kettle?"

Kettle? No. Bucket full of steaming-hot water poured down the sink under the detector by the cleaners (as well as a number of the aforementioned incidents where vapers tried to be sneaker and use the cleaners cupboard)? Yes.

Not saying that your detector may not be different to that in my old offices, but I'd double check that it is actually a smoke detector as opposed to a heat detector (a good fire detection system should use both)...

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus, NO!

When I'm in Wetherspoons I blow the "smoke" up my sleeve

Everyone knows that Wetherspoons is a chav scum enclave, so antisocial behaviour is expected and indeed encouraged. They'll do anything to get the customer to drink more nasty lager and eat more crap food before the rest of us subsidise their lifestyle choices through the NHS. But in the world that everyone else wants to live in, smoking and vaping in public should be banned, with the Police being given powers to taser miscreant idiots who think that being antisocial is a good thing.

5
19

Re: Jesus, NO!

I have asthma, used to smoke and now vape, and vaping does still trigger asthma actually, though not as badly as cigarettes used to.

4
0
Facepalm

Re: Jesus, NO!

I don't want my kids seeing it and possibly making them curious. So please, if you don't mind, keep your addiction private!

So you don't eat chocolate, drink coffee/alcohol, eat sugar/salty/spicy foods and so on in front of your children? How do you manage? Keep them locked up? Do they know there's something called outside world?

16
0
Silver badge

Re: We already know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes

Thanks for that. Interesting. Contradictory in places, but informative.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: We already know.

"The flavours in vaping are governed by food legislation. That means their effect when heated hasn't always been tested."

I wonder why that is, considering they are used in cooking, baking, frying etc., especially in commercial production of foods.

8
2
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Jesus, NO!

"This is the 21st century" ... which means little in this world with people pushing for creationalism to be taught in schools in preference to our best guesses about evolution, plus a long procession of "fake news" which makes it ever harder to work out what's true and what isn't...and leave you wondering why you even care any more.

If you want to start a discussion relating to "fact", don't begin by saying "This is the 21st century" as if the passage of time makes us smarter. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

5
0

Re: Jesus, NO!

@Richard81

So it doesn't contain any actual smoke?

Nobody said or implied that it did.

It does contain a known carcinogen and various irritants.

I am amused by the self-righteousness and victim mentality of people who think that being too weak to give up smoking excuses being selfish.

PS: I found that the best method was to stop buying cigarettes!

2
15

Re: We already know.

This is reycling the old Diacetyl thing. Yes, it's harmful when inhaled in large quantities- like those encountered in a popcorn factory. But not in a vapouriser. However, since there's a perceived possibility of harm, reputable (and most non-reputable) juice mixers no longer use it.

2
0

Re: Jesus, NO!

if living in the tropics is setting of fire alarms, uh, maybe you should stop living in the tropics?

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

"

Optical are not 'cheaper'. They're perfect for their job. If they trigger on people who vape, then they should probably quit vaping?

"

And if you have a detector that triggers when you make toast, do you also believe that the most reasonable solution is to stop eating toast?

7
0

Re: Jesus, NO!

You write well for a five year old.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

"It does contain a known carcinogen and various irritants."

So do tomatoes!

7
0
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

"I am amused by the self-righteousness and victim mentality of people who think that being too weak to give up smoking excuses being selfish."

I'm amused by the self-righteousness and condescending attitude of people who are non-smokers and ant-vaping. Oh, wait. Did I just generalise you into that group of people? My bad.

5
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus, NO!

>Hallways and livingrooms are optical territory.

Nope - since the regs changed in respect of soft furnishings, living rooms should get ionisation sensors. The fire bobbies hate landlords fitting optical sensors since they are so prone to false alarms from cooking, steam etc the batteries generally get pulled - in fact they ran a programme swapping them out gratis for a while.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus, NO!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/22/ecigarettes-worse-than-smoking-cancer_n_6522402.html

Looks like vaping isn't so safe after all. Hint: Human lungs are designed to breath air. Clogging them up with other stuff for pleasure is retarded. It was stupid to smoke even though at first doctors thought it was harmless. It is stupid to vape although some say it's ok. Wait a few years to find out the real damage. If you want to vape do so with my blessing but don't expose me to your filthy habit.

4
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus, NO! @RyokuMas

*Hippie - Most of us were actually quite svelte back then, some still are.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

That Huffington Post article doesn't really say anything at all. Behind the headlines and dramatics there are just a few speculative maybes. Formaldehyde is found in new carpets, among other things. Yes nicotine and associated vapour may have it and other chemicals in small amounts. But most things contain something nasty. As mentioned, if we're going to ban vaping for that then maybe we should get a move on with motor vehicles first. Or barbecues, or chipboard, or salt or whisky, or sugar or........ ( extend list with all the things that have been implicated by association with things that might possibly be harmful). I personally wouldn't recommend anyone to take up vaping. But that's no reason to jump to the default ban it position either.

To be avoided a all costs is the view that everything is a killer until proven to be 100% safe. That's just a pathway to paralysis. Follow that route and you find yourself advocating living in a hut made of dried grass and wearing leaves. And you'd still be a at risk from poison ivy or nettles (Nothing is ever 100% safe, for that matter)

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: We already know.

Bronchiolitis obliterans, or "Popcorn lung" is still out to jury. It may or not be real, and may simply indicate pre-existing conditions."associated with respiratory harm when inhaled", well, yes, more so than any city air? I doubt it, as these are still at discussion stages and not really evaluated. Even the nicotine in vaping is, for the most part, safer than real nicotine. It is the same form as "patches" and "Nicorettes", et al chewing gum. "True extract of nicotine is available, but not too popular and comes with the same warnings as cigarettes. ANYTHING is better than burning tobacco. I posted here nearly a year ago when I was new to vaping. I have smoked heavily for over 50 years. I have not touched a cigarette in a year. My Drs are thrilled for me and supportive, and report that I appear and test healthier with the vaping. This is the VA, they are supportive, but can not advocate or prescribe, but they are aware of many vets imoroved lung and general health anecdotally, but they are after all trained docs. Whose clientele can tend to be somewhat more at risk healthwise than a stable population. I know and truly understand how much some people hate the sight of us vaping, but for heaven's sake, we're just trying to get by ourselves, with myriad problems where nicotine is in the back seat, but still very much a comfort to many with combat and stress issues. I fully intend to quit vaping in the future also, but for now it is an adjunct to coping.

6
0

Re: Jesus, NO!

@ John Brown (no body)

Is anybody claiming a 'right' to insist that you must eat tomatoes?

Don't tell me what to breathe, and I won't tell you what to eat!

1
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: "Drs thought it was harmless"

Often smoking was advertised as good for your health. Does that sound familiar?

1
3

Re: Jesus, NO!

"...quit properly..." Can you please define the "proper" way to quit smoking? And why do you care how someone quits smoking? Can you not be happy that someone has quit? I understand that some may not like the smell of certain e-juice & I believe vapers should be considerate of that fact. However, the vapor we exhale doesn't contain cancer causing agents as does combustible cigarettes so, I don't think you really want people smoking cigarettes next to you.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

I accept your point but the problem is that we see today so many 'independent' studies that aren't.

We see reports saying that sugar isn't harmful, for example, and then we find out who has sponsored that study. I have lost count of independent studies that show us that various foods are good/bad and the same for medicines and behind them somewhere is someone is a vested interest.

Not all of them, of course, but far too many to not to take this, and anything else, on face value.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus, NO!

Yes indeed! It was also, however pointed out and learned years later that the fonts of this "information", often legitimate MDs, even, were in fact "shills of Big Tobacco and were being paid to 1. Ignore, or 2. Lie outright in the face of the true facts the tobacco industry had for years. Even to the point of manipulating the proportions to produce a bigger "bang" and quicker hook. This is and has been available for decades, though still being suppressed as much as still possible by tobacco firms. These facts were instrumental in the first and ongoing "wins" over tobacco, who is still fighting tooth and nail. (of course). The current vape mfgrs are for the most part outgrowths of cottage industries and have staved off organized tobacco for a number of reasons.For the most part, my experience has been with companies that are transparent with no "big" tobacco ties.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

"Can you please define the "proper" way to quit smoking?"

Watching somebody nearly die appears to have that effect. At work, a previous big boss was a chain smoking bundle of stress. So it probably shouldn't have been a surprise when he had a heart attack in the middle of Yet Another Meeting. The first aider was a section boss not unlike a big boss in the making. Dealing with it, seeing it, plus accompanying big boss in the ambulance right to the door of the operating theatre...

Let's just say section boss quit smoking that very same day and made a ton of lifestyle changes. He doesn't get stressed by every little problem any more and he certainly seems like a happier person.

There's no "proper" way to quit smoking, but seeing something awful happen to a person they're destined to turn into might be sufficient impetus to change things before it's them on the operating room table.

Note - I'm am aware that this is more about a life filled with stress rather than direct tobacco related issues. The guy had a heart attack, not lung cancer. But serious medical issues do happen to smokers (the packets aren't even remotely subtle at pointing this out).

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/22/ecigarettes-worse-than-smoking-cancer_n_6522402.html

It's telling that the article doesn't link to the paper, just the front page of the site. The Liverpool John Moore research, the only proper link they do provide, a study published 3 years ago, so data from 4 or more years ago, has been superseded by more recent research showing that young non-smokers are NOT taking up vaping other than in very small numbers, less than those who would, in the past, have taken up smoking. Overall, it's a large drop in smokers and much smaller uptake of newbies to both smoking and vaping.

The NEJM study also said e-cigs *may* act as a gateway to smoking, in other words, opinion, not fact.

Here's some info from the British Heart Foundations that's reasonably unbiased.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

I have COPD and asthma and I vape with no adverse effects.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

"Don't tell me what to breathe, and I won't tell you what to eat!"

Then please don't exhale anywhere near other people. $deity knows what infection diseases you might be exhaling! :-)

4
1
Silver badge

Re: We already know.

"Popcorn lung" is still out to jury.

No, it isn't. The jury came back in some time ago with a not guilty verdict.

While studies like Harvard’s are critical to fully understanding e-cigs, they too often have the opposite effect. Tobacco cigarettes, for instance, have also long been known to contain diacetyl — at levels over 100 times those found in electronic cigarettes — yet earlier tobacco studies found that even these levels were not enough to cause popcorn lung in smokers.

3
1
Silver badge

Re: "Drs thought it was harmless"

False Analogy argument here. Because vaping replaces smoking and contains nicotine it is not automatically analogous to smoking. Significantly different is that it does not contain combustion materials. More significant, it has already shown itself to be safer than cigarette smoking, even if some unpredictable harm were to appear. Most significant the contents and processes are known.

Yes you can argue that smoking was thought to be safe and proved not to be - but that's no more relevant as an an analogy with vaping than with, say, eating Quinoa.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: We already know.

And to add to John Brown(no body)'s point; saying " Popcorn lung" is still out to jury" in this circumstance is not too far from the same kind of logic as saying that evolution is just one theory..

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

'"It does contain a known carcinogen and various irritants."

So do tomatoes!'

Yes and if you liquidised tomatoes then heated them to vapour a blew it around an office we shared or a pub we were both in I'd have a problem with that to.

I'm not going to argue whether vaping is directly or passively harmful, there's no evidence it is (not that lack of evidence is proof) but it's not important.

This isn't a health related debate it's a social one.

I agree that we don't need specific legislation banning vaping indoors in public places or work places. Not because it should be allowed but because people just shouldn't do it out of consideration for others.

If I turned up at the pub or my office with a steam cleaner and just sat there letting off puffs of steam because I enjoy it I'd be told to fuck off, and rightly so. Just because your behaviour isn't specifically illegal and doesn't harm other people's health doesn't make it ok.

6
0

Re: Jesus, NO!

I set off my smoke detector in my house regularly with my vape but it's the optical kind of detector rather than the ionic kind, but to be fair you have to using a high VG content liquid which produce lots of visible vapour, the high PG ones don't do it.

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Jesus, NO!

What about your crappy after shave to mask your awful BO and bad breath? Not to mention the fact your underpants stink of piss and shit because you've not changed them for weeks.

If you recognise these faults, why do you continue them?

0
0

Re: Jesus, NO!

Superheating then inhaling propylene glycol you mean...

Maybe I can use antifreeze from my car/motorcycle....ethylene glycol?

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

At the time I post this, the opening comment is at 80 down and 90 up. That alone indicates that vaping bothers people. I certainly know that I find it very unpleasant to be inhaling clouds of scented nicotine gas from people in an office with me. If it clearly bothers people as much as this - approximately 50% of people just reading this comments section find it offensive, then there is sufficient reason for it to be banned.

1
4
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

It's normally polite to apologise if one farts. Or at least it used to be. But it was also presumed people couldn't help it. So why is it considered not rude to release even stronger and more persistent offensive smells that you don't have to? Seems a poor argument by comparison to me - if anything it highlights that vaping IS rude.

1
2

Re: Jesus, NO!

"For bystanders, it may be annoying to some, but there is no level of risk, zip, zilch, none." - And your evidence for that is what? Even major drug companies are only just starting their research into this (I know, I work for one) yet you have the results already? Not to mention that the fact that vapers take the risk but enforce the outcome on others when they exhale. What about all the lung flora that exists in every person, bacteria, infections etc being diluted into a cloud of steam so it can be shared with others. Nice.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

Yes and if you liquidised tomatoes then heated them to vapour a blew it around an office we shared or a pub we were both in I'd have a problem with that to.

Like Cuppa-Soup you mean.

1
1

Re: We already know.

"There's already been the case of the caramel flavour that's carcinogenic when heated and inhaled, but perfectly safe when flavouring food."

Any more info on this? Which brand and tested by who?

Google diacetyl and acetoin. Diacetyl /Used/ to be in a lot of buttery/creamy type flavours ( but not for years) Acetoin is largely used as a replacement but evidence suggests it could act in a similar way.

I mix my own so I can research the flavours I am adding to go for Diacetyl/Acetoin free as much as possible.

The grumblers on here do realise that the base compounds are used in hospital nebulisers for people with respiratory problems I hope. Nicotine has NEVER been proven to be harmful in itself, just addictive, and some studies suggest it is possibly even beneficial to warding off Alzheimer's and aiding concentration. The flavours are the only potentially harmful ingredient. Mix your own, keep it weak.

I also read somewhere (unverified) that the passive nicotine you are likely to inhale from somebody else's vapour is akin to what you would ingest eating a tomato. Having said that, common manners and decency make me try to avoid blowing it near other people.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus, NO!

"The vape-filled room tested NEGATIVE for pretty much everything that's harmful, INCLUDING nicotene levels!"

"pretty much"?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: We already know.

I have not touched a cigarette in a year. My Drs are thrilled for me and supportive, and report that I appear and test healthier with the vaping

Good for you, I'm glad it helps.

I would still not want you to vape around me, any more than I would want you to smoke or fart around me. Do it in the privacy of your own home.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus, NO!

I do wish all the vapers will go back to the earlier version of the e-cigs where the vapour was less but they still got their kick they wanted. The newer version of the e-cigs give out so much vapour that it just need one inconsiderate person to fill up the whole room with misty-like smoke with their fruity smell. This is the main reason why many ordinary folks hate vapers.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Jesus, NO!

"approximately 50% of people just reading this comments section find it offensive, then there is sufficient reason for it to be banned."

I bet right now around 50% find Brexit offensive. Can we ban that? I'm sure far more people don't want to watch Songs Of Praise than do. Can we ban that? I bet it would be hard to get a huge number of people who would like to see Islam banned. Can we? Can we ban Trump?

Hyperbole, but the point is that arbitrarily banning what annoys is is no solution at all. Better to come to a compromise of sorts. I accept that "you" (whoever you may be) want to get your next nicotine hit by vaping. Granted, it's a lot better than smoking, however please accept that I find such a thing distracting and annoying so kindly go do it in another room. Okay?

2
0

Re: Jesus, NO!

It's not about being harmful to non-vapers. If they don't like it and they are in a significant majority, it should be treated as an antisocial activity. Like spitting.

1
0

Re: Jesus, NO!

Bonfires and fireworks are banned in Australia, thus making a more pleasant environment.

And there is no interest in unbanning them.

0
1

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018