back to article Enjoy vaping while you still can, warns Public Health England

Yesterday's review by Public Health England on vaping made front-page news, shaming much of the professional health clerisy and the mainstream media, both of whom have campaigned to discourage use of the nicotine delivery tech. But the newspapers splashed with something Public Health England didn't recommend – e-cigs on …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ban them!! Ban them all!!!

    Why should anyone let the truth get in the way of a good headline?

    Anything that involves the word "ban" is always good for the attention challenged masses. Doesn't matter if there's a grain of truth in it or not.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's very much a moral crusade and very little about public health.

    Vapping is almost certainly safer then breathing the air in London on a warm day with little wind. And almost definitely safer then breathing the air while cycling in London traffic.

    1. h4rm0ny

      Still unpleasant to smell though. Was in a restaurant in London a while back and some American guy (vapourizers weren't as known over here then) pulled out his e-cig and started puffing clouds of the stuff over to our table. Seemed to think that because it wasn't actually a cigarette it was suddenly fine to use indoors in a place filled with non-smokers.

    2. A Known Coward

      As studies have shown, drivers in London are exposed to considerably more fumes and pollution than cyclists primarily because pollutants that enter the vehicle build up in the enclosed space. Other factors include air intakes on vehicles being at the level of the exhaust pipe of the vehicle in front of them and cyclists being exposed to moving air and being higher off the ground.

    3. John Latham

      "Almost certainly"

      I spoke to a GP about this, her position was that there is not enough time/evidence to say that vaping is safe. That's the sort of careful opinion I expect to someone belonging to a profession with a memory of prescribing thalidomide. That's not to say vaping should be controlled, just don't expect any health professional to be jumping up and down with enthusiasm about it.

      1. Schultz

        "Still unpleasant to smell though"

        Not my experience, I recently had my first encounter with somebody vaping and I didn't notice any smell. But then the vaping habits of different people may vary and maybe some inhale and others puff.

      2. LucreLout Silver badge

        Still unpleasant to smell though

        No worse than cheap perfume in my view.

      3. SundogUK

        Re: "Almost certainly"

        No one believes or cares whether vaping is 'safe.' Vaping is SAFER. That's all that counts.

        1. Timmy B Silver badge

          Re: "Almost certainly"

          The issue is that do we legislate to stop or limit something that isn't safe when we allow something more dangerous....... No - this situation doesn't apply to any other - ahem - smoking related subject.....

        2. h4rm0ny

          "No worse than cheap perfume in my view"

          I wouldn't like it if someone kept inhaling and blowing cheap perfume at me, either.

          Point is, it's not suddenly a way for smokers to disregard others around them like the old days when smoking in restaurants was normal.

          1. LucreLout Silver badge

            @Harmony

            I wouldn't like it if someone kept inhaling and blowing cheap perfume at me, either.

            Presumably you're ok with limiting the size of bottles and the amount that can be dispersed in one hit then? There's not a day goes by where I'm not greeted by the scent of a woman apparantly dragged backwards through the Boots perfume counter.

            Point is, it's not suddenly a way for smokers to disregard others around them like the old days when smoking in restaurants was normal.

            Anti-smokers making a song and dance about vaping is exactly that same behaviour though. Disregard for others.

            Passive smoking has never been proven to damage health, though lets face it, it quite likely does. Passive vaping does not. The stuff in e-cigs is just the same base content as your local nightclub/theatre/bands smoke machine, with nicotine added, before it gets scrubbed by the vapers lungs, and some flavouring that you detect as scent. Whatever you're eating at the restaurant will almost certainly be worse for your health, and whatever perfume you've selected will be offputting to a similar quantity of people as the vaper.

            Live and let live.

        3. h4rm0ny

          Re: "Almost certainly"

          >>"No one believes or cares whether vaping is 'safe.' Vaping is SAFER. That's all that counts"

          Obviously it's safer than traditional cigarettes - by far. The question of whether it's "safe", which lets face it nothing really is, matters because if it becomes accepted as harmless it will be promoted widely by Big Pharma who stand to make a fortune out of something that is still essentially a highly addictive drug. It's not even a fun one, really. Just something you keep needing. Being able to sell addictive cigarettes but without being damned as cancer-causing devils? Every big pharma company's dream. The new Prrozac.

          So the question of whether it is "safe" matters very much.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Almost certainly"

          People who don't smoke at all care when vapers suddenly feel entitled to completely disregard the fact anyone around might not want to be subjected to it.

          The 2 most popular brands of 'e-juice' have been found to contain chemicals that are not safe to be inhaled and those are the ones that are supposed to be legitimate. People who choose to vape seem oblivious to the complete lack of safety testing or regulation. Even if there had been any study into the long term effects, they arn't safe if you are inhaling poison instead of what is supposed to be in there.

          e-cigarettes might be a good alternative to smoking but only if the vapours are legit and if people consider that non-smokers still don't want to be breathing it in.

          1. amanfromarse

            Re: "Almost certainly"

            >The 2 most popular brands of 'e-juice' have been found to contain chemicals that are not safe to be inhaled and those are the ones that are supposed to be legitimate.

            Absolute bollocks. You're parrotting tabloid crap.

          2. The Indomitable Gall

            Re: "Almost certainly"

            " The 2 most popular brands of 'e-juice' have been found to contain chemicals that are not safe to be inhaled and those are the ones that are supposed to be legitimate. "

            The last time I read a report of this type, the leading vape brands responded by pointing out that the study had heated the wick to higher than normal operating temperature, and had burnt the product. The temperature in the study was in the public domain and the manufacturer's claims appeared sound.

            You wouldn't accuse a cake mix of containing "carcinogenic black carbon" on the grounds you'd turned your oven up too high and left the cake in too long, would you...?

          3. Fraserrr

            Re: "Almost certainly"

            'The 2 most popular brands of 'e-juice' have been found to contain chemicals'...

            Care to share your source on that? Or was it just another made up thing you've read somewhere?

        5. Mage Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: "Almost certainly"

          But what are the real figures?

          Are these being taken by people who were not smokers?

          How much safer?

          Does the advertising of them glamorise smoking?

          What success rate have they as an aid to giving up smoking?

          Nicotine is a deadly poison. Not a recreational drug.

          What other impurities are in the liquid?

          What are nearby people getting?

          How much polonium is there in them? Where does the nicotine come from.

        6. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Almost certainly"

          I wouldn't say you could claim vaping is safer. The problem with vaping is there are so many different products with variable degrees of product quality. Many of the manufacturers seem not very interested in the safety of their products. Some for example are using diacetyl which can cause popcorn lung. At the moment it is all a bit wild west with vaping. I think there does need to be better regulation of the equipment and liquids to ensure that they are as safe as possible. There also needs to be more investigation in the health effects before claims can be made about the safety.

      4. Probie

        Re: "Almost certainly"

        Well by your GP's standards there would not be enough evidence or time to state that vaping is unsafe.

      5. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: "Almost certainly"

        "I spoke to a GP about this, her position was that there is not enough time/evidence to say that vaping is safe. "

        My GP said something similar to me. When I asked for the basis for his caution, he cited "science in the BMJ" which I knew to be opinion pieces.

        It's a group practice, so I changed my GP. I'd advise anyone else faced with the same kind of clueless moralising twerp to do the same.

        Eventually Doctors who have no interest in health will find the audience/patients they deserve.

        1. Triggerfish

          Re: "Almost certainly"

          All the pieces are opinion pieces, you did a thourough review and made sure? Must have taken a while to work your way through. Hows your opinion on vaccinations?

      6. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: "Almost certainly"

        There is considerable evidence that drinking ethanol is harmful to health and is an acknowledged public safety concern.

        Any plans for an Eu ban on cross border traffic of wine and beer?

      7. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Almost certainly"

        I do not know what their official position would be but every medical professional I have dealt with at the sharp end of fixing smokers and related consequences have advocated vaping over smoking. No professional can say anything is entirely safe is how one surgeon put it to me.

      8. LionelB

        "Still unpleasant to smell though."

        Depends on the flavour. A common experience among vapers is that at some point it occurs to you that you don't really need a tobacco flavour. Mint or fruit flavours seem to be popular.

        (Personally, I would welcome a ban on the deployment of patchouli in a public space.)

        1. Triggerfish

          No oit can still be unpleasant seems to me there's to types a vapours present at work, those who have the normal vaper and those who are getting into the turbo charged custom versions, the normal ones are pretty inoffensive, the turbosized ones produce huge amounts of smoke that fills up the room we work in (literally hiding the prson vaping when they exhale). Its like being under assualt at a perfume counter during Christmas.

      9. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

        Still unpleasant to smell though. Was in a restaurant in London a while back and some American guy (vapourizers weren't as known over here then) pulled out his e-cig and started puffing clouds of the stuff over to our table. Seemed to think that because it wasn't actually a cigarette it was suddenly fine to use indoors in a place filled with non-smokers.

        Still an unpleasant smell though. Was in a restaurant a while back and some woman sat close to me reeking of cheap perfume. She seemed to think that because it was perfume it was acceptable to pollute the air with it, and splashed yet more of it all over herself every time she went to "powder her nose". She even got the bottle out at the table and sprayed yet more of the noxious substance on herself.

        The second statement is as good an argument for banning women from wearing perfume in enclosed public spaces as the first is for banning vaping in enclosed public spaces. Would a restaurant ask a woman to leave if she was wearing a perfume that a couple of diners found it unpleasant? Or a man with cheap aftershave? If not (and most wouldn't) then why would you ask someone to stop vaping?

        Smoking is a different case altogether, as there are health risks associated with second hand smoke.

        In short, using the argument of "it smells" is no argument for the backing of a ban. Using it as such is an authoritarian approach, attempting to force your own will onto other people. Come up with some real evidence for a health risk and I will support such a ban.

        1. Triggerfish

          @ Dr Mouse

          Actually if she got the perfume out and started spraying it around in a massive cloud I would have no problems with objecting.

          Try looking up power vaping on youtube, it's a bit more antisocial than e-cig types.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5GNFD6GjhM

    4. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

      Tempering my comment towards the cautious side, E-Cigs are a relatively new product which require further study to assess and possible health concerns.

      That said, they are inevitably* going to be many times less dangerous than smoking tobacco products. Every person who moves from smoking to e-cigs will be better off, health-wise, even if they keep using the e-cig indefinitely without reducing their nicotine content. These devices should be encouraged.

      Also, they are not medical devices, were never designed to be and were never promoted as such. They are recreational products, a substitute for tobacco. Why the **** should they be treated and regulated as medical devices? It will destroy innovation in the sector and, likely, destroy the sector. Only Big Pharma will have the resources to make them and we have all seen how good the pharmaceutical industries NRT products are. They will go from a vibrant, innovative product to a clinical mess in no time flat, with people forced to either accept the inferior Big Pharma versions or go back to smoking.

      The e-cig portions of the TPD are insanity on a bewildering scale. All I can think is that there was some serious lobbying from the Tobacco industry (loosing out due to people not buying as many cigs) and Big Pharma (loosing out due to lower sales of their inferior products). It's similar to the music industries recentish problem: They were loosing out to pirates, as pirates were offering what the consumers wanted (convenient access to music). Rather than improve their own game, they got the governments to crack down on the pirates. Only this time it's worse: Rather than illegal operations disrupting the market, it's legitimate, innovative businesses, and rather than the result being less convenience, it will be deaths.

      Of course, the cynic in me can also see governments worrying about the loss of tax revenue...

      *I recently watched Team America again for the first time in years. Now I can't hear or type the word 'inevitably' without hearing Kim Jong-Il saying 'inebitabry'...

    5. A K Stiles
      Stop

      Re: Ban them!! Ban them all!!!

      What I wish they would ban is the adverts that I've started to see which appear to attempt to show 'vaping' as a cool and sophisticated thing to do. I have no issue with people using them as a much safer (for them and for me) alternative to smoking but I do think this sort of advertising is wrong.

      I also think that if the (successive) governments were serious about getting people to stop smoking then they'd legislate to gradually increase the minimum age of a smoker so that e.g. nobody born in the 21st century would ever be able to smoke legally, so by around 2100 it would be effectively illegal for everyone (give or take a handful of belligerent OAPs).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ban them!! Ban them all!!!

        They should have a consistent policy and ban all recreational drugs, including fags and booze, or let us all make informed choices on whatever we choose to do and accept that some of us will make bad ones.

      2. annodomini2
        FAIL

        Re: Ban them!! Ban them all!!!

        Yes because banning something legally prevents it from being used!

        Just like the 'War on drugs'

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Ban them!! Ban them all!!!

          Speaking of which, this isn't about nicotine at all. This is about marijuana.

          Nicotine vaping is _great_ cover for open sales of vaporizers for marijuana use.

        2. Old Handle

          Re: Ban them!! Ban them all!!!

          Don't forget coffee and tea, those are recreational drugs too.

      3. Bob Dole (tm)
        Megaphone

        There are several groups whose interests are aligning on this. Tobacco companies, governments in the form of tax revenue, and special interest groups that want smoking to just go away.

        Companies, especially those who have been in business for a long time are highly resistant to change. So they naturally will try to push legislation to make sure no one can disrupt their business. Governments have very high taxes on smoking and are dependent on those taxes. The last group, needs no definition.

        So here comes an unknown quantity. No one really knows if it's better or not. It certainly smells better to non smokers and people seem to actually use it as a gateway to quit the addiction. It also doesn't have even 1% of the chemicals that regular cigs have. All plusses.

        The downside is that smaller entities can easily jump in and there's no taxing mechanism for it. So tobacco and governments naturally want to regulate it into oblivion.

        Me, I am just tired of it. Specifically I'm tired of people making laws to regulate crap when they don't have a clue as to whether the regulation is helpful to your normal citizen.

        Let's have a few honest studies. Every one I've read so far has been pseudo science at best with plenty of conclusions that are misleading, not supported by the facts or even incapable of being replicated because critical information was left out. Sometimes all three at once.

        Ar this point, I do think the products should have oversight similar to the food industry. Namely that all of the ingredients should be clearly listed on the labels. Which, honestly, even regular cig manufacturers should be forced to do that. Regarding the tobacco itself, that should require a license to sell and be limited to only 18+ ( or whatever the age of majority is in your country).

        From a governmental perspective - change the tax laws to tax nicotine on a per mg basis. Instead of targeting just cigarettes, target everything that contains nicotine.

        For those that want to tell other people what they can or cannot do smoke/ingest/inhale: piss off. If someone wants to ingest nicotine then that's their business.

        1. skeptical i

          but what are people actually vaping?

          That was my concern, not to regulate the bejabbers out of vaping juice or devices, but to have some quality control so that shady operators can't simply put cherry-flavoured whatever out there with a pretty label.

    6. eesiginfo

      Re: Ban them!! Ban them all!!!

      Only that there is more than just a grain of truth to the calls for them to be banned.

      ...... Governments around the world are very hostile to e-cigs, and somehow manage to get the backing of major medical organisations (the BMA for example).

      It doesn't take a great deal of testing to know that inhaling synthetically produced food products and nicotine, are going to be non-dangerous, as compared to inhaling some 4,000 dangerous toxins.

      Draw a bar graph with tobacco at 100% dangerous......... e-cigs wouldn't even show up on the chart.

      In fact the graph could be made up of other dangerous consumable items, like peanuts, chicken, beefburgers, alcohol, shellfish, fizzy drinks.

      In terms of safe consumption..... comparing tobacco to e-cigs, is utterly ridiculous.

      Tobacco kills millions of people each year; e-cigs have killed nobody, and other than an extreme reaction to say nicotine, it's highly unlikely they will ever kill anyone.

      So why are governments against them?

      Probably because they will impact upon tobacco sales.

      These not only bring in vast sums in tax revenue, (£15b 2012/13) but they also help kill off the unproductive members of the population.

      This group of people are retired, and they are primary users of state health, welfare, and pensions.

      State pension alone is £115.95 per week, multiplied by 100k deaths x 52 = £603m

      Add in individual health and welfare requirements, and this figure balloons into an enormous positive on the balance sheet.

      Sure there are some health costs to smoking, but these have little impact on the £15b tax revenue, and are likely well covered by the gains from early deaths.

      Overall, from a financial perspective.... can you blame governments for taking this line?

      In France..... going with the flow of protesting tobacconists was an easy decision to take.

      Calls for banning e-cigs, is sadly a fact of life.

    7. Timmy B Silver badge

      So fix the London air!. Just because it's safer than something doesn't mean it's right. The preferable option is cleaner air everywhere....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "So fix the London air!"

        I think most of us non-Londoners would prefer to see a wall of steel shuttering errected slightly inside the M25 and London just covered with a nice smooth layer of concrete.

    8. Mage Silver badge
      Coat

      However ...

      I suspect they are partly a trojan to promote smoking!

      The previously advert free cabinets in local shops now prominently display pretty women "smoking", with the "electronic" part of the text more faded.

      A major tobacco company is promoting them.

      They are sold in novelty shops.

      There is also the general problem of policing CE marks.

    9. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Hypocracy?

      "Vapping is almost certainly safer then breathing the air in London"

      Not if you work for DEFRA! Their "smoking" policy bans the use of e-cigs and tells you to stand out in the "designated smoking area" to use them.

      Yeah, great. I'm not sure how that jives with their smoking cessation policy. Send the people trying to give up out into the same place the real smokers are using and let them suck in all that passive cancer inducing smoke.

      Actually, it's worse. IIRC the wording on the policy is something along the lines of "electronic cigarettes or other tobacco substitutes." I'm not sure of the exact wording but it's loose enough that anyone using a prescription substitute such as patches or gum is also caught by their rules. Law of unintended consequences strikes again. No doubt they'll say that patches and gum are allowed, but then that comes down to a subjective judgment and bending the rules from the strict letter.

  3. Annihilator

    Nicotine-free?

    Funny there seems little mention of the users of e-cigarettes that have weaned off to 0 nicotine liquids. You would think that would be championed.

  4. Richard Wharram

    This is why

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/put-cancer-in-e-cigarettes-say-non-smokers-2014021983765

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why should they ban them?

    Well perhaps it's because the majority in the BBC and in Wales don't want to sit there whilst adults put plastic dummy substitues in their mouth, suck toffee flavoured (and smelling) nicotine in, and waft noxious chemicals still stinky out. Same as I'd rather people not have fish and chips or curry for lunch in small spaces.

    Not noxious chemicals you say? Really what tests prove that all of them are not wafting noxious chemicals out and are safe. Are all the vapers going through that test?

    Most e-cigs seem to be from China, with dodgy CE marks on them and are doubtful electrically, let alone what they are actually doing with the chemicals put in them.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It all boils down to money..

    And the fear of loosing tax revenue..

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What is it with people and banning things, it's like making every crime punishable by death. I can fully understand why as a society we wouldn't want to encourage non-smokers to take up vaping as there are still some health risks. This could be done by limiting advertising etc. To deny smokers a highly effective and comparatively safe quitting tool is bonkers though.

  8. A Known Coward

    @Andrew - Confusing Four Freedoms with Three Pillars?

    The EU had (now abolished) Three Pillars, and it has the concept of the Four Freedoms, but I don't think I've ever heard of the Four Pillars, although four would have made more sense, three always seemed to imply the EU was like an unstable bar stool.

  9. DavCrav Silver badge

    Stupid, stupid people. (The lawyers, not the vapers.)

    That is all.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Wales

    "E-cigarettes are already banned in Wales"

    What makes you think that?

    From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33025872:

    "A restricted use of e-cigarettes, banning them in enclosed public spaces and workplaces - this will include lorries and taxis

    "This final measure is proving the most controversial and is likely to come into force in 2017, but a precise date has not been given."

    The relevant Bill appears to be http://gov.wales/legislation/programme/assemblybills/public-health/?lang=en. According to http://www.senedd.assembly.wales/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=12763 they are still at the evidence taking stage.

  11. Salts

    Sigh...

    I gave up in January using e-cigs, by February the e juice was nicotine free, I still carry it around, though it only gets used when I am having a pint, but there it is as it says in the article this is about pleasure(Guess that means it must be bad) and a Pint and a Tab are just pure pleasure.

    Yesterdays report advised vaping reduces health risks of smoking by 95% wonder if the other 5% goes away with nicotine free juice? Not that I care a 95% reduction is bloody good, as another posters points out London air quality is probably a bigger risk to health, maybe the 2 million or so that have quit with e-cigs should threaten to restart.

  12. Paw Bokenfohr

    Middle way is of course, as always, the right way.

    Of course there's no reason to ban these things, but equally, why should I be forced to breathe the stuff in just by virtue of being in a pub or restaurant or shopping mall where someone decides that because it's legal for them to vape there that they can and will. So, treat them like cigarettes and use them in the same places, and then everyone should be happy.

    Except those that believe that their rights extend past the point where they infringe mine. Which they don't.

  13. LucreLout Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Spite

    E-cigarettes are already banned in Wales, and at the BBC. But what on Earth compels people to do this?

    Perhaps there's indignation and envy amongst the health professionals that a successful technology became widely adopted without their involvement, making them look redundant? Perhaps they simply can't stand people enjoying nicotine?

    For years all the whingers in the anti-smoking lobby campaigned to have smoking in pubs banned. After promising there would be no loss of pub trade because the reason THEY didn't go to pubs was that they disliked cigarette smoke, not because they're social leppers. Too late they realised it'd take more than a glass of pinot a week to sustain the pub trade. Pubs fought back, as too many were going bust, by making their outside spaces pleasant - heaters, shelter, music, seats, etc. This upset the anti-smoking lobby, because they'd been hoping to laugh at smokers stood outside in the cold & rain.

    Then came vaping. Suddenly, smokers could consume a replacement product in doors again. Not only that, but vaping at work came back on the table. As there are no proven harmful effects of vaping, they're now seeking to restrict it due to spite. They want to punish smokers you see, for some perceived slight, and to massage their own right on egos. Should people vape at work? Probably not as the smell isn't wonderful, but the old smoking room can easy be reprovisioned as a space to vape.

    The biased ranting of a smoker? Not at all. I've never smoked (2 or 3 cigars a year at most). I have, however, lost too many relatives to smoking related cancers, and very much see vaping as a large part of the way forward. Vaping isn't the cure for cancer, but its pretty bloody close in terms of health effects - we're at least 10 years away from any medical treatment that could cure enough cancers to compete with it, and in that time another million British smokers will die, unless they switch to e-cigs.

    Vaping unpicks all of the "progress" the anti-smokers have made in 30 years of campaigning. They restent that immensly. They'll gnash and wail and make excuses, but behind these new attacks on vaping, is nothing but spite.

  14. Chronos Silver badge

    Wales

    E-cigarettes are not banned in Wales. Drakeford would like them to be, so he can go down in history as the Assembly health bod who saved us from ourselves (history is probably going to disagree here - pompous ass is more likely) but they're quite legal.

    Interestingly, my e-cig doesn't contain any nicotine (man 'flu, been hitting the menthol pretty hard for some respite from a sandpaper throat and throat hit is something I can do without) so they can all go swivel, it's not a tobacco product even in the misguided, loose sense that e-cig nicotine is derived from tobacco leaf.

    The real issue is that this is driven by the users. There's no place for do-gooders, interventionists, healthcare leaders or big pharma gouging. We've taken back control of our lives with a simple technology. They only like technology when it cements their control, not ours.

  15. Valeyard

    nonsense..

    ban the size of the tanks? well they're refillable... so it's a 5 seconds inconvenience

    a cap on bottles to 10ml? buy more bottles (which is annoyingly more expensive)

    I don't see the point of these measures at all, but if it stops there I'd be relatively happy

    Smokers are net contributors to the NHS and the economy so with that and no doubt pharma and tobacco lobbyists greasing palms it's hardly surprising

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: nonsense..

      Smokers are net contributors but spend a few months on a chemo ward and you'll find most of the people there have smoked and wish that they'd never taken it up. There's few sights more pitiful and infuriating than the smokers outside the cancer treatment centre lighting up with the saline drip in their arm and having to walk through the cloud they create while sitting under a no smoking sign to get inside. If e-cigs can help people cut down and quit I'm all for it but they should have the same restrictions for using them in public places as cigarettes. Let's not forget even if it's nothing but nicotine and water, it can still cause harm.

      1. unwarranted triumphalism

        Re: nonsense..

        Please explain how it causes harm if it contains none of the combustion products found in smoke.

      2. dogged

        Re: nonsense..

        > Let's not forget even if it's nothing but nicotine and water, it can still cause harm.

        How?

        Nicotene (by itself) is not carcinogenic and water is water.

        1. James 51 Silver badge

          Re: nonsense..

          Plants contain nicotine because it is an insecticide. Also:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Adverse_effects

          1. Mage Silver badge
            Pirate

            Re: nonsense..

            30–60 mg (0.5–1.0 mg/kg) can be a lethal dosage for adult humans

            One of the reasons for cancer from cigarettes may be trace amounts of polonium in the tobacco plants. Were is the nicotine sourced and how pure is it?

      3. JP19

        Re: nonsense..

        "smokers outside the cancer treatment centre lighting up"

        At least they are getting some enjoyment. Everyone gets old, bodies get knackered and require expensive medical care before they die anyway. Spend a few months in any hospital ward where people are dying and see plenty of pitiful sights. Smokers just draw a year or two less pension before they get there.

        My mother recently had a minor stroke. She can put together one sentence and almost always bursts into tears when she fails to construct a second - that's pitiful. I'm pretty sure she wishes she was dead or would if her brain wasn't fucked. If she had been smoker maybe she would be. When smokers die early they are sacrificing the worst years of their life.

        1. GrumpenKraut Silver badge

          Re: nonsense..

          > At least they are getting some enjoyment.

          That's is exactly what those anti-smoking people are about: they'd much like to forbid any form of enjoyment they don't personally approve. Many of them are just intolerant joyless totalitarian fuckmuppets.

          Feeling molested by someone vaping in open space? Oh please!

          Those are the people I do not WANT to meet in a pub.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: nonsense..

            Passive smoking kills other people. I'd hardly call wanting to prevent those deaths killjoys.

            1. DrD'eath

              Re: nonsense..

              Citation please

            2. DrD'eath

              Re: nonsense..

              http://www.fraserinstitute.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=15763

              Passive smoke. The EPA's betrayal of science and policy

          2. JP19

            Re: nonsense..

            "forbid any form of enjoyment they don't personally approve"

            Yes because they feel much better about the enjoyment they choose not to have when no one else is having it either. Sadly it is a very common attitude, the selfish prick bastards with it really need a whack round the head with a large bit of wood.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: nonsense..

          Non-smokers or people who are trying to quit have to walk through that haze to be treated. Even if they are getting what enjoyment they can they're inflicting chemicals which cause cancer on those who are going to be treated for cancer. Even if it has negligible impact on other people's outcomes, morally it offends me. And as for your comment about people's age, half the people I saw on this ward were under thirty. I've seen young, otherwise healthy men and women so crippled by the affects of chemo they couldn't stand, so fatigued they slept for over twenty hours a day and whose nervous systems are damaged to the point the can hardly dress themselves all in the hope of more time, those few years you so easily dismiss.

          'When smokers die early they are sacrificing the worst years of their life.' Trust me, if they end up on those wards they are concentrating the misery into a shorter period so they are being spared nothing.

          I feel sorry for you and your mother but it bears no relation to this topic.

      4. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: nonsense..

        "Let's not forget even if it's nothing but nicotine and water, it can still cause harm."

        What harm can it cause? To whom?

    2. Cowboy Bob

      Re: Middle way is of course, as always, the right way.

      I always ask the landlord if it's OK to use my PV inside their pub. If not, I go outside. If yes, then I vape away. Their pub, their rules, and we all need to respect that, vapers and non-vapers alike. So if you don't like people vaping in a pub where the landlord expressly allows it, you need to find a new pub.

      BTW, I personally wouldn't ever vape in a restaurant or inside any other space where there's no-one to ask if it's OK

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why should they ban them?

      "Most e-cigs seem to be from China, with dodgy CE marks on them and are doubtful electrically, let alone what they are actually doing with the chemicals put in them."

      Any evidence for that hysterical claim?

      Remember - you've said "most", so we're looking at >50% of all e-cigs to be dodgy and containing more than nicotine and vapour...

    4. ceedee

      Re: Why should they ban them?

      The PHE report details four tests of 'expired' vapour (pages 64-65) and concludes:

      Electronic cigarettes "...release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no

      identified health risks to bystanders."

      Not that you'd let real evidence get in the way of your uninformed rant...

      1. Kanhef

        Re: Middle way is of course, as always, the right way.

        Someone showing common sense and decency? Have an upvote!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Middle way is of course, as always, the right way.

        So if you don't like people vaping in a pub where the landlord expressly allows it, you need to find a new pub.

        You can't argue with that.

        (Some would, of course - but that's a different argument).

        1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

          Re: Middle way is of course, as always, the right way.

          I argue with that because there's no reason to ban them. If you're stood more than a yard away, you can't smell them, they don't release anything dangerous in to the air.

          In Wetherspoons they're banned, so I just blow it down my Jumper. Nobody has ever noticed because there's nothing to notice. The only time I've been asked to stop is when I forgot about the stupid rule and I was using it openly at the bar.

      3. graeme leggett

        Re: Why should they ban them?

        The dossier references a BIS study that found that "

        eight out of 17 EC did not have a charging cut-off device and therefore did not meet the requirements of BS EN 62133:2013"

        which is nearly half.

    5. Fraggle850

      Re: Why should they ban them?

      Those are valid points, particularly the dodgy Chinese manufacturing, however assuming I'm a responsible vaper (which I'm not, I smoke proper fags like an effing chimney) and don't pollute your airspace then I assume you've no problem with me doing so?

    6. badger31

      Re: Why should they ban them?

      @AC - What a bell-end of a comment. Vaporising is one of the most effective ways of getting smokers off cigarettes there has ever been. They remove ~99% of the harmful stuff, leaving only the practically harmless nicotine (less harmful than the related chemical caffeine). I have many friends who were unhealthy smokers who are now much healthier vapers. I've been in confined spaces with them and smelt nothing at all because there's nothing to smell. In a modern free society we should be able to as we choose, so long we aren't harming anyone. People inhaling nicotine vapours are not harming anyone, not even themselves compared to smoking cigarettes. If you are personally offended by then, you can personally piss off.

    7. SundogUK

      Re: Why should they ban them?

      Fuckwit.

    8. Annihilator
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Why should they ban them?

      "Same as I'd rather people not have fish and chips or curry for lunch in small spaces."

      Yes, but no-one's made that illegal yet, as far as I'm aware...

      1. Timmy B Silver badge

        Re: Why should they ban them?

        You know what the 100% way of banning smoking in public places of any kind would be. Ban it. So what it goes underground and follows other illegal drugs. You know the effective way of quitting smoking is. YOU STOP! Just grow a pair and stop - use some mental strength and stop. It's what I did. I decided to stop and I stopped. I am not offended by them - I simply don't want to partake of their chemicals. How would you like it if somebody walked up to your half finished pint of beer and topped it up with orange juice - after all it's still a drink but better for you......

        1. Timmy B Silver badge

          Re: Why should they ban them?

          oooh - that hit a nerve. That's a whole load of downvotes there. I wish there was a way of getting why people voted down or up. It'd be interesting to see.

      2. h4rm0ny

        Re: Why should they ban them?

        >>"If you are personally offended by then, you can personally piss off.

        And that was exactly the attitude of the American guy in the pub - didn't care whether he was bothering anyone else, just a smug sense of moral superiority that other people would have to deal with it and he didn't have to show any consideration.

        He didn't stop until staff had to actually tell him to.

      3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Why should they ban them?

        If you are personally offended by then, you can personally piss off.

        No. If you want to look like a tit with your plastic steamy toy in your gob, you can do it in your own home or car. Don't force me to breathe your chemicals in a restaurant or public place.

        I don't see any reason to ban them outright, but "No Smoking" zones should apply to fake cigarettes just as they do to real ones.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Thumb Down

          Re: Why should they ban them?

          "I don't see any reason to ban them outright, but "No Smoking" zones should apply to fake cigarettes just as they do to real ones."

          Why? There's no smoke. Should boiling kettles be banned too?

          Most of the people I know use the cigarette-like ones, not the big bong pipe ones and the vapour which comes out is far less than the examples usually used on news broadcasts. The vapour is glycerin. Almost all of the nicotine is absorbed on inhaling. Any left in the exhale is negligible. There's no chance of "secondary" anything.

          1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

            Re: Why should they ban them?

            Should boiling kettles be banned too?

            I'd certainly not be happy if one was boiling beside me in a restaurant, wafting clouds of steam around me and my companions while I was eating, even if it were only steam. Why should I have to put up with exhaled chemical vapours being blown around me, nicotine or not? Have some good manners and indulge at home where you won't bother anyone else.

            1. Annihilator
              Boffin

              Re: Why should they ban them?

              "Why should I have to put up with exhaled chemical vapours being blown around me, nicotine or not?"

              What, like CO2?

              1. Astrecks
                FAIL

                Re: Why should they ban them?

                Breathing should be banned in restaurants, lest we inhale someone else's obnoxious breath.

            2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: Why should they ban them?

              "wafting clouds of steam around me and my companions"

              Why do you think it's "clouds of steam"? The only time I've ever seen "clouds of steam" is in dedicated vaping places used as the stock footage on news reports. It's almost as if there is an agenda and people like you seem to be falling for it,

              "Have some good manners and indulge at home where you won't bother anyone else."

              What makes you think I'm a smoker or vaper? Are you jumping to conclusions?

            3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: Why should they ban them?

              "I'd certainly not be happy if one was boiling beside me in a restaurant,"

              The kitchen is a workplace and a "No Smoking" zone too so no steam allowed there by your definition. I assume you'll only ever be eating in restaurants that serve cold food and cold drinks from now on? We can't have the kitchen staff breathing in all that dangerous steam now, can we?

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Meh

        Re: Why should they ban them?

        F&C like all food covered by regulations - even to the extent the council can say no to a chippie in a given site.

        So why not regulate Vapers, for their electrics and content?

    9. Chronos Silver badge

      Re: Sigh...

      Salts wrote: Yesterdays report advised vaping reduces health risks of smoking by 95% wonder if the other 5% goes away with nicotine free juice?

      The 5% is probably acrolein production, aldehydes and other toxins caused by overheating the liquid or taking a "dry hit" where there is not enough liquid in the wicking system to regulate the temperature of the coil. If your wicking is good and your atomiser within reasonable limits you should never see the 5%, at which point we're back to several orders of magnitude less risky than smoking burning leaf.

      The Evolv DNA 40 and 25 systems take away the guesswork here with coil surface average temperature limiting (it's not temperature control as the set temp is a hard limit, above which the control logic will back off the power until it settles below that limit) which means you will never singe your cotton, let alone produce nasties from the liquid if set up correctly.

      1. Salts

        Re: Sigh...

        @Chronos,

        Good to know thanks for that, I change the element every month or if the liquid discolours, never run it dry and also when I bought it was advised the system shuts down if overheating occurs, seems I should be >95% other benefits, lost 14kg and can run a half marathon in 2:12:12(fast enough for me mid 50's), that weight loss should totally negate the other 5% that is not really there:-)

        1. Chronos Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Sigh...

          @Salts,

          Yes, looks like you've covered all the bases there and you're in several orders of magnitude territory.

          Congratulations on the health gains. I'm not sure you can ascribe those to vaping solely; you seem to have a positive attitude to turning your health around, which is probably the bigger contributor. Vaping will help as part of an overall harm reduction strategy but it's not a sovereign specific. Even if it is safer than breathing the air in London, if you're in London you've no choice but to do that as well.

          1. Salts
            Happy

            Re: Sigh...

            @Chronos

            Thank you for the information & encouragement.

    10. TheProf

      Re: @Andrew - Confusing Four Freedoms with Three Pillars?

      Three legs are stable. It's four-legged bar stools you want to treat with caution.

    11. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

      Re: Why should they ban them?

      Most e-cigs seem to be from China, with dodgy CE marks on them and are doubtful electrically, let alone what they are actually doing with the chemicals put in them.

      And probably still safer than real cigarettes.

      And safer than a lot else too. That's the real joke about this desire for a ban.

    12. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why should they ban them?

      Yeah. Made in China. Bloody China - nothing good has ever been made in China. Bring back "Made in Taiwan", I say. Bloody amateurs in China,they are.

    13. Paul Shirley

      Re: Spite

      Really? Did the start of a long recession just before the smoking ban started have nothing to do with falling pub attendance, except for discount outlets like Wetherspoons. You also have to pretend JDW didn't start making *more* money months before the official ban when they banned smoking early, my favourite sight of the time was a builder being physically thrown out of a pub by his workmates as he tried lighting up at the bar.

      We'll never be able to pin down what, if any, damage the smoking ban did. It did break the decades long fight by pubs&bars to do avoid doing anything meaningful about the problem. Offered a deal - provide a moderate number of smoke free rooms spread across geographical areas - and there would be no need for a ban. They got nowhere near and it became very clear from trade publications the belief was the gov would back down. That's how we got today's ban.

      Apart from losing pub gardens to smokers it's been good. Just wish I had less other ways to spend my disposable income, the real reason pubs struggle to get us into them.

      1. dogged

        Re: Spite

        > Really? Did the start of a long recession just before the smoking ban started have nothing to do with falling pub attendance

        Historically pub profits rise during any given recession. So probably yes, the long recession had nothing to do with pubs starting to fail.

      2. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: Spite

        Did the start of a long recession just before the smoking ban started have nothing to do with falling pub attendance

        No, nothing.

        The reason being the smoking ban arrived in July 2007 (2006 in Scotland) whereas the UK dind't enter recession until 2009. The effect on pubs was immediate and on going:

        Year Litres consumed in pubs per capita

        2007 9.2

        2008 8.9

        2009 8.3

        2010 8.4

        2011 8.2

        2012 7.9

        2013 7.7

        Consumption dropped substantially before the recession then failed to recover after it, despite pubs historically doing ok in recessions.

        The facts diagree with your views, as does pretty well any pub landlord operating at that time.

        Figures from the BBPA. Dates for bans and recession from the BBC.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Spite

          Most people who don't smoke stopped going to pubs/clubs long before the bans. Ashtray hair/clothing played a large part in that decision for almost all of them.

          Having discovered that sitting around in a pub with people you don't really know that well means drinking more than you normally would just so that you can put up with them, many haven't bothered going back, or only do so for a quick drink with people who they really do regard as friends.

          Personally, half the time I'm in a pub these days my tipple of choice is espresso or oolong. I discovered I don't really _like_ being drunk or putting up with the morning after the night before.

          A lot of the pressure to "drink more" has gone away as has the culture of competitive drinking (for the most part).

          Aside from that: If you want to take a full sample of reductions in alcohol consumption you'll need to do better than selectively taking the smoking ban years and the ones immediately before them, given there's been a steady decline in consumption happening since at least the 1960s and that covers at least 2 other recession cycles.

          1. Paul Woodhouse

            Re: Spite

            hmm... I think thats mainly just because your getting old :p...

          2. LucreLout Silver badge

            Re: Spite

            Most people who don't smoke stopped going to pubs/clubs long before the bans.

            Wholly untrue and you must realise that.

            I've never smoked. 95% of my mates have never smoked. We used to be in the pub several times a week before the ban. Anti-smokers != non-smokers. Anti-smokers may not have gone to the pub much, but nobody in the pub missed them.

            A lot of the pressure to "drink more" has gone away as has the culture of competitive drinking (for the most part).

            Among your friends? Probably because you're getting old, like me. Among the young that pressure is every bit as strong as it ever was. Stronger even.

            If you want to take a full sample of reductions in alcohol consumption you'll need to do better than selectively taking the smoking ban years and the ones immediately before them, given there's been a steady decline in consumption happening since at least the 1960s and that covers at least 2 other recession cycles.

            Cool. State your source and I'll go look.

    14. Mark 85 Silver badge

      One must follow the money in this. Where I live, there's three "local" firms producing juice. Big Tobacco and Big Pharma aren't involved and thus, deprived of income. There's much over tax revenues by the state not being collected. So health really has nothing to do with it. Then we get into the anti-smoker do-gooders who shrilly scream about the heath problems and how we're not "thinking of the children".... Boils down to politics, power, and money.

    15. Grifter

      Re: Nicotine-free?

      That's what I did. I don't vape much anymore, a couple of days per year maybe, if that. The compulsion to smoke went away with vaping, and then compulsion disappeared, it became an intermittent pleasure. Now the hassle of cleaning my tanks and charging batteries keep my gear in the corner. I view it like candy or chips now, albeit a tad more meckish to set up.

    16. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Wales

      All true. Clumsy wording by me, we'll fix it.

    17. Mage Silver badge

      Re: nonsense..

      No, smokers are NOT net contributors to NHS.

      There is no doubt vaping is safer than smoking, but that doesn't mean they should be advertised in the current way, nor should they be unregulated, nicotine is very deadly poison, far more so than alcohol.

    18. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Spite

      "Vaping unpicks all of the "progress" the anti-smokers have made in 30 years of campaigning. They restent that immensly. They'll gnash and wail and make excuses, but behind these new attacks on vaping, is nothing but spite."

      Anti-smoking campaigners are also some of the most vociferous campaigners you are ever likely to meet. And like most campaigners of that type, it takes over their lives completely. Even those whose campaigns have come to an end with a win have to go out and find a new cause to "fight the good fight" because it's all they know. Their lives would be empty without a cause.

    19. JHC_97

      Re: Middle way is of course, as always, the right way.

      Okay I don't drive, don't go round in your internal combustion engine causing me asthma.

      Note i am not actually telling the poster that he shouldn't have a car just pointing its impossible to live in the modern age without having some effect on others.

  16. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Flame

    Evidence based policy ?

    That's for other people.

  17. frank ly Silver badge

    As an ex-vaper:

    I can state my experience that e-cigs are the best substitute, in terms of providing near immediate relief from tobacco craving, that I've ever tried. Also, e-cigs are a damn sight cheaper, especially if you use a tank and buy bulk liquid from any of many uk based internet suppliers. Sadly for me, they did not provide the same 'satisfaction' and so I drifted back to real cigs (roll ups made from cheap baccy).

    As such, my personal failure is a win for the well established and wealthy tobacco industry. Also, it's a win for the UK government which now gets more money from me via tax/duty on tobacco. That, I believe, is where the pressure, lobbying and finance to support banning or limiting e-cig supplies is coming from.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm loathe to agree with the author

    But I agree with Andrew.

  19. Efros

    Nonsensical Ban

    Seems they are trying every excuse, health concerns, secondhand vaping concerns, gateway concerns, etc. etc. Anyone thinking of the children yet? None of which appear to hold any water. Seems that they should be looking at tax and duty and make this an income stream. The marijuana industry in the US I'm sure is looking hard at the technology and I wonder how long it will be before 'clean' THC enriched vaping materials start appearing here. As a former smoker I wish ecigs had been around when I quit, would have made things a lot less difficult and definitely less calorific, no smoking always results in weight gain. I can't go to my local club as they still allow smoking there (private clubs get to vote on this in this locale), not because I think I might restart but I just can't stand the smoky atmosphere, vaping would make that possible and a whole lot healthier for the staff who work there.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Let me expand your reference frame a bit..

    .. by letting you in on some rumours I picked up.

    This attempt at legislation did not come unexpected, the only surprise is that it took so long.

    You're forgetting that vaping is costing an established industry a fortune, and with it it removes a source of tax revenue: the tobacco lot. The tobacco industry has been trying to get a grip on this for a long time, but it could not do this too visibly, so instead they have started to push the legislative angle. Tobacco suppliers already have a well developed set of legal contacts, so for them it is easy to tune the demand for legislation to a point where they can gain control over this new market to recover the presently lost revenue, and legislation also enables them to push the price up. It enables them to regain control over a market which is at present too fragmented to control.

    It's still all about selling something addictive. What I have seen is that people who switch to vape do NOT eventually give up the habit, they have simply switched to something that carries less of a smell, stigma and taxes. There is no reduction over time of how much they vape (if anything, the "safer" aspect appears to encourage keeping up the habit), so tobacco companies are keen to get in on this. Legislation is the way to make this happen without too much squealing from the public.

    Keep an eye on the tobacco companies - that's where all of this is coming from.

  21. JeffHome
    Coat

    Saving 5M lives...

    Just thinking about the ramifications (financially for the Govt) of what would happen should Duty from cigarettes drop off dramatically... and the extra strain on the UK infrastructure (NHS, Housing, Social Welfare in general, etc) of an "extra" 5M souls not dying prematurely.

  22. MJI Silver badge

    Banned in Wales

    But can you still get gassed by fag smokers?

  23. Steve Gill
    Holmes

    TL;DR

    Vaping works at getting people to stop smoking

    Big Pharma's products don't

    Politicians 'logically' think the best thing to do is regulate/ban vaping

    Obviously no back-handers or other pressures involved there then

  24. Gruezi

    Does anyone know...

    ...why e-cigs are banned on flights? On a recent Delta flight I noticed that they announced "smoking, including the use of e-cigarettes is banned on all Delta flights"

    Curious.

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: Does anyone know...

      @Gruezi

      Because they stink, and we don't really know what is in the fumes.

      There may also be issues with various smoke detection systems.

      1. Chronos Silver badge

        Re: Does anyone know...

        John Robson wrote: Because they stink, and we don't really know what is in the fumes.

        Tommyrot. We do know what is in the exhaled vapour, there have been numerous studies including one on vapour's effects on cells. You're just repeating the anti-vaping lobby's pet excuse.

        What you've typed stinks worse than any e-cig I've ever used - and I have vaped vanilla custard!

        Note: Vanilla custard: Just say no.

        1. Moktu

          Re: Does anyone know...

          Downvoted because I like Vanilla Custard.

          1. Chronos Silver badge
            Devil

            Re: Does anyone know...

            Moktu wrote: Downvoted because I like Vanilla Custard.

            Fair enough, you custarding heathen, you! :-)

            Actually, for sickly smells, the jury's still out on whether custard or Hangsen RY4 (aka Golden Syrup Sponge Pudding) is worse. I'm leaning towards the RY4, if only for the amount of ethyl maltol they put in it.

            It's still only a smell, though, much preferable to "stranger BO on the bus."

        2. alun phillips
          Alert

          Re: Does anyone know...

          How do you know what's in the oil being whipped up in the back of your local head shop, the idea of regulation is to ensure that you do know what is in them! Locally some oil's have been shown by trading standards to contain quite high concentrations of ethylene gycol I personally would rather that wasnt being blown in my face

          1. dogged
            Headmaster

            Re: Does anyone know...

            Locally some oil's have been shown by trading standards to contain quite high concentrations of ethylene gycol I personally would rather that wasnt being blown in my face

            1. Antifreeze and/or cheap white whine? You snob.

            2. Oils See me after class.

            *flexes cane*

          2. Chronos Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: Does anyone know...

            They're not oils. PG and VG are alcohols. Oil would give you lipoid pneumonia, which you really, really don't want.

            Anyone putting Diethylene Glycol in e-liquid will quickly find themselves on a (recklessly) negligent manslaughter charge.

            Yes, monopropylene glycol can be used as an anti freeze. That doesn't make it the same as DEG, it just means it modifies water's freezing point, as does salt. Anything else you want me to debunk, or are you done?

            I don't particularly want your exhaled carbon dioxide blown in my face, which is probably a damned sight more dangerous than anything in e-cig vapour given that CO2 an asphyxiant[1]. The chances of you stopping exhaling are about the same as your ill-informed rant stopping me from vaping, though.

            [1] Yes, okay, I'm fighting fire with fire. It's all in the concentration, something a lot of people commenting on this don't seem to be able to do when it comes to facts.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Does anyone know...

          Tommyrot. We do know what is in the exhaled vapour, there have been numerous studies including one on vapour's effects on cells.

          Well, actually, they DO stink. It's not just water vapour, and if it is there must be trace elements come with it because I can not only tell that someone is vaping nearby, it affects me (it's usually how I fnd out, it's not like I'm looking for it).

          You're just repeating the anti-vaping lobby's pet excuse.

          I have family using this stuff and while I'm happy they're off tobacco, I also note that their use has no end. So it's not helping to close down an addiction, it's replacing it with another.

          What you've typed stinks worse than any e-cig I've ever used - and I have vaped vanilla custard!

          Yeah, sure, ad hominem is the best way to discuss things. Let's not look at the data, let's go personal on someone who doesn't agree.

          1. Chronos Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: Does anyone know...

            Well, actually, they DO stink. It's not just water vapour, and if it is there must be trace elements come with it because I can not only tell that someone is vaping nearby, it affects me (it's usually how I fnd out, it's not like I'm looking for it)

            Oh, poor you! Tell me, do you refrain from cooking just in case someone doesn't like the smell of what you're having for tea? Clue: If it's chips, it is also creating more acrolein (a toxin) than a vaper will produce in his entire lifetime. If said vaper is nic-free, it'll also contain more nicotine.

            Nobody who knows how vaping works will tell you the exhaled vapour is just water vapour. Of course it isn't, or it would dissipate like steam from a kettle. It's an aerosol of PG and/or VG carrier plus the flavouring and nicotine, if any. The "water vapour" myth was a straw man set up by vaping's critics.

            I have family using this stuff and while I'm happy they're off tobacco, I also note that their use has no end. So it's not helping to close down an addiction, it's replacing it with another.

            Oh naturally people must give up something they enjoy, even though it it harmless just to comfort your fragile sensibilities, mustn't they?

            Yeah, sure, ad hominem is the best way to discuss things. Let's not look at the data, let's go personal on someone who doesn't agree.

            Utter rubbish. The data don't support the PP's assertion, nor do they support yours unless you can't stand to be near anything that smells of anything. My summary of his post was an opinion based on the facts and his or her ignorance of them. You're an anonymous tosser. That was an ad-hom. See the difference?

            1. Gruezi

              Re: Does anyone know...

              Okay firstly I am an ex smoker. Smoked for 17 years, and quit when my wife became pregant with first child about 6 years ago. Wasnt easy. And I still miss it. Daily.

              However I would wholeheartedly support airlines allowing smokers to vape on flights. I well remember how crap it felt to fly long haul and not being able to smoke. Will probably reduce the amount of air rage we see [citation needed].

              However I dont buy the "it stinks" argument. The guy sitting next to me letting off beer farts it infinitely less preferable a smell as someone vaping next to me. And I dont see the airlines doing anything about that!

        4. John Robson Silver badge

          Re: Does anyone know...

          @Chronos - We do know what is in the exhaled vapour

          Is that because they are so well regulated?

          Seems to be a plethora of cheap stalls thrown up for a few days at a time selling goodness knows what around here.

          And we, here in this office, don't know what's in the vapour. Frankly I don't care either - the smell is enough to make me not want them anywhere near me - those with nicotine content freuently give me a (very specific) hell of headache as well.

          Aside from that the first ecig link I found was an FDA page from last month saying that they hadn't been fully studied and it wasn't known, amongst other things "how much nicotine or other potentially harmful chemicals are being inhaled during use".

      2. Grifter

        Re: Does anyone know...

        Actually unlike burning secretive organic material (ciggs) which we have no idea exactly what they put in, we know exactly what's in the liquids to vape.

        The smoke detection systems don't pick it up since it's not smoke. If you were to exhale a cloud directly onto a smoke detector, some of them (that detect density I believe) can trigger, but short of that no.

        But your comment that "we don't really know what's in the fumes" speaks volumes, it's not like vaping is new, it's been around for years, you could have educated yourself in 5 minutes by using the internets.

      3. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: Does anyone know...

        Only the really cheap stuff from a market stall stinks. The good stuff ( which doesn't cost that much more ) doesn't. You might get a faint whiff of blackberry if you stand too close. Obviously that's likely in an aeroplane. I'm in favour of light touch regulation to get rid of the cheap rubbish stuff.

        You might be right about the smoke detectors though ( although if you blow it down your jumper, it's dispersed by the time it comes back out - that's the technique I use in Wetherspoons where they are banned ).

        1. Fraserrr

          Re: Does anyone know...

          I'd look like i was on fire if i tried that trick lmao. The joys of sub ohming....

    2. Bob Wheeler

      Re: Does anyone know...

      Some years ago, a chap in the office started using a e-cig. for me, (a smoker at the time) it had a very negative affect seeing 'smoke' being puffed.

      So I would hazzard a guess that it stops the psychological impact on smokers, from seeing someone vaping, especially on long haul flights.

      What most non-smokers don't understand is how hard giving up smoking is. Nicotine is just about the most addicitive chemical there is.

      1. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: Does anyone know...

        @Bob

        What most non-smokers don't understand is how hard giving up smoking is. Nicotine is just about the most addicitive chemical there is.

        I watched my father fight it most of his life.

        So I would hazzard a guess that it stops the psychological impact on smokers, from seeing someone vaping, especially on long haul flights.

        It seems to me the answer there is to carry an e-cig yourself for the duration? My father would certainly have done so were it permitted: he used to chain smoke to the extent that a box of matches could last almost a month. Even short flights were not an enjoyable experience for him.

      2. Timmy B Silver badge

        Re: Does anyone know...

        "What most non-smokers don't understand is how hard giving up smoking is. Nicotine is just about the most addicitive chemical there is."

        Tosh. Utter tosh. It's about being strong minded. If you are weak then it is hard. If you are not it isn't. If you offered a smoker 10 million pounds to stop there and then on the proviso that they were monitored to see if they started again they would all quit there and then (unless very rich I suppose). It is about motivation and strength of will.

        I am an ex-smoker.

        1. MonkeyFedge

          Re: Does anyone know...

          "It's about being strong minded. If you are weak then it is hard."

          Not everyone is strong-minded. Congratulations to you for quitting through sheer willpower, but it's unreasonable to expect everyone else to do this simply because you did.

          " If you offered a smoker 10 million pounds to stop there and then on the proviso that they were monitored to see if they started again they would all quit there and then"

          And if you offered them a free ecig and a lifetime's supply of liquid with the same proviso, many would also quit there and then, but at a much lower cost. (Not that I'm actually suggesting doing this).

          1. Timmy B Silver badge

            Re: Does anyone know...

            Thanks.

            My point is not the amount of money but the motivation. Give somebody enough motivation and the willpower will appear. How about (some hyperbole here!) we say quit or we'll kill your nearest and dearest - that would be quite cheap......

            It's surprising just how much people can do if they really want to. Some people just don't want to quit - fine - do what you like but don't do it near others.

        2. Bob Wheeler

          Re: Does anyone know... @Timmy B

          Being stonge minded, or as I would phrase it having the right 'mind-set' is vital to giving up smoking.

          It is the same with any other addiction, until your get into that 'mind-set' to give up booze, drugs, gambling, smoking, you won't give up,

          The key aspect is MAINTAINING that mind-set over a long period to stey not smoking.

          And I speak as a twice ex-smoker - I gave up for 18 years and then went back.

    3. LucreLout Silver badge

      Re: Let me expand your reference frame a bit..

      @Ac

      You're forgetting that vaping is costing an established industry a fortune, and with it it removes a source of tax revenue: the tobacco lot.

      The tax issue is a red herring - just apply the tax to the liquids and that job is done. Nil additional cost to smokers, but massive benefit to the NHS.

      Capitalism, for I am a capitalist, requires that old inefficient or ineffective industry be allowed to die. So big tobacco fails, most investors take a bath (anyone with a tracker or pension fund will have shares in big baccy), and the world turns - that spending will show up somewhere else.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Let me expand your reference frame a bit..

        The tax issue is a red herring - just apply the tax to the liquids and that job is done. Nil additional cost to smokers, but massive benefit to the NHS.

        Ah, but you can't just go and slap a tax on anything you like. That's why you first need to establish the need for "control" and all, which is what this phase 1 is about. Phase 2 is making sure benefits are derived from this addiction by the usual gangs (governments and tobacco companies). I'm willing to bet that at some point you will end up with a requirement to license this stuff. Once that happens, the small operators will disappear, and the big boys move back to their comfortable monopoly position.

        Come on, they're not even being subtle about it.

      2. Fraserrr

        Re: Let me expand your reference frame a bit..

        The problem with what you propose there is unlike cigarettes you can make e-liquid very easily, and all the items used for making it are freely available (used in food, cosmetics, skincare etc etc), if they tax the liquid then where would the 'home brewer' stand, tax evasion perhaps?

    4. The Axe

      Re: Let me expand your reference frame a bit..

      "vaping is costing an established industry a fortune"

      Yep, the state. The government is losing out on the tabacco duty, big style.

    5. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: Evidence based policy ?

      Has to be avoided at all costs to avoid setting a precedent.

    6. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Let me expand your reference frame a bit..

      Keep an eye on the tobacco companies - that's where all of this is coming from.

      And I suppose it's Big Oil and Big Pharma that are pushing the vaping agenda?

      I hope you have shares in the tinfoil hat industry.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Let me expand your reference frame a bit..

        And I suppose it's Big Oil and Big Pharma that are pushing the vaping agenda?

        I hope you have shares in the tinfoil hat industry.

        Maybe it's urban legend that big tobacco companies were (are?) preparing for selling marijuana cigarettes?

        Maybe it's paranoia that traditional growers are expecting legalisation to be done in such a way that big business (almost certainly tobacco, and definately pharma) will take over?

        If you saw it here first, you saw it here, first!

      2. Fraserrr

        Re: Let me expand your reference frame a bit..

        You're an idiot Phil O'Sophical... If you cant see the link then you are clearly blind, or stupid. The entire TPD is set up to pander to tobacco and pharmaceutical companies and the products they peddle, even the testing of products (which is stupendously expensive, and carries a recurring cost yearly) is designed in such a way that only large companies will be able to have it done.

    7. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: Does anyone know...

      Basically it's one of political correctness. Drink all you want, but no vaping.... go figure.

    8. graeme leggett

      Re: TL;DR

      Nicotine patches (supposedly) help people come off smoking. They are regulated as a medicinal product. And made by big pharma.

      If nicotine vaping was regulated, would the pharma companies or tobacco companies come out on top?

      What's the betting one or more pharma companies have plans to produce if regulation progresses.

    9. John Bailey

      Re: Does anyone know...

      Partly hysteria, partly due to the air recirculating.

    10. graeme leggett

      Re: Saving 5M lives...

      What's the strain on the nation of 5M souls dying prematurely?

      NHS intervention to keep them alive a bit longer, the need to support families now a bread-winner is gone, loss of income because a family member became a carer.

      Personally, I think tax income from tobacco is something a nation ought to believe it can afford to lose over time as usage decreases.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Who should take the credit for this?

    The article notes that this has come about "thanks to the efforts of a Labour MEP". If this is correct can someone enlighten us as to who this is?

    I see that the shadow Health Secretary is Andy Burnham, so he's been a little busy recently jobhunting, but may we also assume this is all consistent with Labour policy?

    Still, it's good to know that our MEPs are busy. And nice to see a policy we can proudly say is due to British politicians for once.

    1. Moktu

      Re: Who should take the credit for this?

      The Labour MEP you are looking for is Linda McAven MEP.

    2. Chronos Silver badge

      Re: Who should take the credit for this?

      Linda McAven MEP was the rapporteur for the TPD2.

      1. Laura Kerr
        Mushroom

        "the efforts of a Labour MEP"

        A Labour politician. Oh, there IS a surprise.

        Just what is it about these miserable little bogies that they have to poke their noses into things that don't concern them? Not that the Tories are exactly paragons of virtue, but the last Labour government showed that the party has far more than its fair share of control freaks and jackbooted petty dictators.

        Get lost, McAven. Just get back under your stone and stay there.

    3. Andy 97

      Re: Who should take the credit for this?

      I bet Jezza C would reverse this ridiculous nonsense... no.. wait... oh.

      1. dogged
        Trollface

        Re: Who should take the credit for this?

        > I bet Jezza C would reverse this ridiculous nonsense... no.. wait... oh.

        Clarkson? He'd make it mandatory.

    4. Joe 48

      Re: Who should take the credit for this?

      @Chronos

      Have multiple up votes on multiple comments simply for them being well constructed factual and quite frankly, amusing too :)

      1. Chronos Silver badge

        Re: Who should take the credit for this?

        @Joe 48

        Thank you, kind sir.

        Candour compels me to admit that, towards the end, it was becoming a little like shooting mirror carp side-on in a small barrel of undiluted glycerine. One glance at the Daily Fail and they're all experts :-)

        If only the same experts in the legislature were so easy to deal with. The HoL has some pretty clued up people - Viscount Ridley springs immediately to mind - but they don't make the law, they simply have a veto on new bills. in the case of the TPD I doubt we even have that luxury as implementing it is a treaty obligation. The odds really are stacked against us at this point and it's going to take a minor miracle to undo all the damage done by moral crusaders and the clueless.

        My DNA40 and Kayfun 3.1ES combo? The thing to remember about the TPD is it legislates for vendors, not the general public. Your e-cig isn't going to become illegal overnight, it'll just be verboten to sell them. It's not me I'm concerned for, it's the millions of smokers who haven't had the chance I've had to escape the clutches of big tobacco, government sin tax gouging, being treated like a leper and the smoke->quit->smoke->quit cycle that NRT forces upon you. Once vaping is driven underground, the same cluelessness that drove it there will pollute the supply chain with such massive awfulness that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy and we truly will have awful, dangerous products out there. Imagine V4p3rm4n-69 (Bitcoin welcome) mixing your juice in his bathroom: Green Fairy, a cheeky little absinthe number with a hint of toilet duck...

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Surely regulation is sensible to consider

    Banning vapping would be crazy as it is much less harmful than smoking which it mainly displaces and is a means to assist giving up but the idea that any regulation is an outrageously crazy suggestion very strange.

    They supply a dangerous and addictive pharmecutical via the lungs. Theer are many potential hazards if the concentration is wrong, if the device accumulates and then releases nicotine or if there are impurities or if the device modifies the chemicals in unintended ways. This is an argument to regulate the e-cigaraettes as medical devices and supplies as pharemcuticals. If it is felt that is too onerous compared to the risks then they could be regulated in a similar way to food on the basis that that is also something ingested with risks of dangerous contaminates. No regulation is possible but with it there is a near certainty at some point of a poisoning or long term damage scandal related to contamination. A view point is that the cost of a higher probability of long term health damage or deaths of users is an acceptable price for lower costs and increased innovation. The cost of regulation is not necessarily high when amortised over a large number of units as can be seen by the cost of a packet of paracetamol. The E-cigarette itself will need to meet the EMC, WEEE and ROHS doirectioves so they are already regulated from these viewpoints adding some consideration of safety of a drug delivery system is not outrageous.

  27. Blank-Reg
    Facepalm

    I think moral crusade is about right. There's been such an assault on smoking in recent memory (disclaimer: I agree with some of the steps that have been taken in getting people quitting) that, for vaping to appear without any sort of health input, some of the more virulent attackers are indignant and impotent of the choices made by smokers. In fact, it's a double blow: Smokers are quitting and moving to something that is vastly less risky and they are choosing to do it by themselves without heeding to any advice or going anywhere near any quit practitioners or gum or patches or any other number of largely ineffectual traditional quit mechanisms. Must really sting somewhat.

    Ideally, the switch to vaping should be seen as a triumph and recognised as positive step. But, never underestimate the stupidity that a bruised ego has.

  28. John Robson Silver badge

    The issue is that they are not as clean as claimed...

    If you can smell the vapour then it isn't 'just steam' as is commonly claimed.

    And the vapour does smell - it's not as noxious as the combustible version, but it isn't clean, and as a non smoker/vaper I don't really want to be inhaling your product.

    They're banned in the office here - quite rightly. This means that people step outside, as they would with any other similar product. Of course they rarely step outside by far enough, but that's a different issue.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "can't stand people enjoying nicotine"

    The pharmaceutical problem is that people don't really "enjoy" nicotine. It has been extensively studied - and basically it actually modifies brain function so as to create dependency. In other words, you now have to consume nicotine to get to the level of wellbeing nonsmokers experience as a normal state of mind.

    I think I have posted this before and if so sorry for the repetition, but the tobacco plant has developed a survival strategy in which the human race is its propagation vector. Isn't evolution wonderful - natural selection comes up with a plant which makes us feel lousy unless we consume it, so we grow more of them. Cannabis, on the other hand, which has many uses, gets banned because (a) the tobacco and alcohol industries don't like it but also (b) it isn't very addictive so not enough politicians can't do without it to force them to legalise it. The late Simon Hoggart once remarked that Parliament runs on a flood of alcohol.

    1. ceedee

      Re: Surely regulation is sensible to consider

      "We understand that the MHRA estimated costs for a one-off application of between £252K and £390K with an annually recurring cost of between £65K and £249K, for each product. This does not include the costs of making manufacturing facilities and products MHRA compliant - estimated at several million pounds."

      (from page 23 of the PHE report.)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Surely regulation is sensible to consider

        Much like any drug/drug delivery system then.

        Of course once manufacture is compliant, then you are 99.999% likely to get exactly what you pay for. No accidents with the wrong chemical getting into a batch, or the product containing the wrong amount of nicotine. Nor will chemicals from the vaping device or the bottle the liquid comes in leach out and into your lungs.

        Also there will be people at the licence holder monitoring all reports of medical incidents to see if the product is involved. If something does go wrong there will be an intervention, product recall (see https://www.gov.uk/drug-device-alerts for examples) and so on. Does the quote above also include making the warehousing and delivery of product to the shop, MHRA compliant?

        Though a manufacturer might have to spend to upgrade their facilities, it might be regulatorally(?) easier and cheaper for them to pay any of the existing manufacturers in existence in the UK or around the world to make it on their behalf.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Surely regulation is sensible to consider

        MHRA fees are here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mhra-fees/current-mhra-fees#periodic-fees-from-1-april-2015-per-licence-fee-period

        As nicotine delivery has already been licenced in patches and sprays, I wouldn't have thought an application via vaporisation to be that onerous.

    2. Fraggle850

      Re: "can't stand people enjoying nicotine"

      Yes, but once the neurochemical pathways are opened to nicotine you do actually enjoy it. My understanding (and forgive me if this is wrong or out of date) is that nicotine is so addictive because of the unique way in which it stimulates multiple (three, I think?) pleasure receptors in the brain. There may be no buzz or intoxication with this particular drug but having those pleasure centres excited does give the brain a feeling of happiness, that's why quitting is such a miserable process. The actual act of smoking and the specific way that the drug is delivered become associated with this feeling of happiness, which is why I suspect vaping works so much better than any other form of NRT.

      We all have differing susceptibility to addiction due to variations in our most complex of organs, some are going to get addicted more quickly and much harder than others.

    3. JHC_97

      Re: The issue is that they are not as clean as claimed...

      Then like Clinton don't inhale

  30. sandman

    Just about anything is better than smoking

    Having been a smoker since I was 13, I managed to quit after about - ooh, let's say 30 years or so - thanks to nicotine lozenges (by the way, I find them enjoyable, expensive and addictive, but enjoyable). If e-cigs help people more and do little harm then in the name of Beelzebub, encourage the use, don't ban it. We recently spent a holiday touring with someone who vaped - it didn't give the non-smokers any problem, even in a minibus with the windows closed (aircon on).

    I've been on one or two chest wards (non-smoking related problems) and believe me, you really, really don't want to go there.

  31. Lloyd
    Headmaster

    Well

    I vape Vanilla, and by Vanilla I mean from the supermarket proper Vanilla (not Mexican beans as there have been health issues with that), I also buy Vegetable Glycerin from a baking supplier, the only thing I have an problem with the provenance of my Nicotene which I buy from a well known Vape shop chain, everything else is designed to be used in baking and I mix it myself. Anyone complaining about my vape (and there have been a few) gets a reasoned argument along the lines of "do you eat cake?".

  32. Fraggle850

    Well that's settled my choice on two upcoming ballots

    Out of the EU and no voting for Labour

    1. Chronos Silver badge

      Re: Well

      Lloyd wrote: I also buy Vegetable Glycerin from a baking supplier

      Don't. Only use pharamceutical grade VG. Boots sell it for ~£1.30 for 200ml. Using food grade VG is a little risky, especially if it is sourced from overseas.

      1. Fraserrr

        Re: Well

        Lubrisolve is also very good, and cheaper than boots (although i do use the boots stuff on occasion). 5 litres from lubrisolve is about £17, they also do nicotine in PG or VG.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well

      @Lloyd Chemicals which are safe to injest can be harmful if vapourised. It is not safe to buy any old flavouring and bung it in. What you are doing is not the same thing as eating cake and the fact that you and others are ignorant to that is what makes them unsafe and precisely why people suggest banning them.

      1. Lloyd

        Re: Well

        Unless they're used in mass production lines where they're regularly turned into vapour, i.e. in a bakery. What happens when to the excess fluid when you bake a cake? It turns into vapour. Where does that vapour go? Into the air. Has anyone working in a bakery ever died from inhaling cake vapour? Err....

        And they're likely inhaling a hell of a lot more vapour than me. Carry on though, have your opinion and I'll carry on vaping within the law, in pubs, in clubs, I'm polite, I ask first.

    3. alun phillips

      Re: Well

      I do indeed eat cake, still not sure I want to inhaling vapourised cake ingredients though if it's all the same with you.

      1. Lloyd

        Re: Well

        Fine by me, as long as you move to another pub, it's all grand.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well that's settled my choice on two upcoming ballots

      "Out of the EU and no voting for Labour"

      So you and (at time of writing) 6 other people would predicate your entire economic and political future just on the possibility of vaporiser regulation?

  33. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
    Coat

    It's surreal

    That is not a pipe.

    (I'll get my small Czechoslovakian traffic warden).

  34. mike2R

    "Not my experience, I recently had my first encounter with somebody vaping and I didn't notice any smell. But then the vaping habits of different people may vary and maybe some inhale and others puff."

    Its much more to do with the particular flavour of juice being used. Some are practically unnoticeable, others can dominate a room.

    Personally I think its polite for us vapers to be considerate when it comes to smells. Sure, a woman with overpowering perfume might be as noticeable as even a pungent juice. But a woman with that much perfume in a restaurant is being rude, even if its not socially acceptable to call her out on it. It isn't much to ask that we either choose a flavour that doesn't bother anyone, or refrain where it might inconvenience others.

    1. Mystic Megabyte Silver badge
      Unhappy

      @Mike2R

      You just reminded me, last year I was eating in a restaurant when a woman arrived. The smell of the copious amount of perfume that she wore completely ruined my meal. It totally overwhelmed the smell of my food. Bah!

  35. Andy 97

    Too late big Parma, the horse has bolted.

    The actual hardware can't be banned as it's glass or plastic, a battery.

    Hardcore vape 'modders' now build their own.

    To make the fluid, it's pretty simple to go to any garden center and buy the raw materials.

    http://www.nicvape.com/How-To-Make-e-Juice

    Does public health really want to spark a new underground of vape industry.

    I like using my home-built mini vape with a stealthy mixture that has no visible mist. Nobody can smell it and (after all) it's only water vapour which all living creatures with lungs exhale.

    1. Mystic Megabyte Silver badge

      Re: Too late big Parma, the horse has bolted.

      As a smoker who is try to quit could you point me to some sites that sell a decent product. Thanks

      1. mike2R

        @ Mystic Megabyte

        Ones I use in the UK are:

        http://vapeescape.co.uk/

        http://www.ecigwizard.com/

        http://www.liberty-flights.co.uk/

        They all sell a wide range of items, so you'll want to check out reviews and forums. But the quality of kit on the market these days is generally excellent compared to when I started - as a beginner, get something that isn't complicated to operate and is in a form factor that suits you. Basically you need a battery of some sort (get at least 2), and something to contain and atomise the juice (get several to make sampling juices easier)

        Juices are very much personal preference. Get a wide range of styles and from different manufacturers. Don't prejudge your tastes, many a new vaper has gone into it knowing that they only want tobacco juices, and a few weeks later been predominantly alternating caramel with strawberry. Tobacco juices are likely to be disappointing initially - vapor flat out doesn't taste much like smoke, the best you get out of tobacco flavours is something that tastes like unburnt tobacco.

        A few suggestions. These are decent batteries, the ones I use when I don't want to use my larger kit (their a bit long in the tooth now, they were one of the first really decent smaller variable voltage batteries. Some of the more modern stuff may well be better, but these do the job).

        http://www.vapeescape.co.uk/Vaping-Spares/Batteries--Passthroughs/Joyetech-EGo-C-Twist-VV.html?cPath=7_10

        You'd need a charger such as this one:

        http://www.vapeescape.co.uk/Deluxe-Vaping-Kits/Aspire-K1-Starter-Kit/Ego/Riva-USB-Charger.Html?cPath=7_8

        These are some really nice "clearomisers" - you fill them with juice and screw them on the battery and you are good to go - I used to hate early clearomisers since they weren't that consistent, but these converted me from more complicated items. You don't really want to change flavours in a clearomiser, so get several:

        http://www.vapeescape.co.uk/Vaping-Spares/Clearomisers/Aspire-BVC-Clearomisers.Html?cPath=7_88

        You might want to consider a "dripping atomiser" - an atomiser that you manually drip a few drops of juice in the top to use - handy for flavour sampling (purists will say they give the best flavour too):

        http://www.vapeescape.co.uk/Vaping-Spares/Atomisers--Cartridges/510-Low-Resistance-Atomiser.html?cPath=7_28

        Then all you need is a selection of juice.

        1. Mystic Megabyte Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: @ Mystic Megabyte

          Thanks for the links

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: @ Mystic Megabyte

          "Don't prejudge your tastes, many a new vaper has gone into it knowing that they only want tobacco juices, and a few weeks later been predominantly alternating caramel with strawberry."

          Fruit flavoured tobacco has been around for centuries. It was banned decades ago in most countries because it was proven to encourage children to smoke.

          Fruit flavoured vaping is banned in a number of countries for the same reason and is likely to go that way in the same ones which ban flavoured tobacco.

          Whilst most vapers are ex-smokers, the advertising is clearly aimed at children and at glamourising smoking in general. The industry maxim is that if you have 'em hooked by 18, you have them for life.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Too late big Parma, the horse has bolted.

      I do like the idea of sourcing proper ingredients in volume and controlling your own quelity - I don't vape but some family does so I must look this up. However..

      it's only water vapour which all living creatures with lungs exhale

      That is actually not the case - it does have a smell. Not sure what it is, but I can tell.

      1. Radio Wales
        Flame

        Re: Too late big Parma, the horse has bolted.

        Would it be too impolite to note here that most expelled breath of living creatures smells too?

        Including humans!

        I'm often not sure what it is, but I can tell - especially if it involved curry or garlic in the case of humans - need I mention what dog breath often smells of?

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    E-cigs are perfectly safe and I'm currently using one alongside patches to quit.

    However I wouldn't recommend buying one in say the philippines (I have experience of this) as in europe we are afforded the luxury of quality control and eu regulation over there they don't. Probably their way of making people not use them? (They get very hot when charging, suffice to say I didn't use it)

    When I read the articles the other day about vaping I did wonder to myself, nah, this can't be right knowing how government works and lo and behold now we get what is really going to happen.

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fair point

    Why punish those who who have given up nasty high carbon footprint burning cancer sticks in favour of a far less damaging (read- harmless) product containing in some cases near homeopathic quantities of nicotine and flavourings?

    This is all about "Big Tobacco" and bullying tactics to keep their deadly product on the market as long as possible.

    Anyone who uses these e-cigs is doing everyone a favour by substantially reducing their risk of ill health and resulting high medical bills: the average tobacco associated cancer patient costs the NHS approx >275,000 UKP over the last few painful and humiliating months of their life.

    Also a lot of investigational new drugs for conditions like Alzheimers are being considered for an inhalational route via e-inhalers and this delivers them far more effectively than having to go through the digestive system.

    Personally I welcome the day when companies like M*rlb*ro and B&H are held to account and treated like the terrorists they are.

    (gets off soapbox)

  38. Mikel

    Tobacco taxes are addictive

    I hear they are harder to kick than heroin.

  39. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Moral crusade

    As OP says, it's some kind of temperance movement kind of thing. To be honest, if tobacco had never been discovered, perhaps everyone would have been better off. But, it has been discovered, plenty of people enjoy and/or are addicted to it. I'm a libertarian, in my view if they aren't harming anyone else (by blowing smoke right in their face) then it's none of my business to tell them what to do. But others just want to be able to tell everyone else what to do, and if they can't do it directly, they seem satisfied by just increasing restrictions year-after-year to get what they want.

    In the US, the anti-smoking movement began with attempts to just say they wanted to stop people smoking. This was pretty unsuccessful; the number of smokers dropped as people became aware of the health risks, but nowhere near zero. It moved on to claiming the goal was to reduce second hand smoke, but the goal really has been a long-term goal of banning all smoking. So, first the reasonable moves were made of making sure airflow was good enough that non-smoking areas didn't just get big ol' clouds of smoke from the smoking areas, and that people didn't smoke right next to the entrance/exit. Fair enough. It didn't take long for this to expand to "no smoking at all indoors" and extensive outdoor areas where smoking is banned, still with the claim it's due to second-hand smoke when in these conditions, it's actually not.

    If you see the ban on snus, it shows an extension of this -- it's not smoked (no second-hand smoke); unlike chewing tobacco, no spitting. And due to how it's processed, it has much lower carcinogen levels than other smoked or chewed tobaccos. But, it's banned in most of the EU, and there are pushes to ban it elsewhere.

    Vaping, I think restrictions on it make it clear what the real motives of these people are.

  40. Notblowingsmoke

    Misguided and upsetting

    Some of the outright misguided views here are really quite upsetting and apear to be the same views that have led to the desired ban .

    I have used vaporisers for around 3 years now, before which I smoked for 15. I have never felt healthier! No shortness of breath, the ability to actually move at any reasonable speed and even better than that, my sense of taste and smell have returned!

    People are mentioning harmful chemicals in e-liquids however the vast majority of these "juices" contain only 4 ingredients most of which we consume on a daily basis.

    Propalyne Glycol or "PG" ( found in a lot of food products as well as tooth paste and other similar products)

    Vegetable glycerine or "VG" ( found in vast amounts of foods as well as the sole liquid used in smoke machines)

    Food Flavourings (again, found in food!)

    And finally, nicotine, at a maximum of 2.4% (24mg strength) of the total mix (generally suspended in PG)

    The only harmful chemical here is the Nicotine. and this is only harmful when ingested and is no more adictive than caffeine.

    It sadens me that alot of people have the attitude that because it looks like smoke, then it must be as bad and therefore bannned! Come on people. Develop a better understanding of the subject matter before reacting!

    Also, I'll take looking like a bit of Twat with my vape over smoking any day!

    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: Misguided and upsetting

      "The only harmful chemical here is the Nicotine. and this is only harmful when ingested and is no more adictive than caffeine."

      No! Nicotine is readily absorbed through the skin. If you rinsed your hands in the 48 mg juice I purchase from the US, you would make yourself very ill indeed. Nicotine needs to be used with due regard to dose.

  41. Kaltern Silver badge

    Odd

    What odd arguments I see against e-cigs.

    * They stink. They might have an aroma, possibly, but seriously, compared to a real cigarette??

    * They're unsafe. While there is not enough medical data to give concise facts, a REAL fact is cigarettes cause cancer, lung disease and generally are not very good for you at all.

    * Passive smoking. Cigarette smokers puff out smoke, and whole again, the whole passive smoking thing is somewhat exaggerated, all e-cig users puff out is vapour. Not smoke. No vaper is going to set off a smoke alarm.

    If anti-smoker types want to continue to bang on about smoking, go for it - I agree (to a point). But to say e-cigs are in any way comparable to the real thing is utterly stupid, and I seriously hope you never breed.

    Why IS it that factual data is ignored in favour of tabloid research??

    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: Odd

      Also odd is the fact that theatrical fog and attendant exposure to glycol/water at rates greater than 100 times the exposure vapers experience attracts no condemnation whatsoever. I have yet to see any notice outside a theatrical venue that such exposure results in "headaches, dizziness, drowsiness and tiredness. Long term exposure ... [is] related to upper airway and voice symptoms. Extended (multi-year) exposure to ... [theatrical] fog has been associated with both short-term and long-term respiratory health problems."

      Vapers are exposed to less than 1% of the level considered safe in industry, making any concern about bystanders' exposure to vapers' emissions insane.

  42. Morteus

    I'm having trouble understanding the logic in this. My wife used to smake around 20 cigarettes a day. She tried all forms of therapy and placebo's to kick the habit, but sadly couldn't beat her addiction. When e cigarettes came on the market, she gave it a try.

    She hasn't smoked a single cigarette in nearly 2 years, an there has been a marked improvement in her life and health.

    So they get banned. I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty sure she will eventually go back to smoking. Her health will suffer, her life span will probably shorten, and she will be socially ostracized.

    All for what?

    1. mike2R

      "All for what?"

      If you are feeling charitable, you might think that a considerable number of public health professionals think that your wife's life is simply worth sacrificing to realise their plans to "denormalise" smoking.

      If you're less charitable, it might occur to you that someone who earns their livelihood from fighting smoking would be out of a job if a true solution was found.

  43. Alan Brown Silver badge

    Hmmm.

    "Moral indignation towards pleasure-giving ‘vices’ may well be a motivation for some of those working in the tobacco control industry,"

    I'm pretty sure the average smoker would complain if I stood on a table and pissed all over them after a few pints of beer, so why should I put up with the noxious side effects of their vices?

    I'm allergic to something in tobacco smoke. That's quite apart from finding the fumes noxious and hating the smell in my hair/clothes after being around smokers. Even outdoor smokers are a problem because they tend to cluster near windows/doorways, with a good chunk of the fumes finding their way back indoors.

    Vapes _mostly_ don't affect me that way, but some do and the smell is still fairly unpleasant. There's still a good argument for banning it indoors (and for the same reason that smelly things/foods are banned on most busses/trains/public indoor areas). If they're not I might consider buying a durian and see if the Vapers object.

  44. Slx

    I had a situation where the couple at the table next to me in a restaurant in Dublin started vaping. I've no issues with vaping but I had some kind of weird smelling vapour wafting across my table.

    I consider that behaviour self-centred and rude.

    I don't plonk an essential oil ultrasonic vapourisor on my table in a restaurant and I'd consider vaping to be as annoying.

    So, I called the waiter and asked to be moved. The manager came over and told them to either stop vaping or go outside and do it there instead and that they had the right to ask them to leave if they continued.

    Vape all you like, but don't do it over my dinner when I'm paying to enjoy it!

    1. GrumpenKraut Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm.

      > ... they tend to cluster near windows/doorways, ...

      Because after indoor smoking was banned everybody thought that smokers just vanish into thin air when outside? At least when it's raining it is to be expected that smokers will gather under the last tiny patch of roof equivalent.

      Plus the duration of exposure when walking through isn't exactly excessive.

  45. Halfmad

    Non-smoker, just my opinion

    I don't smoke, never have and I don't quite understand the addiction side because of that. However I've witnessed several friends come off cigarettes because of vaping so I'm for it. All of them have slowly been reducing their nicotine intake and one no longer has any at all but just enjoys vaping.

    Until someone proves there's HARM in it for those doing it or those around, I don't think it should be banned. I would like to see greater regulation of the substances in it to ensure that longer term those are safe (as with everything we consume) but banning it? Seems utterly moronic.

  46. Palf

    SNAFU

    The usual, run-of-the-mill bureaucratic clusterfuck. Colour us Not Surprised.

  47. Radio Wales
    Flame

    Ban it. Ban what?

    I always believed the Reg people were a cut above in intelligence, but this subject is proving to be revealing in the extreme.

    Most comment either reflects the propaganda being pumped out to cause people to disapprove of E-fags, or reveals the innermost prejudices that dumb people hold dear regardless of the evidence.

    Plus, it seems that all this intelligence is wasted when a good controversy comes along, because people seem to lose (not loose) reason when it comes to their prejudice.

    Which part of vapour are you all having trouble with? People listen to the argument and spout "I'm not putting up with these chemicals in my space." Instantly forgetting that they are clinging to life by breathing AIR a complex chemical, and by drinking WATER a less complex mix of H2O - and usually other stuff that you'd rather not know about.

    Vapour is just that. Vapour. There are no added chemicals, if there are, they have been shown to be so minute as to be undetectable. Water vapour has for millennia, been recommended by medical professionals for help with breathing for asthma and other chest problems, but now, it seems to be life threatening.

    The truth is, you see someone with an E-cig and immediately your mind connects it with historic visions of smoking, and instantly the reflex prejudice kicks in with I'm not having that! Despite there not being one water droplet of truth in what you are objecting to.

    Please stop and review the word Vapour then go and compare it to the word Smoke. See where it takes you.

    And in the meanwhile, try not to let your prejudice show in such a way as could show you to be ignorant.

    1. MonkeyFedge

      Re: Ban it. Ban what?

      "Vapour is just that. Vapour. There are no added chemicals, if there are, they have been shown to be so minute as to be undetectable. Water vapour has for millennia, been recommended by medical professionals for help with breathing for asthma and other chest problems, but now, it seems to be life threatening."

      I was under the impression that the vapour from ecigs was not just water vapour (and nicotine), but also propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin, and whatever flavourings are present.

      I have heard that the origin of the 'water vapour' claim was someone saying that ecig vapour was no more harmful than water vapour, not that it /was/ water vapour.

      1. Chronos Silver badge

        Re: Ban it. Ban what?

        MonkeyFedge wrote: I was under the impression that the vapour from ecigs was not just water vapour (and nicotine), but also propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin, and whatever flavourings are present.

        You are correct. It's actually an aerosol of liquid disassociating from the bulk in the wick and becoming suspended in air due to applied heat from a coil. The nicotine is almost all absorbed by the user immediately, thus there are only trace amounts of that in the exhale. There is flavouring, PG and/or VG, as you rightly point out. There's a "Goldilocks zone" temperature range for this aerosol process, above which the heat causes unwanted chemical reactions in the liquid and you get a few nasties (acrolein, aldehydes) in the aerosol. This only affects the user, though. Sidestream, even on a badly set up atomiser/power combo, is negligible, especially when compared to smoking.

        I've often toyed with the idea of a piezoelectric system similar to that used in ink jet printers as a safer method of obtaining the aerosol. Few problems, not least of which is the variable composition of e-liquids.

        I have heard that the origin of the 'water vapour' claim was someone saying that ecig vapour was no more harmful than water vapour, not that it /was/ water vapour.

        There's actually very little water vapour at all, above what a human would normally exhale with a breath plus what is used to thin the VG. It was actually a misquote taken a bit further by critics and used to trick naïve supporters into making the false statement which can be easily knocked down with the facts - a straw man, if you will - which then makes anything factual that person quotes less likely to be accepted. I know that sounds a bit "conspiracy theory" and I'm sorry for that but there's billions in big pharma and big tobacco profits at stake here.

        What would also help is if people supporting the right to vape would kindly get their facts straight before mounting the soap box, otherwise "please don't stick up for me any more, I don't think my nerves can take it" applies. I'd also add that the "right to vape" includes, as rights very often do, responsibilities to others, which probably includes not cloud-chasing at work, not vaping sickly or pungent flavours in an enclosed space and maybe even asking if it's okay to vape as we used to when we smoked before all the smoking ban nonsense came in and buggered up everyone's ability to interact courteously. A PG heavy flavourless mix will give you the same nic and throat hit (actually, PG heavy is more effective as VG mutes the hit) without fogging up the room or offending anyone's digestive system. Surely we can switch atties for half an hour when asked just to keep the peace?

        And non-vapers, ask me politely to modify my behaviour if my vaping affects you in any way. You'll be pleasantly surprised at the result. Tell me and you'll get exactly what you deserve. Courtesy cuts both ways.

    2. unwarranted triumphalism

      Re: Ban it. Ban what?

      > There are no added chemicals

      No, not like nicotine or anything like that.

  48. long-in-tooth
    Pirate

    Vapourising perfume!!!

    From 2010 February I no longer smoke. I have saved £9,000 since then by not buying cigarettes.

    I stopped by using e-cigs and gradually lost all interest in smoking.

    The e-cigs were based on the same solvent as ladies perfume.

    Why are we not banning ladies from wearing perfume in enclosed spaces?

    1. unwarranted triumphalism

      Re: Vapourising perfume!!!

      Except that e-cigs are not a recognised smoking cessation aid.

  49. Michael J. McFadden

    Know Your Enemy!

    Vapers need to become more aware of the forces and the people who are out to destroy vaping the same way they've fought for the last 40 years to destroy smoking. Antismokers have enormous amounts of cash to spend (500 million to 900 million dollars EVERY YEAR just from the USA's Master Settlement Agreement -- plus unknown millions more from the Big Charities that use the heartstring pulls of "choking children" to raise their donations and from the NicoGummyPatcyPeople who are simply and purely in it for the money.)

    The tricks that they're pulling out to fight vapers are quite often the same tricks, albeit in new clothes, they've used against smokers -- exaggerations about small traces of chemicals and the threats to non-vapers/smokers, tailored studies designed to give the "right" results to funders, lies about what studies actually show, the use of government bodies to impose their will while threatening legislators with "We'll say you're against the children!" hints for the next round of elections if they don't cooperate.

    There is no reason in the world for anything beyond simple oversight of materials and simple, non-overly-restrictive standards. Go beyond the press releases and read and analyse the studies themselves to see what's in them. Read this brief analysis of several of the Antivapers' flagship studies to see how they distort science for their goals: http://www.tobakkonacht.com/PDF/TNSite-SlabVIII-OfVaporsAndVapers.pdf and never, ever, give them an unjustified inch: they will simply take ANY concession that is made and IMMEDIATELY use it as the launchpad for a new campaign.

    Michael J. McFadden

    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

  50. downeast

    I switched to vaping 1 1/2 years ago after smoking 3 packs a day for 53 years. The cough and dark phlegm I used to have are gone- completely.

    I am 72 and feel better than I have for many many years. By the way, the cost of vaping fluid to replace all those cigarettes is less than $3 a week. I could have bought and paid cash for a good house for what I spent on cigs. No withdrawals whosoever.

    Cigarette companies and drug companies hate vaping for significant loss of revenue from both smokers(sales of tobacco) and expensive quit-smoking drugs.

  51. Mutley359

    EU

    When the EU are directly affecting 2.5 million UK people with their new bill in a year our Government is trying to tell us the EU is good could be a problem.. Also, when the EU bill must be implemented by the UK Government when the very advisers to that Government say the product is good must be a problem. Who is running the UK?

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019