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

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

  1. RyokuMas Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Jesus, NO!

    "Routine bans of vaping products at the workplace or in public spaces should cease"

    Nothing worse that walking in a crowded area and suddenly being engulfed in a cloud of artificial-smelling nastiness because some bugger who lacks the self-discipline to quit properly has take a huge lug on a vape then blown the whole lot out... almost more disgusting that getting a whiff of the real deal.

    That plus I have witnessed several incidents where vapers who thought they were being sneaky and sly have set off fire alarms.

    A full ban on all forms of smoking and vaping in all public places is long overdue... but of course it won't happen, not while it's a tax cash cow.

    1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

      Re: Jesus, NO!

      Bollocks. When I'm in Wetherspoons I blow the "smoke" up my sleeve and nobody even notices. It dissipates so quickly you won't even know.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

    2. Richard 81

      Re: Jesus, NO!

      Banning smoking in public places? Sure, since it is actually harmful. Banning vaping? No way since it doesn't hurt anyone. I don't do either, but I still believe in rational laws.

      I will admit that the sickly sweet smell that some vapes produce isn't nice on a hot bus or train, so people should be considerate. Mind you that goes for people who overdo their perfume too.

      1. Stripes the Dalmatian

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        @Richard 81

        If passive smoking can harm people, how is vaping not going to do? I find the vapour from these machines extremely irritating, much more so than actual tobacco smoke.

        In a few years we may find out what the effect of super-heating a mixture of nicotine plus cheap synthetic flavourings is.

        1. Richard 81

          Re: Jesus, NO!

          ...because it doesn't contain any actual smoke! Passive smoke is still smoke and contains lots of carcinogenic products of combustion. The vapour from a e-cig is almost all water vapour.

          I get not liking the smell, but I don't get why people refuse to acknowledge that there is no evidence that vaping is dangerous at all, unlike actual smoking. It's always "we don't know", "we need more evidence" etc. but it just smacks of puritanism.

          IMHO if everyone who smoked switched to vaping tomorrow, the world would be a hell of a lot better off.

          1. Dave 15

            Re: Jesus, NO!

            Next of course...

            banning running any form of combustion engine in public (be it coal fired or petrol)

            banning any combustion based power generation

            banning bonfires

            banning fireworks (they smell as well)

            banning deodorant

            banning perfume

            banning....... oh what the hell ban everything and lets return to living rough out in nature with no clothes and hunting with our bare hands, at least it will reduce human population and global warming at the same time

            What annoys me most is the mps that ban all this are busy helping themselves

            1. Avatar of They

              Re: Jesus, NO!

              You do seem to be missing the point during your rant.

              The ban is about the propagation of a harmful very addictive drug with unknown side effects long term. Which is currently and thankfully outlawed so anyone with working taste buds is spared having to breathe in a mixture of possible and probable harmful stuff (no one knows long term except the popcorn lung chemical that is now banned - allegedly.)

              Everything you just listed is either proven safe to breathe in like perfume because it is extensively tested or has been around for year. Or is proven harmful (like bonfires) and has other laws surrounding it.

              1. Cynic_999 Silver badge

                Re: Jesus, NO!

                You'll breath far more harmful substances by attending a barbeque. Do you want those banned as well?

                1. Martin-73 Silver badge

                  Re: Jesus, NO!

                  Quite frankly yes, every nice day we have, where you need the windows open, some a-hole decides to cremate a dead animal in their back garden. Stinks

                2. HelpfulJohn

                  Re: Jesus, NO!

                  "You'll breath far more harmful substances by attending a barbeque. Do you want those banned as well?"

                  Only when I'm hungry and have nothing in and the shops are shut or when I feel a little queasy from something or when I'm trying to cook something nice where the aroma is an important factor.

                  Or when the bastards are cooking something really, really delicious and we're not the type of neighbours where they'd casually invite me to share.

                  So. Quite often, really.

                  Though should they be considerate enough to install electric fans to blow their fumes away from me, I wouldn't care.

                  Has anyone ever done this?

              2. Steven Raith

                Re: Jesus, NO!

                Avatar of They

                "You do seem to be missing the point during your rant.

                The ban is about the propagation of a harmful very addictive drug with unknown side effects long term."

                You don't seem to know much about nicotine. Without lit tobacco being involved, it's not accurate to describe it as either harmful (in the doses used - the dose makes the poison) or particularly addictive. I'm not joking, without tobacco smoke, nicotine just isn't that interesting from an addiction standpoint. Nicotine is well known to be pretty harmless long term; there's no recommended 'stop using this' period for gum or patches, after all.

                "Which is currently and thankfully outlawed"

                What, e-cigs in the workplace? It's not and the official advice is not to treat e-cigs like cigarettes. It's perfectly legal to vape in enclosed spaces where it's not otherwise proscribed.

                "...so anyone with working taste buds is spared having to breathe in a mixture of possible and probable harmful stuff (no one knows long term except the popcorn lung chemical that is now banned - allegedly.)"

                Possible - anything is. Probable? There's already much evidence that that isn't the case. Also, popcorn lung, otherwise known as brochial obliterans, has a pathway that may be caused by Diacetyl. A chemical found in quantities at least two orders of magnitude (that is, at least 100x) greater in cigarettes than it is in e-cigs. Yet, we don't see popcorn lung in smokers - only in those who were exposed to, as far as I can find out, the powdered form of diacetyl, in factories, in the mixing rooms where it's being agitated up.

                This whole thing has been debunked so often that it's on fucking Snopes.

                "Everything you just listed is either proven safe to breathe in like perfume because it is extensively tested or has been around for year. Or is proven harmful (like bonfires) and has other laws surrounding it."

                E-cigs have been on the market for ten years, and in widespread use for five. If there were signs of serious health implications, they'd be apparent by now, especially as 99.99 of users are, or were, smokers, who would have had compromised lungs and airways due to years of smoking.

                But yet we don't see it, and there's very little evidence of any harms at all (I don't count research which involves injecting e-liquid into the body cavities of rats, and then being applied to humans, as 'research' ), and certainly nothing remotely justifying any kind of public use ban.

                Hell, people can't even claim renormalisation as an argument given that youth smoking rates are dropping at levels not seen for decades...

                1. AndyD 8-)₹

                  Re: Jesus, NO!

                  Nicotine not particularly addictive?

                  Why the f*ck do you think all those people smoke?

                  It is very seriously addictive!

            2. CheshireMan
              Holmes

              Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

            3. controversy

              Re: Jesus, NO!

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

              And there is no interest in unbanning them.

          2. heyrick Silver badge

            Re: Jesus, NO!

            "I get not liking the smell, but I don't get why people refuse to acknowledge that there is no evidence that vaping is dangerous at all,"

            Hang on, isn't that what "they" said about tobacco cigarettes for years until the masses of actual evidence became to great to ignore?

            1. wallaby

              Re: Jesus, NO!

              "Hang on, isn't that what "they" said about tobacco cigarettes for years until the masses of actual evidence became to great to ignore?"

              This is the 21st century, claims about tobacco cigarettes were difficult to substantiate in the 1950's/60's and even the 70's given the lack of sensitivity of test equipment in those days. We now have instruments that can detect down to ppb levels.

              Just because it seems like something that went before, don't assume its going to follow the same path - you point out "until the masses of evidence" - well where is the evidence that e-cigs will follow the same path as cigs ?

              You either follow a scientific approach or not, don't bend it to your argument - its not pick and mix.

              1. heyrick Silver badge
                Unhappy

                Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

              2. BongoJoe

                Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

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

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Jesus, NO!

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

          3. Stripes the Dalmatian

            Re: Jesus, NO!

            @Richard81

            So it doesn't contain any actual smoke?

            Nobody said or implied that it did.

            It does contain a known carcinogen and various irritants.

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

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

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: Jesus, NO!

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

              So do tomatoes!

              1. Stripes the Dalmatian

                Re: Jesus, NO!

                @ John Brown (no body)

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

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

                1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

              2. Phil W

                Re: Jesus, NO!

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

                So do tomatoes!'

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

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

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

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

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

                1. Terry 6 Silver badge

                  Re: Jesus, NO!

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

                  Like Cuppa-Soup you mean.

              3. HelpfulJohn

                Re: Jesus, NO!

                And potatoes.

                And geraniums though those aren't eaten very often. Not even in salads.

                And BBQ-ed eats have carcinogens on their surfaces. All that black, crunchy stuff. I suspect it's true of toast, too.

            2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

            1. Terry 6 Silver badge

              Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "Drs thought it was harmless"

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

              1. Terry 6 Silver badge

                Re: "Drs thought it was harmless"

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

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

            3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

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

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

            4. HelpfulJohn

              Re: Jesus, NO!

              "... even though at first doctors thought it was harmless."

              Hmm, I don't think so ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Counterblaste_to_Tobacco

              Well, some of them didn't and some politicians took note.

              Okay, at least *one* politician took note. Slightly before the 1950's, too.

          5. h4rm0ny

            Re: Jesus, NO!

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

            1. heyrick Silver badge

              Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

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

            2. PapaD

              Re: Jesus, NO!

              Probably because NIMBYism has never been a good reason to make a law banning something

          6. controversy

            Re: Jesus, NO!

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

        2. This post has been deleted by its author

        3. dansus

          Re: Jesus, NO!

          "In a few years we may find out what the effect of super-heating a mixture of nicotine plus cheap synthetic flavourings is."

          We already know. Compared to smoking the harm reduction is no a brainer those wanting to switch. For bystanders, it may be annoying to some, but there is no level of risk, zip, zilch, none.

          If people with COPD can vape away quite happily, i would think even asthma sufferers would not be adversely affected by the vapour beyond a psychosomatic effect.

          1. AMBxx Silver badge

            We already know.

            Not as much as we think we do. The flavours in vaping are governed by food legislation. That means their effect when heated hasn't always been tested. There's already been the case of the caramel flavour that's carcinogenic when heated and inhaled, but perfectly safe when flavouring food.

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: We already know.

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

              Citation please, I'd really like to know about that.

              1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                Re: We already know.

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

                Citation please, I'd really like to know about that.

                Down voted? What sad sack down voted a request for further information and why? Is that you Mrs Whitehouse?

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: We already know.

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

                Citation please, I'd really like to know about that.

                There's quite an extensive wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes, which (unlike much of wp) looks well prepared. See statements such as

                "A 2012 study found butterscotch flavor was highly toxic with one liquid and two others had a low toxicity.[40]"

                "Certain flavorings contain diacetyl and acetyl propionyl which give a buttery taste.[31] Diacetyl and acetyl propionyl are associated with bronchiolitis obliterans.[31] A 2015 review recommended for specific regulation of diacetyl and acetyl propionyl in e-liquid, which are safe when ingested but have been associated with respiratory harm when inhaled."

                The references cited are to various studies, too long to cut&paste here.

                1. dansus

                  Re: We already know.

                  "Certain flavorings contain diacetyl and acetyl propionyl which give a buttery taste.[31] Diacetyl and acetyl propionyl are associated with bronchiolitis obliterans.[31] A 2015 review recommended for specific regulation of diacetyl and acetyl propionyl in e-liquid, which are safe when ingested but have been associated with respiratory harm when inhaled."

                  Sorry, the studies havent stood up to scrutiny. Besides anything else, the levels are 100-750 times less than combusted tobacco, and no one ever got popcorn lung from smoking.

                  Some flavours like custard did contain small amounts of diacetyl, they have since been reformulated to remove all but trace amounts. As part of MHRA testing, eliquids must be free of diacetyl and aldehydes before being allowed to be sold.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: We already know.

                    Sorry, the studies havent stood up to scrutiny

                    and

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

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

                2. Steven Raith

                  Re: We already know.

                  AC, regarding the wiki link, let me talk to you about popcorn lung (bronchiolitis obliterans).

                  Ah, wait, Snopes beat me to it. Yes, fucking Snopes. That's how flaky that is.

                  Clicky for Snopesy.

                  (it's actually really very interesting)

                  That's why you never reference wikipedia directly, and why you read the research, to discover that most of it has horrific methodological flaws that mean it doesn't reflect actual real world usage of the devices.

                  Diacetyl and AP have been associated with respiratory harm in (as far as I could ascertain from reading up) airborne, powdered form in popcorn factory workers exposed to it eight hours a day in highly concentrated quantities in the mixing rooms - not in vapourised, liquid form - nor in in measures 100x greater than in e-cigs as it is in lit tobacco. The only exception to this is someone who claimed they got BO from sniffing their microwave popcorn. That he'd spent a lifetime working with harsh carpet cleaning chemicals didn't seem to be relevant...

                  This is what you learn when you do more than a basic wiki hunt and paste the first thing you find....

                  Steven "Has read the research, and a lot of it is fucking pathetic" R

                3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Re: We already know.

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

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

                4. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: We already know.

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

                  1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                    Re: We already know.

                    "Popcorn lung" is still out to jury.

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

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

                    1. Terry 6 Silver badge

                      Re: We already know.

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

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: We already know.

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

                    Good for you, I'm glad it helps.

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

              3. Daedalus Silver badge

                Re: We already know.

                Dunno about caramel flavour, but the process of caramelization is like burning: with heating of sugars many different compounds are formed, not all of which have been tested for the usual horrors. It's one of those things the sweet manufacturers probably don't want to talk about. See similar concerns about browning of meats etc. Same class of reactions (Maillard reactions, no duck jokes please).

                So caramel flavoured vape may be one that is actually risky, even if the vapour is mostly steam. In general a vape should only be as risky as the unvaped flavouring, since the heating is comparatively mild and quick.

            2. dansus

              Re: We already know.

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

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

              1. BazzF

                Re: We already know.

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

              2. David 18

                Re: We already know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

            3. Steven Raith

              Re: We already know.

              AMBxx,

              Even if we were to take the absolute worst case scenario with flavourings into account - which the Royal College of Physicians did in their overarching study on the subject

              We'd still be talking about a tiny fraction of a risk of smoking, and frankly, not a huge risk over baseline day to day risks, and certainly not one that justifies a huge public health intervention like demanding a ban in enclosed spaces - which would infer similar levels of harm to smoking, which just is not the case at all.

              Also, I'll bet that any research that does show some kind of link is demonstrably methodologically broken - such as running a coil designed for 8w at 20w, or similar....because that's about the only way you get carcinogens out of e-cigs - rampant, utterly foul tasting, retch-inducing abuse.

              Here's a comparator of smokers, and vapers, carcinogen levels, from CRUK backed research.

              Clicky for research

              Here's that data compared to that of non-smokers - yes, Brad Rodu is pro tobacco harm reduction, but just scroll down to the data in the table which shows comparable levels of VOCs in e-cig users and non-smokers. Not that different, eh?

              PS: If you're talking about popcorn lung, I've linked it elsewhere, but just for you:

              It bears repeating, there's a Snopes on this - that's how poor the evidence is for popcorn lung.

            4. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: We already know.

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

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

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Jesus, NO!

            i would think even asthma sufferers would not be adversely affected by the vapour beyond a psychosomatic effect.

            That's because you don't have asthma.

            1. handleoclast

              That's because you don't have asthma.

              @AC

              I do. And I'm happily sucking on a vape right now.

            2. robin thakur 1

              Re: Jesus, NO!

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

            3. Sam Therapy

              Re: Jesus, NO!

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

          3. ITBloke

            Re: Jesus, NO!

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

        4. Cynic_999 Silver badge

          Re: Jesus, NO!

          "

          If passive smoking can harm people, how is vaping not going to do?

          "

          Um - because it is not smoke and does not contain any carcinogens or tars etc?

          You may as well be arguing that is passive smoking can harm people (and I am far from convinced that it can), then how is passive drinking not going to do so (breathing in all those alcohol fumes).

        5. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: Jesus, NO!

          "If passive smoking can harm people, how is vaping not going to do"

          Uh, no. And I have some science to back my statement up.

          A few years ago, a study was done comparing a smoke-filled room with a vape-filled room. The smoke-filled room tested 'positive' for the usual things. The vape-filled room tested NEGATIVE for pretty much everything that's harmful, INCLUDING nicotene levels!

          I think that's pretty compelling. Here's the best link I could find that discusses the study:

          http://www.projectvape.com/what-is-vaping/second-hand-vapor/

          1. Martin-73 Silver badge

            Re: Jesus, NO!

            Projectvape... that'd be an independent site then, NOT

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Jesus, NO!

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

            "pretty much"?

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Jesus, NO!

            http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/e-cigarettes-and-lung-health.html

            https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/e-cigarettes/index.htm

        6. Steven Raith

          Re: Jesus, NO!

          Stripes...

          "If passive smoking can harm people, how is vaping not going to do? I find the vapour from these machines extremely irritating, much more so than actual tobacco smoke."

          Here are the three studies I posted earlier. That's how we know it's not going to harm people. It's a thing called evidence of lack of notable harm.

          Just to be clear, we're not going to legislate on what you find irritating.

          one study

          two studies

          Three studies, mwuah ha ha!!

          Steven "Count....Vapula...?" R

        7. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Jesus, NO!

          I find people that watch the Kardashians irritating. I wouldnt suggest banning the Kardashians though. Its illogical.

          Same goes for vaping. Banning something on the grounds of being annoying is heavy handed and frankly bollocks. Banning things is for spineless people. Society should dictate acceptable protocol not the law. The law exists to protect not control.

          Disclosure: I dont smoke or vape.

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        "Mind you that goes for people who overdo their perfume too."

        Exactly! So the real nuisance of vaping is when people use a concoction that's equivalent to stinky perfume. Otherwise, as long as people don't abuse it, let people do what they want.

        And a BIG THUMBS UP to the UK gummint for having the guts to stop going after vaping. Good Job!

        [I personally have had serious issues with cigarette smoke, from sinus headaches to frequent sneezing and constant congestion, skin rashes from tobacco smoke on surfaces, etc. etc. and NO problems from being around people vaping]

      3. Mary Hinge

        Re: Jesus, NO!

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

        1. hplasm Silver badge
          Meh

          Re: Jesus, NO!

          Thinking of the Children...

        2. Alumoi
          Facepalm

          Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Jesus, NO!

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

      5. LeeV

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        Banning vaping? No way since it doesn't hurt anyone.

        Err, that's balls. Look up "Popcorn lung".

        Also, human lungs are not designed to inhale any kind of fine particles like that. You want to do that and damage yourself, fine by me, it's a free country, but go do it outside so I don't have to breath that muck.

      6. Asylum_visitor

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        Let's not forget the people who choose not to wash and then use public transport :\

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Jesus, NO!

      artificial-smelling nastiness...A full ban on all forms of ....vaping in all public places is long overdue

      What about farting in public? A good guff is stuffed full of global-warming methane, toxic hydrogen sulphide, irritant ammonia, rancid mercaptans of unknown health effect, bacteria, and a whole range of other by-products. There's few better feelings than sneaking out a red hot SBD that will hit ten on the Mercalli scale amongst desk bound colleagues, slipping away before the invisible mushroom cloud has spread the good news.

      Are you next going to try and ban the simple, natural pleasure of shared flatulence?

      1. RyokuMas Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        "Are you next going to try and ban the simple, natural pleasure of shared flatulence?"

        No, because that's an entirely natural process. Whereas deliberately burning (or superheating) a chemical that has been proved to be addictive for the purpose of breathing it in - and as a byproduct, forcing anyone in your immediate vicinity to do so as well...

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Jesus, NO!

          "No, because that's an entirely natural process."

          Fair enough. You won't mind us all following you around and doing the natural thing whenever we're near you then? Or maybe there are social norms around the subject? Maybe vaping simply doesn't have those social norms yet but you'd rather ban it than see if there's a better solution?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Jesus, NO! @RyokuMas

          No, because that's an entirely natural process

          So bloody what? Stingray poison is entirely natural, I'm in no hurry to try that. I've tried weaver fish venom, and that's bad enough. There's a huge amount of non-GMO plants that you could eat and would kill or harm you, all as "an entirely natural process".

          Contrary to hippy mythology, "natural" does not mean good for you. And "synthetic" doesn't mean bad for you. It all depends what we're talking about, and in this case it's mostly water vapour, glycols, a tiny bit of nicotine and the sort of chemicals that you probably routinely expose yourself to in soaps and shampoos, household cleaning products, sweets and processed foods, perfumes, deodourants and aftershaves, as well as the misleadingly named "air fresheners". Will you be seeking a ban on all those?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Jesus, NO! @RyokuMas

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

          2. HelpfulJohn

            Re: Jesus, NO! @RyokuMas

            "Air fresheners", deodorants and some after-shaves, maybe yes. Some of hose definitely have something in them that makes me ill. Of course, it might be possible to find and eliminate the applicable chemical but I don't hold out any hope of it ever being done just for me.

            Household cleaning products are easily avoided. Don't use them and don't visit anyone else's house if there's even a small chance that they might.

            What amuses me (among many other things) about the hippiness of "natural" versus man-made are things like vinegar and vitamin C. If they are obtained from festering, rotting, foetid food refuse then they are natural and wholesome, if they are absolutely pure, uncontaminated and utterly safe because they are made in clean vats using filtered chemicals then they are "acetic acid" and "ascorbic acid" and are evil "E-number" additives.

            It should be the other way round.

            We should be *praising* the pure, good, safe man-made stuff and utterly rejecting the foul corruptions from "nature".

            Indeed, we should be *banning* the corrupted versions in the interest of public health.

            Greenie, tree-hugging hippies are often deeply thick.

        3. JohnMurray

          Re: Jesus, NO!

          Superheating then inhaling propylene glycol you mean...

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

        4. h4rm0ny

          Re: Jesus, NO!

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

      2. Dave 15

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        Lighting farts is great fun as well... if yours are rich enough :)

      3. Chemical Bob

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        "stuffed full of global-warming methane, toxic hydrogen sulphide, irritant ammonia, rancid mercaptans of unknown health effect, bacteria, and a whole range of other by-products"

        Mine are considerably worse.

    4. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Childcatcher

      Re: Jesus, NO!

      "Nothing worse that walking in a crowded area and suddenly being engulfed in a cloud of artificial-smelling nastiness"

      It seems you only see a "problem" because you only see the minority who mix their own juices and end up exhaling huge clouds. You obviously don't notice the majority who don't do that.

      Next you'll be shrilling "think of the children!" Maybe you think all cars should be banned because you only notice the bad drivers, and barely register the decent drivers?

    5. Cynic_999 Silver badge

      Re: Jesus, NO!

      Rubbish. With most e-cigs you would not smell a thing - or at most a slight and pleasant aroma similar to someone walking past with a cup of coffee. It is also possible to use an e-cig with zero visible vapour emissions, which is how I vape if there are irrational anti-vape people around.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        " irrational anti-vape people around."

        if they're concerned because it MIGHT be a cigarette, I can understand the agitation. If, on the other hand, it's clearly NOT a cigarette, they're being idiots.

    6. Cynic_999 Silver badge

      Re: Jesus, NO!

      "

      That plus I have witnessed several incidents where vapers who thought they were being sneaky and sly have set off fire alarms.

      "

      That is total rubbish. I can blow vape directly into my smoke detector and it will not go off. Because it is *NOT SMOKE*

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

      1. hititzombisi

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        My smoke detector routinely goes off with the steam from the bathroom...

        I still support vaping since it's the best thing for the smokers to give up burning harmful substances and inhaling them.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Jesus, NO!

          >My smoke detector routinely goes off with the steam from the bathroom...

          Means its a cheaper one with an optical sensor - they're only recommended for hallways - generally and elsewhere you should fit ionisation alarms which actually detect smoke. No harm in fitting both, but it's the latter which generally save lives - optical sensors mostly save pounds while looking the part.

          1. Martin-73 Silver badge

            Re: Jesus, NO!

            Hallways and livingrooms are optical territory. Bedrooms get ionization, kitchens heat detectors (fixed or rate of rise) and anywhere high risk gets multi-sensors.

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

            1. Cynic_999 Silver badge

              Re: Jesus, NO!

              "

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

              "

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

              1. Martin-73 Silver badge

                Re: Jesus, NO!

                No, I swapped it for a multisensor.

                Actually, tongue out of cheek, for someone who does vape in the 'huge clouds of billowing steam' way (rather than your normal e-cig that is barely noticable) a multisensor would happily ignore that too :)

              2. HelpfulJohn

                Re: Jesus, NO!

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

                Obviously not! That's simply daft. The only really valid solution is to duct-tape some aluminium foil over the detector's intakes.

                Bonus points for anyone who gets the reference.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Jesus, NO!

              >Hallways and livingrooms are optical territory.

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

              1. Martin-73 Silver badge

                Re: Jesus, NO!

                Your info conflicts with what the Aico training course instructor said... (this was regarding SEALED mains alarms with no removeable battery however, as recommended for rented housing)

      2. the Jim bloke Silver badge
        Mushroom

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        We regularly get advisory notices around our mining camps telling people to shower with the bathroom doors closed -

        because the steam sets off the fire alarms and security have to respond.

        Other occasions of intense humidity - post cyclone / tropical rain bearing depressions, the fire alarms around camp just go off spontaneously from the humidity - in a sad and waterlogged chorus from random directions.

        Ah, the joys of working in the tropics.

        1. ggcotanza

          Re: Jesus, NO!

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

      3. RyokuMas Silver badge

        Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

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

      4. munkiepus

        Re: Jesus, NO!

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

      5. Uffish
        Flame

        Re: Smoke detector

        Smoke detectors can and do give false positive reactions, and in the particular product I have at home high humidity is one cause of false positive reactions. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

      6. Lloyd

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        Much as I'm loathe to defend him, I have actually set off a fire alarm in a pub before through vaping (well, 3 times within a 5 minute period actually), although it was in a very small room and I am one of "mix your own" types who puffs a heavy VG based mix, I might add that I use no flavour though, just VG and nicotine (<1%).

    7. William 3 Bronze badge

      Re: Jesus, NO!

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

      1. handleoclast
        Happy

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        @William 3

        For a moment, there, I thought you were talking about me. Then I remembered I don't wear after-shave (crappy or non-crappy).

        1. HelpfulJohn

          Re: Jesus, NO!

          "Then I remembered I don't wear after-shave (crappy or non-crappy)."

          As with many social things, there is an easy, simple and *cheap* solution to the issue of people not liking your after-shave. Don't shave. That way there is no "after".

          If people object to your perfume, either tell them where their objections belong -sideways - or stop wearing it in their presence - preferably by never *being* in their presence.

          It's generally easy to avoid interpersonal conflicts using a couple of simple rules.

          1: Don't do what bothers them.

          2: Avoid them, that way they won't know you're doing it.

          I like Rule Two. The informal "Rule Zero: Just ignore them." also works.

      2. Chris Parsons

        Re: Jesus, NO!

        You write well for a five year old.

      3. Jamie Jones Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

    8. JcRabbit

      Re: Jesus, NO!

      > Nothing worse that walking in a crowded area and suddenly being engulfed in a cloud of artificial-smelling nastiness

      And this, ladies and gentlemen, perfectly shows why the ban on vaping - and what anti-smoking fundamentalists are *really* all about - was NEVER about health but about power. These entitled snowflakes would gladly ban every brand of perfume they don't like, if only they could come up with an acceptable excuse for it.

    9. Steven Raith

      Re: Jesus, NO!

      Oh, Ryokumas....

      "Nothing worse that walking in a crowded area and suddenly being engulfed in a cloud of artificial-smelling nastiness because some bugger who lacks the self-discipline to quit properly has take a huge lug on a vape then blown the whole lot out... almost more disgusting that getting a whiff of the real deal."

      Well, that's personal preference - if you run the business, it should be your choice, not a legal dictat, as to whether vaping is banned. That's sort of the point here.

      "That plus I have witnessed several incidents where vapers who thought they were being sneaky and sly have set off fire alarms."

      If they were americium based ones, I'd be amazed if enough vapour got in there to set it off before everyone else noticed - it needs to be fucking saturated to cause it to interfere. The optical ones can be more flaky depending on how cheap they are, but even they need serious provocation. I think this is a problem with people cheaping out on their fire detection equipment, or someone not being familiar with what 'sneaky' means. I need to seriously take the piss to set off my smoke alarms at home, and that's when using my big devices, with the windows closed...

      "A full ban on all forms of smoking and vaping in all public places is long overdue... but of course it won't happen, not while it's a tax cash cow."

      No, it's because it'd be hugely unethical, completely unsupported by the evidence, and would give a false impression that e-cigs are as harmful as lit tobacco.

      As for your other post....

      "No, because that's an entirely natural process. Whereas deliberately burning (or superheating) a chemical that has been proved to be addictive for the purpose of breathing it in - and as a byproduct, forcing anyone in your immediate vicinity to do so as well..."

      1: Superheating - you keep using that word; either you don't realise that it doesn't mean what you think it means, or you don't realise that an e-cig does the literal opposite of what superheating is.

      2: Nicotine, in any context other than lit tobacco, isn't addictive in any realistic sense (and certainly not any clinical sense). Even in lit tobacco, it doesn't fit pretty much realpolitic definition of addiction, which typically involve the user going to criminal lengths to get their fix.

      E-cigarettes may be as or less addictive than nicotine gums, which themselves are not very addictive.

      I'm not even joking - Clixor for datas on nicotine without smoke, because that last sentence is a direct quote.

      and Clixor for research comparing tobacco smoke and pure nicotine which mentions that...

      Nicotine is the drug in tobacco that leads to compulsive drug seeking or addiction. However, several lines of epidemiologic and laboratory evidence presented in this chapter indicate that tobacco-delivered nicotine is substantially more addictive than are pure nicotine forms. Other tobacco constituents, delivery methods, and processes may play a critical supporting role.

      So I hope that clears up that little misconception.

      3: Seriously, people need to stop insinuating that second hand vapour is a thing that affects anyone biochemically to any notable degree when used as directed. This is very well established. Here is one study, another study and yet another study that all say the same thing - there is little to no evidence of harm to bystanders in any measure that require attention.

      You take the level of exposure to which someone working with a lifetime of daily exposure would be expected to show health effects (the threshhold level value, or TLV). The levels detected are under 5% of that. To the users of the devices. Second hand exposure is orders of magnitude lower.

      Second hand vaping is, quite frankly, not a thing that needs attention other than in respect of etiquette, with plenty of evidence to back this up, and anyone purporting that it is a problem clearly isn't familiar with the evidence. This includes a large swathe of the public health world, too.

      Steven "check my post history on this subject for more info - we've been here before" R

      1. Smarty Pants

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

        I cannot upvote you enough

    10. streaky Silver badge

      Re: Jesus, NO!

      A full ban on all forms of smoking and vaping in all public places is long overdue... but of course it won't happen, not while it's a tax cash cow.

      Vaping is how you stop all smoking.

      Also, grow up and get a grip. I don't like the smell of food some people eat on the train doesn't mean I bitch/winge about it or treat them like they're trying to kill me or argue that food should be banned.

      Literally every anti-smoking group is on message now which should tell people something.

    11. This post has been deleted by its author

    12. jolady

      Re: Jesus, NO!

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

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: Jesus, NO!

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

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

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

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

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

    13. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Jesus, NO!

      Another f@cking snowflake...ffs.

      Maybe we should also ban everyone from public spaces who shower themselves in perfume or aftershave, who don't smell the way you want them to, who have bad breath... what the hell why not just ban breathing altogether... I mean it does spread disease in some cases after all. Let's be consistent in our rage. ;-/

    14. Amanda_baby_x

      Re: Jesus, NO!

      Respect works both ways. If you spoke to me like that, l think l would snap your head off for being that rude & I would just ingore you. Definitely less willing to respond. You don’t need to be such an arse hole about it. Get a grip & Get over yourselves.

      I love Vaping & it’s not harming anyone. If l wasn’t a smoker or an E-Cig user - I would be more worried about breathing in the tobacco cigarette smoke. Than what’s in any E-Cig / E-Juice.

      They really should bring back Areas where people can use their E-Cigs & they should have areas for where they can be used. There’s gotta be away of keeping everyone happy.

      Personally l prefer to vape outside. When other people that don’t smoke or vape & they sit close by. I always ask them if they mind me using my E-Cig and if they are not ok about it l will just put it away with no fuss or arguments. I won’t just sit there puffing away. Common courtesy goes a very very long way. Or if they ask me not to l will just put it or move to a better spot. It’s no big deal.

      But what makes me laugh at people like u. Is you will moan about it polluting your clean air. Sorry, But what the hell is Clean air ??? There is no such thing as clean air. People forget that we are breathing in far worse & we can’t even see it but it’s still in the air. What we are breathing in to our our lungs is actually Traffic pollution & god knows what else. What’s worse is that we are breathing into our lungs all the time. Which is far worse than what’s in any tobacco smoker & ecig vapour. So what the heck is clean air - when it’s around. If you are that worried about what you are breathing - then don’t leave your home, shut all the windows & stop breathing. Then you don’t have that worry anymore. Problem solved, for good.

      Giving up smoking isn’t so easy. Everyone is different. I know from past experience it’s not simple or easy. Every person is different. I admit that l have tried to stop and it was hard. I even tried using other NRT products such as Patches, lozenges, sprays, inhalers, gum.. every one of them. My doctor actually had to take me off other NRT products. Coz l have an allergy to them. Where l was feeling sickly, dizzy, Really painful rash on the skin & massive blisters & even had breathing problems. At the time my doctors had run out of ideas. Those he told me there’s one more thing we can try and that’s the Ecig but l would have to buy them. I was nervous at 1st of using the E-Cig coz l was worried bout the Allergic reaction - coz it was really bad. I admitted that l need help. I found it extremely hard.

      I have had no problems with the ecig tall. If anything they are a positive thing not a negative thing.

      Ever since switching my health has improved so much.. no more chest & breathing problems, I have more energy.

      They actually do work. You start on the highest dose & when the person feels gradually lower the dose. Which works the same as patches.

      But it’s the tobacco cigarettes & the traffic pollution that people should be more worried about. Ecigs arr way more safer.

      Yes they should keep some of the rules but ecigs are nothing to worry about & l fully agree that we all need to learn to respect other people’s wishes. Respect works both ways. There’s bin a lot of negative lies and bull**** over Ecigs & vaping.

  2. tiggity Silver badge

    No vaping in the workplace please

    Some of the vape clouds make me (a non smoker, non vaper) cough / struggle to breathe when I inhale them (hard not to when walking past someone on teh street) even more than "real" cigarette smoke does.

    Really do not want vape fumes in workplace making me cough, struggle to breathe - people who want to vape can go outside, just like they do now.

    1. ZanzibarRastapopulous

      Re: No vaping in the workplace please

      Had an asthma attack triggered by being sat next to someone using one once, don't know if it was a particularly weird one, but I've never had that from cigarette smoke. The main trigger is damp in houses for me, so god knows what it was pumping out.

      1. Badvok

        Re: No vaping in the workplace please

        "so god knows what it was pumping out"

        It was pumping out exactly that, damp! If from an ex-smoker who actually inhales it will also be laced with whatever concoction of pathogens they currently have in their lungs.

        1. Mephistro Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: No vaping in the workplace please(@ Badvok)

          "...it will also be laced with whatever concoction of pathogens they currently have in their lungs."

          Following that logic, everybody should be prevented from breathing, 'cos otherwise their breath would also "be laced with whatever concoction of pathogens they currently have in their lungs".

          That'd be a little bit extreme, wouldn't it?

          1. Badvok

            Re: No vaping in the workplace please(@Mephistro)

            "Following that logic, everybody should be prevented from breathing"

            Strange you should say that, I don't believe there is a law against it but it is generally considered socially unacceptable to breath out directly into a stranger's face. This is exactly what vapers do, but they exhale a cloud that carries their exhalation a lot further, effectively breathing straight into other people's faces.

            The cloud turns invisible far quicker than it actually dissipates which leaves vapers with the misconception that their potentially toxic exhalation isn't likely to affect others.

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: No vaping in the workplace please(@Mephistro)

              "This is exactly what vapers do, but they exhale a cloud that carries their exhalation a lot further, effectively breathing straight into other people's faces."

              Rubbish! The vast majority of vapers do NOT breath it out into other peoples faces. And it doesn't carry any further than a non-vapers breath does as you can see for yourself on a cold morning. Just because you can't see a non-vaped exhalation doesn't mean that it travels a shorter distance.

              You are assuming that all vapers are the same as the minority of "cloud surfers" who stand out from the crowd. Maybe all people who make wild unsubstantiated assumptions should be banned from the forums ;-)

              And as for "potentially toxic exhalation", how the hell do I know what nasty infectious germs you are breathing out all over me? You are "potentially" typhoid Mary and ICM£5.

            2. Ben Tasker Silver badge

              Re: No vaping in the workplace please(@Mephistro)

              > This is exactly what vapers do, but they exhale a cloud that carries their exhalation a lot further,

              Not really. The cloud makes it visible for a lot further, but their actual exhalation probably isn't travelling much (if any) further than a non-smoker breathing out when they've got a chest infection.

              I'm not saying that certain vapers don't need to be a bit more aware of others, but it doesn't make what you've said any more correct.

              I've worked with people who claimed to be sensitive to vape, and I've worked with people who didn't want to go outside to vape (days where the two overlapped were occasionally interesting). About the only conclusion you can reliably draw is that different people are... different. Well, that and some non-smokers (or worse, ex-smokers) can be incredibly and unnecessarily judgemental.

              When you go out in public, you're breathing in whatever everyone else has exhaled, whether you can see it or not. Frankly, vape should be the very least of your concerns.

      2. Clive Galway

        Re: No vaping in the workplace please

        Because maybe the majority of the "Smoke" from an e-cig is water vapor?

        1. frank ly

          Re: No vaping in the workplace please

          @Clive Galway: I don't know where you get your ideas from but they are totally wrong. Try doing some research. The intenet would be useful for that.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: No vaping in the workplace please

            @frankly: Seems hes right.

            http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/11/11177/htm

            exhaled aerosol by mass: 75% water, 24% Glycerin, 0.05% nicotine

            1. frank ly

              Re: No vaping in the workplace please

              Oh for goodness sake! The vaping 'e-liquid' is a mixture of propylene glycol and glycerine (in various ratios) with very small quantities of nicotine and flavourings. Everybody exhales water vapour or water particles so to count those as an 'output' when you're complaining about vapers polluting the atmosphere is ridiculous. What you see and what bothers you in the 'smoke' is the cloud of propylene glycol and glycerine fog/aerosol, probably any scent/flavouring too. Vaping has nothing to do with water vapour/aerosol.

              1. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

                Re: No vaping in the workplace please

                How confident are you that the cheaper vaping liquid doesn't have methyl alcohol in it? For instance. Without regulation, there could be anything in those bottles.

        2. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

          Re: No vaping in the workplace please

          All mammals exhale water vapour. (Pretty sure.)

          I'm extremely rarely exposed to "e-cigarettes" considering the number of shops around selling the means. I consider it a regrettable form of addiction, but, obviously, not the worst around. And I worry whether it is really adequately regulated for users' safety. But if I don't mind people doing it out of my near breathing range, perhaps I also shouldn't mind if it kills them.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: No vaping in the workplace please

            "And I worry whether it is really adequately regulated for users' safety."

            Regulation implies harm, and since the most senior medical professionals in the country are pushing forward evidence based policy in favour of vaping, then I think someone will have to demonstrate harm before any evidence based regulations are added to those already existing ones.

            1. Vic

              Re: No vaping in the workplace please

              the most senior medical professionals in the country are pushing forward evidence based policy

              Yes, but the most senior politicians in the country are pushing forward policy-based evidence...

              Vic.

              1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                Re: No vaping in the workplace please

                "Yes, but the most senior politicians in the country are pushing forward policy-based evidence..."

                ...and yet the politicians are agreeing with the medical community and going with the evidence in this case, which is the primary point of the article.

        3. ZanzibarRastapopulous

          Re: No vaping in the workplace please

          > Because maybe the majority of the "Smoke" from an e-cig is water vapor?

          FFS It isn't the water vapour that kicks it off, damp in buildings is associated with mould. I don't collapse unable to breath every time I brew up.

          1. Clive Galway
            FAIL

            Re: No vaping in the workplace please

            Honestly, you make a comment like "The main trigger is damp in houses for me, so god knows what it was pumping out" indicating that there is some link between your ailment is water vapor, and wondering why an e-cig is triggering it, and I pointed out that e-cigs pump out a LOT of water vapor and then you make a dumb comment like "I don't collapse unable to breath every time I brew up".

            Well duh, e-cig vapor is not steam. Steam is above the boiling point of water and is a gas. e-cig vapor is not above boiling point of water, it is still a liquid.

            1. ZanzibarRastapopulous

              Re: No vaping in the workplace please

              > Well duh, e-cig vapor is not steam. Steam is above the boiling point of water and is a gas. e-cig vapor is not above boiling point of water, it is still a liquid.

              You are properly thick.

        4. handleoclast

          Re: No vaping in the workplace please

          Because maybe the majority of the "Smoke" from an e-cig is water vapor?

          No it is not.

          The "smoke" from an e-cig is vegetable glycerine or propylene glycol. Usually it's a mix of the two, though the proportions vary from manufacturer to manufacture and product to product from the same manufacturer. Not because of crappy quality control but because of different recipes with different characteristics.

          There is no more water vapour in exhaled e-cig smoke than in the breath you exhale. We all exhale water vapour. Vapers do not exhale more water vapour than non-vapers.

      3. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: No vaping in the workplace please

        Strong perfume gives my nan migraines. Lets ban that while we're at it.

    2. Cynic_999 Silver badge

      Re: No vaping in the workplace please

      "

      Some of the vape clouds make me (a non smoker, non vaper) cough / struggle to breathe when I inhale them

      "

      Unless you are around a person who is using a large e-cig that creates a huge billow, I strongly suspect that the effect is psychological. I recently sat on an aircraft for a 9 hour flight, surreptitiously puffing away on my e-cig, and the other passengers sat around me did not even notice I was using an e-cig. I do however use unflavoured e-juice in such places, which has no discernable scent whatsoever, and I exhale through clothing or a pillow/blanket which absorbs the vapour so it is never visible.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: No vaping in the workplace please

        "I recently sat on an aircraft for a 9 hour flight, surreptitiously puffing away on my e-cig, and the other passengers sat around me did not even notice I was using an e-cig"

        If I were the supervisor/manager at some company where a smoker is taking 10 minutes out of every 30 to light up and get his 'nicotene fix' (and then hauling part of his cloud and the 'smoke breath' and the 'smoke stench' back into the office EVERY! SINGLE! TIME!), I'd be OVERJOYED if he could sit at his desk with a vape device, specificaly chosen so as NOT to bother other people, and WORK for the entire 30 minutes instead.

        Just sayin'

        1. handleoclast
          Coat

          Re: No vaping in the workplace please

          Can somebody pay a visit to bombastic bob's home and check his garden for suspicious pods?

          That's four or five posts of his I've seen in this thread where he's been entirely reasonable, rational, well-informed and sane.

          He has surely become a pod person.

          Or maybe he already was a pod person but the real bob just managed to kill the alien.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: No vaping in the workplace please

            RE: Suggestion that B-Bob has become a pod person

            More likely his 15 year old son is using his account; hence, more reasonable.

          2. David 132 Silver badge

            Re: No vaping in the workplace please

            Can somebody pay a visit to bombastic bob's home and check his garden for suspicious pods?

            That's four or five posts of his I've seen in this thread where he's been entirely reasonable, rational, well-informed and sane.

            Because even BB would struggle to get mentions of "slurp" and "win-10-nic" into a thread about e-cigs?

            Though I admit, the random capitalization OF words might BE easier to WORK into this thread, he's missed a TRICK there...

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
              Coat

              Re: No vaping in the workplace please

              "Because even BB would struggle to get mentions of "slurp" and "win-10-nic" into a thread about e-cigs?"

              Surely SOMEONE must have come up with a VAPING device that IS an IoT machine running EMBEDDED Windows by now.

          3. wallaby

            Re: No vaping in the workplace please

            "Can somebody pay a visit to bombastic bob's home and check his garden for suspicious pods?"

            Hate to admit it - I upvoted him

            Im buying a lottery ticket now I have proof the impossible can become possible - there is hope for us all.

            Keep taking the tablets Bob, they seem to be working.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No vaping in the workplace please

        >I recently sat on an aircraft for a 9 hour flight

        Air quality on aircraft is a whole other frightening kettle of worms - but the 15/20% of your additional exhalation, when you take a puff, which isn't simply water is either PG or VG - the former (which is the greater irritant of the two) is already being pumped into the cabin by the air conditioning in a quantity more than equivalent to every passenger vaping.

      3. Annihilator

        Re: No vaping in the workplace please

        "Unless you are around a person who is using a large e-cig that creates a huge billow"

        That appears to be the problem though. How do you separate the casual e-cig user that has a quickly dissipating puff of vapour, compared to the bell-ends that appear to be using a weaponised vaping device that has a capacity roughly equivalent to a 747's fuel tank? They're the ones that tend to give vaping a bad name, and are usually obnoxious enough to do it in a very crowded environment (last concert I went to for example)

    3. Steven Raith

      Re: No vaping in the workplace please

      Tiggity:

      "Some of the vape clouds make me (a non smoker, non vaper) cough / struggle to breathe when I inhale them (hard not to when walking past someone on teh street) even more than "real" cigarette smoke does."

      It's likely psychosomatic (caused by unexpected flavour/sensation in your mouth as you breathe), or you would likely be in serious trouble. Second hand vapour has a barely detectable biological effect, never mind toxicological. Traffic fumes should, based on dose/response ratios and known toxicity levels you're describing, cause you serious problems any time you're half a mile downwind of a town centre.

      That's not really an exaggeration either. There's no sound biological/biochemical evidence that second hand vapour has even a reliably measurable response from the body - which isn't a shock given that most second hand vapour has very low levels of anything unpleasant in it above normal exhaled breath, full stop.

      Study on the users - no notable risk,

      Study on second hand constituents - nothing notably above bog standard exhaled breath in terms of phenolics, carbonyls and nicotine

      Another study that finds much the same

      I'm not saying you or Zanzibar don't notice the second hand vapour, or that you don't react to it - I'm saying that the chances of it being an actual biochemical response to the exhaled vapour is, effectively, next to nil based on the evidence.

      Steven R

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: No vaping in the workplace please

        It's more or less the same stuff as used for some types of theatrical fog effects.

        There have been several studies showing that you can fill a dark room with quite dense theatrical fog and nobody reacts, then turn on the lights and suddenly a small number start coughing.

        Even though the actual content of the air hasn't changed, being able to see it triggers a coughing response. Brains are weird.

      2. imanidiot Silver badge

        Re: No vaping in the workplace please

        @Steven R

        Even theatrical fog makes breathing hard for me. I and many people with me DO react to PG or glycol. My reaction to theater fog machines varies depending on the brand/composition of the liquid used, some I could survive an evening of being in that stuff (unless pumped pea-soup thick). Others had me crawling to the door wheezing and gasping at the first wiff. One of the reasons I don't really go to the theater any more. Some lighting/show-techs just LOVE filling the room with that stuff. Even when it adds nothing to their chosen lighting scheme.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Argh

    Whilst vaping smells better than tobacco, all the clouds I see the ex-smokers stood in have a sweet, unnatural chemical smell, and I for one don't want it anywhere near my beer, or my workplace for that matter.

    1. Geoffrey W Silver badge

      Re: Argh

      Hah, mention of bad smells and beer...Beer drinkers should be banned from workplaces if they go drinking at lunch time. The smell is worse than coffee breath. Out Out, foul humanity. Begone from my nose! Thank Great Beelzebub I work from home now, mostly.

    2. Terry 6 Silver badge

      Re: Argh

      That's the one anti-vape comment that does make sense to me. They can be pretty ghastly. I don't think there should be laws about these things, but normal workplace rules that are agreed by the staff or are reflected in management decision is another matter. Like having vape-free areas.

      That being said even as a lifelong non-smoker I still suspect that the anti-vaping moves come mostly from the puritanical "If you can enjoy it it has to be bad for you " school of public health.

      1. Geoffrey W Silver badge

        Re: Argh

        RE: "I still suspect that the anti-vaping moves come mostly from the puritanical "If you can enjoy it it has to be bad for you " school of public health."

        Perhaps. Nominally at least. More likely those in power don't really give a damn about it one way or the other, its more likely they have an eye on how it looks to others, and to what the media are likely to say.

        That's as long as there isn't some other more murky ulterior motive. The genesis of the war on drugs had its origins in the 60's USA when there were two movements the government didn't like; The anti war movement, and black power. They felt it wouldn't look good if these two movements were attacked directly. Luckily those involved in these subversive activities tended to use cannabis rather a lot. Hence the war on drugs - a way to attack the enemy without it looking like that's what they were doing.

        I'm not saying there is a direct political motive behind the anti vape gang; Perhaps money and powerful lobbies have a hand in it. I do doubt there is any literal puritanism involved, except peripherally as an excuse.

        1. Martin Taylor 1

          Re: Argh

          I wonder how many people (on this forum, in government, and among the general public) realise that there are other, perfectly legal and harmless, substances that are used by vaping? It's a little more complex than taking attitudes based on the presence or absence of risk from nicotine.

          That said, it's always appropriate to be considerate of other people's reasonable likes and dislikes.

  4. wolfetone Silver badge

    That's how we're going to make Brexit work. Cut all the red tape, allow manufacturers and big business run rough shot over the public, protect them when the public get poisoned. It's like no one considered the reasons why the red tape is there in the first place.

    Doesn't make a difference to me anyway, I'm saving up to buy an island to live on.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That's how we're going to make Brexit work.

      Godwin's law mutates. Now if any comment thread persists for more than ten minutes, no matter what the actual topic, some pitiful whiner will start moaning on and on about Brexit

      1. Richard 81

        Well Brexit was mentioned in the article.

        Perhaps another version of Godwin's law can model how long until someone calls someone else a "snowflake".

      2. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        To be fair, the EU enacted a law to prevent smokers from using an effective quitting aid in order to enrich the companies behind Nicorette et al.

        Brexit merely allows us to reverse that injustice.

        1. wolfetone Silver badge

          "To be fair, the EU enacted a law to prevent smokers from using an effective quitting aid in order to enrich the companies behind Nicorette et al.

          Brexit merely allows us to reverse that injustice."

          Well, the lovely thing about Nicorette is that you don't pollute the air around you with foul smelling synthetic chemicals. The vapes do however.

          But, you're quite right. It allows us to reverse that injustice. But at what price to the vaping overloads? How much will they have to pay to lobby their case at parliament?

          You will reverse nothing. You simply make it easier for con men to operate.

      3. Ben Boyle

        re: Godwin

        Farage's law?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is the Brexit government so desperate for cash its ok'd drug dealing?

    1. Clive Galway

      You mean like Holland, Canada or many US states? Because we are so close to winning the War On Drugs, and the government does not need all that pesky tax, it's much smarter to put that money in the hands of criminal gangs where it can do some good.

      1. MonkeyCee Silver badge

        Organised crime

        Hate to break it to you, but it's not legal in the Netherlands, there's no legal way to grow it, and most of the coffee shops are either owned or controlled by some form of OC. They also use the coffee shops (and legal prostitution) to launder dirty money too.

        Legalisation doesn't get rid of the criminals.

        1. Clive Galway

          Re: Organised crime

          They voted in feb of this year to regulate growing, so that is likely coming to an end.

          Whatever way you slice it, it would still bring in hundreds of million of pounds a year in taxes, and by some estimates, over a billion a year.

    2. James O'Shea

      Ummm... you might try looking up Opium Wars. While the First Opium War was run by the (Dis)Honerable British East India Company, the Second involved HM Gov (and the Frogs, and the Yankees, though the Yanks mostly tut-tutted from afar and held HM Gov’s coat.) The point behind both Opium Wars was, of course, opium and its sale to Chinese citizens. For some reason the Chinese government objected to foreign devils adicting their subjects (that was _their_ job) and first John Company and later HM Gov objected to the restraint of trade. The Frogs and the Yanks wanted a piece of the trade, too.

      Since then HM Gov has turned a pretty penny on tobacco, and alcohol, and assorted other drugs. And so has every other gov except possibly Utah and Saudia, and I have my doubts about them, too. ‘Tis a bit late to sprout righteous indignation, laddie.

  6. fobobob

    Ex-smoker, vaper here

    The asshats that billow out massive clouds of funk need to stop. Number of times I've been told to stop vaping: 0. Reason? I don't billow stupid clouds all the time, nor do I vape pungent chemically funk. Number of smoke alarms I've set off: also 0. Reason? See above.

    Be courteous, folks. Don't vape indoors if anyone in the room isn't okay with it; you're still exposing people to nicotine and glycols.

    1. Nunyabiznes

      Re: Ex-smoker, vaper here

      This. I don't smoke or vape but I can't see myself pitching a hissy if someone is being reasonable about their usage.

      Outdoor venues are fair game (as far as I'm concerned) for vapers/smokers so long as there is space to choose not to be around the foggers. Indoors I'm a little more hesitant to allow it simply because most places don't have enough ventilation.

    2. et tu, brute?

      Re: Ex-smoker, vaper here

      I'm vaping at work, and even in aeroplanes, without any complaints whatsoever! No colleagues ever complained, and no smoke alarms have been set off. Actually, on the point of smoke alarms, it's weird that they would go off, as it would mean you can't boil a kettle under one of them either: also steam, just like what I exhale!

      I vape for the nicotine, not to generate any clouds... With decent kit, it gives enough of a throat hit to satisfy me, and I need the nicotine (yes, I'm addicted to it, and so what, that's my choice!)

      1. Mike Richards

        Re: Ex-smoker, vaper here

        'I'm vaping at work, and even in aeroplanes, without any complaints whatsoever! '

        In planes? Interesting - the last few flights I've been on have specifically said that vaping is not allowed in the cabin.

        1. Cynic_999 Silver badge

          Re: Ex-smoker, vaper here

          "

          In planes? Interesting - the last few flights I've been on have specifically said that vaping is not allowed in the cabin.

          "

          Yes, they do. So it is extremely telling that I could vape away over a 9 hour flight with *nobody noticing*

    3. hmv Bronze badge

      Re: Ex-smoker, vaper here

      Actually there's little to no nicotine in the exhalation as it's very rapidly absorbed by the lungs.

      In terms of vaping indoors I would expect a reasonable compromise would be to allow vaping in closed "vaping lounges" and/or individual offices. Those wanting a blanket ban on vaping inside are being unreasonable; those wanting to vape everywhere inside are being unreasonable.

      Smoke alarms: I've managed to set a domestic one off only when deliberately trying (for an unusual amount of time). If non-domestic alarms are overly sensitive, they should probably be re-engineered to detect smoke and not vapour.

      1. Mrs Doyles Teacup

        Re: Ex-smoker, vaper here

        Most of the nicotine is absorbed via the soft tissue in your mouth but yes very little is exhaled into the air, you'd get much more from eating a tomato, plenty of research has gone into this using gas spectrometry to analyse what is in what we inhale and it was found to be harmless.

    4. Dave K Silver badge

      Re: Ex-smoker, vaper here

      This as well. I used to smoke casually but quit a couple of years ago and now vape. I don't have some ridiculous sub-ohm mod that kicks out massive clouds of vapour, just a fairly standard small tank that produces a very small vapour cloud that dissipates within a few seconds. I also cannot stand the sickly smell of some liquids and vape a decent quality and mild tobacco liquid that produces next to no smell at all.

      I've never set off a single fire alarm, had any objections from anyone, and none of the visitors to our house can smell a thing - even when I may have vaped just a minute or so earlier - and I don't vape in-front of visitors anyway.

      Ultimately, it's about doing it in a courteous manner, and not blowing ginormous clouds of stink in busy areas. Typically, there's always a minority of idiots that give vaping a bad imagine, and it's a pity.

  7. The Average Joe Bloggs

    erm no, if people start vaping in my work place I will be insisting on working from home.

    I don't mind a bit of scent, but people vaping at work will be no different than someone walking round the office constantly spraying perfume or aftershave around everyone.

    I may just start bringing in a smoke machine because I like the effect of a foggy morning on a lake.

    1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

      There's no need to be obnoxious. If you're in a crowded room, blowing it into your lap makes it dissipate before anybody will notice. For added concealment, blow it up your sleeve ( eg: if you're in a 'spoons or similar pub that bans them ).

    2. Steven Raith

      "erm no, if people start vaping in my work place I will be insisting on working from home."

      I think you'll find that if your boss hears your justification for that, you might welll end up spending a lot more time at home than you'd like....a bit like if you demanded the same thing because someone changed from Old Spice to Lynx Africa, given that there's absolutely sod all evidence of harm from second hand vapour.

      Steven R

  8. Gordon Pryra

    Is this the ONLY benefit to Brexit that Gov.Uk can come up with?

    Really?

    All these ministers trying to think of a single benefit from Brexit that isn't "no more Wogs!" and this is all they could come up with?

    Get behind Brexit and you can Vape at work!!1

    Saddens me that this will work, maybe even the kids who voted for Labor and their "free magic unicorns for everyone" will get behind the Gov for this promise!!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is this the ONLY benefit to Brexit that Gov.Uk can come up with?

      " Tobacco Products Directive (TPD2), which regulates e-cigarettes in the same way as tobacco – attempting to make e-cigs expensive and undesirable"

      I think that must be a mistyping of " Tobacco Products Directive (TPD2), which regulates e-cigarettes such that they deliver consistent, safe levels of nicotine and are not hazardous to user or children"

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: Is this the ONLY benefit to Brexit that Gov.Uk can come up with?

        That's not all it does.

        The most onerous is that you can no longer buy tanks large enough to last you all day. My current device cannot be bought in the EU anymore because of that.

        You can't buy liquid stronger than the standard starting strength ( 18mg ), so bugger you if you're a heavy smoker ( although you can work around it if you use a lower resistance coil - I'm surprised they didn't ban resistances lower than 1.5ohms too ).

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Is this the ONLY benefit to Brexit that Gov.Uk can come up with?

      "Saddens me that this will work,"

      Why? It's still a pretty small minority of people and it still won't get me to vote Tory.

    3. Steven Raith

      Re: Is this the ONLY benefit to Brexit that Gov.Uk can come up with?

      Given that the TPD was pushed through without parliamentary scrutiny by Anna Soubry, thanks to her utter rank incompetence - she thought e-cigs weren't part of the TDP...

      ...and that when the Lords - being aware of the above - were voting to scupper the implementation (TRPR), with testimony from various members who had clearly done the research, were familiar with it, and were speaking freely and openly about the problems of it...only to be scuppered by ASH putting pieces of paper into the hands of people they were owed favours by at the last minute (you can literally see some of them tripping over words and phrases they don't recognise or understand) who pulled the usual 'think of the children' bollocks.

      I think it's damned right that the implementation that was, bluntly, forced through without proper debate in a parliament that's largely supportive of tobacco harm reduction - and has a long history in overall harm reduction (we pretty much pioneered it in the 80s with needle exchanges and other harm reduction strategies for injected drug users) - should be looked over again.

      It's less about Brexit, and more about our utterly feckless MEPs screwing the pooch through their own lackadaisical attitude to their duties, taxpayer funded lobby groups desperate for more money, and the bad regulations that result from that.

      Steven R

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ex-smoker, non-vaper here

    Personally I'm hoping a lot of this can be subsumed under "don't take the piss" rules.

    Tried and hated vaping when I was quitting because it just made me miss real cigarettes (and yes, I still miss the taste, smell and sensation of smoking), but the smell and sight of the thing I was using was undetectable. In the years since I've seen plenty of vapers using this kind of kit that, if you weren't looking, you wouldn't even notice they were doing it.

    Contrast some of the "big" vaping enthusiasts at work though with their big overclocked Chimn'O'Matics fuelled up with Dinkwarts Stanky Bean Juice who swan around the fire exits in a fug of sweet-smelling steam not unlike a vogon farting into a bowl of trifle. And their does seem to have been a huge upswing in vaping from modest puffs to - as someone above put it - huge belching clouds of perfume.

    There's still a huge middle ground too of course, but I approach my local handles it; any time the staff see puffs of vaping stuff that are big enough to be visible, or are able to smell that sickly smell, the punters are kindly requested to extend their exhalations to the outdoor perimeter. Those furtively breathing into their sleeves get to enjoy their mildly flavoured nicotine in peace (and not as far as I can tell disturbing anyone else).

    1. Vic

      Re: Ex-smoker, non-vaper here

      And their does seem to have been a huge upswing in vaping from modest puffs to - as someone above put it - huge belching clouds of perfume.

      I was following a car in a traffic jam a few weeks back. A *huge* plume of smoke suddenly appeared towards the front of the car.

      I thought he'd blown a head gasket...

      Vic.

    2. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

      Re: Ex-smoker, non-vaper here

      I prefer mine when it's pumping out large clouds ( that's just a byproduct of the high output ), but I can ( and do ) turn it down.

      As for the smell, I used to occasionally get "ooh can you smell blackcurrant? That's nice. Where's that coming from" from my friends, not realising I was blowing my vapour under the table ( to avoid blowing it in people's faces ).

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Ex-smoker, non-vaper here

      "approach my local handles it; any time the staff see puffs of vaping stuff that are big enough to be visible, or are able to smell that sickly smell, the punters are kindly requested to extend their exhalations to the outdoor perimeter."

      Same here. The local bar staff have no interest in chucking people out for doing something legal and harmless unless it becomes anti-social, ie the Chim-o-Matic cloud surfers who are told to go outside or come back with something less intrusive.

  10. Bob Dunlop
    Unhappy

    Oh god no resturant will be safe again

    Whether vapes are good of bad for the vaper's health I don't want to be walking through or worse trying to eat in clouds of smoke again.

    Just told my employer/HR that if they allow vaping in the building they can have my resignation.

    1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

      Re: Oh god no resturant will be safe again

      I take it you also threatened to quit when they hired that new secretary that wears too much perfume?

    2. Cynic_999 Silver badge

      Re: Oh god no resturant will be safe again

      "

      Just told my employer/HR that if they allow vaping in the building they can have my resignation.

      "

      Really? Probably for the best in that case. Will you also resign if they allow coffee or hot food in the workplace, both of which have a FAR stronger scent than my e-cig (which nobody is able to smell at all)

      1. Geoffrey W Silver badge

        Re: Oh god no resturant will be safe again

        Walter Mitty didn't tell his employer any such thing. He's a good little boy, yes sir, tugs forelock. If Billy Liar *did* do that then he's self employed and there is a mighty struggle going on in his head.

        Damn, now I'm being all ad hom again and saying mean things...sorry...I need a vape...

    3. William 3 Bronze badge

      Re: Oh god no resturant will be safe again

      "Just told my employer/HR that if they allow vaping in the building they can have my resignation."

      Just hope they've not been looking to get rid of you then Bob. If you turn up next week and everyones vaping then you know everyone hated you.

    4. Steven Raith

      Re: Oh god no resturant will be safe again

      "Just told my employer/HR that if they allow vaping in the building they can have my resignation."

      As it's not illegal, not harmful and it's not recommended by PHE to throw e-cigs in with smoking rules (because that would infer similar levels of risk, which is evidentially false, and discourage people from trying to use them, because if you still have to go outside and sit with the smokers, what's the point?) then one would hope that they'd accept, or even offer for your benefit.

      After all, wouldn't want to employ someone who makes such rash threats to business continuity based on such poor evidence - or even worse, their own personal tastes.

      That'd be bad for business.

      Smokers not spending 20 mins outside twice a day, but sitting in the office doing productive stuff, is good for business.

      Steven "pragmatic" R

      1. rubyduck

        Re: Oh god no resturant will be safe again

        "Smokers not spending 20 mins outside twice a day, but sitting in the office doing productive stuff, is good for business."

        It depends what sort of work you're engaged in. A lot of technical problems were solved in the old smoking rooms, and standing outside chatting to people from other sections around the ash bin.

        1. Terry 6 Silver badge

          Re: Oh god no resturant will be safe again

          rubyduck

          The other side of that is where the smokers' cabal - which included the manager(s)-sat around and made decisions that were never discussed with the rest of the staff, sometimes never even communicated to them. I can think of two schools where the head and a few nicotine stained cronies used to do this,sat around a table in the staffroom. Other staff were an out-group fended off with clouds of evil smelling fumes.

  11. Chrissy

    Rest of the world needs to catch up

    Friend who I travel with:

    1: Had a load of vape cartomisers seized at Singapore, where we were then pointed at a poster indicating:

    "Under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, it is an offence to import, distribute, sell or offer for sale any of the following tobacco products: -

    ix) Any solution or substance, of which tobacco or nicotine is a constituent, that is intended to be used with an electronic nicotine delivery system or a vaporiser;

    Those guilty of the offence are liable to a fine not fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both"

    ....so I told her in strong terms to just STFU and stop arguing when she started having a go at the SIN Customs agents!!

    2: Needed to get her Doc to write a note saying the vape stick and cartomsiers were "prescribed" to take any vaping equipment into Hong Kong.

    And another interesting fact about HKG is that the tobacco allowance is only 19 cigarettes, or 1 cigar or 25 grams of loose baccy..... so be prepared to say goodbye to that carton of 200 (and yes, they do look for and check Caucasians at HKG as we could tell we were selected about 50 metres away from the Customs post)

  12. Barry Rueger

    Just wait

    Sure as anything in twenty or thirty years we'l discover that sucking vape juice into your lungs over the long term gives you some kind of nasty disease.

    1. dansus

      Re: Just wait

      "Sure as anything in twenty or thirty years we'l discover that sucking vape juice into your lungs over the long term gives you some kind of nasty disease."

      Something 'orrible like a terminal case of old age without morbidity. Just wait, they will be sorry.

    2. Cynic_999 Silver badge

      Re: Just wait

      "

      Sure as anything in twenty or thirty years we'l discover that sucking vape juice into your lungs over the long term gives you some kind of nasty disease.

      "

      Sure. Also mobile phone radiation, Wi-Fi, bluetooth. Such new-fangled things are UNNATURAL and will cause us to DIE a horrible death. Best go live on an uninhabited island far away from civilisation.

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: Just wait

      "Sure as anything in twenty or thirty years we'l discover that sucking vape juice into your lungs over the long term gives you some kind of nasty disease."

      I'd laugh if it cures something, or reduces your susceptibility...

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: Just wait

        There is some evidence that nicotine wards off dementia.

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

          Re: Just wait

          "There is some evidence that nicotine wards off dementia."

          Yeah, funny isn't it. The dose and/or duration of use can make all the difference between a cure and a poison. Just look at aspirin. There seems to be a lot of knee-jerking going on, especially by rabid ant-smokers who assume that if it looks like a cigarette it must be bad for the user and anyone near them.

    4. xXSwolGunzXx

      Re: Just wait

      Considered that already, still worth it. Eight years of smoking caused my lungs to declare that they were tired of exchanging gases and I could find another way to obtain oxygen, thank you very much. Vaping fixed that. Wife says that's not normal but finding out your lungs are shit after they've already gone to shit is a little late...

    5. Barry Rueger

      Re: Just wait

      Or, equally likely, the stupid things will just go out of style. The powder blue polyester tuxedo of nicotine ingestion.

    6. Steven Raith

      Re: Just wait

      "Sure as anything in twenty or thirty years we'l discover that sucking vape juice into your lungs over the long term gives you some kind of nasty disease."

      Based on the evidence, it can clearly be stated that the chances of any smoking related diseases is slim to nil, for obvious reasons. For diseases of that ilk....well.....

      Obviously, anything which stresses the airways will increase the risk of late life issues, but the general consensus, based on the research and the material science, is that any risk would be small - like that of spending a lifetime working in a kitchen or a garage. Not one worth worrying about if it's something you enjoy.

      And these aren't crackpots saying this - these are the cream of the crop of those who not only work in tobacco related fields, but who are also actually allowed to perform research that is applicable to human health, unlike most of those who claim to the contrary - failed engineers and social scientists, mostly.

      Steven R

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    the EU’s revised Tobacco Products Directive (TPD2),

    It was a directive and the UK didn't have to enforce it anyway

    1. Steven Raith

      Re: the EU’s revised Tobacco Products Directive (TPD2),

      And if Anna Soubry had actually read the contents of TPD2, she might have known that e-cigs were part of it, that the UK govt position on e-cigs was to keep an eye on them but not ban them, and that as such that required parliamentary scrutiny.

      Except she didn't, she didn't, and we, as a result, didn't. It was nearly chucked out in the Lords, but for ASHs little sockpuppets being rushed talking points and scuppering the whole thing.

      So we nearly didn't enforce it, and had it been fully debated in parliament, it likely wouldn't have been implemented at all, as it was against the broader government position of the day on the matter.

      Woopsy.

  14. Steve 114
    IT Angle

    The real puzzle is that my Trade Association in Brussels is constitutionally opposed, and heavily lobbying against, 'vaping', whilst every office doorway in Belgium and Holland features high-stressed low-paid young female unfortunates having a quick ciggie just to stay alive.

  15. Bob Rocket

    It's all very plain

    It's about Mary Jane.

    Having seen the drop in crime and increase in revenues in places like Colorado, governments are trying to work out how they can legitimise recreational drugs after decades of demonising them.

    Assessing risks and reducing harms, perhaps they should bring back Nutt.

  16. maddave0

    A few people have mentioned vaping on planes so I thought I would just clarify that whether you are allowed to do that or not varies depending on country and / or airline.

    For flights to / from / within the UK you are not currently allowed to vape on a plane and attempting to do so could get you in serious trouble.

    https://www.caa.co.uk/Blog-Posts/Vaping-and-gadgets-on-planes/

  17. the Jim bloke Silver badge

    Not health but nuisance

    From the sound of this, vaping is becoming the equivalent of personal music, and currently going through the boom-box phase of annoying everybody around you. With the right additives it can progress to the ipod phase - where users wander around totally unaware of their surroundings.

    I support the rights of informed adults to to pursue behaviours detrimental to their own health provided they dont impact on others - this includes employees in a workplace eg waiters/barstaff, or increased medical burden on society as a whole.

    However.I am morally opposed to people enjoying themselves.

  18. heyrick Silver badge
    Coat

    Grrrr, it's NOT vaping

    There's no vapour. It is the solution (the e-liquid) in an atomised form.

    Yeah, yeah, I'll go get my coat...

    1. hplasm Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Grrrr, it's NOT vaping

      "It is the solution (the e-liquid) in an atomised form."

      OMG..It's NUCULAR!!

      *hides under leadfoil hat*

  19. bep

    UK OK

    So the British health authorities have opted for the harm-reduction approach, hoping that wider use of e-cigarettes will lead to less people smoking. After all, all the research sponsored by the B&H Institute has promised that this will be the result. I'm happy for the British to conduct this social experiment on our behalves, and we can examine in five years time whether more or less people are actually smoking as a result. However, I'm not enthusiastic about people being allowed to set fire to any kind of product on an aeroplane; call me over-cautious if you like.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: UK OK

      "and we can examine in five years time whether more or less people are actually smoking as a result. "

      FYI, e-cigs have been available for over 5 years, widely available for at least 3 years, and the number of smokers has dropped noticeabley with the take-up of vaping. Thanks for your concerns and hopefully your local government will see the results and act on them soon. Unless, of course, it's one of those places where people pay for their medical care so there's no financial incentive to reduce smoking related illness and so many die before spending their pensions.

      BTW, if you'd bothered to find out what the vaping process entails, you'd know that there is no fire or smoke involved in the process. It's a tiny heating element that doesn't even glow. Or were you referring to all those guns the TSA misses on domestic US flights? The explosive in the bullets does tend to burn rather rapidly.

  20. Winkypop Silver badge

    Smokers / vapers suck

    Go find a hill top if you must pollute the atmosphere.

    Ban the pong!

    1. Geoffrey W Silver badge

      Re: Smokers / vapers suck

      Ban The Ban!

      Let go your inhibitions, man, you'll benefit from it and so will your fraught family and friends...Man...

      1. Uffish
        Facepalm

        Re: "Let go your inhibitions..."

        Geoffrey, it's only my inhibitions that prevent me from ranting every time a vaper invades my comfort zone. Are you suggesting that my dislike of vaping (near me) should be banned.

  21. Mephistro Silver badge

    Does this affect the models that...

    ...heat some minced tobacco leaves only enough to evaporate the water and nicotine in them? I used one for a few months two years ago and it didn't smell at all. The amount of vapour was barely visible and there were no nasty chemicals.And as it used standard rolling tobacco it was really inexpensive also.

    The only issue I had with the device was the almost absolute lack of flavour, except for a very faint taste similar to a herbal infusion.

    Have any fellow commentards used this kind of vapper? What was your experience like?

    1. hplasm Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Does this affect the models that...

      "...heat some minced tobacco leaves..."

      oh... That's what you are supposed to put in them...

  22. brucedenney

    This is just to allow business to profit from people who are addicted to nicotine, smoking in the workplace is banned, allowing people to vape, will just encourage people to vape instead of quit.

    Vapers are still drug addicts, they are still profit centres just for a different industry. The is as much evidence for the safety of vaping as there was for the safety of tobacco when it was first introduced.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "The is as much evidence for the safety of vaping as there was for the safety of tobacco when it was first introduced."

      <sigh> another one posting before bothering to read the article properly or the comments with links.

    2. flearider

      Vapers are still drug addicts in a way yes ..

      but then so our coffee drinkers, beer drinkers, wine, sex the list go's on

      they all stimulate the craving parts of the brain .. but there is only the same damage as a coffee drinker .. it's not the nic that kills it's the other 2500 chemicals

  23. 0laf Silver badge
    Holmes

    Mmmmkay

    Vaping isn't good for you or the person standing next to you. It is less bad than the burning weed.

    It does stink as well, but not as bad as tobacco. And no I don't think you should be entitled to puff your crap next to me but I would settle for you to have a ventilated area of the hostelry to indulge your habit even an indoors one.

    There a compromise.

    1. Robert Baker
      Pint

      Re: Mmmmkay

      "I don't think you should be entitled to puff your crap next to me but I would settle for you to have a ventilated area of the hostelry to indulge your habit even an indoors one."

      Reminds me of what I've heard of the Las Vegas casinos; they don't want to alienate smokers or non-smokers, so they have massive, high-powered air-conditioning systems which totally replace the air in the room every few minutes.

      It's said that you can be a foot away from a smoker in such a place, and if you're looking in the other direction you'll never know.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Mmmmkay

      "Vaping isn't good for you or the person standing next to you."

      Please describe, with evidence, the harm caused to people standing next to an average vaper.

      Current evidence states that there is no risk greater than those toxins one is exposed to in normal everyday life. Probably less.

      1. Uffish

        Re: Mmmmkay

        Please describe, with evidence, the harm caused to people standing next to an average farter.

        Now consider a pseudo-farter who has a machine to make the noise and some sort of smell whenever the pseudo-farter feels like it. How long would the average business put up with his antics.

    3. flearider

      Re: Mmmmkay

      Vaping isn't good for you or the person standing next to you

      it's a hell of a lot less harmful than walking down a busy street breathing in diesel fumes

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    *Real* programmers don't smoke... or vape.

    They're too intelligent to do either. Just saying.

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: *Real* programmers don't smoke... or vape.

      Until, that is, said programmers meet management, in which case smoking/gaping is an acceptable substitute for hard drugs.

  25. David Roberts Silver badge
    Pint

    Psychosomatic?

    Just because an adverse reaction to clouds of vape is held to be psychsomatic that doesn't automatically make it "not a problem".

    The general concensus seems to be that vaping is not proven to be biologically harmful. However there is a feeling that obtrusive vaping is socially unacceptable in some locations.

    From the anecdotal evidence in this discussion it seems that a blanket ban on vaping in public areas such as pubs and restaurants is achieving the desired effect. Undetectable unobtrusive vaping still takes place but the cloud factories are not allowed.

    Given that, it seems to be a pragmatic solution.

    I am against anything which encourages anti-social people to extend their personal space by pumping out visible clouds of {whatever}. Purely for reasons of personal comfort. It won't kill you is not IMHO the main issue. It will take a long time to break the link in the human mind between all the evils of smoking tobacco and people {not really} smoking a tobacco substitute. It is a very difficult line to tread between a legal ban and effective social pressure.

    Whatever the underlying evidence, I am much more comfortable if I am not aware of people vaping.

    Drink beer, a legal high ->

    Hang on, scientifically it is actually a depressant....

    Edit: vaping does need to be regulated to ensure that the liquids remain safe. Just food, drink, drugs common sense.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Psychosomatic?

      "Edit: vaping does need to be regulated to ensure that the liquids remain safe. Just food, drink, drugs common sense."

      Oh, absolutely. But not as a medicine, which is what the article is primarily about.

  26. Captain Boing

    but... but...

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170612094027.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29

    1. Yesnomaybe

      Re: but... but...

      ScienceDaily is rabid anti-vaping for some reason. So much so that I have tried to get information on their funding. Not much luck with that.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: but... but...

        Yeah, I usty had a quick scan down the story...and guess what? All the "related" stories linked at the bottom are as anti-vaping whacko stories as I've ever seen. I can't quite work out whether they are sponsored by tobacco companies or ant-smoking lobbies.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Smokers: don't make your pathetic weakness our problem...

    Anyone with any strength of mind at all can kick an addiction, and this includes smoking. If you smoke, you know the damage it's doing to you and others, so just stop. No excuses, no whining, no expecting others to step in and manage your life. Just stop.

  28. Mary Hinge

    Replacing one addiction with another. Get some willpower ffs!

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Smoking on buses is illegal

    Yet you see the drivers standing inside the open doors doing it when it's raining

    I saw a black taxi driver smoking behind the wheel last week in central London

    the point is, some things are more annoying than others, I'm not for vaping in offices, workplace etc when there are area's (outside) available that inconvenience only the vaper, much as it does smokers.

    Just because it's not harmful, doesnt mean we should all have to deal with it

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Smoking on buses is illegal

      "Just because it's not harmful, doesnt mean we should all have to deal with it"

      I was doing job in a office just the other days and I had to put up with the disgusting stink of a Pot Noodle and the feckin' bloke eating it was a noisy eater whose sounds, in combination with the stink, almost made me heave! BAN POT NOODLE. You know you want to.

  30. NeilPost Bronze badge

    Common Sense

    Finally, some common sense. There is far more risk assocaiated with burning incense sticks than eCigs.

    General air pollution concerns should take focus in the health campaign

    - Reducing old pre-EURO-V diesels with a scrappage scheme or engine replacement scheme

    - Addressing the hidden pollution emanating NOx gases from domestic and commercial gas bolilers. In urban area's, far outstrips NOx from diesels.

    - View air pollution as improving YoY declines, not saying there is a huge problem which is plain wrong - See David Speigalhalter for fomr evidence here

    - The timebomb of historic landfills leaching pollutuion into the environment everyone from DEFRA to councils are ignoring - see BBC

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40308598

  31. Chuunen Baka
    Holmes

    Normalisation

    Vaping might be the ex-smokers' methadone but allowing it in public places would be a backward step. I'm old enough to remember when not smoking was consider odd. The end goal must surely be zero nicotine addiction and de-normalisation of inhaled nicotine is important.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Normalisation

      >The end goal must surely be zero nicotine addiction and de-normalisation of inhaled nicotine is important.

      Perhaps we can then cure gays of the their deviant behaviour or fat people of their gross obesity. Then next up we can convert all those heathens to the good Christian faith.*

      I would have put something more like"let's stop people from taking up smoking in the first place, then help those that are still on tobacco to use a safer alternative in the hope that they may give up nicotine entirely. " I think your choice of language, namely "de-normalisation" makes you sound like a 1930s eugenicist.

      *NB for those too dim to realise this is said with a heavy dose of sarcasm, please go and remove yourself from the human race and do your bit to stem overpopulation.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Personally I find heroin a much cheaper alternative to tobacco since all the tax rises, besides it has none of the social stigma and doesn't make my clothes smell or irritate others with fumes. I did think about taking religion up instead but discarded that on the grounds it's far too dangerous for my mental health.

    Use smack, the clean alternative to tobacco.

  33. Robert Baker
    Alert

    Such controversy...

    Is this the El Reg thread which holds the record for the largest number of downvotes?

  34. PeteCress

    One has to wonder who is paying those guys off

    OK, one side is smoking reduction (or, more accurately, replacement by another delivery vehicle) - but the obvious other side is innocent bystanders who have to breathe that shit.

    I remember when smoking was allowed in my workplace and it was *nasty*.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: One has to wonder who is paying those guys off

      "but the obvious other side is innocent bystanders who have to breathe that shit."

      Please describe "that shit" and the harm that it does. Extra marks for providing actual evidence and not just your own personal feelings of disgust aty something you don't like.

      PS, I hope you don't eat Pot Noodle in public. That makes me heave and should be banned. Because I don't like it. $deity knows what chemicals are being vaped off it and I have to breath in.

      1. MJI Silver badge

        Re: One has to wonder who is paying those guys off

        I would ban egg sandwiches from the work place.

        Horrid stinky things!

        1. Ben Tasker Silver badge

          Re: One has to wonder who is paying those guys off

          Someone I used to work with brought kippers into the office for lunch once, we kicked him back out within seconds.

  35. This post has been deleted by its author

  36. Andy 97

    Nice work El Reg!

    It's only 9am (ish) and already there's 5 pages of comments.

    Ad brokers will be rubbing their hands with glee.

    How about running a story with a headline "Linux is better than Windows: Official"?

  37. MJI Silver badge

    Well!!!

    I hate smoking, horrible stinky habit, good for killing grand parents.

    Vaping is a good ecape route from it.

    I would rather have vapers around than smokers.

    BUT. No overblown smells please, I am not a fan of strong perfumes either.

    Also anything that weakens the smoking industry is good.

  38. MJI Silver badge

    How about this for making money by tax?

    Cannabis fluid for vapers.

    Not skunk but the ordinary stuff.

    Think of the tax money

  39. Breen Whitman

    The real issue in public is immorality. There should a button and loudspeaker message for those wearing suggestive attire.

    Too much much jewellery and short skirts corrupt children.

  40. russmichaels

    Of course, all governments want to ban vaping because they do not make billions in taxes out of it like they do with cigarettes and alcohol. There is no other reason for them to be completely anti-vaping and try to stop it, but still allow smoking to be legal and kill millions of people per year.

    1. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

      Why won't the government make money from vaping? The nicotine fluid is still made from tobacco, presumably?

  41. amizko

    douche knots

    How about a war on douche knots? Seems apropos given the story's photo.

  42. silks

    Medical Community - "Not Invented Here"

    Wonder if it's all about the medical community having the "Not Invented Here" mentality?

    Some medical industry movers would rather not have these "upstarts" disrupting their business model I'm sure...

    1. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

      Re: Medical Community - "Not Invented Here"

      "The Medical Community", from what this uninvolved layman sees, considers "Patient is addicted to nicotine" as the problem, from the harm-prevention point of view. Transition to vaping sometimes comes with giving up smoke, sometimes doesn't, but, leaves the patient addicted to nicotine. "The Medical Community" considers a "cure" as the preferred solution in most cases - you get to close the record instead of the doctor eventually retiring and handing on the patient's problems to their new doctor. Anti-smoking schemes and nicotine replacements are offered as short-term aids to permanently quitting - or not quitting. This may be right or wrong.

      Addiction to clean bottled nicotine (used in some Agatha Christie murder stories, which may or may not be realistic, it makes for variety from cyanide or please-stop-using-our-brand-name-to-kill-people sleeping tablets) may be healthier than inhaling burning leaves, but, wouldn't you rather not?

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