Vaping?

[al_yrpal]

The government proposal is to allow Vaping in more public places to encourage more people to Vape and give up fags. Apparently almost 3m people do it. I welcomed the smoking ban in pubs and restaurants and I still hate being near a smoker in a public place. I am not sure about inhaling Vapour in public places although I have never actually been bothered by it. Any Vapers on here?

Al

[661-Pete]

My answer to, should this habit be allowed in buses etc., is no, no, NO!

The difficult bit is the connection between " encourage more people to Vape" and "give up fags". If it can be established that E-cigs are only to be used by, and only to be offered to, people trying to give up smoking, well and good.

But I fear that is not the case. E-cigs are a multi-million pound industry now, and like all industries, out to make a profit. So they are going to want to seek out new markets. This may include current non-smokers, children etc. And these people would feel newly 'empowered' to indulge in the habit, should restrictions ever be lifted.

I am no way convinced that E-cigs are completely 'harmless'. Indeed plenty of published evidence suggests otherwise.

And I don't want to inhale the fumes any time, thank you very much! However sweet-smelling they may be, compared with fag smoke. A fleeting whiff as I walk past a puffer in the open air (why do they always seem to hang out near cycle racks?) - OK that's tolerable. In a closed space: a bus or train, or a shop, say - no thanks!

[thirdcrank]

I'd be interested to know exactly who has been lobbying for this; there must be a lot of money sloshing around.

[random37]

I'd be interested to know exactly who has been lobbying for this; there must be a lot of money sloshing around.

Quite.

The tobacco companies want in, if there's something to challenge their market.

As a former smoker, I think the idea of giving up with nicotine would make it harder. You didn't need nicotine before you smoke.

[reohn2]

I'd be interested to know exactly who has been lobbying for this; there must be a lot of money sloshing around.

Nail,head,on!

[Cunobelin]

As far as I can I would boycott anywhere that allows vaping, on health grounds. I would also be writing for a formal assessment of carcinogen levels on their premises and how they were being measured

E cigarettes are not the harmless water vapour that they would have you believe.

If you want to intake toxins and carcinogens such as Formaldehyde, Glycol, Benzene, Nitrosamines, or eye and skin irritants such as Acrolein - fine, just don't feel you have the right to damage my health in the process.

The marketing is that they are "safer" than normal cigarettes, but as a study in the US stated.. That simply means that traditional cigarettes are very unhealthy, whereas vaping is simply unhealthy.

The fact is that at the moment these paces are free of these harmful pollutants, and I certainly do not want to be inflicted with the because it is "safer" for me the present levels of these toxins is zero, why should my exposure be increased?

At present I am perfectly SAFE, allowing vaping in these areas will be "safer" than if it was tobacco, but will still make it UNSAFE for the victims of passive vaping as it raises there exposure and risk.



Research (Berkeley again) experimented with three people vaping in various bars. Results varied according tooth air cycling in the bar, but in several cases the levels of the toxins exceeded safe industrial exposure limits.

The results show, despite e-cigarette vapour evaporating quickly, that formaldehyde in these bars hit an average level of 135 micrograms per cubic metre and acrolein reached 28 micrograms – both exceeding the California guidelines.

Concentrations of toxic benzene, which can cause anaemia and shrink the size of women's ovaries, came close to unsafe levels.

Now imagine what it will be like where instead of 3 you have 30 people inflicting carcinogens on you?

There is no need to vape on bus, bar restaurant, these should be treated as vape free areas.

[Cunobelin]

I'd be interested to know exactly who has been lobbying for this; there must be a lot of money sloshing around.

Quite.

The tobacco companies want in, if there's something to challenge their market.

As a former smoker, I think the idea of giving up with nicotine would make it harder. You didn't need nicotine before you smoke.

An interesting aside.....

I knew a non-smoking landlord, who after the smoking ban began to feel unwell. GP diagnosed that he was having withdrawal symptoms as effectively the level of passive smoking had made him a smoker without realising it. A course of nicotine patches and a "Stop Smoking" course solved his health issues

[Cunobelin]

World Health Organisation

Passive exposure to e-cigarette vapour might lead to adverse health effects according to a systematic review of 16 studies.7 A 2016 report from the World Health Organization (WHO)8 also concluded that second-hand aerosols from e-cigarettes are a new air contamination source for hazardous particulate matter (PM). The levels of some metals, such as nickel and chromium, in second-hand aerosols are not only higher than background air, but also higher than second-hand smoke. Furthermore, compared to background air levels, PM1.0 and PM2.5 in second-hand aerosols are 14–40 times and 6–86 times higher, respectively. In addition, nicotine in second-hand aerosols has been found to be between 10–115 times higher than in background air levels, acetaldehyde between two and eight times higher, and formaldehyde about 20% higher.8 The report suggested that the increased concentration of toxicants from second-hand aerosols over background levels poses an increased risk for the health of all bystanders, especially those with pre-existing respiratory conditions.8

Conclusion:

Wwe believe that, from a public health perspective, central and local governments should adopt regulations that effectively determine that all designated indoor smoke-free areas are also vape-free areas. We note that this approach is being implemented by many jurisdictions, with vaping being banned in enclosed public spaces, such as bars, restaurants and other workplaces, in 25 countries.11 This approach is also recommended in the 2016 WHO report to the Parties of the FCTC.8

[Bonefishblues]

I'd be interested to know exactly who has been lobbying for this; there must be a lot of money sloshing around.

Nail,head,on!

OTOH it could just be the magic bullet that the NHS needs so badly, and as such a welcome outbreak of common sense from the Committee, who aiui are seeking to provoke a public debate.

I'm damn sure that an industry whose key byproduct is the death of dehabilitation of its users wants in to new markets, but if it means fewer of these, I'm all ears.

That said, I don't want any extension of vaping into areas where it's currently banned, along with cigarettes. I also find the concoctions that are vaped deeply unpleasant, and often rather odd.

[Cunobelin]

I'd be interested to know exactly who has been lobbying for this; there must be a lot of money sloshing around.

Nail,head,on!

OTOH it could just be the magic bullet that the NHS needs so badly, and as such a welcome outbreak of common sense from the Committee, who aiui are seeking to provoke a public debate.

I'm damn sure that an industry whose key byproduct is the death of dehabilitation of its users wants in to new markets, but if it means fewer of these, I'm all ears.

That said, I don't want any extension of vaping into areas where it's currently banned, along with cigarettes. I also find the concoctions that are vaped deeply unpleasant, and often rather odd.

This is the problem..... the present position of the NHS and Public Health England is that it is safer than tobacco and therefore beneficial.

Ironically we are in exactly the same situation with vaping as we used to be with tobacco..... There are harmful effects, but lets not mention them!

There are already studies showing that long term vaping is associated with their use and that we remain ignorant of the long term effects.

The traces of particulates (the things diesel is being slated for), tin, lead, silver, iron, nickel, aluminum, and silicate and nanoparticles are all as high or higher that in normal cigarettes, there is evidence of cell damage in the mouths of teenagers and that the vapour that causes these also inhibits repair of this damage resulting in sores and ulcers the do not heal.

The biggest and most worrying flaw is highlighted by a recent study which points out that most of the studies establishing "safety" were carried out on the liquids their liquid state and that few have actually looked at the effects of the heated vapour. This suggest that the research is deeply flawed, and the safety claims should be suspect in many cases

PHE states:

To date, there have been no identified health risks of passive vaping to bystanders.

Yet then states as required research:

To date, there have been no identified health risks of passive vaping to bystanders.

.... and those two lines are the entire coverage of passive vaping in the entire PHE document "Evidence review of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products 2018: executive summary"

[random37]

The thing I dislike about vaping is the flavours which seem to be marketed to children.

Like I said, nicotine replacement is not effective. I notice a lot of people now vape as well as smoke, as they are addicted to nicotine which they get from both products.

Every time you have nicotine, you restart the whole filthy trick that nicotine is.

[Bonefishblues]

I'm not an expert. I do know that cigarettes will seriously affect all users and kill perhaps half of long term users. I would actively run towards a less bad alternative.

Or we can keep on doing the same thing, and live with a diminishing, but still significant proportion of users who will suffer the consequences, at significant expense to society. These people aren't stupid, they know they've fallen victim to it.

I was pleased to hear that the evidence is that people don't start vaping, so it would appear that vapers use it as a substitute, having already begun to smoke cigarettes.

Having odd flavours and 'marketing to children' are very different things, btw.

[al_yrpal]

I note the government is looking at taxing vaping. Because its less harmful and weans at least some off tobacco, taxing it must be wrong. Perhaps Vaping fluids should carry a government subsidy?

Al

[random37]

Having odd flavours and 'marketing to children' are very different things, btw.

I have a friend who vapes. One of the flavours is bubblegum.

I don't think that was made with adults in mind.

[661-Pete]

Having odd flavours and 'marketing to children' are very different things, btw.

I have a friend who vapes. One of the flavours is bubblegum.

I don't think that was made with adults in mind.

Intriguing. What exactly is the 'flavour' of bubblegum (never having had any experience...)?