Wales bans E-ciggies from indoor venues.

[Phanerothyme]

It's not evidence based. But then why should we ever expect evidence based legislation?

 

Also - what is the definition of an e-cig, exactly. What about e-pipes? Smoke machines? They all do the same thing - heat a glycerine/p.glycol fluid until it boils and atomises into a mist.

 

Fog machines aren't banned in public places. Yet.

 

If we are to legislate against ~

 

"objectionable" smells like " toilet air freshener" or "Bubble gum, peach, pina colada and all kind of other really sickly sweet smells"

 

~ then why stop at e-Cigs?

 

Wrong headed, fudged legislation, written by by the politically incompetent as an attempt to 'do something useful'.

[Bigthumb]

It's not evidence based. But then why should we ever expect evidence based legislation?

 

Also - what is the definition of an e-cig, exactly. What about e-pipes? Smoke machines? They all do the same thing - heat a glycerine/p.glycol fluid until it boils and atomises into a mist.

 

Fog machines aren't banned in public places. Yet.

 

If we are to legislate against ~

 

"objectionable" smells like " toilet air freshener" or "Bubble gum, peach, pina colada and all kind of other really sickly sweet smells"

 

~ then why stop at e-Cigs?

 

Wrong headed, fudged legislation, written by by the politically incompetent as an attempt to 'do something useful'.

 

For those who do not remember THALIDOMIDE..

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/thalidomide/effects.html

 

Do you imagine the folks turning out e-liquids in their garden sheds spend as much on research as a major drugs company? Are they even bothered if what they churn our is toxic?

[I1L2T3]

It's not evidence based. But then why should we ever expect evidence based legislation?

 

Also - what is the definition of an e-cig, exactly. What about e-pipes? Smoke machines? They all do the same thing - heat a glycerine/p.glycol fluid until it boils and atomises into a mist.

 

Fog machines aren't banned in public places. Yet.

 

If we are to legislate against ~

 

"objectionable" smells like " toilet air freshener" or "Bubble gum, peach, pina colada and all kind of other really sickly sweet smells"

 

~ then why stop at e-Cigs?

 

Wrong headed, fudged legislation, written by by the politically incompetent as an attempt to 'do something useful'.

 

Does a smoke machine at the disco pump out a drugged-up mist?

 

Going by your logic any new product could just be introduced and tested later Somehow though a highly efficient delivery mechanism for the most addictive substance known to man has managed to get widely introduced for mostly unregulated retail sale.

 

That said, I think there is a tacit acceptance of e-cigs generally. People know they are probably not great health wise and could have issues, but that they are for the vast majority of users replacing something that is likely to be much more harmful.

 

Probably best to just enjoy the fact these things can be enjoyed relatively unencumbered.

[alchresearch]

I cannot think of a single airline that has not banned the use of e-cigarettes on their aircraft.

 

Same with trains.

[harvey19]

Is it the content of these devices people enjoy or the habit having something in their mouth ?

A person can stop smoking if they are determined to do so and so this should be the aim rather than introduce a substitute.

[perplexed]

It's a mistake; they've decided to do something on supposition rather than hard evidence.

 

---------- Post added 10-06-2015 at 07:26 ----------

 

 

Since I have been in very close company with someone using one and not even smelt it, this sounds like nonsense to me.

 

Rubbish. They produce all sorts of 'flavours' for them - which have an odour, many of which are sickly and vile.

Edited June 10, 2015 by perplexed

[milquetoast1]

You mean like folk telling you that you have to share the vapours from something that smells like a pub toilet.

 

If the lady I worked with who uses e-cigs made me share something that smelled like a toilet, then I would object, but she doesn't, so I don't. Simples.

 

This is the continuous daily process of actually living with other people, where we ALL do things that might irritate other people to a certain extent and we live with it.

 

Banning something is permanent, and if that 'something' provides people with enjoyment then it requires evidence of real harm to others to be morally correct imho.

 

I would advise people who are quick to call for a ban on something just because to they don't like it to be careful what they wish for, it might be something they enjoy next.

[Bigthumb]

If the lady I worked with who uses e-cigs made me share something that smelled like a toilet, then I would object, but she doesn't, so I don't. Simples.

 

This is the continuous daily process of actually living with other people, where we ALL do things that might irritate other people to a certain extent and we live with it.

 

Banning something is permanent, and if that 'something' provides people with enjoyment then it requires evidence of real harm to others to be morally correct imho.

 

I would advise people who are quick to call for a ban on something just because to they don't like it to be careful what they wish for, it might be something they enjoy next.

 

So if someone wanted to start an industrial process down the road from you. Something that involved chemicals. You wouldn't object, but might in 10 years time if there were a large cluster of cancers spring up downwind of the plant.

 

"Banning something is permanent" is the stupidest statement I've read on here for months. It is quite possible to ban something until it has been proved to be safe. It's called common sense.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Bigthumb

[milquetoast1]

If,if, if, if ....

 

In the meantime I've got a life to live.

[Bigthumb]

If,if, if, if ....

 

In the meantime I've got a life to live.

 

So no sensible response then. :hihi::hihi: