Wales bans E-ciggies from indoor venues.

[Phanerothyme]

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?

 

The comparison you're making is totally invalid and therefore meaningless.

 

Every single constituent of e-liquid has a long history of testing in vitro, in vivo, and in humans.

 

Thalidomide - not so.

 

The Welsh aren't banning e-cigs in public places because of plausible risk of birth defects, or indeed anything.

 

What's well accepted is that whilst e-cigs are not safe (nothing is safe) the risk to self from using them is orders of magnitude less than that of using cigarettes.

 

The risks from passively consuming PG mist are much higher in a club or theatrical event, than from e-cig use. A club fog machine typically uses about 1-2000 times more PG/VG fluid over an hour than any e-cig smoker. So a smallish bar with 2000 vapers in would present less of a health risk than a smoke machine, all other things being equal.

 

A chimp could work that out from readily available information. Unfortunately the Welsh Assembly haven't quite managed it…

 

---------- Post added 10-06-2015 at 22:43 ----------

 

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

Providing its ingredients are well known, well researched and well tolerated in humans at the available dosages, yes.

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.

It's not the 'most addictive' because addictiveness is not trivially measurable. The addiction potential of any substance depends entirely on the user.

 

Addiction, psychological dependency and habitual behaviour are not moral ills. If I can maintain a nicotine habit with considerably reduced harms, then that is a positive.

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.

 

Of course, inhaling anything but well oxygenated pure alpine air is less than optimal. But in a table of risk alongside diesel fumes, bonfire smoke, metal nanoparticles from railways and tramlines and every other airborne pollutant our city is thick with, e-cigs needn't concern anyone from a health and safety perspective.

 

---------- Post added 10-06-2015 at 22:46 ----------

 

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.

"Something involving CHEMICALS".:o

 

Lol. Everything involves chemicals I'm afraid. Your tea is full of chemicals.

 

 

"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.

Except it very, very rarely happens.

[biotechpete]

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'.

 

There is an increasing amount of evidence that e-cigs can cause similar reactions to cigarette smoke and that the vapor is not nearly as clean as it is marketed.

[Phanerothyme]

There is an increasing amount of evidence that e-cigs can cause similar reactions to cigarette smoke and that the vapor is not nearly as clean as it is marketed.

 

 

When you say "similar reactions" what do you mean? Potent carcinogenesis, or COPD? Dismay from onlookers? A slight rise in pulse and blood pressure? Self righteousness?

 

There are a lot of different reactions to cigarette smoke!

 

When you say "increasing amount of evidence" - what do you mean?

 

Did you read it in the paper? Was this a meta analysis in a peer reviewed journal of scientific repute? Is it the count of "negative" studies appearing on open access journals like PLOS?

 

I'm convinced that whilst there may be side effects from use (drying of the throat and lung, COPD) they provide a much less harmful route for people who enjoy the effects of nicotine.

 

Let's talk about nicotine, and why it's somehow axiomatically bad and immoral.

 

Nicotine increases the effects of many other drugs including alcohol and caffeine, nicotine has other positive effects too, including providing some degree of prophylaxis against Alzheimers Syndrome and Parkinson's Disease.

 

Of course it's lethal in large doses, but so are plenty of other things in daily life. We manage somehow.

[Bigthumb]

There is an increasing amount of evidence that e-cigs can cause similar reactions to cigarette smoke and that the vapor is not nearly as clean as it is marketed.

 

There is also a large amount of home made e-cig "juice" on sale. Probably fag ends taken out of sokers bins and soaked in a urinal overnight before being let down with cold tea a stuck in a pretty bottle. It might explain why some smell like the pub toilet when smoked.

 

---------- Post added 11-06-2015 at 00:10 ----------

 

The comparison you're making is totally invalid and therefore meaningless.

 

Every single constituent of e-liquid has a long history of testing in vitro, in vivo, and in humans.

 

Thalidomide - not so.

 

 

How do you know what is in E-cig juices? Non of it is licenced and non of it tested. It contains whatever the guy making it put in it. I could pee in a bottle and sell it as e-cig juice. Perhaps I will.

 

---------- Post added 11-06-2015 at 00:20 ----------

 

There is an increasing amount of evidence that e-cigs can cause similar reactions to cigarette smoke and that the vapor is not nearly as clean as it is marketed.

 

Which is why they are banned in at least 40 countries, banned on trains, banned on airlines and banned in Scottish hospitals. They are even banned by the BBC.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2693071/BBC-bans-use-electronic-cigarettes-offices-studios-country.html

 

BBC bans use of electronic cigarettes from all of its offices and studios across the country

 

BBC has enforced blanket ban on use of electronic cigarettes in its offices

Corporation said ban comes after advice from British Medical Association

Follows in footsteps of JCB and Standard Life which has also banned e-cigs

 

I would probably take advice from the British Medical Authority and the World Health Organisation rather than the self appointed experts on Sheffield Forum.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Bigthumb

[gwhite78]

I think anything others like which I don't should be banned. I can always justify this by googling for biased reports to support my demands.

[Phanerothyme]

There is also a large amount of home made e-cig "juice" on sale. Probably fag ends taken out of sokers bins and soaked in a urinal overnight before being let down with cold tea a stuck in a pretty bottle. It might explain why some smell like the pub toilet when smoked.

 

How do you know what is in E-cig juices? Non of it is licenced and non of it tested. It contains whatever the guy making it put in it. I could pee in a bottle and sell it as e-cig juice. Perhaps I will.

Yep, if you want to follow the supply chain, you can see the GC/MS reports from the testing labs, you can call the labs yourself. Without actually doing the analysis yourself, at some level you need to take someone's word for it. It's the same with every kind of product: pork pies, vodka, anal lubricant, etc. as you're no doubt aware.

 

 

---------- Post added 11-06-2015 at 00:20 ----------

 

[/color]

 

Which is why they are banned in at least 40 countries, banned on trains, banned on airlines and banned in Scottish hospitals. They are even banned by the BBC.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2693071/BBC-bans-use-electronic-cigarettes-offices-studios-country.html

BBC bans use of electronic cigarettes from all of its offices and studios across the country

 

BBC has enforced blanket ban on use of electronic cigarettes in its offices

Corporation said ban comes after advice from British Medical Association

Follows in footsteps of JCB and Standard Life which has also banned e-cigs

 

Verbatim from the article you have cited:

A Public Heath England report concluded that electronic cigarettes offer ‘vast potential health benefits’ by providing a ‘safer source of nicotine’ for smokers.

 

It added: ‘But maximising those benefits while minimising harms and risks to society requires appropriate regulation, careful monitoring, and risk management.

 

‘However the opportunity to harness this potential into public health policy, complementing existing comprehensive tobacco control policies, should not be missed.’

 

I would probably take advice from the British Medical Authority and the World Health Organisation rather than the self appointed experts on Sheffield Forum.

 

You can do what you want - but I'm interested to hear your reasoning on why other people should be forced to.

 

The British Medical Association, incidentally, says "The BMA recognises their potential for supporting tobacco harm reduction. There is, however, a lack of robust research and evidence in this area, and any benefits or disadvantages to public health are not yet well established. "

 

Of course, it then goes on to say how they will be regulated etc.

 

Which, surprisingly enough turns out to be 'very badly'.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Phanerothyme

[Tim1]

What age do you have to be to "vape" I was on the supertram from halfway and some kids in school uniform got on near a school and they were "vaping" it did not smell though

[Timeh]

Wouldnt surprise me if all these bans have the fag industry behind them in some way.

[Bigthumb]

Yep, if you want to follow the supply chain, you can see the GC/MS reports from the testing labs, you can call the labs yourself. Without actually doing the analysis yourself, at some level you need to take someone's word for it. It's the same with every kind of product: pork pies, vodka, anal lubricant, etc. as you're no doubt aware.

 

 

Verbatim from the article you have cited:

 

 

 

You can do what you want - but I'm interested to hear your reasoning on why other people should be forced to.

 

The British Medical Association, incidentally, says "The BMA recognises their potential for supporting tobacco harm reduction. There is, however, a lack of robust research and evidence in this area, and any benefits or disadvantages to public health are not yet well established. "

 

Of course, it then goes on to say how they will be regulated etc.

 

Which, surprisingly enough turns out to be 'very badly'.

 

There may well be health benefits for someone smoking an E-cigs rather than ordinary ones. That's not the same as saying there are health benefits for non smokers sitting in a pub forced tp breathe the fumes.

 

I was unaware that such a thing as anal lubricant existed. Clearly you are for your own reasons aquainted with such substances. I suppose it is to be expected as you talk through that particular orifice much of the time.

 

---------- Post added 11-06-2015 at 17:49 ----------

 

What age do you have to be to "vape" I was on the supertram from halfway and some kids in school uniform got on near a school and they were "vaping" it did not smell though

 

That wouldn't surprise me as the trams smell anyhow. As the things are banned on Supertram I don't think the legal age has much to do with it.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Bigthumb

[Speckled Hen]

Yep, if you want to follow the supply chain, you can see the GC/MS reports from the testing labs, you can call the labs yourself. Without actually doing the analysis yourself, at some level you need to take someone's word for it. It's the same with every kind of product: pork pies, vodka, anal lubricant, etc. as you're no doubt aware.

 

 

Verbatim from the article you have cited:

 

A Public Heath England report concluded that electronic cigarettes offer ‘vast potential health benefits’ by providing a ‘safer source of nicotine’ for smokers.

 

It added: ‘But maximising those benefits while minimising harms and risks to society requires appropriate regulation, careful monitoring, and risk management.

 

‘However the opportunity to harness this potential into public health policy, complementing existing comprehensive tobacco control policies, should not be missed.’

 

 

You can do what you want - but I'm interested to hear your reasoning on why other people should be forced to.

 

The British Medical Association, incidentally, says "The BMA recognises their potential for supporting tobacco harm reduction. There is, however, a lack of robust research and evidence in this area, and any benefits or disadvantages to public health are not yet well established. "

 

Of course, it then goes on to say how they will be regulated etc.

 

Which, surprisingly enough turns out to be 'very badly'.

 

The smoking ban has been in place for 8 years and yet the reason for it seems to have passed you by. The ban was not to protect the health of smokers. It was put in place to protect others from the harmful effects of 2nd hand smoke. So whilst E-cigarettes might or might not be more benefical to killing yourself with fags, the ban on their use in Wales is similarly designed to protect the public from any toxins that they might emit.