Talking Point: Do you think e-cigarettes should be banned in public places?

The Argus: Talking Point: Do you think e-cigarettes should be banned in public places? Talking Point: Do you think e-cigarettes should be banned in public places?

Today, the Argus reports on the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust's decision to ban e-cigarettes in its hospitals because they look too much like the real deal.

This follows similar moves by other Sussex hospitals.

What do you think? Should e-cigarettes be banned in public in the same way real cigarettes are? Or should people be allowed to smoke them?

Have your say below.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:17am Wed 26 Feb 14

gayebuoy says...

NO! Why for ffs.I have a really nice pink one
NO! Why for ffs.I have a really nice pink one gayebuoy

9:28am Wed 26 Feb 14

Morpheus says...

Has somebody annoyed nanny again?
Has somebody annoyed nanny again? Morpheus

9:33am Wed 26 Feb 14

downbythesea says...

Oh yes they SO look like the real thing with their bright blue glowing tips. NOT

Unless they have a red tip on some others lol.
Oh yes they SO look like the real thing with their bright blue glowing tips. NOT Unless they have a red tip on some others lol. downbythesea

9:35am Wed 26 Feb 14

Goldenwight says...

Have they banned pencils as well? Because from any distance they look like cigarettes if you stick one end in your mouth...
Have they banned pencils as well? Because from any distance they look like cigarettes if you stick one end in your mouth... Goldenwight

9:45am Wed 26 Feb 14

StevieD says...

How sad are the minority that they have to suck on a little plastic stick. I am an ex smoker and found it hard to give up but did. The people using these things have not given up they are just kidding themselves and encouraging others to do likewise. Buy a dummy from Boots they are much cheaper!!!!
How sad are the minority that they have to suck on a little plastic stick. I am an ex smoker and found it hard to give up but did. The people using these things have not given up they are just kidding themselves and encouraging others to do likewise. Buy a dummy from Boots they are much cheaper!!!! StevieD

9:55am Wed 26 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Morpheus wrote:
Has somebody annoyed nanny again?
Nanny is certainly getting more and more tetchy ... time to retire the ol' nitpicker I reckon.

I never agreed with banning smoking. Why would I agree with this ban?
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: Has somebody annoyed nanny again?[/p][/quote]Nanny is certainly getting more and more tetchy ... time to retire the ol' nitpicker I reckon. I never agreed with banning smoking. Why would I agree with this ban? mimseycal

10:44am Wed 26 Feb 14

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

The only reason people ever start smoking is to look cool & smoking an e-cigarette just doesn't have the same effect. So, if you are not genuinely cool enough to carry on smoking properly then just quit altogether because you ain't fooling anyone puffing away on your vapour-fag- lame.
The only reason people ever start smoking is to look cool & smoking an e-cigarette just doesn't have the same effect. So, if you are not genuinely cool enough to carry on smoking properly then just quit altogether because you ain't fooling anyone puffing away on your vapour-fag- lame. uniteagainstparkingcharges

11:01am Wed 26 Feb 14

whatevernext2013 says...

yes until ,they are proved to be safe ,after all cigarette companies lied about there dangers for years and hid the facts ,
yes until ,they are proved to be safe ,after all cigarette companies lied about there dangers for years and hid the facts , whatevernext2013

11:05am Wed 26 Feb 14

Dodderer says...

uniteagainstparkingc
harges
wrote:
The only reason people ever start smoking is to look cool & smoking an e-cigarette just doesn't have the same effect. So, if you are not genuinely cool enough to carry on smoking properly then just quit altogether because you ain't fooling anyone puffing away on your vapour-fag- lame.
Brilliant - that's the answer - 'just quit altogether' - why did no-one else ever think of this?Get a real expert on the case and all the problems are solved
[quote][p][bold]uniteagainstparkingc harges[/bold] wrote: The only reason people ever start smoking is to look cool & smoking an e-cigarette just doesn't have the same effect. So, if you are not genuinely cool enough to carry on smoking properly then just quit altogether because you ain't fooling anyone puffing away on your vapour-fag- lame.[/p][/quote]Brilliant - that's the answer - 'just quit altogether' - why did no-one else ever think of this?Get a real expert on the case and all the problems are solved Dodderer

11:08am Wed 26 Feb 14

qm says...

By that token they should also ban so called 'managers' from the hospitals because they too look like the real thing!
That would give clinical practitioners the opportunity to do their jobs properly for which they are more than capable!
By that token they should also ban so called 'managers' from the hospitals because they too look like the real thing! That would give clinical practitioners the opportunity to do their jobs properly for which they are more than capable! qm

11:34am Wed 26 Feb 14

Dragonmum says...

So it's confirmed - hospitals and the medical profession are concerned about appearances and not health. Which explains such a lot really - like taking off the wrong leg or male appendage -" it looked just like the right one, sorry I removed the left" !!!
So it's confirmed - hospitals and the medical profession are concerned about appearances and not health. Which explains such a lot really - like taking off the wrong leg or male appendage -" it looked just like the right one, sorry I removed the left" !!! Dragonmum

11:35am Wed 26 Feb 14

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

Dodderer wrote:
uniteagainstparkingc

harges
wrote:
The only reason people ever start smoking is to look cool & smoking an e-cigarette just doesn't have the same effect. So, if you are not genuinely cool enough to carry on smoking properly then just quit altogether because you ain't fooling anyone puffing away on your vapour-fag- lame.
Brilliant - that's the answer - 'just quit altogether' - why did no-one else ever think of this?Get a real expert on the case and all the problems are solved
I didn't actually think anyone would take my comment seriously but I managed to quit altogether. The trick is to quit drinking as well as the two go hand-in-hand.
[quote][p][bold]Dodderer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uniteagainstparkingc harges[/bold] wrote: The only reason people ever start smoking is to look cool & smoking an e-cigarette just doesn't have the same effect. So, if you are not genuinely cool enough to carry on smoking properly then just quit altogether because you ain't fooling anyone puffing away on your vapour-fag- lame.[/p][/quote]Brilliant - that's the answer - 'just quit altogether' - why did no-one else ever think of this?Get a real expert on the case and all the problems are solved[/p][/quote]I didn't actually think anyone would take my comment seriously but I managed to quit altogether. The trick is to quit drinking as well as the two go hand-in-hand. uniteagainstparkingcharges

11:59am Wed 26 Feb 14

Starlin Glantz says...

StevieD wrote:
How sad are the minority that they have to suck on a little plastic stick. I am an ex smoker and found it hard to give up but did. The people using these things have not given up they are just kidding themselves and encouraging others to do likewise. Buy a dummy from Boots they are much cheaper!!!!
Four things to say about you comment.

1. There are not many things on this planet that is so annoying as a smug ex-quitter who then becomes a sanctimonious hypocrite

2. Not everyone can give up. Addiction is a complex issue and it affects people in different ways.

3. Many users of e-cig do not want to give up consuming nicotine (which has the same risk profile as caffeine) but wish to continue enjoying nicotine in a less harmful way (the issue is not weather e-cigs are less harmful than cigarettes but if they are 99% less harmful or 99.99% less harmful).

4. Why make the dummy reference? Does a dummy vaporise nicotine?

E-cigs are a blessing to millions of people, they will potentially safe millions of lives. Why not celebrate in this fact instead of passing judgement on people who didn't have the same kind of addiction as you had to cigarettes? Also, and this might be a shock to you, why not do the following: go to google images and type in "vaping ecigs". You will be shocked to see that the kind of devices that look like cigarettes are getting less common and that things that look nothing like cigarettes are gaining popularity very fast.
[quote][p][bold]StevieD[/bold] wrote: How sad are the minority that they have to suck on a little plastic stick. I am an ex smoker and found it hard to give up but did. The people using these things have not given up they are just kidding themselves and encouraging others to do likewise. Buy a dummy from Boots they are much cheaper!!!![/p][/quote]Four things to say about you comment. 1. There are not many things on this planet that is so annoying as a smug ex-quitter who then becomes a sanctimonious hypocrite 2. Not everyone can give up. Addiction is a complex issue and it affects people in different ways. 3. Many users of e-cig do not want to give up consuming nicotine (which has the same risk profile as caffeine) but wish to continue enjoying nicotine in a less harmful way (the issue is not weather e-cigs are less harmful than cigarettes but if they are 99% less harmful or 99.99% less harmful). 4. Why make the dummy reference? Does a dummy vaporise nicotine? E-cigs are a blessing to millions of people, they will potentially safe millions of lives. Why not celebrate in this fact instead of passing judgement on people who didn't have the same kind of addiction as you had to cigarettes? Also, and this might be a shock to you, why not do the following: go to google images and type in "vaping ecigs". You will be shocked to see that the kind of devices that look like cigarettes are getting less common and that things that look nothing like cigarettes are gaining popularity very fast. Starlin Glantz

12:08pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Dragonmum says...

StevieD wrote:
How sad are the minority that they have to suck on a little plastic stick. I am an ex smoker and found it hard to give up but did. The people using these things have not given up they are just kidding themselves and encouraging others to do likewise. Buy a dummy from Boots they are much cheaper!!!!
Hard to give up - nonsense, I did it loads of times in my smoking days, a year, two years - easy! A friend of mine lapsed after 10 years off the fags then smoked more than ever. Even the BMA have conceded that some people need the nicotine - what they don't need is the tar, which is what causes cancer and other conditions. One does not "smoke" an e-cig btw - it's just a harmless vapour - orders of magnitude less harmful than smoking. So could hospitals now please ban people with bad breath, cheap perfume or after-shave and all the screaming kids who are a real health hazard on visiting days.
[quote][p][bold]StevieD[/bold] wrote: How sad are the minority that they have to suck on a little plastic stick. I am an ex smoker and found it hard to give up but did. The people using these things have not given up they are just kidding themselves and encouraging others to do likewise. Buy a dummy from Boots they are much cheaper!!!![/p][/quote]Hard to give up - nonsense, I did it loads of times in my smoking days, a year, two years - easy! A friend of mine lapsed after 10 years off the fags then smoked more than ever. Even the BMA have conceded that some people need the nicotine - what they don't need is the tar, which is what causes cancer and other conditions. One does not "smoke" an e-cig btw - it's just a harmless vapour - orders of magnitude less harmful than smoking. So could hospitals now please ban people with bad breath, cheap perfume or after-shave and all the screaming kids who are a real health hazard on visiting days. Dragonmum

1:29pm Wed 26 Feb 14

cookie_brighton says...

gayebuoy wrote:
NO! Why for ffs.I have a really nice pink one
YES.........I am a non smoker and why should I have to inhale anything that has been in an E cigarette smokers lungs......I post a link in my evidence.
healthland.time.com/
2013/12/13 smoke-from-e-cigs-st
ill-poses-some-secon
d-hand-risk/
The link is the first one in the list under web report
[quote][p][bold]gayebuoy[/bold] wrote: NO! Why for ffs.I have a really nice pink one[/p][/quote]YES.........I am a non smoker and why should I have to inhale anything that has been in an E cigarette smokers lungs......I post a link in my evidence. healthland.time.com/ 2013/12/13 smoke-from-e-cigs-st ill-poses-some-secon d-hand-risk/ The link is the first one in the list under web report cookie_brighton

1:43pm Wed 26 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
gayebuoy wrote:
NO! Why for ffs.I have a really nice pink one
YES.........I am a non smoker and why should I have to inhale anything that has been in an E cigarette smokers lungs......I post a link in my evidence.
healthland.time.com/

2013/12/13 smoke-from-e-cigs-st

ill-poses-some-secon

d-hand-risk/
The link is the first one in the list under web report
Why should you be exempt? We've all had to put up with the hysteria you and your ilk have been displaying left right and centre after all.
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gayebuoy[/bold] wrote: NO! Why for ffs.I have a really nice pink one[/p][/quote]YES.........I am a non smoker and why should I have to inhale anything that has been in an E cigarette smokers lungs......I post a link in my evidence. healthland.time.com/ 2013/12/13 smoke-from-e-cigs-st ill-poses-some-secon d-hand-risk/ The link is the first one in the list under web report[/p][/quote]Why should you be exempt? We've all had to put up with the hysteria you and your ilk have been displaying left right and centre after all. mimseycal

1:48pm Wed 26 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

They do not look like the real thing! I have an e-cig and it looks absolutely nothing like a cigarette - even so, I got told to stop using it at Komedia the other night because they have banned them. So I went outside and had a cigarette with all the other smokers.

Even Boots are now stocking them as a stop smoking aid. I know so many people who have given up using them or just completely switched to e-cigs. I fail to see how a little bit of water vapour can be viewed as passive smoking and the whole point of the smoking ban is to prevent the risk from passive smoking. The risk comes from the 2000 chemicals in burning cigarettes. This is just some moralistic judgement on nicotine being 'a bad thing.' Best give up courgettes and aubergines as they contain nicotine too.

I refuse to go to any venue that bans them. Sorry Komedia - love your venue but I will not be coming again. Same with Weatherspoons.
They do not look like the real thing! I have an e-cig and it looks absolutely nothing like a cigarette - even so, I got told to stop using it at Komedia the other night because they have banned them. So I went outside and had a cigarette with all the other smokers. Even Boots are now stocking them as a stop smoking aid. I know so many people who have given up using them or just completely switched to e-cigs. I fail to see how a little bit of water vapour can be viewed as passive smoking and the whole point of the smoking ban is to prevent the risk from passive smoking. The risk comes from the 2000 chemicals in burning cigarettes. This is just some moralistic judgement on nicotine being 'a bad thing.' Best give up courgettes and aubergines as they contain nicotine too. I refuse to go to any venue that bans them. Sorry Komedia - love your venue but I will not be coming again. Same with Weatherspoons. thevoiceoftruth

2:58pm Wed 26 Feb 14

PortsladePaul says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
gayebuoy wrote:
NO! Why for ffs.I have a really nice pink one
YES.........I am a non smoker and why should I have to inhale anything that has been in an E cigarette smokers lungs......I post a link in my evidence.
healthland.time.com/

2013/12/13 smoke-from-e-cigs-st

ill-poses-some-secon

d-hand-risk/
The link is the first one in the list under web report
I tried to follow your link, but unfortunately got a 404. So I did a little search. The report you refer to is basically 'junk science' sponsored by none other than Pfizer... now why would they sponsor a report like that I wonder? Anything to do with a potential loss of income from their (largely ineffective) NRTs?
As to the 'research', they sprayed e-liquid from a syringe onto walls and then tested the walls for nicotine! So nothing like the actions of an e-cigarette. Nicotine, in small doses is not harmful and is naturally present in the Solanaceae genus of plants which include tomatoes, potatoes and aubergines.
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Nicotine (you won't get a 404 from that one!)

I'm against banning anything, especially when the 'science' is based on pure, unadulterated FUD!
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gayebuoy[/bold] wrote: NO! Why for ffs.I have a really nice pink one[/p][/quote]YES.........I am a non smoker and why should I have to inhale anything that has been in an E cigarette smokers lungs......I post a link in my evidence. healthland.time.com/ 2013/12/13 smoke-from-e-cigs-st ill-poses-some-secon d-hand-risk/ The link is the first one in the list under web report[/p][/quote]I tried to follow your link, but unfortunately got a 404. So I did a little search. The report you refer to is basically 'junk science' sponsored by none other than Pfizer... now why would they sponsor a report like that I wonder? Anything to do with a potential loss of income from their (largely ineffective) NRTs? As to the 'research', they sprayed e-liquid from a syringe onto walls and then tested the walls for nicotine! So nothing like the actions of an e-cigarette. Nicotine, in small doses is not harmful and is naturally present in the Solanaceae genus of plants which include tomatoes, potatoes and aubergines. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Nicotine (you won't get a 404 from that one!) I'm against banning anything, especially when the 'science' is based on pure, unadulterated FUD! PortsladePaul

2:58pm Wed 26 Feb 14

sussexram40 says...

Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons.
1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk.
2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour.
If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum!
Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons. 1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk. 2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour. If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum! sussexram40

3:05pm Wed 26 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

sussexram40 wrote:
Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons.
1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk.
2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour.
If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum!
But nanny, I am all grown up! I can decide for myself and don't need you to tell me what is good or bad for me.

The world is full of adults who do not require wrapping up in cotton wool. Life is a rose garden I'll grant you but it is a garden in all its glory and that includes the thorns, the creepy crawlies and the occasional patch of doggy doos.
[quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons. 1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk. 2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour. If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum![/p][/quote]But nanny, I am all grown up! I can decide for myself and don't need you to tell me what is good or bad for me. The world is full of adults who do not require wrapping up in cotton wool. Life is a rose garden I'll grant you but it is a garden in all its glory and that includes the thorns, the creepy crawlies and the occasional patch of doggy doos. mimseycal

3:40pm Wed 26 Feb 14

sussexram40 says...

mimseycal wrote:
sussexram40 wrote:
Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons.
1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk.
2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour.
If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum!
But nanny, I am all grown up! I can decide for myself and don't need you to tell me what is good or bad for me.

The world is full of adults who do not require wrapping up in cotton wool. Life is a rose garden I'll grant you but it is a garden in all its glory and that includes the thorns, the creepy crawlies and the occasional patch of doggy doos.
I don't care what you do. But I do care about my health, my safety and my comfort.
E Cigs cause concern to others and that is why they are being banned by airlines, pubs and hospitals, and there is as yet no knowledge about the long term health effects.
Vape all you like in private - but not in public places.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons. 1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk. 2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour. If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum![/p][/quote]But nanny, I am all grown up! I can decide for myself and don't need you to tell me what is good or bad for me. The world is full of adults who do not require wrapping up in cotton wool. Life is a rose garden I'll grant you but it is a garden in all its glory and that includes the thorns, the creepy crawlies and the occasional patch of doggy doos.[/p][/quote]I don't care what you do. But I do care about my health, my safety and my comfort. E Cigs cause concern to others and that is why they are being banned by airlines, pubs and hospitals, and there is as yet no knowledge about the long term health effects. Vape all you like in private - but not in public places. sussexram40

3:57pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Dodderer says...

Hot off the press

A Comparison of Electronic Cigarette Emissions With Those of Human Breath, Outdoor Air, and Tobacco Smoke

http://ecigaretterev
iewed.com/wp-content
/uploads/2014/02/eci
g-air-comparison-rep
ort.pdf
Hot off the press A Comparison of Electronic Cigarette Emissions With Those of Human Breath, Outdoor Air, and Tobacco Smoke http://ecigaretterev iewed.com/wp-content /uploads/2014/02/eci g-air-comparison-rep ort.pdf Dodderer

4:22pm Wed 26 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

sussexram40 wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
sussexram40 wrote:
Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons.
1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk.
2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour.
If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum!
But nanny, I am all grown up! I can decide for myself and don't need you to tell me what is good or bad for me.

The world is full of adults who do not require wrapping up in cotton wool. Life is a rose garden I'll grant you but it is a garden in all its glory and that includes the thorns, the creepy crawlies and the occasional patch of doggy doos.
I don't care what you do. But I do care about my health, my safety and my comfort.
E Cigs cause concern to others and that is why they are being banned by airlines, pubs and hospitals, and there is as yet no knowledge about the long term health effects.
Vape all you like in private - but not in public places.
Then if you ae really worried about your health you should walk around with an oxygen tank on your back and a goldfish bowl over your head. Make sure you also put some silver foil on the top of it. That way you can make sure you don't breathe in any nasty little particles that float around in the air or get bombarded by all those nasty little rays the sun sends out ... Ok, and don't forget to wrap yourself in cotton wool as you face the hazards of sharing the road with other individuals ... you may stub a toe or heaven's forbid pick up a nasty flu bug ...
[quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons. 1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk. 2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour. If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum![/p][/quote]But nanny, I am all grown up! I can decide for myself and don't need you to tell me what is good or bad for me. The world is full of adults who do not require wrapping up in cotton wool. Life is a rose garden I'll grant you but it is a garden in all its glory and that includes the thorns, the creepy crawlies and the occasional patch of doggy doos.[/p][/quote]I don't care what you do. But I do care about my health, my safety and my comfort. E Cigs cause concern to others and that is why they are being banned by airlines, pubs and hospitals, and there is as yet no knowledge about the long term health effects. Vape all you like in private - but not in public places.[/p][/quote]Then if you ae really worried about your health you should walk around with an oxygen tank on your back and a goldfish bowl over your head. Make sure you also put some silver foil on the top of it. That way you can make sure you don't breathe in any nasty little particles that float around in the air or get bombarded by all those nasty little rays the sun sends out ... Ok, and don't forget to wrap yourself in cotton wool as you face the hazards of sharing the road with other individuals ... you may stub a toe or heaven's forbid pick up a nasty flu bug ... mimseycal

4:36pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Roundbill says...

mimseycal wrote:
sussexram40 wrote:
Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons.
1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk.
2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour.
If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum!
But nanny, I am all grown up! I can decide for myself and don't need you to tell me what is good or bad for me.

The world is full of adults who do not require wrapping up in cotton wool. Life is a rose garden I'll grant you but it is a garden in all its glory and that includes the thorns, the creepy crawlies and the occasional patch of doggy doos.
That's fine with me, as long as you sign a legally-binding undertaking that you won't use any part of the NHS for any condition directly or indirectly related to using cigarettes or e-cigs. Do what you want, but don't expect me to pay for your self-inflicted injuries or illnesses.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons. 1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk. 2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour. If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum![/p][/quote]But nanny, I am all grown up! I can decide for myself and don't need you to tell me what is good or bad for me. The world is full of adults who do not require wrapping up in cotton wool. Life is a rose garden I'll grant you but it is a garden in all its glory and that includes the thorns, the creepy crawlies and the occasional patch of doggy doos.[/p][/quote]That's fine with me, as long as you sign a legally-binding undertaking that you won't use any part of the NHS for any condition directly or indirectly related to using cigarettes or e-cigs. Do what you want, but don't expect me to pay for your self-inflicted injuries or illnesses. Roundbill

4:49pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Sussex jim says...

The best way to stop smoking is to never start. This advice appeared on TV fifty years ago. That, and the fact that my parents did not smoke, dissuaded me from even trying it in my teens; despite peer pressure from fellow schoolmates and others.
The best way to stop smoking is to never start. This advice appeared on TV fifty years ago. That, and the fact that my parents did not smoke, dissuaded me from even trying it in my teens; despite peer pressure from fellow schoolmates and others. Sussex jim

5:13pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Starlin Glantz says...

sussexram40 wrote:
Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons.
1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk.
2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour.
If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum!
1. Where are you getting your information from? There are hundreds of studies. http://www.harmreduc
tionjournal.com/cont
ent/10/1/19

2. So while you are consuming your alcohol at the pub (do I smell hypocrisy here? Alcohol? Or do you drink milk at the pub?) you are worried about a little bit of vapour? Are you for real?

Why should people use patches or gum (which, on the whole just do not work for anyone - this is fact) when people can use something which they enjoy, cost the government nothing and have a high success rate? Do you hate your kettle? All that vapour!! And, using your argument, why boil a kettle when you can drink cold tea to get your caffeine fix?

You do sound ludicrous, sorry. But I'm not having a go at you, I feel so sorry for you for believing all the lies that are being fed to the general population when the real issue at stake is about big companies losing billions because of this new, effective and relatively harmless product.
[quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons. 1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk. 2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour. If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum![/p][/quote]1. Where are you getting your information from? There are hundreds of studies. http://www.harmreduc tionjournal.com/cont ent/10/1/19 2. So while you are consuming your alcohol at the pub (do I smell hypocrisy here? Alcohol? Or do you drink milk at the pub?) you are worried about a little bit of vapour? Are you for real? Why should people use patches or gum (which, on the whole just do not work for anyone - this is fact) when people can use something which they enjoy, cost the government nothing and have a high success rate? Do you hate your kettle? All that vapour!! And, using your argument, why boil a kettle when you can drink cold tea to get your caffeine fix? You do sound ludicrous, sorry. But I'm not having a go at you, I feel so sorry for you for believing all the lies that are being fed to the general population when the real issue at stake is about big companies losing billions because of this new, effective and relatively harmless product. Starlin Glantz

6:01pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Roundbill says...

Interesting that my previous comment is getting voted down: presumably people who are doing so think it's fine to parasite off my hard-earned taxes to fund their hobbies. In that case, I assume they're fine with the council using their council tax to fund traveller encampments.
Interesting that my previous comment is getting voted down: presumably people who are doing so think it's fine to parasite off my hard-earned taxes to fund their hobbies. In that case, I assume they're fine with the council using their council tax to fund traveller encampments. Roundbill

6:52pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Starlin Glantz says...

Roundbill wrote:
Interesting that my previous comment is getting voted down: presumably people who are doing so think it's fine to parasite off my hard-earned taxes to fund their hobbies. In that case, I assume they're fine with the council using their council tax to fund traveller encampments.
E-cigs cost the government nothing - it comes out of the users' own pockets (unlike NRT). If you are alluding to the fact that e-cigs are so dangerous that they'll be using valuable resources in the future then please see the link I posed below. The risk profile of the e-cig is the same as caffeine. Do you drink coffee? Do you drink alcohol? Are you overweight? Do you take enough exercise? Do you eat too much saturated fat? Are you eating enough fruit and vegetables? Where do we draw this nebulous line to what qualifies and disqualifies and is regarded as parasitic? Do you want to live in a joyless puritanical society? The problem with this, there's probably a body of evidence that suggest that suppressed and joyless people die young?!! I wonder....

There is another thing to consider though when talking about REAL cigarettes. There's the argument that cigarettes are beneficial for the NHS - its users pay large amount of taxes, die young and therefore (unlike their non-smoking counterparts) are less of a drain on the NHS in their twilight years.

Any other questions?
[quote][p][bold]Roundbill[/bold] wrote: Interesting that my previous comment is getting voted down: presumably people who are doing so think it's fine to parasite off my hard-earned taxes to fund their hobbies. In that case, I assume they're fine with the council using their council tax to fund traveller encampments.[/p][/quote]E-cigs cost the government nothing - it comes out of the users' own pockets (unlike NRT). If you are alluding to the fact that e-cigs are so dangerous that they'll be using valuable resources in the future then please see the link I posed below. The risk profile of the e-cig is the same as caffeine. Do you drink coffee? Do you drink alcohol? Are you overweight? Do you take enough exercise? Do you eat too much saturated fat? Are you eating enough fruit and vegetables? Where do we draw this nebulous line to what qualifies and disqualifies and is regarded as parasitic? Do you want to live in a joyless puritanical society? The problem with this, there's probably a body of evidence that suggest that suppressed and joyless people die young?!! I wonder.... There is another thing to consider though when talking about REAL cigarettes. There's the argument that cigarettes are beneficial for the NHS - its users pay large amount of taxes, die young and therefore (unlike their non-smoking counterparts) are less of a drain on the NHS in their twilight years. Any other questions? Starlin Glantz

7:55pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Roundbill says...

I can't be bothered to engage with weird your list of questions, since it's a lame attempt to distract from the issue. The fact is, the facts about the long-term dangers of e-cigs are not known, and won't be for decades. It's an international research study being carried out by e-cig manufacturers and using idiots as research subjects, and I object to my future taxes being risked in this way.
You claim you posted a link below, and then didn't do so, but as PortsladePaul pointed out, most of the published "research" appears to be sponsored by manufacturers of e-cigs: similarly, the silly point you make about smokers subsidising the NHS is baseless and only ever rolled out by pro-smoking lobbyists such as ASH.
If you stopped trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, you might actually be able to stop and think for a moment.
I can't be bothered to engage with weird your list of questions, since it's a lame attempt to distract from the issue. The fact is, the facts about the long-term dangers of e-cigs are not known, and won't be for decades. It's an international research study being carried out by e-cig manufacturers and using idiots as research subjects, and I object to my future taxes being risked in this way. You claim you posted a link below, and then didn't do so, but as PortsladePaul pointed out, most of the published "research" appears to be sponsored by manufacturers of e-cigs: similarly, the silly point you make about smokers subsidising the NHS is baseless and only ever rolled out by pro-smoking lobbyists such as ASH. If you stopped trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, you might actually be able to stop and think for a moment. Roundbill

8:02pm Wed 26 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Roundbill wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
sussexram40 wrote:
Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons.
1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk.
2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour.
If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum!
But nanny, I am all grown up! I can decide for myself and don't need you to tell me what is good or bad for me.

The world is full of adults who do not require wrapping up in cotton wool. Life is a rose garden I'll grant you but it is a garden in all its glory and that includes the thorns, the creepy crawlies and the occasional patch of doggy doos.
That's fine with me, as long as you sign a legally-binding undertaking that you won't use any part of the NHS for any condition directly or indirectly related to using cigarettes or e-cigs. Do what you want, but don't expect me to pay for your self-inflicted injuries or illnesses.
I do hope you aren't podgy and that you do plenty of exercise and eat a healthy diet. I also hope you don't drink any alcohol or do any sports that might cause injury. Because I wouldn't want to pay for your self inflicted illness.
[quote][p][bold]Roundbill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: Yes they should be banned, for 2 reasons. 1. No research into how safe they are has been done and inoocent bystanders should not be put at possible risk. 2. It looks like smoking - it looks like smoke from a distance, If I was on a plane, in a pub or some other place I would be worried about health and fire risk and report it. So would many others. From a distance you can't tell if it's smoke or vapour. If people are so addicted they need nicotine every few minutes they can wear patches or chew gum![/p][/quote]But nanny, I am all grown up! I can decide for myself and don't need you to tell me what is good or bad for me. The world is full of adults who do not require wrapping up in cotton wool. Life is a rose garden I'll grant you but it is a garden in all its glory and that includes the thorns, the creepy crawlies and the occasional patch of doggy doos.[/p][/quote]That's fine with me, as long as you sign a legally-binding undertaking that you won't use any part of the NHS for any condition directly or indirectly related to using cigarettes or e-cigs. Do what you want, but don't expect me to pay for your self-inflicted injuries or illnesses.[/p][/quote]I do hope you aren't podgy and that you do plenty of exercise and eat a healthy diet. I also hope you don't drink any alcohol or do any sports that might cause injury. Because I wouldn't want to pay for your self inflicted illness. thevoiceoftruth

8:07pm Wed 26 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Roundbill wrote:
I can't be bothered to engage with weird your list of questions, since it's a lame attempt to distract from the issue. The fact is, the facts about the long-term dangers of e-cigs are not known, and won't be for decades. It's an international research study being carried out by e-cig manufacturers and using idiots as research subjects, and I object to my future taxes being risked in this way.
You claim you posted a link below, and then didn't do so, but as PortsladePaul pointed out, most of the published "research" appears to be sponsored by manufacturers of e-cigs: similarly, the silly point you make about smokers subsidising the NHS is baseless and only ever rolled out by pro-smoking lobbyists such as ASH.
If you stopped trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, you might actually be able to stop and think for a moment.
So you would rather people smoked the real thing? There is no logic to your argument. Those who have switched to e-cigs certainly feel the difference in their lung capacity and general health. You would rather they stayed on the fags for decades until you are totally sure it's ok. Even doctors support e-cigs because they have a better success rate than NRT.
[quote][p][bold]Roundbill[/bold] wrote: I can't be bothered to engage with weird your list of questions, since it's a lame attempt to distract from the issue. The fact is, the facts about the long-term dangers of e-cigs are not known, and won't be for decades. It's an international research study being carried out by e-cig manufacturers and using idiots as research subjects, and I object to my future taxes being risked in this way. You claim you posted a link below, and then didn't do so, but as PortsladePaul pointed out, most of the published "research" appears to be sponsored by manufacturers of e-cigs: similarly, the silly point you make about smokers subsidising the NHS is baseless and only ever rolled out by pro-smoking lobbyists such as ASH. If you stopped trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, you might actually be able to stop and think for a moment.[/p][/quote]So you would rather people smoked the real thing? There is no logic to your argument. Those who have switched to e-cigs certainly feel the difference in their lung capacity and general health. You would rather they stayed on the fags for decades until you are totally sure it's ok. Even doctors support e-cigs because they have a better success rate than NRT. thevoiceoftruth

11:00pm Wed 26 Feb 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Yes they should be banned.

They are dangerous and not safe to smoke.

They also kill pets. Don't let animals anywhere near to them.
Yes they should be banned. They are dangerous and not safe to smoke. They also kill pets. Don't let animals anywhere near to them. getThisCoalitionOut

11:05pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Josef0K says...

Of course they should not be banned in public places. That is just... silly.

Now kissing... all that second-hand splatter and gozz... urghhh...
Of course they should not be banned in public places. That is just... silly. Now kissing... all that second-hand splatter and gozz... urghhh... Josef0K

6:34am Thu 27 Feb 14

Starlin Glantz says...

Roundbill wrote:
I can't be bothered to engage with weird your list of questions, since it's a lame attempt to distract from the issue. The fact is, the facts about the long-term dangers of e-cigs are not known, and won't be for decades. It's an international research study being carried out by e-cig manufacturers and using idiots as research subjects, and I object to my future taxes being risked in this way.
You claim you posted a link below, and then didn't do so, but as PortsladePaul pointed out, most of the published "research" appears to be sponsored by manufacturers of e-cigs: similarly, the silly point you make about smokers subsidising the NHS is baseless and only ever rolled out by pro-smoking lobbyists such as ASH.
If you stopped trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, you might actually be able to stop and think for a moment.
Now you are just talking nonsense and contradicting yourself. A minute ago you were advocating the use of NRT. Now, scoot off and do some research and look at the ingredients found in both e-cigs and NRT products. You will find that NRT have exactly the same ingredients as e-cigs but with an additional 10+ ingredients chucked in with good measure. In other words, e-cigs have fewer ingredients are non-combustible but we are still handed that line about 'think of the children', 'long-term studies' and 'we don't know what's in them'.

In other words, we are being lied to.

But it's pointless engaging in a discussion with someone like you because at the end of the day you are one of those people who will never let the cold hard facts get in the way of an uninformed opinion. An uniformed opinion only given substance by an intractable puritanism and who just can't stand the thought of other people having fun and finding pleasure in something you personally object to. I really hope you don't drink tea, coffee, alcohol or are overweight. I really do. Because I'm not sure how you could ever look in the mirror and have still have respect for yourself. Hypocrisy and intolerance combined with the delusion that we have a god-given right to poke our nose into other people's business are one of the ugliest traits in our modern society.
[quote][p][bold]Roundbill[/bold] wrote: I can't be bothered to engage with weird your list of questions, since it's a lame attempt to distract from the issue. The fact is, the facts about the long-term dangers of e-cigs are not known, and won't be for decades. It's an international research study being carried out by e-cig manufacturers and using idiots as research subjects, and I object to my future taxes being risked in this way. You claim you posted a link below, and then didn't do so, but as PortsladePaul pointed out, most of the published "research" appears to be sponsored by manufacturers of e-cigs: similarly, the silly point you make about smokers subsidising the NHS is baseless and only ever rolled out by pro-smoking lobbyists such as ASH. If you stopped trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, you might actually be able to stop and think for a moment.[/p][/quote]Now you are just talking nonsense and contradicting yourself. A minute ago you were advocating the use of NRT. Now, scoot off and do some research and look at the ingredients found in both e-cigs and NRT products. You will find that NRT have exactly the same ingredients as e-cigs but with an additional 10+ ingredients chucked in with good measure. In other words, e-cigs have fewer ingredients are non-combustible but we are still handed that line about 'think of the children', 'long-term studies' and 'we don't know what's in them'. In other words, we are being lied to. But it's pointless engaging in a discussion with someone like you because at the end of the day you are one of those people who will never let the cold hard facts get in the way of an uninformed opinion. An uniformed opinion only given substance by an intractable puritanism and who just can't stand the thought of other people having fun and finding pleasure in something you personally object to. I really hope you don't drink tea, coffee, alcohol or are overweight. I really do. Because I'm not sure how you could ever look in the mirror and have still have respect for yourself. Hypocrisy and intolerance combined with the delusion that we have a god-given right to poke our nose into other people's business are one of the ugliest traits in our modern society. Starlin Glantz

6:49am Thu 27 Feb 14

Starlin Glantz says...

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
Yes they should be banned.

They are dangerous and not safe to smoke.

They also kill pets. Don't let animals anywhere near to them.
They are non-combustible. There is no smoke. Bleach kills children and chocolate kills dogs. Let's ban bleach, lets ban chocolate?

They are dangerous? Really? Please hit me up with some solid research that demonstrates this.

Even the most ardent opponents of e-cigs will reluctantly agree that e-cigs are hundreds of times less harmful than real cigarettes, Research research seems to indicate that the question really is if e-cigs are 99% safer of 99.99% safer.

Question: why ban a product which will help people get off a product that will probably kill them (cigarettes) onto a much much safer product that will potentially save their lives (e-cigs)?

Are you callous, crazy or just plain stupid?
[quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: Yes they should be banned. They are dangerous and not safe to smoke. They also kill pets. Don't let animals anywhere near to them.[/p][/quote]They are non-combustible. There is no smoke. Bleach kills children and chocolate kills dogs. Let's ban bleach, lets ban chocolate? They are dangerous? Really? Please hit me up with some solid research that demonstrates this. Even the most ardent opponents of e-cigs will reluctantly agree that e-cigs are hundreds of times less harmful than real cigarettes, Research research seems to indicate that the question really is if e-cigs are 99% safer of 99.99% safer. Question: why ban a product which will help people get off a product that will probably kill them (cigarettes) onto a much much safer product that will potentially save their lives (e-cigs)? Are you callous, crazy or just plain stupid? Starlin Glantz

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree